2016 annual report - arinc | sae itc · · 2017-12-04arinc specification 816-3aeec ......

2016 ANNUAL REPORT

SAE ITC ARINC INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES STAFF December 2016

Mike RockwellExecutive Director

“Dedicated to the success of AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC” –Mike Rockwell, Executive Director, SAE ITC

Jose GodoyPrincipal Engineer

Sam BuckwalterProgram DirectorAMC & FSEMC Executive Secretary

Peter GrauPrincipal Engineer

Vanessa MastrosBusiness ManagerPrincipal Engineer

Lori HessEditorial Assistant

Tom MunnsProgram Director

Paul PrisaznukProgram DirectorAEEC Executive Secretary

Kate PoppEditorial Assistant

Scott SmithPrincipal EngineerFSEMC Assistant Executive Secretary

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SAE ITC ARINC Industry Activities Staff | December 2016 ..........1

A Message from SAE Industry Technologies Consortia (SAE ITC) ......................................4

Message from Industry Activities .................................................6

AEEC | AMC Welcome and Keynote ............................................ 8

FSEMC Welcome and Keynote......................................................18

Bringing the Industry Together ...................................................32

AEEC, AMC, & FSEMC ...................................................................34

Aviation Industry Activities ...........................................................34

Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) ............34

Avionics Maintenance Conference (AMC) ...............................35

Flight Simulator Engineering & Maintenance Conference (FSEMC) .......................................................................35

Continued Commitment .................................................................35

Member Organizations and Corporate Sponsors ......................36

Benefits ................................................................................................36

Supporting Organizations ...........................................................38

Member Organizations (As of December 31, 2016) ..............38

Corporate Sponsors (As of December 31, 2016) .................. 40

Other Aircraft Operators (As of December 31, 2016) ..........43

ARINC Industry Activities Advisory Group (IAAG) .................. 44

IAAG Representation ..................................................................... 44

Purpose .................................................................................... 44

Summary ................................................................................. 44

ARINC Standards ..........................................................................45

Introduction ........................................................................................45

18 ARINC Standards Published in 2016 .................................... 46

ARINC Report 422-1 ................................................................47

ARINC Specification 424-21 .................................................47

ARINC Specification 439A ...................................................47

ARINC Characteristic 535B-1 ...............................................47

ARINC Specification 618-8 .................................................. 48


ARINC Specification 665-4 ................................................. 48

ARINC Report 676 .................................................................. 48

ARINC Characteristic 771 ..................................................... 49

ARINC Specification 816-2 Change 1 ................................ 49


ARINC Specification 822A................................................... 49

ARINC Specification 832-1 ................................................... 50

ARINC Specification 834-6 ................................................. 50


ARINC Specification 844, Part 1 ........................................ 50

ARINC Specification 844, Part 2 .........................................51

ARINC Specification 845 .......................................................51

Project Descriptions .....................................................................52

49 Active Projects ............................................................................52

Project Descriptions ........................................................................56

AEEC Projects ...........................................................................56

AMC Projects ............................................................................69

FSEMC Projects .........................................................................71

AEEC .............................................................................................74

Message from the Chairman .........................................................74

AEEC Executive Committee Members (As of December 31, 2016) ............................................................76

AEEC Summary 2016 ......................................................................78

AEEC Mission ............................................................................78

AEEC Overview ........................................................................78

AEEC Composition ..................................................................78

AEEC Subcommittees and Working Groups ...........................79

Aeronautical Databases (ADB) .......................................... 80

Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communication (AeroMACS) .......................................................................81

Aeronautical Operational Communication (AOC) ........81

Air-Ground Communication Systems (AGCS) ................81

Avionics Application/Executive Software (APEX) .......81

Cabin Systems (CSS) ..............................................................82

3

Cockpit Display System Interfaces (CDS) .......................82

Controller Area Network (CAN) .........................................82

Data Link Systems (DLK) ......................................................82

Data Link Users Forum ..........................................................83

Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) ................................83

Digital Video Working Group (DVE) .................................83

Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) .................................................83

Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum - a Joint Activity with IATA ........................................................... 84

Fiber Optic Interfaces (FOS) .............................................. 84

Flight Management Computer System (FMS) .............. 84

Galley Inserts (GAIN) ............................................................ 84

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ...................85

Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) for Aeronautical Safety Services ...............................................................................85

Ku/Ka Band Satellite Communication System (KSAT) .................................................................85

Navigation Database (NDB) ................................................85

Network Infrastructure and Security (NIS) ....................85

NextGen/SESAR Avionics ....................................................86

Software Distribution and Loading (SDL) ......................86

Software Metrics Working Group (SWM) .......................86

Systems Architecture and Interfaces (SAI) ....................86

Traffic Surveillance ..................................................................87

AMC .............................................................................................88


AMC Steering Committee Members (As of December 31, 2016) ........................................................... 90

AMC Summary ...................................................................................92

AMC Mission ............................................................................92

Introduction .............................................................................92

AMC Working Groups .....................................................................93

Aircraft Support Data Management (ASDM) Working Group ..............................................93

Special Investigation Working Group .............................93

Field Loadable Software Working Group .................... 94

Test Program Set (TPS) Quality Working Group ...... 94

FSEMC ............................................................................................95


FSEMC Steering Committee Members (As of December 31, 2016) ............................................................98

FSEMC Summary ........................................................................... 100

FSEMC Mission .................................................................... 100

Introduction .......................................................................... 100

FSEMC Working Groups ............................................................... 102

Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments (SATCE) Working Group ............................................................. 102

FSEMC Data Document (FDD) Working Group ........ 102

Simulator Continuing Qualification (SCQ) Working Group ............................................................................... 102

EASA FSTD Technical Group ........................................... 103

Annual Awards ............................................................................104

Austin Trumbull Award .................................................................104

Roger Goldberg Award ................................................................104

Edwin A. Link Award .....................................................................105

Volare Awards .................................................................................105

Annual Report Acronym List ...................................................... 106

4

A MESSAGE FROM SAE INDUSTRY TECHNOLOGIES CONSORTIA (SAE ITC)

AE Industry Technologies Consortia (SAE ITC) is a collection of independent programs and consortia, briefly described below, which enable members of public, private and government organizations to work together in a legal, secure, and global framework. As a 501(c)(6) non-profit, SAE ITC has the infrastructure and resources to help organizations connect, collaborate, and innovate in each phase of the integrated product development and delivery cycle.

SAE Industry Technologies Consortia builds trust that benefits industry. Organizations today are navigating a complex and rapidly changing landscape to bring their products to market. The challenges organizations face include quality, safety, environmental impact, interoperability, counterfeit, maintainability, and the effective implementation of new technologies. Products and services

related to data, information and the Internet of Things must also consider cybersecurity. To overcome these common challenges and fully leverage the benefits of technology, organizations are looking to build networks they can trust.

ARINC Industry Activities (ARINC IA) Program is a prime example; The ARINC IA content suite contains over 300 industry managed standards, many of which are applicable to the NextGen/SESAR airspace initiatives and emerging aircraft. These standards help ensure interoperability, safety, and reliability. ARINC IA documents also include reports and best practices for cost effective training, acquisition, and maintenance.

Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy Group has taken the next step. In addition to standards, they have defined a training curriculum and qualification requirements for personnel based on what each company had been independently requiring. By finding the common thread in requirements and eliminating redundancies in training and qualification, it is estimated that the industry has saved over $50 million.

Probitas Authentication Program not only provides for the independent and objective qualification of the personnel who have taken the training defined by the AESQ, they also are the world’s largest Aerospace Quality Auditor and Training Registrar. SAE ITC’s core skills and strengths in administering and maintaining personal data qualification records are leveraged on multiple fronts to benefit industry.

Laurie StromExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating OfficerSAE ITC

5

The Aerospace Standards Part Qualification Program (ASPQP) maintains a database of sources for qualified hardware that meet industry defined Engine and Airframe standards. The program currently addresses the specific needs of the UK based Engine and Airframe standards but the methodology has the potential to be broadened to other critical hardware either during manufacture or maintenance.

World Manufacturing Code/Product Identification Number (WMC/PIN) Program maintains another kind of database focused on off-road vehicles. This is required by some local governments for operation and insurance purposes.

Input/Output Buffer Information Specification (IBIS) Program is focused on software enabling efficient communication of Input/ Output parameters for electronic boards and assemblies without unintentionally revealing proprietary features of the underlying circuitry. What does it have in common with the other programs? Experts from across the globe recognize a common issue, and precompetitively collaborate and combine their expertise in such a way to provide an innovative solution that benefits industry. Working together, they have built a trusted network for communication and innovation.

DATC (Defense Automotive Technologies Consortium) is building trusted relationships between government, industry and academia. This newest consortium is particularly exciting in its potential to address inefficiencies in government procurement programs by enabling more direct communication of opportunities for prototypes to consortium members. This process is expected to both lower costs and increase speed to market for eight key technology areas: Vehicle Light Weighting, Autonomous Vehicles and Intelligent Systems, Connected Vehicles, Advanced Energy Storage Technologies, Propulsion Technologies, Vehicle Safety Technologies, Active Suspension Technologies, and Automotive Cyber Security.

The bottom-line is that the challenges facing industry are diverse and complex, but not beyond the capability of being solved by bright minds working together. SAE Industry Technologies Consortium enables people, locally or globally, to come together, connect and collaborate in neutral, pre-competitive forums, empowering the setting and implementation of strategic business improvements in highly engineered industries. SAE Industry Technologies Consortia build trust that benefits Industry - trusted networks, trusted innovations, trusted authentications, trusted standards, trusted relationships. SAE ITC is a benefit to industries bottom-line and ARINC Industry Activities is a prime example as shown throughout this annual report.

6

MESSAGE FROM INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES

Michael D. RockwellExecutive Director, ARINC IA

ARINC Industry Activities had another successful year, continuing its tradition of bringing the airline community together through the preparation of ARINC Standards and conferences. Delta Air Lines hosted the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) General Session and Avionics Maintenance Conference (AMC) on April 25-28, 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia. This AEEC|AMC conference was attended by 725 people and is summarized as follows:

• 155 people representing 32 different airlines

• 570 people from supplier and service organizations

• 25 Supplier hospitality suites open

• $1200.00 raised for Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta

ARINC Industry Activities produced consensus-based ARINC Standards that bring value to the airlines, airframe manufacturers, avionics suppliers and other related businesses:

• 18 ARINC Standards approved and published in 2016

• 22+ new projects authorized, with 59 standards presently in-work

• AMC and FSEMC vetted 340 questions related to resolving avionics maintenance and flight simulation issues

The AEEC Data Link Users Forum met twice in 2016; February 2-3, 2016, in Miami, Florida and September 13-14, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland with an average of 90 people in attendance. The AEEC Data Link Users Forum coordinates the airline operational needs with the air navigation service providers, the data link service providers and the supplier community.

