summary of the ninth meeting joint rtca special committee 217 ...

January 14, 2013
RTCA Paper No. 004-13 / SC217-039
SUMMARY OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
JOINT RTCA SPECIAL COMMITTEE 217
EUROCAE WORKING GROUP 44
10 th through 14 th December, 2012
Salt Lake City, Utah
Rockwell Collins
Executive Summary
RTCA SC-217 met jointly with EUROCAE WG-44 for the Fourteenth Plenary at the Marriott University
Park Hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah from December 10 th to December 14 th , 2012.
The focus for this meeting was reviewing the comments submitted during the Final Review and Comment
(FRAC) period for the Airport Surface Routing Network Validation and Verification document (DOxxx/ED-220).
The first two days of the meeting focused on resolving the submitted comments and
completing corresponding action items. There were a total of 86 comments received on the Final Draft of
the document from 6 different organizations. There were no “non-concurs” issued. No organizations
provided a “concur without comment”.
The group also prepared the Guidance Material document (ER-xxx) for release by EUROCAE. About a
day was spent reviewing the document, finalizing the technical content, and establishing a plan for action
item resolution and distribution of a final draft.
Other business included a debrief on AEEC Aeronautical Database committee activities, a presentation of
SESAR JU D-Taxi project results, and an overview on the ICAO 12 th Air Navigation Conference.
The group discussed the Terms of Reference and determined the working arrangements for developing
next revisions of DO-272, DO-291, and DO-276, as well DO-200A. Sub-teams were tentatively formed,
with sub-team leadership being assigned where appropriate, and enhanced action items lists and overall
task plan were created.
The next meeting will be held in Brussels, Belgium, hosted by Eurocontrol, from February 25 th through
March 1 st , 2013.
1

1 Introduction
1.1 Opening
The joint RTCA SC-217 and EUROCAE WG-44 Fourteenth Plenary Meeting was opened by John Kasten
(RTCA SC-217 chairman) and Stephane Dubet (EUROCAE WG-44 chairman).
1.2 Attendance
As there were new members to the group (Josh Silvey, Vaughn Harmon, Russ Ramaker, and Debbie
Garcia), around-the-room introductions were provided. In addition to the following list, Gary Livack from
the FAA joined in via phone on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.
Name Organization Email
Mike Burski FAA michael.burski@faa.gov
Stephane Dubet DGAC/SIA stephane.dubet@aviation.civile.gouv.fr
Britta Eilmus Avitech AG britta.eilmus@avitech-ag.com
Tom Evans NASA e.t.evans@nasa.gov
Debbie Garcia GeoEye garcia.deborah@geoeye.com
Brian Gilbert Boeing brian.d.gilbert@boeing.com
Vaughn Harmon GE Aviation vaughn.harmon@ge.com
Allan Hart Honeywell allan.hart@honeywell.com
Stephen Moody Jeppesen stephen.moody@Jeppesen.com
Kaushik Raghu Rockwell Collins kraghu@rockwellcollins.com
Beby Rakotoarindriaka Airbus beby.b.rakotoarindriaka@airbus.com
Russ Ramaker GE Aviation russell.ramaker@ge.com
Ed Rosado NGA edward.j.rosado@nga.mil
Josh Silvey AeroNavData jsilvey@aeronavdata.com
Steve Young NASA steven.d.young@nasa.gov
1.3 Schedule & Administration
John Kasten outlined the agenda for the week.
Logistics for the Marriott facility and surrounding area were provided by Kaushik Raghu.
The minutes from the last meeting in Prague were accepted.
Review of action items was postponed until after the V&V document FRAC resolution, except for action
items related to the V&V document.
2 Verification and Validation of ASRN, DO-xxx/ED-220
2

2.1 FRAC Resolution
Stephane outlined the FRAC resolution process, as there were some attendees who had not been through a
FRAC meeting before. It was noted that changes unrelated to submitted comments could only be made if
it were an obvious error and a known fix can be agreed to.
Beby led the discussion on the comments. She explained that the editorial comments had been separated
out and were being addressed offline, so that the meeting time could be used to address the non-editorial
comments. Resolution of editorial comments was handled at the end of the review with the time
permitting. There were 86 total comments submitted.
Each comment was presented and the originating organization – if they were present – was given an
opportunity to provide background information if required. The resolutions were then recorded in the
combined spreadsheet, including detailed wording for any document changes where required.
The following table shows the number and types of comments received and their disposition.
Type
Number
Non-Concur 0
Major 12
Others 28
Editorial 46
Action
Number
Accepted 77
Rejected 9
Withdrawn 0
Total 86
Comments were received from Boeing, EASA, Egis Avia, Jeppesen, Rockwell Collins, and UK CAA.
All non-editorial comments except for comments on Appendix C and Jeppesen’s comments were resolved
on Monday. Some resolutions resulted in action items that the team completed on Tuesday. The
comments on Appendix C and Jeppesen’s submissions were also resolved on Tuesday. Allan Hart noticed
that a couple of the comments submitted by UK CAA had not been addressed since they didn’t have a
level or section defined. These were added to the “Foreword and General” tab in the comment file and
resolved.
Topics that resulted in a good deal of discussion during the meeting included:
• Comment 6 (relationship of V&V document to DO-200A and FAA regulatory documents)
• Comment 7 (use of “V&V” vs. “verification and validation” throughout the document)
• Comment 9 (clarify difference between ASRN data and routing applications using ASRN)
• Comment 13 (operational use for some stakeholders not addressed)
• Comment 17 (definition of interoperability)
• Comment 30 (clarify responsibilities of applications for routes that cross non-maneuvering areas)
• Comment 39 (explain how ASRN addresses connectivity to parking and apron areas)
• Comment 41 (verification feedback methods)
• Comment 45 (validation by application methods)
• Comment 60 (definition of adaptation information)
3

