REPORT OF THE COMBINED SEVENTH MEETING OF … · REPORT OF THE COMBINED SEVENTH MEETING OF THE FANS IMPLEMENTATION TEAM, ... FANS Problem Report Form ... Documentation was issued

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

REPORT OF THE COMBINED SEVENTH MEETING OF THE FANS

IMPLEMENTATION TEAM, BAY OF BENGAL (FIT-BOB/7) AND FOURTH MEETING OF THE FANS IMPLEMENTATION TEAM,

SOUTH-EAST ASIA (FIT-SEA/4)

BANGKOK, THAILAND, 25 – 28 JULY 2006

The views expressed in this Report should be taken as those of the Meeting and not of the Organization.

Approved by the Meeting and Published by the ICAO Asia and Pacific Office

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - HISTORY OF THE MEETING Page Introduction .................................................................................................................................i Attendance ..................................................................................................................................i

Officers and Regional Office ......................................................................................................i Opening of the Meeting ..............................................................................................................i Language and Documentation .....................................................................................................i PART II - REPORT ON AGENDA ITEMS

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda.......................................................................................1 Agenda Item 2: Review Bay of Bengal ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial ................................2 Agenda Item 3: Review South China Sea ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial ............................4 Agenda Item 4: Review ADS/CPDLC Implementation Bay of Bengal and South-East Asia11 Agenda Item 5: Central Reporting Agency – Bay of Bengal.................................................17 Agenda Item 6: Central Reporting Agency – South East Asia ..............................................21 Agenda Item 7: Data Link Guidance Materials .....................................................................25 Agenda Item 8: Update Task Lists.........................................................................................26 Agenda Item 9: Any other business .......................................................................................27 Agenda Item 10: Date and venue of the next meeting .............................................................29

APPENDICES

Appendix A: List of Participants ................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: List of Papers...........................................................................................B-1 Appendix C: Terms of Reference of the FIT-BOB ......................................................C-1 Appendix D: Update on ADS/CPDLC by India .......................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Feedback from Emirates (EK).................................................................E-1 Appendix F: Terms of Reference of the FIT-SEA ....................................................... F-1 Appendix G: Presentation on FIT and CRA by CRA-Japan ....................................... G-1 Appendix H: ADS/CPDLC System in the Ujung Pandang FIR .................................. H-1 Appendix I: ADS/CPDLC Logon Status in the Yangon FIR....................................... I-1 Appendix J: Data Link Implementation Table .............................................................J-1 Appendix K: ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status BOB....................................... K-1 Appendix L: ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status SEA ........................................L-1 Appendix M: TOR of the FIT-BOB CRA....................................................................M-1 Appendix N: Draft AIP SUP for Establishing BOB CRA........................................... N-1 Appendix O: Confidentiality Agreement for FIT-BOB CRA...................................... O-1 Appendix P: FANS Problem Report Form................................................................... P-1 Appendix Q: FANS 1/A Periodic Status Report Form................................................ Q-1 Appendix R: Confidentiality Agreement for FIT-SEA CRA .......................................R-1 Appendix S: Revised TOR of the FIT-SEA CRA........................................................ S-1 Appendix T: Revised Task List of the FIT-SEA CRA.................................................T-1

ATFM/TF/4 & BOBCAT Table of Contents

Appendix U: Revised Problem Report Procedures of the FIT-SEA CRA................... U-1 Appendix V: Presentation of Summary PRs by CRA-Japan ....................................... V-1 Appendix W: Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance Monitoring of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Data Link Systems in the Asia/Pacific Region......................................................................W-1 Appendix X: Task List FIT-BOB ................................................................................ X-1 Appendix Y: Task List FIT-SEA................................................................................. Y-1 Appendix Z: SITA OCL, FMC WPR, FANS 1/A and ATN location list .....................Z-1 Appendix AA: SITA D-ATIS, D-VOLMET, TWIP, DCL and PDC locations list......AA-1 Appendix BB: Draft Working Paper on Funding Arrangement................................... BB-1

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 History of the Meeting

i

PART I – HISTORY OF THE MEETING 1. Introduction 1.1 The Combined Seventh Meeting of the FANS Implementation Team, Bay of Bengal (FIT-BOB/7) and the Fourth Meeting of the FANS Implementation Team, South-East Asia (FIT-SEA/4) was held from 25 to 28 July 2006 at the Kotaite Wing of the ICAO Asia and Pacific Office. 2. Attendance 2.1 The meeting was attended by 47 participants from Hong Kong China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, IATA, IFALPA, ARINC, SITA and BOEING. A list of participants is at Appendix A to this report. 3. Officers & Regional Office 3.1. Mr. Andrew Tiede, Regional Officer ATM from the ICAO Asia and Pacific Office, acted as the Moderator and Secretary for the Combined Meeting and the FIT-BOB/7 side meeting. He was assisted by Mr. Polawat Chootai, Regional Officer ATM. 3.2 Mr. Hiroshi Inoguchi, Special Assistant to the Director of ATS System Planning Division, Japan Civil Aviation Bureau acted as the Moderator for the FIT-SEA/4 side meeting. Mr. Kyotaro Harano Regional Officer ATM served as the Secretary for the FIT-SEA/4 side meeting. 4. Opening of the Meeting 4.1 The meeting was opened by Mr. Andrew Tiede on behalf of Mr. Lalit Shah, Regional Director of ICAO Asia and Pacific Office. 4.2 In opening the meeting, Mr. Tiede recalled that the last two meetings of the BOB and SEA FITs were also held as combined meetings, in April and November 2005 respectively, with the April meeting incorporating an ADS/CPDLC seminar. By holding combined FIT meetings, the Regional Office had been trying to capitalize on the potential for sharing of information between the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea areas whilst cutting down on resource requirements for both States and ICAO by reducing the number of meetings. 4.3 However, in light of the good work towards the commencement of an initial ADS/CPDLC operational trial in the South China Sea and the progress that had been made recently in the Bay of Bengal in regard to finalizing the financial agreements necessary to provide CRA services it was evident that the respective FITs would be pursuing active and separate work programmes. As such, Mr. Tiede noted that future meetings of the respective FITs would need to be held separately from each other. 5. Language and Documentation 5.1. All discussions were conducted in English. Documentation was issued in English. A total of 12 Working Papers and 10 Information Papers were considered by the meeting. A list of the meeting papers considered is at Appendix B.

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Report on Agenda Items

1

PART II - REPORT ON AGENDA ITEMS Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda 1.1 The meeting reviewed the provisional agenda that had been proposed by the Regional Office and adopted it as the agenda for the meeting:

Agenda Item 1: Adoption of Agenda Agenda Item 2: Review Bay of Bengal ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial Agenda Item 3: Review South China Sea ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial Agenda Item 4: Review ADS/CPDLC Implementation Bay of Bengal and

South-East Asia Agenda Item 5: Central Reporting Agency – Bay of Bengal Agenda Item 6: Central Reporting Agency – South East Asia Agenda Item 7: Data Link Guidance Materials Agenda Item 8: Update Task Lists Agenda Item 9: Any other business Agenda Item 10: Date and venue of the next meeting

1.2 In addition, the meeting reviewed a list of sub-agenda items that had been proposed by Boeing in order to address the BOB-CRA aspects of the meeting. The meeting agreed that the sub-headings below should be considered during the BOB meeting discussions and by the FIT-SEA insofar as they remained relevant to the work of the FIT-SEA.

Background FIT - terms of reference CRA - terms of reference Problem reporting process Required data to file a problem report Where to send PR Types of problems to report Non disclosure agreement System Performance Monitoring Importance of monitoring Information included in monthly monitoring report Where to send monthly monitoring data


2

Airside focus Logon procedures PF / PNF recommended data link procedures Use of free text Groundside focus Logon - automatic flight number tail number check Automatic transfers Center coordination Use of free text Lessons Learned section Use of conditional clearances ADS Reporting rates Around the room – State ANSPs.

Each ANSP to give a short update on their system and operations. Around the room - Operators

Each Operator to give a short update on their system and operations Agenda Item 2: Review Bay of Bengal ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial

Terms of Reference FIT-BOB 2.1 The meeting reviewed the current Terms of Reference (TORs) for the FIT-BOB as adopted by the 13th Meeting of the Bay of Bengal ATS Coordination Group, and after some editorial enhancements, agreed that the TOR shown at Appendix C to the Report reflected the requirements of the FIT-BOB.

India-Review of Bay of Bengal Operational Trial 2.2 India provided a comprehensive update in respect to their ADS/CPDLC operations (Appendix D refers), informing the meeting that the entire Indian oceanic airspace including Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea was now under ADS/CPDLC coverage. The ADS systems were integrated with FDPS. Delhi and Mumbai systems were supplied by Raytheon while Chennai and Kolkatta systems were developed by Electronic Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) in collaboration with Airports Authority of India. 2.3 Chennai and Kolkatta regions have been participating in the ADS/CPDLC operational trials since 19 February 2004, and were now operating on a 24 hour basis. The system trials at Delhi and Mumbai by Raytheon started in March 2006, and the operational trials commenced from 1st July 2006 after system stabilization and completion of ATCO’s training. The present hours of operation of ADC/CPDLC at Mumbai are: 0530-0930 & 2200-0300 UTC and at Delhi, 1100-2359 UTC. AIP supplements have been issued for application of data link services within Kolkata FIR and Chennai FIR via AIP Supplements 06/2006 and 07/2006 respectively.


3

2.4 There had been a very gradual increase in the participation of airlines in the trial operations, with 20 airlines presently participating in the Chennai region; however, increased airline participation would be very beneficial. The trial operations serve 13 routes in the Bay of Bengal area falling in the Chennai and Kolkata FIRs, including L301, L507, L645, L759, M770, N571, N563, N877, N895, P574, P628, P646 and P762. 2.5 Mumbai ADS/CPDLC system is available for trial operations for aircraft operating within Mumbai FIR on route segments of ATS routes N519, L301, L 505, N571, P574, M300, N563, P570, R456, A451, UL425, UM551, P323, G450, G424, B459, T940, A474, A452, G465, A214, R461 over Arabian Sea airspace. 2.6 Delhi ADS/CPDLC system is available for trial operations for aircraft operating within Delhi FIR on route segments L333, G452, G333, A589, A466, M890, M875, L509, W30, W31, W34, W36, and W39. 2.7 Analysis based on submitted flight plans had indicated that approximately 30% of the Airlines operating in Bay of Bengal were logging on to ADS/CPDLC systems and approximately 12% of the Airlines operating over Arabian Sea were logging on to ADS/CPDLC systems. 2.8 Sampling during May/June 2006 indicates that the daily number of uplink/downlink messages at Chennai varied between 2000 and 2500 per day and between 1000 and 1500 per day at Kolkata. CPDLC messages averaged around 250 per day. 2.9 India had changed AFN Logon address of Chennai and Kolkatta CPDLC to VOMF and VECF respectively with effect from 24th November 2005 and, although difficulties were experienced for about 3 months, the change had now been assimilated and minimal further problems had been experienced. 2.10 The meeting noted that according to the Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444), the communication requirement for 50NM longitudinal separation with RNP 10 was direct controller-pilot communications (DCPC). Direct controller-pilot communications shall be voice or CPDLC. The voice shall be the direct voice, i.e. VHF or direct HF (not through the third party). India updated the meeting in this regard, noting that arrangements in Mumbai and Delhi would not involve “third-party” as integrated displays were in use and therefore the situation would be direct controller pilot communications (DCPC). This was also the situation in Chennai and Kolkatta. 2.11 The meeting recognized that the CRA analysis would comprise a significant and critical component of the safety assessment in the context of implementing ADS/CPDLC. As the CRA analysis and ongoing CRA monitoring capability was not yet available to the Bay of Bengal trial, the safety assessment could not be completed and, consequently, the implementation of either CPDLC or ADS could not be authorized. 2.12 The Secretariat briefed the meeting that concerns of this nature had been recognized by APANPIRG/16 (August 2005) in relation to RVSM and reduced horizontal separation minima implementations, and that the ICAO safety assessment and ongoing monitoring provisions were equally applicable in the implementation of new communications and surveillance systems like ADS and CPDLC. In order to highlight their significant concerns in this regard, the 16th Meeting of the Asia/Pacific Air Navigation Planning and Implementation Group (August 2005, Bangkok) had formulated the following Conclusion:


4

Conclusion 16/5 – No implementation of reduced separation unless compliant

with Annex 11 That, recognizing that some States had not adequately complied with safety management provisions, the Regional Office advise States of the Asia/Pacific Region that further regional implementation of reduced separation minima should only proceed in circumstances where implementing States can demonstrate an ability to comply with Annex 11, Chapter 2, safety management provisions for the continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the safety level achieved.

2.13 As such, it was evident to the meeting that the significant investment in ground-based data link capability made by States of the area, particularly India, could not be utilized until the data link technical parameters had been appropriately demonstrated and ongoing monitoring and remedial arrangements were in place. Technical data from the BOB-CRA was necessary to enable India and the FIT-BOB to progress the safety assessment for implementation. Once a suitable safety analysis had been completed in accordance with ICAO provisions, implementation of CPDLC and/or ADS could be considered.

Trial Participation by BOB States 2.14 An update in respect of the involvement of other Bay of Bengal States in the operational trial has been included under Agenda Item 4 of this report. Feedback from Users 2.15 The meeting, recognizing the importance of feedback from users, thanked Emirates for providing feedback in relation to the Bay of Bengal data link trials. A copy of the feedback has been included at Appendix E. Agenda Item 3: Review South China Sea ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial 3.1 In reviewing the history of the FIT-SEA, the meeting noted that the readiness status of States concerned was becoming mature enough for FIT-SEA to consider the implementation of FANS-1/A-based ATS data link services in the South China Sea area and stressed the need to progress quickly to ADS/CPDLC operational trials by Singapore, Philippines and Viet Nam. To this end, States were encouraged to actively participate in the discussions, to clarify any ambiguous issues, and cooperate with others in developing a time-bounded implementation programme for ADS/CPDLC.

Terms of Reference FIT-SEA 3.2 The meeting reviewed the TOR for the FIT- SEA as adopted by the 11th Meeting of the South East Asia ATS Coordination Group and agreed that the TOR shown at Appendix F to the Report continued to reflect the requirements of the FIT-SEA.

Safety Management Considerations 3.3 The meeting reaffirmed that the ATS safety management was required in accordance with Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services as follows:


5

2.26.1 States shall implement systematic and appropriate ATS safety management programmes to ensure that safety is maintained in the provision of ATS within airspaces and at aerodromes.

2.26.3 An ATS safety management programme shall, inter alia:

a) identify actual and potential hazards and determine the need for remedial action;

3.4 It was also noted that the Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Services (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444) details the safety assessment in terms of communication systems as follows:

2.6.1 Need for safety assessment

2.6.1.1 A safety assessment shall be carried out in respect of proposals for significant airspace reorganizations, for significant changes in the provision of ATS procedures applicable to an airspace or an aerodrome, and for the introduction of new equipment, systems or facilities, such as:

···

f) implementation of new communications, surveillance or other safety-

significant systems and equipment, including those providing new functionality and/or capabilities.

2.6.2 Safety-significant factors

The safety assessment shall consider relevant all factors determined to be safety-significant, including:

···

e) type of air-ground communications and time parameters for

communication dialogues, including controller intervention capability;

f) type and capabilities of surveillance system, and the availability of systems providing controller support and alert functions….

3.5 With reference to the time parameters required in paragraph 2.6.2 of PANS-ATM as above, the meeting noted that the performance requirements were provided in the Manual of Air Traffic Services Data Link Application (Doc 9694), and, more explicitly, in the FANS-1/A Operations Manual (p. 3-2).

Requirement for FIT and CRA 3.6 CRA-Japan provided the meeting with the presentation on the CRA structure, Problem Report (PR) reporting procedures and the system performance analysis by States for the meeting’s review. The presentation is attached as Appendix G to the Report.


6

Communication Requirement to Reduce Longitudinal Separations 3.7 The meeting noted that according to PANS-ATM, the communication requirement for 50NM longitudinal separation with RNP 10 was direct controller-pilot communications (DCPC). Direct controller-pilot communications shall be voice or CPDLC. The voice shall be the direct voice, i.e. VHF or direct HF (not through the third party).

ADS/CPDLC Operational Trials 3.8 The meeting recalled that FIT-SEA/1 (May 2004, Bangkok) had agreed that the South China Sea area ADS/CPDLC operational trial would be carried out by the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam. Singapore and Viet Nam had agreed to work together towards implementing an operational trial as soon as Viet Nam’s equipment was commissioned. 3.9 In this regard, the meeting requested States to update information on the current situation and agree on a suitable target date for the operational trial.

Hong Kong, China 3.10 Hong Kong, China advised the meeting that they started standalone ADS/CPDLC trial system in 1996 and conducted a series of ADS/CPDLC trial with local/foreign airlines on selected routes between 1997 and 2002, including downlink of MET data. Currently there was not a plan to conduct further ADS/CPDLC trials in the Hong Kong FIR as the airspace was almost covered by radar and VHF voice communications. However Hong Kong, China would keep abreast of the ADS/CPDLC development in the region.

Indonesia 3.11 At FIT-SEA/3 (November 2005) Indonesia undertook to follow up and provide a comprehensive update to the next meeting. In this regard, Indonesia reported to the meeting that CPDLC implementation in the Jakarta FIR commenced in early 1999 with the CPDLC trials. Unfortunately, this activity had been suspended as a result of the following:

a) CPDLC systems had not been integrated with ATSC systems; therefore this system still remained as standalone configuration;

b) The performance of the system was not sufficiently stable; c) Required restructuring of airspace dimensions effected the ATS improvement

especially for the Jakarta FIR; and d) Planning is in place to enhance Jakarta ATSC system by commissioning the

Jakarta Automated ATS System (JAATS) which is expected to be operational in 2010.

3.12 With regard to the Ujung Pandang FIR, Indonesia informed the meeting that Makassar Advanced ATS System (MAATS) had been implemented and all supporting facilities for ATS had been implemented for the Ujung Pandang FIR. The MAATS includes capability for ADS/CPDLC operations, however supporting arrangements including the training of staff and trials/testing of this equipment still need to be arranged. A short description relating to the ADS/CPDLC systems established in the Ujung Pandang FIR is attached as Appendix H to the Report.


7

3.13 The meeting, in noting that the Ujung Pandang FIR was outside the area of responsibility of the FIT-SEA CRA, agreed that all CRA services for both the Ujung Pandang and Jakarta FIRs would be provided by the BOB-CRA.

Japan 3.14 Japan informed the meeting that a seminar on data link operations was held in Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam, on 10 and 11 April 2006. The objective of the seminar was to exchange information and views between civil aviation authorities of Japan and Viet Nam on the satellite data link operations in the Ho Chi Minh FIR and the possibility of technical and operational assistance by Japan, with the aim of facilitating the operational trial in a safe and effective manner. 3.15 The meeting noted that seminar covered a wide variety of operational and technical subjects relating to data link. A summary of the seminar was provided as follows:

a) Vietnam Air Traffic Management (VATM) presented general information on air traffic management functions introduced at the new Ho Chi Minh ACC, namely radar data function (RDF), radar fallback function (RFF), flight data function (FDP), air ground data link functions (AGDL), safety nets and monitoring aids processing function, air traffic generation function (ATG), human machine interface function (HMI), and communication data function (CDP), and the function of receiving and transmitting AIDC messages.

b) Further detailed functions of AGDL, such as context management, ADS-C

processing, and CPDLC processing, were briefed. The current system is connected to ACARS network and the service is provided by ARINC. The system supports FANS-1/A equipped aircraft, but is not compatible with ATN. VATM will continue to maintain connection with ARINC or SITA for trial ADS/CPDLC.

c) VHF data link with ACARS will continue being used to cover the Ho Chi Minh

FIR, and the service contract has not been concluded with either ARINC or SITA. VATM identified the following four areas where VATM may seek assistance from Japan to meet requirements as early as possible:

i) to set up and validate air traffic control procedures relating to

ADS/CPDLC; ii) to establish a detail plan of development and application of

ADS/CPDLC;

iii) to provide ATC with adequate ADS/CPDLC procedures trainings; and

iv) to develop ground-to-ground ATN system.

d) JCAB briefed on the ASEAN-Japan New Air Navigation System Project, in particular one of the Draft Recommendations developed by the 3rd Expert Group Meeting held in Fukuoka, Japan, in January 2006. This Recommendation states that each civil aviation authority in the ASEAN countries supports satellite data link operation over the South China Sea by the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam.


8

e) JCAB also briefed on the activities of the FIT-SEA. FIT-SEA accepted the offer of Japan to provide central reporting agency (CRA) services for FIT-SEA on a voluntary and temporary basis in order to facilitate ADS/CPDLC trials within Ho Chi Minh, Manila and Singapore FIRs. The operational trials would be carried out phase-by-phase when operational capability becomes available in Viet Nam and Philippines.

f) JCAB emphasized the importance of cautious arrangements for the data link

operational trial, and suggested that the following steps, as minimum, should be considered to develop an implementation strategy:

i) establishment of the Implementation Task Force/Committee; ii) ADS/CPDLC system test and validation; iii) development of operational procedures for ATC/pilots; iv) training for ATC/pilots/engineers; v) coordination with ICAO/adjacent FIRs; vi) test operation and demonstration flight; vii) submission of Problem Reports (PRs) to CRA; and viii) development of a realistic and achievable implementation plan.

g) Taking into account the above steps and JCAB’s past experiences, JCAB

presented an ADS/CPDLC implementation schedule for the operational trial up to March 2007, and for the future operations, including separations reduction and AIDC implementation up to 2010. This schedule was prepared as a recommendation and was changeable subject to review by Civil Aviation Authority of Viet Nam (CAAV) and VATM.

Philippines

3.16 The Philippines advised that it was anticipated that the standalone equipment would be installed by July 2007, and the operational trial would start after the installation and test of the equipment. It was difficult to predict how long the trial operation would last at this stage, and the Philippines would advise the next meeting of their target date for joining the operational trial.

Singapore 3.17 Singapore reported that in February 1997, they started the trial with standalone system to provide service for B747-400. Operational hours were 0030-0900 UTC (Mon-Fri). It was aimed to gain operational experience and validate procedures. In February 1999, the ADS/CPDLC systems were integrated into LORADS II system. In October 1999, 24 hour services commenced and in the middle of year 2000, B777 capability modification was conducted. 3.18 The current status of operations was as follows:

a) Use of ADS/CPDLC by FANS-1 equipped aircraft in the Singapore FIR

i) 90% uses ii) 10% do not use

b) Logon success rate was 99%.


9

c) Common Logon Failures (early stage of operations)

i) 53% due to Pilot logon with wrong aircraft registration ii) 27% due to Pilot logon with wrong aircraft call sign iii) 10% due to ATC inputs wrong aircraft registration into system iv) 10% due to logon aircraft registration different from flight plan

d) Tests with Airbus are ongoing. 3.19 Singapore informed the meeting that they would join other States in the operational trial. Data collection and preliminary in-house analysis had been carried out. CRA Japan had commenced coordination with Singapore in respect of providing CRA services as agreed at FIT-SEA/2 (April 2005, Bangkok). The next step for Singapore was to sign the confidentiality agreement with CRA Japan. A suitable target date for the operational trial would be coordinated with Viet Nam.

Viet Nam 3.20 Viet Nam advised the ADS/CPDLC introduction was going smoothly with the cooperation of JCAB. The coordination efforts by Japan and Viet Nam included holding a seminar on ADS/CPDLC, as described in paragraphs 3.14 to 3.15 above. 3.21 Viet Nam informed the meeting that installation of their new systems at Ho Chi Minh ACC had been completed and the systems had the full capability for CPDLC connections. Viet Nam expected to be ready for the first phase of ADS/CPDLC operational trials in the Ho Chi Minh FIR by March 2007. 3.22 The meeting noted the concerns expressed from Viet Nam that their internal committee lacked the mechanism to include foreign airline operators. To this end, the Regional Office will advise the CAAV that March 2007 was considered by FIT-SEA suitable as a target to commence the operational trial in the Ho Chi Minh FIR with Singapore and urge CAAV to facilitate all arrangements, including liaison with operators as required. 3.23 Viet Nam recognized that there were a significant number of tasks which would need to be completed and coordinated with service providers, operators and adjacent States before conducting trials. These included training for air traffic controllers and pilots, publication of aeronautical information by AIC and AIP, confirmation of airline participation and arrangements for the amendments to operational LOAs. Viet Nam was advised to coordinate with Singapore and take advantage of the opportunity of attending FIT-SEA meetings.

Operational Trial Target Date 3.24 The meeting considered March 2007 as an achievable target to commence the joint operational trial in the Singapore and Ho Chi Minh FIRs, taking into account the progress made by Singapore and Viet Nam. It was confirmed that Philippines would join the operational trial as they become ready. Philippines target date was still to be determined, subject to engineering tests of the new equipment in Manila ACC. Step-by-Step Approach Trial 3.25 The meeting noted in the presentation from Japan that the trials were undertaken based on a “Step-by-Step” policy as follows:


10

a) Experimental Phase: The CPDLC tests in a live operational environment based on the pre-programmed scenario, inviting two operators for the purpose of controllers and pilots training, the Oceanic Data Processing (ODP) system functions tests, CPDLC application and message flow tests, and validation of some other necessary data link interoperability functions.

b) Phase 1: The CPDLC trial with a limited participation of four operators in parallel

use of HF voice communication. The validation of ADS reports were performed by using the ODP system.

c) Phase 2: The CPDLC trial with open participation of FANS-equipped aircraft of

all operators applying all message set such as position reports, requests by pilots, ATC clearances and other applications. No HF voice communication was required for these aircraft. The ADS function test with the ODP system was conducted to validate the system capability.

d) Phase 3: Application of 50 NM longitudinal separation minimum in RNP 10

environment with use of ADS data. 3.26 The meeting felt that such a Step-by-Step approach would be appropriate for the operational trials in the South China Sea area, and suggested States concerned to take this into consideration when developing the programme for the trial.

Work Programme for Operational Trials 3.27 The meeting recognized that there would be a significant amount of works to be completed by States in order to commence the operational trial smoothly. The following items were identified by the meeting as essential tasks for the joint trial:

a) Development of ATC operation procedure manual; b) Conduct of training for ATC/pilots/engineers;

c) Publication of AIC and AIP in a harmonized manner between Singapore and

Viet Nam;

d) Development of harmonized procedures for operators (pilots) to report data link Problem Report (PR) to the State authority and publication of the common format;

e) Amendment of the existing letters of agreement (LOAs) as necessary; f) Develop data link procedures in relation to automatic transfer at the boundary;

g) Cooperative arrangement with operators (domestic and foreign).

3.28 Singapore and Viet Nam would further coordinate these issues through bi-lateral meetings, assisted by FIT-SEA during periodic meetings.


11

Feedback from Users 3.29 The meeting, recognizing the importance of feedback from users, thanked Emirates for providing feedback in relation to their experiences with data link operations and considerations in relation to South-East Asia operations. A copy of the feedback has been included at Appendix E to the Report. Agenda Item 4: Review ADS/CPDLC Implementation Bay of Bengal and South East Asia 4.1 The meeting was updated in relation to the status of regional ADS/CPDLC implementation as follows: Hong Kong China, 4.2 Status updated in Agenda Item 3, paragraph 3.10.

Indonesia 4.3 Status updated in Agenda Item 3, paragraphs 3.11 to 3.13.

Japan 4.4 Status updated in Agenda Item 3, paragraphs 3.14 to 3.15.

Malaysia

4.5 Malaysia informed that they had experienced significant delays as a result of departmental reorganization and associated administrative delays. They were finalizing the tender documentation for the acquisition of new ADS/CPDLC equipment and tenders were expected to be awarded during the first quarter of 2007. 4.6 Malaysia did not anticipate being involved in the South China Sea trials but expected to join the Bay of Bengal trial in due course.

Myanmar 4.7 Myanmar provided a comprehensive update to the meeting in respect of ADS/CPDLC activities, confirming that they had recently moved into the new ACC facilities in Yangon. Myanmar had adopted a step by step methodology for CNS/ATM implementation as described below.

a) In 1998 one suite of ACC MSSR from ALENIA, Italy and was installed at Yangon ACC and commissioned on 10 September 1998, with coverage 200 NM;

b) Mach number technique in use on ATS Route R325 since 16 September 1993

and ATS route R325 had been designated as RNAV route in 1996, also serving as a back–up to the ADS/CPDLC trial basic operation in 1999;

c) New ATS route UM501 RNAV was established on 25 February 1999 to trial

basic operation of ADS/CPDLC which also commenced February 1999; d) In 2002 Myanmar DCA issued three AICs, numbering AIC 02/02, AIC 06/02

and AIC 08/02, two of which required aircraft to meet RNAV requirements;


12

e) In support of EMARSSH implementation, during November 2002 Myanmar

changed to RNAV routes with RNP 10 containment above FL 280 and non-RNAV routes and below FL 280;

f) Myanmar implemented RVSM on all routes in YGN FIR between FL 290 and

FL 410 inclusive on 27 November 2003, including transition area and procedures for ATS routes A599 andA201 between China (Kunming FIR) and Yangon FIR;

g) During 2005, to enhance VHF voice communication in the whole Yangon FIR,

DCA Myanmar installed (6) VSAT/RCAG stations at Lashio, Mandalay, Sittwe, Pathein, Yangon and Myeik and changed VHF TX/RX frequency for Sector I on 126.75 Mhz and for Sector II on 128.75 Mhz, commissioned on 7 May 2005. At the same time, Yangon ACC was moved to new ACC building and also integrated with MIA MSSR which had been commissioned since June 1999; and

h) Myanmar has implemented ADS/CPDLC on R325 and later on UM501 (RNAV)

airway since 10th January 1999. Now with the introduction of more RNAV route, Myanmar is trialling ADS/CPDLC applications on L759 and M770 RNAV routes in oceanic areas. Myanmar ADS/CPDLC system is a standalone unit and manual input has to be made on a flight-by-flight basis. In recent times (July 2006) Myanmar has an average of 25 aircraft logons per day, as shown in the tables at Appendix I.

Philippines

4.8 Status updated in Agenda Item 3, paragraph 3.16.

Singapore

4.9 Status updated in Agenda Item 3, paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19.

Sri Lanka

4.10 Sri Lanka was not present at the meeting, however the meeting recalled that Sri Lanka had advised FIT-BOB/5 (April 2005) that they had installed ADS/CPDLC equipment in early 2001 and commenced trial operations on 15 June 2001 within Colombo FIR. With limited airlines willing to (and capable of) logon, the trials were conducted on a voluntary basis as stated in AIC A02/02. Since then, the trials were conducted until mid 2003. FIT-BOB/5 was advised that though the related AIC continued to be current, due to reduced staffing situations a local instruction had been issued in late 2003, to restrict the services as per the daily staff situation. Although the system was not operational due to an equipment malfunction, Sri Lanka had anticipated rejoining the trial after May 2005 when the equipment would be operational. Unfortunately no notification had been received by the Regional Office in respect of the resumption of the trial and, as Sri Lanka was not represented at this meeting, no further update was available.

Thailand 4.11 Thailand did not provide an update to the meeting.


13

Viet Nam 4.12 Status updated in Agenda Item 3, paragraphs 3.20 to 3.23.

SITA Satellite AIRCOM GES Upgrades 4.13 SITA provides Satellite AIRCOM services, including the ACARS service for ADS/CPDLC used by many of the FANS equipped aircraft flying in South East Asia region and across the Bay of Bengal, based on the Inmarsat Classic Aeronautical service via Ground Earth Stations (GESs) at Aussaguel, France and at Perth, Western Australia. As these GESs were deployed in 1990, SITA has been working with the different companies that operate these two GESs on implementing upgrades to remove obsolete components. The upgrades will result in modernizing many of the components of the GESs, ensuring that they continue to be supportable into the future. 4.14 SITA contracted with both GES operators to fund the installation of upgrades to both the GESs, in order to remove obsolete components that would otherwise have caused the service to be shut down. The first upgrade undertaken in late 2005 to replace the obsolete data switch called EBPACK has been completed. The second upgrade to replace the radio communications channel units will be completed in two steps. The first step will be for the channel units supporting data services and the second step will be for the channel units supporting voice services. Several other GES operators have recently decided not to invest in similar upgrades and instead to shut down the systems supporting the classic aeronautical service, which is reducing backup options. 4.15 The following is a brief description of the two upgrades:

Upgrade 1: Datalink Service Upgrade (Now completed at both the Aussaguel and Perth GESs):

4.16 In 2004, SITA contracted with the GES manufacturer (Nera) to develop a TAD (GES main computer) upgrade to improve its reliability and enable the replacement of the EBPACK (GES dataswitch/interface to terrestrial network). The TAD Upgrade included additional computer memory that enables an increase in the maximum number of Virtual Circuits from 1024 to 4096. SITA replaced the EBPACK with a modern switch (Syncserver) already used in SITA centers that provides high reliability and a better interface to SITA network management systems.

Upgrade 2: Inmarsat Classic Aero Channel Unit Replacement: 4.17 During late 2004 it was recognized that the radio channel units were the most critical GES component facing obsolescence and that to ensure fair competition all GES would need to be equipped with new generation channel units to keep providing the service. SITA is contributing funding of approximately USD4 million in total to the installation of the new channel units in the Aussaguel and Perth GESs. The following provides the GES upgrade timeline and status:

2004 : SITA worked with the GES manufacturer Nera to define TAD

Upgrade/EBPACK replacement 2005 Feb : Inmarsat contracted with Nera to develop a new generation of

channel units. 2005 Aug : France Telecom contracted with Nera for the channel units needed

in Aussaguel


14

2005 Oct : Aussaguel GES TAD Upgrade/EBPACK Replacement successfully completed.

2005 Nov : Perth GES TAD Upgrade/EBPACK Replacement successfully

completed. Perth has higher data traffic load and average number of logged on aircraft.

2006 May 5 : Data Channel Unit upgrade: Factory Acceptance Test successfully

completed. 2006 Jun 26 : Data Channel Unit upgrade: Site Implementation and Acceptance

Test at Aussaguel GES 2006 Jun : Xantic/Stratos contracted with Nera for the channel units needed at

Perth 2006 Aug : Early old channel units freed up as a result of the Auassaguel

Upgrade are planned to be shipped to Perth to increase capacity and provide additional spares until completion of Perth upgrade.