The AEEC Electronic Flight Bag Users Forum met twice in 2016: May 25-26, 2016, in Munich, Germany and November 2-3, 2016, in Honolulu, Hawaii with an average of 325 people in attendance. The AEEC Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum coordinates the airline operational needs with EFB providers and regulators.

ARINC Industry Activities conducted the 22nd FSEMC Conference, held September 2016, in Hong Kong. This conference was attended by 215 people from 31 countries representing simulator user organizations, products and services suppliers,

7

Michael D. Rockwell, Executive Director ARINC Industry Activities, an SAE ITC Program

airframe manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, and regulatory authorities.

Through the AEEC, AMC and FSEMC activities participants learn about new technologies, existing and pending regulatory issues, best practices for life cycle support, etc. through the exchange of their knowledge and experiences that contribute to cost effective solutions for all. Your organization’s active participation in and financial support of the AEEC, AMC and FSEMC activities is greatly appreciated.

8

AEEC | AMC WELCOME AND KEYNOTE

The AEEC | AMC was held April 25-28, 2016, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Robert Swanson, FedEx, served as AEEC Chairman.

In his opening remarks, Robert summarized a recent assessment of the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC): “What is our value to the industry?”

Robert presented the outcome of this assessment:

1. Recognition that the commercial aviation industry and its regulatory environment are competitive, complex and dynamic, with operators sharing the same supplier base and similar challenges, and,

2. ARINC Industry Activities provides the forum to engage the entire aviation community and shape the outcomes, which improves airline performance, safety, and reliability, all adding up to cost effective operations and life cycle management.

Supplier participation in the AEEC is a great way to show support and appreciation for the airline customers.

AMC Chairman, Marijan Jozic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, served as AMC Chairman.

In his opening remarks he summarized the challenges of running a maintenance department.

Running a maintenance department at an airline is an immense and frustrating process. To some, it is a job. To others, it is the thrill of watching the aircraft fly away, knowing you

AEEC | AMC Leadership pictured (left to right): Paul Prisaznuk, SAE ITC ARINC Industry Activities ; Kathleen O’Brien, Boeing; Ted McFann, FedEx; Marian Jozic, KLM; Steve Dickson, Delta Air Lines; Robert Swanson, FedEx; Ray Frelk, AAI; Mike Rockwell, SAE ITC ARINC Industry Activities; Sam Buckwalter, SAE ITC ARINC Industry Activities; Jim Lord, Delta Air Lines

9

personally played a part in it. To many of us, more than in any other industry, it is the passion because you are an aviation romantic who still thinks it is an incredible experience to see any aircraft leaving the ground.

Highly educated technicians with a lot of experience spend much time in meetings, telephone calls, with contracts, customers, purchasing, Service Bulletin planning, engineering, production units, planning departments, preparation departments, quality assurance, DRs, accounting, calculators, flight ops, vendors, incoming goods, inspectors, and suppliers. Then we have preliminary design reviews, critical design reviews, technical coordination meetings, first article inspection, and WebEx conferences all in an effort to support a business that is:

• Very capital intensive: expensive parts and ground time

• Fuel intensive: prices widely fluctuate in a blink of an eye

• Labor intensive: work until you drop – the aircraft must leave as soon as possible

• Customer service intensive: otherwise, pay a penalty

• Intensely operational: late delivery means cancelation of the flight, high penalties for delays and cancelations

• Perishable inventory: even worse than bananas

• Competitive: man hour price under great pressure

• Highly accurate: no mistakes allowed

• Obsolescence sensitive

• Highly regulated, with millions of procedures

• Extremely sensitive to events like SARS, Ebola, Zika virus, and of course the 9/11 and Brussels attacks

• Under extreme supervision over advertence authorities: think of all the audits

• Intellectual property is protected and legally controlled

But when everything is finished, and an aircraft leaves in perfect condition, it is an extreme thrill and we all love it.

10

The keynote speaker, Captain Steve Dickson, Senior Vice-President of Flight Operations, Delta Air Lines, described the Delta operation, its global presence, the focus on customer satisfaction, and its rich history in aviation.

From its humble beginnings as the first aerial crop dusting company in 1928, Delta has become one the largest airlines in the world. Delta employs 80,000 people and operates 800 aircraft and 15,000 flights per day.

On behalf of the employees of Delta, Steve welcomed participants to the AEEC | AMC in Atlanta.

Good morning, everyone. It is a privilege to be with you this morning at this coveted Monday morning timeslot. I hope you had enough coffee to get through all the talking heads this morning at the opening plenary session, but I would also like to offer a warm welcome to Atlanta.

This building actually holds some personal significance and memories for me. If you are not familiar with it, Atlanta’s history does not go back by comparison with other parts of the world for very long, but the Hyatt Regency was actually the first large atrium hotel that was built anywhere in the world, and now that has become the design standard that we are all very familiar with. I remember my grandfather brought me down here when I was 10 years old in 1967 right after it opened and we went to Sunday brunch and looked with awe up at all these indoor balconies and the very spectacular atrium at the time, and little to know that was really one of the first big steps Atlanta took to becoming what is now a very major city and certainly the home of Delta Air Lines.

I would also like to remember my Delta colleagues this morning. I would like to thank them for their leadership and all of their hard work in helping to set up this event as well as Jim for his welcome this morning.

I would like to start with a story. Just a recent little story about some of our leadership at Delta Air Lines. Really, a lot of what we are talking about this morning and your work throughout the week focuses so much on leading the industry forward and on the importance of collaboration.

CONTINUED AEEC | AMC Welcome and Keynote

11

Last week, thinking about some of the topics that you will be covering this week, Delta CEO Richard Anderson, Don Mitacek, the Senior Vice President of our Technical Operations organization, and David Garrison, our Senior Vice President for Maintenance Engineering, were on their way to lunch. They were talking about the coming week, and as they were walking along, David saw a brass object off to the side, and he took the time to divert from their walk and picked it up, and it was this brass urn, and he took his handkerchief out and he started to polish it up a little bit, and a genie popped out.

This genie was so happy to be released from his brass confinement that he told the three Delta leaders that he would grant them three wishes. David was very anxious and so he was the first. David said, “Well, I would like a 60-foot yacht on a Caribbean island, with a private beach and enough money to keep myself and my family happy for the rest of our lives.” So the genie nodded his head, and then POOF! David was gone.

Don was next. Don said, “For my wish, I would like to be married to a supermodel, and I would like to have a penthouse condo in London, New York, and Hong Kong.” POOF! Don was gone.

So then the genie turned to Richard Anderson, and asked Richard what his wish was. Richard responded, “I want those two idiots back at their desks by 2 pm working for our customers.”

The moral of the story is, as we all know: Always let your boss go first.

I want to take just a few minutes now, on a little more serious note, to walk you through the history of how your industry, avionics in particular, has touched Delta Air Lines from the days when IFR literally meant “I Follow Roads” as a pilot, through today’s marvels of GPS navigation and all of the possibilities which we are now just beginning to unlock.

Let’s start with a short scenario to put to you in a Delta frame of mind, which means that ultimately, our focus is on our customers. We will take a look at industry trends, how Delta is currently integrating some of the tools into which you have poured your hearts and your minds. In the end, I want you to know that we appreciate the work that you do, certainly the leadership and the collaboration that you portray, and the role that it plays in Delta advancing into the future, always keeping our passengers safe and happy on our aircraft. Really, a lot of this discussion, although it focuses on technology, one of the big things that we always need to be thinking about is the human machine interface and what that technology enables in terms of improved operational capability.

To that end, when you think about it, the pilot role has really changed quite a bit over the last century. Delta is almost a 90-year-old company now. We started off and actually owe our existence to an insect, believe it or not. I think we are the only airline in the world that can make that claim, because Delta started out as a crop dusting company. Over the years, although the laws of aerodynamics have not changed, certainly the way that we are flying the airplanes has evolved a lot. We started out with celestial navigation,

12

which we incorporated from sailors, navigating our way with references to the sun, the moon, a few planets and stars guiding our way through the sky. The old airways system within the US with bonfires and then later beacons to guide pilots on to their destinations. Not so long ago we had to tune to identify NDB stations, correct for crosswinds, and accept large margins of error while navigating from station to station. You gave us ILS, first developed in 1929, and VOR, which was first used in the late 1950s, which was a step well above NDB, that came with a higher margin of safety. Then we saw Loran, Omega, and Inertial Navigation greatly changing the way that we operate, allowing us to travel more effectively to further destinations.

These new technologies decreased track errors, improved bad weather capabilities, all while getting us closer and closer to the intended landing runway. These new capabilities gave us the ability to operate across the oceans in a shorter time frame, delivering our customers in more efficient manner, saving time, fuel, and money along the way.

Since the introduction of GPS in the early 1980s, its evolution among the commercial aviation sector has given us some of the amazing possibilities that you are designing, selling, operating, and repairing this very day.

I don’t know about you, but it is sort of like AM radio. Nobody really listens to AM radio anymore, I listen to my favorite Atlanta sports talk station on my way to work in the mornings, but that is about the only time people use AM radio anymore because we can actually stream radio onto our smart devices. So the way that we are interacting with our environment on the ground and in the air is changing at a very rapid pace. Ultimately, that is a big challenge for all of us managing through all of this change.

All of you have travelled on aircraft to business meetings, many of you coming to this conference this week. Imagine yourself as a passenger on the Delta red-eye flight from LAX to ATL, trying to arrive early on a Monday morning for a 9am meeting downtown. 15 minutes before your scheduled arrival time, the captain comes over the public address announcement system and announces that you are holding for weather. He lets you know that the aircraft may need to divert to Memphis if the weather does not clear, and he tells you that the ILS approaches on two of the five runways are not functioning properly at Hartsfield-Jackson, and ATC is restricting traffic flows into the airport. I imagine that some of you, if not most of you, are sitting on the edge of your seats now, saying “Well, what about the RNAV approach? Why haven’t they implemented GBAS? Will I miss my meeting because the airport and the airline have not caught up to and invested in the latest technology?”

These are all great questions, and part of the reason that we are all here today. These are the questions that drive us forward, using your expertise to create the tools that we need to put the needs of our customers first.

