1 / 15

ADS-C / EPP Issues & Evolutions

ADS-C / EPP Issues & Evolutions. SESAR Trajectory Management project SC-214/WG-78 meeting – Barcelona 24th June 2013. Introduction. SESAR TM projects issued a paper referenced : SESAR Trajectory Management project feedback

fathi
Download Presentation

ADS-C / EPP Issues & Evolutions

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. ADS-C / EPP Issues & Evolutions SESAR Trajectory Management project SC-214/WG-78 meeting – Barcelona 24th June 2013 Thales Air Systems 24th June 2013

  2. Introduction SESAR TM projects issued a paper referenced : SESAR Trajectory Management project feedback SCG provided a feedback which has been reviewed by SESAR/10.2.1 (ATC Trajectory Management Design) project The following slides : • Present the result of this review • Present 6 additional ADS-C issues identified by SESAR TM projects

  3. ADS-C Issue #1 : Add procedure names in EPP Problem statement :With current definition of EPP contained in the ADS-C reports there are no procedure names (SID and STAR) that reflect what the programmed FMS procedure is. The programmed procedure is needed for ATC/system support tools to check that the flight intent entered into the FMS is the one ATC expects to be used. This check also includes cases where portions of procedures are used. Proposal : Whenever available, FMS shall provide SID and STAR designators. ADS-C EPP provided data shall have fields to convey these procedure names. The format shall follow the CPLDC one. Issue to be discussed on whether uniquely the procedure name shall be provided, or whether a field shall be added to EPP Waypoints to convey the procedure associated with the leg. Issue is to be discussed for adding the Arrival Runway name. It seems that the fixName attribute of the destination airport contains the arrival runway name, appended to the airport name; but this is not documented in the ADS-C standard.

  4. ADS-C Issue #1 : Add procedure names in EPP CSG disagreed with the proposal to add procedure name in the EPP data.  EPP aims to provide trajectory detailed information which is what the aircraft is planning to fly. CSG deemed useful for the ground to know that some discrepancies exist on SID and STAR. These discrepancies could be identified only by using trajectory detailed information. Thus if only the Procedure Name is used for conformance monitoring, such discrepancies may not be identified. When trajectory detailed information is also used (in addition to the Procedure Name) then the procedure  name will not solve the problem. The issue is on the ground and its algorithm used to perform conformance monitoring and how to deal with such discrepancies. SESAR/P10.02.01 position : In case of discrepancy identified by the ground, without the procedure names, there is no way to distinguish between a discrepancy in the clearance and a discrepancy in the trajectory prediction. So this information is deemed necessary to solve that issue. STAR could be uplinked in advance so outside the TP scope of the controlling unit. The upstream unit will not implement at this stage the STAR in the trajectory prediction but this is a means to check the correct procedure name. However it is agreed that this is not in the objective of the EPP to transmit such information. This information can be exchanged with the air, using CPDLC.

  5. ADS-C Issue #2 : Ambiguous route point identification in EPP Problem statement :After an initial implementation of ADS-C EPP reports processing in the ground systems, it appears that there is no field to identify and differentiate Flight Plan programmed waypoints (“significant points”) from FMS computed waypoints. The only information indicating that an EPP element is a Flight Plan waypoint relies on the fact that its ‘fixName’ attribute is “filled with characters”. But the standard does not document this feature as needed to be applicable to all avionics behaviours in a future trajectory management environment; nor does it document that pseudo FMS computed waypoints should not have any ‘fixName’ filled. There is no specific flag in other attributes that could indicate this required difference in a non-ambiguous way. The need for future ATM automation industrial implementations with ADS-C processing is to avoid this ambiguity and enable simple and safe and unambiguous identification of Flight Plan programmed waypoints of the route clearance. Proposal : Two options are possible: Add a flag per EPP element (e.g. Boolean) that is set to identity if the waypoint is a Flight Plan programmed waypoint of the FPLN. Or document the current standard: the fixName attribute shall only be filled for flight plan programmed waypoints and not for pseudo waypoints.

  6. ADS-C Issue #2 : Ambiguous route point identification in EPP CSG agreed (final outcome achieved during the EPP content review) that the name will be provided only for published waypoint (flight plan waypoint) with no lateral offset.  For all other waypoints, the name (if allocated in the FMS route) won’t be provided in the EPP. Action : To be checked in SESAR if it is acceptable for published waypoint with lateral offset. SESAR/P10.02.01 position : In order to keep tracability with the original route, there is a need for the ATC to check if the point is associated to the flight plan waypoint or not. The distinction made between the 2 categories (no lateral offset and lateral offset) of waypoints is not understood. The change should apply to both categories.