2006 Sep-Oct : Perth GES Data Channel Unit Upgrade.

2006 Dec : Voice Channel Unit Upgrade at Aussaguel 2007 Feb : Voice Channel Unit Upgrade at Perth

SITA SATCOM Capacity/Performance Planning Process 4.18 The ICAO AMSS SARP’s specify a protocol enabling shared use of the service for “Airline Operational Communications”, “Airline Administrative Communications” and “Airline Passenger Communications” as well as “Air Traffic Services” communications. These communications share the same AMSS link so the level of each type of traffic affects the performance available to all users. The aircraft data traffic that the aircraft using the SITA satellite service are generating has recently reached the full capacity of the channel units in the GES used by SITA and caused the average message delivery time to increase. 4.19 The GES capacity is shared by all aircraft in the coverage of the satellites that it accesses, which for example in the case of the Perth GES is the area from Pakistan east to Los Angeles between 80° north/south so the capacity/performance needs to be planned at the activity level of that region. Ongoing global capacity planning by all stakeholders is necessary to draw up a plan for maintaining the availability of the classic aeronautical service at an acceptable level of performance as the traffic levels evolve. 4.20 The capacity percentage of data link messages to be delivered within given target times had been used as a measure of performance. This approach could only work so long as there was no capacity issue on the Inmarsat network and there clearly is a capacity issue now. The top down targets may remain but the current problems show that the ISPACG and other FANS implementation groups around the world also need to start using a bottom up approach to predict the performance that will be provided for additional traffic. 4.21 SITA is launching a global satellite capacity/performance planning initiative to obtain from customer airlines and ANSPs their expectations of traffic evolution and feed it into a performance model that will identify the number of channel units needed to provide the required level of performance. Ongoing global capacity planning by all stakeholders is necessary to draw up a plan for maintaining the


15

availability of the classic aeronautical service at an acceptable level of performance through 2018. This will enable SITA to guarantee that if the traffic stays within the predicted level the required level of performance will be delivered. If the customers collectively generate more traffic than predicted, the time taken to obtain additional channel units from the supplier may make it impossible to maintain the planned performance level. 4.22 The meeting recognized the importance of the concerns expressed by SITA and commenced preparation of a suitable table of ADS/CPDLC implementation planning for all FIT-BOB and FIT-SEA FIRs including estimated dates for implementation of CPDLC communications, ADS/CPDLC full implementation, 50/50 reduced separation and 30/30 reduced separation to provide basis for long term satellite traffic load estimates to assist data link service provider (DSP) network planning. The table (Appendix J refers) would be updated at each meeting of the FIT-BOB and FIT-SEA, respectively.

Completion of Data link Trials in Japan

4.23 Japan updated the meeting in relation to the ATS data link trials that had commenced in 1997 using the ODP Version 2.5 System. Since then, the trials had continued and, with planned completion in July 2006 upon implementation of regular operations. 4.24 In support of the trials, the Informal Pacific ATC Coordinating Group (IPACG) established the IPACG FANS Interoperability Team in 2000, which in turn agreed to establish CRAs for the Tokyo (now Fukuoka) FIR by Japan and for the Anchorage and Oakland FIRs by USA in early 2001. 4.25 The number of ATS data link aircraft operating in the Japanese FIR in April 2002 was about 100 per day which accounted for 28 % of total traffic. Three years later in April 2005, it was 190 aircraft per day accounting for 43 % of total traffic. Assuming traffic increases continued at the same rate, the FANS aircraft operating in the Japanese FIR would exceed 90 % of total traffic by 2010. The number of CPDLC and ADS messages has increased almost at the same rate as that of the ATS data link aircraft. 4.26 The JCAB CRA had monitored the ATS data link system performance. The result of analyses of the ADS/CPDLC data indicated that the system performance had generally met the requirements prescribed in the FANS-1/A Operations Manual (FOM). Although there were some performance data slightly lower than the criteria, measures had been taken by JCAB to cover these deficiencies with operating procedures and system upgrades. 4.27 The number of PRs received from ATSU and aircraft operators were approximately 400. For convenience of analyzing trends, the PRs were sorted into four categories, namely ADS, CPDLC, connection and message delivery. The number of problems categorized in the ADS and the connection has decreased; on the other hand, the problems relating to the message delivery have increased. There were some factors involved in the message delivery problems. The typical causes for the message delivery failure were as follows:

a) ground facility performance of a data link service provider; b) unstable link with the aircraft flying near the fringe areas of VHF coverage; c) interface deficiency among data link service providers: d) message stuck on the specific avionics in specific situations; e) mixed use of HF data link by aircraft; and f) unscheduled system stoppage of ground systems.


16

4.28 With the system performance analysis and the problem reporting program carried out by the CRA, the trends and causes of individual problems were identified, and most of them were resolved. JCAB as the ATS service provider took measures with supplementary procedures and systems upgrade to cover these deficiencies. The CRA disseminated the information to the FIT stakeholders on the lessons learnt which were identified from the PRs. 4.29 The final report on trials concluded that the trials demonstrated satisfactory performance, and recommended to JCAB that the ATS data link trials be terminated and regular operations should commence in the oceanic airspace of Fukuoka FIR. 4.30 As a consequence of the implementation of full ATS datalink operations in the oceanic area, JCAB reduced the longitudinal separation minimum from time-based 15 minute separation to distance-based 50 NM separation using ATS datalink effective 6 July 2006. Details of ATS Datalink operations and reduction of longitudinal separation minimum are described in the AIP-Japan GEN3.3-29 – 36, and ENR3.6-32. 4.31 The meeting congratulated Japan on this implementation, noting the benefits that would immediately accrue to operators in the airspace.

Tables of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status 4.32 The meeting recalled that the Regional Office had encouraged States to continue the implementation of data link systems in accordance with the Air Navigation Plan and had urged States in the Bay of Bengal area to assign a high priority towards participating in the Bay of Bengal ADS/CPDLC operational trial to the maximum extent possible. In this regard, the Combined Meeting of FIT-BOB/5, FIT-SEA/2 and ATFM/TF/1 (April 2005, Bangkok) formulated tables recording the levels of ADS/CPDLC equipage and ATS status of States in the Indian Ocean/Bay of Bengal and Southeast Asia/South China Sea areas, respectively. 4.33 The meeting also recalled that FIT-SEA/3 (November 2005) recognized the importance of quick and efficient communications between the parties involved in investigating a problem report, and agreed that a list of contact persons should be created and kept up to date. It was agreed that the list of contact officers contained in the Table of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status was suitable in the first instance but should be kept up to date. 4.34 Accordingly, the meeting reviewed and updated the Tables of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status for the Bay of Bengal/Arabian Sea/Indonesian FIRs (Appendix K) and the South China Sea/Southeast Asia (Appendix L). 4.35 In reviewing and updating the Tables, the meeting felt that the primary purpose of the current table was to identify the status of systems and equipment installation, and in some cases, the contact officers may not be suitable for coordination of operational trials of ADS/CPDLC. Thus, the meeting identified additional officers as the primary State contact responsible for coordination of ADS/CPDLC operational trials in the South China Sea area as well as for coordination with CRA-Japan. These contacts for operational trials are shown with bold letters at the Table of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status. 4.36 When reviewing the Table of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status, the meeting also felt unsure about what the items in several columns mean, for example, Ground Station Manufacturer. In this regard, the meeting requested the secretariat to review the background of development of the table and consider re-structuring the table with more clarity while the meeting decided to keep the information updated as much as possible. The Secretariat will report to the next meeting on the outcome of reviews and new format proposed.


17

Agenda Item 5: Central Reporting Agency – Bay of Bengal

Terms of Reference BOB CRA 5.1 In commencing preparatory work for the establishment of the BOB CRA, the Regional Office had requested that Boeing CRA provide a step-by-step checklist or similar guidance to the States involved in order that the CRA requirements could be readily understood and complied with. The FIT-BOB/6 meeting (November 2005) had noted the preparatory work that had been completed in this respect and the initial BOB-CRA Terms of Reference (TORs)and supporting guidance material that had been submitted by Boeing. 5.2 In further considering the TORs for the BOB-CRA, the Secretariat highlighted the benefits in ensuring that sub-regional groups involved in similar work programmes and activities adopted standardized TORs, insofar as possible. In this context, the meeting agreed to draft TORs for the BOB-CRA that were based on those already adopted for the FIT-SEA CRA, subsequently adopting the TORs shown in Appendix M for the BOB-CRA. CRA Funding 5.3 The meeting recalled the long standing difficulties that had been experienced in establishing appropriate funding mechanisms to allow the BOB-CRA to commence work in providing CRA services for the Bay of Bengal area. 5.4 In this respect, the meeting was pleased to be informed that the Airports Authority of India Board had forwarded its recommendation of CRA funding mechanism to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, for formal approval. A favorable outcome was expected shortly and accordingly, problem reports were being forwarded by India to the BOB – CRA ([email protected]) and responses were being received from BOB-CRA. 5.5 The meeting recalled that the SCM BOB CRA (June 2005) had recognized that although India would be the State involved in providing data to IATA for charging purposes, the remaining States surrounding the Bay of Bengal should also be alerted to the imminent commencement of CRA services. SCM BOB CRA had requested that the Regional Office provide suitable advice to surrounding States in this respect and had drafted a suitable generic AIP Supplement (see Appendix N). 5.6 Although only minimal delays were expected in completing the financial arrangements, the meeting agreed that the Regional Office be kept fully up to date with progress in this regard. When the financial agreements had been signed the Regional Office should then communicate with surrounding States by State Letter, advise them that the CRA services were available and request that they issue the AIP Supplement.

BOB-CRA Confidentiality Agreements 5.7 The meeting considered arrangements for data confidentiality agreements between States, Airlines, Data Link Service Providers (DSPs) and the BOB-CRA. The meeting recognized that the CRA required access to detailed data link audit data in order to fully investigate and resolve problem reports. The confidentiality agreement documents the rules by which the CRA is allowed access to required information and that such information will not be used for marketing or other commercial purposes. States and operators participating in the BOB ATS data link trial are invited to sign the confidentiality agreement (Appendix O) and send a copy to the FIT-BOB CRA ([email protected]).


18

Submission of Problem Reports 5.8 In accordance with the provisions of the FOM, Problem Reports (PRs) from all FIT-BOB members should be submitted directly to the CRA as soon as possible on each occasion in order that the CRA could request audit data in a timely matter. The meeting recognized that key data elements such as the tail number, flight number, date, time, and brief description of the problem are essential in order to obtain required audit data. A copy of the PR form is attached in Appendix P to the Report. 5.9 In recognizing the importance of quick and efficient communications between the parties involved in investigating a PR, the meeting agreed that the list of contact officers contained in the Tables of ADS/CPDLC equipage and ATS Status (see Appendix J) were suitable but should be kept fully up to date. The meeting expanded the list of contact officers to include an operational contact officer and a technical contact officer whenever possible. These contacts for operational trials are shown with bold letters at the Table of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status.

Periodic Status Reports 5.10 The meeting noted that ANSPs should complete and submit the FANS 1/A Periodic Status Report (Appendix Q refers) in accordance with FOM provisions at monthly intervals as agreed by the FIT-BOB, to meet requirements for the dissemination of information and as an indication of system performance. Additionally, the report should identify any trend discovered in system deficiencies, the resultant operational implications, and the resolution, if applicable. 5.11 Communications service providers were also expected to submit monthly FANS 1/A Periodic Status Reports on the performance of their networks at specified intervals. These reports should also contain system outage information.

Problem Reports - India 5.12 India updated the meeting that the problem reports being generated are now repetitive in nature and mostly related to CPDLC connectivity. Time delays in the round trip delivery of messages (ranging from 50 seconds to as high as seven minutes) were observed. Unexpected avionics responses, unexpected ground system errors were also encountered. 5.13 The problems related to ground systems are being analyzed and remedial actions taken. With the change in AFN LOGON address from VOMM/VECC to VOMF/VECF both Chennai and Kolkatta systems had encountered connectivity problems initially but the situation has improved subsequently. 5.14 At present ‘Time lag’ problems still exist in the ADS/CPDLC system. The necessary data collection is being undertaken and the data will be sent to the CRA. CPDLC Connectivity problems with certain aircraft types such as A334 and B772 series still continue in Chennai and Kolkatta systems despite successful ADS connectivity; data in this respect will also be sent to the CRA. 5.15 Out of 100 Problem Reports, 64 are related to CPDLC connectivity especially with A33 and B77 series. 12 PRs are related to SITA link connectivity, 14 related to ground systems and 10 related to avionics. 5.16 On certain occasions it appeared that SITA messages were not reaching the end systems causing controllers to resort to HF for confirmation. In order to analyze missing messages, the data link providers and ATS providers need to exchange data on the number of uplink and downlink messages and reconcile the figures on a regular basis.


19

5.17 All problem reports are being forwarded to BOB-CRA ([email protected]) for record and analysis. 5.18 The problem reports with regard to the messages received with padding of zeroes in the Flight Identifier in some messages and some without padding have been successfully resolved. Plans to upgrade the Raytheon system by adopting Auto Track 3 is in progress for both Mumbai and Delhi systems. 5.19 Operational trials have been proceeding satisfactorily, and the confidence level amongst pilots and controllers has greatly increased. Unfortunately the number of participating airlines has not significantly increased. In this respect, IATA was requested to encourage its member Airlines to make extensive use of ADS/CPDLC for better trial evaluation which may assist earlier implementations.

First Meeting of ASIOACG 5.20 The meeting was informed in relation to the establishment of the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean ATS Coordination Group (ASIOACG) which was the result of a proposal by the ICAO Asia and Pacific Regional Office to establish an annual meeting of the “Whole of Indian Ocean ATS Coordination Group” and by Airservices Australia through its active participation in the existing “Informal Indian Ocean ATS Coordination Group” (IIOACG). The APANPIRG/16 meeting (August 2006) supported the formation of this group using the IIOACG as a basis and to include relevant organizations in the northern parts of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. 5.21 The ASIOACG/1 meeting was convened by Airservices Australia as an “informal” ATS Coordination Group, with the support of Emirates, from 22 to 23 May 2006 at the Emirates Aviation College, Dubai UAE to promote the expansion of ADS/CPLDC services across the region as well as the planning and implementation of airline defined optimum routes and related ATM procedures. Initial ASIOACG members included Airservices Australia, Airports Authority of India, Maldives Airports Company Limited, Department of Civil Aviation, Republic of Mauritius, Director General of Civil Aviation & Meteorology, Sultanate of Oman, Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority, Airport and Aviation Services (SL) Limited, Sri Lanka and the Civil Aviation & Meteorology Authority, Republic of Yemen.The meeting was attended by 20 participants comprised of representatives from ICAO, Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), State Regulatory Authorities, airspace users and industry stakeholders. 5.22 Although the meeting adopted an “Informal” approach, appropriate arrangements were made to ensure that the ICAO Regional Offices were provided with reports of the ASIOACG meetings and with invitations to attend subsequent meetings. ASIOACG recognized that it would need to be cognizant of ICAO provisions and regional planning guidelines for the harmonization of international civil operations. 5.23 In relation to data link matters, the meeting noted the following summary of the subjects discussed at the ASIOACG/1 meeting and the main points arising:

- HF and data link communications The meeting agreed that HF air-ground communications were generally unreliable and suffered from a number of inherent limitations. It was further recognised that reliable Voice/Data link communication services were a pre-requisite for the introduction of reduced separation standards in oceanic airspace.


20

It was important to ensure that the technical capability of the CPDLC system to be used was at an operational level. Ensuring such technical capability would require oversight by an appropriate technical body such as a central reporting agency (CRA), and the results of such technical examination would comprise an important part of an implementation safety assessment. - Mumbai ADS/CPLDC facilities The Mumbai ADS/CPDLC facilities were co-located with ATC and data link communications could be operated on a “third-party” basis (similar to the existing arrangements for HF communications) subject to the technical capability requirements described above. It was accepted that under this suggested arrangement, there could be no reduction in existing separation standards as the conditions for CPDLC would not be met. Note: the FIT-BOB/7 was updated in this regard, noting that arrangements in Mumbai and Delhi would not involve “third-party” as integrated displays were in use and therefore the situation would be “direct controller pilot communications (DCPC). This was also the situation in Chennai and Kolkatta. - FIT/CRA arrangements for ASIOACG Where it was intended to introduce ADS/CPLDC systems to support reduced separation standards (e.g. 50/50 and 30/30 based on RNP10 and RNP4 respectively), then it would be necessary to establish a FIT/CRA to enable States to meet the Annex 11 safety monitoring provisions. It was agreed to coordinate with FIT-BOB to make use of their CRA, as this would be a more cost effective and efficient use of resources. Some users offered financial support to FIT-BOB to undertake the CRA responsibilities for ASIAOCG in accordance with the formula agreed for funding the CRA in the Bay of Bengal area. This mattered would be progressed by the ICAO APAC Office. - Update from ANSPs on CNS/ATM initiatives Updates were provided by Australia, India, Oman and Yemen on the status of their CNS/ATM capability. - Data link services (ADS-C/CPDLC), FANS1/A Operations Manual (FOM) and

HF communications It was agreed that ASIOACG would adopt the FOM, in conjunction with appropriate ICAO documentation, as the working document for FANS1/A operations within the ASIOACG area of responsibility. FIT/CRA Arrangements for ASIOACG

5.24 In considering the requirements for the introduction of ADS/CPDLC systems throughout the region, ASIOACG/1 was referred to the safety management provisions of Annex 11, particularly Annex 11, Chapter 2, Section 2.26, which required States, amongst other things, to implement systematic and appropriate ATS safety management programmes to ensure that safety was maintained in the provision of ATS within airspaces. Further, paragraph 2.26.5 required that any significant safety-related change to the ATC system, including implementation of a reduced separation minimum or a new


21

procedure, shall only be effected after a safety assessment has demonstrated that an acceptable level of safety will be met and users have been consulted. 5.25 In this context, ASIOACG/1 was informed that where it was intended to introduce ADS/CPLDC systems to support reduced separation standards (e.g. 50/50 and 30/30 based on RNP10 and RNP4 respectively) , then it would be necessary to establish a FIT/CRA to enable States to meet the Annex 11 safety monitoring provisions. 5.26 ASIOACG/1 was provided with an outline of FIT/CRA functions, within which the CRA performs the essential technical analysis of the performance of the ADS/CPDLC systems and undertakes the investigation of system failures and other technical malfunctions. This was essential to trace the cause of problems whether in the aircraft or ground systems, and to initiate remedial action by the responsible parties. 5.27 Recognizing the small number of ADS/CPDLC systems that currently existed within the Arabian Sea/North Indian Ocean areas, the meeting requested that that the Bay of Bengal FIT/CRA (FIT-BOB) be asked to accept the FIT/CRA responsibilities for ASIOACG on an interim basis. 5.28 After considering the request from ASIOACG, the FIT-BOB and BOB-CRA in agreement with the ICAO Asia/Pacific Regional Office and BOEING were pleased to endorse the request that interim FIT/CRA services be provided by FIT-BOB and BOB-CRA. In terms of initial financial arrangements, the meeting considered that provision could be made in accordance with the formula and mechanisms agreed for funding the CRA in the Bay of Bengal area to provide some financial assistance to BOB-CRA to support the required ASIOACG CRA services. 5.29 In terms of administrative arrangements, in the interest of simplicity the meeting considered that the ASIOACG FIT/CRA activities should be included as part of the routine FIT-BOB and BOB-CRA meeting arrangements. As Oman and Yemen were the two States mostly affected, the Regional Office would issue FIT-BOB meeting invitations to these two States as well. Also, Pakistan was already routinely invited to FIT-BOB meetings. The meeting recognized that additional administrative arrangements could be finalized during the next FIT-BOB meeting, at which ASIOACG representatives were expected to be in attendance. 5.30 IATA was requested to ensure that airlines operating in the ASIOACG area of responsibility were also made aware of these arrangements and encouraged to attend both the ASIOACG and the FIT-BOB meetings in order to provide feedback on data link issues. The Regional Office would provide a report from the FIT-BOB/BOB-CRA to the next meeting of ASIOACG, to be held in Muscat, Oman during November 2006. Agenda Item 6: Central Reporting Agency – South East Asia

Requirement for FIT and CRA, and their Establishment 6.1 FIT-SEA was established by the 11th Meeting of South-East Asia ATS Coordination Group (SEACG/11, May 2004), which was held in combination with FIT-SEA/1. At this combined meeting, the CRA-Japan offered to undertake the role of CRA for the South China Sea States, as an extension to its existing activities in the Pacific. The offer from CRA-Japan was subsequently accepted by the States involved and the establishment of FIT-SEA CRA was reported to SEACG/13 (May 2006, Bangkok). 6.2 The meeting recognized that in order to carry out the safety assessment and manage the implementation of data link technologies, a team approach to interoperability was essential to the success


22

of any ATS data link implementation. Experience had shown that although stakeholders had worked closely together during the initial development and subsequent certification of FANS-1/A and a problem-reporting system was in place when FANS-1/A operations commenced, many problems went unresolved. This led to the need for an implementation/interoperability team comprising a wide variety of stakeholders to address both technical and operational issues, now known as a FANS Implementation/Interoperability Team. 6.3 However, the engineering complexity of data link technologies required additional expertise to be readily available to the FIT, because daily attention and sometimes significant research would be required if the many technical issues were to be adequately resolved. To address these concerns, the interoperability/implementation team created a dedicated sub-team, CRA, to perform the daily monitoring, coordination, testing, and problem research tasks required by the FIT. Accordingly, the FIT-SEA CRA was established.

Data Confidentiality Agreement

6.4 The meeting recalled that FIT-SEA/3 considered arrangements for data confidentiality agreement between States, airlines, DSPs and the FIT-SEA CRA, and that FIT-SEA/3 recognized that it was essential for the three primary States concerned, namely the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam, to establish data confidentiality agreements with airlines who will operate in their respective FIRs and participate in the operational trial, so that the PRs from airlines could be collected by the States and submitted to the FIT-SEA CRA. This agreement would enable the CRA-Japan to act as the FIT-SEA CRA under the authorization of the FIT-SEA. 6.5 The meeting also recalled that the FIT-SEA CRA would be responsible for analysis of PRs, dissemination of de-identified information on PRs and preparation of consolidated data periodic reports from information provided by States in accordance with the TOR agreed by the FIT-SEA only in so far as PRs were provided by States under the terms of signed data confidentiality agreements with airlines, DSPs and the CRA-Japan. 6.6 It was pointed out that in some case, it may not be the State authorities but ATS providers that conclude such data confidentiality agreements with airlines and DSPs. However, it was verified that the State authority should be responsible for ensuring that suitable confidentiality arrangements be in place among State authority, ATS provider, airlines, DSPs, etc. 6.7 The model Data Confidentiality Agreement was presented by the CRA-Japan to FIT-SEA CRA member States as in Appendix R to the Report. The meeting was reminded that the agreement on the confidentiality was the next step for the CRA-Japan to start its CRA activities and the meeting urged States concerned to make arrangement for the confidentiality agreement as soon as possible.

TOR, Task List and PR procedures of FIT-SEA CRA 6.8 The meeting was reminded that at FIT-SEA/3, Japan proposed the TOR, and the List of Tasks of the FIT-SEA CRA. FIT-SEA/3 adopted the final TOR and the suitable Task List as in Appendices K and L, respectively, of the FIT-SEA/3 Report. 6.9 The meeting was also reminded that FIT-SEA/3 agreed that the geographical area of FIT-SEA CRA services shall be defined as follows:


23

the FIT-SEA CRA will provide CRA services for the airspace within the Ho Chi Minh, Manila and Singapore FIRs, where implementation of ADS/CPDLC technologies is considered to enhance surveillance and communications capability, leading to significant benefits for operational efficiency and regularity of flights in the South China Sea area. (Appendix J of the FIT-SEA/3 Report refers)

6.10 Specific route segments where an ADS/CPDLC trial could be planned would be determined by respective States in due course and would be advised to FIT-SEA and FIT-SEA CRA. 6.11 In connection with the area of responsibility of FIT-SEA CRA, the meeting reconfirmed that the Ujung Pandang FIR was considered outside the scope of the ADS/CPDLC operational trials in the South China Sea area. Nevertheless, the establishment of a proper mechanism for data link assessment and monitoring in the Ujung Pandang FIR should be considered in order to meet the Annex 11 safety management requirements. The meeting agreed that FIT and CRA services could be provided for the Jakarta and Ujung Pandang FIRs by the FIT-BOB and FIT-BOB CRA. 6.12 CRA-Japan advised the meeting that after FIT-SEA/3, CRA-Japan reviewed the adopted TOR, Task List and PR procedures in light of the discussions at FIT-SEA/3, and concluded that several changes would need to be made. Accordingly, Japan proposed the following changes to the TOR, Task List and PR procedures:

a) Revision to TOR

As discussed and agreed at FIT-SEA/3, PRs shall be submitted to the FIT-SEA CRA from States concerned, not directly from ATS providers, airlines and DSPs. In order to properly reflect this aspect, paragraph 2) b) needs to be revised. It was also considered necessary to add a newly developed regional guidance material the Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance of ATS Data Link Systems in the Asia Pacific Region as a reference for FIT-SEA CRA in conducting its assigned tasks.

b) Revision to Task List

The Task described in “Collection and processing of Problem Reports (PRs)” needs to be revised in order to clarify the lines of submission of PRs to FIT-SEA CRA from ATSU and aircraft operators via the States.

c) Revision to PR procedures

In order to clarify the lines of submission of PRs to FIT-SEA CRA from ATSU and aircraft operators via States, the PR handling process described in the paragraph 3 “FANS 1/A PR Form” of the PR procedures is changed as follows:

States that receive a FANS-1/A Problem Report (PR) from ATSU, aircraft operator or any other FIT-SEA members are requested to send PR to CRA Japan with the items prescribed in the paragraph 3.10, FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM).

6.13 The meeting reviewed the changes proposed by Japan and agreed to them. The revised TOR, Task List, and PR procedures are in Appendices S, T and U to the Report, respectively.


24

Roles and responsibility of FIT-SEA CRA and States 6.14 CRA Japan briefed the meeting on the data link Problem Reporting system, which is the information sharing among FIT-SEA members in regard to ‘Lessons Learned” from experiences of others. PRs are submitted from the end-users, controllers/pilots. It was emphasized that for FIT-SEA, PRs should be sent to the Civil Aviation Authority of States first. Then, the State would send the PR to CRA. CRA analyzes the PR to find the facts or causes. CRA prepare periodic reports for FIT-SEA and RASMAG. CRA also prepare this information on the CRA website, which is accessible by FIT-SEA members who have signed the confidentiality agreement. FIT-SEA report to SEACG. It was confirmed that these analyses are to be performed in accordance with methodology prescribed in paragraph 3.11 of the FOM. 6.15 On the other hand, System Performance Monitoring is the responsibility of States and the monthly reports should be sent to CRA, which will disseminate the consolidated data regarding the FIT-SEA CRA’s area of responsibility on its website. The System Performance Analysis include the evaluation for: Uplink; round trip transit delay time, which is the delay between the time a message is sent and the time MAS received, and Downlink; one way transit delay time, which is the time difference between message time-stamp and the time message received at ATSU system. And the number of connections, the number of successful connections and the number of connection failure are also examined.

Differences in PR Submission between BOB-CRA and FIT-SEA CRA 6.16 IATA drew the attention of the meeting to the differences in PR submission procedure between the BOB-CRA (as described in paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9) and those for the FIT-SEA CRA described above. In simple terms, the BOB-CRA required submission of reports directly to the CRA, whereas the FIT-SEA CRA required initial submission to States, with States responsible for submission to the FIT-SEA CRA. The use of two different procedures posed significant difficulties for operators, particularly as an ultra-long haul flight could transit more than 50 FIRs between departure and destination. 6.17 The BOB-CRA (BOEING) had a long experience in the Pacific region and explained that, through trial and error, they had found that the most effective way to move forward in fixing a PR was to receive the PR as soon as possible. In their experience, this was delayed by requiring PRs to transit State processes making subsequent investigation more time consuming and less successful, with some PRs arriving too late to be investigated at all. 6.18 FIT-SEA CRA advised that under the institutional arrangements required in order for CRA-Japan to assist States in the South China Sea with CRA services, PR had to be submitted via States and it was not at all possible for PRs to be transmitted directly to the CRA. 6.19 The meeting agreed that the use of two procedures was undesirable and agreed that the matter should be further studied, with a view to aligning the procedures if at all possible. An item was added to the task lists of both the FIT-BOB and the FIT-SEA to ensure that the matter be further investigated.

Report from FIT-SEA CRA 6.20 CRA Japan reported to the meeting on their activities, particularly on Problem Reports, as lesson learnt for the Southeast Asia region. The presentation by CRA Japan is attached as Appendix V to the Report.


25

Agenda Item 7: Data Link Guidance Materials

FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM) 7.1 The meeting recalled that APANPIRG/15 (August 2004, Bangkok) had agreed that States should take all relevant ICAO provisions on data link into account when establishing their operating requirements and procedures. Further, APANPIRG/15 agreed that the FOM provided the necessary procedures for ATS providers and should be used as a basis to operate ADS and CPDLC with aircraft equipped with the FANS-1/A systems, adopting the following Conclusion:

Conclusion 15/ 7 – FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM) That, the FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM) be used by States and users in the Asia

and Pacific Regions as a basis for operating automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) and controller pilot data link communications (CPDLC) in conjunction with Annex 10 – Aeronautical Telecommunications Volume II – Communications Procedures including those with PANS status, the Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management (PANS/ATM Doc 4444) and the Guidance Material on CNS/ATM Operations in the Asia and Pacific Region.

7.2 Some complimentary paper copies of the FOM were provided by CRA-Japan. There are four “controlled copies” and they can be found at any of the following web sites:

http://www.crasa.cra-japan.org (the JCAB CRASA web page) http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/130.htm (the FAA’s Oceanic Procedures Branch) http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/ipacg.htm (the IPACG web page) http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/ispacg.htm (the ISPACG web page)

7.3 Copies may be freely downloaded from the web sites in a zip file, or email the FOM Editor ([email protected]) for a zipped copy by return mail. 7.4 In regard to further development of the regional Guidance Material and the FOM, and harmonizing with ICAO provisions, APANPIRG/15 recognized that additional work was required to more closely align the material of the documents concerned. In this regard, APANPIRG/15 appreciated that ICAO Headquarters was willing to undertake the lead to progress this work in coordination with the Regional Office and the States responsible for the FOM. APANPIRG/15 reiterated the importance of common data link operating procedures for global applicability and urged States to continue to support ICAO’s efforts to achieving this goal.

Inclusion of FIT-SEA in the FANS-1/A Operations Manual (FOM) 7.5 The meeting noted that the FOM did not yet contain any information with reference to FIT-SEA and FIT-SEA CRA though other FITs, such as those of IPACG, ISPACG, IIOCG and FIT-BOB, are described in the FOM. As such, it was considered necessary to add FIT-SEA-related information in the following sections of the FOM:

a) Section 1 - Introduction, which lists the FIRs where the FANS-1/A procedures and requirements detailed in the FOM are applicable.


26

b) Section 1.2 - Document Management, which states that this document is owned and managed by the FANS Interoperability Teams (FITs) of the Informal Pacific ATC Coordinating Group (IPACG), the Informal South Pacific ATC Coordinating Group (ISPACG), the Informal Indian Ocean Coordinating Group (IIOCG), and the Bay of Bengal (BOB).

c) Section 8.8 - Central Reporting Agency Members

7.6 Japan agreed to prepare and submit a FOM Request For Change (RFC) in accordance with FOM procedures in order to incorporate information about FIT SEA and FIT-SEA CRA

Guidance Material for the End-to-End Monitoring of Data Link Systems 7.7 The meeting was informed that APANPIRG/16 reviewed the Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance Monitoring of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Data Link Systems in the Asia/Pacific Region that had been prepared by Regional Airspace Safety Monitoring Advisory Group of APANPIRG (RASMAG). The guidance material was intended to provide a set of working principles for ATS data link system performance monitoring that would be applied by all States implementing these systems, as well as providing detailed guidance on the requirements for establishing and operating FIT and CRA. 7.8 After reviewing the guidance material and noting the history of its development under the auspices of RASMAG, including the reviews that had been undertaken by the specialist FIT Groups (including IPACG, ISPACG, FIT-BOB and FIT-SEA) and ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/15, APANPIRG/16 adopted the following Conclusion: Conclusion 16/20 – Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance

Monitoring of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Data Link Systems in the Asia/Pacific Region

That the Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance Monitoring of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Data Link Systems in the Asia/Pacific Region, as shown in Appendix B to the [APANPIRG/16] Report on Agenda Item 2.1, be circulated as regional guidance material by the Regional Office, in accordance with established procedures.

7.9 The Secretariat informed the meeting that the Guidance Material (Appendix W refers) had been circulated via the Regional Office State letter Ref.: T 3/10.1.17 – AP048/06 (ATM), dated 5 June 2006. Agenda Item 8: Update Task Lists 8.1 The meeting reviewed and updated the Task Lists for the FIT-BOB (Appendix X) and the FIT –SEA (Appendix Y), incorporating information provided by the States during the meeting. The meeting recognized that in the case of the FIT-BOB although India had completed many of the tasks on the FIT-BOB Task List, the items needed to be retained in order to serve as guidance for new States joining the operational trial. This was also expected to be the case later on in terms of the FIT-SEA Task List as it was probable that States would join the operational trial at different times as their equipment was commissioned.


27

Agenda Item 9: Any other business

Creation of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission FANS Implementation Group 9.1 The meeting was informed of the development and creation of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission FANS Implementation Group (AFIG) which would oversee the co-ordinated implementation of FANS Services across the Middle East and North African region stretching from the Oman and Yemen FIRs in the east across to the Moroccan FIR in the west. 9.2 SITA, in partnership with the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC), IATA and the National Air Navigation Services Company (NANSC) organised a CNS/ATM implementation seminar in Cairo (2 – 4 May 2006). 9.3 The seminar was attended by 72 participants representing 9 States, 12 airlines, 6 organizations ACAC, IATA, SITA, FAA, IFALPA and the regional ICAO Middle East office in addition to industry representation from Sofreavia, Comsoft and Helios Technology. 9.4 The key recommendation from the seminar was that ACAC establish a “FANS Implementation Group” across the Middle East and North African region in order to promote a seamless FANS service. The seminar also agreed that SITA will be involved in the technical co-ordination aspects of the AFIG as it proceeds from planning FANS implementation towards the introduction of operational trials. 9.5 This recommendation was presented to the Eight Session of the ACAC General Assembly (15 – 17th May 2006) which, inter alia, endorsed a recommendation to create the ACAC FANS Implementation Group (AFIG). The first meeting of the AFIG has been tentatively scheduled to take place in 4th Quarter 2006. 9.6 Due to the adjacent boundaries, the establishment of AFIG is of particular interest to the ICAO Asia and Pacific Office which is expected to be fully involved in the ADS/CPCLC harmonized operational aspects of the AFIG and the FIT-BOB.

