ATC FULL DATALINK
Toulouse, 28‐29 October 2014
Day 1: Final project results
ATC Full Datalink – The consortium
2
Introduction
ATC Full Datalink project is a
demonstration project of the
SJU that performed a certain
number of flight trials, with
commercial
aircraft,
controlled in UK and Italian
Airspace, using the datalink
as
primary
means
of
communication for almost all
phases of flight.
3
Outlook of Plan
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
EXE
• October 2012 – February 2013
• Operational and technical feasibility study
• Two role gaming sessions
• March – July 2013
• Setup of ATN over PENS communication infrastructure
• Setup of AFD platform
• Communication End‐to‐End test between AFD platform and Airbus/Boeing Test Bench
• August – December 2013
• Setup of Shared Virtual Sky server/client
• Setup of AFD platform, able to receive flight track from SVS wrapper
• Airbus Simulated flight conducted by real pilots and controlled by ATCOs
• New release of AFD platform, adding RTA capability
• December 2013 – January 2014
• Operational procedures
• Feedbacks and conclusions
• Safety assessment
• Human Factor methodology
• February– June 2014
• Execution of AFD Flight Trials
4
Experimental Phase 1
•
•
•
•
Operational and Technical feasibility study
Role gaming sessions
Initial safety assessment
Start to design operational procedures for flight trials
5
Experimental Phase 2
Test Bench
Setup of ENAV and SITA PENS networks, with the installation of an AFD router that allows communications between those domains;
End‐to‐End communication tests between AFD platform and Airbus/Boeing Test Benches, with the usage of the full set of CPDLC messages need for AFD purpose.
6
Experimental Phase 2 ‐ Output
AFD platform was correctly managing loggin phase and CPDLC exchange of messages;
Airbus Test Bench was correctly managing loggin phase and CPDLC exchange of messages;
SITA PENS network was correcly rerouting datalink instructions, realizing an ATN over PENS network;
A first test of SVS gave us confidence of a success result of phase 3
7
Experimental Phase 3 – Step 1‐ 2
 AFD platform was connected with the Airbus Cockpit Simulator, using Shared Virtual Sky software for the airplane track and real VDL2 channel for comms.
in the OPS room of Rome ACC, the EXE ATCO will control a real flight as usual, with voice as primary means of communication.  in the simulation room, where AFD platform is located, a simulated flight will act as a ghost of the target flight.
 Supervisor OPS will repeat on the phone to the AFD Supervisor and AFD ATCO those instructions that are referred to the target flight AFD ATCO will send the above instructions via datalink to the simulated flight.  The pilot of Airbus Cockpit Simulator will react accordingly and the behavior of simulated flight will be very similar to the real flight.
 RTA messages used for test
8
Experimental Phases 4
•
AFD ground platform capable to communicate the full set of messages with both Airbus and Boeing aircrafts, equipped with different avionics models;
•
ATCOs and Pilots increases their level of confidence on such new way of communication, developing together the AFD operational procedures for the conduction of flight trials;
•
A complete Safety Assessment has been developed, needed also for the NSA autorization;
•
Human Factor methodology for Airborne and Ground segments has been
structured, with the help of online questionnaires;
•
Technical procedures has been designed, in order to track the behaviour of datalink communications on both application and communication layers.
9
Experimental Phases – List of different avionic
manufacturer used
10
Experimental Phases – Differences in interpretation
of ED‐110B Standard
Field Local System NSEL and TSEL is composed by different parts of the ATN NSAP address:
• LOC (2 octets)
• SYS (6 octets)
• NSEL (1 octets)
• TSEL (1 or 2 octets)
Being TSEL either 10 or 11 can create different interpretations.
In having ground and airborne systems using a different number of octets (10 or 11) poses the concrete risk (more than a risk) of non‐communication between ground and airborne systems.
Therefore we think it would be useful to address this issue considering that, based on ENAV experience, this could be solved in having the ground system verifying the parameters and adapt itself consequently.
General statement: too many optional fields complicate the certainty to have a ground platform able to communicate with all models of avionics.
11
Experimental Phases – Lesson learnt
• Due to some room of interpretation on standards,
ground system needs to be tested with as many
avionic models as possible, possibly using real
aircrafts (this allow to test VDL2 GS as well);
• ATCOs and Pilots familiarization sessions helped
to reduce a general diffidence that surrounds
«the datalink» .
12
AFD Flight Trial Campaign
The picture explain the configuration adopted for the conduction of the operations for selected revenue flights during trials, in the Demonstration Campaign. Such solution has been chosen mainly upon the following considerations:
To provide the operations with the required level of safety, so to obtain the National Authority permission to conduct the trials
To decouple AFD project from the full operational readiness of the Italian implementation project LinkIT, the local instance of Link2000+, so to de‐risk the possibility to delay the execution of the trials beyond the contractual obligations and AFD Consortium commitment to conclude the Demonstration Campaign by mid 2014.
