These are some thoughts I've had recently about autopilots and EFBs and other avionics in the plane. Some are silly, but I think some might have a place, I just don't know how to quantify them. I sort of got this idea when reading about pilots missing stuff, and how close we are o having reliable Human Machine Interface (HMI).
In the car, having turn by turn navigation is pretty handy, when going somewhere unfamiliar. Sometimes roads are close together, and turns are confusing, especially the signs offering help. In the air, if navigating on airways, it is less confusing, but sometimes we don't remember if the turn to was 135 or 145 degrees. Autopilots can help, it has the plan, and if it missed the turn, it will fly a correction course. Maybe having a voice say "turn to heading 135 in a quarter mile" won't help. How about a voice to read the latest winds for the area we are in "winds 220 at 35", it might be good to know, especially if fuel is burning quicker than plan. I was thinking more on final, if the winds are changing, and AWOS is updating quickly, maybe that would be a handy bit of information. The volume would have to be low, or the tone of the voice would have to be just right to overcome what ever other noise may be happening.
The FAA has started more and more data link facilities. CPDLC is being made available to more and more aircraft. Push that further, and start looking at CDM, so the aircraft can fly the straight line. For many reasons, a flight should plan to use waypoints and stay on airways, but how about once airborne, the pilot be allowed to ask for direct to the destination. If the Primary Flight Display (PFD) had a button, "ask for Direct", that would query the FAA URET system, and make a plan that might work.
The connected cockpit has many people worried. Will hackers be able to fly the airplane, is always the worry. Certainly smart people are worried about it, and they won't let it happen. There might be people in the company that don't worry about it, and can show all the economic reasons to just hook the autopilot to the passenger WiFi, but none of the engineers will let it happen. Perhaps when no one is in the cockpit, all the systems will be on one network, but I hope not.
Writing the blog is certainly refreshing. Yesterday my thoughts were really out there, but having a day or so to temper the thoughts, I've managed to narrow things down to some practical thoughts. Hopefully my thoughts will bring you some ideas.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Monday, May 11, 2015
2 vs 4 is Less Better?
There is a lot of talk about the end of 4 engine jets. They just aren't economical people are saying. Kinda sort maybe I guess common sense would say "they" are right, in some ways, but this is aviation, and things are complicated.
The thinking is two engine operations is more efficient than 4 engine operation. Yes, running 4 engines will use more fuel than running two engines, for most aircraft. The thing is, 4 engine aircraft haul more, so thinking of cost per available seat, things aren't black and white. Wikipedia has a great chart comparing various modern aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
This page has some good comparisons. Looking at the column to the far right labeled "Fuel efficiency per seat" you will see, especially in the jets built since 1997, most of the jets in the medium haul (transatlantic) will get about 90+ miles per gallon per seat (mpg). Even in the transpacific (long haul chart) the jets are all pushing 70-100 mpg per seat. The reason the economy goes down for the longer flights is because the jets must carry the fuel longer.
(the chart has a couple outliers, any jet that hasn't flown yet (IE first flight > 2015) you can't really count, the numbers are estimates). Newer jets are much more efficient than older jets.
Comparing things, is more complicated than the charts may indicate. Thinking about a New York to London flight, and using a 747-8 with 467 seats at 91mpg or a 787-9 with 304 seats at 99mpg it would seem that the 787-9 wins every time. 2 engines means less maintenance, and less fuel, so it should win. To buy a 787-9 will set you back about $250million, where the 747-8 will cost about $357million. The 787 still wins, right. Well again it is complicated.
No one sells all the seats on the aircraft, so assuming a 95% load factor, 3400 miles (JFK-LHR) in big round numbers, the 787 will use 10440 gallons of fuel, where the 747 will use 17450 gallons. With only 289 folks on the 787, the mpg drops to 94mpg and the 747 with 444 folks on the 747 the jet only gets 87 mpg per seat.
The 747 is hauling about 35% more passengers per flight, so 3 flights of the 747 would equal 4 flights of the 787, This is where the numbers aren't very general, but you can see that on popular routes where the load factors are high, the 747 may actually win. Less boarding time to load 3 flights, less taxi time. The fuel efficiency that I have shown here only counts the cruise portion of the flight, climb is very expensive. There are landing fees, and gate fees that need to be accounted for.
Fuzzy things though include maintenance. The aluminium 747 can be maintained by most maintenance facilities, where the composite 787 may need special maintenance facilities. More engines may mean more expense, but they are smaller engines, so there could be less cost handling them.
My goal here isn't to show the 747 is more efficient, my goal here was to show it may not be the end of the line for the four engine jets, just yet. There is still time for them, they aren't hugely inefficient, and may offer economies that may not be completely obvious.
The thinking is two engine operations is more efficient than 4 engine operation. Yes, running 4 engines will use more fuel than running two engines, for most aircraft. The thing is, 4 engine aircraft haul more, so thinking of cost per available seat, things aren't black and white. Wikipedia has a great chart comparing various modern aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
This page has some good comparisons. Looking at the column to the far right labeled "Fuel efficiency per seat" you will see, especially in the jets built since 1997, most of the jets in the medium haul (transatlantic) will get about 90+ miles per gallon per seat (mpg). Even in the transpacific (long haul chart) the jets are all pushing 70-100 mpg per seat. The reason the economy goes down for the longer flights is because the jets must carry the fuel longer.
(the chart has a couple outliers, any jet that hasn't flown yet (IE first flight > 2015) you can't really count, the numbers are estimates). Newer jets are much more efficient than older jets.
