1. 4/4/2019

2. xNOTAM Trial – closed NOV 2008

3. xNOTAM Trial Limited set of features: Airspace, AirspaceUsage;
RouteSegment, RoutePortionUsage, Significant Points (Navaid and Designated Points);
Aerodrome, Aerodrome Surfaces Usage, Runway, RunwayDirection, Taxiway;
Obstacles;
Notes
Reversed Workflow
NOTAM -> digital NOTAM
In future: digital NOTAM -> NOTAM…

4. Overall Objectives achieved: Validate AIXM 5
encoding the information contained in NOTAM messages
temporality concept
Improvements of the model -> implemented in AIXM 5.1
Provide a proof of concept for a “digital NOTAM encoding application”
not intended for operational use or for production!!!
we need a much user-friendly and faster HMI for an operational system!
Provide a significant amount of test xNOTAM data
to system developers

5. Execution of the Trial

6. Lessons learned Incremental implementation !
Some key features (airspace, airport usage, obstacle, etc.) account for 50-70% of the NOTAM
End users have priorities for what NOTAM should become digital first
Initial input from LH Systems, SAS, KLM, Eurocopter, etc.
Focus Group task
Incremental implementation !
Candidates for increment 1
- Airspace activation / reservations
- Route closures
- Navaid events
- Airport / Runway closures
- Obstacles
- SNOWTAM
- all other NOTAM as text “Note” on the feature !

7. Lessons Learned
Data provider application shall help the operator to validate the data (HMI-1)
Was all expected data provided?
Does data comply with all business rules?
Is data plausible?
If possible, visualise the data in the context of the static data
Example – closed twy on airport layout
Example – obstacles on airport/airspace background
Example – active airspace on route/airspace background

8. Lessons Learned
Data provider application shall minimise the data input effort (HMI-2)
Shall have a consistent (unique?) workflow
Avoid re-typing data that is already available
If available, partial AIXM format received from external source (“digital NOTAM proposal”)
At least cut/paste from another application, eventually in human-readable form
Example: airspace coordinates input as (“452434N E, N E, N E”) instead of individual input of each position
Example: “MON-FRI, 09:00-17:00”, “SUN, SAT, HOL”, etc. instead of complex timesheet input form

9. Lessons Learned
Data provider application shall minimise the data input effort (cont.)
Wherever appropriate, graphical input
Example: twy / twy portion closure
Example: work in progress area

10. Lessons Learned
ICAO NOTAM Text to be produced automatically and displayed “as you input data” (HMI-3)
Will ensure consistency between digital/text
Will give confidence to the operator that the data was correctly input

11. Lessons Learned Data synchronisation is important! Baseline data
Digital NOTAM
NOTAM -> Checklist
Assured delivery (digital signature)
Data synchronisation service is necessary for both static & dynamic data (APLI-1)

12. Digital SNOWTAM Trial

13. Scope Execution: Winter 2009-2010 Service provider End user Originator
Briefing
FPL
chart
FMS data
etc.
Originator
(Digital NOTAM)
End user
Pilot
Airline OPS
ATC
etc.
Image
Text
Application
AIXM 5
(Digital NOTAM)
xNOTAM Trial
(origination only)
xSNOWTAM Trial
(end-to-end)

14. Digital SNOWTAM Trial 2009-2010
SNOWTAM Message Sample  
ESSA S ESSA S0 C)01L F)71/71/71 G)01/01/01 H)69/63/60 SFH N)71/GOOD C)08 F)71/71/71 G)01/01/01 H)62/65/68 SFH N)71/GOOD C)01R F)71/71/71 G)01/01/01 H)70/66/68 SFH N)71/GOOD R)7/MEDIUM-GOOD T)RWYS AND TWYS CONT 10 PER CENT. APRONS CONT 25 PER CENT
Demonstrate xNOTAM benefits to end users -> Airlines
Verification of the AIXM 5 Surface Contamination model
Continue the testing of Web service standards
REST architecture
Start work on algorithms and open source code
structured SNOWTAM text to AIXM 5
AIXM 5.0 to SNOWTAM text

15. Digital SNOWTAM Trial (2009-2010)

16. Initial results Surface Contamination model is validated
Including extra capabilities,
Detailed information for each Apron, TWY, stand
Portion of Apron covered by contaminant
Contamination percentage (very important for airlines)
Individual observation time for each element
Etc.
Very well received by airlines
Overview page – suggested by SAS and KLM
Perfectly feasible as operational application in 1-2 years
Report to AI-OPS: Poor compliance of issued SNOWTAM with ICAO specification
Complex N) & R) fields
Probably, for a good reason, but then the ICAO standard is in need for update…
Syntax errors in F, H, G