ATS DATA LINK Services Location List 9.7 SITA provided the meeting with a list providing details of the global status of Air Traffic Services (ATS) data link implementations regardless of the ground network(s) that the ATS data link system was connected to. The meeting noted that details were not included in the list in relation to previous, suspended and planned implementations. The meeting was requested to review the list and to inform SITA at [email protected] if there were any errors or omissions on any of the ATS data link services. 9.8 The OCL, FMC WPR, FANS 1/A and ATN location list is presented as Appendix Z to this report, whilst the list of D-ATIS, D-VOLMET, TWIP, DCL and PDC locations is presented as Appendix AA. FANS Global CRA Not Supported 9.9 The meeting noted that the ALLPIRG/5 meeting (March 2006) had considered a working paper presented by SITA titled “Establishment of a FANS Global Central Reporting Agency”. ALLPIRG/5 recognized the benefits of adopting the concept of establishing a global CRA function to support the regional FITs across all ICAO regions, but considered that at this stage it would be premature to endorse such a proposal and that a business case would be needed before endorsing it. A subsequent review of the ALLPIRG/5 report by the Air Navigation Commission (C-WP/12694 refers) clarified that it


28

was necessary for this issue to be examined by APANPIRG before ICAO Headquarters initiated any action. 9.10 The meeting was informed that ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 (June 2006) also reviewed the ALLPIRG/5 working paper from SITA. The working paper had noted that recent satellite data link performance issues caused in part by increases in data link traffic had shown that since all FANS users across different ICAO regions depend on a common global satellite data link network, the traffic generated by users in one region impacted on the network performance delivered to users other regions, thereby making it impossible to manage or plan the performance of the satellite communications network on a regional basis. 9.11 The meeting was informed that the working paper had considered that regional CRA functions could not independently manage the use of a global network and that having many different CRA functions would probably delay identification and resolution of performance issues. SITA had concluded that the management of a global satellite data link network which cannot be tailored to meet the needs of specific ICAO regions or sub-regions called for a global CRA function that would serve all regional FANS Interoperability/Implementation Teams (FITs). The meeting also noted that SITA had seen the primary advantages of a global CRA function as the promotion of consistent approaches to FANS implementation across all ICAO regions and an increased awareness and information sharing between the regional FITs. 9.12 The meeting recalled all safety related activities in the Asia/Pacific Region were reviewed under the oversight of RASMAG and reports of all monitoring agencies including FITs and associated CRAs were submitted to RASMAG for review. It was further noted that ICAO Headquarters had taken over the development of the FANS Operations Manual (FOM) to harmonize with other regional and international material in the expectation of eventually producing a global document for data link operations. 9.13 Also, the meeting noted that ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 considered that it was evident that the advantages identified to ALLPIRG/5, i.e. the promotion of consistent approaches to FANS implementation across all ICAO regions and an increased awareness and information sharing between the regional FITs were already being realized in the Asia/Pacific Region. ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 noted that the Asia/Pacific Region presently had the majority of data link related operations and considered that a harmonized approach had already been adopted. 9.14 Furthermore, ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 considered that there were many issues to be resolved if a Global CRA was to be implemented, including State sovereignty, legal and funding issues as well as the commercial competition issues between data services providers and CRA services providers. Also, regional experiences had demonstrated instances where local peculiarities in data link operations had required local solutions, rather than global fixes. 9.15 The meeting was advised that Japan had pointed out to ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 that in their consideration, the life of a FIT and associated CRA was not open ended. ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 also did not see the need for an additional layer of CRA functions over what was already in place. In concluding that there were many issues to be addressed, ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 agreed with ALLPIRG/5 that it was premature for such a proposal to be considered for endorsement. ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/16 was strongly against the proposal.

Funding of Safety Monitoring - A Regional Solution 9.16 The Secretariat updated the meeting in relation to the ongoing issues surrounding the provision of robust and reliable regional airspace safety monitoring arrangements, including those for RVSM and reduced horizontal separation minima as well as data link CRA funding.


29

9.17 RASMAG/5 (June 2006) had reviewed APANPIRG Conclusion 16/2 concerning the formation of a study group to develop a feasible and sustainable means to organize and finance the necessary safety monitoring mechanisms. In this regard, the Council of ICAO had taken note of the difficulties encountered in the Asia/Pacific region in securing funding for regional safety monitoring activities, and had also observed similar problems in other ICAO Regions. Accordingly, the Council had referred the matter to ALLPIRG/5 and the Sixth Meeting of the Air Navigation Services Economic Panel (ANSEP/6, March 2006) to consider developing a globally applicable approach. 9.18 RASMAG/5 was informed that ALLPIRG/5 and ANSEP/6 had endorsed a step-by-step approach for the implementation of the “global” approach to funding RMAs which also incorporated the general guidelines for the establishment of a multinational ICAO ASIA/PAC air navigation facility/service already contained in the ASIA/PAC FASID. Accordingly, RASMAG/5 proposed actions for recommending appropriate mechanisms to APANPIRG/17 in response to Conclusion 16/2, agreeing that the global consensus that had emerged on the most appropriate funding model for RMAs obviated the need for the special study group. The meeting then considered how to place the funding of already-established regional safety monitoring services on a sustainable financial basis, recognizing the need to address SMAs and CRAs as well as the RMAs. 9.19 To progress the matter, RASMAG prepared a draft Working Paper (Appendix BB refers) for submission to APANPIRG/17 proposing that APANPIRG initiate steps to establish a Regional Safety Monitoring Board – Asia and a Regional Safety Monitoring Board – Pacific by inviting States concerned to meet with the aim of preparing acceptable Memoranda of Agreement and to take the necessary follow-up steps to establish the Boards to support their activities. RASMAG/5 requested that the Secretariat take steps to present the Working Paper, subsequent to final editorial revision, to APANPIRG on the recommendation of RASMAG as an appropriate mechanism to address the issue of funding mechanisms for regional safety monitoring. 9.20 The meeting noted that the ICAO Council, at the 10th Meeting of its 172nd Session, approved a recommendation by the Air Navigation Commission requesting the Air Transport Committee to include in the Air Transport Programme the development of global method for cost recovery of the required Regional Monitoring Agency (RMA) infrastructure. 9.21 Subsequently, after the review of these matters by the Air Navigation Commission, ICAO Headquarters had issued a directive to all ICAO Regional Directors recommending that RMAs should be implemented as “multinational (ICAO) air navigation facility/services”. A Step-by-Step procedure for the implementation of RMAs and the associated cost recovery arrangement to be utilized by Regional Offices and PIRGs was also issued. The meeting noted that this directive was in full accordance with the draft APANPIRG Working Paper prepared by RASMAG. Agenda Item 10: Date and venue for the next meeting 10.1 The meeting supported the opening remarks made by the Secretariat during the opening of the meeting which recognized that the work programmes of the respective FITs were expanding to the point where a combined meeting would no longer be of value. 10.2 Taking into account the target of operational trial in the Ho Chi Minh FIR jointly with Singapore in March 2007, the meeting considered January 2007 suitable for FIT-SEA to meet to address outstanding issues and confirm readiness status of States, ATS providers, aircraft operators and DSPs. The Regional Office was requested to make arrangements for a four day meeting to be held in January 2007 to prepare for the trial, and coordinate the dates and venue for the FIT-SEA/5 with affected parties.


30

10.3 In respect of the FIT-BOB, it was anticipated that a 3 day FIT meeting was likely to be adequate, held in the first quarter 2007. BOEING on behalf of the BOB-CRA reported their heavy workload in early 2007 and it was therefore anticipated that the meeting would be scheduled in March 2007.

Closing of the meeting 10.4 Mr. Tiede thanked all participants for their active involvement in the meeting, noting the informative presentation given by SITA in respect of ADS-B initiatives in the region. Good progress had been made towards the operating parameters for both the BOB-CRA and the FIT-SEA CRA and the FIT-SEA looked forward to the commencement of an ADS/CPDLC operational trial involving Singapore and Vietnam during March 2007. 10.5 The reporting from India in relation to the Bay of Bengal trial had been informative and, now that the Board of the Airports Authority of India had endorsed the CRA funding proposal, Mr Tiede hoped that a quick resolution of the few remaining difficulties would enable Boeing to commence full CRA services in the near future in support of the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea trials. 10.6 Good progress in many other matters had also been made during the week by the respective side meetings of the FIT-BOB and FIT-SEA and Mr. Tiede encouraged States to continue to engage in bi-lateral/ tri-lateral discussions between States to quickly resolve difficulties in respect of civil aviation matters.

-------------------------

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix A to the Report

A – 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

STATE/NAME DESIGNATION/ADDRESS CONTACT DETAILS

HONG KONG, CHINA Mr. Yeung Hoi Wan, Peter Acting Chief Electronics Engineer

Civil Aviation Department 10/F Commercial Bldg Airport Freight Forwarding Centre 2 Chun Wan Road Hong Kong International Airport Hong Kong, China

Tel: 852-2591 5004 Fax: 852-2326 3508 E-mail: [email protected]

INDIA Shri N.G. Chikkathimmaiah General Manager (ATM)

Airports Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan New Delhi India

Fax: +91 11 2461 0525 E-mail: [email protected]

Shri S.V. Satish Joint General Manager (ATM) Airports Authority of India E-8, AAI Colony (NAD) ATS Complex, Chennai Airport Chennai – 600027 India

Tel: +91 44 22561539 Fax: +91 44 22560700 E-mail: [email protected]

Shri R. Raghavendra Rao Assistant General Manager (ATC) Airports Authority of India O-15/6, New Airport Colony Mumbai – 400099 India

Tel: +91 22 28255479 E-mail: [email protected]

INDONESIA Mr. Sigit Djumatno, SSi Directorate Aviation Safety Officer

Directorate General of Air Communication Gedung Karya, Lt. 23 Jl. Medan Merdeka No. 8 Jakarta 10110, Indonesia

Tel: +62-21-3507569/3506451 Fax: +62-21-3507569 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Hermanshyah, SE, MM GM General Affair PT. Garuda Indonesia Management Building 2nd Fl., Complex GMF Soekarno-Hatta Airport Indonesia

Tel: +62-21-5508675 Fax: +62-21-5501311 E-mail: [email protected]

Ir. Ahmad Nurdin Aulia Dea Directorate of Electronic & Electricity Facility Karya Building 23 Fl., Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 8 Jakarta Pusat 10110 Indonesia



A – 2


Mr. Ketut Subamia ATS Regional Coordinator MAATS PT. Angkasa Pura I Makassar Airport Indonesia

Tel: +62-21 6541961 ext 2312 Fax: +62-21-65866838/6541513 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Wahyudi Tugiyono Sub Directorate of ATS Operation PT. Angkasa Pura I Kotabaru Bandar Kemayoran Blok B-12Kav No.2 Jakarta Pusat 10610 Indonesia

Tel: +62-21-6541961 ext 2312 Fax: +62-21-65866838/6541513 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Ms. Nila Darmawati Staff of QA PT. Angkasa Pura I Kotabaru Bandar Kemayoran Blok B-12Kav No.2 Jakarta Pusat 10610 Indonesia


Mr. Wiyono ATC Automation Specialist PT. (Persero) Angkasa Pura II Gedung 601 Lt. 3 Soekarno-Hatta International Airport Jakarta Indonesia


Mr. Marzuki Batung Senior Staff of Electronics PT. (Persero) Angkasa Pura II Gedung 600 Lt. 3 Soekarno-Hatta International Airport Jakarta Indonesia

Tel: +62-21-5505086 Fax: +62-21-5505003 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

JAPAN Mr. Hiroshi Inoguchi Special Assistant to the Director

ATS Systems Planning Division ATS Department, JCAB, MLIT 2-1-3 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-8918, Japan

Tel: +81-3-5253-8111 ext 51128 Fax: +81-3-5253-1663 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Yoshiro Nakatsuji Director, ATCA Japan Air Traffic Control Association Japan 1-6-6, Haneda Airport, Ota-ku Tokyo 104-0041 Japan

Tel: +81-3-3747-1685 Fax: +81-3-3747-0856 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Takashi Matsumoto Technical Specialist Air Traffic Control Association Japan 1-6-6, Haneda Airport, Ota-ku Tokyo 104-0041 Japan

Tel: +81-3-3747 1685 Fax: +81-3-3747 0856 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Hajime Miura Technical Specialist Air Traffic Control Association Japan 1-6-6, Haneda Airport, Ota-ku Tokyo 104-0041 Japan



A – 3


MALAYSIA Mr. Nasuruddin Bin Zainol Abidin

Air Traffic Controller Department of Civil Aviation Block B, Air Traffic Control Centre Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport 47200 Subang, Selangor Malaysia


Mr. Vausu Dev Varma Air Traffic Controller Department of Civil Aviation Block B, Air Traffic Control Centre Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport 47200 Subang, Selangor Malaysia


MYANMAR U Maung Maung Htay Regional Air Traffic Control Officer

Department of Civil Aviation Yangon International Airport Yangon 11021 Myanmar

Tel: +951 663838 Fax: +951 665124 E-mail: [email protected]

U Thet Tin Air Traffic Control Officer, Grade II Department of Civil Aviation Yangon International Airport Yangon 11021 Myanmar

Tel: +951 663838 Fax: +951 665124 E-mail: [email protected]

PHILIPPINES Mr. Edgardo Malayao Cuevas

Supervising Air Traffic Controller Air Transportation Office NAIA Road, Pasay City 1300 Metro Manila, Philippines

Tel: (632) 851-06-39 Fax: (632) 851-06-39

SINGAPORE Mr. Tan Yean Guan Project Officer (Airspace)

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Singapore Changi Airport P.O. Box 1 Singapore 918141

Tel: 65 6541 2709 Fax: 65 6545 6516 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Teo Sze Siong ATCO IV Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Singapore Changi Airport P.O. Box 1 Singapore 918141

Tel: 65 6541 2664 Fax: 65 6545 6252 E-mail: [email protected]

THAILAND Mr. Weerawath Thaitakul Chief of Air Traffic Control

Airport Standards and Air Navigation Facilitating Division Department of Civil Aviation 71 Soi Ngarmduplee, Rama IV Road Bangkok 10120, Thailand

Tel: 66-2-286 8159 Fax: 66-2-286 8159


A – 4


Flg.Off. Nakorn Yoonpand Air Traffic Control Expert Airport Standards and Air Navigation Facilitating Division Department of Civil Aviation 71 Soi Ngarmduplee, Rama IV Road Bangkok 10120, Thailand

Tel: 66-2-287 0320 ext 1288, 1165 Fax: 66-2-286 8159

Mr. Thongchai Sawatpanich Technician Airport Standards and Air Navigation Facilitating Division 71 Soi Ngarmduplee, Rama IV Road Bangkok 10120, Thailand

Tel: 66-2-286 2911 Fax: 66-2-286 1013 E-mail: [email protected]

Wg.Cdr. Surath Sridech ATC Instructor Civil Aviation Training Centre 1032/355 Paholyothin Rd Jatujak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand

Tel: 66-2-2725741 ext 259 Fax: 66-2-2725292

Mr. Chainan Chaisompong Senior Systems Engineer Air Traffic Services Engineering Planning and Standards Department Aeronautical Radio of Thailand Ltd. 102 Ngamduplee Tungmahamek, Sathorn Bangkok 10120, Thailand


Mr. Jirasak Netiprawat Air Traffic Control Manager, BKK ATFMU En-route Air Traffic Management Department Aeronautical Radio of Thailand Ltd. 102 Ngamduplee Thungmahamek Bangkok 10120, Thailand


Ms. Saifon Obromsook Senior Systems Engineer Aeronautical Radio of Thailand Ltd. 102 Ngamduplee Tungmahamek, Sathorn Bangkok 10120, Thailand


Capt. Werasak Wiroonpetch Manager, International Aviation Affairs and Development Department Thai Airways International Limited 89 Vibhavadee Rangsit Road, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand

Tel: 66-2-545-2665 Fax: 66-2-545 3849 E-mail: [email protected]

Capt. Peerasak Nopananchai Deputy Manager, International Aviation Affairs and Development Department Thai Airways International Limited 89 Vibhavadee Rangsit Road, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand

Tel: 66-2-545-2665, 545 2666 Fax: 66-2-545 3849 E-mail: [email protected]


A – 5


Mr. Pairat Wonganan Manager Flight Dispatch Bangkok Airways Co., Ltd. Flight Dispatch Office Domestic Terminal Don Muang Bangkok 10210, Thailand

Tel: 66-2-535 2499 ext 346 Fax: 66-2-504 3981 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Thitiporn Raphiphan Acting Senior Flight Dispatch Bangkok Airways Co., Ltd. Flight Dispatch Office 2nd Floor Domestic Terminal Don Muang Bangkok 10210, Thailand

Tel: 66-2-535 2499 ext 302 Fax: 66-2-504 3981 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

VIET NAM Mr. Nguyen Manh Quang Deputy Director of ATS/AIS

Vietnam Air Traffic Management (VATM) Civil Aviation Administration of Viet Nam Gialam Airport Hanoi 10000 The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

Tel: 84-4-8725272 Fax: 84-4-8725281 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Cu Van Sinh CNS Engineer Vietnam Air Traffic Management (VATM) Civil Aviation Administration of Viet Nam Gialam Airport Long Bien District Hanoi, Viet Nam

Tel: 84-0912866275 E-mail: [email protected]

IATA Mr. Soon Boon Hai Assistant Director – Safety, Operations &

Infrastructure – Asia/Pacific International Air Transport Association 77 Robinson Road #05-00 SIA Building Singapore 068896

Tel: 65-62397267 Fax: 65-65366267 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Owen Dell Manager, International Operations Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd International Affairs Department International Operations 9th Floor, Central Tower, Cathay Pacific City 8 Scenic Road Hong Kong International Airport Lantau Island Hong Kong, China

Tel: +852-2747 8829 Fax: +852-2141 8829 E-mail: [email protected]

Capt. Aric Oh Deputy Chief Pilot (Technical) Singapore Airlines Flight Operations Technical (SIN-STC 04-C) SIA Training Centre 04-C 720 Upper Changi Road East Singapore 486852

Tel: +65-6540-3694 E-mail: [email protected]


A – 6


Mr. Grant Wilson Aeronautical Services & ATM Flight Operations Support EMIRATES P.O. Box 686 Dubai United Arab Emirates

Tel: 971-4-703-6455 Fax: 971-4-703-6318 E-mail: [email protected]

IFALPA F/O Apitat Limpisvasti IFALPA representative

THAIPA Bldg-5 3rd Fl Pilot Lounge Thai Airways International 89 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd Bangkok 10900, Thailand


F/O Ararm Horprasert IFALPA representative THAIPA Bldg-5 3rd Fl Pilot Lounge Thai Airways International 89 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd Bangkok 10900, Thailand


F/O Itt Sirisawat IFALPA representative THAIPA Bldg-5 3rd Fl Pilot Lounge Thai Airways International 89 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd Bangkok 10900, Thailand

Tel: 66-1-825 9998

ARINC Mr. Sarawut Assawachaichit Programme Manager

Globalink Services ARINC Incorporation 102 Soi Ngarmduplee Rama IV Road Tungmahamek, Sathorn Bangkok 10120, Thailand

Tel: +66-2-285 9435-6 Fax: +66-2-285 9437 E-mail: [email protected]

SITA Mr. Philip Koh Cheng Chye AIRCOM CNS Manager

SITA 11, Loyang Way Singapore 508723

Tel: +65 8163 3696 Fax: +65 6548 2605 E-mail: [email protected]

BOEING Mr. Brad Cornell Engineer

Boeing 12015 Purple Pennant Rd Lake Stevens, WA 98258 U.S.A.

Tel: 1-425-280 5603 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Dung Q. Nguyen Flight Management Systems Flight Plan/Datalink Boeing P.O. Box 3707 MC 02-MC Seattle, WA 98124-2207 U.S.A.



A – 7


ICAO Mr. Andrew Tiede Regional Officer ATM

ICAO Asia and Pacific Office 252/1 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand

Tel: 66-2-5378189 Fax: 66-2-5378199 AFTN: VTBBICOX E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Kyotaro Harano Regional Officer ATM ICAO Asia and Pacific Office 252/1 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand


Mr. Polawat Chootai Regional Officer ATM ICAO Asia and Pacific Office 252/1 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand


-----------------------

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix B to the Report

B − 1

LIST OF WORKING AND INFORMATION PAPERS

WORKING PAPERS WP/No. Agenda

Item Title Presented by

1 1 Provisional Agenda Secretariat

2 4 ADS/CPDLC Equipage and Participation of States in Operational Trials of ADS/CPDLC

Secretariat

3 5 First Meeting of the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean ATS Coordination Group (ASIOACG/1)

Secretariat

4 8 Update FIT-BOB Task List Secretariat

5 8 Update FIT-SEA Task List Secretariat

6 4 SITA Satellite AIRCOM GES Upgrades SITA

7 6 Proposal to revise the Terms of Reference (TOR), Task List, and Problem Reporting Procedures of FIT-SEA CRA

Japan

8 3,6 Data Confidentiality Agreement with the FIT-SEA CRA

Japan

9 3,9 Final Report on ATS Data Link Trials in Japan Japan

10 7 Request for Change to the FANS-1/A Operations Manual (FOM) to include FIT-SEA in the document

Japan

11 1 Boeing Sub-Agenda Proposals Boeing

12 2 Update of ADS/CPDLC Operational Trials India INFORMATION PAPERS

IP/No. Agenda Item

Title Presented by

1 1 List of Working and Information Papers Secretariat

2 9 Directives on a Global Approach to cost recovery of Regional Monitoring Agencies

Secretariat

3 9 Funding of Safety Monitoring – A Regional Solution Secretariat

4 9 Proposal for a Global Central Reporting Agency (CRA)

Secretariat

5 4 ADS/CPDLC Implementation in Indonesia Indonesia

6 9 Creation of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission FANS Implementation Group “AFIG”

SITA

7 2,3 Terms of Reference of FIT-BOB and FIT-SEA Secretariat

8 3,4 Seminar on Datalink Operations between Viet Nam and Japan, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam, 10-11 April 2006

Japan

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix B to the Report

B − 2

IP/No. Agenda Item

Title Presented by

9 9 Implementation of ATS Datalink Operations and 50NM Longitudinal Separation Minimum in the Oceanic Area within Fukuoka FIR

Japan

10 9 ATS Datalink Services Location List SITA

…………………………

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix C to the Report

C - 1

FANS 1/A IMPLEMENTATION TEAM FOR THE BAY OF BENGAL (FIT-BOB)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Objective of FIT-BOB The objective of the FANS 1/A Implementation Team for the Bay of Bengal (FIT-BOB), established under the auspices of the Bay of Bengal ATS Coordination Group (BBACG), is to assist FIT-BOB members to plan and implement ADS and CPDLC systems based on FANS 1/A in the Indonesian, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea FIRs (including ASIOACG member States) in accordance with the TOR of FIT-BOB. Composition of FANS 1/A Implementation Team (FIT) In addition to representatives from the member States of FIT-BOB, the FANS 1/A Implementation Team (FIT) will consist of representatives from aircraft and ancillary equipment manufacturers, airlines, data communication service providers (DSP), ATS providers, IATA, ICAO, IFALPA, and IFATCA. Terms of Reference The FANS 1/A Implementation Team for the Bay of Bengal shall be responsible for system configuration and oversee the end-to-end monitoring process to ensure the FANS 1/A systems are implemented and continue to meet their performance, safety, and interoperability requirements. FIT-BOB shall: a) Determine the common operational architecture to support CPDLC and ADS; b) Support the implementation and operational benefits of CPDLC and ADS; c) Authorize and coordinate system testing and operational trials; d) Develop interim operational procedures to mitigate the effects of problems until such

time as they are resolved;

e) Review de-identified ADS/CPDLC problem reports and determine appropriate resolution;

f) Monitor the progress of problem resolution; and g) Assess system performance based on information in associated Central Reporting

Agency periodic reports. Preparation of Reports The Bay of Bengal Central Reporting Agency (BOB-CRA) will report, as required, to FIT-BOB. FIT-BOB will report to the Bay of Bengal ATS Co-coordinating Group (BBACG). The ICAO Regional Office will submit reports to appropriate sub-groups of APANPIRG.

(last updated FIT-BOB/7 July 2006)

AAI

UPDATE ON ADS/CPDLC OPERATIONAL TRIALS

Airports Authority Of India

25-28 JULY 2006 1 of 11ICAO FIT-BOB 7 MEETING-25-28 July 06

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 2 of 11

IntroductionCurrent StatusCRA fundingProblem ReportsProblem AnalysisProblem ResolutionConclusionAction by the meeting

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 3 of 11

IntroductionEntire Indian Airspace – ADS/CPDLC coverage

GROUND SYSTEMS

RAYTHEON AT MUMBAI & DELHI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., (ECIL) AT CHENNAI & KOLKATTA

DATA LINK NETWORK SERVICE PROVIDERSITA

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 4 of 11

CURRENT STATUSAt Chennai & Kolkatta – Operational trials continues Delhi & Mumbai – Joined Operational trials from 1st July 2006AIP Supplements for Chennai & Kolkatta ADS/CPDLC system takenLimited Watch hours at Delhi & Mumbai

0530-0930 & 2200-0300 at VABB & 1100-2359 at VIDP

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 5 of 11

30% of the aircraft operating in Bay of Bengal and 12% of aircraft operating in Arabian sea Log ON to ADS/CPDLCThe Log on address in Indian FIRS have been streamlined as follows:

VOMF- Chennai VABF- Mumbai VECF- Kolkatta VIDF- Delhi

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 6 of 11

Participating Airlines – India (First Quarter 2006)AIR FRANCE, AUSTRIAN,CATHAY PACIFIC, CHINA AIRLINES, EMIRATES, ETIHAD, JAPAN, AIRLINES, LUFTHANSA, MALAYSIAN AIRLINES, QATARI, QANTAS, SAUDIA, SINCARGO, SINGAPORE AIRLINES, SOUTH AFRICAN AIRLINES, BRITISH AIRWAYS, SRILANKAN AIRWAYS, THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, YEMINI

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 7 of 11

CRA Funding:

AAI Board has approved

Awaiting clearance from Ministry

Problem reports being forwarded to Boeing

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 8 of 11

Problem ReportsMostly related to CPDLC connectivity- Repetitive in natureUnexpected avionics ResponsesUnexpected ground system errorsWith AFN logon address Kolkatta and Chennai systems for about three monthsTime Lag in round trip receipt of messages (50 seconds to 7 minutes)

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 9 of 11

64

1214

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CPDLC CONNECTIVITY SITA GROUND EQPT AVIONICS

CLASSIFICATION OF PROBLEM REPORTS

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 10 of 11

135

45

88

43

110

54

123

48

113

47

114

43

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

ADS TRAFFIC OVER BAY OF BENGAL JAN-JUN 2006

Non-ADS traffic over Bay of Bengal ADS Traffic over Bay of Bengal

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 11 of 11

Problem ResolutionProblems regarding messages received with padding of zeroes in flight identifier & without padding have been resolvedPlans to upgrade Raytheon system adopting auto track three is in progress

AAI



25-28 JULY 2006 12 of 11

Conclusion

Operational trials in the correct directionImproved confidence amongst pilots & controllersGradual increase in number of participating airlines IATA to encourage member airlines to logon to make use of the ADS/CPDLC extensively and participate in ADS/CPDLC operational trials.

FIT – BOB/SEA

User Experience

EK Aero Services & ATM

Grant WilsonManager, Aero Services & ATM25/28 July 2006

Overview• Emirates – 94 aircraft, all wide-body• 90% FANS capable• All pilots are trained & checked to use

FANS• Encourage FANS implementation• Encourage Tower applications – D-ATIS

as a standard & DCL where needed• RNAV approaches in lieu of NPAs

(VOR or NDB based)EK Aero Services & ATM

Pilot Wish List - BOB• Why do some trials last forever?• Primary means of Communication?• Not associated with Airways, but

applicable to the whole FIR.• No Level changes unless on HF Voice?• Colombo – Log-on rejects?• Missing FIRs in the BoB? Seamless?• Boeing avionics supported, not Airbus?EK Aero Services & ATM

Pilot Wish List - SEA

• Bangkok FIR – why overflying only?• Singapore – Boeing only, expansion of

Ground System for Airbus avionics?• Vietnam• Sanya FIR?• Need more FIRs participating


CRA Issues?• Extend to include Mumbai & Delhi?• Continuous use of CPDLC over terrestrial

airspace:– Frequency congestion, with new Domestic

operators• Use the FOM

– Limit differences as much as possible• Operational Training standards

– Log-off while parked at the gate.• Consistency of CPDLC procedures across FIRs


CRA Issues?• HFDL trial for ATC messages, where

SATCOM coverage is limited• Uplinks via SITA since Aug/Sept 2005

have been dropping off• Airbus does not have a “Back on Track”

message• Automatic NDA & AIDC for ACC

Coordination – highly desireable• ADS reporting rates – by FIR, so we

can monitorEK Aero Services & ATM

EK Contact DetailsFANS issues/Problem Reports:

Grant Wilson,Manager, Aeronautical Services & ATMFlight Operations SupportEmirates Airline,PO Box 92,Dubai, UAE.Tel: 971-4-703-6455Mobile: 971-50-559-3216Fax: 971-4-703-6318E-mail: [email protected]: DXBONEK

Thank you!


FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix F to the Report

F - 1

FANS IMPLEMENTATION TEAM (FIT-SEA) FOR THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Composition of FANS Implementation Team (FIT) The FANS Implementation Team (FIT) will consist of representatives from aircraft and ancillary equipment manufacturers, airlines, data communication service providers (DSP), ATS providers, IATA, ICAO, IFALPA, and IFATCA. FIT-SEA Terms of Reference (TOR) The FANS Implementation Team for the South East Asia region (FIT-SEA) shall be responsible for system configuration and oversee the end-to-end monitoring process to ensure the FANS 1/A systems are implemented and continue to meet their performance, safety, and interoperability requirements. FIT-SEA shall: a) Determine the common operational architecture to support CPDLC and ADS; b) Support the implementation and operational benefits of CPDLC and ADS; c) Authorize and coordinate system testing and operational trials; d) Develop interim operational procedures to mitigate the effects of problems until such

time as they are resolved; e) Review de-identified problem reports and determine appropriate resolution; f) Monitor the progress of problem resolution; and g) Assess system performance based on information in Central Reporting Agency

periodic reports. Preparation of Reports The Central Reporting Agency (CRA) will report, as required, to FIT-SEA. FIT-SEA will report to the South East Asia ATS Co-coordinating Group (SEACG). ICAO will submit reports to appropriate sub-groups of APANPIRG.

(Adopted by the 11th Meeting of the South East Asia ATS Co-coordinating Group, 2003)

………………………….

1

FIT-SEA/4

FIT-SEA and CRA

This presentation provides FIT-SEA members with the information on:

1. Structure of FIT-SEA2. CRA Roles and Tasks3. Problem reporting and processing

procedures4. System performance analyses5. Q & A

2

Structure of FIT-SEA, and Flow of Problem Reports

ControllersACC States

Civil AviationAuthority

SEACGAPANPIRG

FIT-SEACRAPilots

Operators

FIT-SEA

Report

Report

Report

Problem Reports

ＲＡＳＭＡＧ ATM/AIS/SAR/SG

3

Sự tổ chức các thành viên CRA：

Members (Stakeholders) ofFANS Implementation Team

FANS Implementation Team (FIT) is the specialists’ work group of SEACG.

FIT-SEA members are the representatives of:Air Traffic Service ProvidersAircraft OperatorsState’s Regulatory Authorities Aircraft Manufacturers (Boeing & Airbus)Data Link Service Providers (SITA & ARINC)ATC Systems Manufacturers (THALES, NEC….)International Organizations (ICAO, IATA, IFALPA….)

4

Spirit of FIT-SEA Activity is Cooperation among Members

Civil AviationAuthorities

Civil AviationAuthorities

FIT & CRAFIT & CRA

ATC Centers(ACCs)

ATC Centers(ACCs)

Aircraft Operators

Aircraft Operators

DatalinkService Providers

DatalinkService Providers

AircraftManufacturers

AircraftManufacturers

All members participate in to resolve the problems.

Problem R

esolutio

n

Cooperation

Safe Opera

tion

5

CRA Roles and Tasks

Basically, CRA works for:Processing Problem Reports and Reporting to FIT-SEA Meeting

+ Collection of PRs, Analyses to identify cause(s), Coordination with FIT members for resolution

+ Report to FIT-SEA Meeting

Consolidation of System Performance+ ATS providers prepare the strategic analyses data of

CPDLC/ADS performance, and send them to CRA through State.+ CRA consolidates these data to report to FIT-SEA

Meeting.

6

Problem Reporting and Processing Procedures for FIT-SEA -1-

StateAuthority CRA

AirlinesATS ProvidersFIT Members

FIT-SEA

Problem Reports

APANPIRG

RASMAGATM/AIS/SARSG

Report withDe-identified Data

SEACG

7

FANS 1/A Problem Report FormA Problem Report is sent to FIT-SEA CRA through State authority. FIT-SEA CRA recommends basically to use this form. This PR Form is available at CRA website: www.crasa.cra-japan

Description

Aircraft TypeOriginator

Next CenterActive Center

Flight NumberRegistration

Position

Organization

Sector

Time UTCDate UTC

8

Problem Reporting and Processing Procedures for FIT-SEA -2-

TracingEvent

Re-constructionof Event

Coordination with FIT Members

for Resolution

ATSU should attach:• Flight Plan• D/L Comm. Logat ATS End System

• Other relevant Info.

Fact (Cause)Analysis

Problem Reports

SITAARINC

Local DSPprovide

DSP Logon request

by CRA

Problem Processing Sequence

Airlines should attach:• Flight Log• Flight Plan

9

System Performance Statistic Analyses – Periodic Status Report (for details, refer 3.11, FOM)

ATS Service Providers should produce the monthly statistic analyses data and report to CRA through the State authority: Uplink: Round trip transit delay timeDelay between the time a message is sent, and the time MAS received.Downlink: One way transit delay timeTime Difference between message time-stamp and the time message received at ATSU systemNumber of ConnectionsNumber of successful connectionsNumber of connection failure

10

An Example of Statistic Analysis:CPDLC Uplink Message Performance

CPDLC Uplink 95 & 99 Percentile

11

E-mail address of FIT-SEA CRA

Contact FIT-SEA CRA

[email protected]

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix H to the Report

H − 1

ADS / CPDLC Installed in Makassar ATSC for the Ujung Pandang FIR

I. ADS – C

The Automatic Dependant Surveillance (ADS) is a new method of surveillance, dependent on downlink reports from the aircraft's avionics. The ADS – C, which is installed in Makassar ATSC, is based on the existence of a contract between the ground and the airborne systems and can provide accurate surveillance reports in remote low traffic and oceanic areas that are out of radar coverage. The ADS reports are converted by data link equipped ground stations into an ADS track and presented on the controller's air situation display to provide enhanced situational awareness and the potential for reduced separation standards. Due to this capability, in the areas covered by radar, the ATC system will use in combination radar and ADS data whereas in out of coverage areas, the system will compute tracks based on ADS data.

