Global reporting format что это
Если пишут – отлично, так и должно быть, и не иначе! Вы же знаете, что передача информации о расчетном сцеплении не ограничивается передачей только в АТИС. Правильное начало есть, завершения нет. Логической завершенностью цепочки будет наличие кодировки расчетного сцепления еще и в МЕТАРе. Только нет еще циферок кодировки. Проблема то она чуть глубже, чем кажется.
Если пишут – отлично, так и должно быть, и не иначе! Вы же знаете, что передача информации о расчетном сцеплении не ограничивается передачей только в АТИС. Правильное начало есть, завершения нет. Логической завершенностью цепочки будет наличие кодировки расчетного сцепления еще и в МЕТАРе. Только нет еще циферок кодировки. Проблема то она чуть глубже, чем кажется.
Приказ Минтранса России от 03.03.2014 N 60
«Об утверждении Федеральных авиационных правил «Предоставление метеорологической информации для обеспечения полетов воздушных судов»
(Зарегистрировано в Минюсте России 18.09.2014 N 34093)
Почему сразу к ИКАО?
Вот же в ФАП «Предоставление метеорологической информации для обеспечения полетов воздушных судов» (Зарегистрировано в Минюсте России 18.09.2014 N 34093)
п. 19. В качестве дополнительной информации в сводки METAR и SPECI также включаются:
…………….
— информация о состоянии взлетно-посадочной полосы в виде закодированной десятизначной группы, включаемой в сводку METAR/SPECI в том виде, в каком эти данные получены от аэродромной службы через органы ОВД;
— сведения о состоянии ВПП, предоставляемые уполномоченной аэродромной службой, в кодовом формате ИКАО.
Почему сразу к ИКАО?
Вот же в ФАП «Предоставление метеорологической информации для обеспечения полетов воздушных судов» (Зарегистрировано в Минюсте России 18.09.2014 N 34093)
п. 19. В качестве дополнительной информации в сводки METAR и SPECI также включаются:
…………….
— информация о состоянии взлетно-посадочной полосы в виде закодированной десятизначной группы, включаемой в сводку METAR/SPECI в том виде, в каком эти данные получены от аэродромной службы через органы ОВД;
— сведения о состоянии ВПП, предоставляемые уполномоченной аэродромной службой, в кодовом формате ИКАО.
Да, я согласен, так и надо было делать с самого начала.
Почему мы, рядовые, здесь, за кулисами это обсуждаем? А где наши представители в ИКАО? Где все функционеры от Минтранса, Росавиации, ГК? Почему они мышей не ловят? Почему вместо того, чтобы доносить до нас тенденции и смыслы международной авиации они их размазывают и затушёвывают?
Но пока они там сопли жуют, вся ответственность на них.
В свою очередь, у нас, диспетчеров, несмотря на ИХ разгильдяйство, все инструменты уже есть, надо только грамотно ими пользоваться. Мы даже сейчас ничего не нарушаем: ни нормы ИКАО, ни наши ФАПы.
Кстати, с ИКАО я немного перегнул. По ИКАО состояние полосы даётся в дополнительной части METAR, а эта часть отдана на откуп национальным и региональным властям.
Понимает ли разницу между METAR и местной сводкой?
Да.
Понимает ли разницу между METAR и местной сводкой?
Да.
Похоже, я не до конца был точен… Посыпаю пеплом голову. Пришлось поковыряться ещё раз в доках ИКАО и вот что получил:
Измеренный коэффициент сцепления – это не исчерпывающая информация о состоянии ВПП и о предполагаемом торможении. Нужно ещё учитывать массу других факторов: тип покрытия ВПП и его возраст, вид осадков, температуру воздуха, характеристики ВС, тип прибора или способ, которым измеряют коэффициент и т.д. (желающие могут заглянуть в Аннекс 14, Док-9137 часть2). Кроме того, такая штука, как SNOWTAM и NOTAM требуют обозначать каким прибором измерен коэффициент, а таких приборов только ИКАО называет не менее девяти, а сколько их ещё в других странах, мы не знаем.
Короче, ситуация складывается очень похожая на ввод PBN.
В итоге 23.06.2016 ИКАО выпускает поправки №7 в Док-4444, где, наряду с другими изменениями, поменяли форму информации о ВПП (ввели «estimated surface friction»). Цель, как я понимаю – прийти к единообразию для всех на глобусе. Вот как это у них выглядит:
Amendment 7-B:
Subject: The use of a global reporting format for assessing and reporting runway surface conditions
…
2.49 Safety impact: Positive — The amendment will contribute to a reduction in runway excursion incidents/accidents by ensuring that runway surface conditions are reported in a standardized manner, which will enable flight crews to accurately determine aeroplane take-off and landing performance.
