World Meteorological OrganizationEXECUTIVE COUNCILSixty-Ninth SessionGeneva, 10 to 17 May 2017

EC-69/INF. 6.2(1)Submitted by:

Secretary-General11.IV.2017

OUTCOMES OF THE 2016/17 CAeM GLOBAL SURVEY ON AERONAUTICAL METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE PROVISION

1. Background and scope

1.1 A global survey on aeronautical meteorological service provision was conducted by the Commission for Aeronautical Meteorology (CAeM) with WMO Members from November 2016 to February 2017.

1.2 Ten years or more had elapsed since such a comprehensive survey on aeronautical meteorological service provision had been conducted. Advances in science and technology, evolving user requirements, drivers for change, changing business models and governance methodologies, emerging challenges and opportunities as well as increased competition and partnership rendered it important to build a picture of the current (2016/17) global landscape as well as regional landscape, particularly as meteorological service to international air navigation looks to evolve in line with air transport modernization programmes.

1.3 The global survey, in the form of an online questionnaire comprising almost 50 questions, was structured around the following main topic areas:

Contact information and representation

National legislation/regulation Institutional arrangements Organizational aspects

Compliance monitoring Cost recovery Technical capacity Challenges

1.4 One of the main purposes of the survey was to establish a picture of the institutional and governance arrangements that exist, including the application of meteorological authority at a national level, and to examine the responsibilities and capabilities of the various parties involved in aeronautical meteorological service provision.

2. Response rate

2.1 More than 90% of WMO Members responded to the CAeM global survey. All WMO regional associations (RAs) exceeded an original target response rate of 80%.

EC-69/INF. 6.2(1), p. 2

2.2 Such a high response rate was achieved, not least, through the concerted efforts of the CAeM Expert Team on Communication, Cooperation and Partnership (ET-CCP) and Expert Team on Governance (ET-GOV) to reach out to Members through a network of focal points. This effort was facilitated by the Secretariat through an on-line questionnaire, regular monitoring of the response rate, reminders and responses to queries from the focal points seeking clarification.

2.3 This level of response rate was a significant achievement for WMO and CAeM, and an apparent recognition of the importance that Members place in their obligations to provide meteorological services to aviation. In addition, this response rate has ensured a sufficient sample size from which meaningful, reliable key findings and (eventually) recommendations can be derived to inform WMO and its Members.

3. Analysis of the responses

3.1 In March 2017, the CAeM Expert Team on Governance (ET-GOV), with the assistance of the Secretariat, commenced an analysis of the responses by Members to the global survey. The intention of this analysis is to identify the key findings and (eventually) recommendations which can inform WMO constituent bodies and others concerned, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Air Transport Association (IATA), of the global and regional landscape in aeronautical meteorological service provision in 2016/17.

4. Initial findings

4.1 For the purposes of informing the Executive Council, initial findings pertaining only to the global landscape are presented in the Table below:

EC-69/INF. 6.2(1), p. 3

TOPIC AREA INITIAL FINDINGS1. Contact

information and representation

1.1. The response rate in all RAs exceeded expectations1.2. The importance of up-to-date subject matter expertise/focal points of

contact cannot be underestimated1.3. AMSPs, NMHSs, Met Authorities, government ministries and national

civil aviation authorities were all strong represented in the survey response

2. National legislation/ regulation

2.1. 80% of responding States/Territories have some form of legal/ regulatory framework

2.2. The ICAO/WMO regulatory framework is strongly reflected in a majority of responding States/Territories

2.3. The ICAO functions for Aeronautical Meteorological Station (AMS), Aeronautical Meteorological Office (AMO) and Meteorological Watch Office (MWO) are designated by law and/or the regulatory in 80% of responding States/Territories

3. Institutional arrangements

3.1. The notion of ‘Meteorological Authority’ is not applied uniformly by all responding States/Territories

3.2. The National Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) is the regulator in half of all responding States/Territories

3.3. The National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (NMHS) is the regulator in 20% of responding States/Territories

3.4. The NCAA is responsible for performing oversight in half of responding States/Territories

3.5. The NMHS is responsible for performing oversight in 20% of responding States/Territories

3.6. Functional separation between service provision, regulation and oversight exists in a majority of responding States/Territories

3.7. Where the aeronautical meteorological service provider (AMSP) is not the NMHS, there is no formal cooperation arrangement for data sharing, cost sharing, education and training, etc. in 60% of responding States/Territories