  7. ADS-C Issue #3 : Truncated fixName in EPP Problem statement :When a route point existing in the FMS is either a waypoint programmed per geographical coordinates (like “6301N15023E”) or a range bearing point (like “PIBUL120023”). Then in the downloaded reports ICAO name gets truncated or even renamed in the ‘fixName’ attribute of the ADS-C report. Further, it seems there is no standard truncating or renaming convention, but rather implementation specific per FMS vendor. Some names can be simply truncated “63N12”, renamed “LL001”, or even “WPT01” etc. Proposal : Two options seem possible for fixName attribute in ADS-C report message: Extend from 5 char to 11 char, Or use of choice statement to get 5 char for route extracted from Navdb and 11 char for geographical or range-bearing points (This should not increase the ADS-C report size since usage of Lat/Long is generally limited per flight plan).

  8. ADS-C Issue #3 : Truncated fixName in EPP CSG disagreed with the proposal to extend from 5 to 11 character the fix name of EPP waypoint (even if it is limited to non published waypoint).  For the published waypoint the fix name is consistent with ICAO Fix name. For the non published waypoint the Lat/Lon shall be used for comparison and not the fix name. SESAR/P10.02.01 position : At least the standard shall make clear that for non published waypoints, the field fixname is left blank.

  9. ADS-C Issue #4 : Add ETA/ETO and Fix name Problem statement :ETAminMax ADS-C report doesn’t contain the name of the waypoint that is referenced in an ADS-C demand contract nor its current ETA. ADS-C ground applications use a workaround to solve it by associating the downlinked ADS-C report with the reference number given in the ADS-C uplink. This will cause trouble later in future ATC processing. It is also important in the SESAR i4D concept that a given CTA is close to original ETA on the metering fix. Currently the ground system has to extract the ETA from the latest received ADS-C report to then forward it to AMAN for its sequence computation. Proposal : Add the fixName and its current ETA/ETO in the ETAminMax ADS-C report. CSG agreed with the proposal to add Fixname but also Lat/Long in the ETA Min/Max report.  This will be available to ensure consistency with the waypoint specified in the ETA Min/Max request. SESAR/P10.2.1 position : OK

  10. ADS-C evolution #1 : Add RNP identifications in EPP Proposed evolution :There is an on-going proposal made by FAA in the frame of SC227/WG85 activities to enhance CPDLC clearances with RNP specifications (applicable for extended tailored arrival process). Once accepted in the CPDLC standard it should make sense to reflect it in the ADS-C EPP so that ground systems can be informed of the actual FMS RNP specifications. Refer also to issue #1 about procedure names. This can be more detailed in a future standard evolution. At a first glance, CSG disagreed with the proposal to add RNP information in the EPP.  If it is included in the [Route Clearance R] parameter, CSG recommend to use UM137 Confirm Assigned Route in order to get the route information with the RNP legs/values. CSG agreed that no change on EPP is required until getting inputs from the coordination with SC227/WG85 on PBN. SESAR/P10.2.1 position: No specific position

  11. ADS-C evolution #2 : Add 2D precise point / floating points Proposed evolution :If requested by ground system, add the 2D floating waypoints in EPP, providing their type in the lateral type attribute. When implemented this evolution will allow ground systems to use and display the arrival path from FMS instead of its fixed simplified ATC view. Mitigation means : discard such points/ lateral waypoints from the threshold monitoring used to trigger the ADS-C events ADS-C events with minimum thresholds, and advise to limit it according to the admitted variation of these floating points. add an attribute per waypoint containing the real FMS elapsed distance between two consecutive waypoint in the EPP CSG disagreed with the proposal : assessed with another paper from Boeing called EPP Definition that will become an annex of the standard “EPP Data Provision Requirement”. SESAR/P10.2.1 position : SESAR/P10.2.1 to clarify the drawbacks of not getting these 2D additional points or benefits of getting them.

  12. ADS-C evolution #3 : Predicted MET data in ADS-C EPP Proposed evolution :Add optional fields to the ADS-C EPP trajectory prediction waypoints to convey essential meteorological forecast parameters to ATM automation for consistency oldness checks. An option is for ATM automation to provide its meteorological data and forecasts if those are considered more recent – this will imply discussion of such a solution related to CPDLC (route uplink data for example). CSG recognized that there is a need for consistency of MET data used for Trajectory prediction between the aircraft and the ground. This is beyond the datalink domain and SC214/WG78 will not be able to solve this issue. (Is it part of SWIM concept to ensure such Air-Ground consistency of MET Data) CSG disagreed with the proposal to add MET data information in the EPP : Providing MET Data for each point of the EPP will increase considerably the size of EPP (which is already big) and will create issue with the network bandwidth. SESAR/P10.2.1 position : P10.02.01 recognizes the need for MET data consistency between air and ground trajectory prediction. It is not up to P10.02.01 to decide how this MET data along the trajectory is transmitted to the ground.

  13. Other comments on ADS-C standard Based on the experience of Step 1 TM SESAR activities, 6 change proposals related for the update of ADS-C data exchange standards have been identified. The changes to the Safety and Performance Requirements (SPR) for Advanced ATS Data Communications version I 2012 are summarised in the 2 following slides

  14. Other comments on ADS-C standard

  15. Other comments on ADS-C standard

More Related