Required Communication Performance (RCP)


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Conundrum A question or problem having only a conjectural answer An intricate and difficult problem
  • Performance-based operations depends on capability and performance of many aspects of a complex system involving people, procedures, technical elements, and different functionality. One of the objectives in transitioning to performance-based operations is to build on what exists in aircraft and in air traffic service provision to optimize operational benefits. Another objective is to exploit modern technology by establishing standards that define the “minimum acceptable” capability and performance required for an intended operation and independent of any particular technology.
  • e.g., satellite data link, that is better than the communications equipment required for dispatch, e.g., high frequency (HF) voice; such as 100 NM lateral/10 minute longitudinal separations, 50NM lateral/50NM longitudinal (50/50) separations, and 30NM lateral/30NM longitudinal (30/30) separations, in the same airspace, and the use of those services is predicated on operator eligibility and aircraft capability and performance; such as satellite, to provide the preferred, primary, normal, or replacement means for air traffic control (ATC) communications, and the communication equipment required for dispatch does not have the performance to execute contingency procedures needed in the event the primary or normal means fails, e.g., HF voice regression; such as FANS 1/A-based ground system implementations providing ATC data communications in common airspace to FANS 1/A aircraft and ATN aircraft; and e.g., HF data link (HFDL) may be suitable in airspace with 100 NM lateral/10 minute longitudinal separations, but not suitable in airspace with 30/30 separations
  • I would like to introduce a new activity under the auspices of the Performance-based operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC). This new activity will be performed by the Communications Working Group. Before I talk about the Communications Working Group, I want to say just a few words about the PARC itself. The PARC [read sub-bullets] Optional: You may have heard of the Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (TAOARC). The TAOARC was renamed to the PARC in February of 2004.
  • Required Communication Performance (RCP)

    1. 1. Required Communication Performance (RCP) Moving toward a performance-based air transportation system Date: 26-30 March 2007 Presented to: ICAO Worldwide Symposium on Performance of the Air Navigation System By: Tom Kraft, FAA, Aviation Safety Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor (CSTA) for Aeronautical Communications Email: [email_address] Mobile: 202-369-2168
    2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Current situation </li></ul><ul><li>A little about RCP </li></ul><ul><li>Activities underway </li></ul><ul><li>Outlook for implementation </li></ul>
    3. 3. Introduction 1995 air traffic data link services Goals: Reduce separations Reroutes User preferred trajectories Expose data link Applications: CPDLC, ADS–C Technology: FANS 1/A Airframe: Boeing 744 Equipment: Honeywell Collins Thales ATM Comm Services: ARINC SITA INMARSAT U.S. New Zealand Fiji French Polynesia UAL ANZ QA Australia
    4. 4. Introduction 2007 air traffic data link services <ul><li>Pacific Sub–Region benefits from data link </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced separations to 50/50 NM and 30/30 NM (trials) </li></ul><ul><li>User preferred routes and reroute (trials) for all city pairs in South Pacific </li></ul><ul><li>Weather deviations </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic position reporting </li></ul><ul><li>80% of the fleet in South Pacific use CPDLC and ADS–C, based on FANS 1/A, 60% in the Central Pacific, and 30% on average in the entire Pacific </li></ul><ul><li>North Atlantic Region benefits from data link </li></ul><ul><li>In 2004, traffic levels exceeded pre–2001 levels </li></ul><ul><li>NAV CANADA has reduced communication costs to users by 50% </li></ul><ul><li>55% of the fleet use either FMC WPR or FANS 1/A ADS–C for automatic position reporting </li></ul>U.S. oceanic airspace boundary PDC & D–ATIS via ACARS Europe plans mandate for continental data link services <ul><li>Partial CPDLC application </li></ul><ul><li>ATN services and aircraft equipage compulsory </li></ul><ul><li>Accommodation of FANS 1/A aircraft voluntary </li></ul><ul><li>FANS 1/A aircraft exempt from ATN aircraft equipage </li></ul>
    5. 5. And then some <ul><li>What will we do with </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HF voice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>INMARSAT Aero Classic Satellite Service </li></ul></ul><ul><li>And what about </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Voice communications, e.g., INMARSAT, Iridium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data communications, e.g., HF Data Link, Iridium, Swift Broadband, Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Harmonize data link services <ul><li>Planning & Implementation Regional Groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>North Atlantic Systems Planning Group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>European Air Navigation Planning Group </li></ul></ul>Operational Requirements Standards for ADS-C Harmonize data link services RCP is a key element to the convergence process RTCA/EUROCAE FANS 1/A - ATN Interoperability Standard Data Link Steering Group (DLSG) and ATN Accommodation Drafting Group (ADG)
    7. 7. Continued operational safety FANS Implementation Group (FIG) <ul><li>Review operational data and advise based on results </li></ul><ul><li>Data link  VHF, Satellite, HF data link performance </li></ul><ul><li>Satellite voice  Security procedures </li></ul>Informal South Pacific Air Traffic Services Coordinating Group (ISPACG) FANS Interoperability Team (FIT) Informal Pacific Air Traffic Control (ATC) Coordinating Group (IPACG) FANS Interoperability Team (FIT) Asia-Pacific North Atlantic Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (including subordinate groups) FAA - Oceanic Separations Reduction Working Group (OSRWG) Scrutiny Group
    8. 8. Continued operational safety <ul><li>Fluctuations in performance levels for commercial satellite services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Backups and redundancy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissimilar technologies, e.g., Iridium, HF data link, INMARSAT, data/voice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the performance criteria, what needs to be monitored, and what is the decision process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What about predicted performance? </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Standards & guidance material <ul><li>ICAO completed standards and guidance material for RCP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provisions for RCP in Annex 6 and Annex 11 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Manual on RCP  ICAO Doc 9869 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RTCA SC-189/EUROCAE WG-53 completed standards for data link services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continental Safety and Performance Standard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oceanic Safety and Performance Standard </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Performance-based operations <ul><li>Balances capability & performance of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communications, e.g., DCPC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Navigation, e.g., RNAV/RNP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Surveillance, e.g., ADS-C </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Air Traffic Management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Builds on what we have to improve </li></ul>What is RNP [x] airspace? What is applying separation using ADS-C? C S N ATM RNP RCP RSP RTSP
