data integrity: a practical guide · european organisation for the safety of air navigation...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Data Integrity: A Practical Guide

CHAIN Controlled and Harmonised

Aeronautical Information Network

CHAIN/0072

Edition : 1.0 Edition Date : 14th September 2007 Status : Released Issue Class : General Public

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Document Title Data Integrity: A Practical Guide

EWP DELIVERABLE REFERENCE NUMBER

ACTIVITY REFERENCE INDEX EDITION : 1.0

CHAIN/0072 EDITION DATE : 14th September 2007 Abstract

This paper sets out a number of practical approaches and solutions that a State may adopt in improving the integrity of its data.

Keywords

CONTACT PERSON : Manfred Unterreiner TEL : 93038 UNIT : DAP/AIM/CHAIN

DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE

STATUS CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION

Working Draft Executive Task General Public

Draft Specialist Task EATM

Proposed Issue Lower Layer Task Restricted

Released Issue INTERNAL REFERENCE NAME : EUROCONTROL Electronic Filing System

Edition: 1.0 Released Issue Page iii

CHAIN/0072Data Integrity: A Practical Guide

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

The following table identifies all management authorities that have successively approved the present issue of this document.

AUTHORITY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE

Author/Editor Manfred Unterreiner EUROCONTROL 14th September 2007

Activity Manager Manfred Unterreiner EUROCONTROL 14th September 2007

Quality Assurance Nicholas Ashley EUROCONTROL 14th September 2007

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page iv Edition: 1.0


DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document.

EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE SECTIONS

PAGES AFFECTED

0.1 26th February 2006 First issue. All

0.2 27th February 2006 Updated following QA review. All

0.3 2nd March 2006 Updated following further review. All

0.4 2nd May 2006 Updated following QA review. All

0.5 6th October 2006 Updated with additional best practice. All

0.6 9th October 2006 Updated following QA review. All

0.7 24th October 2006 Proposed Issue All

0.8 23rd March 2007 Updated to explain bespoke. All

1.0 14th September 2007 Released Issue. All

Edition: 1.0 Released Issue Page v


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 CHAIN – An Overview .....................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Scope.........................................................................................1

2. STEP-WISE IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................2 2.1 General.............................................................................................................2 2.2 Awareness .......................................................................................................3 2.3 Best Practice ...................................................................................................3 2.4 Quality Management System .........................................................................3

2.4.1 AIS Data Process and Static Data Procedures ............................................4 2.5 Safety Management System...........................................................................4 2.6 ECIP..................................................................................................................4 2.7 SES Regulation ...............................................................................................5 2.8 Adoption of Guidance Material ......................................................................5 2.9 Data Process Mapping....................................................................................6 2.10 Service Level Agreements .............................................................................6 2.11 Digital Storage and Transfer ..........................................................................6

2.11.1 Email.............................................................................................................7 2.11.2 Electronic Documents...................................................................................7 2.11.3 Spreadsheets ...............................................................................................7 2.11.4 Databases ....................................................................................................7 2.11.5 Bespoke Systems.........................................................................................7

2.12 CRCs and the DQTS........................................................................................8 2.13 Standard Input Forms.....................................................................................8 2.14 Digital Standards.............................................................................................9

2.14.1 AICM/AIXM...................................................................................................9 2.14.2 AMXM/AMXS................................................................................................9 2.14.3 eAIP..............................................................................................................9

2.15 EAD.................................................................................................................10 2.16 Considerations for an Automated Process ................................................10 2.17 National Quality Database............................................................................11

3. BEST PRACTICE COMPENDIUM...........................................................................12 3.1 General...........................................................................................................12 3.2 Compendium of Requirements....................................................................12 3.3 Family of Documents....................................................................................12 3.4 State Best Practice........................................................................................12

3.4.1 Upstream data operations ..........................................................................13 3.4.2 Data Quality................................................................................................18

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page vi Edition: 1.0


3.4.3 Internal to Services.....................................................................................19 3.4.4 Coordination ...............................................................................................21 3.4.5 Downstream data operations......................................................................21

Released Issue


Page 1Edition: 1.0

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 CHAIN – An Overview

The objective of “Controlled & Harmonised Aeronautical Information Network – CHAIN” is to improve the accuracy and quality of originated data and its management from the point of origination to the point of publication and, to subsequently enable enhanced processing throughout the entire data chain.

The purpose of CHAIN is to support regulators and service providers in implementing and maintaining traceable, controlled and auditable processes in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annex 15 requirements for data quality, with a particular focus on data integrity.

The scope of CHAIN is flight critical data and covers essential navigational data as established in ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) Annex 15, Appendix 7, supplemented by the industry standards European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) ED-76 "Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data” and ED-77 “Standards for Aeronautical Information”.

CHAIN addresses processes and actors involved in the “upstream data operation”, i.e. from the point of origination to the point of publication. Additionally, the “downstream data operation” is an integral part of the provision of an awareness campaign.

