ifatca the controller - april 2012
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Also in this Issue:
4 Flying the A380
4 Bali & China
4 EASA Rulemaking
4 DATALINK: YOU HAVE MAIL!
INTE
R-NA
TIONA
L FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS’ ASSNS.
THE CONTROLLER
Journal of Air Traffi c ControlApril 2012
Bidding Roster Planning OJT Planning Check In BreakPlanner
Leave Planning Duty Swapping StatusChecker Check OutFlow from A-Z
Staff Planning Made Simple
Contact : Integra - Michael Silau - [email protected] - +4522666120
The Traf�cPlanner provides �ow managers with a perfect overview of the future traf�c situation.
The Traf�cPlanner calculates the workload impact for each working position, based ontraf�c load and complexity calculations. Adjustable parameters such as weather conditions,�ight data, military activity and con�ict detection are calculated and analysed by the system.
The Traf�cPlanner features intuitive traf�c monitoring in an easy-to-use layout, featuring:
• Online radar screen – showing moving predicted air traffic• Complexity levels in colour graphics• Sector load figures in colour graphics• Optimal sector configuration suggestion
Developed by Air Traf�c Controllers
The Traf�cPlanner provides �ow managers with a perfect overview of the
Traf�cPlanner
Traf�cPlanner
Contents
THE CONTROLLER
In this issue:Cover photo:Naddsy/wikimedia
April 2012Volume 51 Issue 1 – ISSN 0010-8073
Bidding Roster Planning OJT Planning Check In BreakPlanner
Leave Planning Duty Swapping StatusChecker Check OutFlow from A-Z
Staff Planning Made Simple
Contact : Integra - Michael Silau - [email protected] - +4522666120
The Traf�cPlanner provides �ow managers with a perfect overview of the future traf�c situation.
The Traf�cPlanner calculates the workload impact for each working position, based ontraf�c load and complexity calculations. Adjustable parameters such as weather conditions,�ight data, military activity and con�ict detection are calculated and analysed by the system.
The Traf�cPlanner features intuitive traf�c monitoring in an easy-to-use layout, featuring:
• Online radar screen – showing moving predicted air traffic• Complexity levels in colour graphics• Sector load figures in colour graphics• Optimal sector configuration suggestion
Developed by Air Traf�c Controllers
Traf�cPlanner
Traf�cPlannerAlso in this Issue:
4 Flying the A380
4 Bali & China
4 EASA Rulemaking
4 DATALINK: YOU HAVE MAIL!
INTER-
NATIO
NAL F
EDERATIO
N OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS’ ASSNS.
THE CONTROLLER
Journal of Air Traffi c ControlApril 2012
The editorial team has endeavored to include all owner information, or at least source information for the images used in this issue. If you believe that an image was used without permission, please contact the editor via http://www.the-controller.net
Editorial ....................................…………………………………...... 4Obituaries .........…………………………..……………………..…….... 5
Foreword from the Executive Board ........………………..…………... 6 Datalink ..........……….. Datalink Frustration ....................…………… 7
Oceanic Airspace ....………..…………………. 9 Datalink in Africa ...……………………………. 10
ATSAW & Initial 4D ....………………………… 11 16 Years of Operational Experience ...…...... 12
Link 2000+ ....…….…………………………….. 14 Datalink in Singapore ....…….……………….. 15 Datalink on the A380 ....…………………….... 16Aircraft .........………………..... Flying the A380 ....................………………... 18 Record breaking fl ight B787 ....……………... 20Technology .........……………… VoIP ....................………………………………. 21Safety .........…………………….. Safety Cards ....................…………………..... 22 EASA Rulemaking ....……………..………….... 23Asia/Pacifi c .........……………… China ....................…………………………...... 26 Bali ....……………..…………………………...... 27Feature .........……………….... An American SST ....................………………. 30Carlos/Charlie .......………………………………………………….………………. 33
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF IFATCA
Alexis BrathwaitePresident and Chief Executive Offi cer
Patrik PetersDeputy President
Patrick ForreyExecutive Vice-President Technical
Scott ShalliesExecutive Vice-President Professional
Darrell MeachumExecutive Vice-President Finance
Keziah OgutuExecutive Vice-President Africa and Middle East
VacantExecutive Vice-PresidentAmericas
D. K. BeheraExecutive Vice-President Asia and Pacifi c
Željko OreškiExecutive Vice-President Europe
Philippe DomogalaConference Executive
Adell HumphreysSecretary
REGIONAL EDITORSAmericas: Doug Church (USA)Phil Parker (Hong Kong)Europe: Patrik Peters & David Guerin
COPY EDITORSPaul Robinson, Helena Sjöström,Stephen Broadbent, Brent Cash, Andrew Robinson and David Guerin
LAYOUT & PRINTINGLITHO ART GmbH & Co. Druckvorlagen KGFriesenheimer Straße 6aD 68169 MannheimGERMANY
Tel: +49 (0)621 3 22 59 10Fax: +49 (0)621 3 22 59 14email: [email protected]
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this magazine are those of the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associa-tions (IFATCA) only when so indicated. Other views will be those of individual members or contributors concerned and will not necessarily be those of IFATCA, except where indicated. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in this publication is correct, IFATCA makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the nature or accuracy of the information. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or used in any form or by any means, without the specific prior written permission of IFATCA.
VISIT THE IFATCA WEB SITES: www.ifatca.org and www.the-controller.net
PUBLISHERIFATCA, International Federation of Air Traffi c Controllers‘ Associations1255 University Street · Suite 408Montreal, Quebec · H3B 3B6 · CANADA
Phone: +1514 866 7040Fax: +1514 866 7612 · Email: offi [email protected]
EDITOR-IN-CHIEFPhilip MarienVan Dijcklaan 31B-3500 Hasselt, Belgiumemail: [email protected]
DEPUTY EDITORPhilippe Domogalaemail: [email protected]
CORPORATE AFFAIRSVacant
3 THE CONTROLLER
Editorial
4
OLD WINE IN NEW WINESKINSBRAND NEW AIRCRAFT, CRACKLY OLD RADIO
by Philip Marien, Editor^
As of February 2012, the farthest man- made object in the universe, Voyager 1, is about 18 billion km (17,916,000,000 km to be exact) from the Earth. Its current rela-tive velocity to the sun is 61,400 km/h. It was built and launched in the 1970s, with technology from that era. Despite this, en-gineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory can still communicate with the probe, via a (rather slow 160 bits/s) datalink connec-tion. It may take 16.5 hours for a one-way message, but it does get there and back!
Which makes it all the more frustrating that in a lot of cases, we have trouble getting a message to/from aircraft, which are only a few hundreds of kilometers away and are travelling at a fraction of the speed! If 40 years ago, they could come up with a tech-nology robust enough to survive 35 years in outer space, one would expect they’d have something lying around to improve on a technology invented by a Brazilian priest in 1900*.
As you’ll see from the articles on datalink in this issue, it’s slowly coming. But even today, it very much looks like datalink will co-exist with VHF and even HF voice communica-
tions for the foreseeable future rather than replace it all together… One of the prob-lems appears to be that despite aviation probably being the most global business to be in, that same business has failed to come up with a global standard. This appears to be the weakness of datalink and the strength of the current technology. It’s also the expla-nation as to why radiotelephony will be with us for at least another few decades: it’s a widely available, open standard. Unlike da-talink, once you have the equipment and a bit of maintenance set up, you don’t have to pay anyone for the privilege of using it. And in today’s competitive world of aviation, that seems to be a winning argument, never mind the drawbacks…
And for a lot (all?) of airlines today, it’s about quick wins. If an investment doesn’t pay off within a few weeks/months, it’s of-ten not worth spending the money. This explains why passengers these days often have better and quicker ways of commu-nicating with the world they’re overflying than the pilots and controllers. Unlike the cockpit communications, giving passen-gers access to internet and mobile teleph-ony in-flight actually generates money for the airlines.
It’s almost an anachronism that we still rely on something as old as radiotelephony to
control modern airframes like the A380. As you’ll see from Philippe Domogala’s experience, the cockpit is rapidly evolving towards an office, with the pilots acting more as managers than anything else… It’s a shame that the communication means aren’t evolving with them.
Other articles include a look at China and Bali, an interview with the EASA Director of Rulemaking and other, hopefully inter-esting articles.
As always, if you think you have something interesting to share with our readers, feel free to let the editorial team know. ^
Until next time,
*On June 3rd 1900, Brazilian priest Roberto Landell de Moura was the first to publically demonstrate the transmission of a human voice using wireless signals. The dem-onstration was done in São Paulo, Brazil, between two stations approximately 8 km from each other.
Photo: NASA
Obituaries
5
CHARLES STUART
MARTIN W. COLE
25 OCTOBER 1940 – 7 MARCH 2012
17 JUNE 1953 - 18 FEBRUARY 2012
On the eve of IFATCA’s 51st Annual Con-ference, we learned that Charles Stuart, former President and Chief Executive Of-ficer, passed away following a brief battle with cancer.
Charles served the Federation as Execu-tive Vice President Technical in 1989, and following a restructure of the Executive Board, he was elected President of IFAT-CA in 1990. He served as President for four years and it is hard to underestimate the impact he had on our Federation. He strongly believed that IFATCA had a piv-otal role to play in determining how the management of air traffic would progress in the 21st century, and was a strong advo-cate of setting up an independent full-time headquarters for the Federation to im-prove our relationship with ICAO, IFALPA, and IATA. We achieved this in 1997, when we opened our office in Montreal.We will remember Charles as someone unafraid to stand up for his beliefs, chief
amongst which was the undying support of family, friends and his much loved profes-sion. Well known throughout the aviation fraternity, he was able to relate with all from the highest elected office to those at the beginning (or end) of humble careers.
Charles’ one-of-a-kind personality reflect-ed in his dedication to the air traffic con-troller profession. This strong advocacy of a worldwide body for controllers, as well as his infectious smile and sense of hu-mour, will live with us always. He was one
of those rare persons of whom you can truly say that the world is a better place because he lived in it. We shall all deeply miss him.
On behalf of the IFATCA family, we extend our sincere condolences to the family and anyone who was fortunate enough to have known him. ^
IFATCA Executive Board& Editorial Team The Controller
to IFATCA, ensuring that IFATCA’s policies evolved to keep pace with the industry.
In retirement, Martin remained available to his former colleagues, providing advice and support as necessary. Martin was one of those truly special persons who under-stood that service to others was a high call-ing that could be achieved without deny-ing one’s own self. He always showed the
greatest of respect for himself and others at all time.
We extend our sympathies to his part-ner, Peter, and the rest of his family and relatives.
IFATCA Executive Board& Editorial Team The Controller
We’re saddened to report that Martin W. Cole, former Executive Vice-President Technical, passed away on Saturday, 18 February 2012.
Mr. Cole was Executive Vice-President Technical from 1997 - 1999 and was the first NATCA member to serve on the IFAT-CA Executive Board. He retired as an air traffic controller from the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).
Martin was one of NATCA’s first technical Liaisons, becoming integrally involved in Controller Pilot Data-Link Communications (CPDLC). Mr. Cole served on numerous aviation related committees and working groups addressing how to improve control-ler and pilot communications. Martin was known as one of the most, if not the most, knowledgeable persons about how Data-Comm and DataLink would change aviation. Martin brought this knowledge and passion
amongst which was the undying support of of those rare persons of whom you can
Foreword
6
we must build integrated, holistic systems and not those that are piecemeal. This is an important key to success for the future.
However, initiatives such as SESAR and NEXTGEN are still a long way from defining how something will actually be done in an air traffic control/management sense, like-wise for the ASBU’s. One has to realize that these documents have not been subject to rigorous review, and controllers world wide retain a good deal of scepticism on the expectations being touted concerning the capabilities and enhancements these initia-tives profess in the time frames provided.
From the airspace user perspective, the benefit of any change in equipage without the ground first using what the aircraft are already capable of will be difficult to ac-cept. It will be even harder to get airspace users to equip for “future service provision concepts” that are only research ideas at present and have not been validated. Nonetheless, the new technologies and procedures appear promising in ways to enhance safety and increase capacity.
If one looks closely at the technology and procedures being developed for the future ATM, one common enabler resonates – Data Link. The foundation of NextGen and SESAR in particular hinge on the ability for automated communication and surveillance to support Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) and Performance Based Navigation (PBN). IFATCA does not believe this capa-bility will replace traditional voice commu-nication, but it will definitely enhance it with situational awareness through airborne sur-veillance, clarity through a common mes-sage set and workload improvements.
These benefits do not come without the risks of transmission delays, addressing er-rors or human factors issues. Data link is a costly and sensitive technology, which may explain why deployment has not pro-gressed much since IFATCA’s 2009 Tech-
nical Newsletter on data link initiatives. There are other problems as well.
