2.1.2 Several studies have shown the safety benefits of the implementation of automated data exchange.

2.1.2.1  Since the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) implementation, the Caribbean and South American Monitoring Agency (CARSAMMA) and the Scrutiny Working Group (GTE) have analyzed Large Heigth Division (LHD) events. They have performed Collision Risk Model (CRM) assessments with the objective of measuring the Target Level of Safety (TLS) compliance as established in ICAO Doc 9574 on a 300 m (1 000 ft) Vertical Separation Minimum between FL 290 and FL 410. Between 2010 and 2015, a gradual increase in the LHD events was experienced; from 687 in 2010 to 1,225 in 2015. CRM evaluation data shows that, despite this rise, the results are still below the TLS established (5 x 10-9 fatal accidents per flight hour).

2.1.2.2  It has been determined that 94% of LHD events in the CAR/SAM Regions are produced by mistakes in the coordination cycle between Air Traffic Control (ATC) adjacent centers. Several initiatives to improve coordination between centers have resulted in a reduction in events. A reduction of 11.18% is obtained, with a total of 1,088 LHDs during 2016, in comparison to 1,225 LHDs in 2015.

2.1.2.3  Data shows that the FIRs that have implemented AIDC have reduced the amount of LHD events by more than 95%. This is for example the case in Cuba and COCESNA (Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Belize), who have automatic coordination since 2015 and have not have an LHD since. Cuba and the Miami ACC, also have not experiences LHD events between their FIRs after the implementation. Between COCESNA and Merida, one (1) LHD occurred since the implementation of AIDC.

2.2.5.1  The OLDI system of automated coordination is used by EUROCONTROL ACCs. This specification defines the system requirements to support OLDI and the usage and content of OLDI messages. There are a large number of OLDI message sets defined across the range of functions. The number of these message sets used on an interface is by bilateral agreement between OLDI partners.

2.2.5.2  OLDI messages are exchanged between ATC units to provide for the exchange of coordination details and transfer of control information. Coordination is achieved against predefined coordination points (COP). The basic information consists of the aircraft identification, COP, time, flight level and SSR code. Additional information supported by the message set can be exchanged by agreement.

2.2.6.1  The NAM ICD is mainly used in North-American domestic operations and domestic/oceanic transition areas; often, cross-border operations do not fit neatly into one or the other category.

2.2.6.2  The NAM ICD has automated radar handoff message definitions within the document as a goal of cross-border interoperability evolution. The NAM protocol provides the advantage of extensibility to handoff and point-out functionality, enhancing a positive controlled radar environment.

2.2.6.3  The interface protocol set can provide a contiguous automation infrastructure for ATS within and between adjacent FIRs. The ICD for data communications between ATSUs in the Caribbean and South American regions was modelled from the NAM ICD and originally developed for operational interfaces with the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

2.2.6.3.1The NAM ICD has since been adopted by interfaces between KZMA and MUHF; and between Mexico’s Merida ACC and MUFH. The extension of the common NAM protocol has recently been expanded within the North American, Caribbean and Central American (NACC) Region to include interfaces between MUFH and Central America’s Corporación Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegación Aérea (COCESNA); and between Merida ACC and COCESNA. Several other ANSPs are planning automated data exchange using compatible protocols, which will allow interface connectivity without requiring additional software development. If a new interface requires additional capability development from an existing interface user, the possibility of a seamless upgrade is lessened.

2.2.7.2.3  In 2010, MUFH and KZMA agreed to pursue the NAM interface between the facilities using the multiple U.S. – Mexico interfaces as a model for the Cuba effort. Cuba internally developed the software in accordance with the NAM ICD and was committed to the effort and providing technical proficiency. The interface was implemented in December 2011. By virtue of making the proper planning decisions in the KZMA – MUFH interface, Mexico and Cuba were able to extend their interface efforts by implementing a similar interface between Merida – MUFH only one month later. This was a significant accomplishment for the NACC Region, and one that continues to have increasing benefits. The extension of the NAM interface in 2015 to include COCESNA (Honduras) to MUFH and COCESNA to Mexico’s Merida ACC was assisted by the lessons learned and subject matter knowledge from the implementation of the MUFH – KZMA interface.