Out of scope are:

1. Core functions of origination e.g. Procedure Design (addressed by the EUROCONTROL NAV Domain). However, transmission related functions will need to be compliant with the CHAIN principles;

2. The amendment of the EUROCONTROL Survey Standard Doc007 (undertaken by the EUROCONTROL NAV Domain). However, the resultant document will be an integral part of CHAIN’s awareness and training campaign.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

Whilst in an ideal world the processes which exist to originate, process and publish data would ensure that the information published would have complete integrity, the situation in which today’s aeronautical information is published is far from perfect.

The material prepared under the CHAIN activity has presented many requirements and statements of guidance which are intended to assist States in improving their current situation.

This paper sets out a number of practical approaches that a State may adopt in improving the integrity of its data.

It is acknowledged that some States have already initiated some of the steps discussed within this paper.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page 2 Edition: 1.0


2. STEP-WISE IMPROVEMENTS

2.1 General

Within the context of data integrity, a number of improvements may be foreseen which may be implemented over time. Some may be achieved simply and cheaply whilst others will require careful planning and implementation, probably requiring the procurement of system solutions from third party providers.

Figure 1: Building towards Integrity

As may be seen from

Figure 1, many of the simple improvements that may be introduced quickly do, however, have only a small impact on the integrity of data. It is only later that more complex improvements, requiring a greater resource investment, bring the major improvements. However, the smaller, simpler elements are often needed to build upon and only when all the components have been addressed is full integrity achieved.

However, the continued adoption of improvements will see increments, or steps, in the integrity of information, with these steps leading to a significant increase in data integrity when, over time, they are compounded.

Released Issue


Page 3Edition: 1.0

The following sections present some of the concepts which may be introduced to improve integrity with, where applicable, suggestions as to how they may be adopted. The order of implementation is not generally important although, in some cases, dependencies may be seen.

2.2 Awareness

One of the first simple changes that may be introduced is that of awareness. Despite the global nature of aviation and the overall picture that is commonly described, often not all parties have full awareness of the complete data chain, the roles of the actors and their responsibilities.

If mechanisms, such as local road-shows or workshops, can be established to provide a common understanding amongst all actors from data origination through to publication, and possibly beyond, the needs and requirements of all involved may be shared and understood. Through increasing awareness, actions and requirements which, to some, seem unnecessary and burdensome, may be put into context. Furthermore, through open and frank discussion, possible improvements may be identified.

2.3 Best Practice

The application of best practice is seen as a major contributor to improved integrity. Chapter 3 provides more details of best practice.

2.4 Quality Management System

Today many States’ Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) have a Quality Management System (QMS) which applies to their Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) function, some having certification for the entire service they provide. In general, ISO 9000 is the chosen standard as this is the ICAO recommended QMS for AIS functions.

Some other actors in the data chain have a certified QMS but there is typically not an emphasis on the management of data and, in particular, its integrity.

Two points of improvement, however, remain:

1. Firstly, the ANSP does not cover all the functions in the data chain and some organisations involved do not have such certification;

2. Secondly, the QMS in place have not typically been developed with the specific topic of data integrity in mind.

It is, therefore, suggested that these two points be addressed as follows:

1. The first, obvious solution is for all actors in the data chain to have a certified QMS, preferably ISO 9000 for consistency. It may be possible for this to be achieved through a voluntary approach but, where this cannot be achieved, either a contractual or regulatory approach may be adopted.

For a contractual solution it is possible that, for example, survey companies selected to originate data are requested to have a QMS, this possibly being stipulated as part of a call for tender launched to determine the company to be used.

Where voluntary and contractual attempts are not successful, regulatory action by the regulator may be needed to enforce the improvement.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page 4 Edition: 1.0


2. The QMS in place should include provisions for data integrity, addressing the specific actions that are needed.

Such topics that should be addressed include the assurance that manual actions have been performed with the required degree of integrity, that the data is handled and stored in accordance with its quality requirements and that sufficient staff training and awareness is established.

2.4.1 AIS Data Process and Static Data Procedures

One form of support in the development of operating procedures for AIS, is the AIS Data Process and its associated Static Data Procedures.

These were initially designed to meet the processing needs of data from the point of receipt at AIS to its subsequent publication as a product of the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (IAIP). Through the CHAIN work, this scope has been extended to encompass the delivery of information from the Data Provider to the AIS. This has been achieved through the development of a new Static Data Procedure (SDP-21).

More information may be found at the following web address:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/aim/public/standard_page/qm_sdp.html.

2.5 Safety Management System

The application of Safety Management Systems (SMS) which specifically address data integrity is very limited within the data chain; this, despite the fact that ATM and aviation, as a whole, are so reliant upon the quality of the data used in order to operate. Furthermore, the applicability of the EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirements (ESARRs) within the data chain has been unclear.

Two clear lines of improvement may therefore be established:

1. Where one does not already exist, the introduction of a SMS which specifically addresses the needs for the integrity of data;

2. The adoption of the ESARRs. The ESARRs will assist in ensuring that the SMS has addressed all areas of importance specific to ATM.

2.6 ECIP

Some European Convergence and Implementation Plans (ECIP) have objectives which will aid either the integrity of data, the interoperability of systems, or both.

Adherence to these objectives will bring about a degree of harmonisation and unity within the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) region which will, again, promote integrity.