During oceanic flights, aircraft use the Future Air Navigation System (FANS 1/A) surveillance and communication tools to provide position reports and exchange clearances and other messages outside radar & VHF radio coverage. Continental operations in Europe primarily utilize the Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) based on the Aeronautical Tel-ecommunications Network (ATN) service, mostly due to IFATCA’s rigorous objec-tions to FANS limited CPDLC deficiencies.
In most models, FANS allows for the auto-load of some clearance elements in the FMS, which will become a crucial feature for the future 4D trajectories concept, but its performance and integrity may not be sufficient for continental operations. ATN, in its European version (ATN/Baseline 1), does not offer the full CPDLC message set nor the Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contract (ADS-C) application and satel-lite communications capabilities needed for oceanic operations, but does provide the performance and reliability needed for short term tactical ATC instructions in busy and complex airspace.
Next year, data link is being mandated for a specified part of the North Atlantic (NAT) Track system and a part of the European airspace (EUR), but not for the USA. This will create a situation in which the NAT will utilize FANS while continental Europe will use ATN. These two systems are incom-patible. Adding to this divergence from harmonization, the FAA appears to be set on implementing FANS data link in the continental US airspace using older tech-nology and message sets.
This double standard for aircraft equipage has been a long-standing issue without a resolution in sight other than to equip air-craft and ground systems with both capabil-
The future of Air Traffic Management has been keeping the world busy as of late. With NextGen, SESAR, CARATS and doz-ens of other technological and procedural initiatives around the globe, the entire avi-ation community along with the contract-ing states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is deep in the throes of changing aviation to meet the demands of the 21st century and beyond.
It goes without saying that these initiatives are not all alike. SESAR, NextGen, CAR-ATS and all the others are serving different ATM environments with different political objectives. IFATCA applauds ICAO for taking the lead in the adoption of Avia-tion System Block Upgrades (ASBU). To-gether with the Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP), states will have a roadmap on the technology and procedures available to move the world’s ATM upgrades in the same direction.
Without a doubt, the need for a collabora-tive international commitment to address the challenges aviation faces now and for the future is paramount, and that is why IFATCA participates in these activities. I believe this is truly an exciting time for controllers, as we face new possibilities in the ways of doing our jobs, in some in-stances, only bounded by our imagination. The important point to remember is that
Patrick Forrey, IFATCA Executive Vice President Technical
FOREWORD FROMTHE EXECUTIVE BOARDNEED FOR THE HARMONIZATION
Photo: SempreVolando
^
Clearly, we have a very dif-ficult challenge in transform-ing today’s system to one that achieves the dreams and research of tomorrow. It is important that we build inte-grated, holistic systems that provide the necessary technol-ogy and procedures required to meet the needs of the 21st century and beyond. Lesson learned with data link should provide the history we don’t want to repeat. ^
ities; a costly and impractical solution. There is a need for consistency of service delivery at the controller-pilot level, which requires the standardization of message sets that doesn’t currently exist between the two systems.
IFATCA believes that the long-term global solution will come from new standards en-compassing both oceanic and continental airspace needs. A joint standardization work group composed of RTCA SC-214 and EURO-CAE WG-78 has been given the crucial task of comprehensively defining the next data link applications and services, so that manufactur-ers and users could enjoy a single set of stand-ards to equip aircraft and ground centres for oceanic and continental operations with
seamless transitions. The ICAO Operational Data Link Panel (OPLINK), of which IFATCA is a member, will reference these industry standards, update the ICAO documentation, and provide guidance material and a global data link harmonization plan, so that data link deployment shall never be delayed again by parallel and incompatible developments.
The contracting states of ICAO, system stakeholders, and industry all have a vital role to play in developing the aviation system of the future. The compatibility issue associ-ated with data link – an intrinsic enabler of the future ATM – illustrates the need for the harmonization of technology and procedures in this transformational process.
DATALINK FRUSTRATION
^ by Rob Mead, Datalink Veteran
IS PROGRESS REALLY AS SLOW AS SOME PERCEIVE?
where you tell people you plan to do it and they let you go ahead because they think there’s not a chance in the world that you’ll get it done.So let’s start there. What has been behind the successes I’ve enjoyed being a part of? Here’s a short list from my perspective.
1. All have established a clear operational objective at the beginning, and have stayed focused on that operational objective above all else, from start to finish.
2. All recognized early on that datalink is tough, and that they needed to make it easy on all parties to help them succeed. They did that by:
a. Fitting into current proce-dures as much as possible. Fancy ideas, no matter how tempting, must be proven necessary, because they are going to cost you.
not addressing transition, or lack of a clear operational focus.
If you look around, datalink has succeeded. It brings benefits every day, and it’s expanding geographically and functionally every single day. The implementations that have trouble are generally doing one thing wrong. They aren’t copying enough. They think they can be unique and succeed. That’s just not going to happen in datalink.
I should probably stop there, but I was asked for a couple pages so let’s take this a little deeper.
I’ve been involved in air/ground datalink for over 30 years now in one way or another. I was a user (or operator if you prefer, as I still do) of a range of pretty sophisticated links for my formative 10 years, then went on to 20 years of design and implementation in the civil aviation arena. During that time, from operator to implementer, I’ve generally had successful experiences. The civil aviation side has been slow and painful for sure, but still largely successful.
That success is true even though a few of the experiences have been about as high risk as they could be. They’ve been kinds of things
I’ve been asked the same basic question twice in the last few months, something along the lines of “why hasn’t air/ground da-talink delivered?” Both times, my immediate thought was: “It has. What you really mean is ‘why hasn’t air/ground datalink succeeded in the airspace I’m interested in?”
With that distinction, the question is usually pretty easy to answer. Chances are you’re having trouble because you are trying to do something unique in an area where global cooperation is essential (Not Invented Here syndrome). One layer down, that uniqueness probably traces back to insufficient benefits,
Implementations that have trouble […] aren’t
copying enough.
4 Datalink
7
Foreword
4 Datalink
sition is everything, not the final phase to be figured out later.
3. All have had a benefits target that was real, and it was verified early on as suffi-cient to drive the transition. Inflated ben-efits suck. They make great politics, but they’ll bite you eventually.
4. All had good people throughout the en-tire stakeholder set. The projects found the people that shared the above objec-tives, stuck to those people, and kept eve-ryone else out of their hair.
Those are the things that were present in all of the successes I was a part of. And this brings me back to the initial summary answer I gave: copying is a really good idea. Datalink is tough. There are a lot of entities that have to work together to make it hap-pen, and each of those entities has a slightly or even drastically different agenda from the others. About the worst thing you can do in a situation like that is saddle yourself with an unproven idea. Copy.
If you really think you have a unique need, check it. Then check it again. Then go back and ask yourself if you made a mistake. Be-cause you will pay for being unique, and the price may well be your entire program. Just like ATC, datalink is global. Be global and you’ll be much happier.
For those of you thinking right now that all air-space is not the same, you are right of course. Up to now datalink has been predominantly introduced in low-congestion, low tempo air-space. But that word is “predominantly”, not “exclusively”. Yes, congested airspace data-link is different from uncongested airspace. But ATC is still ATC, and you still need global commonality to make it work. You still need a benefit that will compel airlines to want to invest; mandates and incentives are an in-
88
Phot
o: ©
Lig
htzo
om |
Dre
amst
ime.
com
Both technologies […] are just a tool.
b. Leverage what’s out there. If there’s some-thing in place that meets the requirements, use it. And this means, just as for procedures, make sure requirements that force system change are re-ally a requirement and not someone’s idea of what would be really cool.
c. Transition is dealt with at the start. It doesn’t come later. How will we train crews to do this? How will we train controllers? How will this equipment get on board aircraft and in ground systems? Tran-
complete solution, and the rest of the world has not needed them. Look to what made datalink work elsewhere. Are you offering a per flight benefit that will make an airline want to put the gear on a particular aircraft? Are you leveraging existing equipment where you can? Are you creating an easy transition path for air and ground? Are you introducing something that is likely to last more than 5 years without needing an upgrade?
If you answered any of those questions “no” or “I don’t know”, chances are you are go-ing to find datalink a little frustrating. Copy. There are a lot of smart people out there.
The map on this page, maintained off and on by a couple of constants in the datalink world, Craig Roberts and Tom Kraft, shows that datalink is anything but a sputtering fail-ure. It’s a huge success. Gray and green on the map are planned deployments with firm and funded projects behind them; the brown is deployed already. It’s a large proportion of the world.
Note: Before you start picking it apart, I am aware that this version of the map is incom-plete. Datalink is moving fast enough that it’s hard to keep up with and this map reflects that. And that’s the point: datalink is a grow-ing success.
I will close with one last thought that will come up in some readers’ minds when they review that map. Someone out there is go-ing to think that there is some political objec-tive in that map. They will think that because it has those words FANS-1/A and ATN on there.
In answer to that, I can tell you that on more than one day I have been in front of two dif-ferent audiences, each one of them furious at me because they were convinced that I was an advocate of the opposite technology (op-posite to their preferred technology). Well, I’ve put both technologies in the field. And to me, they are just a tool, nothing more.
The technologies are just a tool. Is the opera-tional objective clear? Is the transition path achievable? Is the benefit clear? Are the re-quirements (the real ones) met? If so, I can succeed. And I am quite sure that if we’ve done a good job with the implementation, the bulk of the pilots and controllers won’t know the specific technology they’re using, and the airlines won’t care what technology they’re carrying. If it is doing what we set out to make it do, operationally, everyone’s happy. And datalink will have delivered. ^
[email protected]: C. Roberts & T. Kraft4 Datalink coverage across the globe.
4 Datalink Datalink
9
DATALINK FOR OCEANIC AIRSPACE
^ by Paul Callahan, Auckland Oceanic Controller, New Zealand
HUGE IMPROVEMENTS OVER ANTIQUATED HF
Auckland Oceanic has been using Datalink now for over ten years and this along with other changes over the same period has re-sulted in huge improvements in the services offered to aircraft in the oceanic environment.
Datalink equipped aircraft log onto NZZO prior to entering Auckland Oceanic airspace. The Oceanic Controller connects up both ADS and CPDLC. Generally this is a straight forward process; however occasionally the log-on does not match the registration that has been filed in the flight plan which can be caused either by the pilot mis-typing the registration when logging on or the flight plan being incorrect. Either way, this is easily solved with another log-on and a change to the registration in the flight plan in the OCS (Oceanic Control System).
The ADS connection that we establish with the aircraft consists of a Periodic Contract which is set at 20 minutes, however this can be adjusted if a more frequent rate is re-quired, such as in an emergency situation. A waypoint change event contract and a lat-eral deviation contract are also established. The lateral deviation contract is set at 5nm and is something that certainly caught pilots out when ADS was first introduced as they could no longer sneak around the odd bit of weather without telling anyone!
into the OCS system without the need of any manual input eliminating the possibility of errors.
The address forwarding pro-cess is fully automated with the Next Data Authority (NDA) and Contact Advisory (CAD) sent at a Variable System Parameter (VSP) prior to the boundary. This process works really well except for flights that ‘hemstitch’ be-tween two boundaries. It can be difficult to retain the active CPDLC connection when an aircraft is leaving your airspace for a short amount of time. CP-DLC requests right before the boundary can also cause issues as coordination requirements with the next sector often mean the aircraft has handed out to the next sector before the clear-ance can be sent.
In summary, both controllers and pilots in Auckland Oceanic airspace find datalink a huge improvement over the days of HF. Clearance requests, especially weather deviation clearances are received much quicker and without the read back hear back errors associ-ated with HF. Position report-ing is much more accurate with pilots no longer having to re-member to update changes to estimates and this increased accuracy has led a more effi-cient use of airspace and ulti-mately a reduction in costs. ^
An on- demand contract is also available allowing the controller to select the information they re-quire. These become very useful in a num-ber of instances, such as determining exactly where the aircraft is after a turn back or re-route to ensure the profile is exact.
Once the datalink equipped aircraft enters Oceanic Airspace, all requests and instructions are sent via CPDLC. The message set contains practically all the messages that would ever be needed, cutting down the need for free-text and its possible ambiguities. Early on it became apparent that alternatives to requests should be sent in a separate message to the unable response to avoid any confusion.
The use of Datalink has enabled the reduc-tion of oceanic separations. With airlines fly-ing user preferred routes and all looking to take advantage of the jet streams the reduc-tion from 15 minute to 30 nm separation has meant that the chance of aircraft being stuck at inefficient levels is dramatically reduced.
The use of DARPs (Dynamic Airborne Re-route Procedure) has allowed airlines to quickly change their routes mid-flight to take advantage of, or avoid weather systems. The full route is sent to the controller via CPDLC and if accepted by the controller, is entered
4 View of the Datalink status window in Auckland Oceanic. Photo: PC
4 A view of the Oceneanic airspace to the North of New Zealand. To give an idea of the scale, QFA11 is nearly abeam Tonga, some 1100 Nm NW of Auckland. Photo: PC
discio, and Johannesburg FIRs to name but the few. Although the AFI plan includes the implementation of ADS-C in large continen-tal and Oceanic airspaces, there is still work to be done. The fact that I was able to get a full connection with a northbound traffic 1000NM from my FIR means that many FIRs are yet to be connected to the system as the CPDLC protocol allows only one connection between an aircraft and an ATSU at a time.
