2) AGENDA ITEM 1 WELCOME, INTRODUCTION AND WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

Transcription

1 Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on the Draft Regulatory Approach for the draft Interoperability Implementing Rule on Aeronautical Data and Aeronautical Information Quality for the post-publication phase (ADQ-2) Résumé 1) GENERAL 22 November 2011, Brussels HQ, EUROPA conference room =============================================== The objective of the Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on the Draft Regulatory Approach for the Draft Interoperability Implementing Rule on Aeronautical Data and Aeronautical Information Quality, was to discuss the main outcomes of the formal consultation for ENPRM/11-003, with a view to reaching a common understanding on the issues raised in order to support a focussed approach for the next phase. Invitations to the workshop were addressed to the contact points of the EUROCONTROL Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ENPRM) Consultation distribution list in addition to members of the Safety Regulatory Commission (SRC), Performance Review Commission (PRC) and Civil/Military Interface Standing Committee (CMIC). The Regulatory Approach Document (RAD) was subject to a formal consultation during the period 14 June October Following this formal consultation period, a Draft Early Summary of Responses (SOR) Document was compiled and distributed to the Stakeholder community for review and eventual discussion during the workshop on 22 November The Workshop was attended by some 53 delegates representing Air Navigation Service Providers, Civil Aviation Authorities, National Administrations and Industry and was chaired by Mr Peter Green in his capacity of Head of Single European Sky (SES) Unit within EUROCONTROL's Single Sky Directorate. 2) AGENDA ITEM 1 WELCOME, INTRODUCTION AND WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming all attendees and by detailing the responsibility of the EUROCONTROL SES Unit. The Chairman proceeded to introduce some key people supporting the development of the implementing rule on ADQ-2, notably Mr Torsten Jacob representing the European Commission and Mr Manfred Unterreiner in his capacity as EUROCONTROL's project manager for the mandate. The Chairman thanked the participants for the comments received and recalled that the objective of the RAD is to develop issues by looking at items such as performance, with a view to identifying regulatory options. He emphasised the fact that the intention is not to criticise current practice and that the RAD is within the initiation phase of the mandate and not yet the drafting phase. The Chairman then concluded agenda item 1 by detailing the day's agenda. The agenda was agreed without change. 3) AGENDA ITEM 2 THE MANDATE The Chairman recalled that EUROCONTROL was given a mandate to assist the European Commission in the development of an interoperability draft Implementing Rule (IR) on Aeronautical Data and Aeronautical Information Quality for the post-publication phase. He then outlined the main purpose, objective and developmental phases of the mandate. 1/9

2 Referring to the overall aim behind the mandate, the Chairman highlighted the driver as being to support the implementation of the interoperability regulation as agreed by the Industry Consultation Body (ICB) and the Single Sky Committee. 4) AGENDA ITEM 3 RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ON DRAFT RAD FOR ADQ-2 The ADQ-2 project manager Manfred Unterreiner who, prior to introducing the main subjects arising from the consultation phase, commented on two specific challenges in the drafting of the RAD. By way of clarification, he explained that whilst industry standards were considered in the RAD, they were not referred to on the basis that the analysis of the means of compliance is foreseen in the next stage. Secondly, given the substantial research performed, EUROCONTROL commented that some of the information included in the RAD may have been too detailed and as such may have evoked concerns in certain areas. EUROCONTROL proceeded to detail the main subjects which arose during the consultation phase and provided some specific clarifications notably with regard to the spirit in which the RAD was drafted, the fact that it is not the draft IR. In addition, the IR itself would be drafted from a relatively high level performance perspective without being overly prescriptive as an enabler for future developments such as PBN. The proposed alternatives and the main operational scenarios depicting the key stages comprised within ADQ-2 were then presented. 5) RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT RAD FOR ADQ-2 EUROCONTROL presented a statistical overview of the 215 individual comments received from Stakeholders. Referring to the distribution of comments received amongst the Stakeholder groups, EUROCONTROL highlighted the fact that the main beneficiary of the ADQ-2 mandate, namely the Airspace Users, did not avail of the opportunity to respond. The main comments made during the consultation and EUROCONTROL S proposed responses were presented by EUROCONTROL before the floor was then opened for comments. A detailed discussion on the need for regulation ensued. The main queries raised are summarised as follows: a) Global Consistency and Reliance on Industry Standards Clarification with regard to the data and specifically which type of applications would be concerned by the regulation was requested. EUROCONTROL commented that the RAD is in fact a discussion paper and not a regulation. Referring to the question raised, EUROCONTROL stated that given the importance placed on the consistency element, the data concerned the complete environment from on board to ground applications. Referring to the query regarding the type of applications, EUROCONTROL stated that a service oriented view would be taken in response to user requirements in the future implementing rule. FABEC queried why the RAD referred to three alternatives when in fact it is a proposal of a phased approach to vote on and commented that they would have liked to see a real alternative to the proposed IR namely the drafting of an industry standard which could then become a Community Specification. The Chairman re-iterated the process involved and explained that the inclusion of alternatives in the RAD is key to facilitating the discussions which will ultimately shape any future Implementing Rule and is in fact in line with RIA best practice. EUROCONTROL added that the alternatives presented in the RAD were based on a service oriented view taking the functions performed within the supply chain into consideration. In addition, it was explained that the three alternatives were distinct options, and not one option with transition phases. The chairman referred back to the reference to Community Specification (CS) and recalled that any CS must be linked with the interoperability regulation or an IR. FABEC welcomed EUROCONTROL's acknowledgment of Industry Standards, queried the lack of a gap analysis in terms of the issue to be addressed and encouraged an action to 2/9