Although some of the ECIPs have a direct integrity relationship, many do not. However, as the main objective is harmonisation, indirect benefits which improve integrity may be foreseen.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/ecip.

Released Issue


Page 5Edition: 1.0

2.7 SES Regulation

The European Commission’s (EC) Single European Sky (SES) initiative is introducing a number of new regulations which result in new requirements for those involved in the data chain.

Some of the regulations are already in place and have an impact on service providers throughout the chain whilst others, which are currently under development, are highly likely to impact these same providers.

An example of such a situation is the Aeronautical Data Integrity (ADI) mandate. A number of options have been developed as a result of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which have been issued for public consultation. Each of the options has an impact for the actors within the data chain, some to a greater degree than others.

States will be required to comply with these regulations and many will have a direct impact on the integrity of information. A phased implementation may be permitted with some regulations being applicable before others.

The SES Common Requirements impact those within throughout the data chain not just AIS Service Providers, for example, by having to be able to demonstrate that they are compliant with the ICAO SARPs, including, for instance, ICAO Annex 15’s integrity requirements.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/ses .

2.8 Adoption of Guidance Material

The guidance material prepared by the CHAIN activity provides advice in the following main areas:

• Understanding – the principles based on the main functions;

• Procedures – considerations for the day-to-day operations of the data chain;

• Systems – aspects that should be considered in the design or procurement of systems.

The implementation of this guidance material will greatly improve the integrity of information. Some of the following sections elaborate on particular topics included in this guidance material.

The guidance material is provided as follows:

a. A compendium of requirements;

A document which establishes a set of requirements, classified by the affected group, related to the integrity of data.

b. The family of documents;

A set of documents which discusses in more detail the requirements established within the compendium. Provided in five volumes, four address the specific areas of the Overall Process, Data Origination, Data Exchange and Data Publication and the fifth provides a glossary.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page 6 Edition: 1.0


2.9 Data Process Mapping

Gaining a complete understanding of the State’s data chain and, hence, where problems exist today and where effort is needed to make improvements, is a key activity. Without this knowledge, States may not direct effort where the best gain is made or, worse, they may spend effort correcting perceived problems which, in reality, do not exist.

The CHAIN activity is undertaking a detailed data process mapping which will result in a highly detailed, generic data chain. Whilst this may be broadly similar to that in use within a specific State, it is unlikely to offer a complete match. States will, however, be able to adapt this generic mapping to match their particular case.

The activity required by a State to instantiate this generic mapping will bring a number of benefits:

1. The data chain is fully understood;

2. The regulator may use the flow as a means to audit those involved;

3. Awareness will be increased through the activity;

4. Resources which are always at a premium may be focused where the best return on investment may be gained.

Through these benefits, integrity should be improved as points of weakness are identified and remedial action taken. Experience has shown that such an exercise leads to questions regarding the ownership and liability of information being addressed which have not previously been raised.

2.10 Service Level Agreements

The application of Service Level Agreements (SLA) can greatly help in the provision of information from one actor to the next. One of the main complaints voiced has been in relation to uncontrolled and ungoverned interfaces between parties where recipients had little or no control over their input.

SLAs provide a focus through which the parties involved in the provision of information may discuss, negotiate and agree on the manner in which information is to be provided. This agreement may cover:

• Timeliness – when information is required;

• Content – what information is to be provided;

• Format – how information is to be presented;

• Means – how information is to be provided;

• Approval – how the resultant publication is approved for release.

Agreement on each of these topics brings advantage from an integrity perspective. All parties are aware of their responsibilities and, through the discussion held, the implications of non-compliance with the agreement.

2.11 Digital Storage and Transfer

In order to improve integrity, it is essential that a move is made away from the mainly manual environment in which today’s operations are performed to one in which manual actions are only used where absolutely necessary.

Released Issue


Page 7Edition: 1.0

The main need for manual interactions today is the transition point between actors where, typically, paper-based documents are still the norm.

A number of steps may be taken to shift away from these manual transactions, each leading to an increase in integrity.

2.11.1 Email

An initial move to improve the situation regarding data integrity is a transition to the use of email from paper documents.

This transition may initially be supported through the use of standard email functionality in which the information is included. The information may then be either ‘cut and paste’ out or retyped, although the latter case in not ideal.

2.11.2 Electronic Documents

The transfer of information from one point to another using a method, in which information may be electronically copied, is an improvement over the need for manual re-entry.

Whilst ‘cut-and-paste’ is not without problems, any errors made tend to be more obvious as values ‘pasted’ in error tend to be very different to those which should have been included.

Therefore, it is suggested that, as a minimum, information should be provided from one point to the next in a word-processed file, such as a Microsoft Word file.

2.11.3 Spreadsheets

The next stage of a transition from paper to electronic media would see the use of more intelligent electronic systems such as spreadsheets where the computer is able to understand more of the format and content of the information and allow metadata, such as Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) values, to be included.

Again, information will typically have to be ‘cut and pasted’ into a document.

2.11.4 Databases

A further step in the transition would see the use of a database. Such a technology has the same benefits as a spreadsheet but also allows applications to be developed which may access the data electronically. Whilst it is unlikely that, without a move to a bespoke1 system, ‘cut and paste’ will be eliminated, it may be minimised.

