Back to Air Transport IT Review - Issue 3, December 2009

Planning for the next generation of aircraft communications systems

An interview with Captain Steve Dickson, Chairman of the RTCA NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force, Chairman of the RTCA Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee and Senior Vice-President of Flight Operations, Delta Air Lines

NextGen is a transformation of the US National Airspace System using new technologies in support of aviation's expected growth. The challenge is to integrate new systems with today's systems, while also providing an efficient transition to new ways of delivering services.

The RTCA NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force addressed the challenges of implementing the communications, navigation and surveillance, and air traffic management components of NextGen, for the near and mid-term.

The main impetus was twofold. First, to gain consensus on operational improvements planned for the 2015-2018 time frame. Second, to ensure action is taken to deliver benefits, and a strong business case built to support equipment requirements. The Task Force report was published in September and is now in consultation.
Air Transport IT Review discussed the broad issues covered by the report with the Chairman of the Task Force.

Q: With new services coming on stream and a divergence in systems used for aircraft operator communications, there is scope for confusion and complication. SITA is responding with a number of parallel services, but what is your view of the issue?

A: Right now, ACARS is a very valuable tool for us. But there are bandwidth issues, particularly with VHF datalink systems. What we need is the ability to get visual information into the cockpit -- such as real-time weather. To do that we need to leverage the backbone and infrastructure that is already in place for customer-facing applications. We need to bundle multiple capabilities together and use a common system to work them.

Q: Of course, one consequence is the level of investment required -- not an easy call in today's economy. Does that risk putting a drag on the timetable?

A: It depends how you look at it. If you see it as infrastructure that must be put in place first, then there is a problem. However, a core message from the Task Force was that we have to make the business case so that the benefits start to accrue quickly after the technology is put in place.

I like to use winglets as an example. As soon as the first airplane takes off with winglets on it, you're getting an immediate return on investment.

We need to have the standards, the criteria, all the basic certification done prior to the technology investment being made on a large scale, so that confidence in the system is achieved quickly. Otherwise what happens is that airplanes go through their service life including technology for which the operator never received the benefit.

Some operators have made a big investment in navigational systems, others have made investments in data communications. Strategically, this needs to be looked at as part of the same system because you've got three legs of the stool -- data communications, enhanced surveillance and enhanced navigation -- that all have to be tackled at the same time for NextGen.

Q: Are North America, Europe and Asia on different timetables?

A: North America and Europe are pretty well aligned in terms of technical standards. There are variations on equipment mandates and the equipment's road maps and strategies. But there are multiple touchpoints between the European SESAR programme and NextGen. For example, with ADS-B, the technical specifications are pretty well lined up with each other. We have to keep an eye on things, however, because there is a risk of projects moving forward according to different timelines.

The Europeans are dealing with different elements to those we face in the US -- such as national boundaries and air traffic control issues. In the US it's more a matter of the structure and processes in the bureaucracy and getting alignment at the national level to be able to move these projects forward. The efforts of the FAA are diffused across the airspace instead of focusing on improvements in a particular metroplex area.

In the Task Force report, we have suggested approaching this from a geographic perspective. That's where you will be able to demonstrate the real benefits. Then over time, as you work on the 10-15 largest metroplexes in the country, you can complete the work for the rest of the system. But you have to jump start this somewhere -- which is why we've suggested starting with some of the largest hubs.

Q: What difference will the new technologies make in the cockpit? Are we going to see all pilots using head-up displays?

A: We're already seeing circumstances where, with a head-up display, pilots can land in lower visibility with a less advanced ground infrastructure. The same applies to taxiing. The point is that whether the pilot is using a head-up display or another capability, as an operator the new technology allows you access to parts of the airspace or to particular airports because your airplane is better equipped than someone else's.

But there's an investment decision to be made. If you're a carrier flying up and down the east coast of the US against someone flying across desert areas, you are probably more inclined to equip your airplane with a more advanced ability to operate in low visibility weather.

Q: Will that require new skills?

A: It won't need radical new skills, but there are significant human factors issues that must be addressed -- not only for pilots but also air traffic controllers. The roles of these two groups have already begun to change and they will continue to change as new automation is introduced.

For example, over time, we'll use time spacing rather than distance spacing to handle the merging and spacing of traffic as it enters a busy terminal area. The system will have situational awareness of where all the other airplanes are coming in from different points of the compass.