3 go further into the analysis of the Industry Standards prior to any definitive regulatory action. EUROCONTROL acknowledged the importance of Industry Standards and highlighted the fact that their applicability to all parties concerned had to be taken into consideration. The chairman added that the analysis requested by FABEC is systematically a part of the next phase. One Stakeholder commented that in reality all actors in the down stream supply chain are obliged to apply standards as required by the market and called for an enhancement of industry standards in preparation for future developments as opposed to regulation. EUROCONTROL explained that the intention is not to transpose industry standards into a regulation but rather to include high level performance requirements in the drafting of an IR. One industry representative stated that despite their lack of support for any future regulation, in the event of such a regulation, it is required that there should be no need for additional demonstration with regard to products designed for use outside of Europe. EUROCONTROL acknowledged and shared the view presented. FABEC re-iterated their support for the use of existing Industry Standards which could be made into a EURO norm and as such would be an acceptable MoC from a regulatory perspective and queried the fact that this approach was not considered in the alternatives presented in the RAD. The Chairman stated that the RAD could not be specific with regard to the European Norm aspect. FABEC requested clarification on whether it was intended to go to CEN to ensure global applicability as a data operability standard. The Chairman stated that that was not something that EUROCONTROL could decide as it is within the remit of the European Commission. Citing the specific example of the ESOs (CEN, CENELEC and ETSI) who are currently mandated to develop a community specification on the basis of EUROCAEED-99C and RTCA DO-272C on user requirements for aerodrome mapping and on ED-119B on the interchange standards, the EC representative stated that the approach proposed by FABEC is not a new approach and that it is something that has been used in the past, is currently being used and will also be used in the future. One Stakeholder queried why the reinforcement of the EASA LoA process could not be applied and stressed the need to discuss the oversight aspect. EUROCONTROL responded that the EASA LoA process is under the EASA remit and that discussions are currently ongoing in view of the recognition of the necessity to enhance the process. Furthermore EUROCONTROL stated that the intention is to strengthen the LoA process via an implementing rule. The need for harmonisation was supported and the need for regulation was queried. EUROCONTROL responded that having considered the various associated risks during the research phase, the conclusion was that the area was in fact a potential regulatory subject whereby a more high level approach as opposed to an overly prescriptive approach, ensuring consistency in preparation for future developments, would be the most appropriate way forward. One Stakeholder commented that the scope of any potential IR was indeed much wider than the LoA process and as such the discussion should take the products and/or intended products that could be affected, into consideration. EURCONTROL agreed that the scope of ADQ-2 was much wider than the LoA process, but that the IR would need to be 'data-centric' and not 'product-centric'. 3/9

