1. Rob Mead PETAL-II Trials 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 Manager
Eurocontrol, DIS/ATD

2. Topics Trials Context PETAL-II Preliminary Results
Current operations and status
AAL / ARINC ATN Extension
Preliminary Results

3. PETAL “Operations first, then technology.”
GOAL: requirements validation & capture Are we headed in the right direction?
So, we implement:
ODIAC operational concept, services, procedures, & abnormal modes
international standards where ever possible
with airlines, industry, service providers
without backing a technology (triple stack)
with the ops floor and cockpit skeptics

4. PETAL-II Operational Package
Operational trials, in situ, with users
Clearly defined procedures and airspace
Pilot and controller always in command
Voice readback before clearance execution
Fully silent for all other communications
Limited CPDLC message set (32 up, 12 down)
Routine R/T (transfer, level, route, heading, crossing conditions, vertical rate, speed, + few)
A little ADS and CM / AFN (log-on)
ATN (and FANS-1/A) compliant events.
Multiple a/g datalink-equipped aircraft

5. PETAL-II Players, End-End
SAS, Lufthansa
AAL
ANZ, UAL, DLH, COA, etc.
Simulation
Downlink Parameters
ICAO CNS/ATM Op data and behavior
ARINC
VDL-2 stations
NEAN
ATN
SITA
FANS-1/A
NEAN
Ground
Stations
Mode-S
PETAL-II
Front-End
Processors
Maastricht
FAA
Reims
Paris

6. PETAL-II Review (current ops)
NEAN Live Operations: Apr ‘98
600+ flights June - Oct '98
400+ April - June '99
FANS-1/A live operations: Feb ‘99
24-29 August: 23 of 36 total flights
Key addition to results
Connection-oriented
Automated cockpit
New cockpit cultures
Over 1200 flights have used CPDLC in 9 months
Multi-stack operations in place
All day, all sectors (14+)

7. Maastricht Sectors

8. Maastricht Controller HMI

9. NEAN Airborne HMI

10. NEAN Communications Log

11. B777 Flight Deck

12. Airborne HMI NEAN CDTI FANS-1 FANS-A DCDU? ATN MCDU B747-400 MCDU
B777 Flat Panels
FANS-A DCDU?
ATN MCDU

13. High Level Results Original objectives met at end ‘98
Tremendous amount of validation material
Total rewrite of one key service (transfer)
Numerous defects identified (e.g. timers)
Requirements gaps identified, e.g.:
log-on
message pairs
concatenated message rules
Clearly added momentum to implementation

14. Flight Data Processing System
Ground Architecture
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
Flight Data Processing System
- Flight plan / address association
- ATN SARPS version 2.3 (ICAO doc 9705), CPDLC, ADS, CM
- All datalink service logic (e.g. connection set-up / transfer, timers, etc.)
IDD 4.0 BER
P2FEP
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 4.0 PER
NEAN
Server
FANS-1/A Gateway
ProATN
- ASEs: CM, CPDLC, ADS
- ATN Router

15. PETAL-IIe: AAL Initiative
US and European airspace
Core set of common messages
Interoperable, documented functional differences
Interoperable, documented procedural differences
ATS / Airline deadlock broken
Harmonisation for airlines and ATS

16. PETAL-II Review (ATN) Jan ‘99: PETAL-II End-End Spec’s frozen
Spring '00: First flights can take place
BAC1-11 trials ATN and Services, and satcom
May ‘01: AA, Maas, & Reims red label flights
4 B ER (European operations)
Jun ‘02: First flights at Miami (FAA Build 1)
Jun ‘03: US Key Site Build 1A (national 2004)

17. Maastricht & Reims Sectors

18. FAA Implementation Program
Global Timelines
PETAL
Op Concept
Op Requirements
LINK
Sim
PETAL-II extension
PETAL-II
1997
1998
1999
1996
1995
1994
2000
2001
2004
2002
2003
2007 ….
2006
2005
PIT
Base-1
Base-2
Sim
B-1
B-1A
B-2
FAA Implementation Program
CPC
ADS
AIDC 1 8