Airbone ComponentAccording to my own observations, less than 60% of aircraft flying through some of the above-mentioned FIRs are ADS/CPDLC capable. The majority are European and American based. Equipage seems to be lower for Asian, Middle Eastern and African based operators. The above mentioned facts make the implementation of the system fairly desirable as the problems of communication and surveillance are solved best with aircraft that are equipped with a compatible ACARS version.
ConclusionThe future is certainly promising, as many ANPS and airlines or aircraft operators will hopefully follow the current trend in the short term. That is why it is important that IATA continues to encourage their members to fully equip their aircraft, but also that the remaining African states and ANSPs include the implementation of ADS/CPDLC in their safety policy. Should we come to a 100% im-plementation in the near future, the use of IFBP will become optional and African skies will earn more credibility. ^
4 Datalink
DATALINK IN AFRICA
^ by Serge TCHANDA, ATCO/Instructor ASECNA
The Africa & Indian Ocean (AFI) geo-graphic region has in the past been labelled as the ‘Dark Continent’, where flights traversed the large airspace with little
or no communication with ATC. In order to have some level of separation, IATA member operators resorted to In–Flight Broadcasting (IFBP) when flying over most of the Flight Information regions (FIRs); this programme remains in use in some of the FIRs. But things are changing: the intro-duction of ADS in the region has improved the communica-tion between Air and Ground, which has benefited safety. During the last 5 years, ADS/CPDLC systems have been implemented in more than 10 FIRs in the AFI region.
Technical IssuesAs a fully operational ATCO, my main concern has always been that of lack of reliable means for air-ground com-munication, especially poor readability and limited VHF coverage. In fact most of our
airspace could be classified as “inhospita-ble”: spread over wide damp forest, deserts, sea and high mountains. Installation and maintenance of ground stations in such areas is very difficult. Outages have occasionally led to some critical incidents including high risk Airprox. The implementation of CPDLC brings an alternative solution for such prob-lem areas. The satellites used ensure that the remotest areas are covered, allowing in-formation exchange with aircraft thousands of miles away. The very first time I used the system, I was able to get useful information (such as estimates, flight level and actual po-sition) from a connected aircraft flying from Johannesburg to Zurich at 1000NM from my FIR boundary: that means more than 2 hours ahead of estimated time at boundary!
Service Level IssuesIATA has signed service level agreements (SLA) with many African ANSPs to improve the service quality. It is therefore a challenge for the latter to meet their commitments among which implementation of reliable and sustainable means of communications, navi-gation and surveillance (CNS) is top priority. Moreover, applying of the AFI air navigation plan many African states have included the enhancement of CNS as part of their main safety policy, which the involved ANSPs must abide by.
Ground EffectivenessMany ATSUs on the continent are already using a datalink system, mainly in Northern Africa: some ASECNA FIRs (Dakar conti-nental and oceanic, Niamey, N’djamena, Brazzaville, Antananarivo, and Abidjan), Seychelles, Accra (Ghana), Khartoum, Moga-
10
MAKING A DIFFERENCE WHERE IT MATTERS!
The Africa & Indian Ocean (AFI) geo-graphic region has in the past been labelled as the ‘Dark Continent’, where flights traversed the large airspace with little
or no communication
4 Consoles in N‘djamena ACC operations room. Photo: ST 4 Close-up of a radar display in N‘djamena ACC. Photo: ST
4 Datalink Datalink
11
COCKPIT SURVEILLANCE ^ by Christos Rekkas,
Eurocontrol CASCADE Programme Manager
The Eurocontrol CASCADE Programme co-ordinates the deployment of initial Auto-matic Dependant Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) applications and Wide Area Multi-lateration (WAM) in Europe. The Programme covers ground surveillance (i.e. ADS-B Out and WAM) and airborne surveillance applica-tions, establishing the baseline for future air-borne Surveillance applications. CASCADE works actively to ensure global interoper-ability. ADS-B and WAM are currently be-ing deployed operationally in Europe and worldwide.
Airborne Traffic Situational Awareness (AT-SAW) provides pilots with a real time picture of the surrounding traffic during all phases of flight. On Oceanic routes where air traf-fic control has no radar picture of traffic, ATSAW enables the pilots to identify oppor-tunities for a safe climb or descent through traffic to a more fuel-efficient or turbulence-free altitude, although they will still have to request clearance for the manoeuvre from ATC. ATSAW will also support visual sepa-ration on approach and provide traffic situ-
This aircraft is part of the AT-SAW Pioneer Project initiative of the EUROCONTROL CAS-CADE Programme. The pro-ject includes a total of 25 Air-bus and Boeing aircraft from British Airways, Delta Airlines, Swiss International Airlines, US Airways and Virgin Atlantic. It also involves the UK and Ice-landic air navigation service providers (NATS and ISAVIA) as they provide the ATC ser-vices in the projected trial area over the North Atlantic.
More information via http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade
ational awareness on the airport surface. AT-SAW is expected to bring concrete benefits in terms of safety and capacity, as well as significant fuel savings per airliner and cor-responding cuts in CO2 emissions.
ADS-B is a surveillance technique that relies on aircraft broadcasting their identity, posi-tion and other information derived from on board systems. This signal can be captured for surveillance purposes from the ground (ADS-B Out) or on board other aircraft (ADS-B In). The latter enables ATSAW, spacing, separation and self-separation applications.
A breakthrough point has been reached in civil aviation with the operational deploy-ment of surveillance capability in the cockpit, using ADS-B. On 7 February, an A330-300 of Swiss International Airlines, equipped with a certified ATSAW system from Airbus (includ-ing a Honeywell traffic computer) took off from Zurich Airport to Montreal. It thus be-came the first European commercial ATSAW flight, providing the pilots with real-time sur-veillance information on surrounding traffic.
WORLD’S FIRST 4D FLIGHT^ by Philip Marien,
Editor
On February 10th 2012, an Airbus A320 test aircraft flew from Toulouse to Copenhagen and Stockholm and successfully validated the capability of the aircraft system to com-ply with time constraints elaborated and ne-gotiated with ATC units through air ground datalink communication. This evolution is referred to as the 4-dimensional trajectory concept, or 4D, meaning a three-dimension-al trajectory plus time. It is a cornerstone of the SESAR programme as it is the first step towards more predictable flights.
Throughout the flight, the trajectory informa-tion containing current and predicted posi-tions was exchanged with the concerned air navigation service providers and airports.
Flying through the Eurocontrol Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) air-
More information on http://goo.gl/VONAT ^
space, the airborne and ground systems agreed on a first time constraint at a merg-ing point close to Copenhagen airport. Af-ter reaching the merging point, the flight climbed and continued into Danish airspace, where a second time constraint was negoti-ated for an optimised descent to a merging point close to Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport, followed by a landing.
The flight trial is part of the SESAR frame-work release process aiming to validate both technical and operational aspects. A significant number of operational valida-tions using flight test aircraft are planned within the context of the SESAR programme over the next two years. Provided all valida-tion exercises are successful, I-4D should be implemented by the European industry by 2018.
4 The different windows showing the 4D datalink exchanges with AIB01CH, the Airbus test aircraft. Photo: eurocontrol
4 ATSAW enables the pilots to identify traffi c in their vicinity.
were integrated into this full-blown Europe-an ATM project. It was the time of high ATC delays in Europe and one of the prime limita-tions for additional capacity was found to be frequency congestion. Simulations showed that frequency use could be reduced by some 60%, thereby reducing an ATCO’s R/T workload by 30 to 50%. This translated into an estimated 11% ATC capacity gain, at least in a scenario where 75% of the traffic was da-talink equipped. This was deemed promising enough to pursue…
Moving from a trial to operational use was a challenge for Maastricht. Not in the least because a switch to a new display system was foreseen (from an alphanumeric to a win-dow based system) changing later to a label based design. Eventually, some 20 airlines agreed to participate and got certified. To-day, only 5 of those airlines are responsible for more than 95% of the ATN datalink traffic at Maastricht.
Over the years, actual CPDLC usage at Maastricht has always increased, despite the occasional downturns in traffic levels (e.g. in 2001 and 2008). Even so, the overall percent-age of the traffic using CPDLC remains too low to have a noticeable effect on our daily work and therefore on capacity: so far only some 5% of aircrew select to log-on to the Maastricht datalink service despite the ser-vice having been nearly continuously avail-able since 2004. Some 50% is wide body traffic using FANS 1/A technology, which is not part of the EU ATN DL mandate.
Over the years, message sets were adapted and their usage evolved as well. Currently, more than 58% of the messages are transfer-ring aircraft to the next sector. Second most popular (around 20%) is the route clearance (to send aircraft to a routepoint/position). Around 14% are level clearances and the remaining 6% of messages are automated SSR code uplinks. The latter is somewhat misleading, as only a small number of air-
4 Datalink
16 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE
^ by Volker Stuhlsatz, Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre
The year is 2012 AD. The whole of Europe still uses radio-telephony to control aircraft. The whole of Europe? Not quite! A small, pioneer-
ing multi-national control centre inside FABEC has been using data-link for more than a decade to combat daily traffic invasions…
In 1995, the first Preliminary Eurocontrol Trials Air/ground Data Link (PETAL) were restrict-ed to Airbus flights between Hamburg and Toulouse. De-spite the restrictions of the age-ing HMI, the limited number of
trial flights proved that the concept worked, at least for strategic messages (i.e. non-sep-aration instructions). If anything, controllers highly appreciated the down linked param-eters (heading, airspeed and vertical speed), over a decade before enhanced Mode-S.
Obviously a follow up project had to prove itself to a broader audience. PETAL II (two) introduced some 11 airlines and a variety of aircraft types to datalink in all Maastricht-UAC sectors. Between 1998 and 2002, some 12.000 successful flights were completed us-ing a mix of platforms: NEAN (VDL mode 4), FANS 1/A and ATN (VDL mode 2). Despite the different protocols, the controllers’ HMI was the same. Overcoming some important challenges, including having a reduced mes-sage set, HMI development and limited pilot and ATCO exposure, the system became a powerful additional ATC tool, though still mostly used strategically.
From PETAL II to LINK2000(+)When the LINK2000 project entered the scene, the rather modest Maastricht trials
12
CPDLC AND THE AIRLINES
12
The year is 2012 AD. The whole of Europe still uses radio-telephony to control aircraft. The whole of Europe? Not quite! A small, pioneer-
ing multi-
One of the prime limitations for additional capacity was found to be
frequency congestion.
airborne and ground systems has a very high potential for ATC capacity gain.
What about Human Factors?The loss of the so-called party-line effect has proven less of an issue, at least in the type of airspace that Maastricht UAC controls. For pilots, it’s often too busy to follow what is going on. And in high traffic levels, the con-trollers appear to rely more and more on the visual aspects, i.e. their systems having up-dated information as easily as possible.
This offloading of the audio channel and more emphasis on the visual cortex will re-quire changes to both ground and airborne routines. On the ground, this might involve redistributing the tasks between the execu-tive and planning controller, but it’s difficult to predict exactly what this will entail.
CPDLC might be an enabler for future con-cepts, such as the multi-sector planner. Re-cent simulator validations show a lot of poten-tial, but this has yet to be proven in every day traffic. If anything, it could result in controlling in certain types of airspace once more becom-ing more strategic rather than tactical.
Where Next?The requirement for a Voice Read Back (VRB), presently still needed for all profile changing messages, will be removed ASAP. For the so-called “Protected Mode” PM aircraft using ATN (VDLm2) or FANS B, this is planned for the end of 2012 by using a 24-bit address.
The FANS1/A message sets will be reduced in accordance with the safety case require-ments: due to the technical limitations for the system, a readback of level changes would still be required. By removing these, it will allow 100% homogeneous datalink procedures independent of any underlying technology used.
While the strength of datalink is probably not in emulating voice via text messages, the real use will be by integrating arrival manag-ers with the onboard FMSes. As highlighted in other articles, the first successful trials are already underway. The final implementation is probably still relatively far down the road and many issues still need to be resolved un-til we arrive there! ^
4 Datalink
craft actually require an SSR code change in the airspace. But since it relieves the ATCO completely of a very error prone, routine task, it’s probably the most popular appli-cation of datalink together with the sector transfer.
