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
ICAO ADSP
RTCA / Eurocae
etc.
ODIAC Members
Controllers, Aircrew
Communications engineers
Avionics and FDPS engineers
ODIAC Transition
Guidelines
ODIAC Operational Requirements
Document
ARINC 623 based:
OCM, DCL, ATIS
ATN-like CPDLC: ACM, CIC, DCL, DSC
Other Services: CAP, D-OTIS, D-RVR
ODIAC Mid-Term
Requirements
Technology Independant:
Surveillance, FLIPCY, DYNAV,
PPD, COTRAC
PETAL-I
PETAL-II
Operational Proof of Concept;
Initial Requirements Validation
Detailed Requirements Validation;
Limited New Functionality
EOLIA / ProATN
Pre-certified ATN-based air and ground systems
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
PETAL-II
Gateway
Maastricht
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
2119Z FROM KZAK CTL OPEN
AT ALCOA
CLB TO & MAINT FL310
*UNABLE
STBY*
<OTHER
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
Overall Logon, CPDLC, Performance, and
Uplinks
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
98
_0
98 5
_0
98 7
_0
98 9
_1
99 1
_0
99 3
_0
99 5
_0
99 7
_0
99 9
_1
00 1
_0
00 1
_0
00 3
_0
00 5
_0
7
0
Logon
CPDLC
# Uplinks
Operational Acceptance Lessons

Performance stability seems to be a key

Controller familiarity is a key risk
 Target:

Training is critical
 and

One flight per controller shift
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
Operational Uplinks Sent
600
up_transfer
500
up_level
400
up_heading
300
up_speed
200
up_route
up_time
100
up_instruction
00_08
00_06
00_04
00_02
99_12
99_10
99_08
99_06
99_04
98_12
98_10
98_08
0
up_levelspeed
up_emergency
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

Major differences with other regions = trouble
 If

channels noticeably increased its utility
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
Controller
HMI
Controller
HMI
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.)
IDD
BER
P2FEP
NFEP
FaFEP
ALLA
- Aircraft address/state
- ASE emulation
CM, CPDLC, ADS
- Data conversion
- Aircraft address/state
- ASE emulation
CM, CPDLC, ADS
- Data conversion
- Aircraft address/state
- Data conversion
NEAN
Server
FANS-1/A
Gateway
ProATN
- ASEs: CM, CPDLC, ADS
- ATN Router
IDD
PER
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
Applicant
Harmonizing
Approval
Authority
Doc's
Equipment
Manufacturer
National
Airworthiness
Authority (NAA)
NAA
JTSO-TSO
(or STC?)
Aircraft
Manufacturer
JAA
NAA
Type Cert
Operator
FAA
FAA
STC
Operator
National ATM
Safety
Regulator
(NASM)
NASM
Operational
Approval
ATM Service
Provider
NASM
NASM
Approval
Eurocontrol
Programs
SRC
ASRU on
behalf of
NASM
Approval
Avionics
HON?
A/C
SRA?
AAL
Op
Approve
AAL
SRA
ATM
Maas
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
FANS-1/A
ATN
VDL-4 stations
Mode-S
PETAL-II
Gateway
French Shadow Mode
Maastricht
FAA
France
PETAL-II Integration Team (PIT)
Op Concept
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
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 ….
ARINC PETAL II VDL Mode 2/ATN
Coverage (FL250)
Conclusion

Additional Partners always welcome
 FANS-1
 ATN
(controller familiarity now)
(help achieve operational harmonization)

Monthly report, PIT, or newsletter distro?

Contact
 rob.mead@eurocontrol.be
 petal2@eurocontrol.be
 www.eurocontrol.be/projects/eatchip/petal2/