13
AFD Flight Trials Campaign in numbers
•
12/02/2014: start of the Flight Trials Campaign
•
27/06/2014: end of the Flight Trials Campaign
•
90 target flights, operated by EasyJet, SAS, AirFrance
•
20 ATCOs involved in the conduction of flight trials
•
4 HF experts for the collection of feedbacks
14
AFD – ENAV logs activity
ATC Full Datalink ‐ Report of the flight trial
Date
09/04/2014
Leg
FCO‐CDG
Time zulu
08:20/10:30
Airline
AirFrance
Model
A320
Call Sign
AFR1205
ICAO code
3746536
Radio
Rockwell Collins P/N 822‐1287‐120
CMU
ATSU CSB6‐5 Results
The CPDLC connections was established on ground, about 5 minutes before take off. ATCOs used datalink as primary mean of communication from FL100.
Event details
The automatic messabe UM79 is affected by a small bug on the definition of VIA points, where he could transmit a fix already flown. Pilots was aware of that, and in fact they replied with UNABLE if that occurred.
Message timestamp
08:20:27
Message UL/DL
downlink
Message 98
08:20:27
uplink
183
08:21:17
08:21:21
08:21:23
08:21:23
08:26:19
08:27:09
08:27:42
08:28:17
08:28:17
08:28:39
08:29:11
08:29:29
08:30:21
08:30:35
08:30:46
uplink
downlink
downlink
uplink
uplink
uplink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
183
98
99
183
183
183
20
0
74
0
20
0
117
0
183
08:30:46
uplink
08:31:25
08:31:16
08:31:46
08:32:30
08:33:00
08:33:10
08:33:32
08:38:53
08:39:15
08:40:42
08:41:06
08:41:28
08:41:50
08:42:28
08:42:40
08:43:29
08:43:55
08:48:51
08:49:12
08:49:30
08:49:30
08:50:15
08:51:24
08:51:48
08:53:30
08:53:54
08:55:40
08:56:04
09:06:34
09:10:21
09:10:27
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
downlink
uplink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
downlink
uplink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
downlink
uplink
uplink
downlink
79
1
20
0
74
0
20
0
22
1
74
0
74
0
6
1
20
0
117
0
183
79
1
79
0
190
0
79
0
160
161
98
Msg Content
LOGON REQUEST CallSign: AFR1205 ICAO
Address: 3746536 Departure: LIRF Destination: LFPG
LOGON RESPONSE - ICAO Address: 3746536 LOGON ACCEPTED
CPDLC START REQUEST SENT
CONNECTION CONFIRM
CURRENT DATA AUTHORITY
CURRENT ATC UNIT LIRR,ROMA,CENTER
CPDLC NOT IN USE
CPDLC IN USE
CLIMB TO 200
WILCO
PROCEED DIRECT TO ELB
WILCO
CLIMB TO 240
WILCO
CONTACT LIRR124.800
WILCO
CPDLC IN USE
CLEARED TO LFPG VIA LIR2F-DCT-ELB-M729BETEN-UM729-AOSTA-DCT
UNABLE
CLIMB TO 300
WILCO
PROCEED DIRECT TO NORNI
WILCO
CLIMB TO 360
WILCO
REQUEST DIRECT TO AOSTA
STAND BY
PROCEED DIRECT TO IDONA
WILCO
PROCEED DIRECT TO AOSTA
WILCO
REQUEST 380
STAND BY
CLIMB TO 380
WILCO
CONTACT LIRR132.905
WILCO
CPDLC IN USE
CLEARED TO LFPG VIA LIR2F‐AOSTA‐DCT
UNABLE
CLEARED TO LFPG VIA DCT‐AOSTA‐DCT
WILCO
FLY HEADING 325
WILCO
CLEARED TO LFPG VIA DCT‐AOSTA‐DCT
WILCO
NEXT DATA AUTHORITY
DISCONNECTION REQUEST
DISCONNECTION CONFIRM
Msg IdNumber
Ref Msg IdNumber
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
3
9
11
13
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
39
41
43
45
48
15
GS used
LIN2,FCO2
Following a target
Test procedure SAS Flight
SK1842
LOGON
(gnd)
CPDLC msgs (FL 100 ‐ FL 400)
B738
FCO – ARN
(LIRF – ESSA)
Network
MGS HO
(FCO 33S – VCE Twr)
Milan ATN A/G router
Rome ATN G/G router 16
SAS/System performance (1/3) 17
SAS/System performance (2/3)
18
SAS/System performance (3/3)
19
AFD – ENAV Performance Monitoring 1/3
round trip delay calculated at AVLC level (just Air segment between airborne radio and ground stations) on messages exchanged using FCO2 and LIN2 VDL2 Stations
AVLC= Aviation VHF Link Control, comms protocol 20
AFD – ENAV Performance Monitoring 2/3
Round trip delay calculated at application layer end‐to‐
end (of course it includes AVLC round trip delay). So it measures round trip delay between AirServer and the aircraft.
