EUROCAE Symposium & 54 th General Assembly. London, April 2017

Transcription

1 EUROCAE Symposium & 54 th General Assembly London, April 2017

2

3 EUROCAE Symposium SESSION 2: GENERAL AVIATION Moderator: Philip CHURCH, HELIOS Speakers: Jonathan ARCHER, GAMA Colin CHESTERTON, UK CAA John KORNA, NATS UK Julian SCARFE, PPL IR Europe Friedhelm RUNGE, EASA

4 EUROCAE Symposium Philip CHURCH HELIOS

5 EUROCAE Symposium Jonathan ARCHER GAMA

6 General Aviation Manufacturers Association: Standardization of Avionic Certification in GA JONATHAN ARCHER DIRECTOR ENGINEERING & AIRWORTHINESS EUROCAE 2017 SYMPOSIUM, LONDON, 27 TH APRIL 2017

7 Contents 1. Driving Factors 2. Certification Streamlining 3. EASA / FAA Harmonization 4. Who is GAMA? Note: Included For Information Only

8 1. Driving Factors Increased Automation & Electrification

9 2. Certification Streamlining for GA CHALLENGES: Average age of GA aircraft Cost of new aircraft increase prohibitive to many private pilots. Cost of certifying new systems. GA fatal accident rate over 5x higher than for commercial jet aircraft! SOLUTIONS: New Part-23/CS-23 using performance-based rules and industry standards Enable deployment of safety-enhancing technology into existing fleet at lower costs: FAA NORSEE EASA CS-STAN Technical Policy Committee

10 2. New Part/CS-23: A Paradigm Shift in Regulation Authority International Aviation Community Old Part/ CS-23 New CS-23 High-level requirements. (safety driven) NO technical solutions prescribed No tiers or categories Auth. Acceptance Systems & Powerplant: Equipment Structures: Engine Installation Design Technical Solutions Structures Loads & General Technical that meet Solutions Flight Conditions that standards meet Characteristics, Technical Solutions standards Test specifications that Technical meet Solutions Performance, Test & Specific standards specifications that meet Operating Specific compliance Test standards specifications Limits compliance methods Specific Test specifications Technical compliance Solutions methods Specific that meet standards methods compliance Test specifications methods Specific compliance methods Detailed Design Standards - Tiered where it makes sense - Contains detailed compliance requirements - Current CS-23 used as a starting basis Technical Policy Committee

11 3. EASA-FAA Harmonization Current Activities in Avionics (1) Harmonization of A(M)C Airborne Software and Electronic Hardware Introduction: Industry Met with FAA & EASA in Cologne on August 26, 2015 Objective: To develop a framework to work towards harmonization of guidance material Discussion: Differences between Industry and Authority positions Next Steps: Define how to address the development of harmonized GM for a broad spectrum of organizations, from the mature to immature Develop roadmap / schedule for rulemaking activities Identify key areas that require GM development clarify: objective-based guidance, best practice etc. Successful Progress starting with: Establishment of joint Authority / Industry working groups to update: A(M)C D Software Development Assurance currently under public consultation A(M)C Airborne Electronic Hardware (AEH) Complex COTS Avionics & Electronic Systems Subcommittee

12 3. EASA-FAA Activities in Avionics (2) Open Problem Report (OPR) Management Working Group Joint Authority / Industry OPR Working Group established February 2017 to review industry recommendations and address concerns. Ongoing task FAA Overarching Properties Initiative Research into alternate methods to DO-178B/C and DO-254 for the certification of avionics systems and equipment. Phase I of this Initiative was reported at the FAA Avionics Systems Workshop in September Working collaboratively with AIA and ASD (parallel research programme to RESSAC) Phase II is an ongoing task Avionics & Electronic Systems Subcommittee

13 3. Planned Future Activities (3) Joint Industry / Authority Avionics Certification Roadmap Input to a Certification Management Team (CMT) Industry Day Action Taken at the September 2016 Meeting FAA AIR Transformation task force on risk-based decision making Avionics & Electronic Systems Subcommittee