Comparing things, is more complicated than the charts may indicate. Thinking about a New York to London flight, and using a 747-8 with 467 seats at 91mpg or a 787-9 with 304 seats at 99mpg it would seem that the 787-9 wins every time. 2 engines means less maintenance, and less fuel, so it should win. To buy a 787-9 will set you back about $250million, where the 747-8 will cost about $357million. The 787 still wins, right. Well again it is complicated.
No one sells all the seats on the aircraft, so assuming a 95% load factor, 3400 miles (JFK-LHR) in big round numbers, the 787 will use 10440 gallons of fuel, where the 747 will use 17450 gallons. With only 289 folks on the 787, the mpg drops to 94mpg and the 747 with 444 folks on the 747 the jet only gets 87 mpg per seat.
The 747 is hauling about 35% more passengers per flight, so 3 flights of the 747 would equal 4 flights of the 787, This is where the numbers aren't very general, but you can see that on popular routes where the load factors are high, the 747 may actually win. Less boarding time to load 3 flights, less taxi time. The fuel efficiency that I have shown here only counts the cruise portion of the flight, climb is very expensive. There are landing fees, and gate fees that need to be accounted for.
Fuzzy things though include maintenance. The aluminium 747 can be maintained by most maintenance facilities, where the composite 787 may need special maintenance facilities. More engines may mean more expense, but they are smaller engines, so there could be less cost handling them.
My goal here isn't to show the 747 is more efficient, my goal here was to show it may not be the end of the line for the four engine jets, just yet. There is still time for them, they aren't hugely inefficient, and may offer economies that may not be completely obvious.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
ADS-B the Moving Target
Everyone in aviation has heard the FAA is pushing for a 2020 deadline. The FAA plan is on Jan 1 2020, all aircraft (except gliders) must have ADS-B out that will use Class A,B, C and D airspace in the US. The AEA is on board, and their members are excited about selling equipment to the aircraft that will need it. There are estimations that between 5,000 and 10,000 aircraft will need new equipment to meet this deadline. (365 X 5 = 1825 days and 5 aircraft a day, yea, they are right, we can do it).
There are two paths to certification for aircraft, the DO-260B way, where the transponder on the aircraft is made to meet the 1090ES standard, and the DO-282 way where the aircraft gets a UAT added. The DO-260B is supposed to be an easy upgrade for mode S equipped aircraft like large transports.
I worked on a project where the desire was to upgrade the GPS on some 737's. The manufacturer of the GPS said no trouble. The 737-NG's have an integrated radio system, where Honeywell supplies the whole package. To change the GPS receivers would require Honeywell to recertify the whole radio system, and that would be expensive.
For both ADS-B systems (DO-260 and DO-282) the GPS must meet certain performance requirements, similar to the WAAS (GBAS) GPS systems. Most new systems are including a WAAS capable GPS receiver in the transponders or UAT and are meeting the standard. For existing systems, there may not be a WAAS level performance system available. On transport aircraft, the IRU may allow meeting the performance needed for the position information. The IRU is capable of being very accurate, since the autopilot relies on this information. Combining the IRU and the GPS may allow the accuracy necessary within the 90% required.
The 2020 deadline for ADS-B out was established as part of the 2010 FAA re-authorization package. The FAA promised to have all the ADS-B ground stations in place by the end of 2013. Everyone thought 10 years would be plenty of time. The FAA mostly made the 2013 deadline. Most of this had been tested in the early 2000's in Alaska as part of the capstone project.
The equipment manufacturers had some equipment available shortly after 2013, and some installations were happening. The road to certification of the equipment was a little slow in coming, and there seemed to be challenges. In 2014 there were a couple ADS-B in and out solutions that were certified, but still very expensive.
The FAA found out they goofed. The certification requirements are not possible on all aircraft. The experimental aircraft are not type certificated. They cannot receive a supplemental type certificate (STC), there is not a certificate to supplement. The FAA had made an exception for experimental aircraft, they don't need TSO'd equipment, and they don't need an STC. Now the LSA aircraft are not certificated either. LSA's must have manufacturers approved configurations to be airworthy. The manufacturers must determine if a configuration is safe and airworthy, so they must test ADS-B devices to allow their customers to conform.
There are other parts of the rules that are proving a challenge. Occasionally an aircraft will not have a good GPS signal due to terrain or buildings. If the transponder indicates a failure, because of no GPS, the aircraft cannot take off. The trouble may not be with the aircraft, it may just be terrain. The FAA is working to address these types of issues.
The equipment available today is first generation. Buying something in 2015 will almost certainly look old come 2020. If the equipment is ADS-B in and out, the MFD and software will probably look somewhat outdated in 2020. Second generation equipment is being talked about already. The second generation will probably have faster processors and more efficient radios, making the first gen equipment feel less capable.
The airlines are in a tough spot. Most transport aircraft were designed well before ADS-B mandate was finalized. The equipment on most aircraft do not meet the requirements, and changing anything will be expensive. The paperwork may take 1-3 years, and then the work may begin. With over 5800 registered transport aircraft in the US, the 2020 deadline looks daunting.
There are rumors coming out of Washington that that FAA is considering a 5 year grace period. The 5 years is what people believe it will take to properly equip the transport aircraft with conforming equipment. During the transition period, the aircraft will be allowed to use the existing GPS and IRU equipment to broadcast the ADS-B position, at a lower precision than will be required after 2025.
The FAA has for the last year insisted the 2020 deadline would not budge. The grace period might be a way for the FAA to save face, and allow a more reasonable deadline.
It is complicated though.
