AMOSSG/5-SN No. 21

23/3/05

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVING SYSTEMS STUDY GROUP (AMOSSG)

FIFTH MEETING

Montreal, 11 to 14 April 2005

Agenda Item	5:	Aerodrome observation requirements
5.2:	Capability of automatic observing equipment to meet aeronautical requirements and the use of automated equipment during operational hours

LEVEL OF METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES FOR INTERNATIONAL AIR NAVIGATION

(Presented by D. Hart)

SUMMARY
Changing needs and changing solutions to those needs are the basis for discussions on how the SARPs will evolve. Like the concept of service levels for automated observational reports, that will be discussed during AMOSSG/5, it can be envisaged that this type of approach can fit to all basic requirements for aeronautical meteorology. This paper likes to accommodate a discussion on the introduction of the concept of "service levels" for all services.

1.	INTRODUCTION

1.1	ICAO Annex 3 is always seen as the basic requirement for the meteorological service provision for international air navigation. An elementary set of requirements to provide for observations, forecasts and warnings.

1.2	Until recently, the regulator, user and provider communities could use Annex 3 as a direct reference for national service provision. Changing national, regional and global demands and additionally the introduction of the 15th edition of Annex 3 give reason to the possible introduction of a more differentiated approach to setting basic requirements for international air navigation. When doing so, the risk for national solutions and differences to Annex 3 to overcome new demands will stay at a minimum.

1.3	This paper outlines a possible way ahead to utilizing service levels. As a starting point for discussion instead of a specific proposal for change.

2.	DISCUSSION

2.1	All stakeholders of international air navigation are faced with new or renewed demands to meet the objectives of future air transport system. The growth of air transport within a safe and efficient ATM system should preferably be met against lower costs. This puts the obligation on all stakeholders to review all existing requirements for air navigation including MET.

2.2	The current requirements are already challenged in several States, particularly in the case of automated observational reports. This tendency was already recognised years ago and followed up by the introduction of these types of observations in the 15th edition of Annex 3 for use during non-operational hours. Furthermore, the use of these type of observations during operational hours was already initially discussed during AMOSSG/4 and will be on the agenda for AMOSSG/5.

2.3	The introduction of automatic observing systems in chapter 4 of the Annex 3 is the first real possibility to choose for the way how aeronautical meteorological products will be produced. Either you produce METAR and SPECI for non operational hours by human observer (supported by automation) or by machine. These are clear requirements for the "what"on the subject of manned and automatic observations. What's missing for national regulators and providers is when you could implement one or both. This is currently arranged by national regulations or bilateral agreements between for instance airports and providers.

2.4	During the discussions at AMOSSG/4 it was decided that a way ahead for further use of automated observations was to differentiate between the type of usage of a aerodrome and the use of automatic observing systems accordingly. An idea welcomed by all to overcome national difficulties on implementing rules for automated observational reports. A possible approach to differentiate in service levels for aerodrome in relation to automated observations is discussed in AMOSSG/5 Study Note No. 19.

2.5	It is envisaged that the mentioned assessment on observations is only the beginning of linking required services to the typical use of an airport. In other words, certainly on an national and regional level more and more discussions will be started on what will be the basic set of services required for a specific type of airport. Based on the need to thoroughly review the requirements for the above-mentioned reasons (2.1). Already, initiated by IATA, discussions have been started on the provision for TREND. Furthermore, the automation of other types of observations and forecasts is under development allowing stakeholders to choose for the way services are produced. For instance AUTO TAF and AUTO TREND are already available in some States, at least as a first guess for forecasters.

2.6	In conclusion, it can be argued that the way the requirements are listed now will meet the needs of all stakeholders during the coming years. It is foreseen, and already practice in some States, that for some type of airports the current Annex 3 requirements are to extend. For other types of airport they are too limited or to restrictive. From that perspective, it will be worthwhile to consider if the introduction of service levels throughout the whole Annex 3 is feasible and a possible answer to stakeholders needs. As a starting point for the discussion, the (to be) discussed concept of service levels for automated observational reports could be used (SN 19).

3.	ACTION BY THE GROUP

3.1	The AMOSSG is invited to:

a)	note the content of this paper;

b)	discuss the content under Chapter 2; and

c)	undertake any further action, if necessary.

— END —