4 It was stated that from a commercial perspective, the RAD does not explicitly consider the various suitability for purposes that need to be considered and that the need for interoperable data between ATM systems should be appreciated. EUROCONTROL commented that within the SESAR context and particularly SWIM, the need to synchronise data exchange models with all global future developments is fully acknowledged. One Stakeholder proposed that a study of user requirements and expectations followed by a comparison with existing industry standards may provide more clarity with regard to a possible way forward. EUROCONTROL responded that the RAD was drafted from the perspective of the most challenging function to be enabled as opposed to who provides the function. The need to ensure that any future regulation is clearly demand and target oriented in order to avoid regulation in areas that are currently regulated or that do not need regulation, was raised by two Stakeholders. EUROCONTROL echoed support for this approach and reiterated the fact that there is no intention to over regulate. One FABEC representative commented that the convergence towards global applicability is not sufficiently considered in the RAD and that due consideration should be given to the pace of such changes within the European region and the potential impact on the industry outside of Europe. The EC representative stated that there are external factors to be considered notably the drafting of a PBN IR which need to be taken into account when looking at aeronautical data quality issues. b) Evidence of the need for regulation One Stakeholder stated that the reference to the Human Factors element in the RAD was not acceptable given the numerous provisions currently in place. The Chairman explained that the point raised in the RAD referred to the fact that if the correct processes are not followed with regard to manual intervention, the correct level of data integrity will not be achieved. EUROCONTROL further added that the RAD had to consider other actors involved in application integration into other services, with a view to ensuring the application of minimum requirements in a consistent manner in order to enable future developments. Referring to work already performed in the context of PBN, one Stakeholder requested clarification on the suitability of the data quality used. EUROCONTROL replied that the objective as identified by the ICB is to maintain data integrity in all operational concepts across the whole data supply chain from originator to the end user. FABEC commented that whilst they acknowledged the need for improved data quality, due consideration should be given to the correct pace, approach and global context. EUROCONTROL acknowledged the FABEC intervention and explained that these elements would indeed be carefully considered in the next phase of the ENPRM process, and this would be subject to further Stakeholder consultation on the draft IR itself. FABEC re-iterated the need for a managed convergence approach towards global applicability which, in their opinion is insufficiently addressed in the RAD. EUROCONTROL acknowledged the comments and the fact that the RAD did not fully describe the evidence found and the research performed, notably with regard to the problem analysis. 4/9

5 FABEC stated that there is evidence of the need to improve data quality but no evidence for the need for regulation and that caution should be exercised to ensure that the justification for regulation is not counter productive notably in areas such as PBN. EUROCONTROL recalled that the need for regulation had been reviewed most recently in 2010 by the ICB and SSC when approving the ADQ-2 mandate. The EC representative reiterated the fact that the Members States indicated through the SSC to the EC that there is a need to regulate in this area adding that the challenge now is to identify the scope of the rule, taking into consideration existing provisions and future developments. One Stakeholder suggested that data integrity issues do not currently occur in the down stream part of the chain and as such if regulation will be adopted, caution should be exercised to ensure that the correct parts of the data chain are targeted. EUROCONTROL acknowledged the need to identify and subsequently address identified problem areas. c) Common Data Exchange Formats Clarification on Alternative 3 was requested. EUROCONTROL explained that Alternative 3 would specify common interoperability requirements/performance requirements as opposed to specifying detailed data formats. One Stakeholder queried the EUROCONTROL response relating to exchange points used internally within organisations and other parties, and requested further clarification and a clearer definition in the RAD. EUROCONTROL explained that the distinction is made between an organisation populating sub systems and an organisation exchanging information with a completely separate entity external to that organisation. In the event that FABEC would be organised as one organisation it would be treated as such. One Stakeholder commented that the regulation of data exchange formats may create a barrier to innovation and should avoid over prescription at all costs. EUROCONTROL echoed this sentiment and stated that any regulation should be performance based as far as practicable leaving those who have to implement the regulation to choose a compliant format. FABEC called for further consideration of what constitutes a new system in view of the potential cost to service providers. The Chairman acknowledged that this was one element that would be considered in the detailed cost analysis. Clarification was sought with regard to the scope of Alternative 2 on the basis that Alternative 3 automatically included Alternative 2 EUROCONTROL stated that it is not intended to regulate customer data from airlines other than those common elements of the data set published by Member States in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 73/2010. Reference was made to the SOR and the fact that 90% of respondents rejected Alternative 3 and clarification with regard to the preferred alternative was requested. EUROCONTROL stated that it is at this stage, premature to rule out any of the alternatives presented and that the objective is in fact to discuss all options taking on board all Stakeholder comments provided in order to ascertain the most feasible way forward. Clarification with regard to the need to know the data format as opposed to the data content was requested. EUROCONTROL explained that it was not about the format but rather the overarching interoperability requirements. 5/9

