7_2 informe ifatca sofia 2015

8/16/2019 7_2 Informe IFATCA Sofia 2015

1/33

COLEGIO DE CONTROLADORES DE

TRÁNSITO AÉREO DE MÉXICO, A.C.

7.2 Reporte IFATCA Sofia 2015 X AGA MEX 2015 Página 1 de 33

Miembro de la Federación Internacional de Asociaciones de Controladores de Tránsito Aéreo (IFATCA)

Oriente 172 No. 189 Col. Moctezuma 2da Sección 15530 México, D.F.

Tels.: (55) 5571-2533, (55) 2643-0202 // [email protected] / www.coctam.org.mx

X ASAMBLEA GENERAL DE ASOCIADOS MEX 2015

Ciudad de México 15 y 16 octubre 2015

Agenda Num. __7.2 __ D. T.____________

TITULO: Reporte del Comité de Administración.

PRESENTADO POR: TSU CTA Cristóbal Vicente Cuevas Quijada.Primer Secretario Suplente

1. INTRODUCCIÓN.La conferencia de Sofía Bulgaria inicia con una sesión plenaria en la cual se presentaron lasautoridades del gobierno de Bulgaria y autoridades aeronáuticas de IFATCA de dicho país.

Escuchamos el discurso de bienvenida del Ministro de Transporte: Ivalio Moskovski, labienvenida del director general de los servicios de Control de Tránsito Aéreo: Georgi Peev, y elmensaje de bienvenida del Presidente del Colegio de Controladores de Bulgaria: AssenTabakov. Para concluir con la apertura, el Presidente & CEO de IFATCA: CTA Patrik Peters,declaro la apertura de la sesión plenaria.

La conferencia anual de IFATCA se desarrolla a través de comités de trabajo para atender los

diferentes aspectos de interés de la organización en un término de 5 días.

En este caso, el Comité de Administración tiene como principal objetivo estudiar y revisar laconformación y estructura de IFATCA; política, legal y administrativamente.

2. DISCUSIÓN.1. Aplicación de nuevos miembros

- United Arab Emirates

2.

Reportes del Comité Ejecutivo-

PCX Comenta lo difícil del año ha sido llenar el vacío del EVP; Durante esta

conferencia se evaluó la participación y el trabajo del EVPF interino: Comité definanzas (FIC), Mr. Jeremy “Bob” Thompson (New Zealand), Acting EVP Finance.

-

EL tiempo que se necesita para trabajar en IFATCA; La mayoría ha contado con elapoyo de sus empleadores en los diferentes países, en el caso de EVPT quien lleva60 días en comisiones, IFATCA llego a un arreglo con su empleador. El gobierno(Australia); No dijeron cuál.

http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://www.coctam.org.mx/


2/33







3. Comunicaciones (Revista “The Controller”) - Está en línea y se puede consultar cuando se requiera.

- Se mencionó que esta funcionado de manera eficiente. Cualquier discusión sepuede dar o acordar por este medio. En aras de mejorar la comunicación (Sepuede llevar a cabo a través del Teléfono, Facebook, Twitter o Flickr).

-

Disponible en dispositivos móviles: Se pueden descargar de forma gratuitanuestras aplicaciones a través de http://ios.ifatca.org para iOS y para Android enhttp://android.ifatca.org.

-

Por una pequeña cuota, las cuestiones individuales se pueden descargar y leer enla marcha cuando no hay disponible una conexión a internet. También estádisponible una suscripción, que da acceso a todo el catálogo de temas durante unaño. La contribución nos ayuda a financiar el desarrollo de las aplicaciones.

http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://ios.ifatca.org/http://ios.ifatca.org/http://ios.ifatca.org/http://android.ifatca.org/http://android.ifatca.org/http://android.ifatca.org/http://ios.ifatca.org/http://www.coctam.org.mx/


3/33







-

Los temas pueden ser leídos en línea desde tu navegador, a través de nuestro

sitio web: http://the-controller.ifatca.org. -

También disponible para descargaren versión PDF la edición más reciente. Losmiembros asociados pueden solicitar una copia impresa o en USB.

4.

IFATCA Sitio Web.

http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://the-controller.ifatca.org/http://the-controller.ifatca.org/http://the-controller.ifatca.org/http://the-controller.ifatca.org/http://www.coctam.org.mx/


4/33







5.

Políticas de administración y constitución de la Federación.

-

Problemas de las Asociaciones miembros. (Sesión Cerrada) Declaraciones de losMiembros.

UCRANIA (CNS-ATM. Safety).

REP DOMINICANA (Despido de 28 controladores),

CHIPRE (Irán),

NIGERIA (Violencia, Inseguridad) e ITF (Los problemas laborales siempre son un temacentral. Tratan de mantener contacto con los gobiernos). Se menciona que se buscaaprovechar las diferentes herramientas que tienen IFATCA e ITF y trabajar juntos.

-

Solicitudes para circunstancias especiales. Las asociaciones con diversos problemas endonde han sido requeridos los Vicepresidentes de la región correspondiente.

-

Suspensión de afiliaciones. De acuerdo con el manual de Miembros Asociados, las afiliaciones se suspenderán

automáticamente al iniciar la Conferencia Anual, si la Asociación no cumple el pagoanual de suscripción y no envía con 30 días de anticipación un escrito aclarando susituación e indicando el tiempo que requiere para regularizar sus pagos. (Todos lospagos son en dólares).

COUNTRY Balance 2015

Bolivia $258.75 Korea re $2,321.80, Burkina Faso $119, Mongolia $1012.50 Burundi $118.97

Niger $200.51 El Salvador $190.00 Senegal $157.50

Ethiopia $237.50

Sierra Leone $140.40

Fiji $787.5

Tanzania $511.00 Guyana $247.46 Zambia $594.25

Las cuotas para el próximo año tendrán un incremento de acuerdo el factor de

inflación que indique FMI.

IFATCA Category Scale (individual members) Amount per member in USD Y las cuotas se dividen en categorías. first 300 members 19.41 next 300 members 17.81 next 400 members 16.24

above 1,000 15.30



5/33







Category 2 All 11.41

Category 3 All 7.00 México se encuentra en la categoría 2 = 11.41 USD

6. Conferencia Anual IFATCA- La conferencia de 2016 será en Las Vegas.

- Conferencia 2017: Túnez ha retirado la oferta, se propusieron: Canadá, Austria,Jordania y Costa Rica (Se votara en la conferencia de Las Vegas).

- La conferencia de 2018 será en Egipto.

7.

IFATCA Panel-

En el cuarto día de la Conferencia Anual IFATCA en Sofía, Bulgaria, se celebró la

tradicional IFATCA Panel de discusión.-

En esta edición el tema fue: “Performance Is Shaping Our Profession”.