14 4. GAMA History and Purpose Founded in 1970 to foster and advance the general welfare, safety, interests and activities of general aviation. Expanded to worldwide membership in 2001 Expanded to include rotorcraft & MRO in 2011 Created Associate Membership for Hybrid & Electric Propulsion in October 2015 Office Locations: Washington, DC, USA (headquarters) Brussels, Belgium Note: Included For Information Only Logo is the Greek symbol for the letter GAMMA

15 4. GAMA Members & Europe 97 Member Companies (Global) 29 Aircraft Manufacturers 10 Engine Manufacturers 17 Avionics Manufacturers 41 Component Manufacturers / Service Providers 12 Associate Members

16 4. GAMA Annual Databook Annual Publication compiled by GAMA since 1973: OEM Global Shipments & Billings Global GA Fleet Data & Flight Activity GA Safety Statistics dia-center/industryfacts-andstatistics/statisticaldatabook-andindustry-outlook Issue! GAMA is actively campaigning to address the lack of consolidated and consistent General Aviation data in Europe.

17 EUROCAE Symposium Colin CHESTERTON UK CAA

18 Electronic Conspicuity for GA 07 March 2017

19 Drivers To promote increased uptake of conspicuity aids to improve situational awareness for both airspace users and air traffic managers Reduce risk of Mid Air Collision (MAC) through enhanced airborne situational awareness Explore opportunities for increasing the use of technologies such as: ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) LPAT (Low Power ADS-B Transceiver) Moving maps, cockpit based location display improving Situational Awareness Understanding how Electronic Conspicuity will enable access to future airspace environments Facilitate safe drone integration

20 Issues Different users have different requirements Different users equipped with different technologies not all are interoperable No defined use on the ground although is being used ad hoc in some locations (which indicates there are some benefits) Nationally no clear preferred solutions Cost vs benefit Certification and bureaucratic hurdles (CAP1391) Spectrum (either unprotected or Congestion)

21 Enablers Clear direction on technological solution: Interoperable Low cost/cost effective CAA acknowledged Identify Funding/Financing Opportunities Review of National Legislation to support uptake Training material to support use of new Technologies'

22 Considerations Interoperable with ground environment (and a ground environment to support that) Regulatory and Specification requirements Engagement with all communities to encourage equipage Engagement with International bodies to enable equipage and align future strategies Encourage manufacturers to develop affordable solutions Spectrum congestion

23 Benefits Reducing the risk of mid-air collision through cockpit improved situational awareness Help facilitate future airspace modernisation Potential improved airspace access for all users Reduce impact of infringements Safe Drone integration

24 EUROCAE Symposium John KORNA NATS UK

25 Electronic Conspicuity ECWG 19 th April 2017 Unmarked 25

26 Contents EVA & Outcomes FAS EC Other recent developments Summary Unmarked 26

27 Project EVA Electronic Visibility via ADS-B SESAR Large Scale Demonstration project 2-year project which assessed: Effectiveness of electronic conspicuity for improving See, Be Seen and Avoid, Interoperability and relative benefits of different electronic conspicuity solutions, Regulatory & certification considerations Methods for reducing costs Included 50+ flights Unmarked 27

28 This is the aircraft you are looking for! Unmarked 28

29

30

31

32 Low Power ADS-B Transceiver - PlaneSight VFR Flight only Not a transponder Portable TX power ~20W ADS-B In and Out (Mutual conspicuity) Interoperable FLARM & Transponder proximity warnings Bluetooth external connection Can broadcast Emergency status Unmarked 32

33 EC vs Visual Acquisition Visual acquisition before device detection Device detection before visual acquisition Area under curve shows limit of visual scan is ~2NM even when assisted by traffic information Unmarked 33