    11. 11. Performance-based communications <ul><li>RCP type specifies communication transaction time, continuity, availability, integrity </li></ul><ul><li>Other operational factors may be relevant, for example </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Messages or phraseology, transaction types, and intended use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive capability of voice communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Air–ground integration capability of data communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance monitoring and alerting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adapting the airspace to changes in performance level </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Objectives and benefits <ul><li>Promotes a competitive market for aeronautical communication services enabling cost–effective alternatives that meet business needs in a more timely manner </li></ul><ul><li>Provides means to demonstrate communication performance using a variety of acceptable methods in lieu of time consuming data collection and empirical analyses </li></ul><ul><li>Defines “needed” operations based on communication performance levels that are not yet obtainable with current technology </li></ul><ul><li>Enables varying service levels in common airspace to a fleet of aircraft with varying communication capabilities and performances </li></ul>
    13. 13. Applicability <ul><li>When a change is implemented in air traffic management (ATM) and/or flight operations </li></ul><ul><li>And the change is predicated on communication performance </li></ul><ul><li>Safety management and monitoring </li></ul>
    14. 14. What it does <ul><li>Establishes operational criteria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determines capability and performance criteria based on intended operations in oceanic, en route, terminal, and airport domains </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Considers voice and data communications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Considers global seamless operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specifies RCP type and other relevant operational factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not based on any particular technology </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. How it is used <ul><li>Performance-based criteria is used to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine viability of a particular technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualify, certify, and approve various parts of an implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Manage performance levels needed to provide a basic level of service and, for eligible operators, higher levels of service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Real time monitoring and alerting (air and ground) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Historical monitoring and evaluation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adapting the airspace based on the results of monitoring </li></ul></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Candidates for implementation <ul><li>Reduced separation minima, new procedures, or increasing airspace capacity that requires a communication capability and performance </li></ul><ul><li>Operating in airspace with a basic level of service and, for eligible operators, with higher levels of service </li></ul><ul><li>Provision and use of air traffic service using non-traditional technology or mixed technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Communication capability installed on aircraft whose performance is suitable for use in some airspace, but not in others </li></ul>
    17. 17. PARC (Who - What) <ul><li>Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operates under the FAA Administrator’s legal authority in accordance with 49 USC 106(p)(5) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comprises members from the aviation community at large and FAA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides recommendations to FAA’s Senior Management for action & implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective in implementing RNAV/RNP </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. PARC Communications Working Group <ul><li>Roadmaps, etc. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Build consensus among aviation stakeholders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communicate fundamental capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assess benefit and investment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Set metrics to measure success of FAA implementation programs </li></ul></ul>Roadmap for Performance-Based Communications Industry Coordination Draft Roadmap for Data Link present — 2025 Final Draft, 25-Jul-06 Federal Aviation Administration
    19. 19. Outlook <ul><li>Complete industry-coordinated Roadmap for Performance-Based Communications by September 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the applications for performance-based communications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What standards are needed and schedule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the strategy for aircraft type certification, operational approval, and implementation </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Outlook <ul><li>Develop scenario outlines for implementation of RCP type, considering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Voice and Data communications to increase capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oceanic and domestic (en route, terminal area, airport) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operating in airspace with a basic level of service and, for eligible operators, with higher levels of service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some existing communication capabilities and performance that are suitable only for basic level of service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance monitoring, alerting, based on RCP type, and adaptation </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. And here we conduct our flight En Route Oceanic Terminal En Route Terminal SATCOM radio fails 5. Pilot/controller know RCP type, just as they know RNAV/RNP type 6. Pilot/controller operates according to RCP type 7. Pilot/controller receives alerts for communication failures 2. Ground side monitors communication service 3. Eligible Operators file for service level(s) 1. RCP types for service level(s) published in AIPs and charts 4. Air side monitors aircraft system GES Outage /D - Data /V - Voice IC – Increased capacity RHSM – Reduced horizontal separation minima TAP – Tailored Arrival Procedure TOD RCP 10/V - Basic RCP 60/D - IC RCP 400/V - Basic RCP 240/D - RHSM RCP 10/V - Basic RCP 400/D – IC RCP 60/D - TAP
    22. 22. Thank you