II. CPDLC

The Controller Pilot Data Link Communication is a new mean of communication between controller and Aircrew, using data link communications (by VDL, HF data link or satellite communications), in conjunction with or instead of voice, for ATC messages. This data link application allows the direct exchange of text-based messages between a controller and a pilot, which are used operationally for:

• Information Exchange (Reports)

• Clearances, and

• Frequency management

CPDLC greatly improves communication capabilities in oceanic areas, especially in situations where controllers and pilots have previously had to rely on third party HF communications relay. Apart from the direct link, CPDLC adds a number of other benefits to the ATS system, such as:

• Allowing the flight crew to print messages. • Allowing the auto load of specific uplink messages into the Flight

Management System (FMS). This will reduce crew-input errors. • Allowing the crew to downlink a complex route clearance request, which the

controller can re-send when approved without having to type a long string of coordinates.

• Specific downlink messages and the response to some uplink messages will

automatically update the Flight Data Record in some ground systems.


H − 2

III. Requirements

ADS contracts and CPDLC communications are established between ground control and aircraft, following a logon to the ground communication network from the aircraft. The CPDLC and ADS data link applications were designed for transportation across the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN). Until the ATN becomes available, these FANS-1/A applications are able to run on the existing ACARS system. The current data link system relies on the Datalink Service Providers’ networks, such as SITA and ARINC, for the delivery of data link messages. So as to exchange data with aircraft, the future ADS/CPDLC functions requires an interface with an ACARS service provider like SITA. Uplink messages are processed through a FANS router, which determines the addressee (customer) of the message and delivers the message as appropriate. Messages are passed between the major Datalink Service Providers via an X.25 internetworking connection. In order to be interfaced with the ACARS Service Provider SITA, the new Makassar ATSC has to implement a connection with the SITA DHP, based on the X.25 protocol.


H − 3

IV. SITA CONNECTION

In order to implement the ADS/CPDLC applications, the Eurocat system needs a connection with the ACARS service provider SITA. To fulfill the requirement of having an operational link available, the Indonesian authorities will make a contract with SITA.

V. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

The Eurocat-X Thales system is in charge with the ADS/CPDLC applications. More precisely, the Air Ground Data Link function of the Eurocat system encompasses the following main capabilities:

• The management of ADS contracts, the reception of ADS reports and the

establishment of associated ADS tracks. • The management of the dialogue between pilots and controllers by

pilot/controller two way data link.

The AGDL will be interfaced with ACARS network for exchanging message with pilots and will support FANS-A and FANS-1 packages.

The AGDL function is broken down as follows:

• Context Management Application for the establishment and the maintenance

of the pilot/controller dialogue through the flight profile,

• ADS Processing, and

• CPDLC Processing

-------------------------------------------

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix I to the Report

I - 1

Myanmar ADS/CPDLC Activity- 7 July – 13 July 2006 Date Call sign Type Dep/Dest Route ADS CPDLC

7 Jul 06 SIA315 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 Failed NML

UAE384 B777 OMDS/VTBD L301/R468 Failed NML MAS4 B744 WMKK/EGLL L759 NML NML DLH778 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA6 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA10 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA325 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML AFR174 B777 LFPG/VTBD L507 Failed NML SIA446 B777 WSSS/VDIP L759 Failed NML SIA408 B773 WSSS/VDIP L759 NML NML MAS20 B744 WMKK/LFPG L759 NML NML QFA9 B744 WSSS/ERLL L759 NML NML SIA322 B744 WSSS/ERLL L759 NML NML QFA5 B744 WSSS/EDDF L759 NML NML MAS6 B772 WMKK/EDDF L759 NML NML SIA26 B744 WSSS/EDDF L759 NML NML MAS16 B744 WMKK/EHAM L759 NML NML AUA1 B772 LOWW/WMKK L759 NML NML QFA31 B744 WSSS/ERLL L759 NML NML QFA1 B744 VTBD/ERLL L507 NML NML UAE335 B773 RPLL/OMDB R468/L301 NML NML SIA21 A345 KEWR/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA335 B772 LIRF/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA327 B772 EGCC/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA25 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML MAS9 B772 LSZX/WMKK L759 NML NML SIA333 B744 LFPG/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA407 B773 VIDP/WISS L759 NML NML SIA447 B772 VIAR/WISS L759 NML NML SIA345 B744 LSZX/WISS L759 NML NML SIA317 B744 EGU/WISS L759 NML NML MAS91 B772 ESSA/WMKK L759 NML NML

8 Jul 06 SIA319 B744 EGLL/WSSS L507 NML NML DIH778 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA321 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML QRA2 B744 EGLL/VTBD L759 NML NML SIA408 B773 WSSS/VIDP L759 NML NML SIA20 B744 WMKK/LFPG L759 Failed NML SIA322 B744 WSSS/EGLL L759 NML NML SIA169 B747 VTBD/LFPG L507 NML NML AFR169 B747 VTBD/LFPG L759 NML NML QFA9 B744 WSSS/EGLL L759 Failed NML SIA334 B744 VTBD/LFPG L759 NML NML DLH779 B744 WSSS/EGLL L759 NML NML SIA334 B744 VTBD/LFPG L759 NML NML DLH779 B744 WSSS/EDDF L759 NML NML MAS10 B777 WMKK/LSZH L759 NML NML SIA26 B744 WSSS/EDDF L759 NML NML


I - 2


QFA1 B744 VTBD/EGLL L507 Failed NML SIA351 B772 EKCH/WSSS L759 Failed NML SIA327 B772 EGIL/WSSS L759 Failed NML SIA323 B772 EHAM/WSSS L759 Failed NML MAS5 B772 EDDF/WMKK L759 NML NML SIA460 B772 OPLC/WSSS L759 NML NML MAS21 B772 LFPG/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA25 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA317 B744 EGIL/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA407 B773 VIDP/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA333 B744 LFPG/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA33 B744 EGIL/WSSS L759 NML NML MAS6137 B744 EHAM/WMKK L759 NML NML

9 Jul 06 AFR/69 A343 VTBD/LFPG L507 Failed NML QFA9 B744 WSSS/EGLL L759 Failed NML SIA436 B772 WSSS/VFZR B463/G463 Failed NML MAS20 B744 WMKK/LFPG L759 Failed NML

10 Jul 06 QFA6 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA408 B733 WSSS/VIDP L759 Failed NML SIA416 B772 WSSS/VECC B463/L507 NML NML QFA9 B744 WSSS/EGLL L759 NML NML MAS20 B772 WMKK/LFPG L759 NML NML QFA5 B744 WSSS/EDDF L759 NML NML HVN533 B772 WTS/LFPG P646 NML NML

11 Jul 06 HQC7375 B744 EHAM/WSSS L759 Failed NML SIA3/9 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML DLH778 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 Failed NML SIA325 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA321 B744 EGLL/WSSS G463/B463 NML NML QFA2 B744 EGLL/VTBD L507 NML NML QFA6 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML AFR256 B777 LFPR/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA10 B744 DRII/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA408 B777 WSSS/VIDP L759 NML NML SIA436 B773 VGZR/WSSS G463/B463 NML NML SIA323 B772 EHAM/WSSS L759 Failed NML MAS10 B772 WMKK/LSZH L759 Failed NML MAS6 B772 MMKK/EDDF L759 NML NML UAE335 A333 RPII/OMDB L301 NML NML QFA1 B744 VTBD/EGLL L507 NML NML MAS9 B772 ESSA/WMKK L759 NML NML MAS21 B772 LFPG/WMKK L759 NML NML SIA333 B744 LFPG/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA345 B744 LSZH/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA317 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML UAE387 A332 VTBD/OMDB L301 NML NML

12 Jul 06 SIA3/9 B744 GGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA6 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 Failed NML


I - 3


SIA408 B777 WSSS/VIDP L759 NML NML UPS8 MDLL OMDB/RPLL L301 NML NML SIA436 B777 WSSS/VGZR B463/G463 NML NML SIA4/6 B772 WSSS/VECC B463/L507 NML NML AUA1 B777 LOWW/WMKK L759 NML NML EVA87 B744 RCTP/LFPG A201 NML NML SIA435 B777 VRZR/WSSS G463/B463 NML NML SIA347 B777 LTAG/WSSS M770/L515 NML NML SIA323 B777 EHAM/WSSS M770/L515 NML NML SIA327 B777 EGLL/WSSS M770/L515 NML NML QUR8/3 A330 VHHH/OMAA 4599 NML NML MAS5 B744 EGLL/WMKK L759 NML NML SIA25 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML EVA76 B744 EHAM/VTBD P646 NML NML MAS9 B777 LSZH/WMKK L759 NML NML SIA345 B744 LSZH/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA407 B777 VIDP/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA447 B777 VIAR/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA317 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA460 B777 OPLA/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA333 B744 LFPG/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA32 B744 EGLL/WSSS L759 NML NML

13 Jul 06 MAS6145 B744 EDDF/WMKK L759 NML NML UAE384 B744 OMDB/VTBD L301/R468 NML NML DL4778 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML QFA2 B744 EGLL/VTBD L507 NML NML QFA6 B744 EDDF/WSSS L759 NML NML SIA408 B777 WSSS/VIDP L759 NML NML MAS6 B772 WMKK/EDDF L759 NML NML MAS10 B744 WMKK/LSZH L759 NML NML

Air Lines # Logons Date # Logons SIA 57 7 Jul 06 32 MAS 22 8 Jul 06 27 QFA 22 9 Jul 06 4 UAE 5 10 Jul 06 7 DLH 5 11 Jul 06 26 AFR 4 12 Jul 06 24 AUA 2 13 Jul 06 8 EVA 2 QTR 1 HVN 1 SQC 1 UPS 1 QTR 1

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix J to the Report

J - 1

Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea and South China Sea DATA LINK IMPLEMENTATION

STATES FIR ESTIMATED DATE DATE COMPLETED NOTES

Commence ADS/CPDLC Operational Trial India Chennai

Kolkata Delhi Mumbai

2004 2004 2006 2006

Commenced 19 Feb 2004 Commenced 19 Feb 2004 Commenced 1 July 2006 Commenced 1 July 2006

Indonesia Ujung Pandang Jakarta

2007 2007

New Makasar ATS Centre commissioned 2006, fully ADS/CPDLC capable; Jakarta has stand alone system, will attempt to join BOB trials 2007, new ATS Centre in Jakarta under construction, planned implementation 2010

Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 2007 Myanmar Yangon TBA Conducting intermittent activity as part of BOB

Trial Philippines Manila TBA Sri Lanka Colombo TBA Had previously participated in BOB trials, some

equipment issues. Singapore Singapore 2007 Thailand Bangkok 2007 Had previously participated in BOB trials, some

equipment issues. Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh 2007 New ATS Centre Ho Chi Minh commissioned May

2006 Implement CPDLC - Data Link Communications only India Chennai

Kolkata Delhi Mumbai

2007 2007 2007 2007


J - 2


Indonesia U Jung Pandang TBA Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Myanmar Yangon Philippines Manila TBA Sri Lanka Colombo Singapore Singapore 2008 Thailand Bangkok Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh 2008 Implement 50 NM/50 NM based on RNP 10 India Delhi

Mumbai Chennai Kolkata

2010, all FIRs

Indonesia U Jung Pandang TBA Malaysia Kuala Lumpur TBA Myanmar Yangon TBA Philippines Manila TBA Sri Lanka Colombo TBA Singapore Singapore TBA Thailand Bangkok TBA Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh TBA Implement 30 NM/30 NM based on RNP 4 India Delhi

Mumbai Chennai Kolkata

TBA


J - 3


Indonesia U Jung Pandang TBA Malaysia Kuala Lumpur TBA Myanmar Yangon TBA Philippines Manila TBA Sri Lanka Colombo TBA Singapore Singapore TBA Thailand Bangkok TBA Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh TBA

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4Apprndix K to the Report

STATE/ ORGANIZATION FIR

LOGON CODE

Ground Station Manuf- acturer DSP ADS CPDLC AIDC FDP

Test, Ops Trial or Operational

Procedures Published BOB TRIAL

CONTACTS ATM contacts in bold text REMARKS

Melbourne YMMM Thales SITA YES YES YES YES Operational YES NO Geoff Whitely, Operations Manager Melbourne Centre, Tel 61 3 9235 7378, Fax 61 3 9235 2471, E-mail: [email protected]

Integrated System, ADS - B in 2006/07

Brisbane YBBB Thales SITA YES YES YES YES Operational YES NO Warren Beeston, Operations Manager Brisbane Centre, Tel, Fax , E-mail: [email protected]

Integrated System, ADS - B in 2006/07

Chennai VOMF ECIL SITA YES YES NO YES Ops Trial A1783/03, NOTAM A0700/03 A1177/03 A1796/05, updated 3 monthly AIP SUP 7/2006 published 2006

YES Mr. S.V. Satish Joint General Manager (ATM) Airports Authority of India Tel: +91 44 22561539Fax: +91 44 22560700E-mail: [email protected]

ADS-C Integrated with DPS, work in progress to integrate with RDPS

Kolkata VECF ECIL SITA YES YES NO YES Ops Trial A1278/00 NOTAM A0700/03 A1177/03 A1276/05, updated 3 monthly AIP SUP 6/2006 published 2006

YES Mr. S.N. Ray General Manager (ATM) Airports Authority of India Tel: +91 33 2511 9966Fax: +91 33 2511 8873E-mail: [email protected]

ADS-C Integrated with DPS, work in progress to integrate with RDPS

Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea incl ASIOACG, Indonesia- ADS/CPDLC equipage and ATS Status

INDIA Airport Authority of India

AUSTRALIA Airservices Australia

(last update 28 July 2006)

K - 1



LOGON CODE





Mumbai VABF Raytheon SITA YES YES NO YES Ops Trial Early 2006

A0894/06 Arabian Sea Trial YES

Mr. M.K. Nelli Deputy General Manager (ATM) Airports Authority of India Tel: +91 22 26828015Fax: +91 22 26828066E-mail: [email protected]

India commenced Ops Trial in Arabian Sea portion of Mumbai FIR from 1st July 2006

Delhi VIDF Raytheon SITA YES YES NO YES Ops Trial Early 2006

A0403/06 Arabian Sea Trial YES

Mr. Bakhshish Singh Deputy General Manager (ATM) Airports Authority of India Tel: +91 11 2565 4367 26828015Fax: +91 11 2567 5120E-mail: [email protected]

India commenced Ops Trial in Arabian Sea portion of Delhi FIR from1st July 2006

Jakarta WIIZ ARINC YES YES NO YES Test NO NO Mr. Nanang S. Taruf Deputy Director System & Procedure Air Navigation Directorate of Aviation Safety E-mail: [email protected] Mr. WiyonoATC System Specialist Soeta Itnl AirportTel: 62 21 5506178E-mail: [email protected]

Present stand alone equipment withdrawn from trial, intend to rejoin BOB trial in 2007. Jakarta Advanced ATM Centre to be commissioned 2010

Ujung Pandang

Thales ARINC YES YES YES YES Test NO NO Mr. Nanang S. Taruf Deputy Director System & Procedure Air Navigation Directorate of Aviation Safety E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Harjoso Deputy Director of ATS AP1 Telp : 62 21 6541961 ext 2310 Fax. 62 21 65866838 E-mail [email protected] [email protected]

Makassar Advanced ATM Centre comissioned 2006, datalink not yet operational

INDONESIA Directorate General of Air Communications Note: All datalink matters for the Jakarta and Ujung Pandang FIRs are managed by the FIT-BOB and BOB-CRA

K - 2



LOGON CODE





Kuala Lumpur

WMFC ARINC NO YES NO

Kota Kinabalu

WBKK ARINC NO YES NO

MALDIVES Male NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

MYANMAR Department of Civil Aviation

Yangon VYYF Thales SITA YES YES NO NO Ops Trial AIC A1/99 (10.1.99)

NO U Yoa Shu Director of ATS, DCA Myanmar Tel: 95 1 663838 Fax: 95 1 665124 Email [email protected]

Stand alone. Moved to new ATS Centre 2006, intermittent participation in BOB trial

SINGAPORE Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

Singapore WSJC Thales SITA YES YES NO YES Operational YES NO yeo_cheng_nam@caas,gov.sg Ops Trial completed 1999, integrated system

SRI LANKA Airport & Aviation Services (AASL) Ltd

Colombo VCCC Thales SITA YES YES NO YES Ops Trial AIC-A020F-2001

NO Mr. Ajith Nandana Wickremarachchi Senior Air Traffic ControllerAirport & Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) LimitedBandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, KatunayakeSri Lanka Tel: 94 777344338Fax: 94 11 2635105E-mail: [email protected]

Stand alone system, intermittent participation in BOB trial

Mr.Harizan Mohammad Yatim Director ATS Tel: 603-88714000 Fax: 603-88714290 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Mr Omran Zakarina Deputy Director ATS Email:[email protected]:

In early 2007 Malaysia will issue tender documentation for new installation.

MALAYSIA Department of Civil Aviation

K - 3



LOGON CODE





THAILAND AEROTHAI

Bangkok VTBB ARINC ARINC YES YES YES YES Ops Trial 3 monthly NOTAM

DEFER Mr. Tinnagorn Choowong Tel: 66-2-285 9975Mobile: 66-09-816 6486Fax: 66-2-285 9077E-mail: [email protected]

Stand alone system, intermittent participation in BOB trial

OMAN

YEMEN

ARINC YES Mr. Sarawut Assawachaichit Program Manager, Globalink Asia Tel: 66 2 2859435-6 Fax: 66 2 2859437 E-mail: [email protected]

CENTRAL REPORTING AGENCY (CRA)

YES Mr. Bradley Cornell Boeing Tel: 1 425 2946520 E-mail: [email protected]

IATA YES Soon Boon Hai Assistant Director Safety Operations & Infrastructure Tel: 65 62397267 Fax: 65 65366267 E-mail: [email protected]

K - 4



LOGON CODE





IFALPA YES Capt. Toby Gursanscky Regional Vice President South Pacific Tel: 61 2 99487532 E-mail: [email protected]

SITA YES Mr. David Fung SITA Regional Manager, AsiaAIRCOM CNS ServicesRoom 1201, 12/F Centre Point181-185 Glovcester RoadWanchaiHong Kong, China Tel: 852-9400 7979E-mail: [email protected]

ICAO YES Mr. Andrew Tiede Regional Officer ATM Tel: 66 2 5378189, ext. 152 Fax: 66 2 537 8199 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

K - 5

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4Appendix L to the Report

(last update July 2006)


LOGON CODE

Ground Station Manuf- acturer

DSP (e.g. SITA, ARINC) ADS CPDLC AIDC FDP


Procedures Published ADS/CPDLC TRIAL

CONTACTS (ATM contact in bold) REMARKS

CHINA Sanya FIR State to provide information for FIT-SEA/4

HONG KONG, CHINA CAD - Civil Aviation Department

Hong Kong YES (trial equipment)

YES (trial equipment)

YES (trial equipment)

YES Stop NO conducted from 1997 to 2002

Mr.W Y Leung Assistant Director-General of Civil Aviation (Engineering & Systems) Tel: (852) 2591 5000 Fax: (852) 2845 7160 email: [email protected]

Jakarta WIIZ??? ARINC ARINC YES YES NO YES Stop AIP Sup Nr:03/01 17May01

NO Mr. Nanang S. Taruf Deputy Director System & Procedure Air Navigation Directorate of Aviation Safety E-mail: [email protected] Mr. WiyonoATC System Specialist Soeta Itnl AirportTel: 62 21 5506178E-mail: [email protected]

Present stand alone equipment withdrawn from trial, intend to rejoin BOB trial in 2007. Jakarta Advanced ATM Centre to be commissioned 2010

Ujung Pandung

WAAZ??? Thales ARINC YES YES NO YES Test Trial NO NO Mr. Nanang S. Taruf Deputy Director System & Procedure Air Navigation Directorate of Aviation Safety E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Harjoso Deputy Director of ATS AP1 Telp : 62 21 6541961 ext 2310 Fax. 62 21 65866838 E-mail [email protected] [email protected]

Makassar Advanced ATM Centre comissioned 2006, datalink not yet operational

Southeast Asia - ADS/CPDLC equipage and ATS Status

INDONESIA Directorate General of Air Communications Note: All datalink matters for the Jakarta and Ujung Pandang FIRs are managed by the FIT-BOB and BOB-CRA

L - 1



LOGON CODE






JAPAN JCAB - Civil Aviation Bureau of Japan

Fukuoka RJJJ SITA YES YES with Oakland & Anchorage

YES Operational PUBLISHED completed in July 2006 Mr. Hiroshi Inoguchi Special Assistant to the Director, JCABATS Systems Planning Division, Tel: +81-3-5253-8111 ext 51128Fax: +81-3-5253-1663E-mail: [email protected]

FUKUOKA FIR Oceanic participating in the IPACG FIT

MALAYSIA Department of Civil Aviation

Kuala Lumpur

WMFC ARINC NO YES NO

Kota Kinabalu

WBKK ARINC NO YES NO

PHILIPPINES Manila NO Mr. Salvador G. Rafael Chief, ATC Division Tel: 632-8799160Fax: 632-8799160E-mail: [email protected]

State to provide information for FIT-SEA/4

SINGAPORE Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

Singapore WSJC Thales SITA YES YES NO YES Operational YES conducted from 1997 Mr. Yeo Cheng Nam Senior Engineer (Surveillance) [email protected] Mr. Kwek Chin Lin ATC Manager (Systems) [email protected]

Expects to join Viet Nam in operational trial commencing in 2007

THAILAND AEROTHAI

Bangkok VTBB ARINC ARINC YES YES YES YES Ops Trial 3 monthly NOTAM

NO Mr. Tinnagorn Choowong Tel: 66-2-285 9975Mobile: 66-09-816 6486Fax: 66-2-285 9077E-mail: [email protected]

In early 2007 Malaysia will issue tender documentation for new installation.

Mr.Harizan Mohammad Yatim Director ATS Tel: 603-88714000 Fax: 603-88714290 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Mr Omran Zakarina Deputy Director ATS Email:[email protected]:

L - 2



LOGON CODE






Ho Chi Minh

Thales ARINC YES system test. Operationa trial will be in 2007

YES Mr. Nguyen Manh Quang Deputy Director of ATS/AIS/MET/SAR Tel: (84-4) 8725272 Fax: (84-4) 8725281 e-mail: [email protected]

to be ready for operational trial in 2007.

Hanoi NO

ARINC Mr. Sarawut Assawachaichit Program Manager, Globalink Asia Tel: 66 2 2859435-6 Fax: 66 2 2859437 E-mail: [email protected]

CENTRAL REPORTING AGENCY (CRA)

YES Mr. Yoshiro NAKATSUJIK-1 Building, 3rd floor1-6-6, Haneda Airport. Ota-ku, Tokyo 144-0041, JapanTelephone: +81-3-3747-1231Fax: + +81-3-3747-1231E-mail: [email protected] OR [email protected]

FIT-SEA CRA, operated by CRA Japan.

IATA YES Soon Boon Hai Assistant Director Safety Operations & Infrastructure Tel: 65 62397267 Fax: 65 65366267 E-mail: [email protected]

IFALPA YES Capt. Suresh Menon Regional Vice President ASIA/East Tel: 61 2 99487532 Fax:(65) 6584 8869 E-mail: [email protected]

VIETNAM

L - 3



LOGON CODE






SITA YES Mr. David Fung SITA Regional Manager, AsiaAIRCOM CNS ServicesRoom 1201, 12/F Centre Point181-185 Glovcester RoadWanchaiHong Kong, China Tel: 852-9400 7979E-mail: [email protected]

ICAO YES Mr. Andrew Tiede Regional Officer ATM Tel: 66 2 5378189, ext. 152 Fax: 66 2 537 8199 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

L - 4

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix M to the Report

M − 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

CENTRAL REPORTING AGENCY FOR THE FANS IMPLEMENTATION TEAM - BAY OF BENGAL

(BOB-CRA) Objective 1) The objective of the Bay of Bengal Central Reporting Agency (BOB-CRA) operated by BOEING is to assist the members of the FANS Implementation Team for the Bay of Bengal (FIT-BOB) to plan and implement FANS 1/A based ADS and CPDLC systems in the Indonesian, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea FIRs (including ASIOACG member States) in accordance with the TOR of FIT-BOB. Terms of Reference 2) To meet the above objective the BOB-CRA shall:

a) share technical and operational information with the FIT-BOB members on the planning and implementation of ADS and CPDLC systems;

b) process the ADS/CPDLC problem reports (PR) received from the FIT-BOB members in the manner prescribed in the FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM) and the Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance of ATS Data Link Systems in the Asia and Pacific Region;

c) disseminate de-identified information on individual problem reports to the FIT-BOB members to enable airborne and ground system enhancement/ remediation; and

d) prepare periodic reports for the FIT-BOB and RASMAG. Area of Responsibility 3) The area of responsibility of the BOB CRA is defined as follows:

The BOB CRA will provide CRA services for the international oceanic airspace of the FIT-BOB member States, where implementation of ADS/CPDLC technologies is undertaken to enhance surveillance and communications capability, leading to significant benefits for operational efficiency and regularity of flights.

(last updated FIT-BOB/7 July 2006)

………………

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix N to the Report

N − 1

Draft Aeronautical Information Publication Supplement (for Thailand, Malaysia,

Indonesia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka etc)

Establishment and operation of a Central Reporting Agency for data link services

INTRODUCTION

1. In accordance with regional planning agreements made under the auspices of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to enhance the safety and efficiency of air navigation, data-link capabilities have been installed in the ……………..Area Control Centre.

2. In co-operation with ICAO and the International Air Transport Association

(IATA), a Central Reporting Agency (CRA) has been established to provide routine system and specific problem analyses for the progressive implementation of data link operations within Bay of Bengal area. The CRA facility shall be provided by The Boeing Company (Boeing) to investigate and resolve any data-link problems. IATA and Boeing shall jointly establish and operate the CRA.

3. Operational ADS/CPDLC trials within the Kolkata and Chennai FIRs

commenced on 19 February 2004.

4. Operational ADS/CPDLC trials within the (insert FIR name) FIR commenced/will commence on (insert date)

PROBLEM REPORTING

5 In accordance with the provisions of the FANS 1/A Operations Manual, all operators using the above airspace should submit problem reports arising from, or in connection with, the use of datalink to the CRA at:

[insert address]

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix O to the Report

CRA Program Engineering Coordinator: Brad Cornell Please email a signed copy of the CRA Data Responsiablities Agreement to [email protected]

Central Reporting Agency Data Responsibilities Agreement

What follows is a detailed process setting forth the manner by which Boeing, as the Central Reporting Agency (CRA), will handle problem report data received from FANS Interoperability Team (FIT) members. Boeing agrees to fulfill the functions of the CRA as defined in the process description below. Boeing’s use of both the Protected Data and the Release Data will be for purposes of advancing the use of FANS only and will not be used for any other commercial or marketing purpose or for Boeing-instituted litigation. It should be understood, however, that Boeing is legally obligated to respond to subpoenas and, in the event Boeing receives a subpoena for FANS Protected Data, it will provide notice to the owning FIT member prior to production under the subpoena. This agreement will be valid for a period of five years. Please evidence your concurrence to Boeing’s use of the FANS data by signature in the space provided below and return to the undersigned. Respectfully, David Allen

Concurrence / Date Name: ____________________________________ Company: ____________________________________ Cotact Information: ____________________________________



Central Reporting Agency Responsibilities

Definitions ATSU - Air Traffic Service Unit. An organization responsible for airspace and capable of exchanging FANS messages with aircraft. FIT - Future Air Navigation System (FANS) Interoperability Team. Team members include ATSUs, Operators (airlines), Datalink Service Providers (DSP), Pilot Unions, Equipment Manufacturers, and Regulatory Agencies. CRA - Central Reporting Agency. An organization tasked with the regular dissemination of de-identified statistical data based on monthly status reports received from FIT members. The CRA will also track problem reports and publish de-identified information for dissemination to FIT members. Problem resolution will be the responsibility of the appropriate FIT members. Protected Data - information which is held by the CRA for a limited time for the purpose of executing CRA responsibilities. This information is available only to the CRA and to those FIT member(s) directly involved in the problem. Release Data - information, derived from Protected Data, which has been de-identified as to its source (including, but not limited to the operator, ATSU, DSP and Airframe Manufacturer) and affected member(s). This information will be stored for an indefinite period and will be available to all FIT members. Data Context diagram - a figure used to show the processes and data used by the CRA. A legend is shown below:

Monthly trendhistory

ATSUs & DSPs

Monthly Incoming Report

Release monthlyreport

External (non-CRA) entity

data exchanged with CRA or within CRA processes

process executed by the CRA

surrounds protected data collections and processes.

collection of data stored at CRA



Monthly Trend Reports Protected Monthly Trend Data Reference the FANS Operations Manual for a copy of the monthly report form.

Released Monthly Trend Data Each month, the data provided in the monthly report forms will be summed and averaged. Processing of Monthly Trend Data



The CRA will compare the incoming monthly report received from each ATSU and DSP against identified performance requirements and against the aggregate monthly trend data. If any datum of the incoming report is outside required values or is radically different from the aggregate trend, then the FIT will investigate the cause and may create a new Problem Report. The CRA will add the incoming monthly report received from each ATSU and DSP to the aggregate trend data.

Monthly trend history

1. Compare to trends & reqs,2. Add to database,

3. discard

ATSUs & DSPs

Monthly Incoming Report

Release monthly report

All FIT members

Monthly Output report

Potential PRs



The CRA will destroy the incoming monthly report received from each ATSU and DSP as soon as possible, after the data are added to the aggregates and (if required) are inserted into a Problem Report. The CRA will release the aggregate monthly trend data to FIT members each month. Problem Reports

Protected Problem Report Data Reference the South Pacific Operations Manual for a copy of the problem report form.

Release Problem Report Data • Description of event without reference to actual time or affected parties • Analysis of root cause of problem • Recommended resolution • Status of FIT progress in resolving the PR • Status of FIT progress in implementing the solution



Processing of Problem Report Data The CRA will accept a new problem report from any FIT member. The CRA will then create a new De-identified Problem Report. All incoming information will be stored in the protected PR. The information will be kept in a central area. All protected information will be destroyed after problem resolution. The CRA may need to request additional information regarding the problem from the originating FIT member and/or from other FIT members. All of this additional information will be kept in the protected PR. When the FIT determines an appropriate resolution to the problem, a de-identified version of the resolution will be added to the Release Data. The CRA will publish the release PR data for access by all FIT members.

De-IdentifiedPRs

Working PRs

1. Create De-Identified PR,2. Acquire additional information,

3. Add solution to De-Identified PR,4. Destroy Protected Data

Request forAdditional Info

Any FIT member

new PR information

Publishreport

All FIT members

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix P to the Report

P − 1

FANS-1/A Problem Report

The monitoring process When problems or abnormalities are discovered, the initial analysis should be performed by the organization(s) identifying the problem. In addition, a copy of the problem report should be sent to the Central Reporting Agency (CRA) which will assign a tracking number. As some problems or abnormalities may involve more than one organization, the originator should be responsible for follow-up action to rectify the problem and forward the information to the CRA. It is essential that all information relating to the problem is documented and recorded and resolved in a timely manner. The parties who need to be involved in this monitoring process and problem tracking for the review and analysis of the data collected are: a) ATS service providers or organizations responsible for ATS system maintenance (where

different from the ATS provider); b) State regulatory authorities; c) Communication service providers; d) Aircraft operators; and e) Aircraft and avionics manufacturers.

FANS-1/A problem reports Problem reports may originate from many sources, but most will fall within two categories; reports based on observation of one or more specific events, or reports generated from the routine analysis of data. For example, a problem report could arise from an incident where there was confusion about the meaning of a clearance, as the result of inappropriate use of free text. The user would document the problem, resolve it with the appropriate party and forward a copy of the report to the CRA for tracking. This one incident may appear to be an isolated case, but the receipt of numerous similar reports by the CRA that could indicate an area that needs more detailed examination. To effectively resolve problems and track progress, the forms should be sent to the nominated point of contact at the appropriate organization and the CRA. The resolution of the identified problems may require: a) Re-training of system operators, or revision of training procedures to ensure compliance

with existing procedures; b) Change to operating procedures; c) Change to system requirements, including performance and interoperability; or d) Change to system design.


P − 2

FANS-1/A Problem Report

Number

Date UTC Time UTC

Registration Flight Number

Sector

Originator Aircraft Type

Organization

Active Center Next Center

Position Description


P − 3

Description of fields Field Meaning

Number A unique identification number assigned to this problem report. Organizations writing problem reports are encouraged to maintain their own internal list of these problems for tracking purposes. Once the problems have been reported to the CRA and incorporated in the database, a number will be assigned by the CRA and used for tracking by the FIT.

Date UTC UTC date when the event occurred. Time UTC UTC time (or range of times) at which the event occurred.. Registration Registration number (tail number) of the airplane involved. This should be in exactly

the same format as was used for the logon to the ATC Center, including any dashes used.

Flight Number Flight identifier (call sign) of the flight involved. This should be in exactly the same format as was used for the logon to the ATC Center, including any leading zeros in the number.

Sector The departure airport and destination airport for the sector being flown by the airplane involved in the event. These should be the ICAOError! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined. identifiers of those airports.

Originator Point of contact at the originating organization for this report (usually the author). Aircraft Type The airplane model involved (e.g. B777 or MD11). Where a dash number records a

significant change to the equipment fit (e.g. B747-400), the dash number should be provided as well.

Organization The name of the organization (airline, ATS provider or datalink service provider) that created the report.

Active Center ICAOError! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined. identifier of the ATC Center controlling the airplane at the time of the event.

Next Center If the problem involves a handover between ATC Centers, or occurs close to the time of a handover, then this should contain the ICAOError! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined. identifier of the Center to which control was being handed over.

Position Location of the airplane at the time of the event. This could be the latitude and longitude, but could also be specified relative to a waypoint on the route or an FIR boundary.