2.11.5 Bespoke Systems

The introduction of bespoke systems to electronically receive, process, store and transmit information would, if so designed, see the elimination of as much manual intervention as possible. Whilst potentially costly and requiring substantial time to plan, procure, train and introduce, such systems are an essential component of the future data chain.

1 Bespoke systems are those which are developed specifically against a particular customer’s requirements.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page 8 Edition: 1.0


2.12 CRCs and the DQTS

The use of CRCs is encouraged for two main reasons:

1. They are mandated by ICAO;

2. They provide an industry standard means of ensuring integrity of information and are widely used in technologies such as the Internet and wireless communications.

The EUROCONTROL Data Quality Tool Set (DQTS) provides a suite of tools which may be used to:

1. Protect data during storage and transmission through the application of CRC values;

2. Allow calculated geodetic values to be confirmed.

DQTS is well known within the AIS community and used within many States, however, it is less well known by those who feature in the upstream operations, despite its applicability to these areas.

It is, therefore, proposed that benefit will be gained and an improvement seen through adoption of DQTS to provide a means of:

1. Allowing calculated geodetic data to be checked. DQTS provides tools which permit the quality checking of, for example:

a. Co-ordinates that have undergone a datum transformation or map projection;

b. Calculated bearings and distances between points;

c. Intersection points between two geodesics / great circles;

d. Points along the centreline of the runway;

e. Intersection of a geodesic with a geographical border.

2. Protecting data in storage by the application of CRC values which are calculated at the point of storage and checked at the point of retrieval;

3. Protecting data during transmission, again, through the application of CRC values.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/aim/public/standard_page/tools_dqts.html.

2.13 Standard Input Forms

As part of the CHAIN activity, a series of Standard Input Forms are being developed which will provide a standard interface by which information may be entered into a digital specification. The data which may be entered covers all essential and critical data, as specified by ICAO and are based upon Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM) entities.

It is intended that these forms may be used to allow a State to develop a work-flow, with users entering and, if required, signing data for use within general office tools.

Such an approach promotes the provision of a more complete data set, provides a more secure means by which data may be entered and, through the use of digital signing, provides increased integrity of data, authentication and non-repudiation.

Released Issue


Page 9Edition: 1.0

2.14 Digital Standards

Whilst the digital storage and transfer of information between systems does not require a standardised interface specification, in the interests of interoperability it is considered beneficial.

Through the use of standards, systems which make use of the specification are guaranteed to be able to receive and interpret information correctly.

A number of standards exist today, the ones detailed below being particularly pertinent to the data chain.

2.14.1 AICM/AIXM

The Aeronautical Information Conceptual Model (AICM) was developed as an entity relationship model which represents all information typically found within an AIP. The model allows, for example, database designs to be created for AIS systems. The AICM has led to the development of the Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM). The AIXM is rapidly becoming a world-wide accepted defacto standard for the exchange of digital aeronautical data.

Whilst its full validation capabilities may not be used early in the data chain where the complete information for entities is not known, it does provide a framework into and through which information may be passed.

The AIXM provides the capability for additional metadata to be associated with its data through the use of its extensibility features. The definition of standardised metadata, which does not currently exist, would also assist in the association of data with its metadata.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/aim/public/standard_page/interop_aicm.html.

2.14.2 AMXM/AMXS

The Airport Mapping Exchange Model (AMXM) provides a similar capability to the AICM but is intended, as the name suggests, intended to be applied for digital airport maps.

Schemas are defined, creating the Airport Mapping Exchange Scheme (AMXS), using Geography Markup Language (GML). The AMXS provides a similar capability to the AIXM but using a more geospatially oriented language.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/aim/public/standard_page/interop_amxs_models.html.

2.14.3 eAIP

The electronic AIP (eAIP) specification is intended to provide an electronic means by which a State may prepare and publish its AIP.

The specification comprises two components:

1. The data;

2. Its presentation.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072

Page 10 Edition: 1.0


Several style sheets which are used to control the presentation of the data, may be provided, each being applied to the same core data. Such an approach helps to guarantee that differing products contain information which is internally consistent and has integrity across the products.

Further benefits are as follows:

1. The data is available in a machine readable form that allows improved loading into systems without human intervention;

2. The data content of the AIP is standardised, leading to a product which is easier to use;

3. Presentation may be standardised more easily, again leading to a product which is easier to use.

Migration to the eAIP is considered a relatively straightforward task which brings large benefits and helps increase the integrity of data.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/eaip/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html.

2.15 EAD

The European AIS Database (EAD) provides a central repository of AIS data with a European scope. Through its design and implementation, the EAD has brought about a significant change in the consistency and, hence, integrity of data.

Whilst no system which is downstream of the point of origin can improve quality, steps may be taken to identify poor quality information. The EAD provides many useful tools for performing such activities.

Information loaded by a State is required to undergo a number of checks which help to ensure that:

1. The entered data is plausible;

2. That data entered for the State is consistent within the State;

3. That data entered for a State is consistent across the European region.

Furthermore, the States are able to make use of tools which interact with the database to prepare products which are consistent with the dataset.

