1 / 7

Breakout Group Report: Performance

Breakout Group Report: Performance. SG-214/2 October 4, 2007. Agreement of Terms. Terminology Prepare Working Paper on Performance Terminology Redefine ‘dialogue’ as ‘exchange’, clarify ‘transaction’

oceana
Download Presentation

Breakout Group Report: Performance

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. Breakout Group Report:Performance SG-214/2 October 4, 2007

  2. Agreement of Terms • Terminology • Prepare Working Paper on Performance Terminology • Redefine ‘dialogue’ as ‘exchange’, clarify ‘transaction’ • List/improve current ‘ities’ definitions to remove interpretation issues (e.g., define availability of provision as applying to an area controlled by one Controller Team, i.e. sector). • Fault Detection • Prepare White Paper on Failure Detection • Explore prior safety work on failure detection requirements • Discuss impact on Continuity/Availability • Recommend approach to teams on how to treat in consistent manner (e.g. performance metrics if applicable, continuity/availability impacts)

  3. Performance Templates • Prepare Working Paper on Performance Templates • Communication Types • Transaction (two-way) • Periodic (and possibly Broadcast) • Event/One-way only (e.g., Check Stuck Microphone) • Metrics • Traditional: Continuity, Expiration Time, Latency, Availability of Provision, Availability of Use, Integrity • New: Maximum number of outages, MTBF or MTTR, etc., availability measurement period, repeat interval, etc. • Safety Work Survey • Review metrics used

  4. Developing RCP • Special Use Vehicles • ACTION: Look at SC-203 products and consider impacts to our activities/workplan • Prepare Recommendation on how to deal with UAVs and trans-atmospheric vehicles (TAVs). Discuss how UAVs/TAVs will need to deal with RCP requirements and standard allocations. • PLENARY INPUT: Do we need another environment class to use for assessing UAVs/TAVs because the mitigators for manned flight may not apply (e.g. see and avoid). • Developing RCP • Need to clearly identify THE credible worst-case scenario (WCS) with a defined communication objective to use in developing RCP end-to-end requirements. (requires OPS input) • RCP/WCS should be identified for EACH service and in EACH environment. • Need to define for each RCP/WCS whether or not the use of an alternate means of communication is viable. • May need WCS for safety, but more typical case for ops (the 95th percentile case) • PLENARY INPUT: Ops and safety personal to agree/provide WCS to use for RCP assessment. Potentially include WCS in OSED section.

  5. Allocating RCP • General: States should be allowed to reallocate performance provided that: • Overall end-to-end performance is met • Interoperability is maintained. • Ground reallocations should not impact the air, and air reallocations should not impact the ground. • Prepare White Paper on RCP Element Allocation (to include): • Human/Machine • Pilot Concern: Need to have pilot in the loop always, and pilot always wants the controller to be in the loop. • ATSU Concern: ATSUs may wish to have automation do things to increase capacity and reduce costs. • Ground/Air/Operator • CSP: Do not sub allocate Ground to ATSU/CSP. This effort not required to insure aircraft globalization/standardization. • Radio Link Allocation: May have some advantages, but mini-group not in full agreement. The radio link sits on both sides of air-ground interface so seems to impact both air & ground. May provide better measurement points for compliance. • Initiator Timing • Can measure time it takes a controller to create a message using a given interface. • Prepare White Paper on Continuity Allocation • Survey safety/allocation examples • Specifically consider DO-290 and Link 2K Paper • Provide recommendation on how SC-214 should allocate continuity.

  6. Deterministic vs Stochastic • Should performance requirements be deterministic or stochastic • GROUP: Not exactly sure of the concern here. We went through speculative interpretation. • Perspective #1 • Do we need TT99 instead of TT95. (i.e. more deterministic) • Perspective #2 • Should we use algebraic or statistical allocations of performance (e.g., latency). If we use statistical, FAA/EU should use same assumption. • Perspective #3 • Outliers/Tail Conditions. Reasons for outliers need to be analyzed? Expiration timer. • ACTION: Ask plenary for more guidance on comment.

  7. Performance Units • Prepare White Paper on Performance Units • Define/Interpret Units • Per Flight Hour • Per ATSU Hour • Per Sector Hour • Unit Translation • Explore methodology for translating units (per ATSU hour into per Flight Hour) • Explore if translation is appropriate • Maybe AP should not be expressed in flight hours so there may be no need to translate flight hour target to something useable by ground systems. • Metric Applicability at Service Level • Explore the applicability of AP or AU to some services (e.g within FIS application) • Interaction between aircraft in an area may not apply as the service may only involve one aircraft and the information, so maybe only AU applies.

More Related