Description This should provide as complete a description of the situation leading up to the problem as is possible. Where the organization reporting the problem is not able to provide all the information (e.g. the controller may not know everything that happens on the airplane), it would be helpful if they would coordinate with the other parties to obtain the necessary information. The description should include: • A complete description of the problem that is being reported • The route contained in the FMS • Any flight deck indications, including EICAS messages that occurred

• Any MCDU scratchpad messages that occurred • Any indications provided to the controller when the problem occurred • Any problems being experienced with other datalink systems (such as AOC), or

indications that those other systems were unaffected • Any additional information that the originator of the problem report considers

might be helpful but is not included on the list above IF NECESSARY TO CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION, ADDITIONAL PAGES MAY BE ADDED, AND IF THE ORIGINATOR CONSIDERS IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, DIAGRAMS AND OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SUCH AS PRINTOUTS OF MESSAGE LOGS) MAY BE APPENDED TO THE REPORT.

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT/SEA/4 Appendix Q to the Report

Q − 1

FANS-1/A periodic status report

The monitoring process When problems or abnormalities are discovered, the initial analysis should be performed by the organization(s) identifying the problem. In addition, a copy of the problem report should be sent to the Central Reporting Agency (CRA) which will assign a tracking number. As some problems or abnormalities may involve more than one organization, the originator should be responsible for follow-up action to rectify the problem and forward the information to the CRA. It is essential that all information relating to the problem is documented and recorded and resolved in a timely manner. The parties who need to be involved in this monitoring process and problem tracking for the review and analysis of the data collected are: a) ATS service providers or organizations responsible for ATS system maintenance (where

different from the ATS provider); b) State regulatory authorities; c) Communication service providers; d) Aircraft operators; and e) Aircraft and avionics manufacturers.

FANS-1/A periodic status report The ATS Providers should complete the FANS-1/A Periodic Status Report at specified intervals agreed by the regional FANS Interoperability Team (FIT) for the dissemination of information and as an indication of system performance. Additionally, the report should identify any trend discovered in system deficiencies, the resultant operational implications, and the resolution, if applicable. Communications service providers are also expected to submit FANS-1/A Periodic Status Reports on the performance of their networks at specified intervals. These reports may contain planned or current upgrades to the systems and may not be required as often as the reports from ATS providers.


Q − 2

1.1 FANS-1/A Periodic Status Report Form Originating Organization

Date of submission Originator

Status for [Month/Year]

Performance Measure Data

DELAY All times will be calculated “less than” < the time band to the right.

Uplinks: Round-trip transit delay time (ATS Provider - delay between the time a message is sent and the time the Message Assurance (MAS) referring to this message is received) (Network provider - delay between the time a message arrives at the router and the time the MAS referring to this message arrives back at the router) Note: If access to individual message delivery media (VHF, SATCOM, HF) is not available to an individual ATSP then a report containing the total uplinks per time bands, total messages sent, and total lost messages for all media combined is acceptable.

Number of messages with a round trip transit delay time of less than X seconds: VHF Data Link (Individual records for CPDLC and ADS messages if possible) X= 10s 20s 30s 60s 90s 120s 180s >180s Total number of VHF uplink messages: Total number of VHF lost uplink messages: SATCOM Data Link (Individual records for CPDLC and ADS messages if possible) X= 10s 20s 30s 60s 90s 120s 180s >180s Total number of SATCOM uplink messages: Total number of SATCOM lost uplink messages: HF Data Link (Individual records for CPDLC and ADS messages if possible) X= 10s 20s 30s 60s 90s 120s 180s >180s Total number of HF uplink messages: Total number of HF lost uplink messages:

Downlinks: (ATS Provider - difference between embedded message time stamp and time message received from Network provider)

Lost messages determined by:

• Message assurance failure is received. After trying both VHF and SATCOM. Depending on reason code received, the message might, in fact, have made it to the aircraft.

• No message assurance or flight crew response is received by ATSU after 900 seconds

Note: If access to individual message delivery media (VHF, SATCOM, HF) is not available to an individual ATSP then a report containing the total uplinks per time bands, total messages sent, and total lost messages for all media combined is acceptable.

Number of messages with a downlink transit delay time of less than Y seconds: VHF Data Link (Individual records for CPDLC and ADS messages if possible) Y= 10s 15s 30s 45s 60s 90s > 90s Total number of VHF downlink messages: Total number of VHF lost downlink messages: SATCOM Data Link (Individual records for CPDLC and ADS messages if possible) Y= 10s 15s 30s 45s 60s 90s > 90s Total number of SATCOM downlink messages: Total number of SATCOM lost downlink messages: HF Data Link (Individual records for CPDLC and ADS messages if possible) Y= 10s 15s 30s 45s 60s 90s > 90s Total number of HF downlink messages: Total number of HF lost downlink messages:


Q − 3

UNAVAILABILITY (Actual time windows of scheduled outages) (Actual time windows of unscheduled outages) (ATS Providers - Instances of inability to communicate with individual aircraft)

For each window of unavailability, list start and end times and dates. Denote if notification was given to operators in each case. From: To: Notification (Y/N) Partial (Y/N)

OPERATIONAL INDICATORS Total number of aircraft with connections Total number of successful connections at first attempt Total number of flights unable to connect Significant system changes and impact on performance.

CPDLC ADS-C

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix R to the Report

R − 1

FIT-SEA Central Reporting Agency Responsibility Agreement

(Model document) What follows is a detailed process setting forth the manner by which the Air Traffic Control Association Japan (ATCA-J), as the Central Reporting Agency (CRA) of the FANS Implementation Team for South-East Asia (FIT-SEA) under the authorization of the FIT-SEA, will handle data received from the FIT-SEA members. The ATCA-J agrees to fulfill its functions as defined in the process described in the attachment herewith. The ATCA-J’s use of both the Protected Data and the Released Data will be for purpose of advancing, in the defined area of services, the use of ATS data link with FANS capability only and will not be used for any marketing purpose or ATCAJ-instituted litigation. It should be understood, however, that the ATCA-J is legally obligated to respond to subpoenas and, in the event the ATCA-J receives a subpoena for the Protected Data, it will provide notice to the owning FIT-SEA member prior to production under the subpoena. This agreement will become effective on (agreed date) for a period of three years or until the termination of ATCA-J’s role for the FIT-SEA CRA, whichever comes first. Please evidence your concurrence to ATCA-J’s use of the Protected Data by signature in the space provided below and return to the undersigned.

Respectfully, (Signature) Printed Name Managing Director Air Traffic Control Association Japan

State Civil Aviation Authority Concurrence

Name: Signature:

Title: Organization:

Address:

Phone: Fax:

E-mail: Date (day/month/year):


R − 2

1. DEFINITIONS ATSU: Air Traffic Service Unit. An organization responsible for the provision of air traffic service in the airspace concerned. CRA: Central Reporting Agency. An organization tasked with the regular dissemination of de-identified system performance data based on monthly Periodic Status Reports that are provided by ATSUs through respective State Civil Aviation Authority. CRA will also track problem reports and publish de-identified information for dissemination to FIT-SEA members. Problem resolution will be the responsibility of appropriate FIT-SEA members. FIT-SEA: FANS Implementation Team for South-East Asia. Establishment of this team was agreed by the South-East Asia ATS Co-ordination Group (SEACG) at its eleventh meeting held at ICAO Asia and Pacific Regional Office, Bangkok, Thailand from 24 to 28 May 2004. Terms of Reference (TOR) and Work Plan of the FIT-SEA were also agreed at this meeting (Appendices A and B of the meeting report refer). FIT-SEA members include:

a) South-East Asia States with CNS/ATM work stations;

b) Data Link Service Providers (DSPs) (including ARINC, SITA & INMARSAT);

c) Aircraft manufacturers (Boeing & Airbus);

d) ICAO;

e) IATA, IFALPA, IFATCA and other International Organizations; and

f) Representatives of participating airlines. Protected Data: Information, which is held by the FIT-SEA CRA for a limited time for the purpose of executing CRA responsibilities. This information is available only to those FIT members directly involved in the problem. Released Data: Information, derived from Protected Data, which has been de-identified as to its source (including, but not limited to the aircraft operator, ATSU, DSP and aircraft manufacturer). This information will be stored for an indefinite period and will be available to all FIT members. 2. PERIODIC STATUS REPORT

Monthly statistic analyses data in regard to ATS data link system performance are submitted to the FIT-SEA CRA from the ATSUs. The methodologies for the performance analyses are prescribed in FANS 1/A Operations Manual. If any datum of these reports does not meet the criteria prescribed in FANS 1/A Operation Manual, the FIT will take any action to identify the cause. These data will be summed and averaged by the FIT-SEA CRA to be an aggregated form, and will be reported to the FIT-SEA.


R − 3

3. PROBLEM REPORT 3.1 Protected Problem Report Data

Reference FANS 1/A Operations Manual for the problem report form.

All raw data used for the process of problem reports are to be protected, and, will be destroyed as soon as possible after the investigation completed. 3.2 Released Data will include:

a) Description of event without reference to actual time or affected parties;

b) Analysis and cause(s) of the problem;

c) Recommended resolution; and

d) Status of progress in reaction by the party. 3.3 Processing of Problem Report Data

a) The FIT-SEA CRA will receive a new problem report from the FIT-SEA member through the FIT-SEA member State.

b) All incoming information will be stored in the Protected Problem Report. The information will be kept in a separate server not to be able to be accessed from outside.

c) The FIT-SEA CRA may need to request additional information regarding the problem from the originator and/or other FIT members. All of this additional information will be kept in the Protected Problem Report.

d) When the FIT-SEA determines an appropriate resolution to the problem, a de-identified version of the resolution will be added to the Release Data.

e) The FIT-SEA CRA will publish the Release Problem Report Data for access by all FIT-SEA members.

***********************

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix S to the Report

S - 1

CHANGES TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF FIT-SEA CRA

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TORs) FANS IMPLEMENTATION TEAM, SOUTH-EAST ASIA

CENTRAL REPORTING AGENCY (FIT-SEA CRA)

1) The objective of the FIT-SEA CRA operated by the CRA Japan is to assist the FIT-SEA members to plan and implement ADS and CPDLC systems, which are based on FANS 1/A, in the South China Sea area in accordance with the TOR of FIT-SEA. 2) To meet the above objective the FIT-SEA CRA shall:

a) share the technical and operational information with the FIT-SEA members on the planning and implementation of ADS and CPDLC systems;

b) process the problem reports (PR) received from the FIT-SEA members States in the manner prescribed in the FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM) and the Guidance Material for End-to-End Safety and Performance of ATS Data Link Systems in the Asia Pacific Region;

c) disseminate the de-identified information on individual PR to the FIT-SEA members by means of access to the CRA Japan website; and

d) prepare periodic reports for the FIT-SEA and RASMAG. 3) The area of responsibility of the FIT-SEA CRA is defined as follows:

the FIT-SEA CRA will provide CRA services for the airspace within the Ho Chi Minh, Manila and Singapore FIRs, where implementation of ADS/CPDLC technologies is considered to enhance surveillance and communications capability, leading to significant benefits for operational efficiency and regularity of flights in the South China Sea area.”

4) The services of the FIT-SEA CRA operated by the CRA Japan are on a voluntary and temporary basis until a formal CRA is established by the FIT-SEA.

………………

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix T to the Report

T - 1

CHANGE TO THE TASK LIST OF FIT-SEA CRA

FIT-SEA CRA TASK LIST

The tasks of the FIT-SEA CRA concern information sharing with the FIT-SEA members on technical and operational information to support the planning and implementation of ADS/CPDLC systems, the process of problem reports (PRs), and preparation of periodic reports for the FIT-SEA.

Tasks Remarks

1. Information Sharing through FIT-SEA/RASMAG

a. Suggestions on planning and development of ground systems.

b. Advice on development of ADS/CPDLC operational

procedures.

2. Collection and processing of Problem Reports (PRs)

a. Collection of PRs from ATSU and aircraft operators States

b. Processing the PRs with;

* data analyses * reconstruction of the event * identification of causes/factors in cooperation with

appropriate parties; and * monitoring of rectification progress.

Via e-mail, postal mail and fax Engineers analyse the logs of ground systems

Consultation/cooperation with appropriate parties.

3. Dissemination of information

a. Report on the summary of PRs to the FIT-SEA b. Website;

* List of PRs * System performance analyses data prepared by the

Sates * Documents

Report to the FIT-SEA andRASMAG All information including PRs is de-identified FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM) & other documents Periodic reports and meeting summaries

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix U to the Report

U - 1

CHANGES TO THE PR PROCEDURES OF THE FIT-SEA CRA

PROBLEM REPORTING PROCEDURES OF THE FIT-SEA CRA 1. Contact Point

Manager: Mr. Yoshiro NAKATSUJI

Address: K-1 Building, 3rd floor 1-6-6, Haneda Airport. Ota-ku, Tokyo 144-0041, Japan

Telephone: +81-3-3747-1231

Fax: +81-3-3747-1231

E-mail: [email protected] OR [email protected] 2. Address to send FANS 1/A Problem Reports

FANS 1/A PRs should be sent to “CRA Japan” via any means of e-mail, postal mail or facsimile.

E-mail address: [email protected] OR [email protected]

Postal mail address: CRASA: K-1, 1-6-6, Haneda Airport, Ota-ku, Tokyo 144-0041, Japan

Facsimile: +81-3-3747-1231 3. FANS 1/A PR Form

The FIT-SEA members States that receive a FANS-1/A Problem Report (PR) from ATSU, aircraft operator or any other FIT-SEA members, are requested to send the PR to CRA Japan with the items prescribed in the paragraph 3.10, FANS 1/A Operations Manual (FOM).

It is recommended to use the FANS 1/A PR Form attached to contained in this paper procedures. When other form is used, all items required by the FOM should be included. This FANS 1/A PR Form is also available at the CRA Japan website.

4. Website address

http://www.crasa.cra-japan.org

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix U to the Report

U - 2

FANS 1/A PROBLEM REPORT Number

Date UTC Time UTC

Registration Flight Number

Sector

Originator Aircraft Type

Organization

Active Center Next Center

Position

Description

1

FITFIT--SEA CRA ReportsSEA CRA Reports

Combined FIT-BOB/7 and FIT-SEA/4ICAO Asia/Pacific Office

25 – 28 July 2006

FIT-SEA CRA

2

Introduction

FIT-SEA CRA has collected no problem reports and periodic status report on ADS/CPDLC system performance.This presentation contains the information on the IPACG FIT CRA activities within Tokyo/Fukuoka FIR in 2005.This presentation consists of: 1 Trend of Datalink Operations2 System Performances3 Problem Reports

3

1. Growth of Datalink Operation

Number of logons to Tokyo ACC and ATM Center has increased yearly by 25%.Proportions of FANS aircraft in the total oceanic traffic (430 – 450 per day):+ April 2002: 28% app. 120 flights/day + April 2005: 43% app. 190 flights/day+ April 2006: 53% app. 230 flights/dayVolume of ADS/CPDLC messages has expanded yearly by 25%.When this rising rate continues, FANS aircraft will reach almost 100% at least by 2010.

4

Increasing Number of Connections (3 years trend from 2003 to 2005)

Blue: 2003 Green: 2004 Red: 2005

Number of FANS Aircraft (per day)in Tokyo/Fukuoka FIR

50

100

150

200

250

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

number/day

Average of 2003 Average of 2004Average of 2005 Approximate curve (2003) Approximate curve (2004) Approximate curve (2005)

5

Growth of CPDLC Operation(3 years trend from 2003 to 2005)

CPDLC messages have increased yearly by 25%+.

Number of CPDLC Message

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Nov.

200

2Ja

n. 2

003

Mar.

200

3Ma

y. 2

003

Jul.

200

3Se

p. 2

003

Nov.

200

3Ja

n. 2

004

Mar.

200

4Ma

y. 2

004

Jul.

200

4Se

p. 2

004

Nov.

200

4Ja

n. 2

005

Mar.

200

5Ma

y. 2

005

July

. 20

05Se

p. 2

005

Nov.

200

5Number of Message

Total Downlink Uplink Approximate curve

6

2. CPDLC System Performance

In this section, we provide CPDLC system performance with:

+ CPDLC Downlink Performance+ CPDLC Uplink Performance+ CPDLC Uplink Message Success Rates+ Success Rates of Auto-transfer of

CPDLC Connections to the Next ATSU(Tokyo ACC – Oakland & Anchorage ARTCC)

Note: ADS system performance is not available, becausean ADS Report has no time-stamp, which is used tomeasure the transit-delay-time.

7

CPDLC Downlink Performance(One-way Trip Time: Difference of time-stamps between the avionics and ground systems)

CPDLC Downlink 95 & 99 Percentile

0:00:00

0:00:30

0:01:00

0:01:30

0:02:00

0:02:30

0:03:00

0:03:30

0:04:00

Jan.

200

5Fe

b. 2

005

Mar.

200

5Ap

r. 2

005

May.

200

5Ju

n. 2

005

Jul.

200

5Au

g. 2

005

Sep.

200

5Oc

t. 2

005

Nov.

200

5De

c. 2

005

Jan.

200

6One way time (h:mm:ss)

95Percentile 99Percentile

8

CPDLC Uplink Performance (Round Trip Time: Transit-delay-time from time-stamp of uplink to receipt time of MAS)

CPDLC Uplink 95 & 99 Percentile

0:00:00

0:01:00

0:02:00

0:03:00

0:04:00

0:05:00

0:06:00

0:07:00

Jan.

200

5Fe

b. 2

005

Mar.

200

5Ap

r. 2

005

May.

200

5Ju

n. 2

005

Jul.

200

5Au

g. 2

005

Sep.

200

5Oc

t. 2

005

Nov.

200

5De

c. 2

005

Jan.

200

6Round trip time (h:mm:ss)

95Percentile 99Percentile

9

CPDLC Uplink Message Success Rate

CPDLC Uplink Message Success Rates

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Jan.

200

5Fe

b. 2

005

Mar.

200

5Ap

r. 2

005

May.

200

5Ju

n. 2

005

Jul.

200

5Au

g. 2

005

Sep.

200

5Oc

t. 2

005

Nov.

200

5De

c. 2

005

Jan.

200

6

10

Success Rate of Auto-transfer of ConnectionsTokyo ACC – Oakland & Anchorage ARTCC

Success Rate of Auto-transfer of Connections

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Jan.

200

5Fe

b. 2

005

Mar.

200

5Ap

r. 2

005

May.

200

5Ju

n. 2

005

Jul.

200

5Au

g. 2

005

Sep.

200

5Oc

t. 2

005

Nov.

200

5De

c. 2

005

Jan.

200

6

Tokyo - Anchorage Tokyo - Oakland

11

3. Problem Reports

Problem Reports (PRs) were sent from ATSUs, aircraft operators, and an international organization. CRA Japan also generated PRs.To analyze the trend of problems, PRs were sorted into the groups with functions:

+ ADS+ CPDLC+ Connection+ Communication Link

12

When Problems were Sorted out :

Breakdown of Problem Reports (2005)

ADS14%

CPDLC19%

Others14%

Datalink37%

Connection16%

13

Trend of Problems by year (2001 – 2005)Communication linkage problem is still the major issue.

Trend of Problems by Functions & Years (2001 – 2005)

14

8

13

14

23

19

23

23

21

29

16

9

17

29

37

59

56

48

19

6 2

14

1

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

ADS CPDLC Connection Datalink Others

14

Lessons Learnt - Problems Relating to ADSAll these problems were reported from controllers.

WX deviation caused abnormal flight path on ATC screen. Pilots are required of WP re-sequencing, when deviating in FD heading mode. [Case-1]Flight path was displayed on ATC screen different from FPL route. [Case-2]An ADS Emergency was received from the aircraft not in emergency. ATC screen kept displaying the emergency tag, even after the pilot reported, that ‘emergency’ had cancelled. Then, the controller puzzled….?

15

Lesson Learned [Case-1]

WX Deviation caused abnormal flight path on ATC screen.

Weather Planned Route

Fix-A

Heading Select

21 or 7 NM

Track display on ATC screen

Actual flightPath

When deviating with ‘Heading Select Mode’, pilots are requested to re-programWP sequence on FMS after passing ‘Abeam’ to fly direct to the subsequent WP.

(ref: FOM 6.10.2)

Pilot should re-sequence to the next WP on FMS.

next WP

16


Flight path was displayed on ATC screen different from FPL route.

Fix–‘A’

Fix–‘B’

Fix–‘C’

‘X’

ADS periodic report

Basic data : (current position)Predict route (next) : Fix-‘A’Predict route (next+1) : Fix-‘B’Fixed intent data : ‘X’Intermediate intent data : Fix-‘A’ (dir./dist.)

Fix-‘B’ (dir./dist.)

17

The Problem Reports Related to CPDLC

Assigned altitudes were not reported within CPDLC messages, for specified Aircraft.[Case-3]Mixed use of HF voice and CPDLC caused a confusion between the pilot & controller.In response to ATC clearance, the pilot replied that they did not request.

18


Assigned Altitude was Not Reported on CPDLC Message, in Case of Specific Avionics

3602N14430.5E 19:45 FL330 COMFE 19:53 DRIVR 04:07

-34C 260/159 M0.83 ABETS 19:44 FL330

The fix where SEND button depressed, Time stamp, Flight level

Next waypoint, ETA

Next+1 waypoint

Reported waypoint, ATO, Flight level

RTCA258A: OptionalCPDLC message of some specific avionics does not include altitude.

19

The Problem Reports Related to Connection

Logon/Connection failure caused by;a. wrong flight identification or tail number.

- Lesson Case-4

b. use of wrong satellite.c. message delivery failure. d. logon trial by an aircraft flying to non-

datalink environment where ADS/CPDLC isnot applied.

Failure of automatic transfer of connection to thenext ATSU.

20

Lesson Learned: [Case-4]

Logon/Connection Failure Caused by Wrong Flight Identification or Tail Number

ATSU

ATC End System

FN_CONTail number : 1234

AirlineOperation

Because of wrong tail numberin FN_CON message,

ATC end system could not establish LOGON with aircraft.

Flight PlanTail number: 1234A

21

The Problem Reports Related to Datalink

Near VHF coverage fringe area, communication tend to be unstable - Lesson [Case-5]

Message down-linked with several hours delay- Lesson [Case-6]

Sequence of messages was reversed.Mixed use of HFDL and SATCOM.

22


Near VHF Coverage Fringe Area, VHF Datalink Communication Tends Unstable.

VHF Coverage

DSP sends MAF (Message Assurance Failure) to ATC CenterATC uplinked a

message to aircraft

VHF ? SATCOM ??...

VHF Coverage

23

Lesson Leaned [Case-6]Message was Downlinked with Delay of Hours

VHF Coverage- ‘A’

VHF Coverage- ‘B’

No Linkage withSATCOM

Stacked Messagesdownlinked

24

Summary

FANS aircraft have increased and will increase by 25% yearly, and ADS/CPDLC message volume will be expanding as the same rate. It is conceivable that FANS aircraft account for almost 100% at least by 2010.SATCOM Ground systems need more capacity to accommodate these communication.We need to exchange more ‘Lessons Learnt Information’in FIT-SEA and FIT-BOB group for better trials or implementation.Monitoring of interoperability performance of ADS and CPDLC is necessary to ensure safe ATS operations. ADS/CPDLC trials need CRA activities.

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix W to the Report

W - 1

GUIDANCE MATERIAL FOR END-TO-END SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF

AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE (ATS) DATALINK SYSTEMS IN THE ASIA/PACIFIC REGION

1 Background

1.1 The Asia Pacific Airspace Safety Monitoring (APASM) Task Force established by the Asia Pacific Air Navigation Planning Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) noted that requirements for monitoring aircraft height-keeping performance and the safety of reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) operations had been more comprehensively developed than for other Air Traffic Management (ATM) services, such as reduced horizontal separation based on required navigation performance (RNP), and monitoring of Air Traffic Services (ATS) datalink systems. For RVSM, a handbook with detailed guidance on the requirements for establishing and operating Regional Monitoring Agencies (RMA) was at an advanced stage of development by the ICAO Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP). (The RMA Handbook has since been completed and is expected to be adopted by ICAO in 2005). There was no comparable document under development by ICAO for ATS datalink applications and so the APASM Task Force developed draft guidance material for the Asia/Pacific Region covering safety and performance monitoring for ATS datalink applications.

1.2 The experience gained by the Informal Pacific ATC Coordinating Group (IPACG) and the Informal South Pacific ATS Coordinating Group (ISPACG) FANS Interoperability Teams (FITs) and the supporting Central Reporting Agency (CRA) to monitor automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) and controller pilot datalink communication (CPDLC) performance for both aircraft and ground systems was used as a resource on which to develop monitoring guidance material.

1.3 The APASM Task Force was succeeded by the Regional Airspace Safety Monitoring Advisory Group (RASMAG) of APANPIRG, which decided to adopt this APASM material and further develop it to become the standard guidance material for end-to-end safety and performance monitoring of ATS datalink systems in the Asia Pacific region.

1.4 Within the remainder of the Asia Pacific Region, the Bay of Bengal and South East Asia Coordinating Groups are mirroring what has been done by IPACG and ISPACG and have created implementation teams and CRAs to accomplish this activity. These implementation teams also perform the interoperability activities which will continue after the implementation is complete. This guidance material focuses on interoperability issues, both prior to and following implementation.

2 Requirements for Safety and Performance Monitoring

2.1 Annex 11, at 2.26.5, states:

“Any significant safety-related change to the ATC system, including the implementation of a reduced separation minimum or a new procedure, shall only be effected after a safety assessment has demonstrated that an acceptable level of safety will be met and users have been consulted. When appropriate, the responsible authority shall ensure that adequate provision is made for post-implementation monitoring to verify that the defined level of safety continues to be met.”

2.2 ATS datalink applications, such as ADS, CPDLC and ATS interfacility data communication (AIDC), are increasingly being used in support of separation and particularly of reduced separation minima. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide the monitoring required by Annex 11 to those datalink services. Datalink services comprise both a technical and an operational element. These


W - 2

guidelines, which apply only to the technical element, propose a structure and methodology for monitoring the technical end-to-end safety performance of air-ground and ground-air datalink services. The operational aspects of datalink monitoring are carried out by the appropriate Safety Monitoring Agency (SMA).

2.3 Ground-ground datalink systems supporting applications such as AIDC are essentially simpler and more direct than air-ground systems, and monitoring can be achieved directly between the concerned ATS providers. However, it should be noted that States have a responsibility to ensure that monitoring of ground-ground datalink systems is carried out in support of the implementation of reduced separation minima. Monitoring of ground-ground datalink performance is outlined in Appendix A.

2.4 The requirement for on-going monitoring after implementation is based on several factors, including both degradation of performance with time and changes to equipment which may occur, either through modification or under renewal programmes. The use of ADS-B to support separation and the introduction of the Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) will bring significant changes to the system that will require monitoring programmes.

3 Purpose of Guidance Material

3.1 The purpose of this guidance material is to:

a) Provide a set of working principles common to all States implementing ATS datalink systems.

b) Provide detailed guidance on the requirements for establishing and operating an interoperability team.

c) Provide detailed guidance on the requirements for establishing and operating a Central Reporting Agency.

d) Promote a standardized approach for implementation and monitoring within the Region.

e) Promote interchange of information among different Regions to support common operational monitoring procedures.

4 Establishment and Operation of an Interoperability Team and CRA

4.1 Recognizing the safety oversight responsibilities necessary to support the implementation and continued safe use of ATS datalink systems, the following standards apply to any organization intending to fill the role of an interoperability team:

a) The organization must receive authority to act as an interoperability team as the result of a decision by a State, a group of States or a regional planning group, or by regional agreement.

b) States should appoint a CRA that has the required tools and personnel with the technical skills and experience to carry out the CRA functions.

c) States should ensure that the CRA is adequately funded to carry out its required functions.


W - 3

5 Interoperability Teams

5.1 The technologies adopted to provide ATS datalink functionality exist in several different domains (e.g. aircraft, satellite, ground network, air traffic service units and human factors) and these elements must be successfully integrated across all domains. Airborne and ground equipment from many different vendors, as well as the sub-systems of several different communication networks, must inter-operate successfully to provide the required end-to-end system performance. In addition, standardised procedures must be coordinated among many different airlines and States to provide the desired operational performance. Technical and operational elements must then coalesce to allow the various applications to demonstrate mature and stable performance. Only then can essential benefits be realized.

5.2 A team approach to interoperability is essential to the success of any ATS datalink implementation, an important lesson learned by the ISPACG, whose members were the first to implement CNS/ATM applications using FANS 1/A systems. Stakeholders had worked closely together during the initial development and subsequent certification of FANS-1/A, but even though a problem-reporting system was in place when FANS-1/A operations commenced, many problems went unresolved and it was not possible in the short term to adopt the new operational procedures that would provide the expected benefits of higher traffic capacity and more economic routes. Therefore, an interoperability team was formed to address both technical and operational issues and help to ensure that benefits would result. However, the ISPACG also realized that a traditional industry team approach would not be effective. Daily attention and sometimes significant research would be required if the many issues were to be adequately resolved. To address these concerns, the interoperability team created a dedicated sub-team, the CRA, to perform the daily monitoring, coordination, testing, and problem research tasks outlined by the team. This approach is similar to that taken for RVSM implementations where supporting groups provide aircraft height keeping monitoring services.

5.3 Although the monitoring process described above was developed for FANS-1/A based CPDLC and ADS applications, it applies equally to ATN-based ATS applications. This was validated during the Preliminary EUROCONTROL Test of Air/ground data Link (PETAL) implementation of ATN-based ATS datalink services in Maastricht Area Control Centre.

5.4 Role of the Interoperability Team

5.4.1 The role of the interoperability team is to address technical and operational problems affecting the transit of datalink aircraft through international airspace. To do this, the interoperability team must oversee the end-to-end monitoring process to ensure the datalink system meets, and continues to meet, its performance, safety, and interoperability requirements and that operations and procedures are working as specified.

5.4.2 The specific tasks of an interoperability team are:

a) Initiate and oversee problem reporting and problem resolution processes.

b) Initiate and oversee end-to-end system performance monitoring processes.

c) Oversee the implementation of new procedures.

d) Report to the appropriate State regulatory authorities and to the appropriate ATS coordinating group.

5.4.3 Terms of reference for an interoperability team are shown at Appendix B.


W - 4

5.5 Interoperability Team Members

5.5.1 The principal members of an interoperability team are the major stakeholders of the sub-systems that must interoperate to achieve the desired system performance and end-to-end operation. In the case of ATS datalink systems, the major stakeholders are aircraft operators, ATS providers, and communication service providers. Other stakeholders such as international organizations, and airframe and avionics manufacturers also play an important role and should be invited by the major stakeholders to contribute their expertise.

6 Central Reporting Agencies

6.1 Work must be done on a daily basis for an interoperability team to achieve its important goals of problem resolution, system performance assurance, and planning and testing of operations that will enable benefits. A dedicated sub-team, the CRA, is required to do the daily monitoring, coordination, testing and problem research tasks for the interoperability team. Appendix C shows a table of CRA tasks and the associated resource requirements.

6.2 A CRA should be established in order to determine the safety performance of the datalink systems before the implementation of reduced separation minima in a particular area, and it should remain active throughout the early stages of implementation. However, as the performance of the systems stabilises to a satisfactory level, it should be possible to reduce the number of CRAs in the region by combining responsibility for different areas.

6.3 The functions of a CRA are:

a) To develop and administer problem report processes.

b) To maintain a database of problem reports.

c) To process monthly end-to-end system performance reports from air traffic service providers.

d) To coordinate and test the implementation of new procedures resulting from ATS datalink systems for a given region.

e) To administer and monitor an informal end-to-end configuration process.

f) To manage data confidentiality agreements as required.

g) To identify trends.

h) To provide regular reports to the interoperability team.

6.4 CRA Resource Requirements

6.4.1 To be effective, the CRA must have dedicated staff and adequate tools. Staffing requirements will depend on the complexity of the region being monitored. There are several factors that affect regional complexity from an ATS monitoring standpoint such as dimensions of the airspace, variety in operating procedures, number of airlines, number of airborne equipment variants, number of air traffic service providers, number of ground equipment variants and number of communication service providers.


W - 5

6.4.2 The CRA must be able to simulate an ATS ground station operational capability to the extent of exercising all combinations and ranges of CPDLC uplinks and ADS reports. The CRA must also have access to airborne equipment: a test bench is adequate, though engineering simulators that can be connected to either the ARINC or SITA communication network can offer additional capability for problem solving. In support of the datalink audit analysis task, the CRA must have software that can decode communication service provider audit data and produce usable reports. Without these tools it is virtually impossible for a CRA to resolve problems or monitor system performance.

6.4.3 Coordination is an important part of the CRA’s job. In the pursuit of problem resolution, action item resolution, monitoring and testing, many issues arise that require coordination among the various stakeholders. The CRA has a primary responsibility to provide this coordination function as delegated by the interoperability team. Coordination between CRAs is also important, particularly to expand the information database on problems and trends; there may be a need for CRA coordination within the region and with CRAs in other regions. An incident may appear to be an isolated case, but the collation of similar reports by a CRA or the CRA coordinating group might indicate an area that needs more detailed examination

7 Working Principles for Central Reporting Agencies

7.1 The working principles in this guidance material result from the combined experience of the North Atlantic FANS Implementation Group, ISPACG FANS Interoperability Team, IPACG FANS Interoperability Team, and the ATN implementation in Maastricht ACC.

7.2 Confidentiality Agreements

7.2.1 Confidentiality of information is an established principle for problem reporting, and so reports must be de-identified before being made accessible to other agencies. However, it is necessary for the CRA to retain the identity of the original reports so that problem resolution and follow-up action can be taken.

7.2.2 The CRA must initiate and maintain confidentiality agreements with each entity providing problem reports.

7.3 Problem Identification and Resolution

7.3.1 The problem identification and resolution process, as it applies to an individual problem, consists of a data collection phase, followed by problem analysis and coordination with affected parties to secure a resolution, and recommendation of interim procedures to mitigate the problem in some instances. This is shown in the diagram below.


W - 6

S T A K E H O L D E RC R E A T E S F IX

A N D /O RW O R K A R O U N D

E N T E R INP R

D A T A B A S E

D E T E R M IN EP R O B A B L E C A U S E /

A S S IG N T OS T A K E H O L D E R

A N A L Y S E /D E C O D EL O G

F IT R E V IE W

P R O B L E MR E P O R T

R E Q U E S T L O G F R O MD A T A L IN K S E R V IC E

P R O V ID E R S

C O R R E L A T EW IT H R E P O R T

IN T E R O P E R A B IL IT YT E A M R E V IE W

P R O C E S S

IN T E R O P E R A B IL IT YT E A M W E B S IT E

D S P( A R IN C /S IT A /A V IC O M /e tc )

7.3.2 The problem identification task begins with receipt of a report from a stakeholder, usually an operator, ATS provider or communication service provider. If the person reporting the problem has used the problem reporting form provided in the appropriate regional manual, then data collection can begin. If not, additional data may have to be requested from the person reporting the problem.

