1
IWXXM implementation feedbackICAO Meteorological Information Exchange Model (IWXXM) Implementation Workshop
Paris, France, 05–06 November 2019Ján Kőrösi, Boris Burger, Ján Osuský
2
● The IWXXM 3.0 solves issues found in previous versions:○ NSC, NCD, //////, SIGMET vertical extent level definition, VA/TC SIGMET
multilocation, point base location SIGMET, …● The TT-AvXML working on following issues:
○ How CRS should be used/understand in IWXXM.○ How National extensions should be published.○ Relaxing the maximum limit of certain features
■ ww, w’w’, NsNsNshshshs, rvr, TREND, TXTFTF/YFYFGFGFZ TNTFTF/YFYFGFGFZ, SIGMET VA Clouds, SIGMET TC Centers
○ Collectives from different IWXXM versions.
Current Status
3
● We asked our customer why they need TAC and get response from Croatia Control, SHMU, BoM, ARSO.
● TAC is currently used in these situations:○ Flight Documentation○ Visual monitoring of METAR/TAF at MWOs○ En-route communication between pilots and ATCs○ VOLMET & D-VOLMET○ Flight Planning○ Disaster/Backup Use Case○ … other use cases you know about?
IWXXM Human-readable representation
4
Flight Documentation by Annex 3 Appendix 8-2
5
Flight Documentation
ICAO Annex 3 Chapter 9, Section 9.3Appendix 8
6
Visual monitoring of METAR & TAF
Due to compactness of TAC METAR/TAF many
reports can fit on screen/paper
Colour coded by severity (visibility and BKN/OVC
cloud base)
7
Visual monitoring of METAR vs TAF
Alternative visual monitoring with decoded values
Disadvantage compared to TAF: PROBnn TEMPO change groups difficult
to express
Red if obs is worse than fcst, green if reality is better than forecast
8
Meteogram comparison of METAR and TAF
Covers “best/worst” change groups, but only for a single aerodrome
METAR
Worst case in TAF
Best case in TAF
9
TAF visualisation in Slovenia
Colours distinguish between wind, visibility,
weather and clouds.
10
The data presentation should be standardized:● End-users are currently familiar with one common presentation.● Users should be able to consume meteorological data fast, without “changing
of logic” whenever they consume data from a different provider.● There is a concern that not standardising any form of data presentation will
ultimately cause fragmentation in how data is represented by states or wider regions of the world, making the data harder to consume by end-users.
Value of standardising data presentation
11
The end users prefer graphical products for SIGMET, AIRMET and advisories.
Graphical presentation of SIGMET/AIRMET being more important than TAC
https://met.crocontrol.hrhttp://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/
warnings/graphical-sigmet/
12
Call for met. data use cases
1. IWXXM covers ICAO Annex 3 data formats, but does notaddress how end users work with the data.
2. Annex 3 specifies products meteorologists should issue,but does not explain how the products are used in realworld.
3. ICAO might not know, how your organisation uses e.g.METAR & TAF internally, and how data is consumed byend-users (air traffic control, pilots, airlines, briefingsystems, flight planning systems).
13
Aviation community should document how the data isused in practice and share examples/requirements withWG-MIE, TT-AvXML or the MET Panel.
Call for met. data use cases
14
1. Pilots/airlines operating international flights will be confused by getting differently presented met. information from each state.
2. It will take more time for end users to understand the met. information if it is presented differently in each state.
Risks of not standardising products
15
IWXXM evolved quite quickly• 1.0 was released October 2013, followed by 1.1, 2.0, 2.1
and finally 3.0 in November 2019 (~5 versions in 6 years)
IWXXM releases vs Lifecycle Management
• End users (met services) struggle to keep pace with it– Alignment of IWXXM releases with Amendments to Annex 3– Time buffers needed by software developers but even more
by met services to deploy system changes (IWXXM 1.0 seen circulating in 2017 - after 2.1 release)
• We should struggle to make formats good enough for next 5 years
16