AERONAU INFORMATION MANAGEM. International TENTH MEETING THE QUALITY OF SUMMARY. such quality added). global ATM 1.3. regard, the.

Transcription

1 International Civil Aviation Organization 10/ /11/2014 INFORMATION PAPER AERONAU UTICAL INFORMATION SERVICES-AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANAGEM MENT STUDY GROUP (AIS-AIMSG) TENTH MEETING Montréal, 10 to 14 November 2014 Agenda Item 1: Review and statuss of current work SERVICE LEVELL AGREEMENTS AND THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ENSURING THE QUALITY OF AERONAUTICAL DATA AND INFORMATION (Presented by Kelly Annn Hicks) SUMMARY This paper explores how Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between Data Originators and Aeronautical Information Service Providers (Service Providers) can ensure the quality of aeronautical data and information throughout the data chain, and how State regulatory requirements can augment such quality. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Twelfth Air Navigation Conference (2013) acknowledged the importance of aeronautical information in support of the future Air Traffic Management (ATM) system. 1.2 Recommendation 3/8 of AN-Conf/12 defines the objectives: thatt States accelerate transition from aeronautical information service to aeronautical information management by implementing a fully automated digital aeronautical data chain; and implement necessary processes to ensure the quality of aeronautical data and information from the origin to the end users (emphasis added). 1.3 In this regard, the global ATM community has recognized that traditional product centered provision of data cannot meet the needs of collaborative decision making, and hence data and system centered solutions are being implemented. (5 pages)

2 CHICAGO CONVENTION ANNEX The ICAO AIS to AIM Study Group has worked to revise Annex 15 and related annexes to the Chicago Convention to incorporate digital AIM concepts. The transition to a data-centric Aeronautical Information Management will increase the need for formal arrangements among the various actors throughout the data chain. Data Originators to Aeronautical Information Service Providers (Service Providers), and Service Providers to Data Users, will be required to enter into formal arrangements to establish the timeliness, relevancy, accuracy and quality of aeronautical data and information. Annex 15 addresses this concept in Chapter 2, Section in regards to Data Originators and Service Providers: Each contracting State shall ensure that formal arrangements are established between originators of aeronautical data and aeronautical information and the aeronautical information service in relation to the timely and complete provision of aeronautical data and aeronautical information. 2.2 The AIS to AIM Roadmap states: Data of high quality can only be maintained if the source material is of good quality. States will be required to better control relationships along the whole data chain from the producer to the distributor. This may take the form of template service level agreements with data originators, neighbouring States, information service providers or others. 2.3 The term formal arrangements, although not specifically defined, is meant to include Service Level Agreements, as well as Regulatory Frameworks. 2.4 At the time of writing this paper, the ICAO AIS to AIM Study Group is exploring the concept of including guidance material, as it pertains to arrangements between Data Originators and Aeronautical Information service providers in the new PANS-AIM document. 3. SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS (SLAS) 3.1 To give effect to ICAO s Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) concerning aeronautical data and information, formal arrangement can be established in the form of service level agreements (SLAs.) 3.2 Eurocontrol, for example, has established a highly sophisticated SLA regime. The specific elements of the package are: SLA guidance; Originator index; Static Data Procedures (SDP) for upstream data operations; SLA template; Set of tutorial information; and Pilot implementation and trial.

3 An SLA will establish specific obligations and expectation on both the Data Originator and the Service Provider. It is through the concise definition of these obligations and expectation that data quality is expected to be maintained or improved. 3.4 Provision of the data is the obvious key requirement on the Data Originator. Defining how and to what extent, data is to be provided is the key to all SLAs. The introduction of digital data has increased specifications requirements in SLAs in order to also address technological parameters. In addition to the standard of conforming to all relevant legislative and regulatory provisions, commonly seen requirements are: a guarantee of availability; obligation to meet certain quality requirements; introduction of quality measurements through Key Performance Indicators; ensuring appropriate rights to provide the data (owner/licensor of data); technical data exchange specifications; technological interoperability specifications and validation (certification) processes; and data quality management information exchange obligations and processes. 3.5 In turn, the Service Provider will typically have the obligation to maintain the data within regulatory requirements, observe any intellectual property restrictions, and maintain the integrity and privacy of any personal data. 4. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 4.1 One of the goals of an SLA is to increase awareness on the part of Data Originators of the responsibility each has within the data chain. However, with increased responsibility comes the potential of legal liability. Does the fact that Data Originators are now being asked to enter into SLAs increase or decrease their legal liability? This is a question that cannot be answered within the scope of this paper, but by introducing liability limitations within the SLA, one could argue that Data Originators would be more willing to enter into SLAs. By being subject to the strict requirements described above, fulfills the goal of ever increasing data quality. It also provides a level of certainty to all parties. Two common ways of limiting liability are to introduce a temporal and/or monetary limitation. 4.2 For example, certain data provision agreements state that the Data Originator will: i) be liable in the event that the Data has been corrupted or rendered erroneous by the Data Provider s system. This shall be deemed to be before it has been recorded as transmitted ; and ii) not be liable in the event that the Data has been corrupted or been rendered erroneous after it has left the Data Provider s system. This shall be deemed to be after it has been

