1 / 29

EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Configuration Sub-Group Toulouse (France, US) , 14th–18th March 2011

EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Configuration Sub-Group Toulouse (France, US) , 14th–18th March 2011. CSG Progress Report Meeting Objectives Work Organisation. Jane HAMELINK , (THANE) RTCA CSG Co-Chair Thierry LELIEVRE , (ALTRAN) EUROCAE CSG Co-Chair. SC214/WG78 CSG Meetings and Webex

alice
Download Presentation

EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Configuration Sub-Group Toulouse (France, US) , 14th–18th March 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EUROCAE WG-78 / RTCA SC-214 Configuration Sub-Group Toulouse (France, US), 14th–18th March 2011 CSG Progress Report Meeting Objectives Work Organisation Jane HAMELINK , (THANE) RTCA CSG Co-Chair Thierry LELIEVRE, (ALTRAN) EUROCAE CSG Co-Chair

  2. SC214/WG78 CSG Meetings and Webex (since last CSG Meeting, ACY, Jan 2011) • FIM CPDLC Messages Meeting, Washington DC, 4 Feb 2011 • FIM Message consolidation • Betterunderstanding of the OperationalNeed/Use • SPR/INTEROP Editors Meeting, Atlantic City, 7 – 11 Feb. 2011 • Limited attendance • Consolidation of ADS-C OSD • ADS-C NCN and Reject requirements • Review of IER & PR OSD • Improvement of SPR/INTEROP Consistency • Resolution of PM-FIS Protocol Errors • Review FIS cancel contract • Weekly CSG Webex • See Webex Notes • Resolution of Comments/PDRs

  3. Maintenance of SPR/INTEROP (version H) • 229 PDRs (187 at CSG-Jan2011) createdagainst version H: • List of PDRs are accessible on https://sc214wg78.egis-avia@egis.fr/csg/ • 45 PDRs are still “New/Working”: • 28 for SPR (including [SPR/INTEROP] PDRs) • 13 for INTEROP • 4 for Tech Manual

  4. Maintenance of SPR/INTEROP (1/2) • 275 Comments (230 at CSG-Jan2011) received • Most of the 36 « Open/Working » comments are related to 4DTRAD & D-RVR (Baseline 3) • Most of the 22Deferredcomments are waiting for validation inputs

  5. Maintenance of SPR(2/2) • 122 PDRs (including [SPR/INTEROP] PDRs) • 28 PDRs are still New (17) / Working (11) : • 14 « New » PDRs are related to CPLDC/ADS-C OSA&OPA • 14 « New/Working » PDR are related to CPDLC, ADS-C & D-OTIS OSD

  6. Maintenance of INTEROP • 107 PDRs : 14 ATS Technical Manual + 93 INTEROP • For INTEROP: • 17 PDRs are still New (3) / Working (14): • 7 « Working » PDRs are related to INTEROP ATN (1 for PICS) • 6 « New/Working » PDRsare related to INTEROP FANS 1/A+ • 4« Working » PDRsrelated to PM-ADS and PM-FIS Technical Provisions

  7. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Definition of Baseline II / Basleine III Scope • DONE: Action CSG#4 Thierry LELIEVRE :  To update the SC214/WG78 Baseline table with the inclusion of IM & DSC Services, and the impact on Safety / Performance requirements by Plenary#12 • Open issues/actions: • To confirm EPP part of Baseline II • Action CSG#3: CSG Co-Chairs:  To propose at Plenary#12 to consider ITBO as a stand alone service as part of Baseline II scope • Action CSG#2: Thierry Lelievre / Jane Hamelink & All CSG Members:  To provide TOR comments on the Tables describing Baseline II/III Scope and to add the list of Datalink Capabilities supporting the foreseen services by Plenary#12

  8. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • CPLDC Message Set Assessment • DONE: Action CSG#10 CSG Co-Chairs: To send the CPDLC Message Set Assessment notification & tool by Monday 17 January 2011. • Deadline: 31 March 2011 • DONE Action CSG#11 CSG Co-Chairs: To update the CPDLC Message Set Assessment tool according to agreed changes above. • Does it require FMS Integration Capabilities ? • Recommended Modification of Message Intent (column C) • Recommended Modification of Message text/parameter (Column D) • Table for Proposed New Messages • Presentation at ICAO NATS CNSG (7-11 March 2011, Paris) • Only one feedback -from FAA (initial) !

