1. 23 May 2012
AIS-AIM SG #6

2. Area 1 eTerrain provision (7+4)
7 Data available (info in AIP)
4 Data available (planned 2012) (not in AIP yet)
Difference in GEN 1.7

3. Area 1 eObstacle provision (4+7)
4 Data available (info in AIP)
7 Data available (planned 2012) (not in AIP yet)
Difference in GEN 1.7

4. Area 4 TOD provision (2+4) 2 Data available (info in AIP)
4 Data available (planned 2012) (not in AIP yet)
Difference in GEN 1.7
7 Not applicable (No CAT II/III RWY)

5. Europe – State of play
eTOD data is starting to become available by a number of European States
However, apart from some internal State usage (Obstacle charts, PBN procedure design, aerodrome obstacle surface assessment) there is no usage of the State data yet by any ‘next player’ in the data chain
Currently industry, in whole or in part, obtain eTOD data through data manufactures (e.g. Jeppesen) which globally collects data through private means
Industry has increasing need for consolidated terrain & obstacle data for current operational civil & military aviation applications such as:
Terrain awareness systems (EGPWS/TAWS)
Synthetic Vision Systems and various displays in the cockpit
Advanced Surface Movement Guidance & Control System (A-SMGCS)
The benefits of eTOD for present and future applications are acknowledged by the industry (quality, digital file, expanded obstacle coverage)
eTOD provision by States is starting to become a “must” for certification of related applications (data received from non-authoritative sources could impact safety).
Current ICAO SARPs TOD quality requirements meet or exceed the required application quality requirements

6. EXTRACT FROM ANNEX 15

7. Europe – Open questions
Yet, need for TOD data provided at State level strictly in accordance with the current ICAO Annex 15 SARPs is subject to questions
Is terrain data with high resolution (e.g. <= 1 arc second) used ?
Are all obstacle data needed or is a subset enough ?
Are all the quality specifications required in all cases ?
With move towards State provision of eTOD data, liability issue is a key aspect to be further assessed with appropriate organizations

8. Europe – The way forward
Refocus on implementation in consistent, practical & efficient manner
There is a strong requirement for a harmonised European approach
Industries to start using the data as it is becoming available from different States. This is bringing lessons learned and issues on the table which will require further discussions between States/ANSPs and industries
The provision of eTOD data should be linked to specific operational use-cases & applications
When usage and appropriateness of eTOD is validated by industry, potential changes to ICAO SARPS will have to be formulated with related industry groups and ICAO expert groups
Some example area of ongoing work:
Format, Completeness, V&V, TOD vs Chart production
Anx14/15 analysis (Anx14 has some provisions in respect to Obstacles in Area 2 and 3 (not terrain and Area 4), but they are not aligned with current Annex 15)
TOD Manual Wiki, Status Doc 9881 ?
And further: EUROCAE/RTCA update, Doc9137 (Part 6 Control of Obstacles) ?

9. EANPG-#53 (Dec 2011) …
The EANPG recognized that the main reason for such a low level of implementation of the eTOD provisions was linked to the question of who was to pay for it. It was noted that the eTOD originators, were not willing to accept the responsibility for providing these data. In this respect, it was highlighted that the fact that eTOD requirements were currently included only in ICAO Annex 15 could be a contributing factor. Accordingly, the EANPG agreed to the following:
EANPG Conclusion 53/10 - Inclusion of appropriate provisions related to eTOD in Annex 14
That, in order to expedite the Electronic Terrain and Obstacle Data (eTOD) implementation, the ICAO Regional Director, Europe and North Atlantic undertake necessary action, in coordination with ICAO Headquarters, to consider the inclusion of appropriate provisions related to eTOD in Annex 14, including in the minimum requirements for aerodrome certification.