Terrain and Obstacle Databases
Working Group (TOD WG)
ADQ implementation workshop
Alexandre Petrovsky
Eurocontrol
28 May 2013
TOD WG Objectives
 Facilitate and coordinate TOD implementation in ECAC taking
into account operational requirements and applications
 Collate, analyse and identify causes of difficulties arising during
TOD implementation in the States
 Develop and recommend action to resolve these difficulties
 Advise EUROCONTROL (AIM/SWIM Team) and ICAO on TOD
implementation.
2
eTOD – ICAO standards
Area 1 = State (2008)
Area 2 = TMA (2015)
Area 3 =
Aerodrome/Heliport
(Recommendation)
Area 4 =
CATII/III RWY (2008)
3
Status of implementation of TOD in ECAC
www.eurocontrol.int/prisme/atmatlasviewer.html?mapCode=eTOD
4
Status of TOD Area 1 and 4 implementation
TOD Area 1 (2008) :
TOD Area 4 (2008):
Checks: Availability Terrain dataset
Blue: Availability Obstacle dataset
Dark Green: Completed
Yellow: Partial
Grey: No CAT II/III RWY
5
Implementation drivers
• Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) / Minimum Safety
Altitude Warning (MSAW)
• Instrument Flight Procedure
Design
• Advanced Surface Movement
Guidance and Control systems
(A-SMGCS)
• Aeronautical Charts / On-board DB
• Flight simulator, obstacle
management
• Synthetic Vision System
6
Needs of operators
7
TOD requirements in ADQ IR
 Article 2 Scope
1. …
It shall apply to the following aeronautical data and aeronautical
information:
a)
…
b) electronic obstacle data, or elements thereof, where made
available by Member States;
c) electronic terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available
by Member States;
d)
…
2. This Regulation shall apply to the following parties:
a)
b)
…
…;
c) public or private entities providing, for the purposes of this
Regulation:
…
iii) electronic terrain data; and iv) electronic obstacle data
8
9
Example Area 1 obstacle dataset completeness
 Area 1 obstacles collected prior to TOD requirements,
published in ENR 5.4 “Air Navigation (En-Route)
Obstacles”
 Difficulties obtaining metadata for obstacles existing
prior to TOD

Options:


Don’t provide – no metadata
Provide – caveat for missing metadata

User perspective: “better to have something rather
than nothing”

TOD WG conclusion: obstacle datasets for Area 1 (the minimum being the data
published in ENR 5.4) could be provided with clear documentation on
missing/unknown values and with a statement about associated liabilities.
10
Example Area 1 obstacle dataset
11
Other issues related to ADQ
 Providers outside aviation area
 Terrain/Obstacles datasets
provider:
 National Geodetic Agency
 Military authority
 Number of data originators for
obstacles
 Terrain data set format
 No common format defined
 TOD WG action: Compile a list
of user and provider
preferences for terrain data
formats
12
Terrain dataset format: TOD WG analysis
 Analysed formats: GeoTIFF, DTED, USGS
DEM, ESRI Grid, ASCII Grid, Raw binary,
ASCII XYZ, City GML, Shape, TIN etc.
 None fully met ISO 19100 series requirements
as required by ICAO and ADQ
 But, all formats could be used by the existing GIS for the exchange
of data.
 Next-intended user’s preferred format:
 GeoTIFF & Metadata
13
Summary
 TOD implementation advances in ECAC
 Identified issues related to ADQ :
 Reluctance to ‘make available’ TOD due to additional ADQ
requirements
 better to have no data or partly compliant data?
 example with Area 1 obstacle completeness
 ADQ requirements for non-aviation TOD providers
 ‘fit-for-purpose’ requirements?
 Terrain formats
 User most preferred format
14
More information about TOD:
Website: www.eurocontrol.int/services/terrain-and-obstacle-data
Email: alexandre.petrovsky@eurocontrol.int
15