  9. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • ATS Function definition • DONE : Action CSG#1: Thomas Mustach / Jérôme Condis:  To provide an update of the Airspace Change position paper taking into account the above CSG agreements before 8 march 2011 • ATS Function 3March2011.doc • Weekly CSG/ATS Function Webex to progress on this paper: • Definition of 19 ATS Functions for Oceanic & Domestic • Allocation of Datalink Enablers and RCP • List of High Level Operational Requirements • Remaining tasks & Issues : • To complete the list of ORs • To consolidate the ATS Functions • B II / B III consideration • To be discussed/reviewed during • this CSG Meeting

  10. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Consolidation of ADS-C (Version I, SPR 2 March 2011 / INTEROP 20 January 2011) • Improvement of SPR/INTEROP Consistency • Feedback from SESAR Projects implementing ADS-C (MUAC, THALES-AV, AIRBUS) • Technical Provisions for ATN PM-ADS(Version I, 20 January 2011) • PR #206, #208, #209 – Error in protocol description (invalid APDU name, cancellation of a non-existing contract not covered, missing requirements for starting/stoping timers) • ASN.1 Modifications • PDR #194 – Definition errors (NCN) • PDR #207 – ASN.1 module name defining the ADS Pseudo Message is changed (to avoid DUP with CPDLC) • Clarification on ADS-C Contract Response ACCEPT/ PARTIALLY ACCEPT (Non-Compliance) / REJECT: • related to Supported/Non Supported ADS-C capabilities: • An ADS-C Capability is supported when the aircraft is able to provide the capability (event if this capability is temporarily unavailable) • An ADS-C Capability is not supported when the aircraft will never be able to provide the capability (e.g. not supported per design) • Example: When the aircraft receives an ADS-C Contract request requiring ADS-C capabilities that it supports but it is not able to provide at the time of the request then it shall accept the ADS-C Contract. The requested ADS-C Capabilities will be provided when they will be restored.

  11. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Consolidation of ADS-C (Version I, SPR 2 March 2011 / INETROP 20 January 2011) • Proposal for ADS-C change: (See POS-PL-ADSC-Change-Proposal.doc & POS-PL-ADS-C-EventDetectionImpaired-0_1.doc) • New approach for handling the EPP Change Event Types in order to allow the Aircraft to accept partially the ADS-C EPP Change Event request when it is not able to support all the requested EPP Sub-Event Types and to indicate in its response what EPP Sub Event types it is able to support. • To allow the provision of incomplete EPP data block when the aircraft is not able to provide all the mandatory data for each waypoint part of the EPP window. • To include additional Reason to reject an ADS-C Contract request in order to allow the aircraft to be more explicit when rejecting a ADS-C Contract request • Refinement of the procedure when the aircraft is no longer able to detect at least one of the events specified by the event contract • Issue: Provision of the Baseline ADS-C report when the Aircraft is not able to provide all the requested baseline Information at the time of the request. • To be reviewed during this CSG Meeting