So what’s taking so long?Essentially, with ground implementation dates constantly shifting, many airlines could not really be convinced to start equipping. This in turn didn’t make it very urgent for ANSPs to equip either: the famous chicken and egg problem… Only in 2009, when the EU adopted their Datalink Implementation Rule for traffic above FL285, were definite implementation dates set not only for the airborne but also for the ground-based sys-tems. Since the beginning of last year (2011) nearly all-new production aircraft have to be CPDLC equipped. In combination with some 500 early equippers benefiting from a EU incentive scheme, we are hopeful of seeing a quick increase in the number of equipped aircraft before the ground implementation mandate in the core area in February 2013. But with the retrofit for existing airframes not required til Feb. 2015 and a possibility of new long-range aircraft (up to 2014) having a lifetime exemption, we’ll still be some time away from the targeted 75% equipage in the European airspace.
What about FANS 1/A?Accommodating FANS 1/A services in high-density airspace is not straightforward. There are performance issues, both in how fast messages are delivered as well as concerning the robustness of the system in coping with late or even mis-delivery of messages. This has resulted in the safety cases restricting da-talink services to non-profile changing mes-sages. Despite this restriction, use of FANS 1/A in dense continental airspace should still bring some benefits to the estimated 20% of the traffic, which will use this system.
Airborne useWhile carrying the equipment will be manda-tory, using it will not be. By having archaic HF replaced with datalink, long-haul crews are generally convinced of the benefits already. But things are different for the busy short-haul flight crews. Trying to squeeze in an ad-ditional element in an already high workload environment (fast turnarounds, short cruise phases, increased paperwork etc). They would only spend a relatively short time in CPDLC airspace, so the benefit would be proportionally limited…
A lot is expected from further automatic ex-changes to reduce workload on both sides: apart from the current AUTO SSR code up-link, cross checking the filed route between
13
The loss of the so-called party-line effect has
proven less of an issue.
4 Aircraft is logged-on but no CPDLC (yet).
4 Aircraft is logged-on and CPDLC connected. There are no open dialogues with the aircraft.
4 A message was sent and is awaiting a closing operational response.
4 Aircrew has sent a downlink request to ATC.
4 Yellow indicated a time-out, an UNABLE response or a technical error.
4 Separate window shows CPDLC dialogues.
All Photos: MUAC
plementing Rule (DLS-IR, EC Reg. 29/2009). This stipulates that all “core” European ANSPs need to have Datalink operational by 2013 above FL285. The rest of Europe has until 2015 to comply with this implementa-tion rule.
EUROCONTROL’s Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) has been using air-ground datalink in daily operations since 2003. Within its international area of responsi-bility, which totals 260,000 km2 over the Ben-elux and North-West Germany, close to 520 datalink messages are exchanged each day.
On 26 January 2012 DFS Deutsche Flug-sicherung GmbH went live with Controller Pilot Datalink (CPDLC) in the German up-per airspace controlled by Karlruhe UAC. As a neighbouring centre of Maastricht UAC, it’s a highly significant step forward for the implementation of datalink in Europe. DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH has taken a positive and decisive step to come on line as the first Datalink partner for Maastricht. Extending the datalink map over Europe by connecting to neighbouring airspaces will significantly increase datalink usage and hence bring clear benefits both for airlines and for air navigation service providers.
At the same time airborne equipage is being stimulated by the incentives package funded by the European Commission (TENT-EA) and all new aircraft must now have Datalink as standard.
So we can say that the “ball is rolling” to-wards full European implementation by 2015, in accordance with the Single Euro-pean Sky regulation. ^
More information on the LINK2000+ Programme can
be found online: www.eurocontrol.int/link2000
4 Datalink
DATALINK IN EUROPE
^ by Martin Adnams, LINK2000+ Programme Manager, EUROCONTROL
Modifications to route struc-tures and sectorization to cope with traffic growth are reach-ing their limit. The cost of not meeting the demand, in terms of delay and lost revenue for the airlines may be high, par-ticularly if the traffic estimates are exceeded.
New technologies support-ing the ATC process will help to meet the growing demand. Controller Pilot Datalink Com-munication (CPDLC) is one of the first such new technologies which can make a direct impact on ATC capacity.
The LINK 2000+ Programme packages a first set of en-route CPDLC services into a benefi-cial and affordable set for implementation in the European Airspace.
LINK 2000+ “simply” implements three basic services. These should help to auto-mate routine tasks, which fill up to 50% of the controllers’ time today. Studies have shown that, with an equipage rate of 75%, this would result in an 11% capacity increase. The basic services are ATC communications management to handle repetitive frequency changes; ATC clearances to provide stand-ard clearances; and ATC microphone check to enable communication in case of blocked frequencies. Datalink implementation in Eu-rope is governed by the Datalink Services Im-
14
AN OPERATIONAL REALITY WITHIN 3 YEARS
4 Map showing the areas affected by the implementation rule. Photo: eurocontrol
charges per message, pretty much like a telephone provider charges for text messages*. Recently a large, low cost car-rier in the region said that all its aircraft were equipped but it will not train its pilots to use it nor will they agree to pay the SATCOM charges associated with the service. The core busi-ness of a low cost airline is to keep costs as low as possible, so why pay extra for a service that can be provided for free via HF? So HF continues to be used, and the service provider still needs to employ and re-cruit HF radio operators… ^
(*) one CPDLC message via satellite typically costs between US$ 0,50 and 3,00, depending on the length. For a long range flight, this can add up to US$100 per flight or more…
Traffic in Singapore area has increased by 18% in the last 2 years. Forecasts predict a 9 – 10% increase for the coming years. CDPLC is seen as a tool, which reduces workload and thereby contributes to safely enabling the traffic growth in the area.
Prime user of CPDLC is Singapore Airlines, especially their B747s, B777s and A340s. CPDLC is faster and easier to use than HF in the oceanic sector. Currently, between 30 and 35% of traffic in the area is equipped, though it would seem that this has somewhat stagnated. At a cost of approximately US$ 500,000 per aircraft, very few additional air-lines seem prepared to equip or retrofit their aircraft. And even the massive arrival of new aircraft in the region, which come with the equipment standard installed, some airlines do not want to pay for the service – which
4 Datalink
MARITIME SEPARATION:
On the northern side of Singapore’s Changi international airport, there’s a shipping chan-nel. The proximity of this channel and the height of some of the ships affects flights landing from the north and those depart-ing to the north. Aircraft using runway 20 for landing will be vectored so that they make the final approach when ships are clear of the ILS glide path for this runway. Occasionally, traffic is switched to use the eastern runway. For departures to the north, Changi tower passes information on a ship to the pilots, who will then plan their departure profile to stay clear. If the aircraft is unable to do this, the pilot should ask to delay their take-off until the ship is clear of the departure path.
The tower controller, who has information on the crossing shipping traffic and is able to determine the actual location of the ship visually, will inform the pilot when he can de-part with the minimum or no delay.
The Port Authority will report information of ship crossing the northern channel to ATC. It includes the identity, type, height and the entry and exit point estimates. The ATC Ship Crossing Unit will then verify the ship’s height using a special camera, which can measures the ship’s height very accurately. This infor-mation will then be relayed to Changi Tower. Ship crossing information will only be passed to pilots of departing aircraft. ^
Singapore uses a modern Thales radar sys-tem (Eurocat) and will soon upgrade to an even better one, LORADS3, one of the latest generation systems. But the centre also has a very large non-radar oceanic sector, extend-ing some 800 NM out of Singapore. In this airspace, they’ve been using FANS-1/A CP-DLC since 1995. They plan to have ADS-C based operations towards the end of 2012.
15
“SPEEDBIRD 123, “SHIP CROSSING, EASTBOUND, HEIGHT 38 METRES!“
DATALINK IN SINGAPORE
^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor
4 Sector 5 (Oceanic) position in Singapore ACC. Photo: DP
4 Screenshot of the CPDLC interface. Photo: DP
4 Radar map of the channel. Photo: DP
4 Screen showing the ship‘s identity and height in the label. Photo: DP
4 The camera screen used to verify the height of each passing ship. Photo: DP
4 Making the request for higher altitude. 4 The “Standby” reply. Note the requested time (17:50) and the reply received (18:01).
cations but also enhance surveillance. By sending regular and automatic position re-ports, it allows ATC to reduce the separa-tion, as there’s more certainty on the posi-tion of all the aircraft.
On the return leg Singapore-Frankfurt, we tried to use the various systems. Singapore has CPDLC based on FANS1/A (see specific article on page 14) but our route took us through a non-datalink sector.
The next opportunity on our route was with Bangkok. Unlucky as we were, their system was unserviceable that night! Next and last chance was Rangoon. The YANGON FIR uses ADS-C and has reserved tracks for equipped aircraft. As it happened, we weren’t using
4 Datalink
CPDLC FROM THE AIR
^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor
How does CPDLC work from the pilot point of view? During a flight on a Lufthansa Airbus 380, I asked to look at the dif-ferent CPDLC systems they used: ACARS, FANS1/A and
ADS-C. As with any modern cockpit these days, the one of the A380 is full of screens. The 2 screens through which CPDLC is man-aged are just above the throttles.
While the aircraft was still at the stand, we received our pre-departure clearance. This reduces misunderstandings and errors and everyone I’ve talked to, loved it. While do-ing the pre-flight checks, an ACARS message came up in a little window, about the size of half a postcard – see photo. The data simply needed to be transferred to the FMS. Noth-ing could be easier…
En-route CPDLC and ADS-C is a more com-plex feature. It is mainly used in oceanic airspace, not only to replace HF communi-
16
HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT PILOTS THINK ABOUT IT
4 The ACARS pre departure clearance. 4 The drop menu on the input screen.
4 Datalink Datalink
17
the free text a request to deviate 20 NM right of track. The answer came immediately: “ CLEAR TO DEVIATE “. The Captain said that when you are en route, the response after log on is usually “NO POSITION REPORTS REQUESTED, AT TIME 01:00Z CONTACT CHENNAI ON 123,455”, which was nearly 2 hours away. Both pilots praised the system, saying: “This is far, far better than HF!”
We had been at FL300 since departure, which was now 4000 ft below our optimum level. The Captain clicked on request; ver-tical change. That brought up the climb to window. He then selected FL 340 and clicked send. The request took 5 seconds and 5 clicks. But this time it took more than 10 minutes to get the first answer: “STANDBY” and another 16(!) minutes to finally get the: “CLB TO & MAINT FL340“. The large delays in replying were most probably due to ATC and not the system. Anyway my pilots were happy and climbed.
I asked them what the fuel penalty is for an A380 stuck 4000 ft below optimum. They checked their computers and the difference is only 2%. That’s the equivalent of 310 kg extra fuel per hour, as the A380 at this alti-tude uses just over 16 tons per hour. They were as surprised as I was at the small differ-ence. The combination of a state of the art engine management system, aerodynamic design and of course the engines themselves result in a much smaller impact of not flying at the optimum level.
I asked the Captain what, based on his ex-perience, he thinks about CPDLC and data
one of those, but we nevertheless tried and logged on. This was done via the screen on the left, using simple menu drop down men-us, accessed via a rolling ball. Almost instant-ly, the system told us we were logged on. When a CPDLC message comes in, a small blue light flashes on the top of the cover of the instrument panel for 10 sec or so. If you do not press and cancel the light within that time, an audio buzz will activate to remind you there is a message. There were some CBs around us and we asked ATC, typing via
link in general. His answer is mixed: “In a non-radar envi-ronment it is a real plus, no doubt, much, much easier than HF communications. The pre-departure clearances are nice, but just that. It is just one small thing when you are not really busy… On the contrary, what we did in the past with Maas-tricht (i.e. dense continental European airspace ) where we still have to repeat everything on the R/T and this in phases of flight were we are very busy or very tired, it’s pretty useless in my opinion. Far too compli-cated and too slow for phases of flight when we have no time! For me, CPDLC is an additional tool, not a real replacement for VHF or even HF. Especial-ly when you’re having some trouble, you want direct voice communications“.
This is the opinion of one pilot of course, but I have heard very similar comments from other pilot-friends about CPDLC. The interesting thing is that is not in accordance with what many ANSPs have in mind for the future. ^
4 A380 cockpit elements relevant to datalink. Photo: Naddsy/wikimedia
4 CPDLC Log on confi rmation (also confi rming ADS connection)
4 The “Climb and Maintain FL 340” instruction. Again note the time received (18:17) a good 25 minutes after the request was made. Photos: DP
Even-tually with about 400 m left on the run-way, and not a moment too soon in my opin-ion, the computer calls “Rotate“. The initial climb is very slow, around 400 ft/min for some 20 – 30 seconds until the speed creeps to 180 knots and then increases to a more normal 1000 – 1500 ft/min.
