London, 27-28 April 2017

EUROCAE Symposium & 54th General Assembly

EUROCAE Symposium

SESSION 2: GENERALAVIATION

Moderator: Philip CHURCH, HELIOS

Speakers: Jonathan ARCHER, GAMAColin CHESTERTON, UK CAAJohn KORNA, NATS UKJulian SCARFE, PPL IR EuropeFriedhelm RUNGE, EASA

EUROCAE Symposium

Philip CHURCHHELIOS

EUROCAE Symposium

Jonathan ARCHERGAMA

General Aviation Manufacturers Association:Standardization of Avionic Certification in GA

JONATHAN ARCHERDIRECTOR – ENGINEERING & AIRWORTHINESSJARCHER@GAMA.AEROEUROCAE 2017 SYMPOSIUM , LONDON, 27TH APRIL 2017

Contents

1. Driving Factors2. Certification Streamlining 3. EASA / FAA Harmonization4. Who is GAMA?

Note: Included For Information Only

1. Driving FactorsIncreased Automation & Electrification

2. Certification Streamlining for GA

CHALLENGES: Average age of GA aircraft Cost of new aircraft increase

prohibitive to many private pilots. Cost of certifying new systems. GA fatal accident rate over 5x

higher than for commercial jet aircraft!

SOLUTIONS: New Part-23/CS-23 using performance-based rules and industry standards

Enable deployment of safety-enhancing technology into existing fleet at lower costs: FAA NORSEE

EASA CS-STAN Technical Policy Committee

NewCS-23

Old Part/ CS-23

Systems & Equipment

• Technical Solutions that meet standards

• Test specifications• Specific

compliance methods

Powerplant: Engine Installation

• Technical Solutions that meet standards

• Test specifications• Specific

compliance methods

Structures: Design Loads & Conditions

• Technical Solutions that meet standards

• Test specifications• Specific

compliance methods

Structures General

• Technical Solutions that meet standards

• Test specifications• Specific

compliance methods

International Aviation Community

Authority

High-level requirements.(safety driven)NO technical solutions prescribedNo tiers or categories

Detailed Design Standards- Tiered where it makes sense- Contains detailed compliance requirements- Current CS-23 used as a starting basis

Auth. Acceptance Flight

Characteristics, Performance, & Operating Limits

• Technical Solutions that meet standards

• Test specifications• Specific compliance

methods

Technical Policy Committee

2. New Part/CS-23: A Paradigm Shift in Regulation

3. EASA-FAA HarmonizationCurrent Activities in Avionics (1)

Harmonization of A(M)C Airborne Software and Electronic Hardware

Introduction:

Industry Met with FAA & EASA in Cologne on August 26, 2015

Objective: To develop a framework to work towards harmonization of guidance material

Discussion: Differences between Industry and Authority positions

Next Steps:

Define how to address the development of harmonized GM for a broad spectrum of organizations, from the mature to immature

Develop roadmap / schedule for rulemaking activities

Identify key areas that require GM development – clarify: objective-based guidance, best practice etc.

Successful Progress – starting with:

Establishment of joint Authority / Industry working groups to update:

A(M)C 20-115D – Software Development Assurance – currently under public consultation

A(M)C 20-152 – Airborne Electronic Hardware (AEH) Complex COTS Avionics & Electronic Systems Subcommittee

3. EASA-FAA Activities in Avionics (2) Open Problem Report (OPR) Management Working Group

Joint Authority / Industry OPR Working Group established February 2017 to review industry recommendations and address concerns.

Ongoing task

FAA Overarching Properties Initiative Research into alternate methods to DO-178B/C and DO-254 for the certification of

avionics systems and equipment.

Phase I of this Initiative was reported at the FAA Avionics Systems Workshop in September 2016.

Working collaboratively with AIA and ASD (parallel research programme to RESSAC)

Phase II is an ongoing task

Avionics & Electronic Systems Subcommittee

3. Planned Future Activities (3)

Joint Industry / Authority Avionics Certification Roadmap Input to a Certification Management Team (CMT) – Industry Day Action

Taken at the September 2016 Meeting

FAA AIR Transformation task force on risk-based decision making

Avionics & Electronic Systems Subcommittee

4. GAMA History and Purpose Founded in 1970 to “foster and advance the

general welfare, safety, interests and activities of general aviation.”