There are two paths to certification for aircraft, the DO-260B way, where the transponder on the aircraft is made to meet the 1090ES standard, and the DO-282 way where the aircraft gets a UAT added. The DO-260B is supposed to be an easy upgrade for mode S equipped aircraft like large transports.
I worked on a project where the desire was to upgrade the GPS on some 737's. The manufacturer of the GPS said no trouble. The 737-NG's have an integrated radio system, where Honeywell supplies the whole package. To change the GPS receivers would require Honeywell to recertify the whole radio system, and that would be expensive.
For both ADS-B systems (DO-260 and DO-282) the GPS must meet certain performance requirements, similar to the WAAS (GBAS) GPS systems. Most new systems are including a WAAS capable GPS receiver in the transponders or UAT and are meeting the standard. For existing systems, there may not be a WAAS level performance system available. On transport aircraft, the IRU may allow meeting the performance needed for the position information. The IRU is capable of being very accurate, since the autopilot relies on this information. Combining the IRU and the GPS may allow the accuracy necessary within the 90% required.
The FAA meant the best
The 2020 deadline for ADS-B out was established as part of the 2010 FAA re-authorization package. The FAA promised to have all the ADS-B ground stations in place by the end of 2013. Everyone thought 10 years would be plenty of time. The FAA mostly made the 2013 deadline. Most of this had been tested in the early 2000's in Alaska as part of the capstone project.
The equipment manufacturers had some equipment available shortly after 2013, and some installations were happening. The road to certification of the equipment was a little slow in coming, and there seemed to be challenges. In 2014 there were a couple ADS-B in and out solutions that were certified, but still very expensive.
The FAA found out they goofed. The certification requirements are not possible on all aircraft. The experimental aircraft are not type certificated. They cannot receive a supplemental type certificate (STC), there is not a certificate to supplement. The FAA had made an exception for experimental aircraft, they don't need TSO'd equipment, and they don't need an STC. Now the LSA aircraft are not certificated either. LSA's must have manufacturers approved configurations to be airworthy. The manufacturers must determine if a configuration is safe and airworthy, so they must test ADS-B devices to allow their customers to conform.
There are other parts of the rules that are proving a challenge. Occasionally an aircraft will not have a good GPS signal due to terrain or buildings. If the transponder indicates a failure, because of no GPS, the aircraft cannot take off. The trouble may not be with the aircraft, it may just be terrain. The FAA is working to address these types of issues.
The equipment available today is first generation. Buying something in 2015 will almost certainly look old come 2020. If the equipment is ADS-B in and out, the MFD and software will probably look somewhat outdated in 2020. Second generation equipment is being talked about already. The second generation will probably have faster processors and more efficient radios, making the first gen equipment feel less capable.
The airlines are in a tough spot. Most transport aircraft were designed well before ADS-B mandate was finalized. The equipment on most aircraft do not meet the requirements, and changing anything will be expensive. The paperwork may take 1-3 years, and then the work may begin. With over 5800 registered transport aircraft in the US, the 2020 deadline looks daunting.
The FAA may offer a grace period
There are rumors coming out of Washington that that FAA is considering a 5 year grace period. The 5 years is what people believe it will take to properly equip the transport aircraft with conforming equipment. During the transition period, the aircraft will be allowed to use the existing GPS and IRU equipment to broadcast the ADS-B position, at a lower precision than will be required after 2025.
The FAA has for the last year insisted the 2020 deadline would not budge. The grace period might be a way for the FAA to save face, and allow a more reasonable deadline.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
The AOPA Is On Board! (finally)
The FAA wants to move forward. On October 1, the FAA wants to move forward with the flight plan form change for everyone. The airlines have mostly moved forward to use only the ICAO format since about 2008, for all flights.
Today the AOPA agreed that maybe it is time to retire that old friend 7233-1. Yes, that is the old flight plan form that we all grew up with (unless you are in another country, or went straight to a major Airline from a good flight school). You may even send AOPA your comments: airtrafficservices@aopa.org
The Association has a quick video about the changes.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/March/26/Changes-to-Flight-Services-planned
It is no secret that I have been trying to get rid of the 7233 form. The ICAO for, looks intimidating, but is really simple once you look at it. Everything before the "FPL" is not needed and everything after field 18 is optional. The stuff translates pretty well, starting in field 7, aircraft ID is either the N number or the flight number that the ATC will know the aircraft as. Field 8 is the flight rules and type, IFR or VFR, just put an "I" or a "V" in the box, the type is GA (G), Military (M), Scheduled (S), Non-scheduled (N) and Other (X). Field 9 is the number, type and wake turbulence class, put more than 1 if this plan is for a group of aircraft, the type is C172, A36, or whatever your aircraft type is per ICAO 8643, and the wake turbulence is Heavy, Medium or Light depending on aircraft weight.
Field 10 is the big winner in this form. What does a /U represent on the old 7233-1 form? Well field 10 there is no guessing. The equipment you want to use on this flight can be specified here, in all it's glory. Got a VHF comm radio, put a V there. Have a VOR Nav radio, put in a O (vOr), how ab out GPS, put in a G. If your aircraft has CPDLC use a J with some numbers depending on your type to put here, Mostly, the letters for the common stuff are:
Field 10 also includes the type of transponder the aircraft will use. The common values are:
A - Mode A only (squawk code only)
C - Mode A/C (altitude encoding)
E - Mode S with extended squitter (ADS-B)
S - Mode S with altitude and aircraft ID
N - No transponder
There is no field 11, 12 or 14, so there is even less to fill out!
Field 13 is where the flight originated from, all four letters/numbers ICAO format (IE KORD) and time in UTC.
Field 15 Cruise Speed, Level and Route. This is probably the most flexible part, especially the route.