Migration to the EAD will allow a State to take advantage of these tools and consistency checks, and hence improve integrity.


http://www.eurocontrol.int/ead/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html.

2.16 Considerations for an Automated Process

The introduction of automated processes will bring about a significant improvement in the integrity of information.

Whilst the eradication of the human being within the process is neither achievable nor desirable, the automation of tasks which may be processed without human interaction does significantly reduce the chances of human error being introduced.

Released Issue


Page 11Edition: 1.0

Processes may be introduced simply, using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products or may be the result of bespoke systems development.

No matter which route is chosen, it is essential that the topics discussed within this paper and the regulation which exists are considered. For example, this paper has discussed the use of CRCs, and ICAO, in turn, mandates the size of the CRC to be applied.

2.17 National Quality Database

Whilst outside the scope of CHAIN, the implementation of a single National Quality Database is considered to be the ultimate solution to assist in the protection of data integrity and quality.

Under such a scheme, each actor in the data chain would access a single repository into which the data and associated metadata is entered. There is no longer any need for transmission between points, other than that involved in the population and use of data within the database.

Access would be controlled such that only authorised personnel would have access to the data which they genuinely need. The mechanisms for accessing the database would also be such that the integrity of the communications used was guaranteed.

Such a database would provide a single point from which the consistency of information may be checked and ensure that the data was committed to and read from an official, approved source.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072



3. BEST PRACTICE COMPENDIUM

3.1 General

The research and adoption of best practice may be used to introduce changes to processes, procedures and systems that have a direct impact on the integrity of information.

This best practice may be ascertained through assessment of other service providers, other functions within ATM and other industries where the integrity of data is of high importance.

Areas of the CHAIN work which will assist States in the selection of the best practice which suits their organisation are as follows.

3.2 Compendium of Requirements

Although the compendium is a set of requirements, many of the requirements it contains are based on best practice. This is especially true for requirements which are derived from the needs for a quality management system.

3.3 Family of Documents

The family of documents introduces further guidance and best practice which may be seen as meeting the needs of the requirements laid out in the compendium.

3.4 State Best Practice

The best practice presented here has been derived from a number of sources including:

a. Information gained during the Service Level Agreement roll-outs;

b. The AIS Ahead Best Practice guide;

c. Information gained in the CHAIN Awareness Workshops.

Many of the proposals in this chapter have already been implemented by States and are deemed to be of benefit. Others are future initiatives planned by States, either in the near future or as part of a longer term vision and ideal. Some of the ideas proposed may not be possible to implement in all States due to institutional and legal issues but they may be taken as guidance and adapted to suit particular State circumstances.

The subsequent sections are structured in the following way:

• Upstream data operations

• Data Quality

• Internal to Services

• Coordination

• Downstream data operations.

Released Issue


Page 13Edition: 1.0

3.4.1 Upstream data operations

3.4.1.1 Identification and Designation of Data Providers

Identification of Data Providers

If a large number of Data Providers are used by the AIS, problems may be encountered in terms of gaining a consistent level of high quality data received by the AIS and of communicating the data requirements with each party. By using a limited number of Data Providers this risk may be mitigated and an AIS may more easily identify a suitable organisation to use for the survey of a particular information type. This will also allow the AIS to more carefully monitor the quality of the data it receives.

The controlled list of Data Providers could be included as part of national regulation or included in a document to be referred to by the AIS and published on the AIS website. This allows ‘unapproved’ Data Providers to submit data via ‘approved’ Data Providers to the AIS. This type of arrangement is most commonly used for airports.

If Data Providers are known by the AIS this will allow more open communication and easier problem resolution in the case of a problem. Furthermore, with the responsibilities that the Single European Sky (SES) is bringing, the future use of ‘unapproved’ Data Providers may no longer be possible.

AIP Data Item Designation

It is useful for more effective communication and clarity of roles for each data item in the AIP to be mapped to the supplier of this data to AIS.

The responsible body for each data entity within the AIP should also be made available. Consequently, if this part of the AIP needs to be modified it may be quickly determined who the responsible party is.

If this information is made freely available then a user of the AIP wishing to make a change to the information may contact the Data Provider directly. If several users wish to make changes to a section then this allows the submission of one modification to AIS.

3.4.1.2 Communication with Data Providers

Newsletters

Internal or external newsletters may be a good method of communicating the role and function of the AIS office. This will increase awareness and also allow the latest contact details to be widely distributed.

Meetings with Data Providers

It is recommended that regular one-to-one meetings, at least annually, are held between AIS and its Data Providers. Not only does this familiarity improve communications between the parties but it allows any problems that may have been encountered to be discussed openly and for a mutual means of rectification to be established.

To understand each other’s working arrangements, visits to the Data Provider’s premises may be advisable and well-received. An understanding of the regulations by which each party has to abide to will allow parties to appreciate the responsibilities of the other.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072



It may also be highly beneficial to arrange meetings once a year with Data Providers, AIS and Data Users so that Data Providers may gain understanding of how the data they provide is used by data-houses and end-user applications Gaining awareness of the importance of the data being correct and the implications of incorrect data being provided may provide additional motivation for Data Providers to supply the AIS with data that meets its needs. Data users may give feedback on the published aeronautical data.