If they are sequenced by time rather than distance, how does the controller monitor and still keep traffic separated in that type of environment -- and what is the role of the pilot in monitoring the performance of his airplane?

Q: With the report of the Task Force now delivered, what's the next stage?

A: It is still a little too early to tell. So far we have received broad, solid support for the Task Force recommendations. But of course the devil is in the detail -- because the recommendations will require the FAA to do business in a different way than it does now.

The Government is used to developing platforms and programmes rather than capabilities. When you are talking about capabilities -- as we are -- there is a lot more integration work to be done both from an organisational as well as a technology perspective.

I am not interested in having a new piece of equipment on my airplane unless I know that it will deliver benefits. Will it result in increased capacity at airports or improved flexibility in the airspace or greater situational awareness in the operations control centre? Will it allow us to make better decisions and be better coordinated with air traffic controllers?

All of these elements are part of the NextGen package, but from the operators' and vendors' point of view, we have to hold Government entities accountable for delivering on those benefits, not just delivering on programmes.

The problem we face in the US is that the FAA works according to a budget cycle and a budget process that gets programmes funded. Sometimes these programmes run over several years. We would prefer to see a process that looks, for example, at the airspace around New York, or Atlanta or Los Angeles and asks how we can get better performance in that part of the airspace before moving to another -- and that requires investment across several lines of business.

Technology is a part of that, but so are certification standards, separation criteria, controller and pilot procedures. Technology is one of the elements -- a critical one -- but it is not the only one.

Q: So it's about getting rid of silos -- of pursuing joined-up thinking?

A: Absolutely right. The issue is not technology. It's the application of technology -- and the point is that policies, procedures and other elements have been outpaced by our technical capabilities. So we have to get that synchronized. We know what the product is supposed to look like -- the challenge is getting from here to there.

Once we've dealt with the issues I have mentioned, such as standards, then the road is clear. We want to equip our airplanes with the technology to do these things but there is a lot more we have to do first. We are heading in the right direction to deal with policies and procedures for everyone to use and that are applicable to the new technologies. And that will jump start the business case for those technologies. So we're on our way.

About the RTCA
RTCA was established in the US in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. Today it is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-based recommendations regarding communications, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) system issues. RTCA functions as a Federal Advisory Committee. Its recommendations are used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the basis for policy, program, and regulatory decisions and by the private sector as the basis for development, investment and other business decisions.

RTCA includes roughly 335 government, industry and academic organizations from the US and around the world. Members represent all facets of the aviation community, including government organizations, airlines, airspace users and airport associations, labour unions, as well as aviation service and equipment suppliers.

SITA and the next generation

The introduction of advanced cockpit systems and applications such as electronic flight bags and electronic logbooks will enable the long-awaited implementation of paperless processes in the cockpit. It will also allow airlines to leverage new levels of system intelligence to better diagnose problems, fine-tune procedures, and minimize delays in initiating corrective actions.

New generation aircraft - such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 - not only herald a quantum leap in airframe design, but are also the first aircraft to incorporate highly advanced cockpit IT systems using the generic Internet protocol (IP) to interconnect aircraft systems and communicate with their ground-based counterparts.

By tightly integrating these new generation cockpit IT systems with ground networks, airlines can improve operations and implement a fully 'paperless cockpit'. Through high-speed communication links on the ground at airports (over generic wireless technologies) and in-flight (via broadband satellite networks), new cockpit IT systems will provide flight and ground crews with faster access to much richer levels of information.

SITA AIRCOM™ is implementing new generation services that will initially complement and over the next 10 to 15 years progressively replace ACARS. The AIRCOM™ next generation services will follow two parallel paths: ICAO-defined VDL and ATN links for Air Traffic Services (ATS), and IP links for Aircraft Operator Communications (AOC).

This aircraft system divergence means that in future aircraft will have systems making parallel use of the AIRCOM™ ACARS, ATN and IP services. The AIRCOM™ ACARS communications service will be complemented by a new AIRCOM™ IP service for AOC, running in parallel with the ATN service for ATS to support both ICAO ATN and IP services.

To learn more, read our positioning paper New Generation Cockpit IT Integration (0.83 MB)

FAA retains SITA

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Oceanic program has retained SITA as its FANS (Future Air Navigation System) aircraft datalink service provider for a third successive five-year term. SITA provides the service through its global AIRCOM™ network of VHF stations and satellite operators, also used for airline operational communications by over 9,000 aircraft.

> Read more