The cruise speed is the cruise speed the aircraft will initially be flying at once at cruise altitude. The Level is the altitude the aircraft will fly at, preceded by the type of information. For flight levels, use an F and the flight level (IE for flight level 180, put F180), or for hundreds of feet use an A followed by the feet (IE for 8500 feet, use A085). The route will be all the waypoints between the departure airport and the destination airport. These waypoints can be specific named waypoints (IE MINEE), lat/lon coordinates (IE 46 degrees 20 minutes N 78 degrees 5 minutes west would be specified as 4620N07805W), or fix radial distance (FRD) coordinates (IE 30 miles south of the Kankakee IL VOR would be specified IKK18030).
Field 16 is the destination, the Estimated Enroute Time (not the arrival time) and the first and second alternates if needed. If it will take 2.5 hours to get to Oshkosh, field 16 will be KOSH0230, if you need to use Milwaukee for an alternate, then the field 16 is KOSH0230 KMKE.
There is no field 17 either, so there is even less to fill out.
Field 18 is labeled "Other Information" which seems casual, but it is really formatted other information. I hinted that if in field 10 the aircraft is RNAV capable a note can be added to field 18 to tell the ATC what kind of approach you may want, as in: NAV/RNVD2 to use a GPS receiver to do a 1 mile approach. (RNP will take specific pilot training). If you just want a note to be put on the flight plan, the RMK/ can be used followed by the text of the message. Other specific field 18 values are:
The one place that gets ugly is the ADS-B specifications. If the aircraft ADS-B installation is DO-260B then the field 18 must contain SUR/260B or if the ADS-B installation is DO-282B compliant then SUR/282B should be specified in field 18, (DO-260B is the specification for a Mode S transponder with Extended Squitter or 1090ES, DO-282B is the specification for UAT radios). I hope that clears that mess up.
An example field 18 can look something like:
SAR NAV/RNVD2 SUR/282B RMK/Aint we got fun
That would be a search and rescue flight with GPS capable of RNAV 1, using ADS/B UAT radio, telling the controller we might be having fun.
Are we ready for fall? That is when this all will be happening.
Today the AOPA agreed that maybe it is time to retire that old friend 7233-1. Yes, that is the old flight plan form that we all grew up with (unless you are in another country, or went straight to a major Airline from a good flight school). You may even send AOPA your comments: airtrafficservices@aopa.org
The Association has a quick video about the changes.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/March/26/Changes-to-Flight-Services-planned
It is no secret that I have been trying to get rid of the 7233 form. The ICAO for, looks intimidating, but is really simple once you look at it. Everything before the "FPL" is not needed and everything after field 18 is optional. The stuff translates pretty well, starting in field 7, aircraft ID is either the N number or the flight number that the ATC will know the aircraft as. Field 8 is the flight rules and type, IFR or VFR, just put an "I" or a "V" in the box, the type is GA (G), Military (M), Scheduled (S), Non-scheduled (N) and Other (X). Field 9 is the number, type and wake turbulence class, put more than 1 if this plan is for a group of aircraft, the type is C172, A36, or whatever your aircraft type is per ICAO 8643, and the wake turbulence is Heavy, Medium or Light depending on aircraft weight.
Field 10 is the big winner in this form. What does a /U represent on the old 7233-1 form? Well field 10 there is no guessing. The equipment you want to use on this flight can be specified here, in all it's glory. Got a VHF comm radio, put a V there. Have a VOR Nav radio, put in a O (vOr), how ab out GPS, put in a G. If your aircraft has CPDLC use a J with some numbers depending on your type to put here, Mostly, the letters for the common stuff are:
- A - GPS Landing system
- F - ADF
- G - GPS (or other global navigation system)
- H - HF radio
- I - Inertial Navigation
- L - ILS
- O - VOR
- P - Performance Based Navigation (can include various RNAV equipment see FAA Doc 9613)
- V - VHF radio (12kHz spacing)
- W - RVSM
Field 10 also includes the type of transponder the aircraft will use. The common values are:
A - Mode A only (squawk code only)
C - Mode A/C (altitude encoding)
E - Mode S with extended squitter (ADS-B)
S - Mode S with altitude and aircraft ID
N - No transponder
There is no field 11, 12 or 14, so there is even less to fill out!
Field 13 is where the flight originated from, all four letters/numbers ICAO format (IE KORD) and time in UTC.
Field 15 Cruise Speed, Level and Route. This is probably the most flexible part, especially the route.
The cruise speed is the cruise speed the aircraft will initially be flying at once at cruise altitude. The Level is the altitude the aircraft will fly at, preceded by the type of information. For flight levels, use an F and the flight level (IE for flight level 180, put F180), or for hundreds of feet use an A followed by the feet (IE for 8500 feet, use A085). The route will be all the waypoints between the departure airport and the destination airport. These waypoints can be specific named waypoints (IE MINEE), lat/lon coordinates (IE 46 degrees 20 minutes N 78 degrees 5 minutes west would be specified as 4620N07805W), or fix radial distance (FRD) coordinates (IE 30 miles south of the Kankakee IL VOR would be specified IKK18030).
Field 16 is the destination, the Estimated Enroute Time (not the arrival time) and the first and second alternates if needed. If it will take 2.5 hours to get to Oshkosh, field 16 will be KOSH0230, if you need to use Milwaukee for an alternate, then the field 16 is KOSH0230 KMKE.
There is no field 17 either, so there is even less to fill out.