At the end of the day, our operating performance is how we measure how we are doing. It is our report card, and how we compare ourselves to our


13

competition. When we put a new piece of equipment on our airplane, a lot of times we are looking at it through the lens of what kinds of operational reliability improvements this will allow us to achieve within our operation, because we at Delta believe that a big part of our success, a big part of our product is the performance of our daily operation. At the end of the day, that makes our customers trust us and want to come back to fly with us.

If you look at Delta’s recent operating performance, in 2015, we operated for the first time more than 1 million flights and flew more than 180 million customers in our system. Over this time period, those 1 million flights, we had 2237 flights that diverted or landed at an airport other than the one they were originally scheduled for. Now, these happened for all kinds of reasons, some of which are not related to weather: medical diverts, air turn backs, things like that. This is for the entire year. That is a diversion rate of 0.22%. Another metric that we use is completion factor. This is the percentage of flights that do not cancel. On a typical day at Delta, more often than not, we are actually completing 100% of our flights with a perfect completion factor day. In 2015, we had 214 days with no cancellations, and for the entire year, a completion factor of 99.56%. We typically operate with good on-time performance, and we are running this rate this year of about 86%, and if we have a day when there is no significant weather in the system, like big frontal activity or a lot of deicing activity in the winter time, we will typically run about 92% on time. We would not be able to achieve that kind of performance without the hard work that your industry does and the equipment that we have on our aircraft that will allow us to operate in all of these different conditions that we are faced with.

This kind of performance gives our customers tremendous confidence when they book flights that they will arrive at their destination safely and as scheduled. Again, we are able to achieve these impressive operational stats by using the advanced technologies that all of you have had a hand in developing.

At Delta, we are a little different than some carriers. You have carriers like Southwest Airlines that, although they are acquiring some new aircraft like the B737 MAX, essentially focus on operational efficiency and simplicity with one fleet type. At Delta, we are challenged with 11 fleet types, which is extremely challenging for our maintenance and engineering organization. It is certainly challenging for flight operations to make sure that we are appropriately staffed and trained for all of those different fleet types. It also creates some tremendous opportunities for us commercially. Our average age of our fleet is currently 15 years old, and as technology advances, we continually are evaluating the cost/benefit of modifying aircraft to take advantage of new operational capabilities, or whether we can operate with the suite that we currently have on the aircraft today.

We need to start at the beginning, working side by side with the regulators and the manufacturers, to maximize efficiencies that are afforded to us in today’s world. All of these efficiencies can be achieved by collaboration: through performance based resolutions that may not always fit perfectly into prescriptive-based regulations. With the hard work, leadership, and vision

14

found in this room, and the technology afforded to us in today’s marketplace, Delta is able to operate our newest and oldest aircraft in an ever-evolving technologically advanced environment.

Stated most simply, one of our primary goals in today’s aerospace system is to operate essentially with VFR arrival throughput rates at our airports in all types of weather. In the US, we schedule to the best weather conditions, and we manage the exceptions. When we have Air Traffic Control delay control programs or ground stops around the system, we have to manage around that. Delta participates in numerous aviation industry organizations, including the NextGen Advisory Committee, or NAC. Our CEO, Richard Anderson, is currently the chairman of the NAC. This is a Federal Advisory Committee, and many of you are familiar with it, that was formed to provide the FAA with advice on policy-level issues facing the aviation community in the process of modernizing the aviation system. Delta has committed significant resources into making our fleet NextGen capable. Many modifications are already underway, and many are planned for the future. These equipage initiatives can be challenging, to say the least. We have to make a business case to justify the modifications, and we are competing with other priorities around the business that may deliver immediate and concrete benefits in terms of operational performance. Often the issue is compounded by a constrained supply chain trying to supply the entire industry with the same equipment as solutions to some of these issues.

Let me move now to Delta’s Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance, or CNS, philosophy. Our CNS philosophy addresses these major initiatives, leveraging existing equipment to the maximum extent possible, to deliver the needed operational benefits. We call this NextGen. The CNS philosophy is: Communication through CPDLC and FANS; Navigation through Performance-Based Navigation, which has several flavors to it (RNP, RNP AR, and even basic RNAV); and then surveillance, which currently is ADS-B Out. We expect these NextGen benefits to improve safety, reliability, and customer service, all while reducing emissions and lowering fuel burn. With respect to safety, our CNS strategy reduces operational variability and increases predictability for the pilots on the flight deck and the Air Traffic Controllers, and it also provides consistent lateral and vertical paths to the end of the runway. With respect to reliability, our CNS philosophy provides more consistent and repeatable operations, and also allows us to attain those VFR-like arrival rates in most weather conditions. With respect to customer service, our network schedules are more reliable for customers, and we also see reduced delays, especially in irregular operations. And finally, with respect to environmental benefit, we see reduced noise emissions, and less fuel burn and carbon emissions. This plan helps us adapt our current fleet while selecting the appropriate equipment for future aircraft orders, all while complying with current and future regulations.

Moving on to navigation for a moment. I know that many of you are familiar with the Ground-Based Augmentation System technology, or GBAS. Last week, I attended the International Ground-Based Augmentation System Working Group, the IGWG, in Oslo, exploring the applications of this


15

technology. It will provide the capability for airports to operate up to 40 approaches from one ground-based station transmitting directly with receivers onboard the aircraft, enabling operations essentially down to ILS-like minima. The possibilities of additional approaches help our goals of a more consistent lateral and vertical path from takeoff all the way to touchdown, all while helping to alleviate multiple vectors, speed reductions, and delays in the arrival terminal airspace. Delta is currently ordering our newest aircraft, the B737-900, the A321, and the A350, with the avionics installed for GBAS ready to operate in this environment as it becomes available. In fact, our representative at the conference learned that the Frankfurt Airport has introduced a landing fee rebate of up to 10,000 Euros per aircraft for all operators who are equipped and certified for GBAS operations. Seattle is implementing the technology, and Atlanta has given the green light to study the benefits of GBAS. We see it at other hubs, certainly in the study phase, around the country. At its operational peak, Delta operates nearly 1000 flights a day into the airspace, and we see GBAS as a positive initiative for our customers and our hometown Atlanta.

From a communications perspective, FANS is the datalink communication between pilot and controller that makes communication safer and more efficient. Just think of it as text messaging instead of talking over VHF/HF voice communications. FANS helps alleviate one more step where a mistake can happen, where the pilot or controller can misinterpret what is said, causing additional radio chatter deviations and delays. We are currently using CPDLC and departure clearance, or DCL, in daily operations. All carriers across the ocean have used CPDLC on the majority of their transoceanic operations for years. Delta will have more than 250 aircraft equipped by year’s end, including a number of B737s, which operate mostly in the domestic airspace, as this capability to expand to transcontinental airspace. As part of an overall industry initiative, the US government recently provided funding to help equip domestic aircraft and expedite the use of CPDLC in the domestic system. DCL, the departure clearance capability, is currently being used and is scaled rapidly by the FAA on our B767-400 and B777 fleets on flights that operate out of JFK and Los Angeles. It will be implemented in Atlanta later this year. The controller sends the pilots the clearance and departure routing directly to the FMS on the flight deck. This gives the crew the opportunity to again eliminate the middle man by saving time and mistakes from a voice clearance, using a normal clearance delivery method. The FAA plans to leverage this new technology in the airborne and route environment in the domestic US airspace by 2018 and 2019. Delta plans to use existing equipage during this long-term transition by utilizing current ACARS or plain old ACARS. This gives us the ability to configure over 500 CPDLC-capable aircraft as participants for the FAA program, although it will leave several fleet types out of the mix in the short term due to the high implementation cost.

Now that we have talked about communication, let’s go back to navigation for a moment. We have done a lot of recent work in advanced RNP operations. RNP approaches are used in bad weather to guide our aircraft into mountainous airports like Missoula, Montana; Jackson Hole; Juno, Alaska;

16

and the like. But RNAV approaches also give us operational flexibility on VFR days. Our pilots can start a descent from the enroute environment, link to an RNAV arrival with predetermined speeds and altitudes, connect to a visual RNAV approach, including a safe landing, all while saving time and fuel, minimizing our carbon footprint as well as noise pollution. Think about it: the airplane, using the computers on board, can determine the most economic path for its entire route because it knows what to expect from start to finish. When the flight crew is given different speeds, altitudes, and flight vectors in the terminal environment, it can elongate the flight path, costing us time, fuel, and in the end, affecting our customers with delays and missed connections. RNP navigation will reduce pilot and controller workload and give us consistent throughput in most weather conditions, allowing more reliable flight schedules. This is yet another addition and enhancement to safety and customer satisfaction: a win/win in our book.

Now that we have discussed improved common navigation initiatives, let’s talk about how ATC will interface with aircraft operations in the near future. Of course, the most prominent aspect is ADS-B with the mandate associated with it. ADS-B is a surveillance technology in which an aircraft determines its position via satellite GPS and periodically broadcasts it, enabling it to be tracked much more accurately than we can through ground-based radar. To this effort, US regulations will require that aircraft operating in most US-controlled airspace be equipped with ADS-B by January 1, 2020. Currently, Delta has 179 of its 800+ aircraft equipped with a new transponder, and this number is increasing every day. Delta plans to be compliant by the implementation date; however, some of the major hurdles we will need to overcome consists of supplier constraints, late availability of MMRs, and recently delivered aircraft that require GPS modifications, all of which have made the process longer than it really needs to be. All of these changes cost Delta well over $100 million, including man-hours and equipment out of service time. You can see how just one aspect of the NextGen program affects Delta as one operator in the national air space system in terms of time and money. The good news is all of our new A321 and A350 aircraft will be equipped with new compliant ATC transponders as soon as they arrive on Delta property.