- Cinco expertos presentaron sus puntos de vista sobre la situación y los retos de latransición a la PBN; se puede leer el artículo completo y descargar las presentacionesde dichos expertos de este link: http://www.ifatca.org/node/95

3. RECOMENDACIÓNSe considere este reporte como informativo.

Atentamente:TSU CTA. CRISTÓBAL VICENTE CUEVAS QUIJADAPRIMER SECRETARIO SUPLENTE

http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://www.coctam.org.mx/http://www.ifatca.org/node/95http://www.ifatca.org/node/95http://www.ifatca.org/node/95http://www.ifatca.org/node/95http://www.coctam.org.mx/


6/33







X ASAMBLEA GENERAL DE ASOCIADOS MEX 2015

Ciudad de México 15 y 16 octubre 2015

Agenda Num. __7.2 __ D. T.____________

TÍTULO: Informe de Actividades IFATCA Sofía 2015 Comité B

PRESENTADO POR: SECTA/CPA Hugo Fernando Barrón Araujo

1.- INTRODUCCIÓN.

1.1 El presente informe cubre las resoluciones finales y comentarios del comité B de laAsamblea IFATCA Sofía 2015.

2.- DISCUSION.REPORT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE “B” Chairman Matthijs Jongeneel NetherlandsVice-Chairman Antoaneta Boneva BulgariaSecretary Alasdair Shaw New Zealand

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 6 7The Chairman of Committee B, Mr. Matthijs Jongeneel, opened the meeting at 14:07 onMonday 20 April 2015.Roll call taken.Attendance: 46Proxies: 13Total: 59A quorum was established.Observers present:− Catharina de Decker, SESAR JU international validation team coordination− Gábor Papp, Hungaro Control − Thomas Fraenzl, Frequentis

− Saulo J. Da Silva, Technical Officer, ATM Section, ICAO The Chairman explained how Committee B would proceed and the purpose of the combinedcommittee B & C meeting scheduled for Tuesday. He stressed the importance and the role of thedirectors and delegates and encouraged everyone, including the observers, to join in thediscussions. For the new attendees the chairman also explained the roles of the other committees.The Chairman noted that this year there would be no flip chart detailing the progress of theother committees; instead the IFATCA app could be downloaded to see the progress. He



7/33







introduced the other members of the head table and their subsequent roles during the meeting.

Mr. Duncan Auld, (Australia), EVP TechnicalMr. Alasdair Shaw (New Zealand), SecretaryThe Chairman also introduced the Chairman of the Technical and Operational Committee(TOC), and the members of TOC; he explained what the role of TOC is. Also introduced werethe IFATCA technical representatives on the various ICAO panels.The Chairman then introduced the Vice Chairman Ms Antoaneta Boneva from Bulgaria.He asked for all delegates to participate in the discussions.Agenda items marked with an asterisk* in the Final Agenda will be discussed in the combinedcommittee B&C meeting and are noted in the Report of Conference Committee B&C.The chairman explained how amendments to recommendations could be

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM NO. 6 8Proposed and the concept of a drafting group. He also explained voting procedures.The meeting agreed that TOC members Aaron Wright (New Zealand) and Rick Taylor (Australia)along with Secretary Committee B would act as a minutes drafting group. The Chairman askedfor the native English speakers to speak slowly and clearly in order to help everyoneunderstand what was being said.He explained that the presentations are intended to clarify the often difficult nature of theworking papers. If required ask for an explanation.He explained how late working papers function. In particular he explained that the agendaitems B.4.1.4, B.4.1.8, B.4.1.9 and B.5.13 are not late working papers as they were submittedto the office on time. These can be downloaded from the IFATCA website.

The chairman then explained the order in which the agenda would be handled by the committee.Roll call taken Tuesday 21 April.Attendance: 47Proxies: 15Total: 62A quorum was established.Roll call taken Wednesday 23 April.Attendance: 50Proxies: 14Total: 64

A quorum was established.B.1WP75

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT TECHNICALPresented by Duncan Auld, EVP Technical.EVPT thanked the attendees. He explained that this committee discussed issues related to theATC operational task.



8/33







Duncan highlighted a few items from his report:

• IFATCA has representatives on approximately 15 ICAO panels • The restructure of ICAO panels is nearly complete • IFATCA has responded to most state letters, however these were mostly of a professionalnature and so required the input of EVPP

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 6 9• We need to adjust our internal processes to ensure that we can provide responses to stateletters with a professional or legal component appropriately• Because of the large number of panel representatives, TOC is currently limited to six electedmembers, although there is a paper in front of committee A proposing a greater number.Other countries can provide corresponding members, who receive no funding for theirattendance at TOC meetings• Countries that are uncertain about standing for TOC are welcome to send a representative toattend a TOC meeting to see what happens Duncan specially mentioned Dr. Ruth Stilwell andnoted that she was soon to retire as Liaison Officer to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission,being replaced by Jean-François Lepage from CATCA.Any delegates with questions are welcome to talk directly with EVPT or to send him an email.Netherlands noted that information papers are useful and asked if these could be madepublicly available after conference. EVPT said that vetting is required, but that in the future thiswould be achieved.Sudan asked if TOC would be split into two committees, a technical and an operational

committee.EVPT explained TOC in more detail and explained that it handled both technical and operationalissues. He stressed that it would remain one entity with more resource in the future.The report was accepted.

B.2LWP009

REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMANProposed: IcelandSeconded: AustriaThe late working paper was accepted.

Presented by Ben Gorrie, TOC Chairman.Elected member countries were Switzerland, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, The Netherlands andUSA. There was exceptional work undertaken by corresponding member associations whichwere Tanzania, Slovenia,United Kingdom, Georgia, EGATS, Belgium, Tunisia and South Africa.Chairman TOC thanked IFALPA for sending a representative to both TOC meetings and for theopportunity to work closely together throughout the year.



9/33







AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTION

ITEM NO. 7 0Two study items had been removed from the TOC work programme:• Impact of PBN on Capacity. Instead this was to become the subject of a controller article• Mandatory Avoiding Action for Uncontrolled Flights. This item was referred to PLC Twoadditional items were studied, Review of Policy for STCA, and Review of Policy Regarding Non-Plannable Level in the NAT Region.These resulted in working papers.Ben asked delegates to suggest ideas for items to be studied in the coming year. He also askedthat those considering standing for TOC to see him.The report was accepted.B.3*WP76

REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL SECRETARYSee report Committee B & C.B.4 REPORTS ON INPUT TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSB.4.1 ICAOB.4.1.1*WP77Air Navigation Commission (ANC)See report Committee B & C.B.4.1.2LWP99ATMOPS PanelProposed: USASeconded: GermanyThe late working paper was accepted.Presented by Duncan Auld, EVPTThe panel is just over a year old, most members have little experience in the ICAO processes. PreviouslyATM issues were handled as part of the work of other panels; this panel is dedicated to ATM.The SID/STAR climb and descent issue is ongoing. There is so much confusion among air crewthat further new phraseologies have been proposed e.g. CLIMB VIA SID. This will be the subject

of a state letter.There is more detail in the report.Iceland asked whether there was a specific reason for the ordering of the words in the CANCELLEVEL RESTRICTIONS phraseology, this differed from current implementations.EVPT said yes there is a reason, but he cannot recall why.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 1



10/33







Italy asked what had happened to IFATCA’s proposal for the use of “OPEN CLIMB”.