2.53 Efficiency impact: Positive — Accurate and timely runway state information disseminated according to defined terminology and procedures will have a positive impact on the efficiency of the air transportation system. Occurrences of excursions, disruptions to aerodrome and air traffic operations such as, but not limited to, the removal of aircraft disabled at an aerodrome, in particular on a runway, are expected to be reduced.
2.54 Expected implementation time: One year — The expected implementation tasks are primarily related to training air traffic controllers and flight crews with respect the addition and alignment of phraseologies to the global reporting format for runway surface friction reporting. It should be noted that it is essential that these changes are made in close coordination with those to Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design and Operations and Annex 15 — Aeronautical Information Services in connection with the introduction of the global reporting format, and that this may affect the implementation date.
Нужно подчеркнуть, что поправка разработана при участии Аэродромной и Метео панелей ИКАО и ввод в действие намечен на 05.11.2020 – так что, к этому сроку можно ожидать и поправки в МЕТАР, и поправки в журналы аэродромщиков. Поживём – увидим. А пока, как говорит п.2.54 выше: «тренируйтесь, ребята!»
Global Reporting Format – Be prepared
Written by Mikko Kallio, Chief Operating Officer, Moventor
The differences in methodologies used across the world for the reporting of runway conditions has been a longstanding cause of confusion and misinterpretation by flight crews and identified as a leading factor in multiple aircraft and accidents over the years. A majority of runway excursions occur when the runway is contaminated by water, ice, or snow. The underlying reasons for this include variations in information sharing about runway conditions, different communications methods, lack of harmonization in reporting, differences in training, or even a lack of training.
To harmonize the information sharing method and thus mitigate the safety risks related to runways, ICAO adopted a new assessment method and reporting format for runway surface conditions. This “Global Reporting Format” (GRF) must be enforced for worldwide implementation from 4 th of November 2021. GRF is a globally standardized language reporting format for runways surface conditions where users of the air-traffic network understand what the numbers mean and how they can interpret them. The report is developed based on a Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM).
One may ask, why should airport operators be concerned with the new reporting format? In practice, the transition to the new GRF methodology may create some tensions or potential misunderstandings between personnel carrying out runway inspections or aerodrome works, and flight crews that need to be considered carefully:
Changes in the runway condition report
The Runway Condition Report in the GRF format is characterized by two distinct features:
They are reported by using RCAM surface descriptions: the GRF, the runway inspector must report the runway conditions based on 18 types of contaminants or contaminant pairs, while in the existing method, reporting is done based on seven “basic” types of contaminants. Currently, in terms of aircraft performance data, seven “basic” contaminants are supported by aircraft manufacturers. This creates situations, where pilots are forced to convert RCAM surface description to one of the “basic” contaminant types. This is a potential safety risk and needs to be discussed with the operating airlines.
They are reported per runway third, not per runway: In the worst-case scenario, pilots may encounter SNOWTAM or ATIS containing multiple surface descriptions per the whole runway. This may create a situation, where pilots simply cannot correctly determine one single most significant contaminant to be used in aircraft performance calculation.
Another issue in the runway inspector will be faced with is the decision to report is landing critical contaminant or take-off critical contaminant depending on the observation for the runway or runway third. In this context, landing and take-off critical contaminants refer to the aircraft performance and performance calculation. Landing is based on slipperiness and take-off for contaminant type, depth and slipperiness.
Potential solution: The RCAM table was originally designed to support runway condition assessment from the landing performance point of view. That is why RWYCC-value plays a major role in the assessment. However, RWYCC-value has no role in take-off performance. To safely cover both take-off and landing, the runway inspector should choose the RCAM contaminant having the greatest impact on take-off performance and RWYCC-value having the correct effect on landing performance. To safely cover take-off and landing, in certain runway conditions where RCAM contaminant type and its respective RWYCC-value cannot be “locked”, it may be necessary to apply a RWYCC downgrade procedure. For further information, read our Moventor’s blog post on How to Report Runway Conditions to Satisfy Both: Take-off and Landing.
The increased responsibility of runway inspectors
The implementation of the GRF heavily depends on trained runway inspectors. The runway inspector’s responsibility in application of the GRF methodology is significantly increased, in particular when runway condition code zero needs to be reported as this represents conditions in which traffic will be suspended on the respective runway. It is up to the runway inspector to decide whether the runway is available for use or not. The challenge will be to determine if airports can rely only a subjective assessment of the runway?