• Comment 66 (merits of Appendix C)
• Comment 69 (address operational situations not covered by ASRN)
• Comment 70 (address display requirements related to taxi routing applications)
All comments and a description of the resolutions can be found in the file “FRAC resolution comment -
Vand V document - SLC Dec 12.xlsx”.
Feedback from Tim Roe and FAA Enroute experts was solicited to aid in the resolution of Comment 60
on the term “adaptation information”. Tim suggested replacing the term with something different. Mike
Burski presented some definitions from FAA Enroute experts. The group finally agreed to replace the
term with alternate wording proposed by Steve Young.
Related to Comment 66, there were major concerns from Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, and GE on
expectations that Appendix C might set. The group was warned that there might be business case issues
raised at PMC when the document is presented for approval. Mike Burski reminded the group that this
document is not meant to be used in regulations. Additional wording was added to make it clear that
Appendix C was not required or even recommended but just an example. Some expressed concern that no
amount of wording would alleviate their fears that use of the framework described in Appendix C would
become a certification requirement.
Editorial comments were reviewed in “silent reading” time, and then only those that people had questions
about were discussed by the group (5 of them).
Finally, the group went over the open actions pertaining to resolving comments. A new paragraph in
section 1.4 was provided by Brian, updated by the group, and approved. Brian also provided a new figure
and text for section 1.3, which the group revised and approved.
2.2 Next Steps
Some editing work still needs to be done by Beby to resolve the editorial comments, and to incorporate the
comment resolutions that were agreed upon but not made live in the document during the meeting. The
PMC meeting during which this document will be presented for adoption will be on March 20. Since
RTCA requires to final document 45 days prior, Beby will complete the final draft by January 15 th , and
the editing team will review and make any final changes by January 31 st . It will be sent in Word format to
John & Stephane, who will submit it to RTCA & EUROCAE for formal approval process.
Beby was reminded of the need to have a final FRAC spreadsheet and additional statistical summary
document by end of the week. Brian asked about use of the category “major” in lieu of the RTCA term
“substantive”. We will continue using “major” and tell RTCA that it maps to “substantive” if they ask.
The group decided to continue to use the choices of NC, H, M, L, and E for describing the comment level
in the spreadsheet, and to categorize the comments into groups of Major, Other, and Editorial for the
statistical summary. Beby asked if resolution details needed to be provided for comments accepted with
modification. Stephane indicated that descriptions of the modifications need to be provided, but they
don’t have to include the exact change. Beby presented these materials on Thursday. The statistical
summary was based on the one created during the DO-276 FRAC activity in June 2012. John will send
this file to the whole group, although a summary of this information is provided above in these minutes.
The group provided plenary approval for this document to go forward for the formal approval process.
4

3 ISRA
Allan Hart debriefed the group on the most recent SC-206 meeting (October 2012), at which John
presented the ISRA response from SC-217. The goal was to determine if an update to DO-201A was
needed, or identify if any new standards are needed.
SC-206 was pleased with the report and plans to close the ISRA. No additional work has been or is
expected to be requested from SC-206.
The SC-217 ISRA response indicated that DO-201A needs to be updated. SC-206 provided a list of
potential changes that included the following:
• Define “aeronautical information” to determine scope of info to be covered
• Address aeronautical data already defined in DO-201A that needs to be updated
• Evaluate aeronautical info identified in the response to the ISRA as needed a new standard to
determine if it can be added to DO-201A
• Address other areas of DO-201A that need to be updated (expand purpose beyond RNAV
emphasis, Section 2.1.6 tables, add temporality, etc.)
A review of DO-201A content showed that each section of the document would have to be looked at
based on what definition of aeronautical information was applied and how things have evolved since
publication of DO-201A.
The PMC agreed that the ISRA should be used as basis for committee recommendations. The PMC gave
SC-217 an option to submit a white paper evaluating the need for an update to DO-200A along with the
Terms of Reference (ToR) submission, and requested that an updated ToR be provided two weeks prior to
Dec. 18 PMC meeting.
The options for updating DO-201A were presented as follows:
1. Drop discussions until late 2013 or early 2014 to see how the efforts of SC-217 and SC-227
progress (SC-217 has a strong feeling a DO-200A update would need some level of SC-227
expertise).
2. Evaluate DO-201A similarly to how EUROCAE evaluated ED-76 (DO-200A), and provide
clearer understanding (e.g., though white paper) of the scope and effort, and discuss at the next
SC-217 meeting.
3. Recommend to RTCA that another committee be set up to address DO-201A and any other
standards that may be needed.
John Kasten has removed a DO-201A update from the SC-217 ToR presented in December since getting
that approved is paramount, and the group did not want approval to be clouded by DO-201A discussion.
Allan said John needs to be prepared to provide an answer to the question, “What did you decide?” now
that ISRA is done. There is still a lot of scope to be determined regarding DO-201A updates and the need
for new standards.
There was a short digression into the topic of DO-200A and prior RTCA resistance to including that in the
SC-217 ToR. The plan is that DO-200B will not be retroactively applied, and things approved under DO-
200A can continue to be so (i.e., maintain “forward compatibility”). It was acknowledged that the WG-44
description of what needed to be changed was a very helpful tool.
DO-201A has a lot more technical meat to it and will take much more time to generate a similar white
paper to the one provided for DO-200A analysis.
5

Gary Livack joined by phone. His comments included the following:
• Cautioned folks to be aware of wording in final rules.
• Described other types of data (e.g. geopolitical borders) that are needed to support certain
functions (e.g., use of UAVs by local police departments).
• Said that waiting until DO-227 was ready was not a good option.
• FAA sees a need for common standards to enable local organizations to communicate with FAA
properly (see UAV example).
John stated that we are probably a long way away from defining data quality requirements for things like
geopolitical borders, but recognized the need. Overall, there was lots of agreement on the need within the
group, but also acknowledgment that there is tons of work to do.
Stephane reminded the group that the EUROCAE WG-44 ToR doesn’t include an update to ED-77 (DO-
201A), but if RTCA decides to include it, that it would not be difficult to add it on EUROCAE side
(EUROCAE will follow RTCA). The 3 options above are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Stephane
showed slides to highlight Allan’s point that we don’t have a clear definition of aeronautical information.
A number of organizations are coming to this same conclusion. ICAO had the same discussion recently
and could not construct a list very easily. There is a global dimension to this topic – no one organization
can address this alone. The industry needs to consider common exchange models, AIRM, state vs.
industry needs and responsibilities, and moving towards service-based processes and architectures. It is
time for a high-level deal on global ATM information. The global community needs to define the “what”
before we determine “who, how, and when”.
There is currently lots of buzz around SWIM in the global aviation community. What is scope of data
required to support SWIM? This question also needs to be answered at a higher level.
At the end of this discussion, the group agreed that SC-217 can provide our contribution to the need
statement, but that’s about all that we can do for now. Allan Hart reminded the group that since DO-201A
is not longer in the SC-217 ToR, we need to disassociate this conversation from the ToR discussion at
PMC. However, we still need to be prepared to have answer to the ISRA/DO-201A discussion.
Steve Young recommended having white paper in the ToR instead of DO-201A update, but John said that
this could be too controversial in PMC and potentially impact the rest of ToR that needs to be approved
ASAP. John said this was proposed before and didn’t work out.
Gary Livack emphasized the need for more standards (especially that can be for more than just advisory
functions), and stated that he doesn’t know who is going to do it if SC-217 won’t and SC-206 is not
appropriate (not a data quality standards group). Allan said this is what Option 3 (from above list) is for:
recommend forming a new committee, which would need a sponsor (such as the FAA).
Gary suggested a change in title for SC-217 to Aeronautical Databases so that DO-201A analysis would
be in its scope. Stephane said this name change has already been made on the EUROCAE side, but a
name change alone doesn’t mean an immediate scope or statement of work change. Stephane and John
agree that the statement of work is much bigger than SC-206, SC-217, and/or SC-227…it needs to be
addressed at a wider level. John said that SC-217 name change is likely (and is already in the SC-217
ToR for December), but that doesn’t mean we can do this work. It was stated that SC-227 does not want
to take up the DO-201A work.
Allan asked what the RTCA process is for addressing issues beyond the scope of a particular SC. RTCA
requires a sponsor (somebody to write a letter to RTCA saying a new committee needs to address it; Steve
6