Expanded to worldwide membership in 2001

Expanded to include rotorcraft & MRO in 2011

Created Associate Membership for Hybrid & Electric Propulsion in October 2015

Office Locations: Washington, DC , USA (headquarters)

Brussels, Belgium

Logo is the Greek symbol for the letter “GAMMA”

Note: Included For Information Only

4. GAMA Members & Europe

97 Member Companies (Global)

12 Associate Members

29 Aircraft Manufacturers

10 Engine Manufacturers

17 Avionics Manufacturers

41 Component Manufacturers / Service Providers

4. GAMA Annual Databook

Annual Publication compiled by GAMA since 1973: OEM Global Shipments & Billings Global GA Fleet Data & Flight

Activity GA Safety Statistics

http://gama.aero/media-center/industry-facts-and-statistics/statistical-databook-and-industry-outlook

GAMA is actively campaigning to address the lack of consolidated and consistent General Aviation data in Europe.

Issue!

EUROCAE Symposium

Colin CHESTERTONUK CAA

Electronic Conspicuity for GA

07 March 2017

Drivers

To promote increased uptake of conspicuity aids to improve situational awareness for both airspace users and air traffic managers

Reduce risk of Mid Air Collision (MAC) through enhanced airborne situational awareness

Explore opportunities for increasing the use of technologies such as:

ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast)

LPAT (Low Power ADS-B Transceiver)

Moving maps, cockpit based location display improving Situational Awareness

Understanding how Electronic Conspicuity will enable access to future airspace environments

Facilitate safe drone integration

Issues

Different users have different requirements Different users equipped with different technologies

not all are interoperable No defined use on the ground although is being used

ad hoc in some locations (which indicates there are some benefits) Nationally no clear preferred solutions Cost vs benefit Certification and bureaucratic hurdles (CAP1391) Spectrum (either unprotected or Congestion)

Enablers

Clear direction on technological solution: Interoperable Low cost/cost effective CAA ‘acknowledged’

Identify Funding/Financing Opportunities

Review of National Legislation to support uptake

Training material to support use of new Technologies'

Considerations

Interoperable with ground environment (and a ground environment to support that)

Regulatory and Specification requirements

Engagement with all communities to encourage equipage

Engagement with International bodies to enable equipage and align future strategies

Encourage manufacturers to develop affordable solutions

Spectrum congestion

Benefits

Reducing the risk of mid-air collision through cockpit improved situational awareness

Help facilitate future airspace modernisation

Potential improved airspace access for all users

Reduce impact of infringements

Safe Drone integration

EUROCAE Symposium

John KORNANATS UK

Electronic ConspicuityECWG

19th April 2017

Unmarked 25

Contents

EVA & Outcomes

FAS EC

Other recent developments

Summary

Unmarked 26

Unmarked 27

‘Electronic Visibility via ADS-B’SESAR Large Scale Demonstration project2-year project which assessed:• Effectiveness of electronic conspicuity for

improving See, Be Seen and Avoid,• Interoperability and relative benefits of different

electronic conspicuity solutions,• Regulatory & certification considerations• Methods for reducing costs• Included 50+ flights

Project EVA

This is the aircraft you are looking for!

Unmarked 28

Unmarked 32

• VFR Flight only

• Not a transponder

• Portable

• TX power ~20W

• ADS-B In and Out (Mutual conspicuity)

• Interoperable

• FLARM & Transponder proximity warnings

• Bluetooth external connection

• Can broadcast Emergency status

Low Power ADS-B Transceiver - PlaneSight

EC vs Visual Acquisition

Unmarked 33

Visual acquisition before device detection

Device detection before visual acquisition

Area under curve shows limit of visual scan is ~2NM even when assisted by traffic information

