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

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

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

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

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

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+)

Maastricht Sectors

Maastricht Controller HMI

NEAN Airborne HMI

NEAN Communications Log

B777 Flight Deck

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

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

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

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

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 B767-300ER (European operations) Jun ‘02: First flights at Miami (FAA Build 1) Jun ‘03: US Key Site Build 1A (national 2004)

Maastricht & Reims Sectors

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

Preliminary Results

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

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

Mixed Equipage Simultaneous datalink aircraft / sector Up to 30 aircraft (all types) in sector at one time Flight time / sector: 5 - 30 minutes Max number datalink aircraft (June '99): 3 Overlap time: 1 - 16 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

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???)

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

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)

Operational Results Reported Usefulness (controllers)

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

Builds and Baselines

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 2001 . . . . . . NEAN Operations ATN 2.3+ compliant - FDPS Operational upgrades FAA interoperable Final step to certified / op approved environment 2000 Link 2000+ 1 8

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

Conclusion We have broken the "I will if you will" deadlock Monthly report or newsletter distro? Individual or organizational input? rob.mead@eurocontrol.be www.eurocontrol.be/projects/eatchip/petal2/