6 FABEC again queried why the RAD presented what is essentially a phased approach under the guise of 3 alternatives, without offering any real alternatives. EUROCONTROL stated again categorically that the RAD did not promote or present a phased approach but rather presented three alternatives in line with the standard approach taken in RIA i.e. a high, middle, and low optional approach with a view to identifying a preferred option or a hybrid approach. d) Costs and Benefits EUROCONTROL commented that the preliminary economic impact assessment was sufficient to highlight the main comparative differences between the alternatives presented in the RAD and that a more detailed economic assessment would be performed once a preferred alternative is identified. e) Scope of the IR Clarification with regard to the scope of the IR and the applicability of flight planning briefing was requested EUROCONTROL confirmed that the integration of state designated service would be covered by 73/2010 but when State published data was integrated into other products by downstream actors, the data will be covered by the scope of the ADQ-2 IR. One Stakeholder queried the added value to the IR in the context of software assurance and called on the EASA representative to clarify the ongoing work of the EASA WG. EASA confirmed that there is currently a Safety Assessment Working Group looking at how to conduct medium term safety assessment for ATM systems. He added that part of that work is assessing how to address software assurance given that the common requirement rule has now been superseded by the EASA rule and there is no dedicated chapter on software assurance, adding that standards are one means to comply. One Stakeholder commented that it may be premature to include AMDB into the IR given that ICAO has not yet defined the requirements and proposed that it may be advisable to wait until ICAO has created a world standard. EUROCONTROL replied by saying that AMDB is in fact an optional element in 73/2010 and that the approach for ADQ-2 would be to stick to same elements in terms of data sets. Referring to the SOR one Stakeholder requested clarification with regard to the high level performance requirements and how they would be developed. EUROCONTROL accepted to review the corresponding part of the SOR and that this would be subject to the next phase namely the drafting phase. f) Implementation Timescales One Stakeholder stated that it was not appropriate to discuss timescales in view of the fact that the discussion on costs and benefits did not take place and furthermore asked whether the intention was to pursue Alternative 3. EUROCONTROL explained that a preference for Alternative 3 was expressed at the time on the basis of the information available however the objective of the workshop was to gather as much input as possible in order to identify what is achievable within the timescale. The EC representative added that in terms of timescales there is a requirement to synchronise ADQ with the external world notably with regard to performance requirements for PBN and, as such, timeframes are in fact a vital element and should be discussed. One Stakeholder requested clarification with regard to the possible way forward in view of the issue of timescales and the reluctance to accept a phased approach. 6/9