2.2.7.2.4  Adjacent airspace with manual surveillance-to-surveillance operations prompted the use of a regionally compatible protocol and the NAM ICD effectively supported that choice. The selected NAM protocol message sets were a scalable solution, allowing the incremental implementation of capabilities and message sets. Additionally, the U.S. had the expertise to assist in the implementation of a NAM ICD based interface, which was already operational with multiple interfaces between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

It is a standard procedure that the passage of each flight across the boundary of the areas of responsibility of two units is coordinated between them before transfer and that the flight is transferred when it is at or before the said boundary. Where coordination is carried out by telephone, the passing of data of individual flights as part of the coordination process is a major support task at ATC units. Automated data exchange has been being evolved since mid 20th century, and developments are still ongoing.

ICAO developments of flight plan data automation

On 3 November 1948 ICAO approved PANS-RAC Doc.4444 3rd Edition Amendment 2, which includes six ATC Messages standards:

• Flight Plan Message;
  Delay Message;
  Cancellation Message; Departure Message;
  Arrival Message;
  Transfer of Control message.

An interesting fact is that a Transfer of Control message had to be used for transferring calculated estimates, using the CTL abbreviation to identify the type of message.

In 1968, the 9th Edition of Doc 4444 has been published by ICAO. The transfer of control messages were revoked and a new message types were introduced as Flight Plan Amendment and Coordination messages (Chapter VIII):

• Boundary Estimate (EST) messages;
• Acceptance (ACP) messages;
• Co-ordination (CDN) messages

These messages are still valid.

Europe

The operational use of connections between Flight Data Processing Systems (FDPSs) at ACCs for the purpose of replacing verbal estimates – referred to as On-Line Data Interchange (OLDI) – began within Europe in the early nineteen eighties. Common rules and message formats were elaborated and agreed by the agencies concerned and were incorporated in Edition 1 of the EUROCONTROL first released On-Line Data Interchange (OLDI) standard (Eurocontrol Specification for OLDI Edition 4.2, December 1992)

Electronic coordination using a limited number of OLDI messages for notification, coordination and transfer of flights became mandatory in EU with effect from 31 DEC 2012, after a European Commission Implementing Rule.

North Atlantic

North Atlantic region had developed its own ICD (NAT Doc 002); the North Atlantic Common Coordination Interface Control Document, with the latest version (v1.2.8) dating from December 2010.
Soon after, this document evolved into the Pan Regional Interface Control Document (PAN ICD) for ATS Interfacility Data Communications (AIDC), which is the harmonized version of the NAT and APAC ICDs.

Asia/Pacific

The ASIA/PAC Air Navigation Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG), at its fifth meeting in 1994, undertook the task of developing the interfacility message exchanges needed to support automation in the regions. In September 2002, the decision was made to reconvene the AIDC Task Force to review and update the ASIA/PAC AIDC Interface Control Document (ICD). The last version of the Asia/Pacific Regional ICD for AIDC was adopted in September 2007. Soon after, it evolved to the Pan Regional Interface Control Document (PAN ICD) for ATS Interfacility Data Communications (AIDC), which is the harmonized version of the NAT and APAC ICDs.

North and South America

Within the North American Aviation Trilateral agreement (NAAT), Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on development of a seamless interface between automation systems. They are focusing on the automated exchange of ICAO flight data and the achieve of cross-border automation. As a result, the first North American Common Coordination Interface Control Document (NAM ICD) was approved in March 2002, whose current valid version is Revision E, dated April 15, 2016.

An Interface Control Document for Data Communications Between ATS Units in The Caribbean and South American Regions” (CAR/SAM ICD) was published by ICAO CAR/SAM office in the 13 November 2006.

In October 2011, the FAA at Miami ARTCC (KZMA) and the Instituto de Aeronáutica Civil de Cuba (IACC) Havana ACC successfully implemented an automation interface between the two air traffic control facilities, modeled after the U.S.-Mexico Class 1 cross border interface. In March 2012, building on the foundation of automated data exchange between Miami and Havana, SENEAM and the IACC implemented a NAM interface between Merida and Havana. The interfaces extended the automation compatibility of the North American region well into the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico and also laid the foundation for eventual interconnection between adjacent member states automation systems.

It was decided that the NAM ICD be adopted as the preferred ICD in the Caribean region, not precluding the use of other ICDs under circumstances favorable to the latter. Dominican Republic and COCESNA are implementing AIDC using the NAM ICD.