19. Preliminary Results

20. Data Sources Operator and Designer Experience and Logs
Questionnaires and Interviews
Controllers and Flight Crews
Problem & System Improvement Reports
Project Office
Design Authorities
Statistics, e.g.
Transmission and dialogue times
Message use
FDP system states, e.g. log-on, connect, transfer
all analysed for comm performance & debug

21. Integration Teams are Essential
Develop End-to-End Specifications
FAA Builds 1 and 1A (key site, Miami ARTCC)
Maastricht and French UACs
End-end procedures, automation, messages
interoperable use of SARPS, now to DO/ED
Plan and coordinate initial fielding & cert (air, ground, comm)
Monitor and manage initial operations
Formalise issues via RTCA/Eurocae, ICAO

22. Mixed Equipage Simultaneous datalink aircraft / sector
Up to 30 aircraft (all types) in sector at one time
Flight time / sector: minutes
Max number datalink aircraft (June '99): 3
Overlap time: minutes
Datalink use: heavy to not at all
Mixed equipage preliminary results
Equipage ratio: 1-3 datalink / 5-30 total
Controllers unaware of NEAN or FANS-1/A
Not considered a serious problem but
Will limit benefits
Minimum one flight per control session required

23. Response Times and CPDLC Use
PETAL-I dialogue & delivery times confirmed.
Max dialogue time, 10s = 55%
Observed performance acceptable = 84%
Actual averages = about 30s
CPDLC good for strategic comm
CPDLC not good for tactical acft separation
regardless of transmission speed
tactical = use, not message type
CPDLC good for climb, cruise, descend (climb-out & approach???)

24. FANS-1/A Observations All applicable to ATN
ARINC 424 vs. ground nav databases
CPDLC connection for close departures
If automated event, may occur at poor time
Aircrew HMI should consider not alerting "connect" at same level as clearance
Resume Own Nav without a "to"
Concatenation and Conditional Clearances require additional restrictions
All applicable to ATN

25. ATN Interoperability Issues
You have message pairs. Standardise them!
Log-on
What's a "positive log-on"?
Mandatory (optional) log-on data
Static ground CM addresses / airborne data bases
Which aircraft address used by the ground?
Logical Response (LACK)
How does aircraft know whether to use them?
How do you resolve the cockpit differences?
Who connects CPDLC, air or ground?
New airspaces > different needs (e.g. timers)

26. Operational Results Reported Usefulness (controllers)

27. Message Sets Trick is to find a common core, and
Cut the message set, at least for initial ops
Eases HMI and training (300+ messages??)
Too many options (e.g. meter data types)
Some don’t fit ops (e.g. deviate N/S/E/W)
No guidance on how to handle "bad" options
Trick is to find a common core, and
Define interop handling for data types involved
Design HMIs to have these "on top"
Implement those first
International set now being standardised

28. Builds and Baselines

29. PETAL-II Datalink Capability
Live operations, all 12 sectors, all day (539 CPDLC flights, 6/98 - 9/98)
Capability
1997
1998
1996
1999
NEAN Operations
ATN 1.1 compliant - FDPS
- Operations
Pre-Op environment
FANS-1/A Operations
FANS-1/A Front-End
FANS-1/A
ATN
NEAN
Operations
ATN 2.3+ compliant - FDPS
Operational upgrades
FAA interoperable
Final step to certified / op approved environment
2000
Link 2000+ 1 8

30. What Is This All Accomplishing?
Bringing requirements into touch with reality
Bringing standards into contact with designers
Uncovering expensive interoperability issues before initial operations
Bridging the Transatlantic divide
for procedures and systems
for operations
Breaking the "you go first" deadlock
Bringing together comm providers, airlines, ATS, and suppliers to build a single system

31. Conclusion We have broken the "I will if you will" deadlock
Monthly report or newsletter distro?
Individual or organizational input?