Key messages

See, BE SEEN and Avoid

• Mutual interoperability on 1090 MHz is key

• CAP1391 – Electronic Conspicuity offers potential route for some to be electronically visible to others and ground applications

• No low cost way forward for EASA CS-23 aircraft on ADS-B OUT

• Information Display & integration with 3rd party display solutions

• Where there is a need, lower barrier to entry will means products will be developed to meet perceived market needs:– FLARM, – PilotAware

34Unmarked

FAS Facilitation Fund EC Project

1. GA Uncertified Electronic Conspicuity Equipage:

• Promote & facilitate the use of CAP1391 EC units

• Targeting localised deployments at scale

2. NATS En-Route Use Of Uncertified EC

• Investigate feasibility of using uncertified ADS-B by NATS to reduce GA infringement risk

• London TMA

• NERL funded ATSOCAS positions

3. Airfield Flight Information Service (AFISO)

• Assess the feasibility of airfields using EC for situational awareness

Unmarked 35

GA Standardisation Challenges

Challenges in low end GA:• Size, • Weight, • Power, • Cost and • Path to equipage• Direct Personal Business cases

• post tax disposable income• What’s in it for me?• What’s in it for me?• What is the state going to do to me with it?

Unmarked 36

Summary

• SWaP-C appropriate products for small airframes

• Aspiration to reduce safety and service risks e.g. MAC, CAS Infringements

• Community effort: Aerodromes, pilots, flying associations, ANSP regulator working together

• NATS continues work on SEE, BE SEEN and AVOID in Class G

• Focus shifting to ground exploitation & increasing ADS-B and CAP-1391 carriage

37Unmarked

Questions

38Unmarked

Thank you

Unmarked

Email: Mark.watson@nats.co.ukEmail: john.korna@nats.co.uk

Unmarked 40

• Evaluate effectiveness of improved situational awareness.

• Assess feasibility and benefits of several different types of equipment.

• Examine equipment interoperability.

• Look at performance requirements for displaying position data from uncertificated position sources for ATC purposes.

• Minimise regulatory and certification issues.

• Produce guidance material for European aviation standards.

• Progress industrialisation.

• Investigate costs and barriers to bringing equipment to market.

EVA Objectives

Risk ComponentsAs a result of <an event> there is a RISK that <a bad outcome ensues>

RISK = Probability x Severity

So what has that got to do with EC?

The equipage element will create an increasingly visible traffic environment• Enable the other two work areas to use this real data to attack both parts of the

risk equation for1. Mid-air collision2. Infringement risk

Unmarked 41

Infringement Risk reduction:

1. Severity:

• Where traffic is visible, it removed uncertainty as to if a primary contact is or is not an aircraft.• See if an ATSOCAS unit is talking to the aircraft if a listening Squawk is shown• Enables the controller to take appropriate actions and (hopefully) reduce the impact – LHR

departure or arrival stoppages etc.• Use of some predictive techniques to show aircraft at risk of infringing before they do so to build

controller awareness and inform decision making2. Probability: • Provide an approved route for AFSIO units to appropriately exploit ADS-B, and provide proximity

prompts to aircraft in close proximity to controlled airspace

Unmarked 42

Unit Deployment

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

Unmarked 43

NERL Ground Feasibility & Options StudyInitial F&O on controller presentation preference completed• Significant cost and challenge to reaching the preferred Terminal

Control end stateSimilar, but less developed F&O for a similar state to support LARS ATSOCAS• Considered more feasible, and positive business case• Model & technology candidates may be applicable to other airfieldsNERL is currently developing a new surveillance strategy,• Technology investment cycle & maturities of new capabilities &

systems • Sensors• TrackerInteractions and dependencies with NERL’s Regulatory Periods & wider investment portfolio & deployment plans

44Unmarked

Aerodrome Deployment

• There is no firm aerodrome candidates but selection criteria include:• Proximity to infringement hot spots

• ATS/AFSIO units with mature operations and safety management processes

• Traffic mix

• CAP1391 devices ADS-B IN for transponder equipped aircraft, ADS-B IN & OUT if not equipped

