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

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 Maastricht PETAL-II Gateway 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 OPEN AT ALCOA CLB TO & MAINT FL310 ATC COMM 2119Z FROM KZAK CTL AT ALCOA CLB TO & MAINT FL310 OPEN *UNABLE <OTHER STBY* 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

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

HMI, HMI, HMI

Operational Uplinks Sent

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 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

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 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.) P2FEP NFEP - Aircraft address/state - ASE emulation CM, CPDLC, ADS - Data conversion FaFEP - ASE emulation CM, CPDLC, ADS ALLA ProATN - ASEs: CM, CPDLC, ADS - ATN Router FANS-1/A Gateway NEAN Server IDD BER PER PETAL Gateway

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

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 ATN FANS-1/A VDL-4 stations Mode-S Maastricht PETAL-II Gateway French Shadow Mode FAA France

PETAL-II Integration Team (PIT) Op Concept 1997 1998 1999 1996 1995 1994 2000 2001 2004 2002 2003 2007 …. 2006 2005 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 1 8

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

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/