7.3.3 The data collection phase consists of obtaining message logs from the appropriate parties (which will depend on which service providers were being used and operator service contracts). Today, this usually means obtaining logs for the appropriate period of time from the communication service providers involved. (In the future, with ATN development, additional providers will become involved and airborne recordings as per EUROCAE ED-112 should become available.) Usually, a log for a few hours before and after the event that was reported will suffice, but once the analysis has begun, it is sometimes necessary to request additional data, (perhaps for several days prior to the event if the problem appears to be an on-going one).

7.3.4 Additionally, some airplane-specific recordings may be available that may assist in the data analysis task. These are not always requested initially as doing so would be an unacceptable imposition on the operators, but may occur when the nature of the problem has been clarified enough to indicate the line of investigation that needs to be pursued. These additional records include:

• Aircraft maintenance system logs. • Built-In Test Equipment data dumps for some airplane systems. • SATCOM activity logs.

7.3.5 Logs and printouts from the flight crew and recordings/logs from the ATS provider(s) involved in the problem may also be necessary. It is important that the organization collecting data for the analysis task requests all this data in a timely manner, as much of it is subject to limited retention.


W - 7

7.3.6 Once the data has been collected, the analysis can begin. For this, it is necessary to be able to decode all the messages involved, and a tool that can decode every ATS datalink message type used in the region is essential. These messages include:

• AFN (ARINC 622), ADS and CPDLC (RTCA DO-258/EUROCAE ED-100) in a region operating FANS-1/A.

• Context Management, ADS and CPDLC applications ICAO Doc 9705 and RTCA DO-280/ED-110) in a region using ATN.

• FIS or ARINC 623 messages used in the region.

7.3.7 The analysis of the decoded messages requires a thorough understanding of the complete message traffic, including:

• Media management messages. • Relationship of ground-ground and air-ground traffic. • Message envelope schemes used by the particular datalink technology

(ACARS, ATN, etc).

7.3.8 The analyst must also have a good understanding of how the aircraft systems operate and interact to provide the ATS datalink functions, as many of the reported problems are airplane system problems.

7.3.9 This information will enable the analyst to determine a probable cause by working back from the area where the problem was noticed to where it began. In some cases, this may entail manual decoding of parts of messages based on the appropriate standard to identify particular encoding errors. It may also require lab testing using the airborne equipment (and sometimes the ground networks) to reliably assign the problem to a particular cause.

7.3.10 Once the problem has been identified, then the task of coordination with affected parties begins. The stakeholder who is assigned responsibility for fixing the problem must be contacted and a corrective action plan agreed.

7.3.11 This information (the problem description, the results of the analysis and the plan for corrective action) is then entered into a database covering datalink problems, both in a complete form to allow continued analysis and monitoring of the corrective action and in a de-identified form for the information of other stakeholders. These de-identified summaries are reported at the appropriate regional management forum.

7.4 Mitigating Procedures

7.4.1 The CRA’s responsibility does not end with determining the cause of the problem and identifying a fix. As part of that activity, and because a considerable period may elapse while software updates are applied to all aircraft in a fleet, procedural methods to mitigate the problem may have to be developed while the solution is being coordinated. The CRA should identify the need for such procedures and develop recommendations for implementation by the service providers and operators involved.

7.5 Routine Datalink Performance Reporting

7.5.1 An important part of datalink safety performance is the measurement of the end-to-end performance. This should, of course, be carried out prior to implementation of new separation minima, but should continue on a regular basis to give assurance that the safety requirements continue to be met. Datalink performance assessment is based on round-trip time,


W - 8

availability, integrity, reliability and continuity, and ATS providers should provide the CRA with regular measurements of these parameters.

7.5.2 The CRA will use the information supplied by ATS providers to produce a performance assessment against the established datalink requirements for the region. These requirements are set according to the separation minima being applied, and so may differ within different areas according to usage.

7.5.3 The CRA performance assessment should be made available to the RMA and SMA for their calculation of system performance against the minimum values defined in the FANS 1/A Operations Manual. The system performance criteria are at Appendix D.

7.5.4 ADS round-trip times are normally measured as the time between sending a contract request and receiving the associated Acknowledgement (ACK) or Message Assurance (MAS) message. CPDLC round-trip times are normally determined from the ATSU end-system time stamps for transmission of the uplink message and reception of the associated MAS.

7.5.5 ADS and CPDLC downlink one-way times are defined by the difference between the aircraft time stamp and the ASTU end-system reception time stamp.

7.5.6 ADS and CPDLC success rates are only available for uplink messages. The success rate is expressed as the percentage of messages that receive a successful ACK or MAS within a specified time.

7.5.7 AIDC round trip times may be obtained from the difference between message transmission and reception of the Logical Acknowledgement Message (LAM). The success rate is expressed as the percentage of messages that are successfully delivered to the destination ATSU.

7.6 Configuration Monitoring

7.6.1 A variety of technical systems are involved in the datalink process and changes, particularly to software and software parameters, are not infrequent; any change may have an impact on the overall performance of the datalink. It is therefore important that the CRA is kept informed of each change of configuration of each system. With this information it is often possible to identify changes that lead to improvements or deteriorations in the datalink performance or that may be associated with particular problems.

7.6.2 All ATS providers, communication service providers, aircraft operators and avionics suppliers should therefore report all system configuration changes to the CRA. The CRA will then maintain a database of configuration changes for each system or sub-system. It is not necessary for the CRA to know the details of changes, but where a change is expected to affect performance, information on the likely effect should be provided.

7.7 New Procedures and Improved Performance Requirements

7.7.1 The CRA may recommend new end-to-end datalink system performance requirements, either to accommodate new operational procedures or to take account of recognised problems.

7.7.2 The CRA may recommend the testing and implementation of new procedures.

---------------------------


W - 9

APPENDIX A

METHODOLOGY FOR MONITORING AIDC

1 Introduction

1.1 AIDC plays an important role in ATC coordination, and may become a significant element of ATC in the support of reduced separation minima. The performance of AIDC operations should therefore be monitored as part of the required monitoring process prior to the implementation of reduced separation minima.

1.2 AIDC operates essentially over fixed networks and generally has only two or three involved parties: the ATS providers and network providers. It is therefore generally unnecessary to develop a FIT-type approach to safety monitoring; instead such monitoring and problem identification and resolution can be carried out directly by the concerned parties.

1.3 Because, in general, fixed networks are used for AIDC, continuous performance monitoring after implementation of reduced separation minima is not generally necessary, though annual performance and availability checks are recommended. Monitoring should also take place after any changes to the network or the end-user equipment. This will be particularly important during the implementation of the ATN.

2 AIDC Technical Performance

2.1 Two major criteria for monitoring AIDC technical performance are the achievement of acceptable delivery times and the reliability of message delivery. Delivery times can best be measured in terms of the end-to-end round trip time. Reliability is measured as the AIDC message delivery success rate.

3 End-to-end Round-Trip Time

3.1 The end-to-end round trip message time may be measured as the time difference between the transmission of an AIDC message and the reception of the corresponding Logical Acknowledgement Message (LAM) or Logical Rejection Message (LRM). If the originating AIDC system receives neither a LAM nor an LRM from the receiving system within a specified time limit (a variable system parameter, typically 5 minutes), it will declare a time-out, and the time parameter must be used as the round-trip time.

3.2 Any AIDC message requiring a LAM response may be used; CPL messages are perhaps the most used and therefore the most convenient.

3.3 A large number of measurements of round-trip times should be averaged for performance reporting.

4 Message Delivery Success Rate

4.1 The Message Delivery Success Rate may be expressed as the percentage of messages successfully delivered to the destination ATSU.

4.2 Unsuccessful delivery is indicated by either the reception of an LRM or a time-out due to non-reception of a LAM within a specified time.

4.3 Case-1: LRM Received


W - 10

4.3.1 When an AIDC system detects an error in a received message, it responds with a Logical Reject Message (LRM) to the originating system. Receipt of the LRM indicates that the original message was not successfully delivered.

4.4 Case-2: Time out

4.4.1 The time-out indicates non-delivery of the message (and initiates various actions within the AIDC system).

Message Delivery Success Rate = 1 – (LRM + TO) TOT

Where: LRM = number of received LRMs TO = number of Time Outs TOT = total number of messages

4.5 A large number of measurements of delivery success rates should be averaged for performance reporting.

5 Reporting

5.1 ATS providers should report the results of AIDC performance monitoring to RASMAG.

6 Caution

6.1 It is known that there are incompatibilities between some ATS end-systems leading to a situation in which a satisfactorily received message may not be able to be properly processed. In at least one case, the receiving system has been programmed to send neither LAM nor LRM in response to such messages.

6.2 This will result in a distortion of the true round-trip time and success rate for the originating end-system.

6.3 It is recommended that ATS providers ensure that all involved parties are aware of such situations so that affected messages may be excluded from the performance measurement data.

-------------------------


W - 11

APPENDIX B

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN INTEROPERABILITY TEAM

Reporting and problem resolution processes

• To establish a problem reporting system. • To review de-identified problem reports and determine appropriate

resolution. • To identify trends. • To develop interim operational procedures to mitigate the effects of problems

until such time as they are resolved. • To monitor the progress of problem resolution. • To prepare summaries of problems encountered and their operational

implications.

System performance and monitoring processes

• To determine and validate system performance requirements. • To establish a performance monitoring system. • To assess system performance based on information from the CRA. • To authorise and coordinate system testing. • To identify accountability for each element of the end-to-end system. • To develop, document and implement a quality assurance plan that will

provide a path to a more stable system. • To identify configurations of the end-to-end system that provide acceptable

datalink performance, and to ensure that such configurations are maintained by all stakeholders.

New procedures

• To coordinate testing in support of implementation of enhanced operational procedures

Reporting

• To report safety-related issues to the appropriate State or regulatory authorities for action

• To provide reports to each meeting of the implementation team or ATS coordinating group, as appropriate.

• To provide reports to RASMAG.

-----------------------


W - 12

APPENDIX C

CRA TASKS AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

CRA Task Resource Requirement

Manage data confidentiality agreements as required Legal services Technical expertise

Develop and administer problem report process:

• de-identify all reports

• enter de-identified reports into a database

• keep the identified reports for processing

• request audit data from communication service providers

• assign responsibility for problem resolution where possible

• analyse the data

Identify trends

Problem reporting data base ATS audit decode capability Airborne test bench as a minimum, simulator highly recommended ATS simulation capability (CPDLC and ADS)

Coordinate and test the implementation of new procedures Airborne test bench as a minimum, simulator capability highly recommended ATS simulation capability (CPDLC and ADS) ATS audit decode and report capability Technical expertise Operational expertise

Administer and monitor an informal end-to-end configuration process.

Technical expertise

Report to the interoperability team Technical expertise

---------------------------


W - 13

APPENDIX D

FANS 1/A OPERATION MANUAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

The table below defines the minimum values to be met and verified. This does not prevent ATS service providers from negotiating more constraining contractual requirements with their communication service providers if it is thought necessary.

Criteria Definition Values Performance End to end round trip time for uplinks. (sending

and reception of MAS) Round trip time of 2 minutes, 95% of messages. Round trip time of 6 minutes, 99% of messages.

End to end one way time for downlinks. (comparison of message time stamp and receipt time)

One way time of 1 minute, 95% of messages. One way time of 3 minutes, 99% of messages

Uplink messages only: Undelivered messages will be determined by: • Message assurance failure is received. After

trying VHF and, SATCOM Depending on reason code received, the message might, in fact, have reached the aircraft.

• No message assurance or flight crew response is received by ATSU after 900 seconds

Less than 1% of all attempted messages undelivered

Availability The ability of the network data link service to perform a required function under given conditions at a given time:

99.9%

The maximum allowed time of continuous unavailability or downtime should be declared MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) ∗

TBD

Reliability The ability of a data link application/system to perform a required function under given conditions for a given time interval: it can be expressed in MTBF (Mean Time Between failure) ∗

TBD

Integrity The probability of an undetected failure, event or occurrence within a given time interval.

10-6/hour

∗ Availability = MTBF x 100/(MTBF+MTTR) Note: RTCA SC189/EUROCAE WG 53 defines the performance requirements for specific operational environments.

— END —

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix X to the Report

X – 1

FIT- BOB TASK LIST (last updated 28 July 2006)

ACTION ITEM TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE

PARTY Status REMARKS

1. ATS providers to adopt the FOM and to review and update their ATSU operating procedures to align with the FOM.

Ongoing activity as additional States join the operational trial.

All States Ongoing

Important all ATSU adopt common operating procedures. APANPIRG/15 (August 2004) agreed that the FANS1/A Operations Manual (FOM) be used as the basis for ADS and CPDLC operations in conjunction with Annex 10, PANS/ATM and regional guidance material.

2. ATS providers to coordinate with adjacent ACCs to review and update letters of agreement for introduction of ADS/CPDLC services on a trial basis.


All States Ongoing Ensure common ATC procedures applied.

3. Issue NOTAM on the commencement of the operational trial in line with the model NOTAM provided by FIT-BOB/3.


All States Ongoing Some States have already issued NOTAM on their operational trial. Sri Lanka to issue new AIC for recommencement of trial


X – 2

ACTION ITEM TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE PARTY

Status REMARKS

4. Coordinate with FIT-BOB States on implementation of the operational trial.


ICAO, Malaysia. Sri Lanka, Myanmar,

Bangladesh

Ongoing Determine status on trial participation Sri Lanka planning to recommence trial in June/July 2005 TBA

5. Coordinate with Indian Ocean States on harmonizing implementation of operational trial.

As soon as practicable

ICAO APAC FIT-BOB,

ASIOACG and Indian Ocean

States

Ongoing Operational trial underway in BOB since February 2004 . FIT-BOB will provide interim FIT and CRA services for Informal Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean ATS Coordination Group (ASIOACG) and all Indonesian FIRs

6. Coordinate with Middle East and East African Regional Offices on implementation of operational trial in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.


ICAO APAC Ongoing To harmonize inter-regional implementation of ADS/CPDLC and to ensure common operating procedures established. Secretariat to inform Middle East and East African offices of Arabian Sea trial from January 2006. Secretariat to inform ICAO Middle East Office of arrangements for ASIOACG during Interregional meeting September 2006

7. Collecting of ADS/CPDLC problem reports and submit to CRA.

Immediate States, operators Ongoing To be submitted as soon as practicable to facilitate analyzing the reports. BOB CRA (Boeing) planned operation TBA.


X – 3


Status REMARKS

8. Establish provision of monthly monitoring date

ADS/CPDLC system performance data to be submitted to the CRA.

Monthly States Ongoing Essential for evaluating overall system performance within the trial airspace. BOB CRA (Boeing) planned operation TBA

9. Compile data on aircraft ADS/CPDLC equipped in the trial airspace.

6 monthly States, IATA Ongoing To keep record of aircraft participating in the trial and determine overall benefits derived by population of aircraft operating in the trial airspace. India would provide periodic updates to FIT-BOB of participating airframes

10. Training of controllers and technical staff on ADS/CPDLC operational procedures based on the FOM.


States Ongoing

11. Nominate contact person (ATS and technical) and keep details updated.


States, operators Ongoing Important that CRA has contact with engineering and operational personnel to analyze problem reports and performance data. Contact persons to be included in table of ADS/CPDLC and ATS status retained by FIT-BOB BOB CRA (Boeing) planned operation TBA.


X – 4


Status REMARKS

12. Establish data confidentiality agreements with

States and operators participating in the trial airspace.

Immediate CRA, States and operators

As required Necessary to establish agreement with data providers for release of data and to de-identify reports.

13. Update ICAO Guidance material on CNS/ATM Operations in APAC Region.


ICAO Ongoing

Part III harmonized with FOM. ICAO Headquarters continuing the review/harmonisation of Guidance Material. International Data Link manual (IDLM) in preparation under auspices of ICAO EUR/NAT Office

14. Coordinate with FOM editorial group on request for change to the FOM.

As required BOB FOM editor Ongoing BOB FOM editor to be nominated FOM includes Request for Change (RFC) processes. Send all FOM RFCs to the Regional Office.

15. Establish CRA. As soon as practicable

ICAO/States/ IATA/ Boeing

Ongoing SCM regarding CRA funding held December 2003. Boeing & IATA coordinating funding arrangements for CRA and process expected to be completed April 2005. Additional SCM BOB CRA held June 2005. BOB CRA (Boeing) planned operation TBA.


X – 5


Status REMARKS

16. Provide authorization for IATA to invoice and collect user charges to fund the CRA, and States to enter into agreement with IATA to provide required data.


FIT-BOB States/ IATA

Ongoing In coordination with ICAO and IATA States to issue AIP SUP notifying users of charging for CRA services for operators using ADS/CPDLC in FIT-BOB data link service area BOB CRA (Boeing) planned operation TBA.

17. Include details of Indonesia and ASIOACG States Oman and Yemen in Table of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status.


ICAO, ASIOACG

Ongoing Important that CRA has contact with engineering and operational personnel to analyze problem reports and performance data. BOB CRA (Boeing) planned operation TBA. (Raised FIT-BOB/7)

18. Prepare suitable table of ADS/CPDLC implementation planning for all FIT-BOB FIRs including estimated dates for implementation of CPDLC communications, ADS/CPDLC full implementation, 50/50 reduced separation and 30/30 reduced separation to provide basis for long term satellite traffic load estimates to assist DSP network planning.


ICAO, FIT-BOB States/ IATA

Ongoing SITA has launched global satellite capacity/performance planning initiative to collect data from ANSPs and users to ensure timely network enhancement to meet future network requirements (Raised FIT-BOB/7)

19. All States to review and update AIP information to ensure that Logon address (e.g. VOMF) included on charts is correct.


FIT-BOB States Ongoing Pilots will use Logon code depicted on charts (including Jeppesen etc) as data link address. (Raised FIT-BOB/7)


X – 6


Status REMARKS

20. All States to ensure that data link ground equipment is configured such that Uplink Logon code (e.g. VOMF) matches code depicted on charts


FIT-BOB States Ongoing Some example have been identified where Uplink Logon utilizes code other than the charted code (Raised FIT-BOB/7)

21. India and IATA to agree on and circulate a list of applicable waypoints for flights in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea areas for charging CRA levy Sri Lanka and IATA to finalize the similar list of waypoints prior to the Colombo FIR rejoining trial.


India/Sri Lanka/IATA

Ongoing (Raised FIT-BOB/7)

22. Secretariat to standardize the reporting arrangement for Problem Reports Procedures

As soon a practicable

ICAO, CRA Ongoing FIT-BOB/7 agreed that the use of different procedures from those of FIT-SEA was undesirable and agreed that the matter should be further studied, with a view to aligning the procedures if at all possible

------------------------------

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix Y to the Report

Y – 1

FIT- SEA TASK LIST (Last updated November 2005 July 2006)

ACTION ITEM TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE

PARTY Status REMARKS

1. ATS providers to adopt use the FOM and to review and update their ATSU operating procedures to align with the FOM.


All States Ongoing

Important all ATSU adopt common operating procedures. APANPIRG/15 (August 2004) agreed that the FANS1/A Operations Manual (FOM) be used as the basis for ADS and CPDLC operations in conjunction with Annex 10, PANS/ATM and regional guidance material.

2. ATS providers to coordinate with adjacent ACCs to review and update letters of agreement for introduction of ADS/CPDLC services on a trial basis.


All States Ongoing Ensure common ATC procedures applied.

3. Issue NOTAM on the commencement of the operational trial in line with the model NOTAM provided by FIT-BOB/3.

Ongoing activity as additional States join the operational trial. Prior to commencement of operational trial.

All States Ongoing Singapore has issued NOTAM on availability of ADS/CPDLC services in the Singapore FIR

4. Coordinate with SEA States on implementation of the operational trial.


All States Ongoing Determine status on trial participation Tables of ADS/CPDLC equipage and ATS Status prepared and retained by


Y – 2


Status REMARKS

FIT-SEA 5. As States join the operational trial collect

ADS/CPDLC problem reports and submit to CRA through the States.

Immediate States, operators Ongoing To be submitted as soon as practicable to facilitate analyzing the reports. FIT-SEA CRA operated by CRA Japan to undertake CRA services from late 2005. Singapore to provide data to FIT-SEA CRA.

6. Establish provision of monthly monitoring date ADS/CPDLC system performance data to be submitted to the CRA.

Monthly States Ongoing Essential for evaluating overall system performance within the trial airspace. FIT-SEA CRA operated by CRA Japan to undertake CRA services from late 2005.

7. Compile data on aircraft ADS/CPDLC equipped in the trial airspace.

6 monthly biannually

States, IATA Ongoing To keep record of aircraft participating in the trial and determine overall benefits derived by population of aircraft operating in the trial airspace.

8. Training of controllers and technical staff on ADS/CPDLC operational procedures based on the FOM.

Ongoing activity as additional States

join the operational trial.

States Ongoing


Y – 3


Status REMARKS

9. Nominate contact person (ATS and technical) and keep details updated.


States operators Ongoing Important that CRA has contact with engineering and operational personnel to analyze problem reports and performance data. Contact persons to be included in the Table of ADS/CPDLC Equipage and ATS Status retained by FIT-SEA FIT-SEA CRA operated by CRA Japan to undertake CRA services from late 2005.

10. Establish data confidentiality agreements with between States and CRA, and States and operators participating in the trial airspace.

Prior to commencement of

operational trial

CRA, States and operators

As required To establish agreement with States , operators and data providers for release of data and to de-identify reports.

11. Update ICAO Guidance Material on CNS/ATM Operations in APAC Region.


ICAO Ongoing

Part III harmonized with FOM. ICAO Headquarters continuing the review/harmonisation of Guidance Material. International Data Link Manual (IDLM) in preparation under the auspices of ICAO EUR/NAT Office.

12. Coordinate with FOM editorial group on request for change to the FOM.

As required CRA, SEA FOM editor

Ongoing SEA FOM editor to be nominated. FOM includes Request for Change (RFC) processes. Send all FOM RFCs to the Regional Office.


Y – 4


Status REMARKS

13. Provide details of processes necessary to set up and operate the SEA CRA

FIT-SEA/3 SEA States/ CRA Japan/ participating

industry partners

Ongoing Completed CRA Japan to provide information at FIT-SEA/3 FIT-SEA/3 endorsed terms of reference, task list and problem reporting arrangements for FIT-SEA CRA operated by CRA Japan.

14. Prepare suitable table of ADS/CPDLC implementation planning for all FIT-SEA FIRs including estimated dates for implementation of CPDLC communications, ADS/CPDLC full implementation, 50/50 reduced separation and 30/30 reduced separation to provide basis for long term satellite traffic load estimates to assist DSP network planning.


ICAO, FIT-SEA States/IATA

Ongoing Raised FIT-SEA/4 SITA has launched global satellite capacity/performance planning initiative to collect data from ANSPs and users to ensure timely network enhancement to meet future network requirements

15. Secretariat to standardize the reporting arrangement for Problem Reports.

As soon as possible ICAO, CRA Ongoing Raised at FIT-SEA/4 The use of different procedures from those of FIT-BOB was undesirable and agreed that the matter should be further studied, with a view to aligning the procedures if at all possible

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix Z to the Report

Z - 1

OCL, FMC WPR, FANS 1/A AND ATN LOCATIONS

Please note that while SITA has taken every precaution to avoid any errors or omissions that may inadvertently be contained in this document, SITA does not accept any liability for the accuracy of information contained herein. Please refer to the relevant ATS Provider publications such as AIP, AIC, NOTAM, etc. to verify information and to find out the specific participation requirements.

State/ATS Provider

ATS Provider FIR Log On Code

SATCOM Voice

OCL FMC WPR (via CFRS)

FANS-1/A CPDLC and ADS

ATN/ CPDLC

Algeria ENNA Alger ACC DAAA Trial Australia ASA Brisbane YBBB Y Australia ASA Honiara YBBB Y Australia ASA Melbourne YMMM Y Australia ASA Nauru YBBB Y Brazil DECEA Atlântico SBAO Trial Canada NAV CANADA Edmonton FIR/Control

Area (CTA) CZEG Trial ADS

only via CADS

Canada NAV CANADA Gander OCA CZQX (FANS) CYQX (OCL)

Y Y Y-Phase 3

China CAAC Beijing ZBAB Y China CAAC Harbin ZYHB Y China CAAC Lhasa ZULS Y China CAAC L888 CTU (Chengdu) ZUUU Y China CAAC L888 KMG

(Kunming/Wujiaba) ZPPP Y

China CAAC L888 LHW (Lanzhou/Chongchuan)

ZLLL Y

China CAAC L888 URC (Urum-Qi/Diwopu)

ZWWW Y

Fiji Airports Fiji Limited

Nadi NFFF Y

French Polynesia (Tahiti)

STNA, SEAC Papeete NTTT Y

Iceland ICAA Reykjavik OCA BIRD Y-CPDLC Phases 1 and 2, ADS via CADS

India AAI Kolkata VECF Trial India AAI Chennai VOMF Trial India AAI Delhi VIDF Trial India AAI Mumbai VABF Trial Japan JCAB Fukuoka RJJJ Y Maastricht Eurocontrol Maastricht EDYY No ADS Y Madagascar ASECNA Antananarivo FMMM Trial Mauritius DCA Mauritius Mauritius FIMM Trial

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix Z to the Report

Z - 2

State/ATS Provider

ATS Provider FIR Log On Code

SATCOM Voice

OCL FMC WPR (via CFRS)

FANS-1/A CPDLC and ADS

ATN/ CPDLC

Myanmar DCA Myanmar Yangon VYYF Trial New Zealand

Airways New Zealand

Auckland NZZO Y

Norway Avinor AS Bodo OCA ENOB Y ADS only via CADS

Portugal NAV Portugal EPE

Santa Maria OCA LPPO Y Y ADS Only via CADS

Singapore CAA Singapore Singapore WSJC Y South Africa South Africa

ATNS Johannesburg Oceanic FAJO Y

South Africa South Africa ATNS

Capetown FACT Y

Spain AENA Canarias GCCC Trial Russian Far East

Magadan GDXB Y

Sri Lanka AASL–Sri Lanka Colombo VCCC Trial UK NATS Shanwick OCA EGGX Y

(provided by IAA)

Y Y Y-CPDLC Phase 3, ADS via CADS

US FAA Anchorage ARTCC PAZA Y-however, ADS in selected airspace

US FAA New York ARTCC KZWY Y US FAA Oakland ARTCC KZAK Y

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix AA to the Report

AA - 1

D-ATIS, D-VOLMET, TWIP, DCL AND PDC LOCATIONS

Please note that while SITA has taken every precaution to avoid any errors or omissions that may inadvertently be contained in this document, SITA does not accept any liability for the accuracy of information contained herein. Please refer to the relevant ATS Provider publications such as AIP, AIC, NOTAM, etc. to verify information and to find out the specific participation requirements.

Country/ Administration

City Airports ICAO Code

IATA Code

d-ATIS* d-VOLMET TWIP DCL** PDC***

Australia Adelaide Adelaide YPAD ADL Y1 Y Australia Brisbane Brisbane YBBN BNE Y1 Y Australia Cairns Cairns Int'l YBCS CNS Y1 Y Australia Canberra Canberra Int'l YSCB CBR Y1 Y Australia Coolangatta Gold Coast YBCG OOL Y1 Y Australia Melbourne Essendon YMEN MEB Y1 Australia Melbourne Melbourne YMML MEL Y1 Y Australia Perth Perth YPPH PER Y1 Y Australia Sydney Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Int'l YSSY SYD Y1 Y Austria Innsbruck Innsbruck LOWI INN Y Austria Innsbruck Nat'l VOLMET West LOWI INN Y Austria Klagenfurt Klagenfurt LOWK KLU Y Austria Klagenfurt Nat'l VOLMET South LOWK KLU Y Austria Vienna Vienna Schwechat Int'l LOWW VIE Y Austria Vienna Int'l VOLMET LOWW VIE Y Austria Vienna Nat'l VOLMET East LOWM ------ Y Bahrain Manama Bahrain Int'l OBBI BAH Trial Belgium Brussels Brussels, Brussels VOLMET

An automatic test facility for DCL service is available also. Contact Belgocontrol via mail if wish to have a test session or if wish to become regular DCL users.

EBBR BRU Trial Trial Y

Belgium Charleroi Brussels South Charleroi, Brussels VOLMET

EBCI CRL Trial Trial

Belgium Liège Liège, Brussels VOLMET EBLG LGG Trial Trial Brazil São Paulo São Paulo/Guarulhos-Gov Andre

Franco Montoro Int'l Trial Trial

Canada Calgary Calgary Int'l CYYC YYC Y2 Y Canada Edmonton Edmonton Int'l CYEG YEG Y2 Y Canada Gander Gander Int'l CYQX YQX Y2 Canada Halifax Halifax Int'l CYHZ YHZ Y2 Y Canada Hamilton John C. Munro Hamilton Int'l CYHM YHM Y2 Canada Kelowna Kelowna Int'l CYLW YLW Y2 Canada Moncton Greater Moncton Int'l CYQM YQM Y2 Canada Montreal Montréal-Mirabel Int'l CYMX YMX Y2 Canada Montreal Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau Int'l CYUL YUL Y2 Y Canada Ottawa Ottawa Int'l CYOW YOW Y2 Y Canada Quebec City Jean Lesage Int'l CYQB YQB Y2 Canada Regina Regina Int'l CYQR YQR Y2 Canada Saskatoon Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker Int'l CYXE YXE Y2 Y Canada St. Johns St. Johns Int'l CYYT YYT Y2 Canada Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Int'l CYQT YQT Y2 Canada Toronto Toronto Pearson Int'l CYYZ YYZ Y2 Y Canada Vancouver Vancouver Int'l CYVR YVR Y2 Y Canada Victoria Victoria Int'l CYYJ YYJ Y2 Canada Winnipeg Winnipeg Int'l CYWG YWG Y2 Y


AA - 2



IATA Code


China Hong Kong Hong Kong Int'l VHHH HKG Y Y Y China Beijing Beijing Capital Int'l ZBAA PEK Y Denmark Copenhagen Copenhagen (Previously known as

Kastrup Airport) EKCH CPH Y Y

Denmark Copenhagen Roskilde EKRK RKE Y Egypt Cairo Cairo Int'l HECA CAI Y Finland Enontekiö Enontekiö EFET ENF Y Finland Helsinki-

Vantaa Helsinki-Vantaa EFHK HEL Y Y

Finland Ivalo Ivalo EFIV IVL Y Finland Joensuu Joensuu EFJO JOE Y Finland Jyväskylä Jyväskylä EFJY JYV Y Finland Kemi-Tornio Kemi-Tornio EFKE KEM Y Finland Kajaani Kajaani EFKI KAJ Y Finland Kittilä Kittilä EFKT KTT Y Finland Kokkola and

Pietarsaari Kruunupyy EFKK KOK Y

Finland Kuopio Kuopio EFKU KUO Y Finland Kuusamo Kuusamo EFKS KAO Y Finland Lappeenranta Lappeenranta EFLP LPP Y Finland Mariehamn Mariehamn EFMA MHQ Y Finland Oulu Oulu EFOU OUL Y Finland Pori Pori EFPO POR Y Finland Rovaniemi Rovaniemi EFRO RVN Y Finland Savonlinna Savonlinna EFSA SVL Y Finland Tampere-

Pirkkala Tampere-Pirkkala EFTP TMP Y

Finland Turku Turku EFTU TKU Y Finland Vaasa Vaasa EFVA VAA Y Finland Varkaus Varkaus EFVR VRK Y France Paris Charles de Gaulle LFPG CDG Y Y France Paris Orly LFPO ORY Trial Y France Lyon Saint-Exupéry Int'l LFLL LYS Y France Basel

(Switzerland) Mulhouse (France), and Freiburg (Germany)

EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg LFSB MLH Y

France Nice Nice Côte d'Azur Int'l LFMN NCE Y France Toulouse Toulouse Blagnac Int'l LFBO TLS Y Germany Berlin Berlin-Schoenefeld EDDB SXF Y3 Germany Berlin Tegel Int'l EDDT TXL Y3 Germany Berlin Berlin Tempelhof EDDI THF Y3 Germany Bremen Bremen EDDW BRE Y3 Y Germany Cologne Cologne Bonn EDDK CGN Y3 Germany Dresden Dresden EDDC DRS Y3 Germany Düsseldorf Düsseldorf Int'l EDDL DUS Y3 Germany Erfurt Erfurt EDDE ERF Y3 Germany Frankfurt Frankfurt EDDF FRA Y3 Germany Hamburg Hamburg EDDH HAM Y3 Y Germany Hannover Hannover EDDV HAJ Y3 Y Germany Leipzig Leipzig-Halle EDDP LEJ Y3 Germany Münster Münster Osnabrück Int'l EDDG FMO Y3 Germany Munich Munich Int'l EDDM MUC Y3 Y Germany Nuremberg Nuremberg EDDN NUE Y3 Germany Saarbrücken Saarbrücken EDDR SCN Y3


AA - 3



IATA Code


Germany Stuttgart Stuttgart EDDS STR Y3 Y Ireland Dublin Dublin EIDW DUB Y Ireland Shannon Shannon Int'l EINN SNN Y Japan Sapporo New Chitose RJCC CTS Y4 Japan Fukuoka Fukuoka RJFF FUK Y4 Japan Hakodate Hakodate RJCH HKD Y4 Japan Hiroshima Hiroshima RJOA HIJ Y4 Japan Tokyo Tokyo Int'l (Haneda) RJTT HND Y4 Japan Osaka Osaka Int'l RJOO ITM Y4 Japan Niigata Niigata RJSN KIJ Y4 Japan Kansai Kansai Int'l RJBB KIX Y4 Japan Kobe Kobe RJBE UKB Y4 Japan Miyazaki Miyazaki RJFM KMI Y4 Japan Kumamoto Kumamoto RJFT KMJ Y4 Japan Kagoshima Kagoshima RJFK KOJ Y4 Japan Kouchi Kouchi RJOK KCZ Y4 Japan Nagoya Chubu Centrair Int'l RJGG NGO Y4 Japan Matsuyama Matsuyama RJOM MYJ Y4 Japan Nagasaki Nagasaki RJFU NGS Y4 Japan Tokyo-Narita Narita Int'l RJAA NRT Y4 Japan Oita Oita RJFO OIT Y4 Japan Naha Naha ROAH OKA Y4 Japan Sendai Sendai RJSS SDJ Y4 Japan Takamatsu Takamatsu RJOT TAK Y4 Japan AEIS North Sector of Japan ---- NSJ Y4 Japan AEIS West Sector of Japan ---- WSJ Y4 Japan AEIS South Sector of Japan ---- SSJ Y4 Korea Daegu Daegu Int'l RKTN TAE Y Korea Seoul Incheon Int'l RKSI ICN Y Y Korea Seoul Gimpo Int'l RKSS GMP Y Y Korea Busan Gimhae Int'l RKPK PUS Y Korea Gwangju Gwangju Int'l RKJJ KWJ Y Korea Jeju Jeju Int'l RKPC CJU Y Y Korea Ulsan Ulsan Airport RKPU USN Y Y New Zealand Auckland Auckland Int'l NZAA AKL Y1 New Zealand Christchurch Christchurch Int'l NZCH CHC Y1 New Zealand Wellington Wellington Int'l NZWN WLG Y1 Norway Oslo-

