PETAL Preliminary Eurocontrol Test of Air/ground data Link
Download
Report
Transcript PETAL Preliminary Eurocontrol Test of Air/ground data Link
PETAL-II
Preliminary Eurocontrol Test of
Air/ground data Link, Phase II
Operational Validation &
Early Implementation
Rob Mead
PETAL-II Trials & Project Manager
Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD
Topics
Aims and Objectives
Current Operations
Results and Lessons
ATN extension & PIT
Original Context
ICAO ADSP
RTCA / Eurocae
etc.
ODIAC Members
Controllers, Aircrew
Communications engineers
Avionics and FDPS engineers
ODIAC Transition
Guidelines
ODIAC Operational Requirements
Document
ARINC 623 based:
OCM, DCL, ATIS
ATN-like CPDLC: ACM, CIC, DCL, DSC
Other Services: CAP, D-OTIS, D-RVR
ODIAC Mid-Term
Requirements
Technology Independant:
Surveillance, FLIPCY, DYNAV,
PPD, COTRAC
PETAL-I
PETAL-II
Operational Proof of Concept;
Initial Requirements Validation
Detailed Requirements Validation;
Limited New Functionality
EOLIA / ProATN
Pre-certified ATN-based air and ground systems
We are Essentially Done
We Met Our Original Objectives in 1998
Multiple
equipped aircraft on one channel
Total rewrite of the key service (transfer)
Numerous defects identified (e.g. timers)
Requirements gaps identified
Operational contact exceeds expectations
Accelerated
implementation of air/ground datalink
Within cost and schedule targets
Operational package validated
New Objectives: PETAL-IIe
Virtually no trials objectives left after 1998
AAL offered
First fully certified and approved ATN avionics
End-to-end functionality based on
cooperative FAA and European development
Transatlantic harmonization for full operations
PETAL-II Operational Package
Operational trials, in situ, with users
Pilot and controller always in command
Voice readback before clearance execution
Fully silent for all other communications
CPDLC message set (42 up, 22 down)
Routine R/T (transfer, level, route, heading,
crossing conditions, vertical rate, speed, etc.)
A little ADS and CM / AFN (log-on)
ATN (and FANS-1/A) compliant events.
Multiple a/g datalink-equipped aircraft
End-to-End Partners, Current Ops
SAS, Lufthansa
SRA, ANZ, UAL, DLH, QFA, SIA, ACA, COA
Simulation
Downlink Parameters
ICAO CNS/ATM Operational data and behavior
SITA
VDL-4
prototype
ATN
FANS-1/A
VDL-4 stations
Mode-S
PETAL-II
Gateway
Maastricht
France
Applicable Airspace (in 2010)
red: >200 IFR flights / day
Maastricht Controller HMI
NEAN Airborne HMI
B747-400 MCDU
B777 Flight Deck
Airbus Flight Deck
2119Z FROM KZAK CTL OPEN
AT ALCOA
CLB TO & MAINT FL310
*UNABLE
STBY*
<OTHER
WILCO*
ATC
COMM
PETAL-II Review (current ops)
4087 flights used CPDLC thru August 2000
Now 300+ CPDLC flights / month
Regular use from
DC-9:
SAS (NEAN) - currently deactivated
B747-200: DLH (NEAN) - currently deactivated
B747-400: DLH, QFA, ANZ, SIA, ACA (FANS-1)
B777: UAL, COA (FANS-1)
Multi-stack operations in place
All day, all sectors (16)
Overall Activity
Overall Logon, CPDLC, Performance, and
Uplinks
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
98
_0
98 5
_0
98 7
_0
98 9
_1
99 1
_0
99 3
_0
99 5
_0
99 7
_0
99 9
_1
00 1
_0
00 1
_0
00 3
_0
00 5
_0
7
0
Logon
CPDLC
# Uplinks
Operational Acceptance Lessons
Performance stability seems to be a key
Controller familiarity is a key risk
Target:
Training is critical
and
One flight per controller shift
it does not go away after IOC
HMI is critical (air and ground)
Advanced
displays needed on ground
Dedicated displays recognized as useful for air
EICAS appreciated in air
Mode control panel synch appreciated in air
Advanced air HMI appreciated on ground
HMI, HMI, HMI
Operational Uplinks Sent
Operational Uplinks Sent
600
up_transfer
500
up_level
400
up_heading
300
up_speed
200
up_route
up_time
100
up_instruction
00_08
00_06
00_04
00_02
99_12
99_10
99_08
99_06
99_04
98_12
98_10
98_08
0
up_levelspeed
up_emergency
Message Set lessons
Sub-sets are needed, and will exist
Interop
mechanism needed to assist crews
and controllers in handling them
Go
slow:
build a little
Your
controllers and crews have enough to
learn with CPDLC; don't swamp them
Start with the HMI; you'll cut your messages
There is a common set across airspaces
If
we can define it, we can optimize HMIs.