Our latest piece of equipment that everyone is very excited about is our ACARS software upgrade, ACARS 6.02. This gets back into measuring and managing our daily operational performance. We find that our leaders get really thrilled over data and spreadsheets sometimes when we get into this area. It may seem a little funny to you that I would talk about something like an ACARS technology when we are talking about ADS-B and other advanced technologies. But we are getting a lot better at not only harvesting all the data off of our aircraft, but also analyzing it and determining what it really means for our daily operations. This software upgrade will give us access to data that was not available to us before, certainly in terms of how granular it is. That in turn will help us more precisely measure our daily operations and make appropriate decisions to manage them going forward. The upgrade allows us to measure door open and close times, including cargo doors, cabin, galley, and cockpit doors. It measures when the aircraft starts to move


17

during pushback, when it moves under its own power, and how long it sits before the cabin doors open at arrival. Some of you might be wondering why we are so excited about this, but it is an amazing way to monitor the operation and trend our data to improve our operational performance metrics, because what we find is, at choke points in the daily operation, we can change our policies and procedures and perhaps even the schedule of the airline to account for where those choke points are, and improve the way that we are using our equipment every day. At current fuel prices, every minute increase to system average taxi time costs us an additional $19 million on an annual basis. This means that every minute we can save in taxi time not only saves us $19 million, it also gets our passengers to their gate without delay, and gives us more time for maintenance to complete their operational checks and make any necessary repairs so we can keep the fleet healthy. One of the biggest benefits of reducing taxi time is to create more time that the aircraft is in the air transporting our passengers without having to add additional aircraft or headcount to our bottom line. Simply put, this allows us to add additional flying to our daily schedule with our existing asset base. We can monitor our deicing operations, watching how long the aircraft dwells in the deice pad, or in the line waiting to deice. This helps make the process more efficient by allowing us to simplify and perhaps shorten the procedure on the deicing pad and add additional resources during peak times, when needed.

Remember your earlier diversion into Memphis, when you missed your meeting? Think, if we could have saved a few minutes during pushback on the ground in Los Angeles, in the originating station, maybe that would have allowed your flight a little longer hold time with enough fuel to land in Atlanta as planned. In the end, it all comes back, as I said at the beginning, to customer satisfaction. Getting our passengers home to their loved ones, to their business meetings, and even Thanksgiving dinner safely and efficiently, keeps them coming back to Delta, again and again.

As you can see, we are driven by safety and ensuring that our customers are not only satisfied, but that we exceed their expectations and earn their loyalty for repeat business. The technology that this group is joining forces on to implement today and on into the future its essential to our business model. Your hard work and determination allows Delta to be an industry leader not only in operational performance, but also in innovation. Our key to success, as I said at the beginning, is leadership, collaboration, and putting ourselves in a position so we can plan for what is yet to come. We live in a rapidly changing world of rapidly evolving requirements and regulations. Working together by ensuring our ability to adapt without constraints is essential to our business model. It is essential to our customers. Just as I cannot imagine anyone still searching for a ballgame on an AM receiver when they can stream it live on their iPhone,

I cannot imagine navigating in and out of the busiest airport in the world without GPS and RNAV guidance. Please keep up the great work.

Again, it has been humbling and a great privilege to be with you this morning, and I wish you a great conference this week. Welcome to Atlanta.

Symposiums on Global Aircraft Tracking, Aircraft Health Monitoring, and Enhanced Vision/Synthetic Vision captured the interest of meeting participants.

18

FSEMC WELCOME AND KEYNOTE

The 2016 FSEMC, organized by ARINC Industry Activities and hosted by Rockwell Collins, was held

October 3-6, 2016, in Hong Kong.

FSEMC Chairman Marc Cronan officially opened the meeting by introducing Capt. Greg Rulfs, who provided the keynote speech, transcribed below.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for having me here today. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to you all as you join this conference today and for the following week.

Thank you very much for inviting me to address your conference today. I was surprised when the FSEMC approached me; I know there are many amongst you who are far more qualified in this field than I am, and accordingly, you perhaps could be up here making this presentation this morning.

Having accepted the invitation, the main challenge for me was to find connection between my aviation career and your industry. I ultimately resolved this connection down to three words.

The first of these three words, ladies and gentlemen, is time. My 46 years in the aviation industry allowed me to watch your industry evolve and develop. I didn’t even realize it was happening in the first early stages of my aviation career. But your industry and my aviation path initially crossed. All we did was cross like passing ships in the night. I realized, when I gave it some thought, that those crossings were extremely valuable to me. Late in my aviation career, your industry became intrinsically interwoven into my career path as a professional aviator.

Marc CronanChairman, 2016

Capt. Greg RulfsSenior Check and Training CaptainCathay Pacific Airways

19

My first exposure to simulators was as a young, 19-year-old midshipmen, having just graduated from pilots’ course and having been posted to a squadron getting ready to operate off a carrier. Now, there are some Cathay Pacific guys here who will try to tell you that I am in this photo, but trust me. Don’t listen to them. I am not. However, my first bump with simulators was this thing. This thing didn’t move. It didn’t have a visual. There was no sound, and it didn’t fly anything like the real airplane. And when I first got to the naval air station at Nowra Air Base, I believe this is the first time I had ever seen a simulator in my entire life. I don’t know whether the word had been used to any extent. There certainly were no simulators when I did my pilot training. I was expecting to fly airplanes; I didn’t think I would be involved in simulation.

In those days, you must remember, ladies and gentlemen, that there was plenty of money around in defense budgets, aircraft were cheap, and it was not uncommon to be on a military squadron where there were more aircraft than there were pilots. So, if I had to choose to go flying in an airplane or a simulator that didn’t fly anything like the airplane, of course I was going to select the airplane. However, I was routinely rostered to fly this simulation machine. For three hours, we would have to fly this crudely simulated aircraft below 500 feet, coordinating our anti-submarine warfare tactics with backseat operators in a separate cab. A very, very demanding task. The controls were basically neutrally stable. It was very difficult to fly. There was only one way to fly this simulator, ladies and gentlemen. Only one way. To use the absolute correct instrument flying techniques that I had been taught in pilots’ school. Here was this wonderful opportunity, as difficult it was, to consolidate this basic skill. This basic skill that keeps aircraft flying, especially when the chips are down. I am sure you can all think of examples. In recent times, when the chips have been down, and people haven’t flown the airplane. So, crossing with your industry in this very demanding, difficult

S-2 Tracker Simulator

20

machine was a blessing. I say to you quite honestly now I think you enhanced my survivability. And you allowed me to consolidate the true meaning of good quality, old fashioned instrument flying. The stuff that grows in the back of mom and dad’s garden. Good quality instrument flying. In this modern age of aviation, it is something we have to be acutely aware of that people are forgetting how to fly airplanes. Many a night when I would be operating off a carrier in this aircraft below 500 feet for up to 6 hours at a time, with no horizon, conducting old fashioned anti-submarine tactics, tracking diesel electric submarines, I was very thankful for those hours I spent in the sim, to such an extent that I would say for every 3 hours I spent in the simulator was worth 15 hours of aircraft time. A great crossing, as for a young pilot to suddenly realize that we are vulnerable, especially at night, especially low level, if we do not fly our aircraft properly.

One of the other connections I had at this stage is this the simulator support room for that simulator, It was bigger than this ballroom just to support two small cabs. There was equipment everywhere. And my first introduction to the technicians and staff who worked on the simulator was a very good introduction. They were professionals; they believed in what they were doing; they passionately went to work at all times of the day and night to keep that S-2 Tracker simulator working. They all wore long white coats. I always remember the long white coats. If you didn’t know better, you would swear you were checking into hospital when you rolled up to the simulator. And let me assure you, on the odd occasion when I left, I could have sworn I had been in hospital having a colonoscopy for 3 hours without sedatives. It was hard work, but I benefitted immensely from this connection with your industry.

We parted company when I stopped flying this aircraft, and for several years I didn’t cross paths with your industry. Sadly, because I was instructing and a gift from heaven would have been a simulator. I was instructing to teach young new pilots how to fly properly. How to select and hold an attitude. We didn’t have it. We were behind the times in the military. Miles behind the times. We thought that you could only do this in an airplane. We were wrong.

My next encounter with a simulator was when I was flying this aircraft: The Mirage 3. Very complicated aircraft, very high work mode aircraft, designed in the 50s and 60s: delta wing, old fashioned controls, raw data radar, very demanding aircraft to fly in the air combat environment. This was the cockpit. You probably all have forgotten what cockpits used to look like in the past. This was that sort of cockpit. You don’t simulate those anymore in your industry, fortunately, but you did when I was learning to fly this aircraft and learning how to operate this aircraft. This is what we had. This is a Sabre simulator. I couldn’t find a photo of the Mirage simulator. But this was the simulator that we used to practice air intercepts in. Very similar to this, I had one with a console, an

CONTINUED FSEMC Welcome and Keynote

21

analog console, one operator. The air force Sabre simulator and the Mirage simulator was in the same building. We would hop in there for an hour at a time and practice air intercepts. It was hard. Air intercepts at the best of times, ladies and gentlemen, are difficult. And they are dangerous. And my exposure to this simulator, once again, one hour in this simulator was equivalent to 10 hours in the airplane. I learned that if I did not get this right, the consequences were going to be diabolical. Let me go

back: if you look at the left side of that cockpit, you will see what is known as the “biju ball” that is an attitude indicator. And in the middle of that cockpit is a radar. An old-fashioned radar that required a lot of attention with a side stick control and it is hard work to get it right. The instrument on the left was trying to keep you alive, and the instrument in the middle was trying to kill you. It’s that simple. And if you didn’t work that balance out, that the instrument on the left was keeping you alive and then instrument on the right was going to kill you if you allowed it to take hold of you, you were not going to survive. There are many, many fighter pilots from this era who smeared themselves across the water at 600 knots because they didn’t work out that balance. The balance between flying the aircraft and operating it as a weapons system. You can always come back tomorrow night and do another intercept, but you cannot pull someone out of the water when they hit it at 600 knots.

Those demanding hours that I spent in that simulator made me aware that I was very fragile. I was vulnerable. And I was never going to ever allow myself to spend too much time with my head in the bucket, as it was known, versus flying the aircraft. There was no radar altimeter on this aircraft. We did low-level night intercepts below 1000 feet at 540 knots, tuning the radar manually. The lesson your simulator taught me in that little box that you just saw there was “I have got to get this balance right.” A very powerful message to a young aviator. Survivability depends on the balance that I can practice in this simulator.