21
AFD – ENAV Performance Monitoring 3/3
SQP=Signal Quality Parameters
The signal drops during the Hand Over between FCO2 and LIN2 stations.
22
AFD/ENAV COM Network behaviour
The COM Network performed very well and no PAs due to it were registered
 ~13 seconds, with some cases of ~5 seconds to close CPDLC loop (from
the click on the HMI to the reception of the WILCO)
 Round‐Trip Delay < 3 sec @ 95%
 During Flight Trials Campaign the network worked also for AoA and
PoA at the same time.
50
In numbers (Jan‐Apr 2014):
 Total Managed Aircraft
133.9K (VDLM2 circuits)
 Total AOA traffic exchanged
34.7 MByte (only payloads)
 Total POA traffic exchanged
106.1 MByte (only payloads) 23
40
30
20
10
0
AOA
POA
jan
feb
mar
ARINC ACARS (Mbyte)
apr
AFD/ENAV Network HO report 24
Perceived workload impact on AFD operation ENAV
NATS
Controller Assessment of Workload
Number of Responses
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
Using CPDLC, ATCOs report that the effort
request
to
manage
the
air/ground
communications is slightly higher that in r/t
Pilots
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lo
w
High
No ATCOs indicated a level of workload that
would impact their primary ATM task. More
than half indicated they had enough spare
capacity for all desirable additional tasks.
19 out of 32 respondents indicated a reduced
level of workload, whereas for the remaining the
workload was slightly higher or higher.
25
10
Acceptability of CPDLC below FL 285 (ENAV)
Minimum Flight Level where CPDLC could be applied?
400
300
ATCOs FEEDBACK: 200
AFD is perceived as less suitable in the approach phase (both before landing or after 100
take‐off) due to the working methods of this 0
area (e.g. frantic flow of instructions, number for restrictions and airspace complexity) , plus because of some technical issues faced with the ATM platform, not ready for the operations yet, that was not providing to ATCOs the expected level of reliability
26
345
300 300 300 310
340
285
195
200
150
280 280
Acceptability of CPDLC below FL 285 (NATS)
I felt comfortable using CPDLC between FL195 and FL285
Nunber of Responses 10
8
6
4
2
0
N/A
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree or
disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Nunber of Responses I felt comfortable using CPDLC between FL100 and FL195
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
N/A
27
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree or
disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Acceptability of CPDLC below FL 285 (Pilots)
The majority of the pilots perceive the use of CPDLC acceptable. Few pilots do
somewhat disagree on CPDLC acceptability for such operational situations, and two
pilots disagreed.
The major perceived benefit of CPDLC communication below FL285 compared to RT
is the clarity of the message set (n=28 out of 32), followed by availability of message
set and easy integration with pilot’s tasks (n=13 each), ATC responsiveness (n=10),
Time available for message management (n=6) and other benefits (n=3).
28
Impact of the available message set Recommended to improve the flexibility of CPDLC messages without impair safety
• Need to foreseen specific restrictions and/or additional clearances in terms of rate of climb/descent to be maintained until a specific level, or limit and “reason” of vector/hdg
• Need to broadcast to a/c relevant messages (e.g. turbulence/ bad weather , congested situation, restricted area etc.)
• Instruction of “Stop Climb/Stop Descend” should be foreseen 29
Acceptability of “unusual” messages • In general, in case of critical/unexpected event revert to R/T is strongly expected 30
AFD Reccomandations ‐ Pilots
•
•
•
•
31
VHF Data Link Ground Station /avionic investigations are needed in order to identify explained technical issues
Support the Multi frequency trial to validate if the new VDL plus Airbus ATSU upgrade (permits multi‐frequency) could give a contribution to improve reliability to acceptable level
ATN B2 timeout changes should be investigated more thoroughly to address the controller / Pilot anxiety about the current logical acknowledgement (ACK) timer with B1 up to 2 minutes.
Procedures among the various airspaces of the European countries must be harmonized to provide the flight crew with seamless procedures all over Europe. For instance, the logon time interval (45' to 15' before take‐
off or when entering the airspace?), the message set, the altitude used as a floor for CPDLC, and even the designation of the system should be consistent whenever it is possible in the various countries of the European airspace.
AFD Reccomandations ‐ ATCOs
• R1: Test the system with experimental flight legs should last more
• R2: Test the system with more that one flight connected by CPDLC (at list 5 a/c) • R3: Test the system across more complex sectors/scenarios (e.g. MI sectors and higher traffic load)
• R4: Test the system increasing the number of instructions exchanges between ATCO and FC 32
Michele Carandente
International Strategies
SESAR Unit
ENAV S.p.A
Via Salaria, 713 - 00138 Rome - Italy
Ph. +39 06 81662774
Mob. +39 335 1938192
michele.carandente@enav.it
www.enav.it
THANK YOU!
33