The captain told me: “We all come from the A330/340 fleet. The 380 handles much better: it has a very good super wing and all inputs are well coordinated (on the 340s, the wing is flexible and handles like a glider, you bank one way and the nose goes the other way!) The controls of the A380 are very smooth. The only real criticism we have at this stage is the absence of wingtip cameras. The wingtips cannot be seen from the cockpit and taxiing with an aircraft this size is quite a challenge. Also other aircraft or tug drivers are not used to us. And even in our home-base Frankfurt, we have to be very vigilant.“
4 Aircraft
^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor
4 Lufthansa A380 in fl ightPhoto: Jens Goerlich
Thanks to a Lufthansa 747 Cap-tain friend of mine, I managed to arrange a cockpit flight on the A380 from Frankfurt to Singapore. Visiting cockpits has become quite complex after 9/11, but common sense seems to be slowly returning, at least to some airlines. In short, it’s time to ask again!
The cockpit is very roomy with good jump seats. It actually brings back memories of the good old Lockheed Tri-Star. Preparation for a long 12-hour flight between Frankfurt and Singapore mainly consists of entering numbers into the on-
board computers. The A380 is a totally pa-perless aircraft. There are no paper charts or manuals and 2 laptops provide the necessary backup.
Our take-off weight was some 526 ton, a bit below the the maximum TO weight of 560 ton. Passenger-wise, the aircraft is full with 450 people on board. The preferred way of flying the Airbus 380 is the so-called “performance based operation”. This called for a “Flex take off“. In this mode, the on-board computers take the weight and temperature to calculate the most efficient use of the runway. Well al-most: with a runway-width less than 58 m, as is the case in Frankfurt, the outside engines will be over the grass. The take-off procedure is then to push all 4 thrust lever to 30% of N1. This will get the aircraft to start moving slowly. When all 4 engines are stabilized, only the 2 inner engines throttles are pushed to “FLEX”. The pilots then wait until they have 40 knots IAS and then push the 2 other throttles to FLEX as well. This is done to avoid ingesting foreign objects from outside the paved run-way. The computer constantly calculates the required power to make maximum use of the runway length. And you wait, and wait, and wait… Over half the runway is gone when the computer calls “V1”. The aircraft continues to accelerate and rapidly approaches the end of the runway (you’re sitting quite high, so that probably also influences this perception).
18
FLYING THE AIRBUS A3804 A large,
roomy cockpit.Photo: DP
4 Airport maps on the side screens Photo: DP
as the latest map was not in the database.
Taxiing to the gate was quite tricky, in between lots of small-er A320s and B737s. While they kept the aircraft precisely on the yellow lines, they weren’t sure about the others. When in doubt, they preferred to stop and double check… “Why they did not fit cameras on the wing-tips is still a mystery to me!” said the captain!
All in all, a very impressive air-craft and no doubt a glimpse of the future… ^
below 180 knots, the noise level is quite sig-nificant. This wasn’t the case during take-off, as the gear retracts at around 140 knots.
As any pilot will tell you, the heavier and larger the aircraft, the easier it is to put it down. In that sense, the A380 is no different to a B-747 for example. As soon as the air-craft touches down, the side screens switch to a map of the airport (see photo) and on the central Multi Function Display, a camera-view of the nose wheel is shown. This allows the crew to easily make corrections and stay exactly on the centre lines during landing and taxi.
The aircraft has a “brake to vacate” feature, whereby it will automatically adjust the brak-ing power to exit at a selected runway exit. The pilots claimed that it was very good, but it could not be demonstrated in Singapore,
From an ATC perspective, one of the more notable features for the A380, is that the air-craft can fly a TCAS RA automatically. I asked about the crew about this feature: “It’s great! We keep it on all the time. In case of an RA the auto-pilot automatically follows the RA and it does this very smoothly.”
Other innovations include the digital fre-quency selection. It can learn and remember frequency sequences and will only allow cer-tain logical inputs: no need to insert the first digit (always a ‘1’), it only accepts a 1, 2 or 3 for the second digit and so on.
The on board weather radar antenna can be tilted to detect and show cloud tops, giving a 3-dimensional view of adverse weather. On top of that, both pilots have their own dis-plays, with separate controls over the radar. ”A real plus”, according to them.
Visually perhaps the most striking feature is a foldaway table with keyboard in front of each pilot. They can use this to make inputs and interact with the aircraft. While it looks impressive, the pilots indicated they pre-ferred the touch screens of the A330/340: the keyboard and table have to be stowed away during taxi, take-off and landing, mak-ing it impossible to make certain inputs. On the A330/340 that remained possible via the touch screens…
Finally, after a 12h flight, we arrived in Singa-pore. We received lots of vectors and it was easily the busiest moment in the cockpit. All 4 engines were at flight idle and at a speed of around 200 to 250 knots, it was almost com-pletely quiet in the aircraft. At least until the gear was lowered… As the nose gear is just below the cockpit, lowering the nosewheel is like opening a window! Until the speed drops
“SUPER” The A380 has been assigned a new wake turbulence category, super heavy, to cope with the vortices it causes mainly on take-off and landing. To stress this, the pilots append the word “super” to their callsign.
One of the problems encountered during the first flights was that they under-estimated the time it took the cabin crew to secure the cabin before landing. Serving and cleaning up 450 breakfasts took a bit longer than anticipated. On quite a few occasions at the beginning, the aircraft had to go around due “cabin not secured”.
On one of those days in Frankfurt, on short final the Captain announced to the Tower: “Ah! Frankfurt, LH 123 Super, we have to go around,“ disrupting the whole sequence. The controller asked for the reason, pilot replied, “Cabin not secured yet, LH 123 Super”. To which the controller replied: “That is not really Super!”
19
4 Aircraft
4 Making inputs on the keyboardPhoto: DP
4 Keeping on the yellow line, using the cameras. Photo: DP
the following: “I was one of the Boeing pilots on this record setting flight. 19 hours and 22 minutes block to block (and 10408 Nautical Miles)… The longest ETOPS endurance test flight ever! Air Traffic Control was fantastic and very accommodating. – Thank you! The airplane performed flawlessly. As a matter of fact – we didn’t even top off the fuel tanks.”
The aircraft used for this flight will be deliv-ered to Air India and will have registration VT-ANH. The website FlightAware has the tracklog of the record breaking flight, which you can find here: http://goo.gl/Aahhi
While sketching a logo like this has been done before, it’s by far the longest and most elaborate effort so far. Other attempts have included the Gulfstream V logo (http://goo.gl/7BsU3), the Cessna logo (http://goo.gl/E0j2w) and the numbers 747 using a Boeing 747-800 (http://goo.gl/8FN5w). ^
RECORD-BREAKING ETCH-A-SKETCH FLIGHT
^ by Philip Marien, Editor
On February 9th 2012, Boeing filed a rather unusual flight plan for a test flight with a brand new Boeing 787-8.
The flight took off from Boe-ing Field, near Seattle around 21:30UTC and was intended as an ETOPS endurance test flight. Since they planned to fly around for a considerable amount of
4 Orange line is the track of the Boeing 787-8. The green lines represent the FIR borders.Photo: FlightAware/Google Earth
time, the flight plan and track was devised in such a way that it would ‘sketch’ the number 787 and the Boeing logo over a large part of the US sky.
When it touched down again, some 19 hours and 20 minutes later, it had travelled over 10.000 nautical miles across 5 different FIRs – Seattle, Salt Lake City, Denver, Minneapolis and Chicago. On a FlightAware forum, one of the pilots on board Karsten Liljegren, posted
4 Aircraft
OR HOW TO MAKE A 19,5 HOUR FLIGHT A LITTLE BIT INTERESTING!
20
4 The Boeing logo
Phot
o: k
ing
huiy
vr/F
lickr
segment of air-ground com-munications and will contribute towards the validation of the relevant ICAO standards.
ConclusionVoIP in ATM is a mature stand-ard able to respond to SES II challenges and become a building block of future Euro-pean FABs. The time is right to initiate the transition from legacy ATM voice services that will soon no longer be support-ed by the European TELCOs.
The global standardization of VoIP protocols for ATM systems is a key step in the evolution to-wards an integrated, modern and highly capable worldwide air traffic control system.
Cooperation between the FAA and EUROCONTROL is paving the way for early adoption of VoIP in ATM services to there-by realise their potential ben-efits to meet the challenges of air travel in the twenty-first century.^
for inter-centre telephony and by December 2020 for the ground segment of air-ground communications.
To support the European-wide ATM voice communications transition towards VoIP, the EUROCONTROL VoIP Implementation and Transition Expert Group (VOTE) has the ge-neric mission to address VoIP in ATM imple-mentation and transition-related issues on a case-by-case basis; and to identify solutions and deliver recommendations to interested parties (e.g. ANSPs, industry, TELCOs and standardization bodies).
The Global DimensionThe ICAO Aeronautical Communication Panel, working group I responsible for the development of the ICAO Aeronautical Tel-ecommunication Network over the Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) standards, finalised the inclusion of VoIP requirements in the ATN/IPS Manual DOC 9896 Edition 2 by making a reference to the September 2010 edition of the EUROCAE ED137A standard. An evolu-tion of this standard (ED137B) became avail-able in February 2012.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the FAA has identified VoIP as a key technology in de-veloping the US Next Generation Air Trans-portation System (NextGen). NextGen is an umbrella term for the ongoing, wide-ranging transformation of the US national airspace system.
EUROCONTROL and the FAA are planning a set of activities in support of the transition to VoIP in ATM services. They will investi-gate the possibility of shar-ing VoIP test specifications and the use of test beds and test tools to facilitate global interoperability of ATM voice services and the set-up of field trials.
The activities will examine the transition and valida-tion aspects of VoIP in ATM for both inter-centre telephony and the ground
4 Technology Technology
4 Air-Ground Voice Network overview.Photo: Eurocontrol
The idea of using the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) in ATM is not new. Until now, inter-centre voice ATM communications were mainly based on analogue (ATS-R2) and digital (ATS-QSIG) protocols. For the ground component of the air-ground com-munication, no common standard is defined: all communications between ATC centres and ground radio stations are point-to-point and a network is usually not needed.
The 2009 Single European Sky package II (SES II) requires a more efficient operational concept based on functional airspace blocks (FABs). Within a FAB, there is a need to ef-fectively deliver capacity to airspace volumes when required. To do this, airspace and sec-tor structures must have the ability to adapt to predicted traffic flows and workload with-out delay or restriction. Furthermore, adja-cent units must know the sector configura-tion of all the surrounding FAB partners. Dynamic sectorisation is generally consid-ered an enabler for this new concept.
To achieve dynamic sectorisation, new flex-ible technical solutions are needed for which interoperability is an essential ingredient. The VoIP in ATM standard is the ideal so-lution to provide interoperability, particu-larly for the air-ground component where a (usually remote) ground radio station will be shared by several adjacent ATC centres belonging to different air navigation service providers (ANSPs).
Planned DeploymentEUROCAE, with cooperation from EURO-CONTROL, European industry, and ANSPs, developed the first VoIP in ATM standard defining the operational voice concept, the interoperability solutions and the network-associated requirements. For the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) States, an active objective for VoIP in ATM is defined by the EUROCONTROL European Single Sky Implementation (ESSIP) Plan.
The initial deployment is planned in Janu-ary 2013 for both inter-centre telephony and the ground segment of the air-ground voice communications. The migration of the European ATM voice services to VoIP is ex-pected to be finalised by December 2018
21
VOICE OVER IP
^ by Liviu Popescu, Voice Communications Expert at EUROCONTROL
INTERNET TECHNOLOGY FOR VOICE COMMUNICATION
The physical cards are printed in colour on A6 card (but may also be used digitally, e.g. on smartphones). The first few cards in the pack explain very briefly what safety culture is, show the organisation of the cards, and explain some possibilities for using the cards. Then, the discussion cards are sorted into eight elements: Management commitment; Resourcing; Just culture, reporting & learning; Risk awareness and management; Teamwork; Communication; Involvement; Responsibility.
There are several discussion cards for each el-ement, and each discussion card is designed to catch attention with a photo and headline, raise questions and provoke discussion.
There are 83 cards in total – 70 of these are the actual discussion cards, while the rest are explanatory (introduction, photo credits, dis-claimer, etc).
So how are the cards used? The cards can be used in any way you can think of, but several ways have been tried. For instance to com-pare views: different individuals or teams sort cards into two piles: ‘What we do well’ & ‘What we need to improve’, then discuss the piles. Another way is to have safety mo-ments: in a small group, take just one card and discuss the card for 10 – 15 minutes. Or have a small group choose a specific el-ement, such as ‘Just culture, reporting and learning’, and discuss each card in depth, eg. What and where is our ‘best practice’ on this issue? Where do we need to improve? Etc. You could also organise the cards into pat-terns to show how the issues relate to one another in your ANSP, unit or team.
You can use any number of cards, from one to the whole set – whatever works for you. Safety culture can seem abstract, fuzzy and hard to break down. The cards provide a way to discuss safety culture in a straightforward and practical way.