Young said this is typically FAA). John will not bring up DO-201A at all during PMC other than to say it
was taken out of the SC-217 ToR (wants SC-217 ToR to be approved before DO-201A is discussed).
Allan stated that he would take the same approach the on SC-206 side (they are only asking for a MASPS
title change).
Gary presented a new FAA rule relating to the loading of aeronautical databases (not just navigation
databases) and asked John to distribute it to the group. Gary claimed that this rule adds to the need to
assist industry in developing the standards they need. Gary shared his thought that adjourning this
meeting without a resolution to the issue was doing a disservice to the industry. Allan said the FAA rule
just references what we have already so it does not imply that it creates a need for new standards.
Allan stated that Honeywell didn’t have a need for additional aeronautical database standards as a
company – they are doing just fine with what they are doing now. Jeppesen agreed they don’t need any
more standards, either. Stephane said that this didn’t take SWIM into account, though. There is no
agreement in the community for how best to proceed – a draft recommendation from the ICAO Air
Navigation Conference said that under the leadership of ICAO, detailed requirements should be developed
with the cooperation of the industry community.
Allan asked why industry would go through the cost of developing new standards if the existing ones
aren’t even getting applied to states for AIP. Stephane said ADQ-1 aims to resolve this in Europe.
The SC-217 recommendation for DO-201A during PMC could be that it needs to be addressed at a higher
level (top RTCA management level) and needs further consideration. But we don’t want to present a
problem with no plan for how to address it.
Gary stated the desire to rejoin via phone for the ToR discussion. The group agreed to think about this
over the next day and re-discuss during ToR discussion (see section 8 of these minutes).
4 AEEC ADB committee debrief
Brian Gilbert gave a presentation on the status of the AEEC Aeronautical Database (AEEC) committee,
which develops ARINC 816 (“Embedded Interchange Format for Airport Mapping Database) and is
starting to develop a similar specification for terrain and obstacle databases (TODB).
Brian explained the linkage between RTCA standards and ARINC standards for various classes of
aeronautical data, provided an overview of the work being done for Supplement 3 of ARINC 816, and
gave a recap of the discussion and decisions from the first meeting devoted to developing the TODB
standard.
Finally, the working arrangements for the group were described, which includes the next face-to-face
meeting held in Neu-Isenburg nearFrankfurt (hosted by Jeppesen) the week after the next SC-217 meeting
(since there is so much overlap in attendance between the two groups). The first two days (March 4-5)
will be devoted to AMDB, and the last three days (March 6-8) will be devoted to TODB.
5 Guidance Material
5.1 Document Review
On Wednesday, the group went through action items related to Guidance document. Britta Eilmus
stepped through the document. Since the Foreword section was new, the group reviewed it in full (only a
small editorial change was made). Section titles were changed when needed to ensure proper formatting
7

of the Table of Contents and Table of Figures. Additionally, the captions for Tables 1 and 2 were
updated.
Section 3 was updated to make editorial corrections and minor content revisions (e.g., including adding
GLONASS to GNSS paragraph). This was the first time Section 3 had been reviewed as a group, and
having the expertise of Debbie Garcia from GeoEye especially helped in this section. There was a lot of
discussion in 3.1.3 on the use of the term “orthorectified” in the context of satellite imagery, and how to
word the content related to terrain models for mountainous terrain.
In Section 4, the group fixed feature class/type/instance terminology issues, removed a statement that 3D
AMDB is not very common, and added statement on how 3D differs from “2.5D”.
In Section 5, it was noted that all “shall”s should have DO-272 or DO-291 references. An action was
given to Britta to either add references or reword the statements to remove “shall”. Other editorial
comments were incorporated into this section during the group review.
In Section 6, the group review fixed feature class/type/instance terminology issues.
For Section 7, the group had a discussion on the formulas in 7.1 for calculating accuracy, especially with
respect to Appendix D of DO-272, and how maximum error is determined. It was decided no change to
the Guidance document was necessary, but that Appendix D would be re-evaluated in the next revision of
DO-272. The group also identified changes to the references in the Integrity section from the ICAO
WGS-84 document to Annex 14.
In Section 8, Debbie asked why an AIRAC cycle schedule was specifically mentioned in Section 8.2
paragraph 2. It was explained that this is minimum requirement only, and DO-272 allows for more
frequent updates. Feature class/type/instance terminology issues were also fixed in this section.
The Section 9 review yielded typographical errors only, as this section had mostly been rewritten as a
group in the September 2012 Prague meeting.
Editorial corrections were also made in Appendix A and Appendix C.
5.2 Next Steps
Britta will make final updates and send out to the group by mid-January 2013. Stephane will notify
EUROCAE that the document is coming (there are no plans for RTCA to release the Guidance document).
6 SESAR debrief
Stephane Dubet showed a report on the results from the SESAR D-Taxi validation activities. Stephane
indicated that Terms of contracts for industry partners might prevent the SESAR JU from providing full
test result data. He stepped through the SESAR Project 6 7 2 Information Paper.
Validation tests were done in April 2012. Participants included ATC from Paris, Milan, and Naples, and
pilots from Air France, Novair, and Airbus. The tests were based on Paris-Charles DeGaulle airport west
configuration (they only used northern part).
ATC had an airport map display and a route generator supplied by SESAR. The Airbus MOSART
research cockpit simulator provided an A340 cockpit environment. Each simulator (ATC/cockpit) used an
independent database developed in two separate environments. The ATC database was not based on DO-
8

272/DO-291. The cockpit database was based on DO-272A. Minimum consistency checks were done
(e.g, threshold points were checked).
ATC entered the route into the simulated system and sent to the cockpit simulator via datalink. In the
cockpit simulator, the route was displayed as text on the MCDU and interpreted to construct a
corresponding graphical path on the airport map display.
Findings from the validation tests included:
• Having inconsistent databases between ground and aircraft can cause issues; databases need to be
temporally correct
• Ambiguous interpretation of route clearance can result due to naming of aerodrome features (e.g.
taxiway, stands)
Conclusions reached in the information paper were:
• Realized database issues are important
• Recommendation to improve consistency of databases
• Need to have unique naming for elements to avoid confusion in D-Taxi systems
• Project should update applications to use DO-272C compliant data (planned for late 2013 into
2014)
• Inconsistencies between DO-272C/DO-291B and SC-214 draft SPR I were observed – the paper
provided a list of 4 things to address:
o String length of hold line IDs
o Distinction between holding bay vs. holding point
o Distinction between gate and stand
o Distinction between high-speed exit vs. exit
• SC-217/WG-44 should coordinate with SC-214/WG-78 to discuss these inconsistencies (informal
at first, possibly followed by an ISRA).
Stephane announced that the information paper presented can now be freely distributed. Further
information may be available from the SESAR JU. John will send it to the entire group. Stephane will
need to see what else, if anything, can be shared.
7 ICAO 12 th Air Navigation Conference debrief
Stephane presented an overview of the ICAO 12 th Air Navigation Conference (ANC) held Nov 19 th to
30 th , 2012.
The ANC is held once a decade. The goal is to set the stage for ICAO activities for the next 10 years.
They take ATM industry activities going on (or planned) and come up with a consistent and logical plan,
which is presented to all UN member States. Ultimately, the plan was agreed to after much discussion. A
report from the conference is available online
(http://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/pages/default.aspx).
More than 150 working papers were distributed in advance of conference. A full day was dedicated to
AIM and SWIM (which is where this committee fits in). Eight papers on AIM and six papers on SWIM
were presented, many related to some of the discussions this group has had. All are publicly available in
the six official ICAO languages at http://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Pages/default.aspx.
Working Paper 47 was presented by Stephane on AMDB work (he coordinated alignment with Dave
Nakamura from Boeing beforehand).
9