4 - 4 - recorded as transmitted and/or which was incorrectly introduced into the system by the Data Receiver. 4.3 This language attempts to delineate which party will be responsible based on when the error occurred before or after it has left the Data Originator s system. 4.4 Notwithstanding which party is at fault, liability can be limited to a certain monetary amount within the SLA. These provisions typically speak to an upper limit for one occurrence and in the aggregate. For example: The liability of the Parties under this Agreement shall be limited to a maximum of one million euros per event, and shall be limited to two million euros in the aggregate. 4.5 Liability insurance can protect the insured from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits or similar claims related to corrupted or erroneous data it has provided. Data Originators, when under a legal obligation to provide data to an Aeronautical Service Providers, would be well served to acknowledge that they are in the aviation business and should obtain aviation liability insurance. However, this could be cost prohibitive for many Data Originators. 4.6 General comprehensive liability insurance could cover some of the Data Originators liability and should be considered for inclusion in SLAs. 4.7 There are little, if no restrictions on the various connotations which two parties can establish in terms of liability provisions, liability limits and insurance requirements. The flexibility of an SLA thus permits all involved to easily adapt to changes introduced by digital data exchange requirements. 5. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 5.1 Many States have chosen to outline obligations of Data Originators within a Regulatory Framework. This will typically involve penalties if the Data Originator does not meet the required regulated criteria. 5.2 For example, if a Data Originator becomes aware of a change to aeronautical data for which the Data Originator is responsible for, and does not advise the Aeronautical Service Provider, then the Data Originator shall have committed an offence and will be fined accordingly. 5.3 Generally, regulatory frameworks are less malleable and flexible than SLAs. The time required to amend or update a regulation tends to be longer and fraught with bureaucratic requirements. An SLA requires only the agreement of the parties directly involved. 5.4 However, an Aeronautical Service Provider cannot force a Data Originator to the negotiation table. Both parties must be willing to enter into SLAs and outline the requirements. 5.5 Another issue Aeronautical Service Providers face is actually receiving data from all Data Originators who should be providing data.

5 Aeronautical Service Providers cannot gather all the necessary data without the assistance of Data Originators. Without regulatory incentive, the Aeronautical Service Provider has no leverage to ensure that all appropriate data is being provided, and that it is being provided at a quality level that meets safety requirements. 5.7 It is therefore incumbent upon Regulators to take action in this regard. 6. TWO PRONGED APPROACH 6.1 The flexibility of an SLA should not be regulated. The sheer variety of Data Originators does not lend itself to managing data provision through regulation. The obligation to participate and to participate at a pre-set level does however readily lend itself to regulations. 6.2 As Aeronautical Service Providers must rely on Data Originators for the provision of aeronautical data, Regulators should ensure that Data Originators are obligated to provide prescribed data to the Service Provider, as set out in Annex 15, Annex 14 and Annex 4 to the Chicago Convention. This obligation could be clearly directed that, when requested to do so by the Service Provider, the Data Originator must respond and provide the necessary data and information about structures and objects that could potentially affect aviation safety 6.3 As to how the information is provided, and how both parties manage this relationship, this should be left to the Data Originator and the Service Provider to determine by agreement. A regulatory requirement that states that service and service levels will be addressed through formal arrangements between the parties will solve the issue. 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 A negotiated relationship between Data Originators and Service Providers should not be done in isolation. Regulators need to be cognisant of their role in ensuring the timeliness, relevancy, accuracy and quality of aeronautical data and information in the data chain, from origination to use. END