• Ground sensor and display equipment options being looked at now• Consideration of innovative approaches and business models• Initial de-risking deployment & engagement expected early June• Engagement with candidate Units & regulator to follow assessment of that

Unmarked 45

EVA Results

• Completed: Use of low cost EC equipment for GA situation awareness

Interoperability of various EC equipment

Certification issues

• Incomplete: Use of EC data at small airfields

Use of EC data to minimise/manage infringements

46Unmarked

Other Recent developments

US based trial of ADS-B (UAT) equipped RPAS and a manned HelicopterOutcomes:• Knee mounted display• Electronic situational awareness maintained• 4 pairs of MK-I eyeballs did not see the RPAS – no visual

acquisition• The RPAS could “See/Photograph” the aircraft • UAS operator now fitting to entireity of US based fleethttp://www.sky-futures.com/news-updates/interoperability-between-manned-unmanned-aircraft/

Unmarked 47

Thank you

Unmarked

EUROCAE Symposium

Julian SCARFEPPL IR Europe

Instrument Flight Rules in the 21st Century

Julian ScarfePPL/IR Europewww.pplir.org

What are “Flight Rules”?

Flight rules help aircraft avoid colliding with:– other aircraft– terrain and obstacles

Flight rules are not about:– control of the aircraft– navigation

though there are synergies…

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Visual Flight Rules

Visual flight rules (VFR) are simple:– Stay in suitable visual conditions

(Visual Meteorological Conditions)– Avoid collisions visually

» with other aircraft» with terrain and obstacles

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

SERA.5005 Visual flight rules (a) Except when operating as a special VFR flight, VFR flights shall be conducted so that the aircraft is flown in conditions of visibility and distance from clouds equal to or greater than those specified in Table S5-1.

Instrument Flight Rules

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

MVA

Controlled airspace

1000 ft

Odd levels

Even levels

Uncontrolled airspace

The cultural norm

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)– for commercial air transport– high precision and skill– high costly equipment – almost always in controlled airspace

Visual Flight Rules (VFR)– for leisure and specialised ops– unskilled– seat-of-the-pants, map & compass– mostly outside controlled airspace

Image: Naddsy, Flickr

Why the divergence?

Controlled airspace where CAT flies IFR to achieve the safety levels expected in CAT

With 20th century technology, precise trajectory adherence to designed procedures was the only way to address the terrain/obstacle risk effectively

ATC radar or traffic info was the only way to detect other aircraft non-visually

but Let’s re-examine the risks in the light of 21st century

technology…

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Avoid collisions with other aircraft

Surveillance technologies starting to offer a picture of nearby aircraft

– in all meteorological conditions– with increasingly complete information

Sense-and-avoid – is starting to reach the reliability levels

of see-and-avoid– does not depend on visual acquisition

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Avoid collisions with terrain & obstacles

Navigation technologies starting to offer a picture of nearby terrain and obstacles

– in all meteorological conditions– with increasingly complete

information

Synthetic vision– is starting to reach the reliability levels

of see-and-avoid– does not depend on visual acquisition

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Image: Honeywell

So in any meteorological conditions…

We will be able to sense/see and avoid what we need to avoid without ATC and without instrument flight procedures

IFR becomes like VFR

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Is this the end of ATC?

No, because of the need to manage traffic in complex situations

But ATC can act as managers not look-outs

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

The future?

The end of differentiation of flight rules on the basis of meteorological conditions

Controlled vs uncontrolled airspace

Managed vs unmanaged airspace

Instrument Flight Rules vs Visual Flight Rules

Contract trajectory vs free flight

© PPL/IR Europe EUROCAE London April

Instrument Flight Rules in the 21st Century

Julian ScarfePPL/IR Europewww.pplir.org

EUROCAE Symposium

Friedhelm RUNGEEASA

EUROCAE Symposium

SESSION 2: GENERALAVIATION

Moderator: Philip CHURCH, HELIOS

Speakers: Jonathan ARCHER, GAMAColin CHESTERTON, UK CAAJohn KORNA, NATS UKJulian SCARFE, PPL IR EuropeFriedhelm RUNGE, EASA