It is recommended that the telephone is not used as a means of submitting a request for change. This does not allow a complete audit trail to be compiled and is more prone to human error than, for example, receiving the request electronically.

The meetings can allow commonly agreed deadlines to be discussed prior to them being published by the AIS. This allows the time pressures of all organisations to be considered.

The involvement of the regulator in AIP co-ordination meetings may be beneficial.

3.4.1.3 Training and Awareness for Data Providers

Training Courses

Data Providers should be provided with basic AIS training so that they have some understanding of how the data they provide is subsequently used. This should include the format of data expected by the applications. The course could also allow methods of error detection to be covered, with the intention of reducing future problems. The handling of AIP data within a State could be trained and key processing issues could be raised and discussed. Data presentation and distribution for all IAIP products could be trained.

Every two years or so, refresher training may be beneficial, to allow the latest procedures followed by AIS to be reported to the Data Providers.

The training of AIS in surveying may also be considered so that AIS has an understanding of the process that has to be taken by the surveyor.

Awareness Workshops

Awareness workshops along the lines of the CHAIN Awareness Workshops may be useful to publicise the importance of the role of both Data Originators and Data Providers in the aeronautical data chain. This may be particularly effective if a large number of stakeholders are present for the session as time restraints may not allow individual consultations. Furthermore, discussion amongst the stakeholder group may be beneficial.

The identification of users in the data chain and points of data exchange may help provide an overview of the process in which all actors are involved and is particularly pertinent to such a workshop.

The implications of late delivery can be stressed at these workshops, both for AIS and for day to day operations of aircraft.

The awareness workshop should include information about Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) amendments and what type of information should be included in them as this is a common area of misunderstanding.

Military personnel should be encouraged to attend such workshops as they often encounter late reception of data for inclusion in the military AIP.

Released Issue


Page 15Edition: 1.0

AIRAC Awareness

Data Providers should be provided with information of AIRAC dates and the exact dates by which they should provide data to the AIS in order to meet these dates, at regular intervals. This could be at six monthly intervals. It may also be advisable to include a list of AIS contacts with this to ensure that contact between organisations is as simple as possible. If a standard form is to be used by the Data Providers for the submission of data then this could be attached to the circular.

In addition, EUROCONTROL AIRAC calendars could be sent to all Data Providers.

Amendments with publication dates could also be placed on a website so that they are available for access at any time and by any relevant personnel.

An email distribution list may be a good method of reminding Data Providers when important cut-off dates for reception of data are coming up on a more regular basis.

SLAs

SLAs are seen as being a good way of establishing a working agreement between Data Providers and AIS. This allows mutually acceptable terms to be defined, such as responsibilities, data accuracy, integrity, formats, etc, as well as means of submission and the approval process. By documenting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) then this allows the AIS to assess the quality of the data they receive from each Data Provider.

This agreement may also be raised to a higher level depending on the situation in the State or for it to remain as a more informal agreement.

It should be noted that the introduction of an SLA will bring about the introduction of many of the Best Practice topics introduced above.

3.4.1.4 Involvement of Regulator

Relationship with Regulator

It is recommended that the role of the regulator with regards to Data Providers is clearly defined. Establishing and maintaining a close relationship with the regulator is regarded as a benefit to AIS. Assuming the role of coordinator with Data Providers may also be helpful.

The regulator may undertake checking and validation role. In this way, all data is passed via the regulator before arriving at the AIS.

In a less inclusive option, only critical data is passed for validation to the regulator and more routine data is sent directly to the AIS.

The regulator may perform regular inspections of the AIS, especially under the certification processes of the SES Common Requirements.

An international regulator to check all data at a European level may be beneficial for future harmonisation.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072



3.4.1.5 Regulation

Regulation

It may be useful for the national regulation to include an appendix which lists all nominated Data Providers and their responsible part in the AIP. This regulation could also clearly define the basic requirements for the provision of raw data by the Data Provider. The same could apply to a list of authorised NOTAM request originators.

An Aerodrome Operators certificate could include regulation on data provision.

3.4.1.6 Provision of Data

Standard Forms and Tools

Data Providers could be requested to supply data on standard input forms. This would allow all the data items required by the AIS to be defined. This can allow the AIS to define the format in which it would like to receive the data. It can also define the metadata required for traceability purposes, such as contact details and a synopsis of the data change request. A standard form for data submission could be made available via the Intranet.

Standard forms could also be used for NOTAM submission.

Guidelines

Instructions concerning the required NOTAM request format should be published and distributed to all relevant parties. This should include the procedures for completion and distribution of the relevant data. These guidelines could include best practice examples, providing advice on structure and format. Furthermore, example text for commonly used NOTAM could be included. This would help eliminate ambiguity and ensure consistency.

A guide to Q code usage should be distributed which also explains the impact of the incorrect use of the Q code.

A document should also be produced with guidelines for the submission of data to the AIS. These defined quality standards can be used by Data Providers and they may also indicate survey methods. Depending on the situation in the State, the presence of AIS personnel during surveying may be beneficial.

