Presentation on theme: "ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20031 ADS-B Safety Analysis (ASA & GSA) Bob Darby EUROCONTROL ADS Programme ASAS Thematic Network Second Workshop 6-8."— Presentation transcript:
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20031 ADS-B Safety Analysis (ASA & GSA) Bob Darby EUROCONTROL ADS Programme ASAS Thematic Network Second Workshop 6-8 October 2003
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20032 OUTLINE Background Current work analysis processes comments on the methods, not the results Wider context & Conclusions Safety is only part of SPR / IA Requirements Focus Group Longer term Points of Contact
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20033 BACKGROUND
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20034 Safety Work History 1999-2000: Stage 0 Initial Safety Study - brief look high level workshops 2000-2001: Stage 1 Operational Hazard Analysis (OHA) based on “Case Studies” Difficulty - not detailed enough definition of the applications
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20035 Safety Work History 2002: Package I proposed at Rome CARE-ASAS / EUROCONTROL development of Package I EUROCAE WG51 & RTCA SC-186 Common applications review & proposal Common methodology proposal - ED78A / DO-264 Guidelines for Approval of the Provision and Use of Air Traffic Services supported by Data Communications In parallel: Stage 2A Safety Contract launched At the time (Jan 2002) the aim was to Use EUROCONTROL Safety Assessment Methods (SAM) Use ED78A as a means of compliance with the SAM Aim has changed as ESARR4 developed and use of ED78A has proceeded, to establish an effective methodology. Differences/complementarity handled as an outcome.
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20036 CURRENT WORK
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20037 Stage 2A Safety Contract Coordinated with CBA and Architecture work Assessment of some ADS-enabled ASA and GSA applications defined in the Package I OSED - including ADS-B in a mixed surveillance environment For each Package I application OHA: building on the results of the ADS Programme Stage 1 OHA ASOR: allocation to elements / domains within the architecture from ASOR options: safety requirements for the ADS-B element based on the specific enabling infrastructure. PSSA for one application, using a specific architecture Issues: Methodology and Software tools equally important as the results
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20038 Logical Flow Case StudiesOHA STAGE 1 (Draft) OSEDs OHA Functional Architecture ASOR Specific Implementation PSSA STAGE 2A ASFA Ground Surveillance Architecture Methods & Tools inc database Assessments - architecture guidance RESULTS CBA
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 20039 Applications assessed Ground Surveillance Applications (GSA) ATC surveillance in en-route airspace ATC surveillance in terminal areas ATC Surveillance in non-radar area Airport Surface Surveillance Surface Traffic Awareness application Runway Incursion application Airborne Surveillance Applications (ASA) Enhanced traffic situational awareness on the airport surface Surface Traffic Awareness application Runway Incursion application Enhanced successive visual approaches Sequencing and merging applications
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200310 OHA process
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200311 OHA output (example) From “Enhanced Successive Visual Approach” OHA is summarised in a diagram. Details in several tables: OH summary table, that refers to Candidate safety requirements lists environmental procedural technical Recommendations list Causes list Supported by detailed OH tables
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200312 OHA - comments on process Exhaustive & detailed... … time-consuming to develop and to review Mature process, used (with slight variations) by many European projects, NUP, MFF, … Needs tool support to ensure consistency between diagrams and tables traceability and accurate cross-referencing between all tables database is being developed Derived from application model in OSED Changes to OSED may mean complete rework of OHA
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200313 ASOR process Follows on from OHA traceability essential Objective: identify responsible domains/elements (ATC, aircraft, crew,…) system failure relationships mitigation means strategy Key processes: Building the fault tree stop when the safety requirement can be exclusively met in a domain Allocation of safety requirements several options
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200314 ASOR - comments on process Relatively new process - learning as we proceed More complex for surveillance than for communications No single correct answer - tradeoffs will occur Trees give the understanding - tables give the detail Tools for traceability and consistency essential
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200315 PSSA Specific to a particular implementation Assess if the proposed architecture is safe for its intended purpose ASOR has already mapped safety requirements to the domain Now look at the architecture within the domain: i.e. main functional (and physical) components EUROCONTROL study example: Toulouse airport Package I applications: Airport Surface Surveillance Enhanced traffic situational awareness on the airport surface Surface Traffic Awareness application Runway Incursion application Just starting this phase of the study
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200316 Overall Comments Learning about the processes as we use them going from the generic to the specific Status OHA: mature but effort intensive ASOR: developing well PSSA: just started but relatively straightforward Overall: large effort Tool support essential, especially when iterating and reworking Complementary approach to identify critical areas would pay dividends OSED is critical - clarity and accuracy of application modelling is vital
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200317 WIDER CONTEXT & CONCLUSIONS
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200318 Safety is only part of the process OSED Operational Service & Environment Definition OSA Operational Safety Assessment OHA & ASOR OPA Operational Performance Assessment Identify & allocate performance requirements IA Interoperability Assessment SPR Safety & Performance Requirements Interop Document
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200319 Preparation for RFG/3 Joint EUROCONTROL, FAA, EUROCAE, RTCA “Requirements Focus Group” 1st-4th December 2003, Washington DC OSEDs: OSED Harmonisation Group First complete PI OSED due out soon Safety: EUROCONTROL, NUP, MFF, … Convergence on the methods More coordination and consensus needed - EC can help? SPR & IA as a whole ad-hoc SPR/IA group working since July aiming at common approach for Europe and USA; extend world-wide?
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200320 Longer term considerations Operational expertise to validate the analysis conclusions Complementary methods could be of value for greater efficiency overall for confirming results Coordination with Safety Unit, SRC and EASA
ASAS TN 2nd Workshop 6-8 October 200321 POINTS OF CONTACT EUROCONTROL ADS Programme visit the ADS Programme website : http://www.eurocontrol.int/ads STNA & Sofréavia who have carried out the detailed work and developed in a practical form the processes described today RFG colleagues discussions in preparation of material for RFG/3
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.