  12. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Consolidation of CPLDC (Version I, 20 January 2011) • Improvement of SPR/INTEROP Consistency • CPDLC Error Case / Abnormal Mode Handling • CPDLC Message Set and Parameters definition • DSC Integration (Air Initiation of CPLDC) • CPDLC PDR Integration • Specification of Emergency as an independent service (not hidden in IER) • Consolidation of FIM Messages: • based on the Operational FIM Message description • to complete ASN 1 Definition • Issue : MaintainingOperationalContext (e.g. Open dialogues) when a second CPDLC Connectionrequestisreceivedfrom the CDA (=> abort of the initial one as per CPDC-IR-121) • Issue : Integration of new CPDLC OR/Recsto address CPDLC integrationwith the aircraft Flight Management System (taken from ATS function work) • Issue : How many distinct levelsAlert/Urgency are required? Is grounddifferentfrom air? • To be discussed/reviewed during this CSG Meeting

  13. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Development of IER & PR OSDs (See POS-PL- IER & PR OSD-Proposal.doc) • Information Exchanged & Report Service: The OSD presents the type of information that can be exchanged by using ADS-C & CPDLC. The Operating methods refer to the generic operating methods for ADS-C and CPLDC. • Position Reporting Service: This OSD presents the PR Operating method as used in Oceanic and established the associated Operational Requirements. • To be discussed/reviewed during this CSG Meeting

  14. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Feedback from SESAR Projects implementing FIS (Honeywell, AIRBUS) • Technical Provisions for ATN PM-FIS (Version I, 20 January 2011) • PR #212 – Modification of the FIS Low Interface (LI) : incoming APDU type checking not performed by LI • Issue : Change also applicable to PM-ADS ? • PR #213 – Simplification of the FIS Contract Establishment Transaction : Ground initiated Contract Cancel not allowed until the contract is fully established • PR #214 – Missing collision cases between a ground initiated FIS-cancel-contracts message and any air initiated messages • CSG Decision – No need to define in the FIS protocol a contract cancel request for all contracts related to a given airport. If this service is offered to the aircrew, the avionics must cancel the contracts one by one (D-OTIS, D-RVR, D-HZWX). • FIS INTEROP Requirements (Version I, 20 January 2011) • ASN.1 Modifications • PDR #200, #201 – definition errors (Transition Level, Deposit Depth) • PDR #205 – 16 compilation errors fixed • PDR #207 – ASN.1 module name defining the ADS Pseudo Message is changed (to avoid DUP with CPDLC) • PDR #203 – Update the list of FIS contract reject reasons • PDR #204 – New FIS contract replacement policy : first contract cancelled – by ground.

  15. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • ADS-C OSA • OSA drafted: Contents taken from 4DTRAD as starting point • Only discussed between Todd, Wim • Had fundamental Qs to better understand the scope prior to starting OHA : • Q1:What is the difference between IER and FLIPINT? • A1: FLIPINT is merged with IER, IER being the generic service to exchange A/C & Flight information using ADS-C and CPDLC • Q2: What are the message contents of the “Basic Report?” • A2: Basic report: Mandatory current A/C 3D Pos, Time and FOM (Pos accuracy). • Q3: Which ADS-C services monitor Trajectory conformance? • A3: Exchange of info for Conf Monitoring is part of IER. • Used in 4DTRAD (EPP info) for conformance monitoring. • Other types of info for Conf monitoring according to local needs: Projected Profile, Level • Q4: Which services/report types apply to Domestic airspace and which apply to Oceanic/Remote? • A4: “ATS Function” Section states the ENV in which reports are used; e.g. PR is for OCR.

  16. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • ADS-C OSA Conclusion: • For CON airspace, EPP covers all info Taken as most relevant service for ADS-C OSA. Most relevant EPP data: • Next waypoint lat/long: lateral data; • Next waypoint estimated level: vertical data; • Next waypoint estimated time: time data. • Issue 1: • For B3, can go ahead with OSA. What about B2? Is EPP in or out? • If not, what is the most stringent service in CON airspace? • Issue 2: • What is most relevant service in OCR airspace - PR? Or …..? • 2. ADS-C OSA draft was not distributed to committee members. • ADS-C OPA • OPA ADS-C exists for Did not work on OPA on ADS-C not changed since vH • Issues: • No amendments made since vH-Feb10. • P11 decision: No split in aircraft allocations (i.e. no distinction btwn Responder and other avionics) • Reflected in ADS-C OSD, i.e. ORs changed/removed. • Not yet reflected in OPA. • Need to reconsider timings.