This guidance material should be distributed to all Data Providers to ensure its wide use and should be distributed in the national language to overcome any language problems associated with only publishing the information in English.

AQ FAQ

A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) could be produced to address common misunderstanding for data provision in general (including NOTAM), AIRAC cycle, AIRAC adherence etc. This could be distributed to Data Providers with the list of AIRAC dates and it could also be placed on the AIS website. These FAQ should in the national language and, if considered appropriate, in English.

Released Issue


Page 17Edition: 1.0

Uses of Common Email Addresses

To mitigate risks of a change of personnel and absence of personnel, a common email address should be used to submit data and for contacting the Data Provider with queries. This allows groups to be set up so that the data will always go to a managed number of personnel, allowing action to be taken even in the event of the main coordinator being absent.

Security Checking

The AIS should perform checks that the data they receive is from an authorised Data Provider.

Security certificates will provide additional benefits for the provision of data by email.

Electronic signatures should be used for transmission of data via email. This will also help ensure that data is received with integrity and from the correct person.

Data should be wrapped with a CRC also to ensure that no corruption to the data has taken place during transmission resulting in incorrect data potentially being used further down the data chain.

Problem Resolution

It is recommended that problems detected with data are sent directly to the Data Provider for resolution. This eliminates the risks encountered when data is sent through intermediate actors, such as miscommunication and time delays.

All intermediate actors should be made aware of the problems identified such that they may isolate potentially incorrect information whilst a resolution is identified.

National Regulation

National regulation for the transmission of data may be beneficial to ensure that the requirements for the data provision are met by all parties.

Electronic Submission

All data should be submitted electronically including all associated metadata. The submission of metadata should be automated, where possible, for each data item. This will help ensure that correct and complete metadata is received.

Double sending of data may be used to help ensure that the information is received by the intended recipient in case of email problems.

Interoperable Formats

The exchange of data in an interoperable format is beneficial and will allow future harmonisation activities internationally to take place. This will allow data to be imported into other applications without any manipulation.

Dataset Definition

A clear definition of a dataset should be established, with descriptions.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072



AIP Format

The military AIP should be in the same format as the civil AIP format.

Provision of Tools

AIS may consider the provision of tools to Data Providers for the formatting and despatch of the data to AIS. This will encourage data to be received in the required format.

Confirmation of Changes

It would be beneficial for the Data Provider to be sent a copy of the data change in the AIP prior to publication to ensure that there was not a misinterpretation or an error further down the data chain, especially in the case where some human intervention has taken place.

In cases where the data was not received in a secure way, the data should be returned to the Data Provider for validation checking before being passed further down the data chain. This will help eliminate misinterpretations.

3.4.2 Data Quality

Key Performance Indicators

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) allow goals to be set and visions and values to be communicated. The quality and timeliness of the data coming from each Data Provider can be monitored by defining mutually agreeable KPIs. The AIS may also operate against defined indicators for the quality and timeliness of the resultant publication.

KPIs must be reasonable to all parties and should help ensure that data continues to be submitted in the correct format, for example.

Quality Management System (QMS)

A QMS should be in place for all parties involved in the data chain, including third party companies related to AIP production, for example, printers and delivery. The AIS should have a quality system that includes procedures for the internal review of amended documentation to ensure accuracy.

Data Validation and Review

Using GIS software to graphically validate data is considered valuable.

Early checking of critical data with a CRC value is considered important, as is data verification against Annex 14.

Other methods that may be used for validating data include multiple checking and peer review. Peer review not only helps ensure that the data content is correct but that textual descriptions are clearly understood and unambiguous. Simulator and flight checking of procedures could also be undertaken and procedures should be in place for the validation of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures.

Data could be validated with the original source data as part of quality checking procedures later in the data chain.

Released Issue


Page 19Edition: 1.0

Audits

Internal and external audits are important to ensure operations are being performed at the expected level and against the defined procedures. Quality systems and processes can be audited and this allows any compliance with regulation to also be monitored.

Checklist

It is recommended that a simple check is performed to check the page numbers and dates included in the AIP correspond with the page checklist supplied with the AIP to detect any inconsistencies.

Periodic Review

Sections of the AIP that are infrequently subject to change should be periodically reviewed, for example, every six months, to check that previously undetected inconsistencies do not exist.

3.4.3 Internal to Services

Training on Interdependencies and Duplications

Training should be provided to AIS personnel on the interdependencies and duplications of data that occur in an AIP. This will allow the personnel to be aware that if a data item changes that it must be changed in a number of locations in the AIP and that other data items that are derived from the modified one need to be updated.

The use of a checklist will aid with this detection. It should allow each item to be listed and its various locations within the AIP. This will allow verification that all required changes have been made.

This risk is mitigated by using a single data source to produce the AIP and technologies like the eAIP.

One Single Data Source

The use of one single data source would help reduce data errors and make the modification process less prone to error and more efficient. This could be a national aeronautical information database run by the AIS. This will ensure that procedure design and charting are using the same source of data. AIXM compatibility is seen as an additional benefit that may provide easy exchange on a global basis in the future and using an interoperable format will help eliminate any data manipulation and the risks that accompany this. The use of such a standard can also enforce the format and all the necessary components of the data to be entered.