My next involvement with a simulator that shares a similar story was this aircraft with the Royal Air Force. By this stage, I was now on exchange with the Royal Air Force. During my time with the Royal Air Force, I flew two military-type aircraft that had simulators. The Jaguar. Once again, a very high workload single seat cockpit. A HUD: I had never seen a HUD before. INS: I had never used an INS before. I had never seen an INS. And now, here I am learning about A NAVWASS system, the CCIP system that did away with the traditional old fashioned dive bombing

Dassault Mirage Cockpit

22

and rocketry. This aircraft was designed for low-level strike and interdiction during the Cold War. A Jaguar pilot spent his entire working life low-level. The simulator industry obviously became aware of that, because this is the first simulator that I ever flew that had a visual. It had very limited movement or motion, but it had a visual. I don’t know whether anybody in here is familiar with the way this visual was generated. Some of you may have even worked on this aircraft. This was the cockpit. A very complex cockpit. Once again, similar consideration: moving map display in the middle of the airplane was trying to kill you. Looking outside and navigating visually over the terrain was what was keeping you alive. And your people in your industry came up with the most amazing visual that I had ever seen. And I was impressed. And this is where it came from. Some of you will remember it. This was a handmade model of the terrain over which we would fly with a synchronized camera which would present a display to us around the cockpit. So what did it do? Once again, at a critical time in my aviation career, at a time when flying aircraft was inherently dangerous, your industry gave me the tools to find the balance between flying the aircraft and using the weapons system. And to be able to sit in the simulator and analyze things slowly without the stress of the Cold War around you, because the Cold War was going on. We forget how time flies. But the Cold War, the NATO commitment to the Soviet Union threat, was phenomenal. The stress levels on squadrons was very high. Alerts, getting airborne, arming weapons systems, was everyday life in this environment. Your simulators gave us time as aviators to sit back and have a look at what we are doing and think about and then to apply it with survivability as we progressed.

Early Flight Simulator Visual System Storyboard


23

I am not 100% sure, I am pretty sure this is from the Jaguar simulator at RAF Coltishal, and this is how we learned the balance between the visual outside flying, keeping yourself alive, and using the weapons system, and in particular, that moving map that was trying to kill you. If you spent your head down there for too long, you were not going to survive, and we are short many Jaguar pilots in this world today because of that fact. Your simulators, the slight crossing, the paths I crossed with your simulators enhanced my survivability as well as made me a better aviator who was aware of the fragility of pilots and how one error at the wrong time is critical.

The next aircraft I flew that had a simulator was the British RAF F-4. This simulator did not have a visual. It had limited movement. Of course, this aircraft was used in the air defense environment, so we did not fly close to the ground as much as we did in the Jaguar. But what we did do is we got scrambled routinely and were involved strictly in air defense. This was the typical F-4 air defense configuration. You’ve got 4 Sidewinder missiles, they were the first to use the expanded acquisition-mode Sidewinder, AIM-9Gs. We could unlock the head of the missile. There were four sparrows on the centerline that were later updated with Skyflash missiles. There were two fuel tanks, and the centerline station had a 20-millimeter gun pod with 1,300 rounds of ammunition. This aircraft was relatively easy to fly; however, the armament selection panel was fraught with danger. I used the F-4 simulator to make sure I knew how to make switches weapons live, and more importantly, how to make them safe. Because in this era in which we were flying, we would get airborne with live missiles, all the missiles would be

SEPECAT Jaguar, Royal Air Force

Gumman F-4, Royal Air Force

24

tested, and you would be handed over to the air intercept controller, and they would often comment “make sure switches are safe,” but often they weren’t. And in fact, while I was there, one of these aircraft shot down an RAF Jaguar in the circuit in Germany. Fortunately, no one was killed. Fortunately, it wasn’t MIG coming in from East Berlin. Fortunately, it wasn’t a badger or a bear that these aircraft intercepted, because can you imagine the consequences if we had accidently shot down a Soviet Union airplane?

Once again, I crossed paths with your simulator and it allowed me to, in the peace and quiet of the simulator, work out how not to get this switchology wrong and make sure I selected the correct missile or the missile I was expecting to select, and more importantly, make sure they were all safe when I came back into the circuit. In this era, RAF pilots were encouraged to fly low. There were no rules. If a Jaguar pilot said he was at 50 feet, he was 50 feet. He wasn’t at 60 feet, he wasn’t at 70 feet, he was at 50 feet. Therefore, pilots would engage any aircraft they could find (friendly aircraft usually, of course) because it was considered to be the best real-time training in the Cold War environment. But the threats were high. And I would like to think that your simulators and pilots who cross paths with your simulators were better pilots for the event and maybe, without your simulators, we would have had some far more serious events during this Cold War period and beyond.

I went back to the Royal Australian Air Force and I parted company with your industry and I am often quite saddened, in hindsight now when I think about it, in preparing for this discussion today, I am quite saddened I didn’t actually bump into your sims again. But I was involved in weapons flight testing and it was all out in the desert, and there was just no real environment for the simulator in what I was doing. So I guess I lost track with you guys at that stage for maybe 6 or 7 years.

Eventually, I joined Cathay Pacific Airways, and that was 29 years ago that I joined Cathay Pacific Airways after 17 years of this sort of flying for the military, which I really loved. But I knew that my time in the service was finished and if I wanted to operate airplanes then I would have to get into the airlines.

So I joined Cathay Pacific, and before I go on now, I think I might have a photo of a cockpit in here, just to remind you what an F-4 cockpit looked like. A little easier to fly than the Jaguar or Mirage, designed by McDonnell

Gumman F-4 Cockpit


25

Douglas. The Americans seemed to get their cockpits right. The Brits struggled. I think they probably still do. But if there are any British pilots in here, don’t hold me to that one, whatever you do. How the hell you ever simulate this sort of stuff, I don’t know. But you did. It is a lot easier for you now because of course it’s just displays. When you think about simulating this stuff so it works, you can imagine why there was so much support equipment and so many technicians running around in a flap. But they were good, and they were professional, and they believed in what they were doing, and to us it was state of the art. That is all that mattered. It worked for us, then.

I joined Cathay Pacific and this was my first exposure. Anybody know what that is? I think it was built by Rediffusion. I’m not sure. Don’t quote me. This is a Lockheed L-1011 simulator. Have a look at the hydraulic jacks underneath. Now, there were drip trays everywhere, and often an instructor or somebody doing a check on you would almost grade you by the amount of hydraulic fluid that was in the drip tray. So, if you could come out of this thing and there wasn’t too much hydraulic fluid in the drip tray underneath it, you know you have done a reasonable job. You had been smooth. This was my introduction into the airline industry. And from this point on, simulators became a far more meaningful and powerful tool in my life. And they also, rather than crossing paths with your industry, from this point on, your industry became entwined in my aviation industry, and the aviation industry of many other pilots that I have been associated with.

You may think that coming out of the military environment with the sort of experience I had, that a transition to the airline industry should be fairly easy. Wrong. Very wrong. It is a very difficult transition for a fast jet pilot to transition to a Lockheed Tristar. Every industry, whether it be the airlines, whether it be general aviation, or the military, has its own demands placed upon us. And they are all driven by professionalism. I learned a lot in the simulator. I had a great instructor who would beat me around the ears routinely if I said the wrong thing, but I learned. The aircraft flew reasonably well. it had a very limited visual, so I had to rely on the fundamentals once again of good quality attitude flying: power plus attitude equals performance. There are a couple of pilots at the bottom of the ocean right now, in recent years, who would give anything to be able to say to themselves “power + attitude = performance.” I was able to consolidate how to fly a big airplane, how to deal with other crew members, how to develop CRM qualities, how to start getting ready to be a captain in this great airline Cathay Pacific.

Lockheed L-1011 Simulator Lockheed L-1011 Simulator

26

I enjoyed my time in the sim, and I suddenly realized that the regulator was also going to use this sim to check ride me. And this was the first time I had ever been exposed to the concept of being issued my license from a simulator. And I immediately could see the benefit. And when I struggled with a particular element of this aircraft, and it was a complex aircraft, it was great to be able to look at it slowed down and have someone explain it to me in the simulator so when it happened, if it ever happened in the real aircraft, I would be ready for it. I was fortunate enough in those days, we had flight engineers, and so those of us who grew up in this era, we were often rostered to fly with a flight engineer quietly sitting in the right seat flying the airplane. It was training on wheels and training by osmosis because I could watch and listen, fly the aircraft, watch and listen the captain and the flight engineer resolve the emergency issue that they had been given. Wonderful, silent, osmosis-type training that I was exposed to when I was just rostered to crew up for a flight engineers’ PC. Very valuable, with no threat environment in which I found myself in.

The next aircraft I went to was the B747-400. Once again, my first exposure was a simulator. I walked into the simulator, and I thought, “My God, where have I been? This is fantastic! Look at the visual! Look at the flight deck! What is that? That is an EFIS, I’ve never seen an EFIS. I’ve never seen an FMS before.” Once again, your industry presented me with the tools that I needed there and then to learn how to be an FMC and EFIS-type pilot. And we were talking about it before, it took about 3 sim sessions before I felt comfortable with that EFIS presentation and then worked out the significance and what to do with it, and start wading my way through an FMC. Wonderful timing by your industry for me, an aviator. You just seemed to be there when I needed you most. And you know? I didn’t appreciate it. I took it for granted.

I went on to the B777. That is our B777 simulator. We have 3 of these things. I love them all. My wife will probably tell you that I love them more than I love her, but that is not quite right. I have spent hours in these sims, and I have used these sims for two reasons: one, to continue to enhance my own aviation skill set, because you never stop learning; and two, to use them as a platform to make sure that I can train the next generation of aviators the way I know they should be trained. I want good quality stick and rudder men who can survive when the chips are down. I want confidence. I want belief in yourself. I want smoothness. As we go through the future, your aircraft companies are going to take the pilot further and further out of the loop. Trust me: while he is sitting there, he will always be in the loop, and when the chips are down, if he doesn’t react properly, then it is not going to work. This is one of the fundamental issues that needs to be constantly consolidated into your industry. We have to fly the airplane.

Boeing B777 Simulator


27

Even though I know where we are going with automation and so on, there are still a lot of airplanes out there and we are going to have to fly them, at some stage or another. Just watch the film that some guys are talking about: The Sully film. Someone had to fly that airplane onto the water.

Our three B777 sims, I have spent thousands of hours, probably 4,000 hours at least in these sims alone. I have enjoyed it. It has been hard work at times, and I have been tired, but I have enjoyed it. Because I have enjoyed it, because I have seen people come out of that simulator better for their experience.

I have probably done 5,000 or 6,000 circuits in these simulators, teaching people how to land properly. That’s a lot of circuits, going around and around. But every circuit I did, I was interested in making sure that the pilot I was training was going to know how to land this aircraft properly, in crosswind or without crosswind. And for 20 years, I have been proud to be allowed simulators to be interwoven into my career path as an aviator. Very proud, in fact.

At this point, I would like to pause to pay tribute to your industry. You have quietly, patiently, without fuss, without expecting limelight, professionally evolved and developed for the last 46 years that I have been involved with aviation. From the earliest models to this model and beyond.