Pay Attention to Transfer of Comm
Essential service (if it doesn't work, nothing
does)
Probably the highest operational benefit
8.33
Major differences with other regions = trouble
If
channels noticeably increased its utility
you do, both aircrew and controllers will suffer
In this airspace, don't assume datalink
Design
for voice transfers as common mode
Holds true for all CPDLC services
Mixed Equipage
Simultaneous datalink aircraft / sector
Up
to 30 aircraft (all types) in sector at one time
Max number datalink aircraft: 3
Flight time / sector: 5 - 30 minutes
Overlap time: 1 - 26 minutes
Datalink use: heavy to not at all
Mixed equipage preliminary results
Not
considered a serious problem but
Will limit benefits
Minimum one flight per control session required
Multi-Stack Architecture
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
Flight Data Processing System
- Flight plan / address association
- ATN SARPS (ICAO doc 9705), CPDLC, ADS, CM
- All datalink service logic (e.g. connection set-up / transfer, timers, etc.)
IDD
BER
P2FEP
NFEP
FaFEP
ALLA
- Aircraft address/state
- ASE emulation
CM, CPDLC, ADS
- Data conversion
- Aircraft address/state
- ASE emulation
CM, CPDLC, ADS
- Data conversion
- Aircraft address/state
- Data conversion
NEAN
Server
FANS-1/A
Gateway
ProATN
- ASEs: CM, CPDLC, ADS
- ATN Router
IDD
PER
PETAL In A Nutshell
FANS-1/A Accommodation (2)
Key shortcomings for this airspace type
Legacy
/ older HMIs
Lack of magnetic heading in ADS
ADS event contract limitations
Airways / route designator definitions ( 7 vs. 5 ch)
RCP (reliability, performance, integrity)
Key log-on data missing
No lat/long back-up for route points
ARINC 424 vs. ICAO nav databases
No logical response (European issue)
Old messages displayed without warning
Delivery Assurance??
Our Biggest Keys to Success
Minimize Your Procedural Fixes
Work the procedures during systems design
allows
you to use system solutions to fix system
problems
procedural work-arounds are bad news
Procedures will break-down
Step
on the phrase
"That won't happen if they follow the procedures"
Sometimes, they won't follow the procedure.
Recognise that, and help them if you can.
ODIAC Methodology
Direct quote from a requirements document:
The standardisation afforded by the SARPs provides
assurances that aircraft implementations by different
manufacturers will be interoperable with … ground
systems
This is not entirely accurate
PETAL-II implemented:
rapidly,
and with very few "teething pains"
We had the ODIAC source material (end-end)
We maintained the multi-discipline, user-driven
approach
Pre-requisite: Integration Team
Develop End-to-End Specifications
End-end procedures, automation, messages
interoperable use of SARPS, now to DO/ED
Plan and coordinate certification
Plan and coordinate initial fielding
(air, ground, comm)
Formalise issues via RTCA/Eurocae, ICAO
Monitor and manage operations
Multi-discipline approach essential
Introduced after firm commitments
Accountability
essential
Streamlined structure essential
Standards bodies are not well suited to this
Certification Framework
Applicant
Harmonizing
Approval
Authority
Doc's
Equipment
Manufacturer
National
Airworthiness
Authority (NAA)
NAA
JTSO-TSO
(or STC?)
Aircraft
Manufacturer
JAA
NAA
Type Cert
Operator
FAA
FAA
STC
Operator
National ATM
Safety
Regulator
(NASM)
NASM
Operational
Approval
ATM Service
Provider
NASM
NASM
Approval
Eurocontrol
Programs
SRC
ASRU on
behalf of
NASM
Approval
Avionics
HON?
A/C
SRA?
AAL
Op
Approve
AAL
SRA
ATM
Maas
End-to-End Partners, Next Generation
SAS, Lufthansa
AAL
SRA, ANZ, UAL, DLH, QFA, SIA, ACA, COA
Simulation
Collins Avionics
Downlink Parameters
ICAO CNS/ATM Operational data and behavior
SITA
ARINC
a/g ATN VDL-2
VDL-4
prototype
FANS-1/A
ATN
VDL-4 stations
Mode-S
PETAL-II
Gateway
French Shadow Mode
Maastricht
FAA
France
PETAL-II Integration Team (PIT)
Op Concept
PETAL
Op Requirements
PETAL-II
PETAL-II extension
Sim
LINK
PIT
Base-1
Base-2
FAA Implementation Program
Sim
B-1
B-1A
CPC
B-2
ADS
AIDC
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 ….
ARINC PETAL II VDL Mode 2/ATN
Coverage (FL250)
Conclusion
Additional Partners always welcome
FANS-1
ATN
(controller familiarity now)
(help achieve operational harmonization)
Monthly report, PIT, or newsletter distro?
Contact
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.eurocontrol.be/projects/eatchip/petal2/