Potential solution: By using a friction tester as a supporting tool, the final decision is still up to the inspector, but he can feel more comfortable choosing the runway condition code when he has an objective backup for his/her decision. Friction values are a valuable piece of information especially when assessing runway condition code upgrade or downgrade as well as assessing slippery wet runway condition during summertime. The goal is to build best possible overall picture of runway condition by using all relevant available information.
The GRF in the summer months and in warmer climates
With the current methodology of runway condition monitoring, when a runway is contaminated by ice or snow, the runway inspectors need to determine the type, depth, and coverage of these contaminants. With the GRF, all airports must promulgate Runway Condition Reports even during the summer. In certain conditions, airports will be required to publish a SNOWTAM even during the summer, as this is the primary format that is currently available for promulgating runway conditions. This issue becomes more important in tropical areas that may not be accustomed to inspecting the runways. In certain regions, the runway conditions can change very quickly due to tropical rainfall. With the use of RCAM, the inspectors in these areas will be able to react quickly to changing conditions.
Potential solution: In countries where the airport is exposed to snow and ice, the runway inspector uses the full version of RCAM to report the runway condition. In countries where the airports are not exposed at all to snow and ice, water is considered as the only contaminant and the inspector only uses the section of RCAM related to water. In both cases, it is essential to have a periodical runway friction testing program, including conducting friction measurements with continuous friction measuring equipment such as Skiddometer BV11. This will allow the airport operator take necessary preventative measures to remove contaminants in a timely manner. In addition, runway drainage capability should be regularly inspected and monitoring for possible standing water situations be applied.
What to expect from the GRF and how to be prepared
The implementation the GRF will see a need for precise runway inspections and the development of standard condition reporting by airports globally. There will equally be a need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of runway surface conditions assessments and reporting. Training, cooperation between airports on sharing lessons learned, and the use of software solutions designed for assisting in runway inspections and reporting will help airports to report runway conditions following ICAO standards.
Mikko Kallio, M.Sc Engineering, began his career in the aviation industry by servicing runway friction testers around the world. His field experience combined with passion for sales and entrepreneurship led him to his current role, as a partner and CEO of Moventor Ltd – the driving force is to increase runway safety with high quality products and services.
This is sponsored content. Sponsored content is provided by third parties including airports, members of ACI, World Business Partners, and others. The views expressed and/or presented by these third parties through sponsored content are their own and may not represent or reflect the views of ACI, its management, Board, or members. Readers should not act on the basis of any information contained in the blog without referring to applicable laws and regulations and/or without appropriate professional advice.
12 min read 2 nerve-racking stories that could have been avoided with Global Reporting Format (GRF)
During my 40-year flying career, I’ve been spared with no flight accidents. However some routes are just like any regular day, and others can be a bit more adventurous. Here are two short stories and the reason why I’m happy that the Global Reporting Format (GRF) will be introduced on November 4th, and for EU 12th of August 2021.
As soon as I woke up that morning, I just knew the day would be awfully long. The weather took a turn for the worse and it was snowing quite heavily, not ideal conditions for flying. Then, on the car journey to the airport, the wind began to pick up for good measure. As I said at the start, this was going to be a long day.
After arriving at the airport and checking myself in, I made my way to the briefing room and met up with the first officer. We began to discuss our schedule and to plan the four flights that we were expecting to take that day. The first one was a domestic flight, Stockholm to Gothenburg, a short 40 minutes in duration. Our second flight would take us from Stockholm to Berlin. At some point during our discussion, we checked the weather forecast as part of our planning procedure.
Weathering the storm
My early morning prediction was seemingly correct, the weather was nasty. This wasn’t going to be a walk in the park! The storm had hit Gothenburg quite badly and we would be heading into heavy snowfall as well as a very strong crosswind. Again, this wasn’t ideal but we knew how to handle the situation. We were both in agreement that we would need a lot of fuel due to the strong crosswind preventing us from landing.
Once we had finished planning our flights, we met up with the cabin crew. We briefed them about the situation before making our way to the aircraft together. It was Christmas Eve and we were expecting a busy flight. Our Boeing 737-800 was packed with almost 200 hundred passengers, all wanting to get somewhere for Christmas Day.
Due to the good work of the ground crew, the take-off from Stockholm Arlanda airport was largely uneventful. They had managed to clear the snow from the runway, making our departure somewhat easier. The flight to Gothenburg Landvetter airport was quite short and as soon as we were airborne, we took a minute to check the weather forecast for our destination.