Gardermoen Oslo ENGM OSL Trial

Portugal Lisbon Portela LPPT LIS Y Y Portugal Faro Faro LPFR FAO Y Portugal Porto Francisco Sá Carneiro LPPR OPO Y Singapore Singapore Singapore Changi WSSS SIN Y South Africa Capetown Capetown Int'l FACT CPT Y South Africa Durban Durban Int'l FADN DUR Y South Africa Johannesburg Johannesburg Int'l FAJS JNB Y Sweden Goteborg-

Landvetter Goteborg-Landvetter ESGG GOT Y

Sweden Stockholm Stockholm-Arlanda ESSA ARN Y Y Sweden Stockholm Stockholm-Bromma ESSB BMA Y Sweden Sundsvall VOLMET North ESNN SDL Y Sweden Jönköping VOLMET South ESGJ JKJ Y Switzerland Geneva Geneva Int'l LSGG GVA Y Y Switzerland Zurich Zurich LSZH ZRH Y Y Taiwan Taipei Chiang Kai-Shek Int'l RCTP TPE Y Y Taiwan Taipei Taipei Songshan RCSS TSA Y


AA - 4



IATA Code


Taiwan Kaohsiung Kaohsiung Int'l RCKH KHH Y Y Thailand Bankok Bankok Int'l VTBD BKK Y2 Thailand Chiang Mai Chiang Mai Int'l VTCC CNX Y2 Thailand Chiang Rai Chiang Rai Int'l VTCT CEI Y2 Thailand Hat Yai Hat Yai Int'l VTSS HDY Y2 Thailand Phuket Phuket Int'l VTSP HKT Y2 Thailand Rayong U-Tapao Int'l VTBU UTP Y2 Thailand Ubon

Ratchathani Ubon Ratchathani VTUU UBP Y2

The Netherlands Amsterdam Amsterdam-Schiphol EHAM AMS Y Y UAE Dubai Dubai Int'l OMDB DXB Y UK Aberdeen Aberdeen EGPD ABZ Y Y-Scottish

VOLMET

UK London London Heathrow EGLL LHR Y Y-London Main VOLMET

UK London London Gatwick EGKK LGW Y Y-London Main VOLMET

Y

UK Manchester Manchester EGCC MAN Y Y-London Main VOLMET

UK London Stansted EGSS STN Y

UK London London VOLMET Main EGT1 Y UK London London VOLMET Main EGPF Y UK London London VOLMET Main EGKK Y UK London London VOLMET Main EGLL Y UK London London VOLMET Main EGSS Y UK London London VOLMET Main EGCC Y UK London London VOLMET South EGT2 Y UK London London VOLMET South EGBB Y UK London London VOLMET South EGHH Y UK London London VOLMET South EGGD Y UK London London VOLMET South EGFF Y UK London London VOLMET South EGJJ Y UK London London VOLMET South EGGW Y UK London London VOLMET South EGSH Y UK London London VOLMET South EGHI Y UK London London VOLMET South EGMC Y UK London London VOLMET North EGT3 Y UK London London VOLMET North EGNJ Y UK London London VOLMET North EGNX Y UK London London VOLMET North EGNS Y UK London London VOLMET North EGNM Y UK London London VOLMET North EGGP Y UK London London VOLMET North EGNT Y UK London London VOLMET North EGNV Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPX Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPD Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGAA Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPH Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPE Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPK Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPO Y UK Scottish VOLMET EGPB Y US Albany Albany Int'l KALB ALB Y2 Y US Albuquerque Albuquerque Int'l Sunport KABQ ABQ Y2 Y


AA - 5



IATA Code


US Anchorage Ted Stevens Anchorage Int'l PANC ANC Y2 Y US Andrews Air

Force Base Andrews Air Force Base KADW ADW Y2

US Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Int'l KATL ATL Y2 Y2 Y US Austin Austin-Bergstrom Int'l KAUS AUS Y2 Y US Baltimore Baltimore-Washington International

Thurgood Marshall KBWI BWI Y2 Y2 Y

US Boise Boise KBOI BOI Y2 Y US Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan Int'l KBOS BOS Y2 Y2 Y US Buffalo Buffalo Niagara Intl. KBUF BUF Y2 Y US Charlotte Charlotte Douglas Int'l KCLT CLT Y2 Y2 Y US Chicago Chicago Midway Int'l KMD

W MDW

Y2 Y

US Chicago O'Hare Int'l KORD ORD Y2 Y2 Y US Cincinnati Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Int'l KCVG CVG Y2 Y2 Y US Cleveland Cleveland Hopkins Int'l KCLE CLE Y2 Y2 Y US Columbus Port Columbus Int'l KCMH CMH Y2 Y2 Y US Dallas Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l KDFW DFW Y2 Y2 Y US Dallas Dallas Love Field KDAL DAL Y2 Y2 Y US Dayton James M. Cox Dayton Int'l KDAY DAY Y2 US Denver Denver Int'l KDEN DEN Y2 Y2 Y US Detroit Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County KDTW DTW Y2 Y2 Y US El Paso El Paso Int'l KELP ELP Y2 Y US Fort Lauderdale Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int'l KFLL FLL Y2 Y2 Y US Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int'l KGSO GSO Y2 Y US Honolulu Honolulu Int'l PHNL HNL Y2 Y US Houston George Bush Intercontinental KIAH IAH Y2 Y2 Y US Houston William P. Hobby KHOU HOU Y2 US Indianapolis Indianapolis Int'l KIND IND Y2 Y2 Y US Kansas City Kansas City Int'l KMCI MCI Y2 Y2 Y US Las Vegas McCarran Int'l KLAS LAS Y2 Y US Little Rock Little Rock National KLIT LIT Y2 Y US Los Angeles Los Angeles Int'l KLAX LAX Y2 Y US Los Angeles-

Burbank Bob Hope KBUR BUR Y2 Y

US Los Angeles-Ontario, CA

Ontario Int'l KONT ONT Y2 Y

US Los Angeles-Santa Ana

John Wayne KSNA SNA Y2 Y

US Louisville Louisville Int'l KSDF SDF Y2 Y2 Y US Memphis Memphis Int'l KMEM MEM Y2 Y2 Y US Miami Miami Int'l KMIA MIA Y2 Y2 Y US Milwaukee General Mitchell Int'l KMKE MKE Y2 Y2 Y US Minneapolis-

Saint Paul Minneapolis-Saint Paul Int'l KMSP MSP Y2 Y2 Y

US Nashville Nashville Int'l KBNA BNA Y2 Y2 Y US New Orleans Louis Armstrong New Orleans Int'l KMSY MSY Y2 Y2 Y US New York John F. Kennedy Int'l KJFK JFK Y2 Y US New York LaGuardia KLGA LGA Y2 Y US New York-

Newark Newark Liberty Int'l KEWR EWR Y2 Y

US Oakland Oakland Int'l KOAK OAK Y2 Y US Oklahoma City Will Rogers World KOKC OKC Y2 Y2 Y US Omaha Eppley Airfield KOMA OMA Y2 Y US Orlando Orlando Int'l KMCO MCO Y2 Y2 Y US Philadelphia Philadelphia Int'l KPHL PHL Y2 Y2 Y US Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l KPHX PHX Y2 Y US Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Int'l KPIT PIT Y2 Y2 Y


AA - 6



IATA Code


US Portland Portland Int'l KPDX PDX Y2 Y US Providence T. F. Green KPVD PVD Y2 Y US Raleigh Raleigh-Durham Int'l KRDU RDU Y2 Y2 Y US Sacramento Sacramento Int'l KSMF SMF Y2 Y US Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Int'l KSLC SLC Y2 Y2 Y US San Antonio San Antonio Int'l KSAT SAT Y2 Y US San Diego San Diego Int'l KSAN SAN Y2 Y US San Francisco San Francisco Int'l KSFO SFO Y2 Y US San Jose Norman Y. Mineta San José Int'l KSJC SJC Y2 Y US San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int'l TJSJ SJU Y2 Y US Seattle-Tacoma Seattle-Tacoma Int'l KSEA SEA Y2 Y US St. Louis Lambert-St. Louis Int'l KSTL STL Y2 Y2 Y US Tampa Tampa Int'l KTPA TPA Y2 Y2 Y US Teterboro Teterboro KTEB TEB Y2 Y US Tulsa Tulsa Int'l KTUL TUL Y2 Y2 Y US Washington DC Washington Dulles Int'l KIAD IAD Y2 Y2 Y US Washington DC Ronald Reagan Washington National

Airport KDCA DCA Y2 Y2 Y

US West Palm Beach

Palm Beach Int'l KPBI PBI Y2 Y2 Y

US Wichita Wichita Mid-Continent KICT ICT Y2 US Windsor Locks Bradley Int'l KBDL BDL Y2 Y

Footnotes: * Unless noted otherwise in the footnotes below, the format supported is AEEC 623/Eurocae ED-89. Locations for which ATS Providers allow the SITA d-ATIS Gateway service to be used to enable otherwise incompatible avionics to participate in the ATS Provider-hosted d-ATIS service are shown in italics. ** DCL refers to AEEC 623/Eurocae ED-85-compliant departure clearance communications directly between the pilot and controller. *** PDC refers to pre-Departure clearances sent via the airline host. 1 d-ATIS is available on the Australian ATIS server which is non-623-Compliant. If your avionics do not send a compatible request format for

Australia and New Zealand d-ATIS requests and your airline is a SITA d-ATIS Gateway service customer, your airline can be configured in the d-ATIS gateway to have the downlinks and corresponding uplinks converted to the appropriate formats to enable participation.

2 d-ATIS available for this location on the ARINC ATS Server only. AEEC 623 and non-AEEC 623 formats accepted. Aircraft can access this data if using SITA for datalink as long as the airline is configured on the ARINC ATS Server.

3 This data is accessible via the SITA d-ATIS Gateway Service if your airline is a SITA d-ATIS Gateway Service customer. The d-ATIS Gateway supports AEEC 623 and non-AEEC 623 formats

4 d-ATIS available via VHF AVICOM network only. 623-compliant (B9 label) and non-623-compliant (5D and 19 labels) d-ATIS requests supported.

FIT-BOB/7 & FIT-SEA/4 Appendix BB to the Report

APANPIRG/17 - WP/__ Agenda Item: 2.4

DRAFT

International Civil Aviation Organization SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE ASIA AND PACIFIC AIR NAVIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION REGIONAL GROUP (APANPIRG/17) Bangkok, Thailand, 21–25 August 2006

Agenda Item 2.4:

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR REGIONAL AIRSPACE SAFETY MONITORING

(Prepared by RASMAG, Presented by the Secretariat on behalf of RASMAG) SUMMARY APANPIRG/16 requested that a study group develop a feasible and

sustainable means to organize and finance the necessary safety monitoring mechanisms and to report through RASMAG. Subsequently, the Council of ICAO took note of difficulties in sustaining safety monitoring activities in other Regions and referred the matter to ALLPIRG/5 and ANSEP/6. With support from the ICAO Secretariat, a global approach has been accepted based on the designation of RMA activities as multinational facilities/services. RASMAG/5 considered these developments and prepared recommendations contained in this paper concerning implementation of the global approach to funding safety monitoring mechanisms in Asia/Pacific.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 APANPIRG/16 recognized the urgent need to develop feasible and sustainable funding solutions for regional safety monitoring so that on-going initiatives to carry out trials and to implement CNS/ATM systems in Asia/Pacific would not be delayed and that safety and efficiency were not compromised. It was recalled that APANPIRG’s CNS/ATM technical experts had previously found it difficult to resolve the complex legal, financial and organizational issues involved in establishing a regional safety monitoring agency, and the meeting considered that this matter should be addressed by States’ experts in these specialist fields. Accordingly, APANPIRG/16 adopted Conclusion 16/2 – Funding arrangements for regional airspace safety monitoring:

That, a study group be convened to develop a feasible and sustainable proposal to equip States to organize and finance necessary safety monitoring mechanisms for the provision of safety services for the international airspaces in the Asia/Pacific region and that States be represented at that meeting by their appropriate legal, financial and organizational experts who would be best equipped and empowered to resolve any difficulties. The study group should report to RASMAG not later than the end of June 2006.


DRAFT

-2-

1.2 Parallel to this, the Council of ICAO had been considering difficulties in establishing sustainable approaches to funding safety monitoring activities in other ICAO Regions and had placed the matter on the agenda for the fifth meeting of the All Chairmen of the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (ALLPIRG/5). The report of APANPIRG/16 drawing attention to difficulties experienced in Asia/Pacific prompted further action by the Council in pursuit of a global model and the matter was referred as well to the sixth meeting of the Air Navigation Services Economics Panel (ANSEP/6). Both ALLPIRG/5 and ANSEP/6 were held in Montreal in March 2006 and both bodies gave their support to an approach developed by the ICAO Secretariat which is based upon existing ICAO guidance and policies. The President of the Council referred the recommended approach and implementation procedure to Members of the Council, seeking their views, prior to consideration of the matter at the 178th Session of the Council. 1.3 In view of these on-going developments, the ICAO Regional Office did not convene the special study group requested by APANPIRG/16 and instead raised the matter at the earliest suitable opportunity at RASMAG/5 held in Bangkok from 4 to 8 June 2006. RASMAG/5 discussed the global experiences with funding regional safety monitoring activities and evaluated the options. It was decided that the need for the special study group had been obviated as a result of the global consensus on how best to organize and fund regional safety monitoring activities. RASMAG/5 discussed the implementation of the global approach in Asia/Pacific and prepared the advice contained in this paper that addresses APANPIRG’s concerns underlying Conclusion 16/2. Recommendations are made for APANPIRG/17’s consideration. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL APPROACH 2.1 Upon considering the Air Navigation Commission’s review of a report by the European Air Navigation Planning Group (EANPG/45), the Council of ICAO during its 172nd Session requested that the Air Transport Committee include in the Air Transport Program the development of a global method for cost recovery of the required RMA infrastructure. It was considered that the method should be based on existing ICAO guidance material on cost recovery of air navigation services. 2.2 Subsequently, during the 176th Session, the Council requested that the subject of a global approach for establishing, funding and determining the basis for cost recovery for regional monitoring mechanisms be placed on the agenda for ALLPIRG/5 after reviewing a report of the Middle East Air Navigation Planning and Implementation Regional Group (MIDANPIRG/9). The report of APANPIRG/16 also prompted further action by the Council at its 177th Session. Specifically, the Council urged the Secretary General to take action on the issue of funding arrangements for cost recovery of regional airspace safety monitoring mechanisms. 2.3 After consulting its Regional Offices, the ICAO Secretariat confirmed that there is a need to fund RVSM safety monitoring activities through a cost recovery mechanism. It was observed that, in some of the regions, the funding of these activities is the main obstacle for the continuation of monitoring operations. Present arrangements under which States on a voluntary basis absorb all costs were not considered to be sustainable in the long term. That some regions had established study groups to consider this issue was noted. 2.4 In a paper prepared for consideration by ALLPIRG/5 and subsequently by ANSEP/6, the ICAO Secretariat observed that international cooperative ventures in the provision of air navigation services have normally proven to be highly cost-effective for the provider States as well as the users, and in some instances have constituted the only means for implementing costly facilities and services which offer capacity that exceeds the requirements of individual States. By cooperating in such facility or service provision, the States concerned have been able to provide more efficient services and at lower cost than if they had to finance the facilities concerned themselves. In fact, ICAO’s Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services (Doc 9082/7) encourage international cooperation in the provision and operation of air navigation services where this is beneficial for the providers and users concerned


DRAFT

-3-

(paragraph 12), and States or their delegated service providers are particularly recommended to consider participating in joint charges collection agencies (paragraph 18). 2.5 The ICAO Secretariat pointed out that such international cooperation may take different forms. In its simplest form there is a coordination and harmonization process initiated as a sub-regional activity between a limited number of States. As a result it is possible to generate significant synergies and to achieve savings by coordinating the planning, implementation and operation of air navigation facilities and services across borders with neighboring States. 2.6 The ICAO Secretariat considered that the most obvious arrangement for the financing of an RMA is to establish it as a Multinational (ICAO) Air Navigation Facility/Service, for which guidelines are included in the regional air navigation plans (1) and which are provided herein at Attachment A. 2.7 The participation of States in the provision of a multinational facility/service is based on the assumption that any State, having supported and agreed to the implementation of such a facility/service and making use of it, should also shoulder its share of the costs involved. The participating States would need to formalize in an agreement the terms under which the multinational facility/service is to be provided. If the participating States were to assign the operation of a multinational facility/service to an international organization or an international agency, this would need to be covered in the agreement. 2.8 Considering the moderate costs involved and the interim nature of an RMA, the ICAO Secretariat argued that an “administrative agreement” would be preferable to an international treaty. An administrative agreement is at a lower level of requirement in respect of formalities and procedures than a treaty and can be signed by a minister, the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) or some other authorized person (e.g. the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an air navigation services provider), and could be concluded by an exchange of letters or notes. It would also come into force with minimum delay, and would permit greater flexibility in cases where subsequent modifications are required. 2.9 Basic provisions that would normally have to be part of an agreement include, inter alia: definition and description of the facility/service; establishment and operation of the facility/service; managerial aspects (including governing bodies and decision making arrangements, organization, and staffing and consultation); financial aspects (including cost determination, cost sharing, budgeting, authority to approve the budget and financial auditing); procedures for settlement of disputes; and withdrawals, amendments to and termination of the agreement. The agreement should specify who will establish and operate the RMA concerned, namely whether this is to be done by a State or an existing international organization or agency. 2.10 The Secretariat advised that the agreement should outline the procedure to be applied for determining the cost share to be borne by each participating State. Any cost sharing method should, to the extent possible, be equitable, simple and easy to apply. The question of equity should not only be considered in the context of the participating States, but also with respect to the final users (aircraft operators) since it may be assumed that in most instances the participating States would include the costs they incur in the cost base for their air navigation services charges, where levied. 2.11 The ICAO Secretariat added that any method of cost sharing should, in principle, be based on the extent of the use of the multinational facility/service concerned by each participating State. Thus, the parameters or keys used to determine each State’s cost share should reflect the extent of such use. However, if the use made of a multinational facility/service can only be measured by applying complex

(1) In the case of Asia/Pacific, the general guidelines for the establishment and provision of such a mechanism are set out in detail in Doc 9673 – Facilities and Services Implementation Document (FASID) Asia and Pacific Regions, First Edition 2001. This concept is also described in Doc 9161/4, Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics, Chapter 3 – Part D – Multinational Facilities and Services.


DRAFT

-4-

procedures and at a cost which is not commensurate with the costs to be shared, other methods of cost sharing based on readily available and relevant statistical data could be applied. Whatever method is selected it must provide for the just and equitable sharing of the costs involved. 2.12 It would be up to each participating State to decide whether or not it wishes to recover its cost share from the users. A State could either include these costs in its cost base for route charges (if it levies such charges). As an alternative, the State could recover the costs by levying a separate charge (normally a more complex and costly procedure to administer). The Secretariat noted that users would probably find it easier to accept the former solution. It was suggested that the levying of a separate charge be avoided, considering also the limited costs involved and that the latter solution would increase the administrative burden for users as well as providers. However, this does not exclude that the funding required is technically collected as a surcharge (the cost is identified separately) but included in the ordinary route charge levied, since this would satisfy the users’ requirements on transparency. 2.13 The ICAO Secretariat also drew attention to other options for the operation and cost recovery of RVSM monitoring. For example, it would be possible to establish a joint financing arrangement administered by ICAO, similar to the existing arrangements for traffic on the North Atlantic. In addition to addressing the recovery of costs of air navigation facilities and services operated by Denmark and Iceland, this arrangement also regulates cost recovery of the RVSM monitoring function in that region. Another option would be to establish a new agency specifically for the purpose to operate and recover the costs of the RVSM monitoring function. Both these options would, however, most likely lead to heavier administrative arrangements and more staff with related higher costs. They would also require more formal and complicated procedures in the establishment phase. Therefore, a simpler and less costly solution was advocated by the ICAO Secretariat. 2.14 Where a region (i.e. a Planning and Implementation Regional Group - PIRG) would not be able to find a State or an existing organization or agency willing to accept the responsibility to operate an RMA, a possibility would be to approach an RMA operator in a neighboring region to operate the RVSM monitoring functions for both regions, on a cost recovery basis. 2.15 ALLPIRG/6 noted the global approach to recovering the costs of RMAs as developed by the ICAO Secretariat and affirmed that the cost-recovery mechanism chosen should be simple but transparent and fair. Furthermore, it was noted that the proposed global approach would be discussed and finalized during the sixth meeting of the Air Navigation Services Economics Panel (ANSEP/6) (Montreal, 27 to 31 March 2006). 2.16 ANSEP/6 discussed the respective advantages of using the multinational (ICAO) air navigation facility/service model compared to the joint financing arrangement model or any other relevant model, but felt that the former was more appropriate in the case of RMAs. A step-by-step approach developed by the Secretariat for implementing cost recovery arrangements also was approved and is provided herein at Attachment B. The Panel also agreed that the current ICAO guidance on the subject was sufficient. 2.17 The Air Transport Committee will consider the ANSEP’s review of cost recovery mechanisms during the 178th Session of the ICAO Council. The Panel invited the Committee to bring it to the Council’s attention that the step-by-step procedure to cost recovery of RMAs proposed by the Secretariat was considered and accepted by both the ALLPIRG/5 and ANSEP/6 meetings. The President of the Council also invited the Members of the Council to provide comments on any views they might have concerning the recommended approach. 3. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY APANPIRG 3.1 RASMAG/5 discussed the experiences of other ICAO Regions and noted that there are alternatives to the approach recommended by the ICAO Secretariat. For example, the functions of the EUR


DRAFT

-5-

RMA are carried out by EUROCONTROL. The NAT Region has a Central Monitoring Agency that performs the necessary safety monitoring for RVSM and RHSM. However, the mechanisms adopted in these regions take advantage of particular structures that would be difficult and costly to replicate in other regions. 3.2 For the most part, the predominant model adopted for the provision of RMA services relies on the voluntary support of a host State/organization. For example, the monitoring of RVSM operation in the CAR and SAM regions is carried out by the Caribbean and South American Monitoring Agency (CARSAMMA) hosted by Brazil with the assistance of CAR and SAM States. The AFI RMA (ARMA) is hosted by the Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company (ATNS) in South Africa. 3.3 ALLPIRG/5 considered that present arrangements under which States, on a voluntary basis, absorb all costs are not sustainable in the long term. The situation that emerged in the MID Region exemplifies the issues. The United Arab Emirates had, until 1 June 2004, provided full support, both financial and technical, to the activities of the Middle East Central Monitoring Agency (MECMA) in monitoring the height-keeping performance of aircraft operating in RVSM airspace in the Middle East Region. 3.4 Considering the notice of withdrawal of support by the United Arab Emirates to MECMA, the Air Navigation Commission, during its 165th Session in February 2004, expressed its concern and requested the Secretary General to take appropriate action on its early resolution. In April 2005, MIDANPIRG/9 developed an action plan, on the understanding that it would be further reviewed and finalized at the MID RMA Meeting to be held in June 2005 (MIDANPIRG, Conclusion 9/13 refers). The Secretary General of ICAO wrote to the States concerned in support of this action. He drew the attention of the States to Amendment 43 to Annex 11, regarding the mandatory requirement for instituting a programme, on a regional basis, for monitoring the height-keeping performance of aircraft operating in RVSM airspace, which became applicable on 24 November 2005. The Secretary General reminded the States of MIDANPIRG/9’s concern that, in the interest of safety, unless a concrete action plan were developed and the MID RMA were reestablished, the withdrawal of RVSM operations from the MID Region would be considered by ICAO. Faced with this serious situation, an agreement subsequently was reached among the States concerned to appoint a supervisory Board for the MID RMA. 3.5 The approach adopted in the MID Region has the essential elements of the model recommended by ALLPIRG/5 and ANSEP/6. The PIRG played an active role in bringing the States together to establish a multinational facility/service that would ensure the sustained and equitable provision of regional safety monitoring services and the steps that brought it to fruition were along the lines of those recommended in Attachment B. Some notable features are that:

a) The multinational facility/service is being established according to a Memorandum of Agreement signed by all participating States;

b) The Board is empowered to enter a Custodian Agreement with the provider of the safety monitoring services (Bahrain) and a third party for collection and disbursement of funds (ICAO);

c) The MID RMA shall be managed as a Regional programme, shall have legal personality and shall act through the MID RMA Board;

d) The overall objective of the MID RMA is the promotion of safety of air navigation in the Middle East Region through the operation and management, on a sound and efficient basis, of a permanent MID Regional Monitoring Agency;

e) The MID RMA Board, in which each Participating State is entitled to appoint one member, shall retain overall direction and responsibility for the supervision and operation of the MID RMA in accordance with the relevant obligations of the Participating States under the Convention on International Civil Aviation and its Annexes;


DRAFT

-6-

f) The MID RMA’s scope, duties and responsibilities will be those agreed by the Board’s first meeting and could be revised by the Board. The MID RMA will be assigned clear tasks in a step-by-step approach starting with RVSM height monitoring and RVSM post-implementation safety assessment, having in mind the end objectives, which will include RNP/RNAV and SMS;

g) The funding mechanism and consequent contributions of Participating States may be modified in subsequent years by decision of the Board;

h) Any Participating State may withdraw from this Memorandum of Agreement by giving a prior notice of six (6) months to other Participating States;

i) The hosting of the MID RMA by Bahrain may be terminated at the request of Bahrain, with two years advance written notification to the MID RMA Board to allow sufficient time for selection of an alternative location and necessary arrangements for transfer of the MID RMA;

j) The contributions for the first year shall be set on an equal basis between member States based on the estimation of total costs for the set up, the operation of the agency (US$300,000) and the number of members States; and

k) The funding arrangements will be kept under review and amended if necessary. 3.6 The MID RMA Board held its second meeting in Bahrain from 27-28 February 2006, during which the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to establish the MID RMA was reviewed and agreed upon. Eight States signed the MOA and the ICAO MID Regional Office is to follow up with the remaining States. The RMA Board accepted Bahrain’s offer to host the RMA and authorized the Chairman of the RMA Board to negotiate an agreement with ICAO and Bahrain specifying ICAO’s role as the custodian of the funds collected for the purpose of this agreement, in compliance with ICAO’s Financial Regulations and Rules. A copy of this MOA is provided for information in Attachment C to this paper.

3.7 Considering the various options and the recent experience in the MID Region, ANSEP/6 concluded that the multinational (ICAO) air navigation facility/service model was more appropriate in the case of RMAs when compared to the joint financing arrangement model or any other appropriate model. It was concluded as well that current ICAO guidance for the establishment and financing of such mechanisms is adequate.

4. APPLYING THE RECOMMENDED MODEL IN ASIA/PACIFIC 4.1 The funding arrangements considered by ALLPIRG/5 and ANSEP/6 address a specific requirement for States to undertake safety monitoring on a regional basis with reference to Standard 3.4.1 contained in Annex 11 which concerns the selection of separation minima for application within a given portion of airspace in accordance with the provisions of the PANS-ATM and the Regional Supplementary Procedures as applicable under the prevailing circumstances.

4.2 RASMAG/5 acknowledged with appreciation that the RMA functions are being performed in Asia and Pacific Regions with Australia (Airservices Australia), Thailand (AEROTHAI) and the United States (FAA) voluntarily shouldering the costs. However, it was also noted that the experience worldwide is that such voluntary funding arrangements are not sustainable and they are not equitable. Accordingly, RASMAG/5 highlights the global consensus emerging on the most appropriate model to apply for consideration by APANPIRG.

4.3 That consensus is that voluntary funding models are not sustainable and that the obvious way to organize for the required regional safety monitoring services is through a multinational (ICAO) facility/service for which general guidelines on the establishment and provision of such a mechanism are set out in the FASID (refer Attachment A). APANPIRG is reminded that, pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention and in line with the ICAO policies concerning the formulation of regional plans and their


DRAFT

-7-

implementation, any multinational facility/service would be set forth in the Regional Plan as established by the Council. Attention also is drawn to the specification in the FASID that the purpose of a multinational facility/service is to serve international air navigation in airspace extending beyond the airspace serviced by a single State.

4.4 The FASID sets out the steps to be followed by APANPIRG is establishing any multinational facility/service and it recalls that APANPIRG is at all times expected to take an active posture in the process which encompasses thorough evaluations and consideration of the viewpoints of the States, the international organizations concerned, and any particular providers/hosts of the required facilities/services. The outcome of the process is that APANPIRG develops a complete proposal for amendment of the ASIA/PAC Regional Plan for processing in accordance with the procedure approved by the Council. In the case of regional safety monitoring, APANPIRG has already played an active role and any step forward to formalize the funding arrangements can be made in recognition of the arrangements already in place while addressing those matters yet to be resolved in a sustainable way.

4.5 In this context it should be noted that RASMAG/5 was concerned that the voluntary funding approach is not addressing all of the needs for safety monitoring services recognized by APANPIRG as SMAs and CRAs as well as RMAs. The MIDANPIRG Member States in establishing their arrangements allowed scope to address these requirements under the one agreement. RASMAG/5 therefore urges APANPIRG to consider adoption of the global model to ensure that States have the option of an equitable, effective, harmonized and technical regional capability to meet all of the safety requirements for future regional airspace planning, including the implementation and operation of reduced separation minima (including horizontal), communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) systems and related airspace changes. As illustrated in the case of the MID Region, an appropriately designed Memorandum of Agreement between the various parties can empower the Board to undertake the necessary actions to provide for the RMA as well as to take any appropriate actions to centralize and harmonize the various monitoring activities.

4.6 The action proposed for APANPIRG therefore is to agree to take steps to formalize the organization and funding of needed regional safety monitoring functions applying the model of the multinational ICAO air navigation facility/service in accordance with the FASID and other ICAO guidelines.

4.7 Considering the scale and diversity of Asia and Pacific and considering the existing arrangements for provision of RMA services, it is further proposed that APANPIRG consider establishment of two Multinational ICAO Air Navigation Services – one for Asia and one for the Pacific. APANPIRG could proceed by calling meetings of the States concerned with each and encouraging them to sign appropriate Memoranda of Understanding. RASMAG/5 considered that these should be called the “Regional Safety Monitoring Board - Asia” and the “Regional Safety Monitoring Board – Pacific”.

4.8 Noting that both Asia and Pacific Regions encompass extensive international airspace that is being served by particular States as allocated by the Council pursuant to the Chicago Convention, ICAO should be considered in the design of the arrangements agreed to under the Memoranda of Understanding and included as a Member of each Board.

4.9 As noted, a considerable amount of work has been undertaken in Asia/Pacific to establish arrangements for safety monitoring to be undertaken on a regional basis. RASMAG/5 recommends that, in developing a sustainable framework, these effective working arrangements be utilized as the essential “building blocks”. For example, the task for APANPIRG of finding and assigning a State or an existing organization or agency to establish and operate the RMA, in accordance with the requirement in Annex 11, has been attended to with the RMA functions being performed by the Airservices Australia RMA, Monitoring Agency for the Asia Region (MAAR) and Pacific Approvals Registry and Monitoring Organization (PARMO). Similarly, actions have been taken to establish SMAs and CRAs with Asia/Pacific regions, albeit with less success in devising sustainable funding mechanisms.

4.10 Accordingly, many of the steps required to put agreements in place to establish a Regional Safety Monitoring Board - Asia and a Regional Safety Monitoring Board – Pacific and to make it possible


DRAFT

-8-

for APANPIRG to incorporate these multinational services into the Regional Plan have already been undertaken. RASMAG/5 considered that the critical step now that must be undertaken is for APANPIRG to invite the States concerned with each of the two Regional Safety Monitoring Boards to meet with the purpose of developing appropriate Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) incorporating specific mechanisms to provide necessary safety monitoring services and means of collecting the necessary funds. In that respect, APANPIRG is invited to note the recent success achieved in the MID Region in this regard. Notably, if the MOAs are maintained as administrative agreements, it is possible for the DGCAs (or CEOs of air navigation services providers or other appropriate organizations) in the participating States to sign the document. This does not appear to have been an impediment in the case of the MID Region. Whereas not all of the States concerned signed the agreement at the outset, a sufficient number of participating States committed themselves and additional States have joined since.

4.11 RASMAG/5 considered that many of the points of detail that must inevitably be attended to, including any estimation of costs involved and cost sharing arrangements, can be dealt with in accordance with existing ICAO guidance in the process of formalizing the MOAs in the light of the particular circumstances and the functions to be performed.

4.12 RASMAG/5 also noted that as safety monitoring is an admissible charge there should be no grounds to argue that funds are not available to perform the required safety monitoring services. However, it would be for each Board to decide how best to allocate the costs involved, whether to collect the funds from States or directly from airspace users, and on what basis to allocate the costs. It would then be at the discretion of the States whether to meet any costs incurred or whether to recover them from the users in accordance with ICAO guidance and policies.

4.13 RASMAG/5 recognized that APANPIRG and the States that would become parties to any MOAs would be in the best position to resolve many of these types of matters. However, RASMAG/5 draws APANPIRG’s attention particularly to the following considerations:

a) Boards should not be so large that they are unwieldy. It was noted in the case of the MID RMA Board that all ten States that were considered likely to be members were each to be permitted one place on the Board (the United Arab Emirates was invited to become an eleventh member).

b) A related issue is to decide on the States that would be invited to participate. A view was expressed by a representative at RASMAG/5 that only those States that have a responsibility for an FIR associated with the monitoring activities of each of the respective Boards should be invited initially. RASMAG/5 noted that the matter could be kept under review and additional States could be permitted to join at a later stage if appropriate.

c) RASMAG/5 considered that ICAO should be permanently represented on the Board in an appropriate capacity, recognizing as well that Asia and Pacific Regions encompass extensive international airspaces under the responsibility of the Council of ICAO. RASMAG/5 was reminded that ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices should apply strictly in these international airspaces and that the approaches taken to safety monitoring should reflect this.

d) RASMAG considered it appropriate that the Boards should report on their safety monitoring work to APANPIRG through RASMAG;

e) The Memoranda of Agreement should provide a capacity for the safety monitoring activities conducted under the authority of the Regional Safety Monitoring Boards to evolve according to requirements over time. However, a view was expressed that it is likely that, while the nature and scope of the safety monitoring tasks can be expected to change, it is likely that there will be an on-going need for regional safety monitoring mechanism.