EVPT said that he really tried to get this through. Airbus had issue with the phraseology asthere is a button labelled OPEN on the flight deck.Germany asked about guidance material for Remote Towers.EVPT said that the ATMOPS panel has to examine ICAO docs to find everything applicable toRemote Towers.The report was accepted.B.4.1.3WP78Aeronautical Surveillance Panel (ASP)The report was accepted with no presentation.B.4.1.4*

WP96Air Traffic Management Requirement & Performance Panel (ATM RPP)See report Committee B & C.B.4.1.5Operational Datalink Panel (OPLINK)No working paper has been provided and no presentation was made.There were no questions for EVPT on the subject.B.4.1.6WP79Operations Panel (FLTOPSP)

Presented by Raimund Weidemann Raimund did not reiterate what he had written in thereport but did highlight the progress of the emergency descent procedures amendmentproposal and provided an update on developments since the report was written.IFATCA & IFALPA expressed concerns over the proposal to have pilots switch to TCAS TA duringan emergency descent. This resulted in the instruction being removed from the proposal.A state letter was recently issued for the amendment of annex 6 as detailed in the report.IFATCA will respond through EVPT.The report was accepted.B.4.1.7WP80Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP)

Presented by Bjarni K. Stefánsson, SASP Representative Bjarni covered a number of aspectsfrom his report.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 2For a number of years SASP has been developing separation standards for RNAV in proceduralairspace. The Nov 2014 update to PANS-ATM revolutionised procedural separation.Parallel / non-intersecting tracks:



11/33







− 15 NM, RNP 2 or GNSS, DCPC VHF

− 7 NM, RNP 2 or GNSS, DCPC VHF, climb/descend through level− 20 NM, RNP 2 or GNSS, other com, climb/descend through levelAs an example 120 nm separations have been reduced to 20nm in Iceland’s airspace. This isobviously a huge improvement.Intersecting tracks:− 50 NM RNAV 10 (RNP10) − 30 NM RNP 4 − 15 NM RNP 2 or GNSS Also:− GNSS for application of VOR track separation − 5nm lat sep SIDs/STARs

ICAO has published circulars with guidance material for all of these.Bjarni talked about ADS-B in-trail climb and descent procedures. These Require ADS-B in andvery few aircraft are equipped.SLOP reduces collision risk and the concept has been expanded into domestic airspace usingmicro SLOP. There are few aircraft that can do micro SLOP as yet.Next steps are for further separations reductions to be published in the Nov 2016 update toPANS-ATM- 30nm lat sep reduced from 30nm to 23 nm for intersecting and non-intersecting tracks.Requires RNP 4/2, RCP-240 and RSP-180- 30nm longitudinal revised. Requires increased ADS-C reporting rate (12 minutes now)

- 5 minutes longitudinal separation requires RCP-240, RSP-180- ADS-C Climb and Descent procedure. Separation cab be as low as 15nm- 45o protection area procedure for separating departing and arriving aircraft that are flyingRNAV SIDS and STARS- Operations on parallel and near parallel runways. Expanded to apply to new technology e.g.GLS and RNP-AR approach procedures. Also RNAV STARs allow intercept of final approach.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 3Proposed annex 2 changes:- Pilot must report if he deviates from the assigned Mach number

- Pilot must report if he deviates more than M0.02 or 10 kts from the filed FPL speed- Pilots of ADS-C aircraft do not have to report changes in time estimates Current items:- Future separation for RNP 2 (probably will be used for Enroute flight in all airspaces)- 20nm longitudinal separation using RCP-240, RSP-180- Rotorcraft RNP 0.3 separation- Space based ADS-B – use satellites to receive ADS-B signals and forward these to an ANSP.Problem is communication between ATC and aircraft; may require CPDLC- Enroute monitoring handbook, guidance material for monitoring the performance of enroute



12/33







airspace

- Effect of RNAV turns on separation- Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems. Require RNP, RCP, RSP and ATC procedures Ireland askedhow far along is the development of separation standards for space based ADS-B? Bjarni saidthat it is not mature at all. It is uncertain how good the surveillance will be.Chairman Committee B advised that a paper on space based ADS-B was presented toCommittee B at last year’s conference. EVPT said that with the first satellite yet to launch, the performance data is theoretical. It isuncertain how good the coverage will be. The last launch is scheduled for 2017. Operationaluse will be a number of years after that. There may be a regional implementation earlier.Bjarni said one issue is that the top antenna on the aircraft must transmit ADS-B.Germany asked if all SID/STARs will need to be RNP 1, or is it that if the aircraft are RNP 1

capable then the separation can be applied?Bjarni said that the route needs to be published and coded as RNP 1 in order for the FMS touse RNP 1.Germany asked if conventionally equipped aircraft could fly the procedure and we would justnot apply separations applicable to RNP 1?Bjarni said that the coding precluded use by non-equipped aircraft.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 4Germany asked about Arrival / Departure separation status.Bjarni,said that the state letter has been issued. This will be published in November 2016

PANS-ATM update. Urged the MAs to review in the recent changes to PANS-ATM.The report was accepted.B.4.1.8WP97Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel Presented by Dr Ruth Stilwell (ANC representative)The past year has seen the sunset of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Group and thebeginning of the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel. As we completed the Manual onRemotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (DOC 10019) and began to ready for the development ofStandards and recommended Practices pertaining to RPAS, it became apparent that the workahead will be detailed and extensive. Assignments have been made to the work groups and

individuals. The timeline for all work is extremely aggressive.Confusion exists in the RPA community as to the difference between uncontrolled andunregulated airspace. There is also little understanding of what Air Traffic Control or ATS is.The problem for the aviation community is that most advances are developed in the context ofaviation, but RPA is an evolution of robotics moved into the air – there is no innateunderstanding of aviation.Germany is getting more afraid every day with respect to RPAs. What is the way forward? Whatcan we do as a federation or ICAO to bring some order to the introduction of these devices?



13/33







Ruth said we can ensure that standards are in place for non-segregated airspace. We have a

system with standards and we need to ensure that RPAs meet these standards. There is aquestion of how we can do this with the resources that we have.EVPT said that there are discussions in committee A on how we can spend more money onsuch important activities without cutting other areas. What do we as members think that isimportant Iceland said that Manchester Airport was closed for a time because an RPA wasflying around. In collision risk modelling TCAS is not included, but it seems to be a fundamentalpart of RPAS detect and avoid.USA said let’s take the educational challenge. We should publish articles on what it is we do inRPA journals. Do we need autonomous sense and avoid.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 5Ruth said that it is difficult as TCAS is not applicable for some RPAs e.g. large vs very small.There is not yet even a TCAS mandate for every aircraft.USA said that nothing will happen until there is a technological solution.Ruth said that at the moment we accommodate, whereas full integration would be better asthat would be less effort.Chairman Committee B said that there will be a paper presented in the combined session onATM and the handling of RPAs.The report was accepted.