The pdf version may be viewed on smart phones and a low resolution version can be found at http://db.tt/KQ3pBf1q. High resolu-tion (English and French) print ready versions are also available: contact [email protected] or [email protected] ^
4 Safety
SAFETY CULTURE IN YOUR HANDS
^ by Steve Shorrock, Human Factors and Safety Specialist, Eurocontrol
Are safety issues raised by front-line operational/techni-cal staff given appropriate pri-ority within your organisation? Do you and your team incor-porate lessons from incidents into your work? If you saw a colleague doing something you thought was risky or un-safe, what would you do?
These are questions about safety culture. They are just ex-amples of the types of questions that are addressed in the EURO-CONTROL safety culture pro-gramme for European air traffic management (ATM), which has been underway since 2003.
One thing that is clear from the programme, which involves questionnaires and workshops with operational and non-op-erational staff, is that control-lers have very clear opinions
about these sorts of questions. But a survey is fairly pointless without action and contin-ued conversation about the issues that mat-ter to those on the front line of safety.
To help the conversation, the EUROCON-TROL Safety Culture Discussion Cards are a practical resource to aid real discussion about safety culture by any person or team within the ANSP, especially operational staff. This article gives you a brief overview of the cards. So what is the point of the cards?
They get people talking. The cards are designed to provoke discussion among both operational and non-operational staff, and have been used successfully with operation-al staff in safety culture workshops, as well as an aid to TRM training. They do not give answers, but instead raise questions.
The cards build on what you know already. Operational staff already know about safety culture. They live it and feel it. So the cards build on this understanding. The cards do not use theoretical language. They have been designed and tested with controllers. But still, they are based on the EUROCON-TROL approach, which has been used on around 20 ANSP surveys.
The cards help improve safety culture by encouraging discus-
sions on ways to improve safety culture, in-
spiring action based on the
outcome of the discussion.
22
But still, they are based on the EUROCON-TROL approach, which has been used on around 20 ANSP surveys.
The cards help improve safety The cards help improve safety culture by encouraging discus-
sions on ways to improve safety culture, in-
The cards help improve safety culture by encouraging discus-
safety culture, in-spiring action
based on the outcome of the
discussion.
safety culture, in-
based on the outcome of the
discussion.
TAKE THE FUZZINESS OUT OF SAFETY CULTURE DEBATES
TC: Please describe the rela-tionship between Rulemaking and safety? How might this change?
JK: Safety is of course our first priority in all our rulemaking activities. We have the Europe-an Aviation Safety plan that will identify areas we have to ad-dress via Rulemaking. Besides the plan, we are also turning towards rulemaking based on evaluation and analysis of safe-ty data. This in turn will lead to risk-based rulemaking which is permanently evaluated and kept up-to-date to face the developments. We will need to constantly monitor the devel-opments and adjust the Regu-lations in the future, using a risk-based approach necessary to face innovation. One of the most important developments of course is SESAR which will bring us many challenges in safety regulation.
TC: There is a concern that the opportunity to enhance safety through the rulemaking pro-cess has been lost. How can we ensure that ATM rulemak-ing process can recover these opportunities?
JK: I don’t think that we have missed an opportunity. On the contrary, we have created the opportunity to enhance safety because the Agency is compe-tent as of this year to organise the standardisation visits. We have transposed directives in regulations that are fully bind-ing for the ones that they are addressed to. In the coming years we will complement the present regulations to fully comply with the requirements
ration of the rulemaking programme. This will make sure that rulemaking is justified. And it should be possible to tailor the rulemaking process according to the different typology of rulemaking projects (i.e. projects with diverse degrees of complexity or controversy).
In addition, a good consultation mechanism with Industry and Member States is vital. But it goes beyond EASA; the drafting group ex-perts really have to take the opportunity to contribute. We often stress that “we need the best brains of Europe” to work with us to establish the most up to date modernized regulation proposals. That is why we invite IFATCA to all ATM and aerodrome drafting groups. However, both States and Industry often do not take this possibility seriously enough. Finally, a strong link between rule-making, implementation and standardisation is crucial for having a continued improve-ment of the rules.
TC: Is the current ATM Rule making process differing from good rule making? What, in hindsight, would and should be different in the way ATM rulemaking was carried out.
JK: The Rulemaking Process as it is used needed some updating. We have just fin-ished the review and the Management Board has accepted the proposals.
If your question refers to the three Regula-tions that were published in 2011*, these have been the result of the famous “fast track”, which we were asked to apply by the Euro-pean Commission and the Member States via the Single Sky Committee. This was in-deed not the normal rulemaking process as adopted by our own Management Board to produce regulations. On the other hand there have been practically no changes to the ex-isting regulations, which in turn have been repealed. Now we have to work on comple-menting this legislation, in order to fulfil the requirements of the Basic Regulation (BR).
* Regulations with detailed rules for air traffi c controllers’ licences; on safety oversight in air traffi c management and air navigation services; and laying down common requirements for the provi-sion of air navigation services.
4 Europe
European Aviation Safety Agency was estab-lished by EU Council Regulation of 15 July 2002. Since 2004, it has its permanent head-quarters in Cologne, Germany and has be-come the centre piece of the European Un-ion’s strategy for aviation safety. Its mission is to promote the highest common standards of civil aviation safety and environmental protection in Europe and worldwide. At the same time EASA has to facilitate the free movement of goods, persons and organisa-tions in the internal market.
In 2009, EASA gained competence in the area of ATM/ANS and Aerodromes and sev-eral rulemaking groups have been set up since then. The Controller interviewed Jules Kneepkens, EASA’s Rulemaking Director.
The Controller: What constitutes good rule-making in your view?
Jules Kneepkens: Without going into the legal details, it’s important to consider the principle behind the EASA rulemaking process. EASA has just concluded a review of its rulemaking process. Amongst other things, this highlight-ed that drivers for and priorities of the rulemak-ing tasks need to be highlighted in the prepa-
23
EUROPEAN AVIATION RULEMAKING
4 Jules KneepkensPhoto: EASA
INTERVIEW WITH JULES KNEEPKENS, RULEMAKING DIRECTOR EASA
TC: How do you see the EASA movement on Flight Time Limitations (FTL) being op-posite to the US? With the proposed hori-zontal rule-making might there be a similar situation occurring for ATCOs in particular on Fatigue Management and hours of duty?
JK: First of all, I would like to stress that re-garding FTL, the FAA and EASA are working in the same direction: towards improving the existing rules based on the latest scientific evidence. Furthermore, EASA and the FAA have been and are still constantly in con-tact regarding the development of the FTL regulations.
Having said this, I would like to emphasize that the ATCO rules on fatigue are devel-oped taking into account the specific cir-cumstances that ATCOs have to work in. By no means will we simply transpose the FTL regulations to ATCO ones. In general we will, of course, base the rules on the international rules of ICAO. We will not allow any threats to safety, especially those coming from chal-lenges regarding fatigue management. The EASA scheme for ATCOs will be based on scientific elements and will offer a high level of protection – as it is with FTL.
However, let me repeat that the current FTL framework for operations is not comparable with the future ATCO approach on fatigue.
4 Europe
of the BR and the Standardisa-tion visits of EASA to the Mem-ber States will ensure a harmo-nised implementation and an implementation as required by the legislator.
TC: In your view how have ATCOs benefited from the ATM regulation process?
JK: ATCOs play a key role in aviation safety. In our opinion, the new binding Regulation has contributed to the creation of a common uniform safety level. The harmonised requirements for personnel everywhere in Europe also facilitates the mu-tual recognition of licences and thus the free movement of such personnel. And it should facilitate establishing the FAB arrangements.
The EASA system offers both staff and organisations the lev-els of “hard” and “soft” law, which facilitate the compliance with rules, yet provide the nec-essary flexibility. The new rules foresee audits, aimed at ensur-ing the safe and uniform ap-plication of common rules and assisting the authorities in their safety oversight role.
A major step was to advance the latest edition of Eurocon-
trol’s ‘Specification for the ATCO Common Core Content Initial Training’ to become mandatory for the so called “initial training”.
Together with national and ANSP experts, EASA is currently incorporating further ele-ments into the common licensing, such as instructor and assessor certification and har-monised training requirements.
TC: Do you believe that the rulemaking pro-cess will deliver the right regulatory climate for SESAR – if not, what is missing?
JK: In addition to the technical and opera-tional solutions which the Single European Sky ATM Research programme will deliver, the European regulatory environment also needs to be developed. To support the correct development of the regulatory requirements, EASA has a work-ing arrangement with the SESAR Joint Un-dertaking. One of the essential elements of this agreement is the upstream involvement of the Agency to foresee the possible regu-latory implications. I do believe that we are able to handle the regulatory needs provid-ed that we will have the necessary informa-tion in due time, as this arrangement fore-sees. The primary challenge is to predict the nature and specifications of the innovations in order to assess the future implications for the ATM/ANS rules.
24
JK: As already mentioned, a review of the rulemaking process based on stakeholders’ feedback and lessons learned from the past has been carried out in the last 1,5 years in cooperation with members of the EASA Man-agement Board, National Aviation Authorities and Industry. The review aimed at increas-ing the efficiency and effectiveness of the rulemaking process. Its outcome has been approved by the EASA Management Board and the implementation of the new process is starting. In a nutshell, the revised rulemaking process proposes to tailor the process accord-ing to the controversy or complexity of the tasks so as to address the needs of the differ-ent domains and the continuously changing environment and for that we also need close cooperation with stakeholders and NAAs.
TC: Is EASA looking for quick wins or long term improvements with regard to
safety?
JK: We are looking for both. We have concrete rulemaking issues addressing short term topics, but we also invest in re-search, setting up a European Aviation Safety Programme for long term improvements in aviation safety.
TC: The relationship be-tween the commission and EASA, from the sidelines seems at best complex at worst hindrance to good regulation, how will this change and work from herein? Will EASA replace the NSA in compliance audits?
JK: I simply disagree with this assumption. From a Rulemaking perspec-tive the relation is very clear and simple: EASA advises the Commis-sion, and the Com-mission decides (after comitology*). The procedures to do that are well described in the Basic Regulation. EASA gives an Opin-ion accompanied by a draft regulation.
4 Europe
4 EASA HQ in Köln, Germany. Photo: EASA
The circumstances for ATCOs are different from pilots. The local circumstances also may differ. Thus, any comparison lacks merit.
TC: Do you feel you have enough in-house expertise in the ATM and Aerodrome domain?
JK: My reply is yes, and, by the way, “What is enough?”It is important to note that EASA’s recruit-ment procedures are designed in such a way that we have access to highly qualified rule-making experts in the EU. As I said earlier, we need to have the best brains. Of course, once the experts are recruited, their contact with the operational world is reduced and therefore they are kept up-to-date through training (on the job training included) and as many contacts as possible with the field. On top of that the rulemaking process it-self has been designed to invite subject matter experts appropriate to the scope of the task in order to assist our rule-making officers.
TC: Is there a need from your side to im-prove the EASA pro-cess when it comes to NPA, CRD and the final production of the opin-ion as it perceived that in ATM the current EASA process shows to quickly its limits?
There is therefore no complex-ity or hindrance in this respect. I have to say the cooperation is excellent.
The complexity is in the dou-ble system: SES for some areas and EASA for some others. Given this overlap between the SES and EASA frameworks and the need for transparency on comitology work, the Com-mission expressed the need for a regulatory roadmap, which would support the plan-ning of rulemaking activities in the ATM/ANS field over a multiannual period. Proposals are developed on the steps to be taken and the principles in defining regulatory objectives and the associated rulemaking plan. In this direction, the SES and EASA Committees have had their first joint meetings in Brussels.
As to the compliance audits EASA will not replace the NSA.
TC: A more personal question: Have you already achieved your goals in for EASA in the rule making process in ATM and airport? What do you fore-see as the major challenges for the next 2 years?
JK: My goals for the second ex-tension were to develop rules that enhance safety and are elaborated in such a way that we have the support of Mem-ber States and Stakeholders implementing the new rules. It is also obvious that this work has to be done in phases and not by means of a big bang. I think we are on track but we still have to address a lot of is-sues and challenges. The work is clearly not over yet and all the EASA Rulemaking Staff is now working hard to achieve the total system approach with a Rulemaking Programme that is based on a safety-driven and risk-based system. ^
* Comitology in the European Union re-fers to the committee system which over-sees the delegated acts implemented by the European Commission.
25
Talking to 2 young captains, both 30 years old and flying for China Southern, I asked what it’s like to fly in China. Not surpris-ingly, they said that working conditions and pay are much lower than in the West. Some would like to leave and go to work abroad. But the airlines refuse to let them go and a resignation would not be accepted. A few have tried nevertheless. This implies that you leave the country for good and migrate to a country like India, where the demand for trained pilots is currently very high. But the Chinese CAA appears to be very uncoopera-tive in confirming the ATPL qualifications of these people when asked by their foreign counterpart (despite the ICAO Convention). In practice, this often means they simply can-not work as pilots anymore.
