Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469
(a) The accuracy of aeronautical data shall be as specified in the aeronautical data catalogue (‘data catalogue’), specified in Appendix 1 to Annex III (Part-ATM/ANS.OR).
(b) The resolution of aeronautical data shall be commensurate with the actual data accuracy.
(c) The integrity of aeronautical data shall be maintained. Based on the integrity classification specified in the data catalogue, procedures shall be put in place so that:
(1) for routine data, corruption is avoided throughout the processing of the data;
(2) for essential data, corruption does not occur at any stage of the entire process and additional processes are included, as needed, to address potential risks in the overall system architecture to further assure data integrity at this level;
(3) for critical data, corruption does not occur at any stage of the entire process and additional integrity assurance processes are included to fully mitigate the effects of faults identified by thorough analysis of the overall system architecture as potential data integrity risks.
(d) The traceability of aeronautical data shall be ensured.
(e) The timeliness of the aeronautical data shall be ensured, including any limits on the effective period of the data.
(f) The completeness of the aeronautical data shall be ensured.
(g) The format of delivered data shall be adequate to ensure that the data is interpreted in a manner that is consistent with its intended use.
ED Decision 2020/008/R
ACCURACY — RESOLUTION
(a) The resolution of the data contained in the database may be the same or finer than the publication resolution.
(b) Stating that resolution needs to be commensurate with the accuracy means that digital data needs to have sufficient resolution to maintain accuracy. Typically, if an accuracy of .1 units is needed, then a resolution of 0.01 or .001 units would enable a data chain to preserve the accuracy without problems. A finer resolution could be misleading as one could assume that it supports a finer accuracy. This factor range of 10 to 100 between accuracy and resolution is applicable regardless of the units of measurements used.
ED Decision 2020/008/R
TRACEABILITY
Aeronautical data and associated metadata should be kept for a minimum period of 5 years beyond the validity period of the associated aeronautical information.
AIS.TR.210 Exchange of aeronautical data and aeronautical information
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469
Except for terrain data, the exchange format of aeronautical data shall:
(a) enable the exchange of data for both individual features and feature collections;
(b) enable the exchange of baseline information as a result of permanent changes;
(c) be structured in accordance with the subjects and properties of the aeronautical data catalogue, and be documented through a mapping between the exchange format and the aeronautical data catalogue.
AMC1 AIS.TR.210 Exchange of aeronautical data and aeronautical information
ED Decision 2020/008/R
EXCHANGE MODELS
(a) The exchange model used should encompass the aeronautical data and aeronautical information to be exchanged.
(b) The exchange model used should:
(1) use the unified modelling language (UML) to describe the aeronautical information features and their properties, associations and data types;
(2) include data value constraints and data verification rules;
(3) include provisions for metadata;
(4) include a temporality model to enable capturing the evolution of the properties of an aeronautical information feature during its life cycle;
(5) apply a commonly used data encoding format;
(6) cover all the features, attributes, data types and associations of the aeronautical information model; and
(7) provide an extension mechanism by which groups of users can extend the properties of existing features and add new features which do not adversely affect global standardisation.
GM1 to AMC1 AIS.TR.210 Exchange of aeronautical data and aeronautical information
ED Decision 2020/008/R
ENABLING EXCHANGE
(a) The intent of using a commonly used data encoding format is to ensure interoperability of aeronautical data exchange between agencies and organisations involved in the data processing chain.
(b) Examples of commonly used data encoding formats include extensible markup language (XML), geography markup language (GML), and JavaScript object notation (JSON).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469
(a) The verification shall ensure that:
(1) the aeronautical data was received without corruption;
(2) the aeronautical data process does not introduce corruption.
(b) Aeronautical data and aeronautical information entered manually shall be subject to independent verification to identify any errors that may have been introduced.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469
The metadata to be collected shall include, as a minimum:
(a) the identification of the organisations or entities performing any action of originating, transmitting or manipulating the aeronautical data;
(b) the action performed;
(c) the date and time the action was performed.
ED Decision 2020/008/R
IDENTIFICATION
The metadata collected should clearly identify the organisation or entity originating the data, as well as any organisation or entity introducing amendments to the data.
ED Decision 2020/008/R
ACTION PERFORMED
The metadata reflecting each action performed involving origination or manipulation of the data should reflect any potential impact on the compliance with the applicable DQRs.
ED Decision 2020/008/R
GENERAL
Further explanation on the schema required for describing geographic information and services by means of metadata may be found in the:
(a) International Organization for Standardization, ISO 19115 — Geographic information — Metadata, Part I; and
(b) EUROCONTROL ‘Guidelines for the provision of Metadata to support the Exchange of Aeronautical Data’ (edition 1.0, dated 28 November 2019)
AIS.TR.235 Error reporting, error measurement and corrective actions
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469
The error reporting, error measurement and corrective mechanisms shall ensure that:
(a) problems identified during origination, production, storage, handling and processing, or those reported by users after publication, are recorded;
(b) all problems reported in relation to the aeronautical data and aeronautical information are analysed by the AIS provider and the necessary corrective actions are performed;
(c) priority is given to resolution of all errors, inconsistencies and anomalies detected in critical and essential aeronautical data;
(d) affected users are warned of errors by the most effective means, taking into account the integrity level of the aeronautical data and aeronautical information;
(e) error feedback is facilitated and encouraged.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469
The identification of data not meeting the DQRs shall be made with an annotation or by explicitly providing the quality value.
GM1 AIS.TR.240 Data limitations
ED Decision 2020/008/R
ANNOTATION
(a) The objective of such an annotation is to notify the users of the AIS products including their aeronautical data that specific quality requirements are not met and may, therefore, compel limitations in the operational use of the relevant aeronautical data.
(b) The following principles apply:
(1) the solution applies for both the eAIP and paper AIP;
(2) the use of the ‘asterisk’ is undesirable because it is already used for WGS-84 issues;
(3) the non-compliance covers all parts of the AIP, i.e. textual aeronautical data and charts; and
(4) non-compliant aeronautical data items shall be individually and explicitly identified and the use of any general statement with the intention of covering a range of data items shall be avoided.
(c) The AIP section GEN 1.7 is used to identify non-compliant aeronautical data items. A new sub-header should be introduced at the end of the current section named ‘Data non-compliant with European Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/373’.
(d) Within AIP GEN 1.7, the following two alternatives are proposed. The choice of which depends on national practicalities being based either on the amount of annotations to be published or on individual existing operational or technical constraints.
(1) Annotation alternative 1
Alternative 1 is recommended if the number of identified non-compliances covers no more than two AIP pages.
The relevant non-compliant data items shall be listed in a table, including as a minimum:
— specific data item;
— AIP section(s) concerned;
— reason for non-compliance;
— Notes/remarks.
Proposed table format:
|
Data Item |
AIP section |
Reason for non-compliance |
Notes/remarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Annotation alternative 2
Alternative 2 is recommended if the number of non-compliances extends more than two AIP pages. It should then contain a general (global) statement to indicate ‘Several data items are not compliant with the given regulation – details can be found online via <link>’. The link shall direct the user to a list on the website which must support compliance with minimum requirements: the list must be accessible online.
Note: The indication of ‘available on request’, or similar, is clearly insufficient. The list must be kept up to date and fully synchronised (consistent) with the AIP update cycles, as relevant. This list should be in the form of a table as indicated under alternative 1 noting that it will be made available to users as an extra element outside the AIP.