The ability of Data Providers to interact with this central database may be beneficial as it eliminates an intermediate step and therefore, further risk in this area.

The eAIP is a good way to ensure that the same data source is used for an electronic and paper AIP.

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072



Internal Communication

Good internal communication and relationships with other departments will have a positive impact on the coordination of data changes and publication.

It is also considered a benefit to have open office and shared workspace to improve communication.

Process Automation

Processes should be based on available SARPs and guidelines, for example, ICAO and EUROCONTROL.

The international harmonisation of data processes would be beneficial, allowing easier interaction between States and could ensure that audits are performed consistently across States.

Constant Improvement

The establishment of a constant improvement group would be beneficial to ensure the data processes in place are monitored and modified to ensure that they are performing as effectively as possible and that any room for improvement is acted upon. Such a group also supports key objectives of the ISO 9000:2000 quality standards.

Focal Point

A central focal point to collate, validate and approve the information is recommended. This enables dedicated personnel to be clearly allocated this role without interference from others. This helps to eliminate unauthorised changes to data and indeed, to help reduce unintentional changes.

Certification of Personnel

Personnel may be certified indicating that they have the required skills and qualifications to perform their job and that they have been assessed to use these effectively in their role. Staff profiles should be defined and reference to the EUROCONTROL Common AIS Staff Profiling (CASP) material may be advantageous for this.

The roles and responsibilities in the AIM unit should be formalised. This improves efficiency and mitigates risk when there are multiple personnel involved with no clearly defined responsibilities. The risks of this include unauthorised changes to data.

Restricted Access

Access to data should be restricted to authorised personnel. This will help reduce the risk to an unauthorised modification to the data.

Where, in the process, data should not be changed, access controls should prevent the accidental amendment of a data item.

Released Issue


Page 21Edition: 1.0

3.4.4 Coordination

International Coordination with other AIS

Data should be exchanged electronically with neighbouring States.

A good working relationship with other organisations should be nurtured. This allows more effective data exchange and problem solving with cross-border issues, for example.

States should refer to the ‘National AIRAC Publication Review’ which publicises planned major changes to the AIP. The coordination with neighbouring States to assess the impact of these changes on your State AIP can be beneficial for planning of data modification.

Additionally, the request to receive a copy of the ‘Letter of Agreement’ when cross border agreements change as these contain useful information and contact details that could assist with cross-border co-ordination.

pTracker

The use of EUROCONTROL’s pTracker tool would be beneficial to all States in ensuring that amendment delivery and reception is monitored.

AIS Agora

The use of AIS Agora is recommended for all actors in the data chain as it helps to resolve issues quickly and to allow open discussion with other organisations.

Civil/Military Liaison

Regular meetings should be held with the military to discuss major changes to the State’s airspace. This allows both parties to adequately plan for forthcoming changes to their AIPs.

Contact details and procedures for corresponding between the civil and military parties should be established to ensure that communication is efficient.

As soon as major changes are identified to either the civil or military AIP, the other party should be informed. The changes can then be discussed and their implications assessed to allow sufficient planning to be undertaken.

3.4.5 Downstream data operations

Standard Output Format

Data should be output by the AIS in a standard output format. This supports the move towards global harmonisation and the direct import of data into other applications without manipulation.

NOTAM

A NOTAM summary, provided via the Internet, would be beneficial.

Problem Reporting

The users of the AIP should be encouraged to report problems they find with the AIP as quickly as possible to allow the issue to be investigated and rectified. To encourage this, the method of reporting should be as simple as possible and this could be through a publicised email address or through submission via the

Released Issue

CHAIN/0072



internet. AIS Agora has a significant role to play here and allows users to come together to discuss issues and propose solutions and shed further information on a subject.

A simple problem sheet could be included as part of the IAIP and this allows the details of the problem to be logged and then sent via post, fax or email to the relevant authority.

User Feedback

Meetings with users can provide beneficial feedback on the use and content of the AIP. AIS should also encourage users to send feedback via telephone, fax and email. The distribution of questionnaires to users on an annual basis could allow the service being provided and customer satisfaction to be assessed. Users could be awarded for providing feedback, in the form of free products or AIS merchandise. The feedback forms could also include a section for recommendations for modifications to format, content or distribution that may be assessed by the AIS for future implementation

AIS Open Days / Workshops could be considered to bring data users and Data Providers together to understand problems and to provide upstream and downstream customer focus.

Problem Logging

A system should be in place as part of the AIS QMS to log problems detected and to track these through to resolution. This should allow the status of a problem to be easily determined at any point in time. Once the problem has been solved, the user should be contacted directly to inform them of this progress.

The logging of issues on a system also allows those processing the AIP to determine if amendments to sections currently under review are in need to additional modification to rectify a reported problem.

Contact with Users

Users should be provided with contact details of those that have a thorough understanding of amendment contents. This allows the communication of problems to be carried out effectively and provides the user with satisfaction that their query is being dealt with by knowledgeable personnel.

End of Document