B.4.1.9*WP98Next Generation of Aviation ProfessionalsSee report Committee B & C.

B.4.1.10Safety PanelNo working paper has been provided and no presentation was made.There were no questions for EVPT on the subject.

B.4.1.11*WP81High Level Safety ConferenceSee report Committee B & C.

B.4.1.12LWP016Integration of Aviation and Commercial Space PolicyProposed: IcelandSeconded: GeorgiaThe late working paper was accepted.Presented by Dr Ruth Stilwell (ANC representative).



14/33







This paper introduced issues of commercial space and integration with aviation systems. Like

UAS, the commercial space industry is developing rapidly and will have an impact on the airtraffic control system. This paper will discuss some near term issues that should be of interestto air traffic controllers. It is intended to be an introduction to the topic and currentdevelopments, not a comprehensive assessment of all of the associated issues.The two conclusions from the paper are:Technology innovation in commercial space can be viewed in two categories, the operation ofspacecraft including space planes, and the provision of space-type services from high altitudehigh endurance unmanned aircraft. Each presents new challenges for integration into the civilaviation system.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 6Air Traffic Controllers should engage early in the discussions of these emerging technologiesand how they will be accommodated.Hungary asked how large the segregated area around Cape Canaveral was.Ruth replied that it was 70nm x 80 nm.Italy asked if we think that ICAO has an opinion on the best solution between space based ADS-B and high altitude based ADS-B.Ruth said that ICAO writes generic standards which allow for several solutions.Cyprus said that the launch window can be very limited and is usually as close as possible tothe equator. So why should country of launch be responsible?Ruth said that equatorial regions are optimal, but the launch site locations are not restricted to

them. Sub orbital flight is not so limited. This does provide an economic opportunity forequatorial states e.g. French Guyana.Historically the state of launch was the operating state and thus would hold the liability.Georgia asked how separation with Loon balloons was being achieved.Ruth said that each state has been left to its own devices, there is no global standard. Theproblem is ongoing.ICAO asked if there is really no system for notifying of a Loon launch, such as issuing NOTAMsetc., The area of probable flight is determined in advance.Ruth said there were no particular standards other than for atmospheric weather balloons.There is nothing covering the period after the launch phase.

The report was accepted.B.4.2IFALPAB.4.2.1*LWP011IFALPA/ATS COMMITTEE REPORTSee report Committee B & C.B.5 TECHNICAL POLICY – WORK STUDIES



15/33







B.5.1*

WP82Screen Design ProcessSee report Committee B & C.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 7B.5.2WP83Flight planning accuracy and impacts on the ATM systemPresented by Benjamin van der Sanden (Netherlands) on behalf of TOC Inaccuracies duringinitial flight planning or insufficient communication regarding changes to existing flight planscan lead to undesirable effects on the ATM system. This paper discussed the most commonissues currently experienced with flight planning.It was recommended that Electronic filing and automated conformance checking of flight plansare preferable.Be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Netherlands asked what it would be preferable to, and should this not be stronger than just“preferable”? Benjamin said that the wording was chosen as other methods of fil ing should not be excluded.Netherlands proposed an amendment:IFATCA urges electronic filing and automated conformance checking of flight plans.Proposed: Netherlands

Seconded: BelgiumIn favour: 53Against: 1 (Germany)Abstentions: 5 (Ireland, Cape Verde, Portugal)CARRIEDThe ANC representative said that this now weakens the proposed policy and suggested that westate why this urged and to whom it is directed.Chairman Committee B proposed a drafting group with Tunisia, Spain, New Zealand, Germany,Australia, Belgium and The Netherlands as members. Ghana and Sudan also participated.Electronic filing and automated conformance checking of flight plans are preferred.

Proposed: SingaporeSeconded: MalaysiaIn favour: 60Against: 0

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 8B1



16/33







Abstentions: Germany, UK

Germany still believes that “quality of the flight plan data” should be included in the policy. Asit is the proposed policy is too weak.EVPT does understand the point. He suggested that Germany as a corresponding member forTOC or as ATMRPP work on a paper for next year.It was recommended that:Electronic filing and automated conformance checking of flight plans are preferred.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Proposed: EGATSSeconded: DenmarkIn favour: 60Against: 0

Abstentions: Germany, UKCARRIEDIt was recommended that Interaction with flight plans should be minimised for controllersengaged in separating aircraft.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Belgium proposed an amendment:Interaction with flight plans shall be minimised for controllers engaged in separating aircraft.Austria said that “shall” might be too strong and said that it is important for ATC to manageflight plans. If it is necessary to amend a plan then this should occur.Chairman TOC gave some background on the intention of the policy and that the important word

is minimised. He said that the key is to remove large workload situations e.g. totally new FPL.ATMRPP said that you have to keep in mind that there will be a total change with theintroduction of sharing of data between the aircraft FMS and ATM system. This policy will beoutdated in a couple of years – there will be much more interaction with FPLs in the future.The question is one of how easy it is to amend the FPL e.g. through good HMI.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 7 9Germany said that his MA also represents Flight Data specialists. They have people dedicatedto flight plan modification.Cyprus said that “shall” implies a legal obligation, whereas “should” allows a way out.

Ghana supported the amendment, but suggested other wording may be preferable.Proposed: BelgiumSeconded: NetherlandsFor: 2Against: 54Abstentions: 3 (Romania, FYROM, Bosnia & Herzegovina)Not CarriedGhana proposed an amendment:



17/33







Flight plan modification by Air Traffic Controllers engaged in separating aircraft should be

minimised.Proposed: GhanaSeconded: IrelandNetherlands queried whether there was a difference between the words interaction andmodification.The ANC representative said there was and explained the difference.Cyprus wondered whether we were trying to stop non-ATCs from modifying flight plans.EVPT said that this is intended to reduce the interaction required by the separator.ANC representative said that the policy is not to stop the modification of flight plans, but toreduce workload.For: 45

Against: 12 (Italy, Malta, Iceland, Poland)Abstentions: 2 (EGATS, Slovenia)Iceland said that any time a level is changed we are modifying a flight plan, is this really whatwe want as it is the interaction that matters.Italy said that flight plan modification is an ATC responsibility, e.g. every clearance is amodification.Maldives says we should say that the job of amending the flight plan.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 0should not be assigned to an active controller.

Brazil suggested that correction may be an alternative word instead of modification orinteraction.Chairman Committee B proposed that the drafting group also consider the wording of thisamended draft recommendation and invited Ghana to participate.Flight plan submission and correction by controllers, while responsible for separation ofaircraft should be minimized.Proposed: NetherlandsSeconded: South AfricaAustria asked if a change of level or heading is a flight plan submission.Benjamin said that the original filing is a submission. Amendments are not submitted.