One of the Working Papers on SWIM (WP 102 from CANSO) promoted an ISO-centered approach to IM
standards. Stephane reacted to this, along with other attendees, and the paper was subject to various
reservations. A compromise was proposed that SWIM elements (data and how it should be modeled) be
led by ICAO, but it should be done in coordination with ISO. Specifically calling out ISO was later
removed, and replaced with the aviation community.
Main conclusions from the ANC as reported by Stephane include:
• ICAO
o Expedite AIM SARPS and Guidance (notably based on inputs from Cuban delegate)
o Review NOTAM system – building from Digital NOTAM
• States
o Accelerate AIS2AIM transition (via digital data chain)
o Encouraged to implement quality processes from data origin onwards (e.g. ADQ-2)
o Encouraged to implement (sub)-regional DB and digital data exchange
o Review NOTAM procedures, guidance, and oversight
• Industry
o Provide AIM systems
• SWIM
o ICAO
• Develop 2014 global SWIM/IM
• Develop relevant specifications in close collaboration with aviation community
• Look at bandwidth and security issues
• Update ICAO IM/SWIM working arrangements
o States
• Contribute to further development and harmonization of performance-based IM
o Industry
• Demonstrate how SWIM will meet future ATM needs
Stephane stated that ANC recommendations are taken very seriously by States.
Ed Rosado was also at the ANC and shared his thoughts. Non-North American and European states
expressed displeasure about ICAO considering only North America and Europe and SESAR/NextGen,
and not the rest of the states (South America, Africa, Australia, Asia). These other regions were upset
they were not involved and are essentially being disregarded. Ed was encouraged at the emphasis on
regional solutions with encouragement to share between regions. The world is transitioning to PBN,
which drives a need for data. Britta also attended the ANC.
Allan stated that he has seen more involvement from outside of US and Europe in ARINC committees
lately, but not in RTCA and EUROCAE. He asked if that is something that could change. Stephane said
there are initiatives to expand EUROCAE, but it is difficult. John said RTCA is hampered due to the
requirement of a FAA liaison. Anybody in world is welcome to attend, but the agenda is driven by FAA.
John said ICAO today is much more active and progressive than they were a couple of decades ago. Steve
pointed out that many States don’t have the ability to, for example, set up a new NOTAM system, but
there is no way for states to work together on a common solution.
Other States look to ICAO to provide everything, since that is who they are involved with (they are not
typically involved with other industry organizations). They only use ICAO documents.
John declared that he is optimistic, and that we need to use state/regional pride to our advantage rather
than ignoring or being annoyed by it.
10

8 Terms of Reference
8.1 ToR Document Review
John showed the ToR document developed for the December PMC. The modifications since the last ToR
update were:
• The list of requestors was changed. In addition to Jeppesen, there is now a FAA sponsor (AVS-1,
Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data) due to the addition of DO-200A.
• Stephane is now listed as co-chair for RTCA SC-217.
• The background section mainly focuses on DO-200A.
• The V&V document was added as a deliverable in Dec 2012. DO-201B was removed as a
deliverable.
The deliverable schedule is very aggressive, so we will not be able to relax the meeting schedule. SC-217
will still need 4 meetings a year. RTCA would like more meetings to be held in DC, but due to the nature
of our group, we believe anywhere in the US will suffice for the non-European meetings. FRAC meetings
should be in DC when possible.
Allan cautioned that the current schedule will result in three FRAC resolutions in one meeting (DO-272,
DO-291, and DO-276). The group realized this, but thinks it is worth it to have the consistency of all
documents being released together, and to be able to make changes across documents when a FRAC
change affects another document. Also, one goal for these revisions is to have a common format between
DO-272 and DO-276.
Steve brought up idea of putting them all together in one document (merge DO-272, DO-276, and DO-
291). It is too late to pitch that for this PMC, but possible for a future one. Once we actually get to the
point of a common format, we can then discuss if it makes sense to combine them. DO-272 and DO-291
used to be one document, and they were split up on purpose. There are pros and cons each way the group
will ponder when we have new draft. The general consensus is that workload isn’t really decreased by
combining them. The main thing to consider is what is best for the user/reader.
Stephane said that regardless of the number of documents, we should not put them in consultation in an
isolated way – they should be bundled together for FRAC. That is, if the schedule of one slides out, they
should all slide out (and always be submitted as a package). The committee leadership will strive to keep
them in sync.
Brian asked about adding new a new revision of the V&V document to the ToR, since changes to DO-272
to extend the ASRN may result in the need to update the V&V document. John will explain the situation
in the PMC presentation and see if they want to add it to the deliverable list now, or if we will just wait for
a couple of cycles. Steve suggested considering pulling V&V document into DO-272 as an appendix,
since it didn’t end up being too long. John mentioned that there are different audiences for DO-272 and
the V&V document, but there was not much discussion on this. Gary thinks of the document list as a
library, and John as the librarian. Gary likes RTCA thinking of it as an integrated set of documents. The
document list may evolve over time.
Stephane asked about leaving DO-201B in strikethrough form in the document. Since it has already been
sent to RTCA, it is too late to make this change, but John will explain it during the PMC.
A new paragraph explaining a name change for this SC was reviewed. The proposal is for the committee
to now be called Aeronautical Databases. Steve asked if that included Navigation databases. Stephane
said we have the option to include it, but it is not currently part of our scope. The group had a discussion
11