3.8. Other formal cooperative arrangements between the AMSP and other entities exist only in half of all responding States/Territories

4. Organizational aspects

4.1. A majority (>90%) of responding States/Territories with MWO responsibilities serve no more than 5 flight information regions (FIR)

4.2. Bilateral arrangements for the delegation of MWO responsibilities from one State/Territory to another occurs only in a minority of instances

4.3. A majority (70%) of responding States/Territories have no more than five AMOs

4.4. NMHS provide the AMO functions in half of all instances4.5. One central AMO served all aerodromes in a State/Territory in 30% of

responding States/Territories4.6. All AMO functions are provided locally at all aerodromes in 30% of

responding States/Territories4.7. A majority (>70%) of States/Territories have AMS that serve no more

than 5 international airports4.8. NMHS provide the AMS functions in half of all instances4.9. In a majority (>90%) of instances, the ownership of the met

observational equipment at the aerodrome is wholly or partly under the responsibility of the AMS

4.10. In a minority (5%) of instances, met observational data from an AMS is not being made available to the NMHS, either for free or for a charge

5. Compliance monitoring

5.1. In a majority (>80%) of responding States/Territories the AMSP has a full or partially implemented quality management system (QMS)

5.2. Where a QMS is implemented, it is certified and conforms to: ISO 9001:2008 in 80% of all instances ISO 9001:2015 in only 1% of all instances

5.3. A competency assessment programme for aeronautical met personnel (AMP) exists only in 70% of responding States/Territories

5.4. Competency assessment of all aeronautical met observers (AMO) within an AMSP has been completed in just over half of all cases

5.5. Competency assessment of all aeronautical met forecasters (AMF)

EC-69/INF. 6.2(1), p. 4

TOPIC AREA INITIAL FINDINGSwithin an AMSP has been completed in half of all cases

5.6. Where competency assessment of AMO and AMF has been completed, a majority (>80%) of AMSP conduct reassessment at least every 3 years

5.7. The WMO qualification standard for AMF has been completed in about 40% of responding States/Territories

6. Cost recovery 6.1. Aeronautical met service provision in a majority (nearly 60%) of responding States/Territories is wholly funded by the government budget, while cost recovery (in whole) accounts for about 30% and commercial (in whole) less than 5%

6.2. Enroute charges and terminal charges are the main mechanisms of recovering costs for aeronautical met service provision where cost recovery is applied

6.3. Only 30% of responding States/Territories include a portion of the core cost for met facilities or services in the cost recovery arrangements for aeronautical met service provision

7. Technical capacity 7.1. AUTO METAR and AUTO SPECI with no manual intervention are produced in less than 20% of responding States/Territories

7.2. METAR and SPECI without the aid of automated weather observing equipment are produced in 20% of responding States/Territories

7.3. Where automated observations are not yet produced, almost half of all responding States/Territories have no plans to migrate to fully automated aerodrome observations, while the other half have plans to do so

7.4. A majority (>80%) of responding States/Territories do utilize NWP output and nowcasting products (fully or to some extent) in the forecast production process, including for warnings, while a minority (less than 20%) do not

7.5. Only 70% of responding States/Territories conduct forecast verification7.6. Aircraft-based observations are used in the forecast production process

only by 30% or responding States/Territories7.7. Almost half of all States/Territories with MWO responsibilities conduct

no form of cross-border SIGMET coordination8. Challenges 8.1. The primary challenges facing AMSPs are:

Automation of aerodrome observations Maintenance and calibration of observing equipment Qualification of AMF Migration to XML/IWXXM Meeting demands for advanced products and services

8.2. Secondary challenges include QMS, cost recovery, competency assessment, SIGMET quality, and advanced met information and services for the terminal area

5. Communication and follow-up

5.1 Having conducted the 2016/17 CAeM global survey on aeronautical meteorological service provision, the formal findings and recommendations will be communicated to WMO constituent bodies and others concerned through a blend of working documentation, online resources and other reference materials.

5.2 In addition, the outcomes of the survey will serve as inspiration for aspects of the WMO Aeronautical Meteorology Scientific Conference (AeroMetSci-2017) in November 2017 and the sixteenth session of the Commission for Aeronautical Meteorology (CAeM-16) in mid-2018.

_______