Relations between ATC and pilots is strictly business and both groups do not mix much. They said that controllers in China are a bit like policemen; really there to make sure you follow the rules. Controllers and Chinese pi-lots have to use Chinese on the R/T and only foreign airlines are allowed to use English.
So I guess things need to change a bit for the pilot community in China and for me to return and fly VFR there… ^
4 Asia/Pacifi c
FLYING VFR IN CHINA… NOT ^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor
Recently, I travelled to China and as always I looked for a way to make a local VFR flight. The last time I was in the Guangzhou (formerly known as Canton) re-gion was in 1976. Back then Shenzhen was a small peasant village with dirt roads in the middle of rice fields. Today, it’s a modern mega-city, complete with skyscrapers and factories…
China is a country of contrasts: tradition is everywhere, but it’s competing with an ultra mod-ern environment. Free Wi-Fi is available everywhere and every youngster has one of the latest smartphones, some even have an “iPhone 5*”. Skyscrap-ers are competing for the most striking architectural feature. But at the same time the side streets are full of small tiny shops selling everything from traditional medicine, dried fish, teas, spices and herbs nearly 24H a day as they have done for hundreds of years.
Photo: Phil Parker
Aviation in China is also very different to what it was. They operate the latest genera-tion of aircraft and do so in large numbers. The once single civil airline in China, CAAC, has broken up into 3 very large groups: Air China, China Southern and China Eastern. Hand-in-hand with their economy, air traffic is booming. Beijing is now the second busi-est airport in the world, just behind Atlanta.
Through some of my airline pilot friends, I tried to get in contact with some local pi-lots to see what the possibilities were to rent a single engine VFR aircraft. To my disap-pointment however, I quickly learned that flying VFR is not allowed in China. There’s no general, private aviation. A private person cannot buy and register a small aircraft. A company can, but this is then labelled busi-ness aviation, which has to operate as IFR. A few flying schools have small aircraft, but these are restricted to their own airport and training area. Most airlines train their pilots abroad (Europe, USA and Singapore). So my dreams of flying VFR in China will have to wait a bit…
Controllers and Chinese pilots have to use
Chinese on the R/T
(*) the iPhone 5 story: when the fi rst information leaked in 2011 about the successor of the iPhone 4, Chinese copycats went into overdrive, anticipating on what they believed would be the iPhone 5: boxes, cases, manuals etc. Apple waited until the last moment to change the name of the iPhone 4 successor to iPhone 4S. Everything that mentioned an iPhone 5 was instantly useless for export, but in some Chinese shops, they can still be found today!
Photo: Phil Parker
4 China today: skyscrapersPhoto: DP
26
predominantly Muslim. Reli-gion takes a very prominent place in everyday life. Small re-ligious signs or ceremonies can be seen everywhere: in front of every house, in the 1000s of temples on the island and even on the beaches themselves. It results in a very peaceful at-mosphere, even in the busier places…
The famous Nyepi, or silent day best illustrates that religion is so embedded in daily life. This silent day is a day of medita-
20 km further south called Nusa Dua. This is where the VIPs go and where most interna-tional meetings and conferences are held.
Not surprisingly, the prices are very differ-ent depending on the area. Kuta is relatively cheap, with an average hotel room costing between US$ 30 – 50; in the Sanur area, the normal price is around US$ 100 and in Nusa Dua, that rises to around US$ 300 per night. The 3 different types of tourists appear to rarely meet and mix...
In the middle of all this, there’s the local Ba-linese population. These are mostly Hindus, contrary to the rest of Indonesia, which is
4 Asia/Pacifi c
The IslandThe 2013 IFATCA Annual Conference will be held in Bali, Indonesia. Tourist guides have many names for the island: the island of 10000 temples, the green jewel of Indonesia, the ultimate honeymoon island, the island of the gods, and even paradise… Unlike years ago when these applied to the whole island, today the capital Denpasar is a complex busy town of 2 million inhabitants. Indonesia’s economy grows at a rate of 9 to 10 % a year and it shows: motorcycles and relatively new cars clog the roads, causing enormous traffic jams. As is often the case, the infrastructure hasn’t kept up with the economic growth.
Despite this growth, Bali has managed rela-tively well to retain its trademark tropical outlook. After one high beachfront hotel was build in the late 1960s (the 8 storey Inna Beach hotel), local authorities ordained that no other building would be allowed to be build above the coconut tree line in the whole of Bali. And still today, no building is allowed to exceed 15 m (4 or 5 storeys). As a result, the coastline still looks authentic and tropical.
The endless stream of tourists can be divid-ed up into 3 categories. Each category has its own particular area to the south of the capital: there’s the old European style colo-nial villas, cottages, and small hotels on the beach front in Sanur. In contrast, some 20 km away, is the exuberant nightlife of Kuta. The area is littered with bars and the surf and beer mostly attract a younger generation, including many Australians. And finally, there are the top-end 5-star hotels. These are con-centrated in a so-called “secure” area, some
FOCUS ON BALI, INDONESIA^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor
27
watched more carefully. Despite the fact that Bali wasn’t very affected by the massive 2004 tsunami in the region, a warning system and evacuation plan was put in place. It’s a strong reminder that every paradise has its weak points.
But the general impression of Bali is that it’s a wonderful place to be. The lovely ambi-ance, the excellent, if a little spicy, food, the Balinese people and the nature around you make it well worth a visit next year! ^
4 Asia/Pacifi c
BALINESE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
tion, which Hindus observe as part of their New Year celebra-tion. Generally in March every year, no one is supposed to make any noise, to fast and to abstain from using electricity including radio, television and even lights. There are no cars on the streets and even the air-port closes for 24 hours. Tour-ists are told to stay indoors, but food will be available for them on special buffets prepared the day before. Everyone that has experienced it says it’s a very impressive event. In 2012, the
Control Tower The international airport on the island is called is near the capital Denpasar. The airport has a single Runway 3000 m x 45 m, a taxi way and 38 parking stands. Some of these need to be combined to accommodate large jet aircraft. The limited space is a major issue, espe-cially during large International Conferences, where many heads of State or ministers ar-rive with their private jets.
During the 2007 United Na-tions Climate Conference, VIP
Nyepi day was on March 23rd and in 2013, it will be on March 12th.
The central part of the island is mountainous. The highest peak on the eastern side, visible from the beach, is Mount Agung. It’s a vol-cano, which is dormant for the moment. Tra-ditionally, the volcano is venerated as a God. Even during its last eruption in 1962, thou-sands of people went up to the volcano’s crater to bring offerings to the volcano-God. Many were killed on the way up to the crater.
Today knowledge of volcanoes and educa-tion of the people will hopefully prevent such a tragedy. But tsunamis are something to be
jets had to take off again after delivering their passengers, to fly to Jakarta, 1 hour flying away, to be able to park. Pretty ironic given that the conference was mainly about how to reduce CO2 emissions.
On a typical 24-hour day, the airport sees about 300 movements. They have a total of 24 controllers to man the two working positions, GND and TWR. An automated electronic strip management system, a NOVA9000 made by Park Air (Norway) was installed about 4 years ago. While it looks nice, the controllers prefer to use the con-ventional paper strips rather than the elec-tronic ones. They prefer to be able to physi-cally move the paper strips around, which is
28
4 Bali Beach religious ceremony
4 Bali airport sign
be replaced by Indra ones. They also control the approach of nearby Lombok island (WADL), where traffic mainly consists of Russian charter flights.
While they are generally well equipped, staff shortage is a major issue. In addition, the working conditions, especially as their salaries are very low. This is a burning issue, as many controllers need to find addi-tional jobs to be able to make ends meet. ^
on the north side of the island. They operate Cessna 172s and generally don’t cause any problems for the International airport.
Approach While there are officially 3 sectors (2 TMA and one DIR), because of a lack of staff, they are all combined into one sector. Only 22 controllers have an approach rating; and a radar controller and a planning assistant, who operates the computer, staff the sector.
Fortunately, they are quite well equipped: the well-performing voice communication system is from Frequentis, while the Park Air 2 NEC radars feed the radar system. These will soon
not as easy in the electronic equivalent. As a result, the usefulness of the NOVA9000 is limited to collecting data. They also have airport movement control to help park the aircraft at their gates or stands.
An unusual yet major problem for them are the very popular kites, which interfere with the traffic. The other main problem is the traffic peaks caused by VIP flights during in-ternational events / meetings.
There’s no VFR at the airport itself, but they do have a VFR corridor to accommodate such traffic if necessary. The local flying school is located in another, smaller airport
4 Bali APP sector 4 Bali Tower with electronic strip board
4 Asia/Pacifi c
29
4 Feature
SUPERSONIC PASSENGER AIRCRAFT
^ by Philip Marien, Editor
such a project. The reasoning was that faster flight would allow them to fly more trips than a subsonic aircraft, i.e. more passengers could be flown per airframe. Some argued however that this cost so much fuel that it wouldn’t be competitive, even at 1960s fuel prices…
In 1962, the stakes were raised by the an an-nouncement from across the Atlantic: the UK and France had signed a treaty by which Brit-
In the history of civil aviation, few aircraft types have stirred people’s imagination more than supersonic airframes. Given that only around 20 individual aircraft ever flew, they’ve remained an unreach-able dream for many travel-lers. And it would appear that at least for the foreseeable future, it will remain that way. In this article, we’ll try and ex-plore the lesser-known history of supersonic passenger travel.
When Convair won a US Air Force contract to produce the B-58 Hustler, a relatively large strategic bomber capable of Mach 2, people quickly realized that a commercial supersonic transport (SST) aircraft would perhaps also be feasible. With commercial jet aircraft only just starting to appear, one can’t question the ambition or opti-mism of the post-war aviation industry… The outcome of World War II reflected in the countries which took the lead in aircraft design and manufac-turing: the USA, Great-Britain, France and the Soviet Union all played a major role in de-veloping and producing cut-ting edge aviation technology. They would take a clear lead in the race to produce a super-sonic passenger jet, although their approach would be quite different.
In the USA, President John F. Kennedy had set a number of national aviation goals for the decade, a bit similar to his announcement to put a man on the moon. One of these goals was the development of a Supersonic Trans-port or SST aircraft. It was generally accepted that supersonic aircraft were the future and the FAA estimated that there would be a market for 500 SSTs by 1990. However, not everyone was convinced of the viability of
30
4 Outline of the Sud Aviation Super-CaravellePhoto: NASA
4 B-58 Hustler, strategic bomber capable of Mach 2. Photo: USAF
4 Outline of the BAC Type 223Photo: NASA
PART ONE: AN AMERICAN SST
Based on these initial proposals, the FAA selected Boeing and Lockheed to participate in a final proposal round by 1966. Boe-ing’s design grew steadily and as their final design, they sub-mitted a 300 passenger wide-body aircraft, Model 733-790. Lockheed’s proposal, now called L-2000 had changed a lot less: it was judged simpler to produce and less risky, but its perfor-mance was slightly lower and its noise levels slightly higher. Because of this, Boeing was an-nounced the winner and would receive government funding to built the aircraft for real.
Boeing predicted that the first flight could be made in early 1970, with the first deliveries
their plans! It seems that Boeing had a lead on the others, having worked on a number of small-scale SST studies since 1952. By 1958, the company set up a panel dedicated to researching an SST, which over the next few years proposed a variety of delta wing designs, all under the name Model 733. In 1959, an alternative swing-wing model came of the drawing tables. The design resembled the future B-1 Lancer bomber, where a part of the wings could move, to accommodate different phases of flight.
It was an evolution of this design that Boeing submitted to the FAA in January 1964. It was officially known as Model 733-197. The design of the wing promised to limit the noise gen-erated during take off and also included the possibility to stretch the fuselage to increased capacity from the normal 150 seats to 227.
Lockheed’s initial design was referred to as the CL-823. It looked like a bigger version of Concorde, i.e. a long slender fuselage with a large delta wing but with a typical configura-tion allowing some 218 passengers. It relied on engine power and long runways for lift-off, ensuring a huge noise footprint.
The North American NAC-60 design was essentially a larger version of their XB-70 Valkyrie, an experimental strategic bomber. Most striking in the design was the small wing on the front of the fuselage (called a canard). Other than that, it was more con-ventional than the other entries and also flew slower, at M2.65.
4 Feature
ish based Bristol Aeroplane Company and French company Aérospatiale (originally Sud Aviation) would merge their SST projects. Both had designs that were ready to be pro-totyped, but faced with the astronomical costs, both countries had negotiated a co-operation: the Bristol type 223 and the Su-per-Caravelle* would merge into Concorde.
This came as a big shock to the Americans, where the debate still raged on whether such a project would be economically viable. Not-ing that Europe appeared to have a decisive lead to develop a transatlantic aircraft (Pan Am had immediately pre-ordered 6 Con-cordes), the Americans decided to concen-trate on a faster aircraft, but with limited (domestic) range. In June 1963, less than 6 months after the Concorde announcement, President Kennedy introduced the National Supersonic Transport program, which called for the development of a 3,800 km range Mach 3 capable aircraft.