Kenya said that ATC does not submit flight plans EVPT said that the intent is that an ATC shouldnot be submitting a flight plan whilst separating aircraft. There are cases where a controller isaccepting or submitting a flight plan.Ghana said that the word submission refers to the original flight plan and this is not done bythe controller.Turkey suggested amending the proposal.Chairman Committee B said that we will discuss further amendments after the vote.Sudan proposed that creation would be a better word. Suggested that the modification be



18/33







delegated to another person.

Nigeria suggested input would be a better word than submission.Denmark suggested that we should vote now on the proposal from the drafting group as it hadcome to a consensus.In favour: 61Against: 1Abstentions: 0Ghana suggested the use of the word acceptance.EVPT said he preferred creation.Benjamin said that the Drafting Group chose the word submission as this.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 1B2means the original submission into the system.It was recommended that:Flight plan submission and correction by controllers, while responsible for separation ofaircraft should be minimized.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Proposed: SwitzerlandSeconded: TunisiaFor: 62Against: Kenya, Nigeria

CARRIEDB.5.3WP84Introduction to GNSS Landing SystemsPresented by Ignacio Baca (Spain) on behalf of TOC GNSS has great precision but on its own forprecision approach purposes.Augmentation systems can get over this limitation. Ground Based Augmentation System(GBAS) and Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) were described in the paper, alongwith their advantages and limitations.This is a Mixed Mode Operation as a cat II/III ILS approach requires aircraft to hold at Cat II/III

holding points, whereas the same may not apply to GLS approaches.Belgium asked if Ignacio believes GLS will really replace ILS. Aircraft equipage is the problem.Ignacio said that some ILS would be replaced in the medium term; DFS did not expect to removeany ILS before 2030 but potentially all in the long term. Presently it is just an additional system.Belgium asked how GBAS would provide guidance on a missed approach.Ignacio said that the aircraft would just track via waypoints and GBAS or SBAS could be used inany phase of flight.Norway asked about training for curved GBAS approaches. How would controllers handle a mix



19/33







of straight and curved approaches?

Ignacio said that training was more a PLC matter and that there is policy on training beforeimplementation of new systems. Presently GBAS is only ILS-like.Ghana commented that the ASBUs still contained ILS. What is IATA’s

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 2position?Ignacio did not know. He said there is no IATA representative present to ask. The biggestconcern is likely to be aircraft equipage rate. The airlines don’t want to waste money onequipment if there is no need.EVPT said that we cannot speak on IATA’s behalf. There will be caution on equipping as thereare many examples of wasted investment.However in Sydney, it was the airlines that asked for GBAS.Ghana said there was no satellite augmentation system for Africa, so any IFATCA policy mustconsider this.Ignacio said that to expand EGNOS it would be relatively simple by just adding a monitoringstation. WAAS in USA has been proved to ILS cat I standard.Tunisia asked if we think that GNSS would replace ILS, and what would be the backup system.Ignacio said that there are some issues with GNSS based systems, so some backup may berequired. There are not just technical, but also security issues. He reiterated that DFS does notexpect to switch off any ILS until 2030.Tunisia also asked if GNSS was related to NEXTGEN deployment.

Ignacio said that it definitely is part of NEXTGEN and SESAR and even now as it is part of ASBU 0.The ANC representative commented that in 2009 IATA supported GBAS, when it is justified. ILSis expensive to maintain and operators want reduced costs and it may well be more costeffective to equip for GBAS.Nowadays just about every aircraft is GNSS equipped and changes will happen more quickly.Ignacio commented that IFATCA does have to consider GNSS approaches now, particularly theadvanced features such as curved approach paths.Egypt asked if there was any possibility of extending existing augmentation systems to Africa.Ignacio said that there are issues with ionosphere disturbances in low latitudes. There arecommercial systems that can be used right now.

EGNOS could be extended to Africa by adding monitoring stations as the satellites are on theequator. Presently there are no cat I equivalent approaches for EGNOS.Cyprus supported Ignacio’s statements as geo-stationary satellites provide good coverage, onlymissing polar regions.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 3It was recommended that this working paper be accepted as information.



20/33







CARRIED

B.5.4*WP85SWIM technical and legal issuesSee report Committee B & C.B.5.5WP86FF-ICEPresented by Blaž Goričan (Slovenia) & Rick Taylor (Australia) on behalf of TOC Thisinformation paper summarised Flight and Flow – Information for a Collaborative Environment(FF-ICE). FF-ICE is a replacement to the existing ICAO flight planning system; it is currentlyunder development and proposed for implementation between 2018 and 2028.

Israel asked what is the effect of FF-ICE on ATC workload. Also is there not a danger of toomuch information being presented to ATC?ATMRPP said that as of now they are not that far progressed, but they are considering theissue. No work has been done on how the extra data will be presented to ATC. This may behandled by RTCA, Eurocae or ATM system vendors rather than ICAO.South Africa asked what the backup would be. Is it paper based?EVPT said that future systems would likely be distributed and designed to not have a totalfailure, rather they would degrade gracefully.ATMRPP added that ultimately there would be no paper based backup, either the system isfunctioning or it is not.

Kenya asked if this would add more displays to the control room.Rick said that this is a system for recording and distributing data; it would not be a stand-alonedisplay. It would be integrated into the ATM system display.ICAO said that the implementation will take 20 years or more. There will be co-existence withFPL2012 for a long time.It was recommended that this working paper be accepted as information.CARRIEDB.5.6WP87Concept of GNSS-based altitudePresented by Bill Holtzman (USA) on behalf of TOC

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 4B3The use of pressure-based altimeters in to determine aircraft altitude has been universalacross the globe for most of aviation history. This paper explored alternatives provided byGlobal Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technologies.Belgium asked what we do in the case of a total system failure.



21/33







Bill said that right now GNSS altimetry is the backup for barometric altimetry on some aircraft.

Barometric would become the backup for GNSS based altimetry.Belgium asked about wake turbulence requiring 1000ft separation anyway, so there may be noadvantage to utilising geometric altitudes.Bill said that even a small reduction could add up to an extra flight level.Bjarni commented on wake turbulence separation. SASP has asked ICAO how all the olderseparations were determined; it seems that these are all based upon a good guess.Bill said that it would be good to develop standards that are based on scientific research.EVPT commented that prior to the introduction of ATC, 1000 feet was used as a nice roundnumber to keep aircraft segregated.Bill commented that we should provide leadership and not be reactive to new technologies.Policy is proposed to influence development.