  17. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • OCR and CON Integration: OSA • CPDLC • Since Aug 10: Table “Comparison of OCR vs CON SRs for CPDLC” • As a result, created PDR # … to add/modify CON SRs to the extent possible to smooth integration • Comparison demonstrated that CPDLC OSA results respect RTCA/EUROCAE ToRs “No change of OCR SRs”: However, • Quantitative values CON SRs are slightly different Quite acceptable for OCR. • CON SRs has more SRs due to ASOR analysis  These SRs are not made explicit in ED122/DO290. Neverheless are implemented in FANS to make CPDLC safe. • Other OSA PDRs  Still outstanding; Lack of time! • From P11 “FAA/AVS Issues” Paper: • Agreed to further amend OSA to smooth integrationNot done yet; Lack of time! • What’s then the issue for Integration? • NON-recognition of OSA method by FAA-AVS, i.e. • Non- acceptance of OSA results, although Comparison Table demonstrates that OSA results are within range of OCR needs. • Consequence Cannot include OHA for OCR • Cannot claim that ASOR analysis applies to OCR • ED122/DO306 need to co-exist with B2 and B3 for OSAADS-C • ADS-C • Nothing done yet, given CPDLC blockage. • Can be easily integrated by Todd/Wim, provided the blockage is removed.

  18. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • OCR and CON Integration: OPA • CPDLC and ADS-C • Not worked on it  Lack of time • Is less a problem, as OCR and CON performance are not equal • Main issue is method of allocations for timings: • OCR uses arithmetic sum Is not in line with academic literature. • Allocations are needlessly too stringent to achieve RCP • CON uses statistical method as used in academic for communications. • More close to reality • Allocations are more relaxed to achieve same RCP. • So, what to take for the aircraft delay, flying in OCR and CON airspace?

  19. SC214/WG78 CSG Achievementssince Jan 2011 • Seamless Transition • DONE : Action CSG#14 Jérôme CONDIS: To update Seamless Transition Position Paper by Mid February 11, 2011. • Seamless Position Paper V3 « POS-PL-Seamless ATS Comm transition v3 » • The Additional material/changes as proposed in Seamless Transition Position Paper has been handled by FANS Accommodation Editor, Chris Collings. • To be addressed: • Action [AP10-2]: When both the ground and aircraft are dual stacked, the CSG will develop guidance on what interoperability mechanisms (in terms of ATN or FANS) should be used. • Status: Closed: CSG agree to add an Interop Requirement for the aircraft to force the “dual stack” aircraft to perform DLIC Logon when the ATN Address is known by the aircraft system. If not, then the aircraft system will perform AFN-Logon. • DO-305_A_FANS_1A-ATN_INTEROP_Standard_Draft_02042011.doc • To be reviewed during this CSG Meeting

  20. Meeting Objectives & Priorities To progress on the consolidation of the Converged Baseline II SPR/INTEROP Version I • Progress on CPDLC including FIM Message review • Progress on ADS-C • Progress on FIS • Review IER, PR, and DSC Services OSDs • Review of Oceanic OSA/OPA Integration Result • Progress on OSD/OSA/OPA for DSC/OCL Service • Progress on the resolution of SPR/Interop Comments/PDRs • Review of CPDLC Message Set Assessment Outputs • Review of the integration of Seamless Transition material • Progress on ATS Function Definition and Environment Description • Preparation of CSG Contribution to Plenary#12 • NEW: New ORs to address the FMS Integration • NEW: Emergency as separate service 20

