Summary

Over the past few years, TOC came to the conclusion that the TPM was in need of a significant overhaul in order to ensure consistency throughout the manual and with ICAO. Every year, several slight changes are made to individual policies, but there is a need to look at the entire TPM in a holistic way.

Introduction

1.1. In a continuing effort to reorganize and clean up the TPM the ADME section needs review.

Discussion

2.1. As part of a larger undertaking, the ADME section of the TPM has been part of a review to bring IFATCA’s Technical and Professional Manual up to date, stylistically coherent and in harmony with ICAO documentation.

2.1.1 The ADME section is preceded by a few definitions regarding Converging Runway Operations and Land and Hold Short Operations. While these are useful, it has been decided to move them to the acronyms and terms section in accordance with the rest of the Technical and Professional Manual.

2.2. ADME 2.4 – Surface Movement Guidance & Control Systems.

2.2.1. Most of this policy remains valid and relevant but there are some areas which can use clarification. In the first paragraph, while this is a noble goal to strive for, the statement begs the question of its necessity. One can imagine an aerodrome where the installation of ground radar and surveillance equipment is an investment that is not justified by a cost-benefit analysis. While this might seem an obvious reading of the text, the statement is not unambiguous. It is therefore proposed to add the clause “if deemed necessary”.

2.2.3. As ICAO generally refers to A-SMGCS, it is proposed that IFATCA alters its documentation to reflect this change.

2.2.4 As A-SMGCS is generally a complex system with a set of technical, procedural and human factors components, it is suggested to replace the word ‘institute’ with the word ‘implement’ as it more accurately covers the process. The resulting paragraph would read as follows:

This is in line with ADME 2.6 which says that Surface Movement Surveillance should be installed at all airfields where low-visibility operations take place. If the cost-benefit analysis is such that the odds of low vis are so low as to be negligible then installation of an A-SMGCS may well be surplus to requirements.

2.2.5 In an effort to maintain and create a more understandable document, a section from policy ADME 2.6 will be inserted in this section in between the first and second paragraphs.

To maintain internal consistency, “Surface Movement Radar” is replaced by “Surface Movement Surveillance Systems”. The text in question reads:

2.2.6 A few minor editorial changes are made to the final paragraph. In the first sentence, replace “area” with “areas”. In the final line, replace “must” with “shall”:

2.3. ADME 2.5 – Provision of ATS at Aerodromes.

2.3.1. Much of the policy remains strong and valid. There is one segment that needs an update, “At aerodromes at which Air Traffic Control is provided the appropriate grade of controlled airspace should be provided”. The revised phrase would be, “At aerodromes at which Air Traffic Control is provided the appropriate airspace classification should be provided”:

2.3.2. The reasoning for altering grade to airspace classification is to remove ambiguity and continue harmonization with ICAO documents.

2.3.3. The remainder of the policy is to clean up the logic from the first part, if the classifications are correct then the controlled areas should be covered within that.

2.4. ADME 2.6 – Responsibilities and Functions of Aerodrome Controllers with Regard to Surface Movement.

2.4.1. The advent of Remote & Virtual Tower and its related policies cast a large shadow on the first two paragraphs of this policy. The entire concept of Remote Tower is to replace visual observation by controllers in the physical geography of the aerodrome by cameras which send their video feeds to another place entirely. IFATCA’s Remote Tower policy, relevant to the above, reads as follows:

Remote and Virtual tower systems should be capable of providing the same service level as an aerodrome control tower; partial aerodrome control service configurations are undesirable.

This concept is directly in opposition with the policy statement in the first two paragraphs of ADME 2.6. Remote and Virtual Tower are not supplementations but rather completely replace the physical presence of the controller at the aerodrome with their virtual presence through remote video links. These two policies must be weighed so that the intention of the TPM and the concepts within are unambiguous.

The authors suggest that a comprehensive review of ADME 2.6 and ADME 2.15 and how they relate to each other, is added to the work programme for TOC for the next cycle.

2.4.2. The first part of the policy, which concerns itself with CCTV, is subject to several necessary edits.

2.4.2.1. In the first two sentences two editorial changes are proposed. It is suggested to change “the use of CCTV is not accepted to replace Visual Observation” to “the use of CCTV shall not be used to replace Visual Observation”. The same reasoning would be used to alter, “The use of CCTV is only accepted to supplement Visual Observation” to read “The use of CCTV shall only be accepted to supplement Visual Observation”.