on whether we should attempt to define “Aeronautical Database” and constrain or open ourselves
unnecessarily. It was decided that the full scope of the group will evolve organically.
John showed the long-form version of the ToR. He will add new membership (GE, GeoEye,
AeroNavData) to the presentation. John went through the list of changes expected for DO-200A, which
included a statement that updates must ensure existing implementations of the document (i.e. FAA AC 20-
153A) are not impacted (maintain forward compatibility). Allan remarked that the EASA-related
language didn’t reflect the LOA of terrain and obstacle data; John said he will explain in the meeting (the
text didn’t mean to exclude it, rather it just used the EASA LOA wording provided by FAA). Stephane
said that the final version should remove any reference to EASA unless there has been coordination with
them.
Gary said that while the text was good, it didn’t fully answer the mail about issues that came out of the
ISRA discussion (see Section 3 of these minutes). John explained that we are happy to explain our vision
for additional aeronautical database standards, but it has to be separated from the ToR (we need to get the
ToR approved without muddying the water). Mike Burski concurred and noted this was the 3 rd PMC we
are spending trying to get this ToR approved.
Kaushik asked about the matrix of expected changes to DO-200A. The group stated this was not an
exhaustive list, it doesn’t mean the proposed changes have been agreed to, and it only reflects input from a
limited set of stakeholders. There will still be opportunity to propose other changes. The forwardcompatibility
statement in the ToR was made to make sure unknown changes don’t have undesired
consequences. It was generally assumed that agreement with the FAA is that we can change as much as
we want if we live by that rule.
We went through the work items listed for DO-272, DO-291, and DO-276. Like the DO-200A list, it is
not exhaustive and new proposals can be made throughout development. The only item that raised a
question was the SWIM task (John wasn’t sure what it meant for our documents). Stephane described the
European vision for a phased approach for transition to SWIM, and thinks it will eventually affect all datarelated
standards documents. It is not known when this will happen (i.e. in the span of days or decades),
but it needs to be on our roadmap. Politically, the SC needs to be in the SWIM context to survive in
European considerations. Mike Burski stated that the ‘M’ (for Management) in SWIM is the big missing
piece. John wants to avoid a top-down mentality (keep our updates to the data exchange side of things
and avoid impact to user requirements). Brian noted that it was more of a concern that DO-291 may
become obsolete if it doesn’t evolve to support SWIM, since something eventually will need to do that
and will become the standard (if DO-291 doesn’t do that, it could be left behind).
Gary asked about a statement on “Electronic Plenary Meetings” and warned John to be prepared for the
topic for PMC discussion. John clarified that this is intended to address RTCA restrictions that hamper
the ability of the SC to operate (for example, the meeting in Barcelona in which no FAA representative
could attend and virtual attendance proved very difficult). The FAA DFO rules don’t make sense moving
forward. The group agreed that we can’t always meet in DC – we need to meet where it makes sense for
our membership.
8.2 Presentation material
The group discussed what the key messages for management should be in context of the ISRA response.
Comments from the team for John to consider in creating the presentation included:
12

• We need to be able to answer the question about why DO-201B was dropped from the SC-217
ToR.
o We were not getting any feedback on rationale for why a DO-201 change was necessary
at this time (no pressing need from industry; other material is available that supersedes
DO-201 now)
o More work needs to be done to determine full scope of changes needed for DO-201
o Allan said the ISRA response showed there is an industry need, and recommended to use
ISRA results to transition to discussion on the bullet above. Stephane clarified that no
specific request from an industry company/organization had yet been made in Europe to
update DO-201.
• Be prepared for the question (similar to what Gary has been pushing for) about how to deal with
other types of aeronautical data.
o
o
o
o
o
o
We should contribute to a global process, but our group can’t take on the whole task.
No industry body is asking for RTCA to take this up. The FAA can request this and
RTCA will have to address it, but no such request exists yet.
• Gary said they are begging the issue of who is going to do the aeronautical data
standards, but he wants to do it within the existing SCs. Mike said RTCA has
made it clear that they don’t want SCs themselves driving new work, this should
come from industry members.
Gary mentioned the SC-206 (DO-340) need for TFR airspace and geopolitical data
standards.
Gary asked why SC-217 is proposing a name change rather than keeping it limited to
AMDB and Terrain and Obstacles since we are not yet considering other aeronautical
database standards in our scope.
• John said we are making name change to align with WG-44, and to incorporate
the addition of DO-200 to our scope.
• Part of the DO-200 work statement in the SC-217 ToR is to identify all types of
Aeronautical Data that should be covered by the standard.
• The PMC presentation can state that the name change could provide future benefit
when new standards are indeed ready to be added to SC-217 scope.
Gary proposed that we request getting the ICC involved.
• John wanted to separate the SC-217 ToR from this discussion.
Group consensus: John will keep the material related to this discussion in his hip pocket,
but won’t make it part of the ToR presentation.
• Highlight the addition of the paragraph to the ToR to address the goal of ensuring forward
compatibility when considering DO-200 updates. John said he already had a slide for this.
• Brian asked about whether our hip-pocket material should specifically identify what we would be
willing to take on in the context of a larger industry plan to address this (i.e., define boundaries for
the scope of SC-217 work statement going forward. For example, do we limit ourselves to user
requirements? Do we carve out a niche for data quality, do we take on interchange formats, etc.?
o
o
o
Stephane provided some example ways to describe this (e.g., we don’t need an
interchange format for Navigation data because ARINC already handles this); do we want
to identify what is missing for each type of data? Define what needs to be done, not who
will do it.
Allan mentioned the idea of sunsetting SC-217 and forcing RTCA to come up with new
SCs to address new standards rather than increasing the scope of SC-217.
Ed said a disconnect from the data provider standpoint is that there is no mechanism for
States to provide DO-272 compliant data; Allan mentioned that ARINC 424A will be
doing this for Navigation databases as a first step. This is what the SWIM/schema DO-
291 roadmap item in the SC-217 ToR is about.
13

o
Group conclusion: our hip-pocket statement is that we will be willing to take on
Aeronautical Database standards pertaining to User Requirements, Data Quality, and
Interchange Formats, as long as it does not conflict with our existing products, and we
would be willing to participate in a larger global activity of determining what new
aeronautical data standards are necessary.
Gary said he expects travel to be discussed at the PMC, especially in light of potential sequestration
impacts on the federal government budget. This will be discussed in the working arrangements agenda
item in closing plenary.
9 Closing Plenary Session
9.1 Working Arrangements for Future Work
The group discussed working arrangements based on the assumption that the ToR is approved at the
December 2012 PMC.
Stephane’s posed the question that assuming DO-200 and AMDB/T&O are separate sub-groups, should
they meet together? Do they have a shared plenary? Do we hold sub-group meetings sequentially? The
following considerations were raised:
o We can have one plenary at the committee level, but sub-groups can have their own
plenaries as well.
o It is likely that DO-200 membership will be different from the AMDB/T&O membership.
o Sub-groups can have working meetings without a plenary.
o Sub-group leadership does not need to be approved by RTCA.
o
o
Some sub-groups can become quite independent (and have individual meetings).
EUROCAE does not require a secretary for sub-groups, but it is easiest if somebody in
the sub-group is responsible for reporting out to the plenary.
The DO-200A sub-group leadership choice will likely be highly political. We should have co-leadership
(for RTCA side and EUROCAE side). The group did not expect any problems on AMDB/T&O side –
this will be like we’ve traditionally done.
The SC can start sub-groups without leadership in place, and then decide on sub-group leadership after a
couple of meetings. In this case, schedule might dictate the need to decide sooner. The first DO-200A
sub-group meeting should not have leadership in place from the European side – we need to see what
organizations have which positions and experience and what the composition of the sub-group is like.
Brad Miller from the FAA plans to be very active in the DO-200A sub-group. An FAA representative can
lead a sub-group, but cannot chair a committee.
Parallel meetings for DO-200A and AMDB/T&O will be the initial plan. There is expected to be very
little need for the two sub-groups to meet together. Meeting hosts need to provide two separate rooms
(each with enough space to accommodate large groups). This could pose logistical issues for some
potential hosts. The DO-200A sub-group will likely be much larger than AMDB/T&O sub-group.
The group will keep alternating meeting locations between the US and Europe. There are a number of
options in Europe to host future meetings (e.g. Toulouse, Dublin, and Brussels). In the US, there are
companies that traditionally have the space to accommodate such meetings (e.g., GE in Cincinnati and
DC). FRAC meeting for DO-200B will take place in DC. DO-272/DO-276/DO-291 FRAC meetings
could likely be held in a non-DC US location.
14

One proposal for the sub-group names is to call them the Data sub-group and Process sub-group.
Allan posed the idea of having a European sub-team and US sub-team under the sub-groups so that
telecons could be easier. This didn’t seem to be a problem in the past for AMDB/T&O sub-teams, and
separating the teams geographically could hamper mutual understanding. One exception might be ADQ-2
related activities on European side.
It was agreed that each sub-group should divide up into sub-teams to make optimal use of personnel. It
will be left up to the sub-teams to work this out.
For the February and June 2013 meetings, the hosts need to provide a room for 15-20 people for the Data
sub-group, and a room for 30-60 people for the Process sub-group.
Gary recommended that rather than pre-scheduling periodic meetings, that meetings be based more on
need as if it were a business project. We can learn from how other SCs operate. That being said,
experience shows that it is unlikely to get groups of our size to meet more than 4 times a year, and if we
meet fewer than 4 times a year, we don’t get enough done. We can always adjust and refine out meeting
schedule as necessary.
Mike thought a standard operating procedure (SOP) for virtual meetings would be a good idea, since 2013
travel budgets will pose difficulties. This would enable more FAA participation. Time differences need
to be considered. Jeppesen and Boeing can always provide Webex for meetings they are involved with.
The group needs to advertise that DO-200A will be updated to the community. John and Stephane will
ask RTCA and EUROCAE to get the word out. The group agreed that it would be nice to have a way to
see who is registered for meetings.
Allan showed a schedule file (Excel format) he put together for SC-217 following SC-206’s format. In
2014, to give us better alignment between FRAC meetings and PMC, it might be best to set meeting dates
differently than we have traditionally done so the FRAC activities takes around 4 months rather than 6.
We will utilize this schedule file going forward for high-level planning.
If DO-200A is not approved as part of the SC-217 ToR at PMC, then EUROCAE will hold meetings that
RTCA members are welcome to attend and participate in (to update ED-76), but just won’t have a joint
RTCA activity.
9.2 Planning for DO-272, DO-276, and DO-291
The previous sub-teams of the SC were listed and dispositioned as to their need for continuation:
• Applications – Continue on a monitoring basis, but not expected to be a regular working team for
DO-272. DO-276 might have more change due to ARINC TODB activities. Gary Livack will be
asked to present any potential new apps in future meetings.
• Connectivity – Continue (for AMDB only). This sub-team will also work with SC-214/WG-78.
It was proposed that Lufthansa Systems or Honeywell lead this team, although neither company
was represented during this portion of the meeting.
• Content – Continue and expand to include T&O, but focus on features/attributes and not
document format. Rockwell Collins and Airbus volunteered to lead, therefore Beby and Kaushik
will co-lead (how to split up responsibilities is TBD).
15

• Data Quality – Continue (Stephane will lead to ensure link with ICAO developments). The main
impact is expected to be what happens with Integrity (could also impact DO-200A, so
coordination with Process sub-group will be needed).
• Guidance – Need is TBD after first version published (no update in plan yet).
• Temporality – Continue (align DO-276 and DO-272, coordinate with Process sub-group). Josh
Silvey from AeroNavData volunteered to lead this sub-team.
• Terrain & Obstacle – No need for a separate sub-team right now, as updates will be covered by
other sub-teams that now operate on a cross-document basis. ARINC 8xx (TODB) might drive
some new updates to DO-276.
• V&V – TBD on whether it remains a separate document and ASRN-focused.
In addition, the group agreed that the following new sub-teams should be formed:
• Consistency – Work on non-technical consistency between the family of documents (including
V&V), including formatting, how requirements/rules are expressed, structure, etc. Brian will lead
this sub-team.
• Modeling – Scott Wilson from Eurocontrol is the model editor.
• SWIM – Focused on how to evolve DO-291. The group would like Sam van der Strict to lead this
sub-team, but his availability for this is unknown.
• A new document editor is needed (need replacement(s) for Sam/Allan/Beby) – Currently
unassigned.
The sub-teams will cover both AMDB and T&O documents in one group.
On Friday of the meeting, the remaining attendees worked on putting together a detailed schedule/plan
working meeting (work statement sanity check exercise). Brian put together a spreadsheet that compiled
all of the action items for DO-272/DO-291/DO-276 and added columns for requestor, assigned sub-team,
priority, which documents are expected to be affected, and the upcoming meetings for the period defined
in the ToR. At John’s suggested, columns were also added to list affected features and level of effort.
The group went through the list and set an expected level of effort (high, medium, low, or TBD) for each
of the tasks. After this, based on the rankings for priority and level of effort, the group assigned which
meetings to use to address the action items. This resulted in a notional plan for how to handle the
statement of work in the timeframe of our upcoming meetings. This file served as the basis for the action
item lists provided in Sections 9.4 and beyond in these minutes.
All sub-teams should prepare materials for all action items with Priority of High. Each active sub-team
should meet virtually before the February 2013 Brussels meeting.
It was noted that although they might not be addressed at the initial meeting, even medium and low
priority items are intended to be completed for the June 2014 revisions (see section 9.5 of these minutes).
9.3 Next meetings
• February 25-March 1, 2013, hosted by Eurocontrol in Brussels, Belgium
• June 17-21, 2013, US, hosted by NGA in St. Louis (overlaps with PMC, but should be okay)
• September 9-13, 2013 in Europe (TBC – Dublin or Toulouse)
• December 2-6, 2013 in US (TBD)
16