34 Key messages See, BE SEEN and Avoid Mutual interoperability on 1090 MHz is key CAP1391 Electronic Conspicuity offers potential route for some to be electronically visible to others and ground applications No low cost way forward for EASA CS-23 aircraft on ADS-B OUT Information Display & integration with 3 rd party display solutions Where there is a need, lower barrier to entry will means products will be developed to meet perceived market needs: FLARM, PilotAware Unmarked 34

35 FAS Facilitation Fund EC Project 1. GA Uncertified Electronic Conspicuity Equipage: Promote & facilitate the use of CAP1391 EC units Targeting localised deployments at scale 2. NATS En-Route Use Of Uncertified EC Investigate feasibility of using uncertified ADS-B by NATS to reduce GA infringement risk London TMA NERL funded ATSOCAS positions 3. Airfield Flight Information Service (AFISO) Assess the feasibility of airfields using EC for situational awareness Unmarked 35

36 GA Standardisation Challenges Challenges in low end GA: Size, Weight, Power, Cost and Path to equipage Direct Personal Business cases post tax disposable income What s in it for me? What s in it for me? What is the state going to do to me with it? Unmarked 36

37 Summary Unmarked SWaP-C appropriate products for small airframes Aspiration to reduce safety and service risks e.g. MAC, CAS Infringements Community effort: Aerodromes, pilots, flying associations, ANSP regulator working together NATS continues work on SEE, BE SEEN and AVOID in Class G Focus shifting to ground exploitation & increasing ADS-B and CAP-1391 carriage 37

38 Questions Unmarked 38

39 Thank you Unmarked

40 EVA Objectives Evaluate effectiveness of improved situational awareness. Assess feasibility and benefits of several different types of equipment. Examine equipment interoperability. Look at performance requirements for displaying position data from uncertificated position sources for ATC purposes. Minimise regulatory and certification issues. Produce guidance material for European aviation standards. Progress industrialisation. Investigate costs and barriers to bringing equipment to market. Unmarked 40

41 Risk Components As a result of <an event> there is a RISK that <a bad outcome ensues> RISK = Probability x Severity So what has that got to do with EC? The equipage element will create an increasingly visible traffic environment Enable the other two work areas to use this real data to attack both parts of the risk equation for 1. Mid-air collision 2. Infringement risk Unmarked 41

42 Infringement Risk reduction: 1. Severity: Where traffic is visible, it removed uncertainty as to if a primary contact is or is not an aircraft. See if an ATSOCAS unit is talking to the aircraft if a listening Squawk is shown Enables the controller to take appropriate actions and (hopefully) reduce the impact LHR departure or arrival stoppages etc. Use of some predictive techniques to show aircraft at risk of infringing before they do so to build controller awareness and inform decision making 2. Probability: Provide an approved route for AFSIO units to appropriately exploit ADS-B, and provide proximity prompts to aircraft in close proximity to controlled airspace Unmarked 42

43 Unit Deployment Outline Plan looked to undertake localised deployment at scale of EC devices target availability of 50 PlaneSight devices (est. June 17) and other approved CAP-1391devices e.g. µavionix Willing engagement from the aerodrome management and users Initial plan to target to deploy to two-three airfields in 2017 for ~3 months Initial approaches to Aerodromes and Pilot cohorts undertaken Details & location selection work is on-going Generation of relevant and accessible unit & concept information and training material e.g. YouTube video Further Interest and/or Volunteers? Unmarked 43

44 NERL Ground Feasibility & Options Study Initial F&O on controller presentation preference completed Significant cost and challenge to reaching the preferred Terminal Control end state Similar, but less developed F&O for a similar state to support LARS ATSOCAS Considered more feasible, and positive business case Model & technology candidates may be applicable to other airfields NERL is currently developing a new surveillance strategy, Technology investment cycle & maturities of new capabilities & systems Sensors Tracker Interactions and dependencies with NERL s Regulatory Periods & wider investment portfolio & deployment plans Unmarked 44