It is at this point in time that I would like to introduce the other two words. I have introduced one word, which was time. There are two more words, which I need to introduce to your industry. They are sincere, and they are on behalf of all of the pilots who have taken you for granted for so long. Those two words are simply: thank you. Thank you to your industry for what you have interwoven into the aviation industry.

I tried to think of one single negative thing that I could find about your industry. I could find plenty of things wrong with the industry as a result of pilots, regulators, psychologists, academics, regulators, managers, airlines, military…not your industry. You should be very proud of your industry because you have just worked away in the background, and provided us with tools that we cannot survive without.

Boeing B777 Simulator on Approach

28

I say it again: thank you. Thank you for increasing my survivability rate. There is a strong argument that I may not be here today without your early simulators that taught me the balance between survivability and operating an aircraft. Thank you for allowing me to consolidate as an instrument pilot, someone who knew exactly how to fly instruments precisely and correctly. Thank you for allowing me to explore the boundaries of the aircraft that I have flown. Thank you for allowing me to practice time critical maneuvers that I could never practice in the airplane: TCAS, GPWS, windshear, rejected takeoff, depressurization. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to see that. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to handle the complex sudden emergencies with a startle factor in them that I have to react to. Thank you for allowing me to build confidence and to fly smoothly and with precision. Thank you for allowing me to prepare before I go into an airworthiness test flight so that I have mentally gone through the procedure and seen it all and replayed areas in which I may be concerned. Thank you for giving me a platform to train the next generation of aviators. Thank you very much for that, ladies and gentlemen.

This is how I train aviators now. And it is marvelous. I enjoy doing it because I know your systems are good. I know the fidelity is high. I know that the transition to the aircraft is going to be close to seamless for the young people I am training. Sons and daughters of the magenta line.

Focus on safety when you are thinking about how you can go ahead in the future. Because we have to train the next generation of pilots how to be competent pilots as well. I don’t have a lot of time when I hop in these aircraft. Thank you for these platforms you have given me, ladies and gentlemen.

There is one last thank you. Thank you for giving me and other aviators what I will class as the 10 second rewind. You probably don’t even know what I am talking about. When I was a small boy, age 5, my mother and father took me to visit my uncle and aunt. This is in the mid- to late-50’s. I was playing with my cousin, who was also 5. A very pretty little girl. Throughout the progress of the afternoon, for some reason, my uncle backed his car out of the driveway, ran over his own daughter, and killed her. Can you imagine the horrific tragedy that unfolded that afternoon? Can you even try to imagine it? I saw it all. This little 5-year-old girl. One minute alive, and well…10 seconds later she was dead. My uncle would have given his entire life for a 10 second rewind.

Your industry gives pilots 10 second rewinds. This is a very powerful tool that is out there. A viable tool that we underutilize. So when amongst all of your planning and discussion, maybe someone will think “Hmm…I wonder what we can do with that concept of a 10 second rewind?” Because for those pilots who have experienced the 10 second rewind, it is a very scary, very sobering, dull experience. It unfolds, and it happens. The simulator is frozen, and you suddenly realize that if it wasn’t the simulator, you may be dead, and everybody on board that aircraft may be dead. Now, this is a very, very powerful experience. It is uncomfortable, it is very uncomfortable. It is kind of like life drains out of your body. I am sure there are probably one or two guys sitting in the room that I know who know exactly what I am talking about.


29

It is a very, very scary, dull experience. Life and motion will drain away from you when you take in what the potential this issue was. It is no use talking to the person when that happens. They aren’t listening. They aren’t hearing anything. They are in a state of shock. Just as everybody was in a state of shock to know that this little girl who was alive one minute was dead the next. It is that simple. This state of shock is a powerful, powerful learning tool. You never, ever, ever forget this feeling the rest of your life. In fact, you will be dull for hours, maybe a day, maybe a week, over an incident like that. Professional pilots, trust me, will be dull for a long time. But ultimately, they will rewind this maneuver, and will work out what they did wrong, and they will never make that mistake again or anything like it. And they will also be aware for the rest of their entire aviation career and life that a 10 second rewind is a very, very valuable tool to an aviator. Very meaningful, and lasts with you forever. I never put a car in reverse without thinking about, “is there any potential there is a child behind this car?”

So, thank you for that, ladies and gentlemen. That is very meaningful. I have experienced this: I know, I know deep down inside, and I have seen guys who haven’t had the opportunity to experience them. I have seen aircraft fly into the water. I have seen people have midair collisions. I know that a 10 second rewind at some stage in their life might have resulted in looking somewhere else at that point in time. Please file that one away, ladies and gentlemen, in your discussion. This is what a 10 second rewind may prevent. This is ugly. This is the depth of ugliness. This is what we are about, ladies and gentlemen. We are not about cost cutting. We are not about saving time. We are not about regulators insisting that we have simulators. We are not about reduced insurance policies because we have got simulators. None of that. What we are about, your industry and in my industry, is to try and stop this. All this. This: we don’t ever want to go there. Your simulators, 10 second rewinds, training captains, managers, regulators, everybody in this industry: we are about stopping that.

Controlled Flight into Terrain

Catastrophic Aircraft Mishap

30

I know you have to talk about cost. But never talk about cost when you see these photos. This is what it is about. And if you ask me about where we go in the future: we cannot survive without you. You are intrinsically interwoven into the aviation world. If you were to disappear off the face of the earth, your industry, the aviation industry would regress, regress, regress and accidents like that one that I just showed you would go on and on and on.

Advice for the future: don’t change anything. Do not let anybody change your culture. You have demonstrated your culture for the last 46 years. You are a professional. You do believe in what you are doing. Do not let the regulators, do not let the bean counters, do not let pilots, do not let anybody change your healthy culture. Do not become victims of cost cutting and cultural changes in your industry, because you have done your job superbly. Don’t change anything.

And never forget that our future in aviation, mine and yours, and your industry, is flight safety. It is about stopping those horrific events that occur in our industry from happening if we can, or reducing them. And remember that the fundamentals still count. We can be mesmerized with screens and mesmerized with automatics. We can be mesmerized by the world around us, but good old fashioned aviation skills were with us last century, they are with us this century, and they are going to be with us the next century. If you guys can make the transition from simulators to the aircraft more and more seamless, as you seem to be doing, that would be lovely.

No one is going to appreciate it, ladies and gentlemen, no one is going to appreciate it. They are all going to just continue taking you for granted. But after 46 years, on behalf of all of those aviators, I say thank you very much for your wonderful contribution to this beautiful, magic industry in which we all work.

Thank you.


32

BRINGING THE INDUSTRY TOGETHER

Focusing on Technical Issues

33

Taking Care of Community and FamilyThough our day-to-day professional lives are focused on many technical issues, we never lose sight of community, family, and having a little bit of fun.

As a long-standing tradition, our annual meeting selects a local children’s charity to be the recipient of a financial contribution. Meeting participants gave generously in to support Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. AEEC | AMC participants donated $1200. Thanks to all who contributed to this worthy cause.

…and Enjoying Various Networking Opportunities

34

AEEC, AMC, & FSEMC Aviation Industry Activities

ARINC Industry Activities hosts three industry committees: the AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC. These committees create value for the airlines, airframe manufacturers, flight simulator manufacturers, avionics suppliers, training providers, and other stakeholders by cooperatively establishing common technical standards and developing shared technical solutions that no one organization could develop independently. The AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC conduct internationally-recognized aviation engineering and maintenance conferences that are attended by more than 2,200 aviation industry professionals representing more than 75 airlines, 6 airframers, and more than 420 industry suppliers from 54 countries around the world.

Working cooperatively through the AEEC, engineering professionals in the avionics and cabin electronics segments of the industry develop technical standards that contribute to achieving a safe, global, seamless, and interoperable aviation system.

The AMC has proven the benefits of using a cooperative approach to resolve avionics maintenance issues and the FSEMC has done likewise for flight simulator engineering and maintenance issues.

Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) The AEEC was formed in 1949 to provide leadership to the aviation community, namely the airlines, airframe manufacturers, and avionics suppliers that drive aircraft and avionics development. AEEC develops ARINC Standards for new aircraft development programs, major retrofit programs, for incorporating current/evolving information technology, and to meet regulatory requirements. This includes systems and services for NextGen, SESAR, and CARATS airspace improvement initiatives. AEEC conducts technical evaluations and develops standards applicable to all segments of the aviation community. Today, nearly all commercial and regional aircraft around the world rely on avionics equipment based on the consensus-based standards developed and approved by the AEEC. ARINC Standards are used as the basis for design, development, investment, acquisition, life-cycle support, and other business decisions.

The AEEC Data Link Users Forum meets twice a year to coordinate airline operational concerns with the air navigation service providers, the data link service providers and the supplier community. The AEEC Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum meets twice a year to coordinate airline operational concerns with the EFB system integrators, the EFB suppliers, and regulators.

35

Avionics Maintenance Conference (AMC) The AMC was formed in 1949 to create value by reducing the cost of ownership for airborne electronics by promoting reliability and improving maintenance and support techniques. AMC achieves its goal through the exchange of maintenance and associated technical information at its premier event—the annual Avionics Maintenance Conference. Each year, more than 700 avionics maintenance professionals from airlines and their suppliers across the globe assemble to identify solutions to tough avionics maintenance challenges in a question-and-answer format supplemented by technical symposia; this leads to the aviation industry saving tens of millions of dollars annually. As a result of discussions at the annual AMC meeting or in response to emerging industry concerns, AMC establishes task groups to develop maintenance-related ARINC Standards that present best practices or address a specific issue.

Flight Simulator Engineering & Maintenance Conference (FSEMC)The FSEMC was formed in 1996 and brings the proven approach of the AMC to the flight simulation community. FSEMC creates value through a number of activities, including the annual Flight Simulator Engineering and Maintenance Conference. Attended by more than 300 flight simulator experts from around the world, the annual conference uses a question-and-answer format and technical symposia to exchange engineering, maintenance, and associated technical information and identify technical solutions that allow simulator users to operate more cost effectively. FSEMC also conducts a series of task groups that develop technical standards related to simulation and training. As a result, simulator users reduce life-cycle costs for flight simulators and training devices by promoting reliability and improving maintenance and support techniques.

Continued CommitmentThe benefits of the cooperation in avionics engineering, maintenance, and flight simulation are clear. It is also true that the aviation industry is continually changing. Relationships among airlines, airframe manufacturers, and avionics suppliers are also evolving. Therefore, AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC are changing to meet the challenges of 21st-century aviation.

Continued commitment and support from the entire aviation community is critical to ensuring that the cooperation fostered and value created by AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC endures and thrives. These activities are membership organizations with leadership and work planning driven by the worldwide participants and those companies that benefit from the value created.