9.4 Actions Opened during Salt Lake City Meeting
Meeting Assigned Task
Status
Assigned To
SLC2012 Beby Send final version out to editing team by January 15 th . Open
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: add GLONASS to acronym list Open
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: Replace all instances of “two-dimensional” with “2D” and “three-dimensional” with Open
“3D” (except the first ones in 2.1).
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: Fix Figure 3 (whether to keep citation is TBD) Open
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: “shall”s should have 272/291 references – either add references or reword to remove Open
“shall”
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: Reword section 6 1 st paragraph 2 nd to last sentence based on wording on page 43 of Open
DO-272C.
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: Replace references from WGS-84 [15] to ICAO Annex 14. Open
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: Update contributor list (App C) Open
SLC2012 Britta Guidance document: Provide final draft to EUROCAE by mid-January. Open
SLC2012 Stephane Ask WG-78 about having an informal discussion to address findings from SESAR D-Taxi validation Open
activities.
SLC2012 Stephane Follow-up with SESAR JU to determine what information from the D-Taxi validation report can be shared
with SC-217/WG-44. We would be interested in the taxi routes created by ATC, what was datalinked, and
Open
Low
what was displayed.
SLC2012 Mike ToR: check with Brad Miller to see if he coordinated with EASA to determine whether or not reference to Open
EASE database LOA needs to be removed from statement about forward compatibility in DO-200A update
section.
SLC2012 John & Work through RTCA, EUROCAE, and other channels to advertise the fact that DO-200/ED-76 is being Open
Stephane updated to try and get more participation from community. All group members advised to do the same.
SLC2012 Action to Identify ways to more efficiently make document proposals and integration
Open
SLC2012
John
Action to
Brian
Perform sanity check of SOW vs. schedule constraints (by 3 rd week of Jan 2013); consider dependencies
and efficient grouping of tasks
Open
17

9.5 Open Action Items - General
Meeting
Assigned
Assigned
To
Task
PRG2012 All Prepare materials for all action items with Priority of High, and all Content subgroup items with Priority of
High. Each active sub-team should meet virtually before Brussels meeting. Note that even medium/low
priority items are intended to be completed for June 2014 revisions.
Status
Open
The following action item tables are grouped by sub-team, and provide a notional schedule for what meeting(s) the tasks will be addressed. Red
cells indicate the action is expected to be discussed at a particular meeting, while gray cells indicate the action is not expected to be addressed.
White cells mean the action is not a priority for that meeting, but may be accommodated based on available time. The last three meetings are
currently red for all items because these are expected to be the FRAC draft preparation and FRAC resolution meetings.
Additional information such as affected features for each task is available in an Excel spreadsheet that collects the following tables into a single list
that can be filtered by sub-team, priority, level of effort, affected documents, affected features, or meeting agenda. This spreadsheet will be made
available to the entire group.
9.6 Open Action Items – Application sub-team
Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
Group What "use of airport data" do we not
currently address, i.e. Airport GIS,
Enviornmental, ATC, All type of
Airport Databases that are not
necessary "mapping", SWIM
Services (European)
DO-
272
Low High X
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
9.7 Open Action Items – Connectivity sub-team
Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
2013
Jun
2013
Sep
2013
Dec
2013
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Jeppesen
Revisit potential
concatenation of multiple
nodes occupying the same
location
Low Low X
18

Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
2013
Jun
2013
Sep
2013
Dec
2013
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Group
Group
Group
Add De-Icing Areas to
ASRN
Add Apron/Parking Areas to
ASRN
Changes based on
feedback from Rev C
High High X X
High High X X
High TBD X X
9.8 Open Action Items – Consistency sub-team
Requestor Task Description Priority Level of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Jeppesen
Assess the use of the term
“movement area” in DO-
272 and make sure usage
is consistent in the doc.
Low Low X
Boeing
Eurocontrol
Boeing
Revisit how best to
present the data capture
rules and geometric
constraints. How should
they be consolidated to
best convey the
information to the reader?
For the next revision,
address those DO-272C
FRAC comments linked to
the numbering of rules
(shalls) and the issue of
multiple shalls group in
one numbered section.
Apply to DO-276 as well.
High High X X
High Medium X X
19

Requestor Task Description Priority Level of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Group
Group
Boeing
Group
AOSWG
Group
DO-272/276/291 define
and align the use of Data,
Data Set, Database
DO-272/DO-291 Integrity,
Accuracy and Resolution
wording needs to stay
consistent with DO-276
Consider changing title of
Section 1.2.1 of DO-272C.
These are more
conventions, not a
definition of terms (a
similar change was made
in the Guidance Material
document). In DO-291,
the similar section is titled,
“Terms, Definitions, and
Assumptions”…should this
be revised as well? In
DO-276, section 1.3 (titled
“Definition of Terms” is just
a reference to the
glossary, and the
should/shall terminology is
defined in Section 1.7
(titled “Comments”).
Add definitions of Node
and Edge (ASRN) to
glossary. Make sure they
are consistent with
definitions used in V&V
document
Use of “Location” in
Feature Names
Attribute Data Rules
Clean-up
Low Low X X X
Low Low X X X
Low Low X X X
Low Low X X
High Low X X
High Medium X
20

Requestor Task Description Priority Level of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Group
Group
Group
Ensure DO-276 and DO-
291 are aligned with
regard to line 2365 (276
FRAC version), definitions.
Ensure any use of
obstacle defined using the
words “permanent and
temporary” in DO-291
matches new wording in
DO-276
Investigate splitting DO-
291 into two docs (one for
T&O, one for AMDB)
Low Low X X
Low Medium X
High High X
9.9 Open Action Items – Content sub-team
Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
Boeing
Jeppesen
ISICNS
Avitech
Jeppesen
Airbus
The geometric concepts of
“overlapping” polygon & “contained in”
polygons need to be further clarified
Review use of “heliport threshold”
terminology
rwyslope: Runway slope definition
shall be further worked for the next
revision
Draft proposal for the density of
RunwayCenterlinePoints. Requested
more information from Airbus. To be
cross-referenced with Tim Roe via
Mike Burski. Complete Requirements
for Runway Centerline Points:
Centerline Point Density and
Accuracy
DO-
272
Medium Low X
Low Low X
DO-
291
Low Medium X X
High Medium X
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
21

Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Honeywell Write requirements for low-vis and High High X X
preferred taxi routes. Consider
wording from Annex 14, chapter 14.
AOSWG Revisit the naming of the Arresting Low Low X X
Gear Location feature (Arresting
"system/gear")
Group Revisit definition of Runway Width (in Low Medium X X
practice, the AIP value is used).
Airbus Define and add new attributes for Medium High X X
airport element restrictions (e.g. ILS
interference areas)
Airbus Review turnpad for restacft attribute Low Low X X
Boeing DO-272D: fix up Figure 4-8. DO- Low Low X X
291C: fix up Figures 4-1 and 4-2.
A816 TaxiwayElement feature that lists all High Medium X X
IDs associated with a taxiway
intersection (e.g., like idbase)
A816 Resolve issues with
High Low X
PaintedCenterline feature capture rule
for unidirection runways (need to
ensure PaintedCenterline feature is
always captured using both runway
ends to yield good runway container
results in A816). Also propose that
DO-291 is consistent with DO-272 in
terms of identifying runway threshold
suitability.
A816 Discuss taxiway intersection identifier High Medium X X
issues and how it affects containers in
ARINC 816 (TaxiwayElement feature
for intersection polygons can only
belong to one container, and not to
others that also "belong" to that
intersection).
A816 Address bridge point data capture
rule issues (may lead to adding
High High X X
22

Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
feature/attribute to DO-272)
Honeywell
Airbus
Jeppesen
Honeywell
Rockwell
Collins
Thales
Rockwell
Collins
Airbus
Add Text Notes
Example of taxi instructions from
Chicago chart - Operational Notes
associated with the movement of
aircraft on the surface of the airport.
Add Low visibility and preferred
features
Add New Taxiway data: twyinter and
rwyinter, to determine intersections
Add New Markings: Apron Entry
Points
Add New Markings: Position markings
and other painted markings, for
example SMGCS (pink dots). Include
gate identification signs in this request
to support connectivity.
Add Identification of rubber presence
on runway parts
Add Directional indications on hold
short lines
High High X X
High High X X
High Low X X
High High X X
High High X X
High High X X
Rockwell
Collins
High Low X X
AOSWG Taxiway width - add attribute? High Medium X X
All
ATC/ATS Requirements for Routing High High X
Applications
All
ATC/ATS Requirements for
High High X
Separation Assurance
FAA
D-NOTAM Feature/Attribute
High High X X
Requirements
FAA Add Runway status lighting Medium Medium X X
Thales
Create/Update Airport lighting.
Liaison with SC213/WG79 (EVS),
characteristics/types of lights not
locations. Create proposal based on
Medium High X X
23

Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
working with WG79.
Boeing Add Aerodrome Reference Code Low Low X X
Use for SURF IA requirements, see
ICAO Annex 14, chapter 1.7 for
details.
GeoEye Add Light Attribute
Medium Medium X X
Vertical polygonal feature to
harmonize with AC-150-5300/18B.
Conforming/Not conforming per ICAO
Annex 14/DOC 9157
Airbus Update Culverts with max allowed Low Low X X
aircraft weight
Boeing Add Signs (support SVS) Medium High X X
Airbus Add Surface Type outside shoulders Low High X X
Skyguide
Eurocontrol
FAA
T&O FRAC
DO-276”C” in posts-spacing attribute,
adding the correct words for TIN
DO-291 needs vertical extent for
obstacles to cover usable area below
height, i.e. bridge that can be taxied
under, power and cable car lines that
can be flown under. Determine if
there is a need to change obstacle
capture rules from cumulative height
to individual height, i.e. antenna on
top of building. This will impact DO-
276 and DO-272 as well.
DO-291/276, Clarify windmill versus
wind turbine, points and/or polygon.
DO-276/DO-291/DO-272 guide line
(i.e., metal cable) obstacle geometry
issues
Low Low X
Low High X X
Low Low X X
Medium Medium X X
24

Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
T&O FRAC
T&O FRAC
T&O FRAC
GeoEye
T&O FRAC
T&O FRAC
GeoEye
AeroNavData
AeroNavData
DO-276 does not have any capability
to address obstacle areas for “pointin-space”
location, i.e. EMS landing
sites
Review D-276 data capture rules and
wording regarding trees and forest.
Right now it is “individual required”
Resolve issues related to data
duplication between obstacles and
AMDB vertical polygons
Discuss how to handle physically
overlapping polygon vertical
structures between obstacles and
AMDB features (data capture
question)
Add information to DO-291 that will
support Supplemental Metadata for
Terrain.
Take care of Brian’s comment 12 on
DO-291 re “Optional:Conditional” for
feature attribute efsttime
IDs for RunwayIntersection feature
instances that represent more than 2
intersecting runways
Taxiway IDs don't fit within field (e.g.
KORD "International Terminal
Taxilane" > 15 chars); AIXM thinking
of expanding to 50 chars.
Perhaps differentiate between taxiway
and taxilane?
Clarify capture rule 4.3.3.1.3 for
TaxiwayElement intersection extent.
Low High X X
Low Medium X
Low Medium X X
Low Medium X
Low Medium X
Low Low X
High Low X
Medium Low X X
Low Low X
25

Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
AeroNavData Definitions of surftype vs. gsurftyp -
why are they different?
Low Low X X
AeroNavData
AeroNavData
AeroNavData
ApronElement attribute aprontyp has
value in code list (hold pad/penalty
box) that in AIXM are associated with
TaxiwayElement feature. Capture
rule issue - should hold pads be
captures as taxiways or aprons?
Add "wide turn" as a value in code list
for aprontyp attribute? Need specific
capture rules for each type of apron
(want to limit variance between
different AMDBs)?
Clarify what is meant by "operationally
corresponding" in functional constraint
rules 23-25 for idapron attribute.
Medium High X X
Medium Medium X X
Medium Low X
26

9.10 Open Action Items – Data Quality sub-team
Requestor Task Description Priority Level of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Stephen M.
Sergey
Laletin
T&O FRAC
GE
All
Define value of accuracy for
RunwayCenterlinePoints.
Requested more information
from Airbus. To be crossreferenced
with Tim Roe via
Mike Burski.
Check ICAO docs and
annexes for runway
centerlines survey accuracy
(building methods) and
report to the committee
DO-272/DO-291, Definition
of Horizontal Resolution and
Horizontal Accuracy need to
be updated to stay aligned
with Annex 15.
Propose updates to App D
of DO-272C to improve the
accuracy calculation (D.5)
section such that it is more
complete with respect to
how to calculate the CEP
and LEP values. John
volunteered to gather some
information from Jeppesen
math experts.
Integrity Numerical Values
Removal???
Medium Medium X
Low Medium X
Low Low X X
Low Medium X
Medium TBD X
27

9.11 Open Action Items – Modeling sub-team
Requestor Task Description Priority Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
Brian
Gilbert
Brian
Further develop the FRAC comment
on Class “I don't really see what
benefit the "class" distinctions are
providing”
Have a look on 2D/3D Metadata of
DO-291.
High Medium X X
Medium Medium X
9.12 Open Action Items – SWIM sub-team
Requestor Task Description Affected
features
Sam
“Best Method" for Exchange
Standard Publication
Initially an Action Item
Pros/Cons/Options
Priority
Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
N/A High TBD X
DO-
276
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
9.13 Open Action Items – Temporality sub-team
Requestor Task Description Affected
features
All
All
T&O
FRAC
DO-272/DO-291 needs to be
reviewed based on DO-276,
paragraph 3.4.1 (Temporality).
Changes based on feedback
from Rev C
“interp” attribute not in DO-291
for terrain and obstacle
affecting temporality between
the three documents.
Priority
Level
of
Effort
DO-
272
DO-
291
DO-
276
N/A Medium Low X X X
TBD High TBD X X
Obstacle Low Low X
V&V
Feb
‘13
Jun
‘13
Sep
‘13
Dec
‘13
1Q
‘14
2Q
‘14
3Q
‘14
28

Certified as a true and accurate summary of the meeting.
Brian Gilbert
Secretary, RTCA SC-217, EUROCAE WG-44
John Kasten
Chairman, RTCA SC-217
Stephane Dubet
Chairman, EUROCAE WG-44
29