Requests for proposals were sent out to airframe manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed, and North American for the airframes; and Curtiss-Wright, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for engines. Eager not to miss out, airlines started putting in pre-orders even before the manufacturers had submitted
31
On a side note, there’s a link with an earlier article in The Controller: using an election microscope, a team trying to identify DB Cooper – the hijacker-para-chutist featured in issue 02/2011 – recently found pure titanium on his tie. While titanium is now regularly used in household items, it was very rare at the time. Since the design of the Boeing SST was one of the first that would use titanium and given that the project was cancelled shortly before the hijacking, it is now submitted that Cooper could have been one of those affected by the layoffs in the area. Given that the titanium was pure, they further suggest that he was not directly employed by Boeing, but at one of the companies that processed the metal before selling it to Boeing. It doesn’t identify DB Cooper, but it may focus the search for possible suspects…
* Sud Aviation/Aérospatiale would later recycle the name Super-Caravelle for an updated version of their SE-210 Caravelle
4 While this design came out on top, it would change signifi cantly over the following years. Photo: Boeing
4 Mid-1960s Boeing advert for their supersonic prototype. Photo: Boeing
4 Mockup of the Lockheed L-2000, which lost out to the Boeing model. Photo: Lockheed
mittee for an American SST” launching a cam-paign, which asked supporters to send in $ 1 to keep the program alive. They raised nearly $ 1 million worth of contributions. Labour un-ions also supported the project: they were concerned that the end of both the Vietnam War and Project Apollo would lead to mass un-employment in the aviation sector. Some sug-gested that, given the lead of the Europeans to develop a first-generation SST, the USA would cut their losses and skip ahead to start devel-opment on the second generation of SSTs. But all in spite of all this, after a heated debate, the House of Representatives narrowly voted to end SST funding on 20 May 1971. The vote was highly contentious.
At the time, there were 115 unfilled orders by 25 airlines, while Concorde had 74 orders from 16 customers. The two prototypes were never completed. Due to the loss of several government contracts and a downturn in the civilian aviation market, Boeing made over 60,000 employees redundant. In the area, the SST became known as “the airplane that almost ate Seattle.” A billboard was erected in 1971 that read, “Will the last person leav-ing Seattle - turn out the lights”. Even Boe-ing seems to want to forget this episode of its history: their Future of Flight museum has the story and models of all of its production jetlin-ers and even Concorde, but not their own SST project. A partial mock-up was rescued and later moved to Florida and then to the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos, CA.
Parts of the technology developed for SSTs, such as the supercritical airfoil, are now standard of modern jet aircraft. Though many studies and designs have been pro-posed since, it seems unlikely that an eco-nomically viable SST will be developed in the short or even medium term.
Next time, we’ll look at the competition from the East: Tupolev’s TU-144. ^
4 Feature
32
to airlines scheduled for mid-1974. By 1980 the company es-timated there would be a mar-ket for a larger Model 390-475 SST, with between 700 and 1,000 aircraft being required. Unfortunately, they kept run-ning into difficulties, requiring design changes. By 1968, they had added canards behind the nose to counter the control difficulties presented by the stretched fuselage. This added even more weight, which was already a serious problem ow-ing to the swing-wing mecha-nism. The weight had a nega-tive impact on the range and in October 1968, the company was forced to abandon the variable geometry wing. They reverted to fixed delta wing and a smaller design, seating 234. This became known as the Model 2707-300 and two years later than foreseen, they start-ed construction of a full-sized mock-up and two prototypes.
It was October 1969 and de-spite the setbacks, they had reservations for 122 Boeing SSTs from 26 airlines worldwide. This made the company confi-dently proclaim that the federal government would see a quick return on their investment and that subsonic jumbo jets, such as their own brand new 747, were only an intermediate step towards skies dominated by su-personic jets. In the mean time, two prototypes of Concorde (one built in Toulouse, France, the other one in Filton, UK) hade successfully made their maiden flights and had demonstrated supersonic flight.
However, at the same time opposition to the project became increasingly vocal. Some sci-entist believed that the high altitude flights would damage the ozone layer, something which would be confirmed only years later. But the main concerns were due to noise. Not only from the afterburners on take-off, but most concerning were the sonic booms. In tests in 1965 with the XB-70 near Okla-homa City, had resulted in 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster. Scaled up to the size of the proposed SST, some claimed that the sonic boom ‘zone’ would be up to 3 times bigger than that of the XB-70. As the opposition widened, the claimed negative effects became ever odder, including upset-ting people who do delicate work (e.g., brain surgeons), harming persons with nervous ail-ments, and even inducing miscarriages.
The environmental concerns eventually re-sulted in a ban of supersonic flights over land in the United States, and several states added additional restrictions or even completely banned the aircraft outright.
In March 1971, despite the project’s strong support by the administration of President Richard Nixon, the U.S. Senate rejected further funding. This resulted in the “National Com-
4 Cockpit of the Boeing 2707 mockup, currently on display in the Hiller Aviation Museum, San Carlos CA, USA. Photo: Craig Howell, Flickr
4 Cancellation of the SST program nearly ‘ate’ Seattle. Photo: www
4 North American XB-70, infamous for sonic boom damage. Photo: USAF/NASA
33
4 P
hoto
: © T
imot
hy L
arg
e | D
ream
stim
e.co
mCarlos
cities will be getting dental care (e.g. root canal) by self-taught ‘dentists’.
If you think this has nothing to do with air traffic control. Use the table below to de-cipher the article above.
Dentist Air traffic controller
Cities Airports
Inhabitants Movements
Dental clinics ATM facilities
Dental Hygiene AFIS
Dental care Air Traffic Control
The only difference in this analogy is that in the real world, patients still have the choice which clinic to go to or whether he or she wants dental care administrated by some-one still in the middle of the self-training phase. In sharp contrast, passengers don’t have such a choice. When buying the tick-et, they won’t even know whether they’ll be subject to this newly invented proce-dure. Coming soon to a major European country near you! Caramba! ^
Carlos
SELF-TRAINING FOR DENTISTS
local dental clinics to private companies, who specialize in infrastructure and equip-ment. The decision will ensure that the clinics remain some of the best-equipped health care centers in the world!
The decision also has some minor implica-tions for the dentists currently working at the affected dental clinics in these cities. Not hindered in any way by the new Eu-ropean Implementation Rule on Licenses, the responsible regulatory authorities have fast-tracked and imposed an innovative new piece of legislation on these dentists: Self training. As the future owner of the dental clinics will probably not have access to sufficient trained and licensed dentists, the law now makes it mandatory for any currently licensed and trained dentist - whether he/she wants to or not - to train his or her non-licensed future replace-ment. A second part of the same law stipulates that in places that only offered dental hygiene services before and which need to be upgraded to provide full dental care for some reason or the other, self-training is not only author-ized but in fact mandated by law. That means that the patient in these small
It has been brought to Charlie’s attention that some very innovative procedures have been put in place in certain areas in Eu-rope when it comes to dentists. As a con-sequence of a recent decision, cities with less than 50,000 inhabitants will no longer have access to fully licensed and trained dentists anymore. The state will sell the
“I LEARNED IT FROM A BOOK…”
Charlie
Force about the state of the art Sentinel™ that recently got lost in or near Iranian air-space, only to make it to national Iranian television… To avoid similar embarrass-ments, the US seems to have decided to put newer models on a leash.
The K-Max UAV helicopter weighs 2,5 tons and can deliver 3,5 tons of ammunitions, bombs and other niceties to troops every-where. It’s pictured here being tested and attached to a cable to make sure it does not fly away into hostile territory...
Trusting UAVs Here at Charlie’s, it’s not a secret that we don’t really like UAVs: if they’re not get-ting in the way of ‘real’ aircraft or crash-ing, they tend to get lost. Ask the US Air
“A Rough Landing“A Tupolev 134 carrying 95 passengers and 6 crews crashed in dense fog while at-tempting to land in Osh airport, Kyrgyzstan last December. One of the wings tore off, the aircraft flipped around on his back and stopped on the runway within walking dis-tance of the terminal. Everybody walked out. Going for the ‘Understatement of the Year’ award, Kyrgyzstan minister of Emer-gency Situations, Mr Kubatbek Boronov released a statement, saying: “The aircraft came from the capital Bishkek and made a ‘rough landing’ without fatalities.”
Charlie cannot help but wonder how he would have described Captain Sully’s emergency landing in the Hudson river: “The aircraft made a ‘damp’ landing”?
Low Costs Repairs in ATC In last issue’s Charlie, we had duct tape aircraft repairs and predicted that duct-tape repairs might come to our operations rooms. Only one issue later, we have our first entry: in the new Lisbon ACC opera-tions room “duct tape” is used to control the air conditioning! It’s used to cool the electronics inside the working positions, but the cold blows out every slit and hole in every console. Tape has proved the cheapest and most effective way to insu-late the controllers from the overzealous cooling system.
Overheard on the Frequency: One day, while flying over the Rockies Mountains in the USA with a strong jet stream and many turbulence reports
United 123: “Good day, Denver. United 123 with you at FL 350.”Denver Center: “Roger, United 123. How’s the ride at your level?”United 123: “Well, the captain is hav-ing his lunch and he just stabbed him-self with his fork; so we could call it moderate turbulence.”Denver Center: “Thanks, United 123. Break, break. Air Canada 456, how’s things at your level? Any turbulence?”Air Canada 456: “Sorry, Denver, we can’t tell. We haven’t eaten yet.”
34
CHARLIE’S COLUMN
Photo: www
Photo: DP
Photo: William Mark Corp
Flying Sharks at FL 100On December 26th last year, an Air New Zealand jet, passing 10.000 ft descend-ing towards Christchurch airport on New Zealand’s south island, reported seeing a large shark just a few thousand feet be-low them. After an investigation (which was started immediately after the laugh-ter on the frequency died down and the pilots were subjected to ‘a few substance abuse tests’), the shark was identified as a remote controlled, helium filled, shark-shaped balloon that was assumed to have been the Christmas present for someone the previous day.
In other words: it was another UAV! The local shop that sold them stated that they got heard of several ‘escapees’ as kids and their parents started assembling the toys on Christmas morning. One anonymous parent reported that early on Christmas morning, he went to secretly fill the shark with helium to surprise his kids. Before that
happened however, the shark flew up the stairway, across a bedroom and through an open window!
The manufacturer of the toys, William Mark Corporation, has a “strictly indoor use only!“ warning on the boxes. But of course sharks can’t read!
Photo: Lockheed-Martin
ht tp: //atc.gdsys.de
Less noise, less heat, more space and easier operation make me smile!
Guntermann & Drunck GmbH Dortmunder Strasse 4a D-57234 WilnsdorfPhone: +49 (0) 27 39/89 01-333 E-mail: [email protected]
Listens . Understands . Solves
SILVER ASSOCIATE MEMBER
Ask your technical personnel for the G&D solution!
Providing space in your working environment. Redu-cing noise and heat and enabling 24/7 operation and high concentration for your challenging mission.
G&D provides KVM products allowing operators and computers to be separated by moving computers from towers and flight control Centres into dedicated areas.
Access the remote computers in realtime over existing cables without any loss in quality and per-formance. This also enables computer maintenance without disturbing ATCOS.
Our Support
photo: DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbHphoto: DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH
Leading the way in digital KVM
G&D_TheController_A4_Winter2011_V1.10_final.indd 1 14.02.2012 11:57:20
Amsterdam52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E
Johannesburg26° 12’ 0” S / 28° 5’ 0” EJohannesburgJohannesburgJohannesburgJohannesburgJohannesburg26° 12’ 0” S / 28° 5’ 0” E26° 12’ 0” S / 28° 5’ 0” E
Washington47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W
Bangkok13° 45’ 0” N / 100° 31’ 0” EBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkokBangkok13° 45’ 0” N / 100° 31’ 0” E13° 45’ 0” N / 100° 31’ 0” E13° 45’ 0” N / 100° 31’ 0” E13° 45’ 0” N / 100° 31’ 0” E
Abu Dhabi24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E
AmsterdamAmsterdamAmsterdamAmsterdamAmsterdam52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E52° 21’ 0” N / 4° 55’ 0” E
12-14 MARCH, AMSTERDAM RAIEXHIBITION AND CONFERENCE
SAVE THE DATEATC GLOBAL 2013
CONNECTING THE ATM COMMUNITYFOR NEARLY 25 YEARS
WashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashington47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” WWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashingtonWashington47° 23’ 30” N / 121° 34’ 14” W
Abu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu Dhabi24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” EAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu DhabiAbu Dhabi24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E24° 28’ 0” N / 54° 22’ 0” E
WWW.ATCGLOBALHUB.COMOrganised by