To learn more, please visit www.aviation-ia.com.

36

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS AND CORPORATE SPONSORS Benefits

AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC are global technical activities comprised of airlines and other organizations eligible to be Member Organizations with additional support provided by Corporate Sponsors. The ability of AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC to create value depends on the commitment from organizations like yours.

Your commitment of support by becoming a Corporate Sponsor or Member Organization, helps ensure the continued development of ARINC Standards and collaborative solutions that improve cost effectiveness, increase productivity, and reduce life-cycle costs for airlines and their partners in the avionics, cabin system, and flight simulation and training segments of the aviation industry.

Benefits of becoming a Corporate Sponsor include:

• Ability to download ARINC Standards from the web site at no additional charge.

• Discount of 50% for hard copy ARINC Standards.

• Ability to download other Industry Activities published information (i.e., meeting and conference reports, draft documents, technical application bulletins, etc.) at no additional charge.

• Eligibility to host a hospitality suite at our AEEC | AMC Conference.

• Attend the AEEC, AMC, FSEMC, and/or EFB Users Forum at no additional charge.

• Recognition at AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC meetings and on our web site.

Benefits of becoming a Member Organization include:

• All benefits mentioned above.

• Eligibility to vote for companies to serve on the Steering Group or Steering Committee.

• Eligibility to serve on the leadership committees.

Becoming a Corporate Sponsor or Member Organization also provides:

• Satisfaction of knowing that your organization is contributing to the value created by AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC.

• Greater networking opportunities with other companies and potential customers.

The ARINC Industry Activities staff looks forward to working with your organization to strengthen the value created by AEEC•AMC•FSEMC in the future.

For more information, please contact us at [email protected].

38

Airline AEEC AMC FSEMC

Aerolineas Argentina X X X

Air Canada (Flight Ops Training) X

Air France – KLM X X X

Air Wisconsin X X X

Airbus X X

Alaska Airlines X X X

All Nippon Airways X X X

American Airlines X X X

Asian Aviation Training Centre, Ltd. X

Austrian Airlines X X

Azul Linhas Aereas X X

Bangkok Airways Public Company Limited X X X

Bihrle Applied Research, Inc. X

Boeing Company, The X X

British Airways X X X

CAE X

Cargolux Airlines International S.A. X

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. X

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. X X X

Czech Aviation Training Centre, Ltd. X

Delta Air Lines X X X

El Al Israel Airlines X

FedEx X X X

ffusion Simulation Services X

Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi) X

FlightSafety International X

Hawaiian Airlines X X X

Icelandair X X X

IFTC Istanbul X

Indra Sistemas, S.A. X

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONSMember Organizations (As of December 31, 2016)

39

Airline AEEC AMC FSEMC

Institute of Air Transport, Ltd. (Sofia Flight Training)

X

Japan Airlines X X X

Jet2.com Limited X X

Kuwait Airways Corporation X

L-3 Communications X

Lockheed Martin Commercial Flight Training X

Lufthansa X X X

MOOG X

Muller Simulation Consultancy X

Rockwell Collins Simulation and Training X

Southwest X X X

Swiss International Airlines X X X

TAP Air Portugal X X X

TRU Flight Training Iceland X

TRU Simulation + Training X

Turkish Airlines X

United Airlines X X X

United Parcel Service X X X

United States Air Force X

Virgin America X X X

Virgin Atlantic X X

40

CORPORATE SPONSORS(As of December 31, 2016)

• Abaco

• Acme Aerospace, Inc.

• Adacel

• Adventium Labs

• Aero Instruments and Avionics

• Aerodocs Ltd t/a Arconics

• Aerolux

• AeroNav Data

• Aerosonic, LLC.

• Airline Avionics Institute

• Airline Services, Ltd.

• Airtel-ATN

• ALTYS Technologies

• Amdar Programme

• Amglo Kemlite Labs Inc.

• Amphenol Air LB

• AMST Systemtechnik GmbH

• Astronautics Corporation of America

• Astronics

• AstroNova

• AV-DEC

• Avia Radio A/S

• Aviation Data Communication Corporation

• Aviation Spectrum Resources (ASRI)

• Avicom Japan Co., Ltd.

• Avilution, LLC.

• Avionic Instruments LLC

• Avionica, Inc.

• Avionics Support Group

• Aviovision nv

• Avitech GmbH

• B/E Aerospace Lighting & Engineering Solutions

• Bad Elf

• BAE Systems

• Barfield Inc.

• Blue Avionics, LLC

• Btimes Technologies Ltd., Inc.

• Canard Aerospace Corporation

• Cargo Transit, Inc.

• Carillon Information Security, Inc.

• Carlisle Interconnect Technologies

• CETCA Avionics Co, Ltd.

• Cinch Connectors

• Civil Aviation Bureau of Japan (JCAB)

• Closed Loop Consulting

• Cobham Antenna Systems

• Cobham AvComm

• Cobham SATCOM

• Comply 365

• Cranfield University

• DCME Aerospace, Inc.

• Diehl Aerospace GmbH

• DMA Aero

• Ecole de Technologie Superieure (ETS)

• Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

• Embraer

• Esterline CMC Electronics, Inc.

• Esterline Control and Communication Systems

• Eurocontrol

41

• European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Flightech Systems Pte Ltd

• Fly Boys, Inc.

• FlyHT Aerospace Solutions, Ltd.

• FlyPad Products, LLC.

• ForeFlight LLC

• Gables Engineering, Inc.

• Garmin International

• GE Aviation Systems

• GigSky, Inc.

• Global Eagle Entertainment

• Gogo LLC

• Gulfstream Aerospace

• Harris Corporation

• HEICO

• Hewlett Packard - Commercial Mobility & Software Solutions

• Honeywell, Inc.

• IFE Products, Inc.

• iJet Onboard

• Inmarsat (Aeronautical Business)

• Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc.

• Intelsat

• International Aeronavigation Systems

• Iridium

• Jana

• Japan Radio Air Navigation Systems Assoc.

• Jeppesen Sanderson

• JVCKenwood USA Corp

• Kitco Fiber Optics

• Kollsman

• Korea Electronics Technology Institute

• Kymeta Corporation

• L2 Consulting Services, Inc.

• LB Aicraft Engineering, LLC.

• Lumexis Corporation

• MarathonNorco Aerospace, Inc.

• Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group

• MBS Electronic Systems GmbH

• Microsoft Corporation

• Millennium International

• Molex

• NathCorp

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)

• Nav-Aids, Ltd.

• NavHouse Corporation

• Navtech Systems Support, Inc.

• NEC Corporation

• Ontic Engineering & Manufacturing

• Otto Instrument Service, Inc.

• PACE Aerospace Engineering and Information Technology GmbH

• Panasonic

• PGA Electronics

• Powerjet Parts, Inc.

• Quadrant Simulation Systems, Inc.

• Radiall USA, Inc.

• Rolls-Royce CDS Inc.

• RSI Visual Systems, Inc.

• SA Technologies AB

42

• Sabre Austria GmbH

• Servo Kinetics Inc.

• Sheorey Digital Systems, Ltd.

• Souriau

• Spectralux Avionics

• Spherea Test & Services (formerly Cassidian)

• STM Savunma Teknolojileri Muhendislik ve Ticaret A.S.

• STS Aviation Group

• SYSGO AG

• T&A Systeme GmbH

• Talon Aerospace

• TE Connectivity

• TechSAT

• Teledyne Controls

• Teradyne, Inc.

• Thales CETC Avionics

• Thales Global Services

• The Weather Company, an IBM Business

• Thomas Global Systems LLC

• Thompson Aerospace

• Thrane & Thrane

• Ultramain Systems, Inc.

• Unicorp Systems, Inc.

• United Technologies Corporation

• Universal Avionics Systems

• Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc.

• Vector Informatik GmbH

• Verocel, Inc.

• ViaSat, Inc.

• Virginia Small Aircraft Transportation Systems (VSATS)

• VT Miltope Corporation

• W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc.

• Wavestream Corporation

• WG Holt, Inc.

• Wind River Systems

• zee.aero

• Zodiac In-Flight Innovations

• Zodiac Seats France

CONTINUED Corporate Sponsors (As of December 31, 2016)

43

• Aer Lingus Ltd

• Airstar Corporation

• AK Steel Corporation

• American Financial Group

• Ameritas Life Ins. Corp dba Ameritas Financial Svc

• Amway Corporation

• Aquiliam Corporation

• AT&T Management Services

• Bristow US LLC

• BW Aviation Management, LLC.

• BWIA West Indies Airways Ltd.

• Cableair, Inc.

• Citation Marketing Division

• Clos de Berry Management, Ltd.

• Comprehensive Investment Company

• ConAgra Foods, Inc.

• ConocoPhillips

• Cummings, Inc.

• Deere & Company

• Dunavant Enterprises

• Eaton Aerospace

• Egyptair

• Eli Lilly and Company

• Emerson Electric Company

• EWA Holdings LLC

• FL Aviation Group

• G.G. Aircraft

• Greenaap Consultants, Ltd.

• Hamilton Companies

• Hess Corporation

• Johnson & Johnson

• Kaiserair, Inc.

• Kansas City Life Insurance Company

• Kraft Foods Global Inc.

• LATAM Airlines Group S.A.

• Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

• New England Airlines, Inc.

• New York Hospital

• Nike

• Occidental Petroleum Corporation

• Owens-Illinois General Inc.

• PHI, Inc.

• Philippine Air Lines, Inc

• Piedmont Airlines, Inc.

• R.T. Vanderbuilt Co, Inc.

• Rich Products Corporation

• Rutherford Oil Corporation

• SC Johnson & Son, Inc.

• Thomas H Lee Company

• Timken Company

• Tristam C. Colket, Jr

• Vallejo Investments, Inc.

• Vulcan Materials Company

• Williamson-Dickie Aviation Dept.

OTHER AIRCRAFPT OPERATORS(As of December 31, 2016)

44

ARINC INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES ADVISORY GROUP (IAAG)IAAG Representation

The IAAG representatives for 2016 (left to right): Marc Cronan, Rockwell Collins; Ted McFann, FedEx; Marijan Jozic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; Dennis Zvacek, American Airlines; James McLeroy, United Parcel Service (UPS)

Purpose The purpose of the Industry Activities Advisory Group (IAAG) is to coordinate the technical efforts of the respective ARINC Committees. This includes reviewing the latest accomplishments and reviewing general administration such as reviewing current Memberships and Corporate Sponsorships. The IAAG consists of representatives of the AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC leadership committees.