Field 18 is labeled "Other Information" which seems casual, but it is really formatted other information. I hinted that if in field 10 the aircraft is RNAV capable a note can be added to field 18 to tell the ATC what kind of approach you may want, as in: NAV/RNVD2 to use a GPS receiver to do a 1 mile approach. (RNP will take specific pilot training). If you just want a note to be put on the flight plan, the RMK/ can be used followed by the text of the message. Other specific field 18 values are:
- HAZMAT: For a flight carrying hazardous material;
- HOSP: For a medical flight declared by medical authorities
- MEDEVAC: For a life critical medical emergency evacuation
- SAR: For a flight engaged in a search and rescue mission
The one place that gets ugly is the ADS-B specifications. If the aircraft ADS-B installation is DO-260B then the field 18 must contain SUR/260B or if the ADS-B installation is DO-282B compliant then SUR/282B should be specified in field 18, (DO-260B is the specification for a Mode S transponder with Extended Squitter or 1090ES, DO-282B is the specification for UAT radios). I hope that clears that mess up.
An example field 18 can look something like:
SAR NAV/RNVD2 SUR/282B RMK/Aint we got fun
That would be a search and rescue flight with GPS capable of RNAV 1, using ADS/B UAT radio, telling the controller we might be having fun.
Are we ready for fall? That is when this all will be happening.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
No One In The Cockpit
There are still studies going forward about letting large aircraft fly with passengers and cargo, with one or no pilots. Some people say it is inevitable, thinking back to the days of professional drivers, or elevator operators, pilots are just an extra expense the airlines can get by without. Technology has improved, it does seem like the pilots don't need to fly the airplane as much as they used to. I've explained how software reliability has improved, and the tools needed to build new autopilots are getting better.
Looking at Air France 447 might be a good place to start. That airplane was apparently flown into the ocean by a pilot, that was confused. The autopilot should have done better, one would think. If the timeline is followed, it will show that the autopilot was confused, and gave up as well (alternate law), relinquishing control to the human pilots. The airspeed sensors (pitot tubes) apparently iced over, causing the automated systems to not have enough correlated information to process the data it had. The pilots left in the cockpit to monitor the systems were not experienced enough to know what to do in this situation.
Talking to most pilots, they will tell you about automation failures all the time. Sometimes stuff just breaks. I know two pilots that were flying back and forth Houston to Austin one day for an airline, and they decided to hand fly the trips and let a flight attendant judge who flew smoother. The next day the one pilot had to take that same airplane from Houston to Orlando, and it turned out the autopilot had failed sometime the day before, and no one knew it broke. He had to hand fly the plane from Houston to Orlando.
The idea of a single pilot in the cockpit is probably just as bad as no pilots. Sometimes pilots have troubles, including health (getting sick, incapacitated, etc), alertness, and just plain forgetfulness. Using a second pilot on the ground might seem like a great idea, one pilot can monitor several flights and "take over" if there is a need. The trouble with the ground pilot is the need for 100% reliable automation, and datalinks. If the part that fails in the autopilot is the same part that the ground pilot will be using for controlling the aircraft (IE servo) it won't help to have someone on the ground wanting to control it, the part is broken for whoever is trying to use it.
Thoughts about using pilotless cargo aircraft are perhaps more palatable, since no one will get killed if the automation fails. That will make sense, if everything being shipped has no value. Things shipped by air a typically worth more than things shipped by truck or train (per Cubic Foot). The pilotless aircraft may still crash, and there will be no heroes on board to steer the aircraft away from the stadium full of people.
Economics probably won't make a pilotless aircraft worth it. Certainly automated systems can be built to make things seem to be cheaper. Certainly pilots are paid well, and have health insurance, pensions and vacation pay that must be paid for by customers. An automated system should eliminate the pilots pay from this picture. There will probably be more maintenance, and a higher price for the initial aircraft purchase. Then the insurance picture may remove all the financial benefits.
Oh, and according to the U.S. Labor Department’s Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, about 27 people per year are killed in elevator accidents in the US.
What is a life worth?
Looking at Air France 447 might be a good place to start. That airplane was apparently flown into the ocean by a pilot, that was confused. The autopilot should have done better, one would think. If the timeline is followed, it will show that the autopilot was confused, and gave up as well (alternate law), relinquishing control to the human pilots. The airspeed sensors (pitot tubes) apparently iced over, causing the automated systems to not have enough correlated information to process the data it had. The pilots left in the cockpit to monitor the systems were not experienced enough to know what to do in this situation.
Talking to most pilots, they will tell you about automation failures all the time. Sometimes stuff just breaks. I know two pilots that were flying back and forth Houston to Austin one day for an airline, and they decided to hand fly the trips and let a flight attendant judge who flew smoother. The next day the one pilot had to take that same airplane from Houston to Orlando, and it turned out the autopilot had failed sometime the day before, and no one knew it broke. He had to hand fly the plane from Houston to Orlando.
The idea of a single pilot in the cockpit is probably just as bad as no pilots. Sometimes pilots have troubles, including health (getting sick, incapacitated, etc), alertness, and just plain forgetfulness. Using a second pilot on the ground might seem like a great idea, one pilot can monitor several flights and "take over" if there is a need. The trouble with the ground pilot is the need for 100% reliable automation, and datalinks. If the part that fails in the autopilot is the same part that the ground pilot will be using for controlling the aircraft (IE servo) it won't help to have someone on the ground wanting to control it, the part is broken for whoever is trying to use it.
Thoughts about using pilotless cargo aircraft are perhaps more palatable, since no one will get killed if the automation fails. That will make sense, if everything being shipped has no value. Things shipped by air a typically worth more than things shipped by truck or train (per Cubic Foot). The pilotless aircraft may still crash, and there will be no heroes on board to steer the aircraft away from the stadium full of people.