  21. Main Objectives & Priorities • Consolidation of CPDLC : • Resolution of Handling of Emergency CPDLC Messages issue • Action CSG#9 SPR/INTEROP Editors: to figure out the OR & IR to handle rejection of CPDLC Message containing Emergency element and the Latency Time check behavior for Emergency message • Conclusion from our last CSG Meeting : • Emergency messages must be handled differently from other CPLDC Messages • The application of All CPDLC Error cases (operational & technical) to emergency messages have to be assessed (e.g. Integrity check failure, too many open dialogues on the same type,…) • An emergency message must not be rejected/shall not triggered the CPLDC termination; • Rules for prohibiting some concatenations with emergency concatenation • The global impact of defining exception for Handling emergency messages has to be assessed • To agree on the proposal for a “Standalone” Emergency Service based on ADS-C & CPLDC • To review the Emergency Service OSD • Resolution of LATENCY TIME CHECK Issue • DONE: Action CSG#7 Kathy De Vito / Todd Kilbourne: To coordinate with Eurocontrol (Wim Brondsema) the agreements from last CSG Meeting in ACY (see minutes). • Action CSG#8 CSG Co-Chairs: To coordinate with VSG the need for additional validation activities for the different latency time check behaviors • To be consolidated with Wim & Kathy…………………………. 21

  22. Main Objectives & Priorities • Consolidation of CPDLC : • Definition of CPDLC Messages supporting FIM Service and to Trigger the FIM OSA/OPA • Based on our understanding of their Operational use: • To figure out the ASN-1 Definition of FIM Messages • Question : Do we need a FIM OSD or Do we include FIM Messages in IER/CRD? • FIM Messages does not requires specific OR except for specific concatenation • To trigger the OSA/OPA for these new CPLDC Messages • Use of Alert/Urgency Attributes • CPC-OR 13 When received CPDLC messages are queued, messages with the highest Urgency attribute precedence shall be placed at the beginning of the queue; • CPC-OR 17 Upon receipt of a CPDLC message, one of three distinct alerts shall be provided as determined by the received message alert attribute • No known implementation using/planning to use Urgency attribute for queuing • Specifying multiple alert levels for ATS messages will have significant and direct negative implications for safety • Proposal is to remove the CPC-OR 13 and 17 (and other is needed) or to change them to recommendations 22

  23. Main Objectives & Priorities • Consolidation of CPDLC : • MaintainingOperationalContext (e.g. Open dialogues) when a second CPDLC Connectionrequestisreceivedfrom the CDA triggering the abort of the first CDA connection(as per CPC-IR 121) • CPC-IR 121: Except if the abort results from the establishment of a second CPDLC connection with the Current Data Authority, if the Aircraft System abort the CPDLC connection with the Current Data Authority, the Aircraft System shall: • a) Delete any association of a ground system to a Current Data Authority, • b) If a ground system is designated as Next Data Authority and a CPDLC connection is established with the Next Data Authority, abort the CPDLC connection with the NDA with reason [current-data-authority-abort] and • c) Delete any association of a ground system to a Next Data Authority. • Note. This is a deviation with ED110B where the listed actions have to be done any time the CPDLC-user-abort request is invoked. The condition on the second CPDLC connection allows the re-establishment of a CPDLC connection in case of the ground system failure without deleting the CDA/NDA context • Proposal is to keep the operational context when the first CDA connection is aborted  • To review the DCS OSD and to trigger DSC OSA/OPA 23