It was recommended that IFATCA encourages development of technologies that improve theaccuracy of vertical navigation.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Proposed: DenmarkSeconded: TunisiaCARRIEDB.5.7WP88Resumption of Separation following a TCAS RAPresented by Luis Barbero (UK) on behalf of TOC

This working paper reviewed IFATCA provisional policy regarding the resumption of separationafter a Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisory (RA) event. Areview of the TCAS policies of the Federation made at the 2014 IFATCA Annual Conference inGran Canaria, Spain did highlight several issues regarding the

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 5B4Responsibility for providing separation after the completion of a TCAS RA manoeuvre. Thisworking paper addressed those issues and proposed new policy.Cyprus asked what the possible danger is if we take control as soon as the pilot reports clear of

conflict.Luis said that there is no problem, you may not have standard separation and you areresponsible for issuing a new clearance.Denmark asked if this could be categorized as an emergency situation allowing any requiredaction until standard separation is re-established.Luis said that this is not an emergency situation; the definition of emergency situation doesn’tqualify it as one.Ireland commented that they have the emergency situation caveat.



22/33







Italy pointed out that in many situations with no action the aircraft will continue to move apart

resulting in separation, but with same track traffic we may have less than the requiredseparation and so an instruction may need to be issued to re-establish separation.Luis said this does not prevent intervention once clear of conflict has been reported. Thequestion is who is accountable or responsible. His belief is that the ATC should takeresponsibility and issue instructions as required to achieve separation. We cannot just wait aswe have a duty of care.Ghana thinks that the problem is the word “responsibility”. It is only the ATC that can resolvethe situation.It was recommended that the provisional policy on page 3 2 1 3 of the IFATCA Technical andProfessional Manual which reads:After an aircraft has departed from its ATC clearance or instruction in compliance with an RA,

or a pilot has reported an RA, the controller shall not resume responsibility for providingseparation, until separation has been established for all affected aircraft.be amended to:Once an aircraft departs from its ATC clearance or instruction in compliance with an RA, or apilot reports an RA, the controller ceases to be responsible for providing separation betweenthat aircraft and any other aircraft affected as a direct consequence of the manoeuvre inducedby the RA. The controller shall resume responsibility for separation and establish standardseparation between all affected aircraft when:a) the controller acknowledges a report from the flight crew that the aircraft has resumed thecurrent clearance; or

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO.8 6b) the controller acknowledges a report from the flight crew that the aircraft is resuming thecurrent clearance and issues an alternative clearance which is acknowledged by the flight crew.And this be adopted as full policy.Cyprus said that a) is not obvious. What is the current clearance?Luis said that it means when the aircraft has resumed the clearance.There are occasions after a TCAS RA when aircraft could swap levels and this is when the ATCmust take control of the situation.

Proposed: UKSeconded: DenmarkAbstentions: IrelandCARRIEDB.5.8WP89Blended AirspacePresented by Bill Holtzman (USA) on behalf of TOC



23/33







The remote tower concept is gaining considerable attention around the world, for financial and

other reasons. Such systems are generally designed to perform all current functions of thecontrol tower and more, but the US FAA initiative called “Blended Airspace” is smaller in scopeand seeks to provide only limited aerodrome control services. Blended Airspace is not theremote tower concept as generally understood because it lacks the clear safeguards thatremote towers provide and does not provide all services.Belgium asked if the Blended Airspace concept included the provision of ground control andwhether VFR traffic, like the OOWLA, was also controlled.Bill said that there would be limited ground control covering the runway only. All aircraft inarea of responsibility are covered by the concept, both VFR and IFR.Denmark commented that in the Remote Tower concept it was accepted that we wereoperating with limitations aka “the one eye principle”. It seems that in Blended Airspace there

is a “no eye principle” as the runway cannot be scanned visually.Cyprus commented that IFATCA Remote Tower policy says that a robust safety case isrequired.Iceland asked if Aerodrome Flight Information Service was used in the

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 7B5USA. He said that any system must have vision. Iceland does not support Blended Airspace.Denmark asked for ICAO’s opinion on the matter. ICAO said it’s a new development and there is no ICAO policy. Remote Tower is covered by the

ASBU process. Over time various methods may be developed. IFATCA is doing the right thingby preparing policy to cover future developments.It was recommended that:Remote and Virtual tower systems should be capable of providing the same service level as anaerodrome control tower; partial aerodrome control service configurations are undesirable.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Proposed: DenmarkSeconded: GhanaCARRIEDB.5.9

WP90B6Review of Policy for STCAPresented by Ben Gorrie (Chairman TOC) on behalf of TOCThis paper reviewed IFATCA policies regarding Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA). Several policystatements have been identified as being “old” and others are in need of an update. ICAO haspublished in document PANSATM the new chapter 8, where all ATS Surveillance systems arenow grouped together. This chapter not only contain provisions for radar, but also provisions



24/33







for new ATS surveillance systems such as MLAT and ADS-B. These new surveillance systems are

now fully integrated and recognized as such by ICAO.Chairman TOC introduced the paper briefly with no presentation.It was recommended that IFATCA policy:Ground based safety nets, like STCA, can enhance overall safety in the automated ATC systems.Therefore each automated ATC radar system should be provided with a ground-based safetynet system such as STCA, as a last resort, that only should be used to advise the controller ofpotential losses of separation.Be amended to read:Ground based safety nets, like STCA, can enhance overall safety in the automated ATC systems.Therefore each automated ATM-system with ATS-surveillance should be provided with a roundbased

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 8B7Safety net system such as STCA, as a last resort, that only should be used to advise thecontroller of potential losses of separation.Proposed: IrelandSeconded: IsraelCARRIEDIt was recommended that IFATCA policy:It is important that, for each individual ATC radar unit, parameters and nuisance filters in STCA

systems are developed and tested that are suitable for the area involved and adjusted to theprocedures, airspace layout, separation standards, radar source, traffic mix, etc. The systems'logic and parameters should be flexible.Be amended to read:It is important that, for each individual ATC unit with ATS surveillance, parameters andnuisance filters in STCA systems are developed and tested that are suitable for the areainvolved and adjusted to the procedures, airspace layout, separation standards, surveillancesource, traffic mix, etc. The systems' logic and parameters should be flexible.Proposed: BulgariaSeconded: Spain

CARRIEDB.5.10WP91B8Review of Policy: Non-plannable level in the NAT-RegionPresented by Ben Gorrie (Chairman TOC) on behalf of TOCThis working paper reviewed the current IFATCA policy covering the use of non-plannablelevels in the North Atlantic region (NAT). The policy was adopted in 1999 and a recent review



25/33







has shown that this particular policy statement no longer reflects the operational traffic

handling of the NAT. It was proposed that this policy be deleted.Chairman TOC explained the paper briefly with no presentation.It was recommended that IFATCA policy:Within the NAT region where RVSM is in operation, FL 300 would be established as a non-flightplannable level as part of the “in-flight emergency contingency” procedures as they apply tothe Organised Track System.Be deleted.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 8 9Proposed: New ZealandSeconded: SudanCARRIEDB.5.11WP92Responsibility For Terrain And Obstacle Clearance During Weather AvoidancePresented by Aaron Wright (New Zealand) on behalf of TOCThere is ambiguity over where the responsibility lies for provision of separation with terrainand obstacles. This was raised in a working paper at Conference 2013 and then studied in aworking paper at Conference 2014. That working paper did not cover the case of weatherdeviations but recommended that a further study on that subject be done.Cyprus asked what the options are instead of approving a deviation.