Economics probably won't make a pilotless aircraft worth it. Certainly automated systems can be built to make things seem to be cheaper. Certainly pilots are paid well, and have health insurance, pensions and vacation pay that must be paid for by customers. An automated system should eliminate the pilots pay from this picture. There will probably be more maintenance, and a higher price for the initial aircraft purchase. Then the insurance picture may remove all the financial benefits.
Oh, and according to the U.S. Labor Department’s Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, about 27 people per year are killed in elevator accidents in the US.
What is a life worth?
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
DO-260B ... well it is compliant
Ok there is compliant, and there is useful. DO-260B is certainly the former, and not likely the latter. ADS-B is full of challenges, and opportunities. Upgrading equipment is expensive. Some equipment is really close to usable, and some just flat out needs to be replaced. The mode S transponder certainly is one of those items.
If an aircraft has a mode S transponder on it, it can almost do ADS-B out. The payload on a stock mode S transponder can only be 56bits. For ADS-B out, the transponder needs to send 112 bits. The extended squitter (ES) is the change needed to make a mode S transponder ADS-B out compliant. DO-260B is the standard needed to "convert" mode S to mode S with ES.
ADS-B out is needed by 2020, and if an aircraft has a mode S transponder, getting the transponder updated to DO-260B will make the aircraft compliant. ADS-B out will make the aircraft as functional as it is today in a RADAR environment. There is no additional functionality available to the pilots on the aircraft. The big win for the pilots is ADS-B in. DO-260B has no provision for IN, only out.
Most 1090ES transponders are only transmitting the ADS-B message. To receive the ADS-B message, a separate receiver is needed. Usually jets will will have the TCAS system as a transponder receiver. This unit has the ability to receive all 1090MHz transponder messages. Using the TCAS receiver may allow an aircraft to have ADS-B in, if it has the proper facilities to send the message to a display, or computer for displaying.
Yes, 2020 seemed a long time away when the FAA said we all need ADS-B out. DO-260B might seem a tempting quick answer for older aircraft. It could be cheap, but likely it will cost a bunch to get a WAAS enabled GPS feeding the mode S transponder with ES. UAT's won't cut it for jets, so the right answer will probably be a new transponder that will do a proper job of handling ADS-B messages, along with a modern WAAS GPS receiver.
I am open to arguments, but overall it is going to cost a lot of money to equip for ADS-B in any aircraft.
If an aircraft has a mode S transponder on it, it can almost do ADS-B out. The payload on a stock mode S transponder can only be 56bits. For ADS-B out, the transponder needs to send 112 bits. The extended squitter (ES) is the change needed to make a mode S transponder ADS-B out compliant. DO-260B is the standard needed to "convert" mode S to mode S with ES.
ADS-B out is needed by 2020, and if an aircraft has a mode S transponder, getting the transponder updated to DO-260B will make the aircraft compliant. ADS-B out will make the aircraft as functional as it is today in a RADAR environment. There is no additional functionality available to the pilots on the aircraft. The big win for the pilots is ADS-B in. DO-260B has no provision for IN, only out.
Most 1090ES transponders are only transmitting the ADS-B message. To receive the ADS-B message, a separate receiver is needed. Usually jets will will have the TCAS system as a transponder receiver. This unit has the ability to receive all 1090MHz transponder messages. Using the TCAS receiver may allow an aircraft to have ADS-B in, if it has the proper facilities to send the message to a display, or computer for displaying.
Yes, 2020 seemed a long time away when the FAA said we all need ADS-B out. DO-260B might seem a tempting quick answer for older aircraft. It could be cheap, but likely it will cost a bunch to get a WAAS enabled GPS feeding the mode S transponder with ES. UAT's won't cut it for jets, so the right answer will probably be a new transponder that will do a proper job of handling ADS-B messages, along with a modern WAAS GPS receiver.
I am open to arguments, but overall it is going to cost a lot of money to equip for ADS-B in any aircraft.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Gate to Gate
Over the last couple years, I have written about many bits of technology that aircraft use. I really haven't discussed too much what bits are used when, and for what. This post, I will try and tie all the items and their use into a comprehensive post. I'll use a commercial airliner (Part 121) for the discussion, both because they typically use more technology, and because that is what my background is. I will also base most of this on flights in the US, to keep it simpler.
We can start a few hours before the flight actually leaves. As the flight approaches it's scheduled time to leave, a group of folks have started planning for the flight. Sure, there is network planning, they set up the schedules and try to be sure the flight will make money, and provide continuity, and such, but that is usually done months in advance. There are also the simulators that the pilots use for proficiency checks, and training, but that is on going and not related to a particular flight, but important none the less.
Dispatchers and meteorologists are considering the situation between the origin and the destination of the flight. The meteorologists are generalists, looking at the weather over the country, where dispatchers are more concerned with the weather along the route between the cities. The dispatcher needs to consider the situation at the specific airports, for runway closures, and other challenges unrelated to weather. There is a tool called Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), where the dispatchers work with the other airlines so everyone can utilize the airports and airspace as optimally as possible.
The dispatchers can use CDM to look for areas to avoid when selecting a route between the two cities. If there is a bad thunderstorm along the optimum route and all the other airlines are avoiding it to the south, the dispatcher may pick a northern route to stay out of everyone elses way. Once the dispatcher selects a route, they need to build the rest of the flight plan. The dispatcher will build a flight plan using many tools. The dispatcher may allow the flight planning engine to select routes, or the amount of fuel. Depending on aircraft maintenance situation, and MEL deferrals and such the flight planning engine can accurately predict the fuel burn based on weather and route.