  24. Main Objectives & Priorities • Consolidation of ADS-C : • To review the updated version of ADS-C • Improvement of SPR/INTEROP Consistency • ADS-C Abnormal modes • Clarification of Response to ADS-C Contract request according to the Supported/Non Supported ADS-C Capabilities • To review the ADS-C Change Proposal: • POS-PL-ADSC-Change-Proposal.doc : • New approach for handling the EPP Change Event Types in order to allow the Aircraft to accept partially the ADS-C EPP Change Event request when it is not able to support all the requested EPP Sub-Event Types and to indicate in its response what EPP Sub Event types it is able to support. • To allow the provision of incomplete EPP data block when the aircraft is not able to provide all the mandatory data for each waypoint part of the EPP window. • To include additional Reason to reject an ADS-C Contract request in order to allow the aircraft to be more explicit when rejecting a ADS-C Contract request • POS-PL-ADS-C-EventDetectionImpaired-0_1.doc • Refinement of the procedure when the aircraft is no longer able to detect at least one of the events specified by the event contract • Issue:Provision of the Baseline ADS-C report when the Aircraft is not able to provide all the requested baseline Information at the time of the request • To progress on ADS-C OSA/OPA 24

  25. Main Objectives & Priorities • To review new ORs to address FMS Integration • 4 new CPLDC Ors are proposed to be added in CPLDc Section: • CPDLC-OR xx When aircraft supports CPDLC/FMS integration, the aircraft shall support at the minimum : • Automatic loading of UM266, UM267 and UM268 uplink message elements, and • Automatic generation of DM121 downlink message element. • CPDLC-OR xx When aircraft supports CPDLC/FMS integration, the aircraft shall allow the Flight Crew to review and execute (or cancel) any ATS changes that are resulting from the automatic loading into the FMS of an uplink message. • CPDLC-ORec xx When aircraft supports CPDLC/FMS integration, the aircraft should allow: • “Conditional” clearances monitoring and alerting (for monitoring of the condition: AT [time], AT [Position] or AT [Level]) to preclude early/late execution of the clearance , and/or • Provision of FMS data for the content of CPDLC reports (or at least as defaults for pilot selection), and/or • Determination of type (navaid, waypoint, etc.) for [position] entries and inclusion of the optional latitude/longitude when there are duplicates of that entry, and/or • Check of [position] pilot entries compliance with waypoints in the route (when that is appropriate for the specific downlink message) • Automatic generation of downlink reports triggered by the occurrence of an FMS Flight Plan event. • CPDLC-ORec xx When aircraft supports CPDLC/FMS integration, the aircraft should not propose automatic loading for CPDLC information message elements (e.g. EXPECT) and CPDLC conditional clearances (in such a way that they could affect the airplane trajectory prior to the condition being satisfied). • Question : Do we need to develop similar ORs for ADS-C? 25

  26. Main Objectives & Priorities • Consolidation of PM-ADS Technical Provisions : • PDR #??? – The PM-ADS protocol requires the aircraft to accept an ADS-C contract by sending an ADSAccept APDU including an ADS • Proposal to allow the ground to also accept the ADS-C contract when an ADS-C report is sent by error by the aircraft • Consolidation of PM-FIS Technical Provisions : • PDR #215 – Air-initiated cancellation of FIS contract (after a FIS-contract request) is allowed in case an ATN dialogue is already in place (D-DATA), not when the ATN dialogue is being established (D-START) • Proposal to allow cancellation in both cases (no difference for the aircrew) • Proposed changes from Honeywell (PMFIS-V1.6(xxXXX10)-Draft-I_CancelUC.doc) to be reviewed this week AIR ADS Pos-ack APDU ADS ncn APDU ADS Reject APDU ADS Report APDU ADS Contract APDU ADS Accept APDU GND ADS Report APDU Data Transfer Contract Establishment 26

  27. Main Objectives & Priorities • To review IER & PR OSDs (See POS-PL- IER & PR OSD-Proposal.doc) • Information Exchanged & Report Service: The OSD presents the type of information that can be exchanged by using ADS-C & CPDLC. The Operating methods refer to the generic operating methods for ADS-C and CPLDC. • Position Reporting Service: This OSD presents the PR Operating method as used in Oceanic and established the associated Operational Requirements. • To review Oceanic OSA & OPA Integration result • .......... • To be completed with Wim…………………………. • To review change in DO-305 for Seamless Transition 27

  28. CSG organisation

  29. Remark ? Comment ? 29

More Related