45 Aerodrome Deployment There is no firm aerodrome candidates but selection criteria include: Proximity to infringement hot spots ATS/AFSIO units with mature operations and safety management processes Traffic mix CAP1391 devices ADS-B IN for transponder equipped aircraft, ADS-B IN & OUT if not equipped Ground sensor and display equipment options being looked at now Consideration of innovative approaches and business models Initial de-risking deployment & engagement expected early June Engagement with candidate Units & regulator to follow assessment of that Unmarked 45

46 EVA Results Completed: Use of low cost EC equipment for GA situation awareness Interoperability of various EC equipment Certification issues Incomplete: Use of EC data at small airfields Use of EC data to minimise/manage infringements Unmarked 46

47 Other Recent developments US based trial of ADS-B (UAT) equipped RPAS and a manned Helicopter Outcomes: Knee mounted display Electronic situational awareness maintained 4 pairs of MK-I eyeballs did not see the RPAS no visual acquisition The RPAS could See/Photograph the aircraft UAS operator now fitting to entireity of US based fleet Unmarked 47

48 Thank you Unmarked

49 EUROCAE Symposium Julian SCARFE PPL IR Europe

50 Instrument Flight Rules in the 21 st Century Julian Scarfe PPL/IR Europe

51 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April What are Flight Rules? Flight rules help aircraft avoid colliding with: other aircraft terrain and obstacles Flight rules are not about: control of the aircraft navigation though there are synergies

52 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April Visual Flight Rules Visual flight rules (VFR) are simple: Stay in suitable visual conditions (Visual Meteorological Conditions) Avoid collisions visually» with other aircraft» with terrain and obstacles SERA.5005 Visual flight rules (a) Except when operating as a special VFR flight, VFR flights shall be conducted so that the aircraft is flown in conditions of visibility and distance from clouds equal to or greater than those specified in Table S5-1.

53 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April Instrument Flight Rules Controlled airspace Uncontrolled airspace Even levels Odd levels MVA 1000 ft

54 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April The cultural norm Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) for commercial air transport high precision and skill high costly equipment almost always in controlled airspace Image: Naddsy, Flickr Visual Flight Rules (VFR) for leisure and specialised ops unskilled seat-of-the-pants, map & compass mostly outside controlled airspace

55 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April Why the divergence? Controlled airspace where CAT flies IFR to achieve the safety levels expected in CAT With 20 th century technology, precise trajectory adherence to designed procedures was the only way to address the terrain/obstacle risk effectively ATC radar or traffic info was the only way to detect other aircraft non-visually but Let s re-examine the risks in the light of 21 st century technology

56 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April Avoid collisions with other aircraft Surveillance technologies starting to offer a picture of nearby aircraft in all meteorological conditions with increasingly complete information Sense-and-avoid is starting to reach the reliability levels of see-and-avoid does not depend on visual acquisition

57 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April Avoid collisions with terrain & obstacles Navigation technologies starting to offer a picture of nearby terrain and obstacles in all meteorological conditions with increasingly complete information Synthetic vision is starting to reach the reliability levels of see-and-avoid does not depend on visual acquisition Image: Honeywell

58 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April So in any meteorological conditions We will be able to sense/see and avoid what we need to avoid without ATC and without instrument flight procedures IFR becomes like VFR

59 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April Is this the end of ATC? No, because of the need to manage traffic in complex situations But ATC can act as managers not look-outs

60 PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April The future? The end of differentiation of flight rules on the basis of meteorological conditions Controlled vs uncontrolled airspace Managed vs unmanaged airspace Instrument Flight Rules vs Visual Flight Rules Contract trajectory vs free flight

61 Instrument Flight Rules in the 21 st Century Julian Scarfe PPL/IR Europe

62 EUROCAE Symposium Friedhelm RUNGE EASA

63 EUROCAE Symposium SESSION 2: GENERAL AVIATION Moderator: Philip CHURCH, HELIOS Speakers: Jonathan ARCHER, GAMA Colin CHESTERTON, UK CAA John KORNA, NATS UK Julian SCARFE, PPL IR Europe Friedhelm RUNGE, EASA

64