Once the dispatchers are happy with route and fuel selected, they will file a flight plan. The flight plan will be filed with the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) for both the origin and the destination. For the US the ANSP is the FAA, in Canada is is NavCanada, and in the UK it is NATS. The ANSP handles all the RADAR and air traffic control (ATC) functions. The flight plan will give the ATC controllers a heads up on what the aircraft was planning on doing once in the air.
As the pilots get to the aircraft, one will typically do a walk around of the outside of the aircraft making sure the aircraft looks safe and no damage is visible. The other pilot will typically go to the cockpit and begin setting things up. There may be a the initialization of the FMS, maybe a RAIM check of the GPS, and entering the flight plan prepared by the dispatcher into the FMS. The dispatcher provided flight plan will usually include weather information for the route, and any other non weather realted information for the route (IE ATC changes, etc), The flight plan will also contain fuel and time information that the pilot can double check, insuring the dispatcher hasn't made any mistakes.
When the pilot know the fuel situation, they may confer with the fueler to adjust any fuel amounts to be put on board. The pilot will also need to know how many bags and passengers are on the flight, so they may make proper weight and balance calculations. Some airlines have a load planner who takes care of the weight and balance, others still let the pilot take care of this. Depending on the aircraft, it may be necessary to have a person dedicated to making the load calculations.
As all the passengers are seated, and the pilot is about to move the aircraft, they will ask for permission to move. There may be a ground controller dedicated to the gate area, and there will need to be taxi clearances and such needed from them. Other airports everything is controlled from the tower, and any movement must be cleared through the tower controllers. An ACARs message may be sent requesting the Pre Departure Clearance (PDC), that will be a version of the flight plan sent to the ATC with any ATCneeded changes to the plan. The PDC will also contain the code the pilot needs to enter into the transponder. The pilot must acknowledge receipt of the message.
After the aircraft is taxied to the runway, the pilot will ask the tower for the final airport clearance, by announcing "ready for takeoff". Once the ATC controller gives the pilot final instructions the pilot can access the runway and start the takeoff. The ATC instructions will be the route the pilot should take to get from the runway to the beginning of the flight plan route. Every bit of the instructions and plans for the takeoff are there in case there is a failure. If there is a radio failure either from ATC or the Aircraft, the instructions given are good enough for the pilot to take off, fly the planned route, and approach the destination. It is a safety situation, should the plan be the safest and most expeditious way to fly the route.
Once the aircraft is above about 300 ft, depending on the airport, the aircraft will appear on RADAR. The first RADAR that will show the aircraft is the TRACON, who will control the aircraft after tower hands off the aircraft. The TRACON controller will control the aircraft until it is more than 30-50 miles from the airport. The TRACON will hand the aircraft off the enroute controllers who will control the flight until it is 30-60 miles from the destination airport. The RADAR data will be collected and sent to the FAA command center for others to view, and use the ADSI information. As we move into NextGen, there may be more ADS/B position reporting, instead of RADAR.
Once the aircraft is on the route, the pilots will typically engage the autopilot. The autopilot will help maintain the route of flight, altitude and throttle settings to insure the aircraft flies the route planned, and uses the fuel planned. The pilot must monitor the autopilot to be sure it is engaged, and doing the right thing the whole flight. Occasionally pilots will hand fly the aircraft, for practice. Once in a while the autopilot will fail, and the pilots must had fly the aircraft. The systems in the aircraft are designed for certain reliability levels.
During the enroute portion of the flight, there may be messages the pilots need to send to the company operations center. The pilots will usually send a text message over ACARS if they don't have a lot of urgency to the message. The pilots also have an option for voice communication using company assigned frequencies. If there were to be a medical emergency, the voice communications will be used, if a pilot is looking for a weather report for 400 miles ahead, they will use ACARS.
As the aircraft gets closer to the destination, ATC will typically begin having the aircraft start to descend. Newer approaches follow a continuous descent profile, where the pilots set the throttles to idle at altitude, and basically use the potential energy to glide the aircraft to the runway, reducing noise, fuel burn and pollution.
Current approaches typically are designed for the aircraft to provide it's own guidance. That is there are airs on the ground (or satellite) to provide the aircraft the information it needs to know where it is, and fly to the runway. Features like DME and ILS radions are on the ground, and GPS satellites are in the air.
The enroute controller will hand the flight off to the TRACON controller about 50 miles from the airport, where the aircraft will be below about 10,000ft. The TRACON controller will clear the flight for the approach that it will use to get to the airport. At about 5 miles out, the pilot will be told to contact the tower, and the tower and the pilot will make the final checks and be cleared for the runway to land on. Once on the ground, the pilot will talk to the ground controllers to get to the proper parking area, and maybe a gate controller for certain airports. Once the wheels are chocked, and the engines shutdown, the pilots are mostly done with the flight.
Yes, there is a bit of technology going on between each gate, and a little before. Ever think about that before.
We can start a few hours before the flight actually leaves. As the flight approaches it's scheduled time to leave, a group of folks have started planning for the flight. Sure, there is network planning, they set up the schedules and try to be sure the flight will make money, and provide continuity, and such, but that is usually done months in advance. There are also the simulators that the pilots use for proficiency checks, and training, but that is on going and not related to a particular flight, but important none the less.
Dispatchers and meteorologists are considering the situation between the origin and the destination of the flight. The meteorologists are generalists, looking at the weather over the country, where dispatchers are more concerned with the weather along the route between the cities. The dispatcher needs to consider the situation at the specific airports, for runway closures, and other challenges unrelated to weather. There is a tool called Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), where the dispatchers work with the other airlines so everyone can utilize the airports and airspace as optimally as possible.