2.4.2.2. The first item on the bulleted list that follows, is internally inconsistent. CCTV cannot be supplemental and provide “the same level” of surveillance. It is either to provide a higher level of visual observation or to provide visual observation where none was possible to begin with. It is proposed that this bullet is removed, as the statement is not logically consistent.

2.4.2.3. The bullet which states, “Safety is demonstrated” needs further clarity as well as emphasis and the suggested revised policy would state “It has been proven by a safety analysis that at least the same level of safety can be guaranteed.” The amended paragraph would then read:

2.4.3. The fifth paragraph which reads “Surface Movement Surveillance Systems […] in progress” shall be moved to section ADME 2.4 of the TPM as it is thought to better align with that section of the TPM which is named “Surface Movement Guidance & Control Systems”:

2.4.4 In the final paragraph of the policy the wording “cannot” is used and for continued harmonization it is proposed to alter the phrase to “shall not”:

2.4.5 The authors feel that these editorial edits are necessary for clarity, even though it is suggested to perform a full conceptual review of ADME 2.6 in conjunction with ADME 2.15 in order to produce a unified and comprehensive IFATCA policy on Visual Observation via camera, whether supplemental CCTV or a Remote or Virtual Tower concept.

2.5. ADME 2.7 – The Interface Between ATC and AFIS.

2.5.1. This policy needs a rather small change for clarity and emphasis. Within the existing policy the segment which reads, “LOAs are to be adopted” should be changed to “LOAs shall be adopted”. This would also continue toward bringing the TPM in harmony with ICAO prescribed phraseology:

2.6. ADME 2.10 – New Technology Approach & Landing Aids.

2.6.1. This policy needs two edits. The first of which is very simple, removal of the quotation marks surrounding the first line of policy to continue harmonization of the manual. Secondly, a period would be placed at the end of the sentence:

2.7. ADME 2.13 – Numbering of Aircraft in the Aerodrome Traffic Circuit.

2.7.1. This policy was proposed as a provisional policy in 2008 and poses some unique questions to contend with including whether the policy is within scope of IFATCA policy at all.

2.7.1.1. Within PANS-ATM the only reference of phraseology specifying the use of the word “number” is in the circuit.

IN THE CIRCUIT *a) (position in circuit, e.g. DOWNWIND/FINAL); b) NUMBER … FOLLOW (aircraft type and position) [additional instructions if required]. * Denotes pilot transmission.

PANS ATM 12.3.4.14

2.7.2. The policy gives the means to a solution with its specific phraseology as opposed to giving a goal. Situational awareness on both the pilot and controller part is crucial; but different methodologies may exist to achieve the same end and may be equally valid.

2.7.2.1. IFATCA recommending phraseology which is not contained within ICAO documents is a slippery slope. If there is a need for an ICAO stance or development of phraseology, then it should be proposed.

2.7.3. It is proposed to remove this policy as it is outside the scope of IFATCA to prescribe phraseology. Local procedures and phraseologies may well be in place for these situations, and they might differ from the provisional policy. As there are multiple methods to get the desired result of the policy (situational awareness) this policy should be removed. It is interesting to note that the paper this policy was proposed in gives almost no rationale for its conclusion and the policy.

Conclusions

3.1. A lot of work is still to be done in the ADME section, although it is now well on its way to being a more coherent and harmonized piece of documentation. It is hoped that with a final push in the coming cycle we can complete the review of this section, for a few years at least.

Recommendations

4.1. It is recommended that the abovementioned sections of the Technical and Professional Manual (TPM) be amended accordingly, as described in Section 2 of this working paper.

References

ICAO. (2016). Procedures for Air Navigation Services – ATM (Doc 4444. 16th ed. Montreal, Canada: ICAO.

IFATCA. (2008). Study Numbering of Aircraft in the Aerodrome Traffic Circuit (WP No. 85). Montréal, Canada: IFATCA.

IFATCA. (2019). IFATCA Technical and Professional Manual (TPM). 2019 Ed. Montréal, Canada: International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations.