Review policy on Surface Guidance Movement and Control Systems

  • Home 2004 Review policy on Surface Guida....

Review policy on Surface Guidance Movement and Control Systems

43RD ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Hong Kong, China (SAR), 22-26 March 2004

WP No. 93

Review policy on Surface Guidance Movement and Control Systems

Presented by SC1

Introduction

1.1. As part of the 2003/4 work programme, SC1 was tasked to review existing policy on Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS)

1.2. Present IFATCA policy on SMGCS dates from 1987. In the light of recent developments, it is necessary to ensure that existing IFATCA policy on SMGCS is still applicable.

Discussion

2.1. Existing IFATCA policy on SMGCS states:

“The appropriate ATC authority should institute an SMGCS which includes procedures for avoidance of collision between aircraft, and aircraft and vehicles on the ground.”

 

Although it is hard to determine, most probably all aerodromes have some form of SMGCS. Commonly used systems that have been installed in the past are described in the Manual of Surface Movement, Guidance and Control Systems (doc 9476).

It is proposed that the above policy is retained, because of the uncertainty about SMGCS equipage around the world. The policy is still valid for those ATC authorities that are lacking an SMGCS.

2.2.

“ICAO should not specify the separation standards necessary to achieve the objectives until the introduction of appropriate future technology on the flight deck and appropriate visual or electronic aids on the ground.”

 

When speaking of SMGCS, not very much has changed in the past years. No need has been identified for ATC separation standards on the ground, even with future technology like A-SMGCS. The objective is to prevent collisions between aircraft and aircraft and vehicles on the ground. Procedures to achieve this objective already exists. It is therefore proposed to delete this policy and to replace it by:

“ICAO should not specify the ATC separation standards necessary to achieve the objective to prevent collisions between aircraft and aircraft and vehicles on the ground.”

2.3.

“Surface movement radar should be used as a monitoring device and should not be used for the provision of a control service unless procedures are available.”

 

As long as the Surface Movement Radar (SMR) is used as an SMGCS and not as an A-SMGCS, there is no need to change or delete this policy. When SMR is for example used as part of a surveillance system with labels, then we have an ASMGCS instead of an SMGCS. When the SMR is part of an MDS, appropriate procedures should be established.

2.4.

“The boundary between apron and manoeuvring area should be clearly defined.”

 

The importance of this policy remains unchanged when using an SMGCS. It should therefore be retained.

2.5. In the simplest form, SMGCS consist of painted guidelines and signs. In the most advanced and complex systems, they employ switched taxiway centre line lights and stop bars. All SMGCS provide guidance to an aircraft from the landing runway to the parking position on the apron and back to the runway used for take-off. In addition, existing SMGCS provides some guidance to vehicles.

2.6. The systems described in the ICAO Manual of SMGCS (Doc 9476) are not always capable of providing the necessary support to aircraft operations in order to maintain required capacity and safety levels, especially under low visibility conditions. An A-SMGCS therefore, is expected to provide adequate capacity and safety in relation to specific weather conditions, traffic density and aerodrome layout by making use of modern technologies and a high level of integration between the various functionalities.

Conclusions

3.1. A clear distinction has to be made between SMGCS and A-SMGCS. The existing policy is only on SMGCS. As many airports are still operating with SMGCS and will most probably continue doing this in the near and medium-term future. The policy on these systems is still valid, and should therefore be retained.

3.2. Major aerodromes in Europe are currently implementing A-SMGCS. In several workgroups a wide spread of different approaches, experiences and opinions of several providers and organisations is obvious.

Recommendations

It is recommended that;

4.1 Following IFATCA policy on page 3223;

“ICAO should not specify the separation standards necessary to achieve the objectives until the introduction of appropriate future technology on the flight deck and appropriate visual or electronic aids on the ground.”

be deleted.

4.2 New IFATCA policy;

“ICAO should not specify the ATC separation standards necessary to achieve the objective to prevent collisions between aircraft and aircraft and vehicles on the ground.”

be included in the IFATCA manual page 3223.

Last Update: September 29, 2020  

March 24, 2020   223   Jean-Francois Lepage    2004    

Comments are closed.


  • Search Knowledgebase