We came to realise that the visibility wouldn’t present us with any problems, the cloud base was 500ft and overcast. The crosswind, however, was a different proposition. It was still 10 knots over the permitted limit for landing under such circumstances. We soon switched over to the Gothenburg approach and were informed that there were no problems. Aircraft had been landing throughout the entire day and there was no snow sweeping in progress.
The Global Reporting Format (GRF)
Runway safety related accidents, in particular runway excursions, remain aviation’s number one safety risk category. Among the top contributing factors are poor braking action due to contaminated runways combined with shortfalls in the accuracy of runway surface condition assessments and timeliness of communications on changing conditions. As a consequence, ICAO has developed a new methodology for assessing and reporting runway surface conditions commonly known as the Global Reporting Format (GRF), which has become applicable on 4 November 2021.
Accurate and up to date runway condition reporting is critical to reduce the risk of runway excursions. This information allows flight crews to make informed decisions on take-off and landing conditions. A standardized approach of reporting will ensure a common language between all stakeholders.
Preparation of all industry segments for the implementation of this change is critical.
GRF implementation: preparation for airports
GRF Implementation progress survey
ACI World has created a survey in order to better assess the progress of implementation of the new GRF methodology on a global scale. The information gathered in this survey will be kept confidential and only used in aggregate form to provide an industry overview. The results will also help ICAO and industry partners ensure a smooth transition to GRF.
Runway Surface Conditions: The Global Reporting Format
The international civil aviation network carries over four billion passengers around the world annually. In celebrating ICAO’s 75th Anniversary Celebrations, we will be highlighting some of the crucial safety achievements that have enabled this. We hope you follow our UnitingAviation.com series throughout the year, and we encourage you to use the #ICAO75 hashtag to share your thoughts and memories with us through social media.
R unway safety-related accidents and incidents are aviation’s number one safety-related risk category, with 59 reported accidents in 2016, of which more than half were due to runway excursions, according to ICAO iSTARS data.
A runway excursion is defined as a “veer off or overrun of the runway surface”, which can happen during landing or take off. One main contributing factor involves adverse weather that results in the runway surface being contaminated by snow, ice, slush or water, with a potentially negative impact on an aircraft’s braking, acceleration or controllability.
To help mitigate the risk of excursion ICAO has developed a harmonized methodology for the assessing and reporting of runway surface conditions. This methodology, known as the Global Reporting Format (GRF), will be globally applicable from November 2020, with deployment activities now underway.
Runway Excursion Accidents 2008-2016 (Source ICAO iSTARS)
The GRF is intended to cover conditions found in all climates. It provides a means for aerodrome operators to rapidly and correctly assess runway surface conditions, whether they are exposed to wet runway conditions, snow, slush, ice or frost, including rapidly changing conditions such as those experienced during winter or in tropical climates.
The GRF comprises an evaluation of a runway by human observation (normally done by airport operations staff) and, using a runway condition matrix, the consequent assignment of a Runway Condition Code (RWYCC). This code is complemented by a description of the surface contaminant based upon its type, depth and coverage for each third of the runway. This evaluation should, of course, be performed by a trained runway assessor.
The outcome of the evaluation and associated RWYCC are then used to complete a standard report called the Runway Condition Report (RCR) which is forwarded to air traffic services and the aeronautical information services for dissemination to pilots.
The runway condition matrix (used to assign the RWYCC)
Pilots use the RWYCC to determine their aircraft’s performance by correlating the code with performance data provided by their aircraft’s manufacturer. This helps pilots to correctly carry out their landing and take-off performance calculations for wet or contaminated runways.
Another important element of the GRF is a process that enables pilots to report their own observations of runway conditions, thereby confirming the RWYCC or providing an alert to changing conditions.
Other key qualities of the GRF are its relative simplicity and its global applicability. A methodology that is easily understood and implemented globally is an important means by which the runway excursion risk can be mitigated and the safety of runway operations improved.
Finally, as we prepare for the applicability date in 2020, the importance of awareness, education and training is not being overlooked by ICAO. This need is being addressed through an ICAO/ACI symposium to be hosted in Montreal 26 to 28 March 2019 (event website and registrations at: http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GRF2019), with follow-up through more focused regional seminars. In addition, training resources are being developed, initially for airport operations staff, but eventually also for pilots and air traffic control staff.
About the author
Paul Adamson joined ICAO as a technical officer on a four year secondment from EUROCONTROL, where his last position was Head of Airports for the Network Manager. Previous to that he was responsible for runway safety and A-SMGCS projects in EUROCONTROL. He also spent four years on secondment to the SESAR Joint Undertaking, where he was the programme manager for the SESAR airports-related activities and prior to that, he was an air traffic controller and he has an M.Sc. in airport planning.
