ADQ – An ANSP/AISP Perspective ADQ Implementation Workshop, Brussels, 29.05.2013 Uroš Grošelj, Slovenia Control, Ltd.

Contents Background The ADQ Strategy for Slovenia National Repository and the EAD Progress to Date Experienced Issues Recommendations Conclusions

Background Slovenia Control started its ADQ implementation in 2010 At first, meeting deadlines, it was considered as mission impossible The first task was an Initial Assessment of the status: Indicated that a lot of work was needed in some areas even though the Slovenia Control AIS considered itself to be mostly compliant with ICAO. It was obvious from the assessment that an approach for the whole of Slovenia was needed: For example, digital provision throughout the data chain. As a result, an ADQ Strategy for Slovenia was developed. Public tender for ADQ support (Mileridge Ltd.) Work is now on-going to implement the strategy. Initial plan to comply was 01 JUL 2015 A number of delays have been experienced Slovenia Control started its ADQ implementation in 2010, shortly after the regulation entered into force. Based on my 20 years of AIS experience, my first thought was -THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE The first task was an Initial Assessment of the status to determine what work was needed to comply: From an interviews with Authorities, NSA, Ministry and others it was obvious that an approach applicable to whole Slovenia was needed. Most of the originators and Authorities heard about ADQ for the first time. We developped an ADQ Strategy Public tender for ADQ support was Issued. Only two offers received. That tells a lot about the ADQ knowledge outside of the AIS/AIM community After several meetings with Mileridge and my limited knowledge about ADQ I insisted to set realistic date of compliance 01 JUL 2015. Since than several delays have been experienced

The ADQ Strategy for Slovenia The strategy for Slovenia has been developed to mainly address the technical needs: How can information be passed throughout the data chain? Also addresses some institutional issues: How do we help small parties to comply? How do the AIS and the NSA keep a better oversight of the planned changes? How can we make an error reporting simple, whilst the needed statistics are maintained? It was decided that a central repository of aeronautical data should be established in Slovenia: Whilst fully supporting our commitments to the EAD. This repository will be used by all parties to interact with and submit their aeronautical data: Limits the true exchange of data.

The ADQ Strategy for Slovenia(2) The repository will also provide workflow management: The quality processes are defined within the tool and are therefore enforced. This allows a high degree of control and helps with quality assurance of the data that is provided to the AIS for publication. The strategy calls for a tool that may be accessed by anybody, anywhere, using the internet. It will be hosted by Slovenia Control. Cost sharing remains an issue!

National Repository and the EAD The repository will be used to populate the EAD SDO database: Probably using an ESI connection or EAD IFS The EAD tools will then be used to create the eAIP, Charts, NOTAM... NOTAM will continue to be prepared directly using the EAD INO Tool: However, the same workflow management will be used to control the quality of the incoming NOTAM requests.

Progress to Date Progress has mainly been slow but steady. Several Workshops have been run Delays have been experienced: For example, approval of the strategy which was fundamental to most tasks. Some delays result from the need to wait for NSA approval activities: NSA very busy with a low level of resources. Other are as a result of a lack of resources available within Slovenia Control. We are progressing slow but steady. We have to do the rest of the work within AIS/AIP department (AMDT, charts…) We have conducted several workshops with all data originators, NSA, Ministries invited, to explain ADQ, requirements, our intentions and progress Delays are inevitable. Takes time to approve Strategy (Ministry), resources, public tenders, testing of SW, Working Instructions, SLAs etc. NSA approval of Conformity Document Framework, Working Instructions, DO index, Workflow tool etc. 2 persons in AIP/MAP including me are all resources we have for ADQ