7 EUROCONTROL explained that a phased approach can in fact be envisaged as a possible way forward but that it was not one of the Alternatives. g) Manual Processing of Aeronautical Data/Information Reference was made to the SESAR WP8.14 and clarification sought. EUROCONTROL replied that there is work currently undertaken in SESAR WP8.14 with regard to procedure encoding and mapping rules and that any eventual IR will take this work into consideration. The need for regulation was again questioned by one Stakeholder in view of the current provisions in place to ensure data integrity. EUROCONTROL commented that looking at the broader picture, the fact remained that the issue is one of consistency amongst all concerned parties. h) Data Quality Requirements The EASA representative requested clarification on the suitability of seeking data quality via an interoperability rule as opposed to via a safety rule through the safety assessment. EUROCONTROL explained that the driver is in fact the most stringent application which is followed. i) Regulatory Applicability and Oversight One Stakeholder requested clarification as to who had the responsibility to conduct oversight. EUROCONTROL stated that discussions were still ongoing and that the matter remains subject to further discussion and clarification. EASA added that in view of the amendment of the new common requirements in line with the EASA basic requirement for data providers to be overseen, it could potentially fall under the EASA remit. Reference was made to organisations outside of the EU and whether or not a means is foreseen for approval outside of the EU law. The EC representative commented that whilst he had no direct response there are various tool sets available notably the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and the FAA signed in March 2009 and that the comment is noted and should be addressed when the rule drafting work begins. EASA complemented this response by saying that depending on the type of information concerned the LOAs could be applied. One Stakeholder commented that a lot of analysis has been performed in the ADQ Regulators WG, which could potentially be exploited with regard to the oversight issue. j) Data Sets and Completeness Clarification was requested with regard to the aim stated to ensure that only a single consistent validated reference source of data is used and confirmation was sought that an airline can collect data from different sources. EUROCONTROL responded that the point focused on the consistency of the data provided and that it was not the intention to remove the possibility of collecting data from various sources. One Stakeholder queried whether the scope of the proposed IR related to internal database processes or whether it addresses the data exchange. EUROCONTROL stated that research had highlighted the need to ensure that a consistent, validated source of data should be used for the population of databases within an organisation and that this should not exclude the possibly of manual input but the emphasis should be placed on the consistency of data. 7/9

8 k) QMS and Personnel Competence Due to time constraints, it was proposed to the Chairman to skip over the remaining issues on QMS and Personnel Competence that the remaining time be devoted to Agenda Items 4 & 5. The Chairman agreed to proceed as such but committed EUROCONTROL to taking the comments raised into account in the drafting phase. The UK military representative made a general intervention that the military state providers are currently faced with a significant budgetary reduction and as such some kind of flexibility with regard to the timelines may be required. The EC representative responded that the general principle in SES regulation allows for special provisions for State aircraft. In terms of the applicability of SES regulation to military aircraft flying GAT, SES regulation is indeed applicable however there is a distinction with regard to the verification of compliance and a similar approach may be foreseen in the context of ADQ-2. 6) AGENDA ITEM 4 & 5 - SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS EUROCONTROL summarised the key points for consideration during the drafting phase: Problem analysis to clarify the need for certain provisions Avoid too prescriptive / detailed provisions interoperability / performance requirements challenge to ensure right balance Need to consider global convergence Balance timescales against scope (phased approach) Clarify the role of safety assessments in defining DQRs Clarify the roles and responsibilities for safety processes Clarify safety oversight Exploit Industry Standards, as far as possible strengthen them, as relevant initiate to enhance them, as relevant Address common performance requirements for data exchange Need to clarify the intention of the single reference source Mutual recognition of LOAs needs to be ensured Prepare recommendations for the enhancements of the LOA process with complementary action to be progressed by EASA. The EC representative commented that the problem analysis should focus on subject areas and not the rule drafting process. One Stakeholder requested the specific reference to the oversight issue to which EUROCONTROL agreed. EUROCONTROL summarised the next steps as follows: ADQ-2 mandate will progress to the Drafting phase Key focus for the first half of 2012 plus the extended impact assessments Thereafter EUROCONTROL will again consult formally with stakeholders to seek views on the draft regulation 8/9

9 Need for continued stakeholder support Key item is the launch of the Economic impact assessment planned for 19/12/2011 aiming at defining cost drivers to then initiate data gathering. Fact gathering must include a broad sample of potentially regulated parties including Military. Regarding the finalisation of the RAD, the Chairman stated that, due to the comments raised, it would be necessary to discuss the workshop outcome internally before deciding on a regulatory approach. However, he already felt it unlikely that Alternative 3 would be retained as presented. The Chairman undertook to consider the request for a second workshop to consider the eventual proposed approach and to respond in the coming days. He committed to continuing the collaborative approach as provided for in the ENPRM process. The Chairman thanked the workshop participants for their constructive comments and closed the meeting. 9/9