Rob Mead PETAL-II Trials & Project Manager Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

nieve
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Rob Mead PETAL-II Trials & Project Manager Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Rob Mead PETAL-II Trials & Project Manager Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD

play fullscreen
1 / 33
Download Presentation
Presentation Description
151 Views
Download Presentation

Rob Mead PETAL-II Trials & Project Manager Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. PETAL-IIPreliminary Eurocontrol Test of Air/ground data Link, Phase IIOperational Validation &Early Implementation Rob Mead PETAL-II Trials & Project Manager Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD

  2. Topics • Aims and Objectives • Current Operations • Results and Lessons • ATN extension & PIT

  3. Original Context

  4. 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

  5. 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


  6. 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

  7. End-to-End Partners, Current Ops VDL-4prototype ATN FANS-1/A Maastricht France SAS, Lufthansa SRA, ANZ, UAL, DLH, QFA, SIA, ACA, COA Simulation Downlink Parameters ICAO CNS/ATM Operational data and behavior SITA VDL-4 stations Mode-S PETAL-II Gateway

  8. red: >200 IFR flights / day Applicable Airspace (in 2010)

  9. Maastricht Controller HMI

  10. NEAN Airborne HMI

  11. B747-400 MCDU

  12. B777 Flight Deck

  13. OPEN 2119Z FROM KZAK CTL ATALCOA CLB TO & MAINTFL310 *UNABLE STBY* <OTHER WILCO* Airbus Flight Deck ATC COMM

  14. 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)

  15. Overall Activity

  16. Operational Acceptance Lessons • Performance stability seems to be a key • Controller familiarity is a key risk • Target: One flight per controller shift • Training is critical • and 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

  17. HMI, HMI, HMI

  18. Operational Uplinks Sent

  19. 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.

  20. Pay Attention to Transfer of Comm • Essential service (if it doesn't work, nothing does) • Probably the highest operational benefit • 8.33 channels noticeably increased its utility • Major differences with other regions = trouble • If 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

  21. 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

  22. 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 PETAL Gateway NFEP - Aircraft address/state - ASE emulation CM, CPDLC, ADS - Data conversion FaFEP - Aircraft address/state - ASE emulation CM, CPDLC, ADS - Data conversion ALLA - Aircraft address/state - Data conversion IDD PER NEAN Server FANS-1/A Gateway ProATN - ASEs: CM, CPDLC, ADS - ATN Router

  23. PETAL In A Nutshell

  24. 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??

  25. Our Biggest Keys to Success

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. Certification Framework

  30. End-to-End Partners, Next Generation VDL-4prototype ATN FANS-1/A French Shadow Mode Maastricht FAA France SAS, Lufthansa SRA, ANZ, UAL, DLH, QFA, SIA, ACA, COA AAL Simulation Collins Avionics Downlink Parameters ICAO CNS/ATM Operational data and behavior SITA ARINC a/g ATN VDL-2 VDL-4 stations Mode-S PETAL-II Gateway

  31. Base-1 Base-2 FAA Implementation Program 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 …. PETAL-II Integration Team (PIT) Op Concept PETAL Op Requirements PETAL-II PETAL-II extension Sim LINK PIT Sim B-1 B-1A CPC B-2 ADS AIDC

  32. ARINC PETAL II VDL Mode 2/ATN Coverage (FL250)

  33. Conclusion • Additional Partners always welcome • FANS-1 (controller familiarity now) • ATN (help achieve operational harmonization) • Monthly report, PIT, or newsletter distro? • Contact • rob.mead@eurocontrol.be • petal2@eurocontrol.be • www.eurocontrol.be/projects/eatchip/petal2/