Progress to Date(2) However, some main achievements have been made: Workflow management tool is now in place within the AIS and soon to be rolled out to other parties (AD Authorities and NSA first); Agreement has been reached with the NSA on Means of Compliances to be adopted; Work Instruction preparation started; A framework conformity document has been prepared and agreed with the NSA. DO Index created Migration to the new AIP/eAIP tool (EAD apsXML) eAIP adaptation (ID‘s changed) DQR definition started for all data as per Article 6(1) and Annex IV, Part A SLA update others Workflow tool soon to be released. It requires a lot of testing and parallel activities. We agreeed with NSA, that Eurocontrol MoC will be accepted in Slovenia as the MoC. However not officially published! Work Instruction for complete Aeronautical Data process started. Needs to be reviewed, tested, accepted by different Data Providers and integrated into their organisation. Training still to be created. In order to use our eAIP in any system (interoperability) and autmize the workflow tool, each data item in eAIP must have an unique ID in eAIP, that can be later linked to the User, Role and Organisation within the tool. As an ANSP, we must demonstrate to our National Supervisory Authority  that we conform with Article 6(1) which states "Member States shall ensure that air navigation service providers comply with the data quality requirements laid down in Annex IV, Part A.„ It is our understanding that these DQRs must cover ALL data items, not just those listed within the Harmonised List. To explain our understanding, Annex IV Part A 1) states "Data quality requirements for each data item within the scope of aeronautical data and aeronautical information referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) shall be as defined by the ICAO standards referred to in Annex III point 11 and other relevant ICAO standards without prejudice to point 2 of this Annex."   Article 6(2) then requires that where ICAO has not established DQRs, we must do so through the application of a safety assessment.

Experienced Issues The main issue that has been encountered is time: Slovenia Control AIS has a small number of resources; ADQ is an additional task which must be undertaken in parallel with normal day-to-day activities: Formalisation of the current working practices takes time. Lacks knowledge of ADQ and the competences that are required: Digital exchange of data; Software Safety Assurance; Safety management; Requirements specification; Tool qualification;

Issues Encountered(2) The second major issue is NSA involvement: Again, this stems from a lack of available resource NSAs have an ever increasing workload also. The lack of coverage of the full data set within the Data Quality Requirements Specification is also an issue: Not considered to meet the needs of ADQ: Seems that the letter from the EC does not change the need for coverage / safety assessments: The application of the DAL Specification is also a major task: Needs to be carefully analysed and tailored to fit the organisation; Seems to be more concerned with the safety relevance of any data than the safety impact of the process: Being addressed in agreement with the NSA. The lack of coverage of the full data set within the Data Quality Requirements Specification is also an issue: Not considered to meet the needs of ADQ: Seems that the letter from the EC does not change the need for coverage / safety assessments (How can a letter override Regulation???) Major task.

Recommendations Undertake an initial assessment if you have not already done so: You need to know where you are in order to know how to get where you need to be. Get as much involvement from the NSA as possible: Working as a team can really assist; The AIS may need the NSA to support the provision of information to the AIS. Understand the pressures on the NSA: The AIS is not the only function with too much to do. Get an early agreements with the NSA: Better than having problems later. If you are undertaking a safety assessment of the Data Quality Requirements, use the draft list provided for consultation: Include the consultation comments. - Get as much involvment of NSA. Their support is crucial especially when you have a reluctant Data originator not willing to invest resources in ADQ compliance Understand that NSA is also lacking resources

Recommendations(2) Tailor the DAL Specification to suit your organisation: Particularly necessary for small organisations. Seek advice from people with experience of Software Safety Assurance. Involve your quality, safety and security departments in the project. Finally, make small steps towards full compliance: To try and think about the whole project at once can be too big and can be overwhelming!

Conclusions Meeting ADQ IR deadline, is still mission impossible EC did not consider resources&knowledge required and available AIS/AIM was always an ugly duck and little money was spent on it This changed overnight and Management is not ready for that Industry and EAD also not ready (AIXM mapping, business rules…) ADQ IR requires moderate to high investment but EC wants ANSP to reduce Route charges by 3,5%/year My first thoughts now become reality. Meeting ADQ IR deadlines is MISSION IMPOSSIBLE Whoever wrote ADQ IR did not have any AIS operational knowledge. Implementationj of ADQ requires all operational staff involvment in addition to their day-to-day work.

Conclusions (2) Our pragmatic deadline was/still is set to: 01 JUL 2015 Available human resources are key to success of ADQ

THANK YOU