International Civil Aviation Organization
Electronic Filing of Differences(EFOD)
System and Filing of Differences Task
Force (FDTF)
Air Navigation Bureau
1
Outline
1. Background
2. EFOD functionalities
3. Principles and Procedures on the Use of EFOD
4. Rollout of EFOD (2011~2013)
5. Filing of Differences Task Force (FDTF)
2
1. Background
3
Obligation under the Convention
 Filing of Differences
 Article 38 of Chicago Convention for
filing of differences from Standards
 Assembly Resolution 37-15 for
filing of differences from
Recommended Practices as well
4
Requirement under ICAO USOAP
 Submission/update of Compliance Checklist
 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed
between ICAO and a Member State regarding
USOAP CMA
 Provide information on the
implementation of the specific
provisions of the relevant
Annexes
5
Different forms and means
used for collecting similar information
Completion of CC
Notification of Differences Form
6
Different means of sharing information
Compliance Checklist
through USOAP Restricted Website
Differences
through Supplements to Annexes
7
Caused duplicate tasks for States
Send Notification Form to ICAO
Update Compliance Checklist
8
Need for a single system/database
File differences pursuant to
Article 38 of Chicago
Convention
Keep up-to-date compliance
checklist pursuant to MOU for
USOAP
9
Decision by the Council – March 2011
 Agreed to the initial rollout plan of EFOD (2011~2013)
 Invite States to use EFOD as an alternative means for filing
differences to Annexes except Annexes 9 and 17
 Request States to validate data in EFOD, previously submitted
through CC under USOAP
 Requested for draft policy on EFOD for consideration by
the Council including the following issues;
 Languages to be used, user access, incorporation of A9 &17 and
publication of Supplements, etc.
10
2. EFOD Functionalities
11
Business requirement
State to submit/update Compliance Checklist
Conduct a
preliminary
data entry
Online/Offline
Save
as a draft
Online
NOT shared with
other States
Submit/Update
Compliance
Checklist
Per Annex
To be shared
with other States
State to file differences
Choose
Standards only
or All SARPs
Per Annex
Submit official
notification to
ICAO
To be used for
Generation of Supplement
ICAO to monitor and share information on
implementation of SARPs
12
Key Functionalities
 States
 Indicate compliance with and/or difference to SARPs with details
 Kill two birds with one stone to meet
obligations under CMA MOU and Convention Art. 38
 ICAO
 Review/monitor the
level of global
implementation
 Generate e-Supplement
13
Electronic Supplement
 A dynamic and on-demand research tool on
differences from SARPs submitted through EFOD that
provides:




A list of States who have verified differences
Completeness of data reporting for a selected State
Differences per Annex for a selected State
Differences of all States per a selected provision
14
3. Principles and Procedures on the
Use of EFOD
15
Principles and Procedures
on the Use of the EFOD sytem
 Considered and approved by
Council at its 195th Session
 To be Published by Secretary
General in 4th Quarter 2012
 Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction/Scope
Access to the System
Languages
Annex Information
Compliance/Differences
Information
System performance
References
16
Guiding Principles
used in drafting the Procedures
 Limited to the use of system
 Subject to existing rules and procedures
 Approved and maintained by Secretary General
 Accommodate all required future functionalities of EFOD
 Supplemented by Technical Implementation Plan
17
EFOD Technical Implementation Plan
 Strategies involved in allocation of resources for
development and implementation of required
functionalities of the EFOD system :




A list of required functionalities (Where we want to be)
Gap analysis between current and required functionalities
Timelines for releasing new functionalities
Matrix for measuring system performance
18
4. Rollout of EFOD (2011~2013)
19
Verification of data by States
 Jan 2011, CC data from 153 States were migrated
into the EFOD system
 April 2011, States were requested to:
(SL AN 1/1-11/28)
 Recognize EFOD as an alternative means of filing of
differences
 Verify and confirm the data in EFOD which had
previously been submitted through CC under USOAP.
20
Incorporation of Annexes 9 and 17
 Annex 9 (Facilitation)
 Completed uploading annex provisions in the system
 Differences information is to be uploaded by the end of 2012
 States will be informed of taking further for further actions
 Annex 17 (Security)
 Will remain pending until additional security controls are
implemented in the system
21
Improvement of the system
2012~2013
For Other
States’
For public
(view/research)
(view/research)
~ 2011
For Own State
(read/write)
2013
Difference to
Recommendation
Differences to
State compliance
definitions
information
Differences to
Differences/Compliance
Standard
Database
Standard
Recommendation
Figures & Tables
SARPs
Database
Appendices
22
Improvement of the system (Cont’d)
 Preformatted word document
Downloadable and can be worked on offline and
put back into online system
 Validation feature
workflow of State’s internal coordination and
approval process for completion of compliance
checklist and filing of differences
 Electronic Supplements
Feature that users can search difference
information by Annex provision and/or by States
23
5. Filing of Differences Task Force
(FDTF)
24
Background
Not proper functioning of the two requirements
regarding differences from ICAO provisions
 According to USOAP report, more than 70% audited States were found
to be not satisfactory in fulfilling requirements of filing and publication
of differences.
Convention Article 38 and
Assembly Resolution
• Notification to
ICAO of ALL
differences from Annex
provisions
Annex 15
• Publication in the AIP of
SIGNIFICANT
differences from Annex,
PANS and SUPPs
provisions
25
Establishment of TF
 Membership




Established by the Secretary General
Chaired by Mr. Luc Lapene from France
Members from 14 States and 1 Int’l Organization from all Regions
2 ANC Members and Secretariat members from ANB, ATB, LEB
Note): 1st meeting in 12~14 Oct. 2011 and 2nd meeting in May 2012
 Deliverables
 Draft policy on the use of EFOD – Completed
 Comprehensive Study on issues regarding filing of differences in
general with a view to improving relevant rules and procedures
and providing additional guidance to States – In Progress
26
Comprehensive Study on Issues
regarding Filing of Differences
 Being finalized by FDTF
 To be considered by Council at its
198th Session in 2013
 Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Executive summary
Introduction
ICAO’s past efforts
Current situation
Analysis of differences
Known issues
Importance and benefits of filing
and publication of differences
Future strategies and
recommendations
27
Known issues
ICAO
Misleading,
inconsistent,
insufficient
guidance
Limited
value of
States
Not at all or not
properly file
differences
Not publish significant
differences in AIPs
Supplements
Frequent
Annex Am’t
and
unrealistic
applicability
dates
Difficulty in
comprehen
ding and
interpreting
Annex
provisions
Lack of
States’
commitment
Lack of
effective
national
process and
procedures
Lack of
knowledge
and
expertise
28
Recommendation
 Improve and develop ICAO documents
 Improve SARPs development and amendment process
 Increase transparency of differences information
 Enhance assistance programme in cooperation with
various entities
 Introduce a quality control process wherein ICAO
reviews differences and provides timely feedback
 Improve the EFOD system to ease the work of States
29
Review
1. Background
2. EFOD functionalities
3. Principles and Procedures on the Use of EFOD
4. Rollout of EFOD (2011~2013)
5. Filing of Differences Task Force (FDTF)
30
31