Aaron advised that there is no clear procedure. Responsibility needs to be clearly defined andunderstood by all parties.Cyprus considers that if there is no ability to say “Approved” one is left with no options“trapped in a cage with no escape”. Georgia said why not say “unable”. Aaron said that ideally there should be procedures in chapter 15 of PANS ATM, so that if thereis no ability to approve a deviation all parties know how to proceed.EVPT said that when vectoring we have responsibility for terrain clearance. If you cannotapprove a deviation then it’s an emergency situation.UK related an accident where there was quite clearly no responsibility on ATC, but the

controller was still subjected to a court martial. Now they always remind pilots of theirobligations and that no separation is being provided.Israel asked why do we not just say “unable”. If the pilot still deviates then it is clearly theirresponsibility.Norway said that often the aircraft can still remain in VMC and maintain terrain clearancevisually. There are other factors though especially in the departure and arrival phase, wherethere may be no options available.Aaron said that the point of the paper is to provide a mechanism to enable deviations and to



26/33







make it clear where the responsibility lies.

EVPT said that with respect to departures it should be a quick, simple mechanism e.g. aboveminimum vectoring altitude, or visual terrain.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 0Clearance. We don’t want the situation where both parties assume that the other isresponsible for terrain clearance.Aaron said that in NZ a common phrase is “maintain terrain clearance visually”, but this is notbacked by ICAO procedures.ICAO said that PANS-ATM clearly states that the pilot always retains responsibility for terrainclearance.The ANC representative pointed out that a direct clearance becomes the responsibility of ATC.Some statements in PANS-ATM are still ambiguous. Who is responsible when the pilot files adirect route?Definitive clarity required. Also, ATCs are being held criminally liable now.It was recommended that:Development of ATS surveillance tools and procedures to allow ATCOs to accurately andefficiently separate from terrain is encouraged.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.UK commented that obstacle clearance should be included in the policy.Netherlands would also like obstacle clearance to be included and would like stronger wordingin the policy. Who is going to develop these tools?

An amendment was proposed.ATCOs should be provided with ATS surveillance tools and/or procedures to accurately andefficiently separate from terrain and obstacles.Proposed: NetherlandsSeconded: GermanyEVPT assumed that this wouldn’t apply where it is not required e.g. Oceanic.UK asked if we really needed accurately or efficiently as all that is required is separation.Aaron said that the accurate and efficient part came from the desire to have the minimumseparation.Chairman TOC said that the wording arose from a USA specific procedure which was more

efficient and practical than just waiting for an aircraft to climb above the transition level.Georgia asked why we say “ATS surveillance tools” in the recommendation and not“procedures” as discussed in the paper.Netherlands said that this was in the original proposal and that it may not just be procedures.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 1EVPT said that radar terrain display might be a tool.



27/33







UK said that some procedures allow efficient separation, but accurate separation might be

theoretical against obstacles in a city.In favour: 61Against: 0Abstentions: Ireland UK said they were still not happy with “accurate”. EVPT said the intent of accurate was to preclude the use of something like a 25nm MSA andnothing more. Accuracy would vary according to the circumstance e.g. Oceanic versus terminaloperations.UK said it’s the tool which needs to be accurate not the separation. Ghana asked if separation of aircraft from terrain is implied.Netherlands wants to support UK’s view that efficient separation implies accuracy. Either weare separating or not separating.

ICAO said that technically terrain and obstacles are both the same thing.Georgia suggested that further amendment was required UK proposed an amendment.ATCOs should be provided with accurate ATS surveillance tools and/or procedures to separatefrom terrain and obstacles.Proposed: UKSeconded: AustriaIceland pointed out that there is a definition for ATS surveillance systems and that accurateshould not be there.Chairman TOC said that efficiently was deliberately put into the recommendation.UK said it doesn’t mind if “efficiently” is included.

In favour: 4Against: 26Abstentions: PolandNot Carried.Australia proposed an amendment.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 2B9ATCOs should be provided with ATS surveillance tools and/or procedures to efficientlyseparate from terrain and obstacles

Proposed: AustraliaSeconded: South AfricaCyprus asked who is responsible when the pilot is responsible and so what is the point of thisrecommendation if this is not ATC’s responsibility. Aaron said that before taking responsibility we need to have tools to assist us.Nigeria made a suggestion that the word aircraft should be included in the recommendation.Ghana said that “accurate” implies free from mistakes or error. In favour: 62



28/33







Against: 0

Abstentions: 0Ghana proposed a further amendment:ATCOs should be provided with ATS surveillance tools and/or procedures to efficientlyseparate aircraft from terrain and obstacles.Proposed: GhanaSeconded: NetherlandsIn favor: 56Against: 0Abstentions: 6 (Ireland and 5 others)It was recommended that:ATCOs should be provided with ATS surveillance tools and/or procedures to efficiently

separate aircraft from terrain and obstacles be included in the IFATCA Technical andProfessional Manual.CARRIEDIt was recommended that:IFATCA introduce a paper to the ICAO ATMOPS Panel to have paragraphs 15.2.3.2 and 15.2.3.3of Doc 4444 adapted for all airspace, and amended to include terrain and restricted airspace.Proposed: NorwaySeconded: AustriaEB

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTION

ITEM NO. 9 3CARRIEDIt was recommended that:IFATCA introduce a paper to the ICAO ATMOPS Panel to have paragraph 8.6.5.2 amended toremove ambiguity regarding responsibility for provision of separation with obstacles andterrain.Proposed: TurkeySeconded: BelarusCARRIEDEB

B.5.12*WP93Crisis ManagementSee report Committee B & C.B.5.13WP100B13B14



29/33







Future Weather Distribution.

Presented by Bernhard Daenzer (Switzerland) on behalf of TOC Aviation Weather Informationis and has been critical for the advances in flight safety. However there is room forimprovement, not the least due to technological advances. This paper explores areas wheremeasurement, forecasting and distribution of aviation weather information could be improved,and new policy is proposed.The ANC Representative said that Bernie’s contribution to TOC has been tremendous. We dohave a representative on the Met panel and this paper clarified the situation for them.It was recommended that:IFATCA encourages the development and use of aircraft-derived meteorological data toimprove aviation weather products.Be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.