The dispatchers can use CDM to look for areas to avoid when selecting a route between the two cities. If there is a bad thunderstorm along the optimum route and all the other airlines are avoiding it to the south, the dispatcher may pick a northern route to stay out of everyone elses way. Once the dispatcher selects a route, they need to build the rest of the flight plan. The dispatcher will build a flight plan using many tools. The dispatcher may allow the flight planning engine to select routes, or the amount of fuel. Depending on aircraft maintenance situation, and MEL deferrals and such the flight planning engine can accurately predict the fuel burn based on weather and route.
Once the dispatchers are happy with route and fuel selected, they will file a flight plan. The flight plan will be filed with the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) for both the origin and the destination. For the US the ANSP is the FAA, in Canada is is NavCanada, and in the UK it is NATS. The ANSP handles all the RADAR and air traffic control (ATC) functions. The flight plan will give the ATC controllers a heads up on what the aircraft was planning on doing once in the air.
As the pilots get to the aircraft, one will typically do a walk around of the outside of the aircraft making sure the aircraft looks safe and no damage is visible. The other pilot will typically go to the cockpit and begin setting things up. There may be a the initialization of the FMS, maybe a RAIM check of the GPS, and entering the flight plan prepared by the dispatcher into the FMS. The dispatcher provided flight plan will usually include weather information for the route, and any other non weather realted information for the route (IE ATC changes, etc), The flight plan will also contain fuel and time information that the pilot can double check, insuring the dispatcher hasn't made any mistakes.
When the pilot know the fuel situation, they may confer with the fueler to adjust any fuel amounts to be put on board. The pilot will also need to know how many bags and passengers are on the flight, so they may make proper weight and balance calculations. Some airlines have a load planner who takes care of the weight and balance, others still let the pilot take care of this. Depending on the aircraft, it may be necessary to have a person dedicated to making the load calculations.
As all the passengers are seated, and the pilot is about to move the aircraft, they will ask for permission to move. There may be a ground controller dedicated to the gate area, and there will need to be taxi clearances and such needed from them. Other airports everything is controlled from the tower, and any movement must be cleared through the tower controllers. An ACARs message may be sent requesting the Pre Departure Clearance (PDC), that will be a version of the flight plan sent to the ATC with any ATCneeded changes to the plan. The PDC will also contain the code the pilot needs to enter into the transponder. The pilot must acknowledge receipt of the message.
After the aircraft is taxied to the runway, the pilot will ask the tower for the final airport clearance, by announcing "ready for takeoff". Once the ATC controller gives the pilot final instructions the pilot can access the runway and start the takeoff. The ATC instructions will be the route the pilot should take to get from the runway to the beginning of the flight plan route. Every bit of the instructions and plans for the takeoff are there in case there is a failure. If there is a radio failure either from ATC or the Aircraft, the instructions given are good enough for the pilot to take off, fly the planned route, and approach the destination. It is a safety situation, should the plan be the safest and most expeditious way to fly the route.
Once the aircraft is above about 300 ft, depending on the airport, the aircraft will appear on RADAR. The first RADAR that will show the aircraft is the TRACON, who will control the aircraft after tower hands off the aircraft. The TRACON controller will control the aircraft until it is more than 30-50 miles from the airport. The TRACON will hand the aircraft off the enroute controllers who will control the flight until it is 30-60 miles from the destination airport. The RADAR data will be collected and sent to the FAA command center for others to view, and use the ADSI information. As we move into NextGen, there may be more ADS/B position reporting, instead of RADAR.
Once the aircraft is on the route, the pilots will typically engage the autopilot. The autopilot will help maintain the route of flight, altitude and throttle settings to insure the aircraft flies the route planned, and uses the fuel planned. The pilot must monitor the autopilot to be sure it is engaged, and doing the right thing the whole flight. Occasionally pilots will hand fly the aircraft, for practice. Once in a while the autopilot will fail, and the pilots must had fly the aircraft. The systems in the aircraft are designed for certain reliability levels.
During the enroute portion of the flight, there may be messages the pilots need to send to the company operations center. The pilots will usually send a text message over ACARS if they don't have a lot of urgency to the message. The pilots also have an option for voice communication using company assigned frequencies. If there were to be a medical emergency, the voice communications will be used, if a pilot is looking for a weather report for 400 miles ahead, they will use ACARS.
As the aircraft gets closer to the destination, ATC will typically begin having the aircraft start to descend. Newer approaches follow a continuous descent profile, where the pilots set the throttles to idle at altitude, and basically use the potential energy to glide the aircraft to the runway, reducing noise, fuel burn and pollution.
Current approaches typically are designed for the aircraft to provide it's own guidance. That is there are airs on the ground (or satellite) to provide the aircraft the information it needs to know where it is, and fly to the runway. Features like DME and ILS radions are on the ground, and GPS satellites are in the air.
The enroute controller will hand the flight off to the TRACON controller about 50 miles from the airport, where the aircraft will be below about 10,000ft. The TRACON controller will clear the flight for the approach that it will use to get to the airport. At about 5 miles out, the pilot will be told to contact the tower, and the tower and the pilot will make the final checks and be cleared for the runway to land on. Once on the ground, the pilot will talk to the ground controllers to get to the proper parking area, and maybe a gate controller for certain airports. Once the wheels are chocked, and the engines shutdown, the pilots are mostly done with the flight.
Yes, there is a bit of technology going on between each gate, and a little before. Ever think about that before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)