DRAFT

-9-

f) It should be recognized that capabilities for performing the various safety monitoring tasks are being developed by several States/organizations and that it is important that the process of allocating any particular regional safety monitoring task to a provider should become a transparent one in which all parties are given equal opportunities to participate.

5. ACTION BY APANPIRG 5.1 The meeting is invited to:

a) Note the requirement to ensure that there is a regional mechanism to provide safety

monitoring services related to the implementation of RVSM;

b) Consider the global consensus that voluntary funding arrangements are not considered to be sustainable in the long-term and that the most appropriate funding mechanism for RMAs is to establish a multinational (ICAO) facility/service;

c) Recognize that the RMA mechanism can be implemented through the action of APANPIRG defining the RMA Asia and RMA Pacific as multinational (ICAO) facilities/services in accordance with the guidance provided in the FASID;

d) Initiate actions towards formalizing arrangements for the RMAs by inviting the States concerned to meet for the purpose of agreeing on appropriate Memoranda of Understanding to establish the RMAs on a formalized basis as per (b) above;

e) Recommend further that the States concerned address additional, recognized safety monitoring requirements for SMAs and CRAs under these arrangements by urging States to adopt Memoranda of Agreement that provide adequate scope to perform these functions and that they consider naming the bodies so established as the Regional Airspace Monitoring Board – Asia and the Regional Airspace Monitoring Board – Pacific, respectively; and

f) Consider the closure of Conclusion 16/2 on the basis that the intent of the Conclusion

has been met and a study group is no longer required.

- END -

ASIA/PAC FASID 2-1-11

GENERAL GUIDELINES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT ANDPROVISION OF A MULTINATIONAL ICAO ASIA/PAC AIR NAVIGATION

FACILITY/SERVICE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 These guidelines were developed by theASIA/PAC Planning and Implementation RegionalGroup (APANPIRG) for incorporation in theASIA/PAC ANP and for use in the ASIA/PACRegions to facilitate State’s collective efforts for costeffective implementation.

1.2 They reflect relevant ICAO provisions andestablished policies of the Organization's regionalplanning for and implementation of facilities/servicesrequired for air navigation applicable in the ASIA/PACRegions. They also recognize the principle that costsmay be recovered for facilities and services providedfor and implemented under the ASIA/PAC RegionalPlan as approved by the Council.

2. DEFINITION

Multinational ICAO Air Navigation Facility/Service

2.1 The meeting considered that multinationalfacilities/services would now be required to facilitateimplementation of the ASIA/PAC Air Navigation Plan,especially the new ICAO CNS/ATM systemsimplementation Plan. Because of their uniqueness,their impact on the system as a whole as well as theirimplications for users and providers of themultinational facilities/services, they would need earlyidentification. The following definition of amultinational ICAO ASIA/PAC air navigationfacility/service would permit this in a rational manner:

"A facility/service specificallyidentified as such and included inthe ICAO ASIA/PAC Regional Planfor the purpose of servinginternational air navigation in air-space extending beyond the air spaceserviced by a single State inaccordance with the ASIA/PACRegional Plan."

Applicability of ICAO provisions

2.2 Pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention andin line with the ICAO policies concerning theformulation of regional plans and their implementation,any multinational facility/service would be set forth inthe Regional Plan as established by the Council. Inturn, when establishing the cost basis for route facilitycharges the council approved principles are to beapplied, i.e. the costs to be taken into account should bethose assessed in relation to facilities and servicesprovided for and implemented under the ASIA/PACRegional Plan.

Multinational character

2.3 In ICAO rules and procedures the term"facility/service" for air navigation is well understood.Contrary to the term "project" or any other term whichmay relate only to certain segments or phases of anundertaking it does not exclude research, development,operation and eventually the phasing out of a jointventure. In this context, there is therefore no need todepart from the well known term "facility/service" forair navigation. There is, however, room for amplifyingthe definition by additional elements in order todissociate the common undertaking from thosefacilities/services which are provided by one State only.

2.4 The purpose of a multinational facility/serviceto serve international air navigation in airspaceextending beyond the airspace serviced by a singleState is a useful and qualifying element. It is a crucialcriterion in that it unambiguously discards otherpossibilities which the machinery for regional planningand implementation of requirements forfacilities/services provides for under Article 28 of theConvention, in accordance with Standards andRecommended Practices and relevant AssemblyResolutions, e.g. delegation of airspace, operatingagencies, bi- and multilateral agreements or as a lastresort, joint financing under Chapter XV of theConvention. While in any such case States wouldindividually remain responsible under Article 28 for theprovision of facilities/services within the area of theirjurisdiction a "multinational" facility/service by its very

2-1-12 ASIA/PAC FASIDnature would extend beyond the individual airspace ofa State.

3. DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESSINGO F A P R O P O S A L F O R AMULTINATIONAL ICAO ASIA/PACAIR NAVIGATION FACILITY/SERVICE

3.1 The following constitutes the step by stepdevelopment and processing of a proposal for amultinational ICAO ASIA/PAC air navigationfacility/service. Comments on individual steps are setforth in subsequent paragraphs.

a) Proposals for a multinational ICAOASIA/PAC air navigation facility/servicemight originate from:

! APANPIRG ! a State or a group of States ! an international organization

recognized by ICAO b) Proposals for such a facility/service

should be supported by material relatingto the following aspects:

! purpose of the proposal andoperational and technicaljustifications;

! financial implications and cost-effectiveness;

! managerial implications; and ! alternative solutions.

c) The proposal will be evaluated byAPANPIRG particularly in respect ofrequirement, acceptability and cost-effectiveness.

d) APANPIRG will then, if in preliminaryagreement, through the regional office(s)concerned:

! consult with States which woulddirectly be concerned with theprovision of the potentialmultinational facility/service, aswell as those States who wouldbe utilizingit; and as necessaryconcerned in ternat ionalorganizations; and

! re-evaluate the proposal in thelight of comments made by

these States and internationalorganizations and to decideeither to proceed or todiscontinue the proposal.

e) APANPIRG develops, in consultationwith all concerned, a complete proposalfor amendment of the ASIA/PACRegional Plan for processing inaccordance with the procedure approvedby the Council.

Comments on the process

3.2 In the light of the basic elements ascontained in the definition and their obviousconsequence of fully integrating the proposal for amultinational ASIA/PAC facility/service into the ICAOplanning and implementation processes for theASIA/PAC Regions, it follows that:

A) proposals for a multinational ICAOASIA/PAC air navigation facility/servicemight originate from:

! APANPIRG or ! a State or a group of States. ! an international organization

recognized by ICAO

3.3 In this context it is recalled that APANPIRG atall times takes an active posture. For the permanentand co-ordinating machinery this is a prerequisite toremain responsive to the specific requirements of theASIA/PAC Regions and is reflected in the objectivesof the group, namely to:

a) ensure the continuous and coherentdevelopment of the ASIA/PAC RegionalPlan as a whole taking into considerationthe effect of such development on theregional plans of adjacent regions; and

b) identify specific problems in the airnavigation field and propose, inappropriate form, action aimed atresolving these problems.

3.4 The ASIA/PAC planning processes and theworking methods of APANPIRG as reflected in itsProcedural Handbook ensure continued intensiveinformation of and co-ordination with States membersof the ASIA/PAC Regions. Although maximumtransparency is inherent in these procedures, specificattention is required from the outset when dealing withmultinational projects which may have far reaching

ASIA/PAC FASID 2-1-13implications for all concerned. This would include thefinancial problems which are a major cause ofdeficiencies in the implementation of the ASIA/PACRegional Plan.

3.5 The procedures for the amendment of approvedregional plans and the management of the ASIA/PACRegional Plan on a continuous basis are described inthe Introduction to the ASIA/PAC Regional Plan.

3.6 At the time a proposal is originated withinAPANPIRG or submitted for its consideration by aState/group of States, basic information must beavailable to permit preliminary evaluation. Therefore,as a principle:

a) Proposals for such a facility/service should besupported by material relating to the followingaspects:

i) purpose of the proposal and operationaland technical justifications

This material should include the overallplan and targets for the development andthe establishment of the facility/service.The likely implications if any, onregula t ions , working-rout ines ,equipment, premises and maintenanceshould be included in the supportingdocumentation. Information on theexpected consequences on the overallASIA/PAC air navigation system or anypart thereof should also be included.

ii) financial implications and cost-effectiveness

Related information should includeestimates of the total costs of themultinational facility/service covering, asrequired, research and development,implementation, operation andmaintenance, administration, and capitalcosts; how all costs incurred prior to theoperational phase will be financed;assessing savings which may accruefrom the implementation of thefacility/service (these can be measured inmonetary and/or physical terms forexample air traffic controller positions,communications facilities, etc.) andcomparing these savings to the total costestimates; proposals as to how costshares of States participating in theprovision of the project are to be

determined. Also, assessment needs tobe provided on impact on users fromcharges for the facility/serviceconcerned.

c) managerial implications

As a minimum, information on theorganizational infrastructure (operationaland administrative) and on staff shouldbe included.

d) alternative solutions

Although it may not normally beexpected that all proposals from theoutside submitted to APANPIRG forconsideration will contain relevantinformation to the extent necessary forpreliminary assessment, APANPIRGitself should at all times have due regardto any possible alternative which maysatisfy the operational requirement in amore cost/effective manner. Suchinformation should be part of theinformation provided to those who are tobe consulted.

3.7 Once necessary information is available, theconsequential next phase to be initiated with minimumpossible delay is that:

a) The proposal will be evaluated byAPANPIRG particularly in respect ofrequirement, acceptability and cost-effectiveness.

b) The APANPIRG will then, if inpreliminary agreement, through theICAO regional offices in Cairo, Dakar,Nairobi and Paris:

i) consult with States which woulddirectly be concerned with theprovision of the potentialmultinational facility/service, aswell as those States who wouldbe utilizing it; and

ii) re-evaluate the proposal in thelight of comments made bythese States and decide either toproceed or to discontinue theproposal.

2-1-14 ASIA/PAC FASID3.8 APANPIRG terms of reference, as well as theprocedures adopted for the conduct of its activities,enable it to receive advice in the field of economics asnecessary and appropriate. APANPIRG would be inthe very best position to establish the need for and theform such assistance should take when considering aproposal for a specific multinational facility/service.

3.9 After completion of the above-mentionedpreparatory work the process of including amultinational facility/service in the ASIA/PACRegional Plan requires that:

a) APANPIRG develops in consultationwith all concerned, a complete proposalfor amendment of the ICAO RegionalPlan for processing in accordance withthe procedure approved by the Council.

4. FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL AND OTHERCONTRACTUAL ASPECTS

Introduction 4.1 The participation of States in the provision of amultinational facility/service is based on theassumption that any State having supported and agreedto the implementation of such a facility/service andmaking use of it, should also shoulder its respectiveshare of the costs involved (paragraph 4.27 refers).The participating States would need to formalize theterms under which the multinational facility/service isto be provided in an agreement. A primary aim of theagreement should be to ensure that the costs involvedare shared amongst the participating States in a fair andequitable manner.

4.2 This part of the guidelines is concerned with themain contractual aspects, financial, managerial andother, that should normally be considered wheninitiating work on a potential multinationalfacility/service. The basic provisions that would needto be considered for incorporation in such an agreementare outlined, including provisions concerning costsharing and cost determination. However, the guidancedoes not extend to the presentation of a draft modelagreement or clauses, since circumstances related to theplanning, implementation and operation of individualmultinational facilities/services may vary considerably. Note: The guidelines generally refer to "agreement"as a generic term covering one or more agreements asthe case may be.

Types of agreement

4.3 An agreement covering the development,implementation, operation and maintenance of amultinational facility/service could either take the formof a formal international treaty or an "administrativeagreement". Both forms establish an internationalobligation but a treaty requires the signature of the headof state or government and will also require theratification or approval of the national legislativeassembly, which, as a rule, is a time-consumingprocess. An "administrative agreement", on the otherhand, is at a lower level of requirement in respect offormalities and procedures than a treaty, can be signedby a minister or director of civil aviation or some otherauthorized person, and could be concluded by anexchange of letters or notes. 4.4 It is recommended that, whenever possible, theagreement be established in the form of an"administrative agreement" rather than a formalinternational treaty because this would allow theagreement to come into force with minimum delay andalso permit greater flexibility in incorporating anysubsequent modifications required. It is recognized,however, that in some States constitutional or legalcircumstances may require the approval of thelegislative assembly for financial obligations to beaccepted by the State, particularly if these are of asubstantial magnitude and/or extend over a period oftime. Whatever form is used, the agreement(s) shouldbe structured to provide for easy subsequentamendments as developments may require. To thisend, material of detail which is more likely to requiremodifications, and which will not affect the basicprovisions of the agreement, should be contained inannexes or appendices.

4.5 It is further recommended that wheneverposs ib le on ly one genera l agreement(treaty/"administrative agreement") be adoptedcovering all aspects of the facility/service concernedthrough all its phases. However, this may not alwaysbe possible. In certain circumstances it might benecessary or preferable to have more than oneagreement (treaty/"administrative agreement") differingin scope and content. In those circumstances the aimshould be to cover as many aspects as possible in the"administrative agreement" and limit the use of thetreaty to those aspects for which this form of agreementis essential for the States concerned. Recognizing this,one agreement for example, might cover the activities,including prefinancing, to be undertaken by thoseStates that accept the responsibility for bringing thefacility/service up to operational status, with anotheragreement to be concluded between all the States(including the first group of States aforementioned),which would use or be served by the facility/service

ASIA/PAC FASID 2-1-15once it became operational. In such circumstances theformer agreement would be important because the firstgroup of States would have to ensure the provision offunds from their own resources to ensure theimplementation of the facility/service, since no inflowof revenues from charges on users (aircraft operators)would take place until the multinational facility/servicebecomes operational.

4.6 Another possible approach, if required bycircumstances, would be for all the participating Statesto conclude an agreement covering, in general terms,their commitment to participate in the provision of themultinational facility/service, and then developing aseparate agreement covering all aspects relating to thefinancing and operation of the multinationalfacility/service.

4.7 The various basic provisions that wouldnormally have to be covered in an agreement of thisnature are addressed below in the sequence they wouldusually appear, as follows:

a) Objective of the agreement

b) Obligations of States party to theagreement

c) Definition and description of the

facility/service

d) Establishment and operation of thefacility/service

e) Legal responsibility

f) Liability aspects

g) Managerial aspects:

i G o v e r n i n g b o d i e s a n ddecision-making arrangements

ii Organization and staffingiii Consultation

h) Financial aspects:

i) Cost determinationii) Cost sharingiii) Budgetingiv) Authority to approve the budgetv) Financial auditing

i) Taxation and other government levies

j) Procedures for settlement of disputes

k) Accessions, withdrawals, amendments toand termination of agreement.

Basic contractual provisions

a) Objective of the agreement 4.8 In its introductory text the agreement should setout the objective underlying the participating States'decision to jointly arrange for the provision of themultinational facility/service concerned.

b) Obligations of States party to the agreement

4.9 The agreement should at the outset briefly setforth the basic obligations of the participating States.These include the obligation (by a participating State orgroup of States individually or collectively or asassigned to an organization or agency) to establish andoperate the facility/service concerned; the obligation ofeach participating State to pay its share of the costsinvolved; the obligation to observe ICAO policies andpractices, including those addressing cost recovery byStates from aircraft operators, etc.

c) Definition and description of the facility/service 4.10 The agreement should contain a clear andaccurate definition and description of the multinationalfacility/service to be provided and the functions it is toperform, including to the extent possible and desirable,the supporting services required. It may be advisablein certain cases to make specific reference to functionswhich the multinational facility/service will not beperforming.

d) Establishment and operation of the facility/service

4.11 The agreement should specify who willestablish and operate the facility/service concerned,namely whether this is to be done by one State, two ormore States, an existing international organization, anexisting national or international agency, or a newagency to be established specifically for this purpose. Note: The decision as to who should provide the

facility/service could be influenced, inparticular, by the anticipated capital investmentand annual costs involved, as well as the extentto which the alternative providers (i.e. aparticipating State or States, international

2-1-16 ASIA/PAC FASIDorganization or agency) have been engaged inthe function(s) concerned.

e) Legal responsibility

4.12 If an international organization or agency (asreferred to in Assembly Resolution A22-19) is toestablish and/or operate the facility/service concerned,it will have to be endowed with proper legalresponsibility to have the capacity to contract, toacquire and dispose of property and to institute andanswer legal proceedings.

f) Liability aspects

4.13 Closely related to legal responsibility are theliability aspects which may have to be addressed in theagreement. This involves such aspects as thedetermination of the extent to which liability is to beassumed in connexion with the provision of themultinational facility/service. Other aspects alsoinclude whether the entity providing the facility/serviceconcerned, whether an international organizationagency or State(s), should alone assume suchresponsibility or whether this should be shared amongstall the participating States.

g) Managerial aspects

a) Governing bodies and decision makingarrangements

4.14 The nature of the governing body or bodiesrequired to administer the agreement needs to beestablished and a description of their functionsprovided. Should a new agency be established tooperate the multinational facility/service, this wouldneed to be stipulated in the agreement, where referenceshould also be made to the functions andresponsibilities of the executive head of the agency andto whom he or she would be responsible.

4.15 Voting arrangements should be specified. Itwould need to be decided whether each participatingState should have equal voting power (as is forexample the practice of ICAO). Alternatively, eachState's vote may be weighed in accordance with apredetermined formula, which would need to bespecified, for example, by determining the votingpower according to that participant's share of totalcontributions to the facility/service or agencyconcerned. A maximum and/or a minimum limit maybe set for the number of votes that can be assigned toany individual participant regardless of thatparticipant's share of total contributions.

4.16 Another voting aspect which has to be decidedon, and specified in the agreement, is whether a simplemajority would apply in all cases or whether forparticular issues a large majority vote (to be specified)or even unanimity would be required. Where differentdegrees of majority voting would apply depending onthe matter or subject being voted on, these would alsoneed to be clearly identified in the agreement.

b) Organization and staffing 4.17 The agreement should refer to the manner inwhich the entity actually operating the facility/servicewould structure or organize its functions. This wouldapply in particular if the operation is to be assigned toa new agency.

4.18 Various aspects of staffing (nationality,numbers and type etc.) will also need to be addressedand, as appropriate, incorporated in the agreement (oran annex to it). If the participating States agree that themultinational facility/service is to be provided by oneState or by two or more States (each providing separatecomponents or parts of the project involved), thenationality of staff should not give rise to anyproblems, and need not be covered in the agreement.However, operation by an international organization oragency may require that certain stipulations be includedin the agreement concerning the selection of qualifiedstaff from participating States. Other aspects to beconsidered, aside from the number and types of staff,are the various elements of conditions of serviceincluding status to be accorded to any expatriate staff,tax exemptions, etc., which will reflect on the over-allcosts of the venture.

c) Consultation 4.19 Provision should be made in the agreement toensure adequate consultation with States being party tothe agreement but not represented on the governingbody, and appropriate aircraft operators organizations.Such consultations should at least be undertaken inadvance of any developments that could materiallyaffect cost share to be allocated to these States, usercharges, and the quality of the services provided.

h) Financial aspects

a) Cost determination Pre-implementation considerations 4.20 The determination and presentation of the costsattributable to the provision of the multinationalfacility/service concerned should proceed in a manner

ASIA/PAC FASID 2-1-17acceptable to all the participating States. In this contextit should be noted that bringing the facility/service upto implementation status can involve the costs ofimplementation being financed by one or more of theparticipating States. However, once the facility/servicehas been implemented, these costs would be capitalizedand then included as depreciation (together withaccumulated interest) in the over-all cost base to beshared among the States participating in the provisionof the facility/service concerned.

Determination of costs 4.21 In order to formalize the manner in which thecosts to be shared should be arrived at, the agreementbetween the States participating in the provision of amultinational facility/service should contain clausesreferring to the determination of the related costs. Theagreement should also stipulate that the approachtowards cost determination be based on thatrecommended in Chapter 1 of the ICAO Manual onRoute Air Navigation Facility Economics (Doc 9161).Should more comprehensive instructions, based on Doc9161, be required, it is preferable that these bepresented in an annex in view of their relative volumeand detail, and also because it may be expected thatthey would need to be updated and modified morefrequently than the main text of the agreement.(Amendments to the annexes to the agreement wouldnormally be subject to the approval of the governingbody of the multinational facility/service).

4.22 In line with the approach adopted in Doc 9161,the annex would normally contain an inventory of thevarious components of the multinational facility/service(e.g. buildings, equipment, number of staff by function,etc.). It would also cover the determination of annualcosts, i.e. costs of operation and maintenance,administrative and common costs, and capital costs(depreciation and interest) as well as special capitaloutlays. Finally, where a multinational facility/serviceor any of its components serve other than themultinational functions specified in the agreement (i.e.functions serving one State only, or non- aeronauticalfunctions), instructions should be provided to ensurethe accurate determination of the "multinational" coststo be shared among the participating States.

Presentation of costs 4.23 The agreement would also need to specify,normally in an annex, the basic format to be used forthe presentation of the annual costs for approval. Thescope and detail of the format will depend on theparticular circumstances involved.

b) Cost sharing Responsibility for the sharing of costs 4.24 As stated in 4.1 above, once a State hassupported and agreed to the implementation of amultinational facility/service and making use of it, itwould be expected to assume responsibility for itsshare of the costs involved. This basic obligationshould be reflected in the agreement between theparticipating States.

Determination of cost share of each participatingState 4.25 The agreement should outline the procedure tobe applied for determining the cost share to be borne byeach participating State. Any cost sharing methodshould, to the extent possible, be equitable, simple andeasy to apply. The question of equity should not onlybe considered in the context of the participating States,but also with respect to the final users (aircraftoperators) since it may be assumed that in mostinstances the participating States would include thecosts they incur in the cost base for their air navigationfacility charges, where levied.

4.26 In general, it does not appear feasible torecommend one specific method or approach to costsharing because the situation will vary, dependingparticularly on the technical and operationalcharacteristics of the multinational facility/serviceinvolved, the views or policies of the participatingStates on how costs should be shared, and the volumeof these costs.

4.27 In the interest of equity, however, any methodof cost sharing should, in principle, be based on theextent of the use of the multinational facility/serviceconcerned by each participating State. Thus, theparameters or keys used to determine each State's costshare should reflect the extent of such use. However,if the use made of a multinational facility/service canonly be measured by applying complex procedures andat a cost which is not commensurate with the costs tobe shared, other methods of cost sharing based onreadily available and relevant statistical data could beapplied. Whatever method is selected it must providefor the just and equitable sharing of the costs involved.

Tangible national benefits to the State(s) actuallyoperating the multinational facility/service

4.28 A multinational facility/service might beoperated by one or more States with other Statescontributing their share of the costs involved. In such

2-1-18 ASIA/PAC FASIDcircumstances, all the States concerned must decidewhether or not the total costs should be subject tosharing or if any allowances should be made to reflectany tangible benefits accruing to the State(s) engagedin the actual operation of the facility/service concerned.Such benefits would usually be in the form ofemployment of nationals, contracts awarded to nationalcompanies, etc. with their associated multiplier effecton the economies of the State(s) concerned. It shouldbe noted that the States actually operating thefacility/service would, like other State(s) using it, beobliged to pay its (their) share of the total costs to beshared.

Recovery of costs from users 4.29 As a rule, a multinational facility/service wouldhave to be "multinationally" financed or prefinancedby a State, group of States or, by an agency asestablished under the authority of an agreement byStates. However, any of these could recover the costsso incurred from users once the facility/service hasbeen implemented. Nevertheless, States may alsochoose to recover less than full costs in recognition oflocal, regional or national benefits (Doc 9082,paragraph 29 refers). Where an agency has beenauthorized to recover its costs through charges, theauthorizing States would nevertheless need to make upfor revenue shortfalls where, for example, the Stateshad decided certain flights should either be exemptedfrom or pay reduced charges. 4.30 It would be up to each participating State todecide whether or not it wishes to recover its cost sharefrom the users (aircraft operators). A State could eitherinclude these costs in its cost base for route facilitycharges (if it levies such charges), or, alternatively,recover the costs by levying a separate charge(normally a more complex and costly procedure toadminister). While the recovery of such cost sharesfrom users might normally not be referred to in anagreement on a multinational facility/service, theagreement could include a provision to the effect thatsuch recovery must be based on Article 15 of theChicago Convention as well as the principles andrecommendations in Doc 9082.

4.31 If the participating States were to assign theoperation of a multinational facility/service to aninternational organization or an international agencyand decide that it should levy charges on aircraftoperators for the purpose of full or partial costrecovery, this would need to be covered in theagreement. In such instances the agreement wouldusually also stipulate (probably in a separate annex) thecharging formula to be used, reductions and

exemptions granted, billing and payment arrangements,etc. Such procedures would, of course, need to conformwith the provisions of Article 15 of the ChicagoConvention and Doc 9082.

c) Budgeting 4.32 Proper financial control will require costs andrevenues to be estimated in advance. The itemization ofthe costs should basically correspond with that used forthe presentation of costs (see 4.23 above). This willenable actual costs to be compared with estimatedcosts, and actual revenues with those estimated.

d) Authority to approve the budget 4.33 The agreement should also stipulate who hasthe authority to approve the budget and thus authorizethe use of funds to meet operating expenses and capitalexpenditures. This authority would normally be vestedin the governing body of the multinationalfacility/service concerned.

e) Financial auditing 4.34 The financial audit function forms an integralpart of the determination of the costs to be shared andthe cost share to be borne by each participating State aswell as of proper financial control. The agreementbetween States participating in the provision of amultinational facility/service should therefore specifythat an annual financial audit be performed by acertified independent external auditor.

f) Taxation and other government levies

4.35 The subject of tax exemptions and otheraspects related to taxation will need to be addressed inthe context of the over-all operations of themultinational facility/service. Similarly, with regard toother government levies such as custom fees andduties, value added tax, etc., it may also need to beconsidered whether the import or export, purchase orsale of any equipment, supplies, etc. required for theoperation of the multinational facility/serviceconcerned should be exempted from all such levies inthe participating States. The inclusion of clauses tothat effect would be likely to require an agreementsubject to ratification, such as a treaty.

g) Procedures for settlement of disputes 4.36 The agreement should contain stipulationssetting out the procedures to be followed for settlementor disputes between the participating States arising

ASIA/PAC FASID 2-1-19from the provision of the facility/service concerned.Regarding the settlement of disputes arising fromdifferent interpretations being given to the agreement,the States concerned would have to agree on theprocedures for negotiation or arbitration and on thebody to which an appeal for a final ruling could bemade.

h) Accessions, withdrawals, amendments toand termination of agreement

4.37 The agreement should contain provisions,including those describing the financial implicationsinvolved, to:

a) cover the subsequent accession by anyadditional qualifying State(s) after theagreement is in force; and

b) specify the procedure to be applied when a

signatory State wishes to withdraw from theagreement as well as procedures to followin the event of termination of theagreement.

4.38 Similarly, the agreement should specify theprocedures to be followed if amendments are to bemade to the main text or to any annexes (for whichdifferent procedures would normally apply).

Attachment B

Summarized from ALLPIRG/5 Working Paper 10

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN RMA: A STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE On the basis of the approach described in section 2 above [in ALLPIRG/5-WP/10] and existing guidelines on the establishment of a multinational ICAO air navigation facility / service, the implementation of an RMA could include the following steps:

1. define, at a PIRG meeting, the reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) monitoring function as a Multinational ICAO Air Navigation Service in accordance with the existing guidelines, on the establishment and provision of a multinational ICAO air navigation facility / service, included in the regional air navigation plan concerned;

2. agree to a cost sharing arrangement based on, for example, distance

flown or number of flights within the airspace for which each of the respective States has assumed responsibility, it being understood that distance flown may offer more precision while allocation based on the number of flights is simpler to administer;

3. find and assign a State or an existing organization or agency to

establish and operate the RMA, in accordance with the requirement in Annex 11 (the PIRG’s responsibility);

4. develop and establish an administrative agreement to regulate the

establishment and operation of the RMA, including the cost sharing arrangement and procedures for collection of contributions from the participating States (the PIRG, assisted by the ICAO Regional Office);

5. sign the administrative agreement (DGCAs or some other authorized

person in the participating States);

6. establish and operate the RMA as a Multinational ICAO Air Navigation Service in accordance with the administrative agreement (the assigned operator); and

7. recover the contributions to the financing of the RMA through

additions to the cost bases for route charges and transfer the amounts to the RMA operator (each State).

MIDDLE EAST REGIONAL MONITORING AGENCY

(MID RMA)

MMEEMMOORRAANNDDUUMM OOFF AAGGRREEEEMMEENNTT

Bahrain- 27 February, 2006

MID RMA Board/2–REPORT APPENDIX 3A

MID RMA Board/2

Appendix 3A to the Report on Agenda Item 3

_________________________________________________________________________________________MID RMA MOA dated 15 February 2006

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT, OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE

MIDDLE EAST REGIONAL MONITORING AGENCY (MID RMA) AND ITS FUNDING BY THE PARTICIPATING STATES

1. PARTIES 1.1 The Parties to this memorandum of agreement are: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. 2. AGREEMENT CONSIDERING the urgent need to institute a programme, on a regional basis, for monitoring the

height-keeping performance of aircraft operating in RVSM airspace;

CONSIDERING the Parties’ earlier decision that the Middle East Regional Monitoring Agency (MID RMA) will be funded entirely by the participating States and that the budget estimate for the first year, be paid by the Parties on equal basis;

The Parties have agreed as follows:

1. The Parties to this memorandum of agreement, referred to hereunder as Participating States agree to establish the Middle East Regional Monitoring Agency (MID RMA) and undertake to become its members;

2. The MID RMA shall be managed as a Regional programme; shall have legal personality and shall act through the MID RMA Board;

3. The overall objective of the MID RMA is the promotion of safety of air navigation in the Middle East Region through the operation and management, on a sound and efficient basis, of a permanent MID Regional Monitoring Agency;

4. The MID RMA Board, in which each Participating State is entitled to appoint one member, shall retain overall direction and responsibility for the supervision and operation of the MID RMA in accordance with the relevant obligations of the Participating States under the Convention on International Civil Aviation and its Annexes. The Board shall elect its chairman. It shall inter-alia, supervise and direct the MID RMA, follow-up its activities and reports and assign its priorities. It shall also secure the commitment of Participating States for funding the MID RMA in accordance with agreed funding mechanism and for provision of necessary data for the MID RMA;

5. The MID RMA’s scope, duties and responsibilities will be those agreed by the Board’s first meeting and could be revised by the Board. The MID RMA will be assigned clear tasks in a step-by-step approach starting with RVSM height monitoring and RVSM post-implementation safety assessment, having in mind the end objectives, which will include RNP/RNAV and SMS. The MID RMA duties and responsibilities will include, but will not be limited to the following:

- collecting and analysing RVSM data received from MID States as well as from Eurocontrol/FAA, IATA and airlines;

- collecting data on aircraft approved by various States for operation within RVSM airspace in the MID Region and enter such data in the MID RMA database;

- verification of the effectiveness of the approval process by States;


3A-2

- establishing a database for reporting height deviations of aircraft;

- verification that the target level of safety on implementation of RVSM is met and maintained;

- monitoring the effectiveness of the altimetry system modifications to enable aircraft to meet the required height keeping performance criteria;

- evaluation of the stability of altimetry system error;

- undertake monitoring missions to States as required;

- determine in the light of analysis made of data received and of missions conducted, whether compliance with required safety standards is maintained and initiate corrective action as needed in each case; and

- submit a report to each Board meeting on MID RMA activities, its analysis of data and any identified departure from RVSM Safety limits, for its consideration and action as appropriate.

6. The Participating States have accepted Bahrain’s offer to host the MID RMA in Bahrain to enable the early establishment and functioning of the MID RMA;

7. Bahrain will provide the offices, equipment and local personnel needed for the MID RMA operations and pay for the initial set up of the MID RMA without waiting for MID States’ contributions. The advance payment made by Bahrain shall be recovered through States’ contributions in compliance with the agreed funding mechanism;

8. Based on the agreed funding mechanism for the first year of operation of the MID RMA, the cost for the establishment of the MID RMA, its operation and management for the first year shall not exceed the estimated amount of US$ 300,000, which shall be borne by the Participating States on equal basis;

9. The funding mechanism and consequent contributions of Participating States may be modified in subsequent years by decision of the Board;

10. The MID RMA staff shall be composed of:

1. MID RMA Manager/Team Leader (Part Time)

2. One Assistant MID RMA Officer (Full Time)

3. Database Specialist (Part Time)

11. The MID RMA Manager/Team Leader shall manage the project on day-to-day basis and effect coordination with the Chairman of the MID RMA Board. He shall submit the MID RMA reports to the Board with copies to the ICAO Regional Office in Cairo;

12. Bahrain shall monitor the progress of the MID RMA, maintain financial accounting and provide general support and timely reporting;

13. Participating States authorize the MID RMA Board Chairman to negotiate on behalf of the MID RMA an agreement with ICAO and Bahrain specifying ICAO’s role as the custodian of the funds collected for the purpose of this agreement, in compliance with ICAO’s Financial Regulations and Rules;

14. This Memorandum of Agreement shall come into effect on the date it has been signed by the Participating States;

15. Any amendment to this Memorandum of Agreement, shall be carried out by the parties to this agreement;


3A-3

_________________________________________________________________________________________ MID RMA MOA dated 15 February 2006

16. Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Memorandum of Agreement, shall be settled by direct consultation between the Participating States concerned;

17. Any Participating State may withdraw from this Memorandum of Agreement by giving a prior notice of six (6) months to other Participating States. The obligations assumed by the Participating States under this Memorandum of Agreement shall continue to exist after the withdrawal from this Memorandum of Agreement to the extent necessary to permit the orderly finalization of activities, the withdrawal of personnel, the distribution of funds and assets and the settlement of contractual obligations. Additional funds, if necessary, to cover the above mentioned expenditures shall be provided by the Participating States.

18. The hosting of the MID RMA by Bahrain may be terminated at the request of Bahrain, with two years advance written notification to the MID RMA Board to allow sufficient time for selection of an alternative location and necessary arrangements for transfer of the MID RMA.

19. All correspondence relating to the implementation of this Agreement, shall be addressed to:

MID RMA Chairman of the MID RMA Board C/o Ministry of Transportation P.O. Box 586 Bahrain International Airport Manama - Bahrain

With copy to the:

ICAO Regional Director ICAO Middle East Regional Office Egyptian Civil Aviation Complex, Airport Road P.O Box 85, Airport Post office, Terminal One 11776, Cairo, Egypt