Proposed: AustriaSeconded: DenmarkCARRIEDIt was recommended that:IFATCA encourages the development and distribution of graphical and easily humaninterpretable aviation weather products.be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Proposed: Nigeria

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 4

B15Seconded: South AfricaCARRIEDIt was recommended that:IFATCA encourages the evolution of the aviation weather reporting and distribution system toallow direct access to aviation weather products for airspace users.Be included in the IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual.Proposed: SwedenSeconded: SloveniaCARRIED

B.6 REPORTS ON TECHNICAL MATTERSB.6.1.1*WP94AIRPORT DOMAIN TEAMSee report Committee B & C.B.6.2.1*WP12Report of the EVP AFM



30/33







See report Committee B & C.

B.6.2.2*LWP101IFATCA Participation in the ICAO-°©‐MID Activities See report Committee B & C.B.6.3.1*WP13Report of the EVP AMASee report Committee B & C.B.6.4.1*WP14Report of the EVP ASIA/PACIFIC

See report Committee B & C.B.6.4.2APANPIRG reportNo report was provided.B.6.5.1*WP15Report of the EVP EUROPESee report Committee B & C.B.6.5.2WP95

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY including SES II, SESAR, EASA, EUROCONTROLSee report Committee C.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 5B.7 WORK PROGRAMME FOR TECHNICAL & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FOR 2015/2016Presented by Ben Gorrie (Australia), Chairman TOCThe following work program was proposed:• Digital Flight Strips • Flight plan quality and conformance checking • RNAV Visual Approaches

• Free Route Airspace and Flexible Track Systems• Commercial Space Operations • Pronunciation of Words • Space Weather • Autonomous Passenger and Cargo Aircraft • Principles for Alerts and the Display of Information (with PLC) • Review of Policy – Advanced Approach Procedures Secretary Committee B commented that acouple of the work items, e.g. digital strips and presentation of alerts could be more



31/33







appropriate to PLC.

He asked if these were to be technical/operational studies.Chairman TOC said that the digital strips study would be from an operational point of view. Headded that PLC would potentially contribute to one or two study items.Italy commented that he had suggested a study into policy on missed approach after a visualapproach. He asked if this would be included in the advanced approach procedure study.Ben advised that the advanced approach procedures item is intended to be a review of policyrelating to approach procedures. Missed approach after a visual approach may well be addedas an additional item.EVPT said that this work programme is a starting point; it will evolve over the year with itemsadded, expanded and potentially removed. Some items may end up becoming PLC’s responsibility. CARRIED

B.8 TECHNICAL & OPERATIONS COMMITTEEB.8.1Appointment of RepresentativesPresented by Ben Gorrie (Australia), Chairman TOCAppointed IFATCA specialists for TOC are:• IFATCA Representative to the ICAO Air Traffic Management Requirement and PerformancePanel (ATMRPP)

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 6• IFATCA Representative to the ICAO Flight Operations Panel (FLOPSP)

• IFATCA Representative to the ICAO Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP)• IFATCA Representative to the ICAO Aerodrome Panel (AP) • IFATCA Representative to the ICAO Airspace and Surveillance Panel (ASP)• IFATCA Representative on the ICAO Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel (RPAS)• IFATCA Representative to the IFALPA ATS Committee • IFATCA Representative to the ICAO OplinkP B.8.2Election of Standing Committee Member Associations running for election as a member of TOCwere:Slovenia

USASpainThe NetherlandsItalyIsraelThe Islamic Republic of IranNigeriaUK



32/33







Chairman TOC thanked Aaron Wright from New Zealand and Bernie Daenzer from Switzerland

for their work in TOC last year and expressed regret that they were unable to stand again. Hepointed out that not being elected does not preclude an association participating in TOC.He said that Spain, Netherlands, USA and Italy have all made large contributions as electedmembers of TOC. He also reminded the committee that Slovenia and UK had acted ascorresponding members.After speaking to each of them, Ben is also confident that all of Iran, Nigeria and Israel wouldbe quite capable members of TOC.A short presentation was made by each country.After the presentations, the following Member Associations were elected:NigeriaSlovenia

SpainUKNetherlandsUSAChairman Committee B asked that those associations not selected approach Chairman TOC todiscuss how to be involved.

AGENDA RES DISCUSSION ACTIONITEM NO. 9 7B.9 ANY OTHER BUSINESSAustralia made remarks about how fantastic it has been to work with Ruth; she worked tirelessly

and is a valued friend and mentor. Ben proposed a motion of “awesomeness” to Ruth. EVPT suggested the wording:That committee B recognised the significant contribution that Dr. Ruth Stilwell has made in therole of Liaison Officer to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission over the past five years. Thecommittee greatly appreciates the personal commitment that Ruth has provided to further theobjectives of the federation.Proposer: AustraliaSeconder: NZCARRIEDGermany thanked the head table for running such smooth committee sessions.

CLOSING REMARKSMatthijs said that that he was very pleased with the way everyone contributed to thediscussion. He was especially pleased that the African MAs had a lot to contribute. He alsonoted that the presentations this year were very impressionant and they made often difficult,technical subjects easier to understand.Matthijs thanked• The observers, especially ICAO & IFALPA• The IFATCA representatives who work throughout the year and he wished them luck for the



33/33



coming year

• The Organizing Committee for doing an excellent job • Toni for her hard work as vice chairman • EVPT, Duncan Auld for his guidance to the committee throughout the week• Secretary Committee B, Alasdair Shaw; reminding everyone that the secretaries have thegreatest workload of anyone at conferenceHe congratulated the elected TOC members and pointed out that they had a hard task aheadof them, but it would be a lot of fun and he is already looking forward to next year’s papersand presentations.The meeting closed on Thursday, 23 April, 2015 at 10:04.

3.- CONCLUSIÓN.

3.1 Básicamente en la mayor parte del comité técnico fue enfocado a a las nuevastecnologías pero principalmente a la implementación de nuevos procedimientos,para México lo más relevante de esto es lo que se trató sobre el tema deAeronaves no tripuladas, PBN, ADS-B y Navegación Autónoma. También consideroque las los temas de aviones no tripulados es algo que deberíamos empezar atratar como un tema de importancia en nuestro país.

3.2 En esta Asamblea como ya desde mucho años atrás lo viene haciendo el ACTAM ahoraCOCTAM queda nuestra Delegación de México muy bien parada ya que además deasistir constantemente a las asambleas se tuvo una importante participación en otrasáreas técnicas como por ejemplo un comité binacional entre USA y México para tratar

asuntos técnicos y problemáticas comunes para emitir recomendaciones a losprestadores aéreos por parte de cada una de las asociaciones.

3.3 Se entrega el resumen de las resoluciones dadas, muchas de ellas no aplicablespara América y específicamente México pero como miembros Colegiados es denuestro carácter mantenernos informados.

4.- RECOMENDACIÓN.4.1 Se acepte éste reporte como material informativo.

“PROFESIONALISMO AL SERVICIO DE LA NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA”

TSUCTA/CPA Hugo Fernando Barrón AraujoComité de Asuntos Técnico Profesionales / Vocal Regional Noroeste

7_2 informe ifatca sofia 2015

Documents