SummaryThe IAAG met September 21-22, 2016, at the ARINC Industry Activities offices in Bowie, Maryland. The IAAG Leadership reviewed committee status reports and opportunities for closer collaboration. The IAAG discussed topics pertaining to administration of the respective industry committees. The IAAG also discussed attendance at meetings and networking opportunities.

The IAAG noted that many aviation organizations around the world benefit from the work of AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC. It expressed the desire for airlines to participate actively and fully as members. The IAAG indicated that it would work within the existing committee structure to encourage more airline participation. They will invite other organizations to join, participate, benefit, and share in the value created by AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC that is made possible through ARINC Industry Activities.

More information is available online at www.aviation-ia.com/MembershipAndSponsor.

45

ARINC STANDARDS

Introduction ARINC Industry Activities publishes consensus-based, voluntary aviation technical standards that no one organization could develop independently. This is facilitated by the actions of three industry committees: AEEC, AMC, and FSEMC.

• The AEEC develops a broad range of avionics and infrastructure standards for new aircraft and for major derivative programs. These standards are used by all segments of the aviation community.

• The AMC develops maintenance-related technical standards.

• The FSEMC develops technical standards related to simulation and training.

ARINC Standards describe avionic systems, cabin systems, information systems, and associated interfaces used by more than 10,000 air transport and business aircraft worldwide. There are three classes of ARINC Standards:

• ARINC Characteristics: Define the traditional form, fit, function, and interfaces to avionics equipment and associated networks.

• ARINC Specifications: Define the avionics infrastructure including software operating systems interfaces, electrical interfaces, data buses, physical packaging of avionics equipment, communication, networking, and data security standards.

• ARINC Reports: Provide guidelines or general information found by the aviation industry to be preferred practices, often related to avionics maintenance, product support, and flight simulator engineering and maintenance.

46

18 ARINC STANDARDS PUBLISHED IN 2016Standard Document Title

422-1ARINC Specification 422-1: Guidance for Modification Status Indicators and Avionics Service Bulletins

424-21 ARINC Specification 424-21: Navigation System Database

439AARINC Specification 439A: Simulated Air Traffic Control Environment in Flight Simulation Training Devices

535B-1ARINC Characteristic 535B-1: Lightweight Headset and Boom Microphone

618-8ARINC Specification 618-8: Air/Ground Character-Oriented Protocol Specification

661P1-6ARINC Specification 661-6: Cockpit Display System Interface to User Systems, Part 1, Avionics Interfaces, Basic Symbology, and Behavior

665-4 ARINC Specification 665-4: Loadable Software Standards

676ARINC Report 676: Guidance for Assignment, Accomplishment, and Reporting of Special (Engineering) Investigation for Aircraft Components

771ARINC Characteristic 771: Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communication System

816-2c1ARINC Specification 816-2, Change 1: Embedded Interchange Format for Airport Mapping Database

816-3ARINC Specification 816-3: Embedded Interchange Format for Airport Mapping Database

822AARINC Specification 822A: On-Ground Aircraft Wireless Communication

832-1ARINC Specification 832-1: Cabin Equipment Interfaces, 4GCN Cabin Management and Entertainment System, Cabin Distribution System

834-6ARINC Specification 834-6: Aircraft Data Interface Function (ADIF)

841-3ARINC Specification 841-3: Media Independent Aircraft Messaging (MIAM)

844P1ARINC Specification 844: Guidance for Target Hardware Design, Part 1, Airborne Computer High Speed Data Loader (ARINC 615-3)

844P2ARINC Specification 844: Guidance for Target Hardware Design, Part 2, Airborne Computer High Speed Data Loader (ARINC 615-4)

845 ARINC Specification 845: Fiber Optic Expanded Beam Termini

Copies of these standards may be obtained at the ARINC Store: http://www.aviation-ia.com/cf/store/. Members and Corporate Sponsors are eligible to access complimentary ARINC Standards.

47

ARINC Report 422-1 Guidance for Modification Status Indicators and Avionics Service Bulletins Adopted: April 24, 2016

This standard describes a method of identifying the modification status of aircraft components with regard to the service bulletins that have been issued for the equipment.

A Mod is a change to a product that is already certified and in service that maintains product interchangeability. That means it still meets the form, fit, function equivalence for the product with and without the mod. A mod is not appropriate for a change to a product that does not result in a form, fit, function equivalent. A mod as defined here does not require a part number role.

ARINC Specification 424-21 Navigation System Database Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 424-21 sets forth the air transport industry’s recommended standards for the preparation of airborne navigation system reference data files. The data on these files are intended for merging with airborne navigation computer operational software to produce media for use by such computers on board aircraft. The databases prescribed by this document are also used by computer flight planning systems, flight simulators, and other applications.

ARINC Specification 439A Simulated Air Traffic Control Environment in Flight Simulation Training Devices Adopted: July 19, 2016

This document provides guidance on provision of a SATCE system in Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD) for the benefit of flight crew training. This guidance recommends a more mature set of requirements, and provides commentary on system scope, currently available technologies, integration, qualification, and maintenance.

ARINC Characteristic 535B-1 Lightweight Headset and Boom Microphone Adopted: April 27, 2016

ARINC 535B-1 defines a headset with integral boom microphone suitable for pilot use in all types of aircraft using conventional radio installations. ARINC 535B incorporates Active Noise Reduction (ANR) technology. It calls for a seven pin XLR-7 connector, with revised pin definitions. Equipment built to this standard will improve audio quality available on the flight deck. This document is aligned with RTCA DO-214A Audio System standards.

A SUMMARY OF EACH ARINC STANDARD PUBLISHED IN 2016 FOLLOWS:

48

ARINC Specification 618-8 Air/Ground Character-Oriented Protocol Specification Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 618-8 defines the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), a VHF data link that transfers character-oriented data between aircraft systems and the ground. This communications medium enables the aircraft to operate as part of the airline’s command, control and management system. This document defines ACARS datalink protocols. It updates the definition of system timers in accordance with ground network specifications.

ARINC Specification 661-6 Cockpit Display System Interfaces to User Systems Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 661-6 defines necessary interfaces to the Cockpit Display Systems (CDS) used in all types of aircraft installations starting with the Airbus A380 airplane. The CDS provides graphical and interactive services to user applications within the flight deck environment. When combined with data from user applications, it displays graphical images to the flight deck crew. The document emphasizes the need for independence between aircraft systems and the CDS. This document defines interfaces between the CDS and the aircraft systems. This includes the interface between the avionics equipment and display system graphics generators.

ARINC Specification 665-4 Loadable Software Standards Adopted: April 27, 2016

This document defines the aircraft industry’s standards for Loadable Software Parts (LSPs) and Media Set Parts (MSPs). It describes the common principles and rules to be applied to any part of a data load system to ensure compatibility and inter-operability. It includes part numbering, content, labeling, and formatting of an LSP, and a Media Set containing LSPs.

ARINC Report 676 Guidance for Assignment, Accomplishment, and Reporting of Special (Engineering) Investigation for Aircraft Components Adopted: October 12, 2016

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance for the assignment, accomplishment, and reporting of investigations which exceed the regular workshop analysis and repair process for components.

The operator, repair shop, and the component manufacturer should use this guideline to support a special investigation for aircraft components where additional attention is needed to fulfill reliability and authority requirements. This includes the process of assignment, the scope of accomplishment, and the content/style of the final report.

CONTINUED A summary of each ARINC Standard published in 2016 follows:

49

ARINC Characteristic 771 Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communications System Adopted: April 26, 2016

This document defines the Iridium Low-Earth Orbiting (LEO) Aviation Satellite Communication (Satcom) System avionics intended for installation in all types of aircraft including commercial transport, business, and general aviation aircraft. The intent of this document is to provide a description of the system components, aircraft interface, and satellite communication functions. It also describes the desired system performance and operational capability of the equipment. This characteristic specifies equipment using the next generation of Iridium satellites, referred to as Iridium NEXT.

ARINC Specification 816-2 Change 1 Embedded Interchange Format for Airport Mapping Database Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 816-2 Change 1 defines an open encoding format for Airport Mapping Databases (AMDB) used with airport navigation systems. It enables the AMDB to support graphical representation of an airport map on flight deck displays, such as an aircraft taxi operation. Supplement 2 is aligned with RTCA and EUROCAE aerodrome mapping database standards DO-272/ED-99 and DO-291/ED-119.

ARINC Specification 816-3 Embedded Interchange Format for Airport Mapping Database Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 816-3 defines an open encoding format for Airport Mapping Databases (AMDB) used with airport navigation systems. It enables the AMDB to support graphical representation of an airport map on flight deck displays, such as an aircraft taxi operation. Supplement 3 is aligned with the most recent RTCA and EUROCAE aerodrome mapping database standards DO-272D/ED-99D and DO-291C/ED-119C. New features include support for low visibility operations, position markings, aerodrome surface routing network, airport lighting, holding position data, signage, and improvements to taxiway container rules.

ARINC Specification 822A On-Ground Aircraft Wireless Communication Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 822A describes Gatelink interfaces using Internet Protocol (IP)-based wireless communications between an aircraft on the ground and a ground-based network using Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and/or cellular radios and protocols. The ground-based network may be used for non-safety communications, for example to an airline’s back office or to its back-end maintenance systems although other uses are also possible when there is a need to transfer data to or from the aircraft’s applications while it is taxiing or parked.

50

ARINC Specification 832-1 Cabin Management and Entertainment System, 4GCN Cabin Distribution System Adopted: April 25, 2016

ARINC 832-1 defines standards for the aircraft 4th Generation Cabin Network (4GCN) Cabin Distribution System (CDS) wiring, connectors, power, identification codes, space envelopes, and mounting principles. Design guidelines are included for informational purposes as these guidelines impact the interfaces and installation of cabin equipment aboard the aircraft.

ARINC Specification 834-6 Aircraft Data Interface Function (ADIF) Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 834-6 defines an Aircraft Data Interface Function (ADIF) for aircraft that use network components that are based on commercially available technologies. This document defines a set of protocols and services for the acquisition of aircraft avionics data from aircraft networks. The goal is to provide a common set of services that may be used to access specific avionics parameters. The ADIF may be implemented as a generic network service, or it may be implemented as a dedicated service within an ARINC 759, Aircraft Interface Device (AID) such as those used with an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB).

ARINC Specification 841-3 Media Independent Aircraft Messaging (MIAM) Adopted: April 26, 2016

ARINC 841-3 defines a standard media independent method for enabling the exchange of a large volume of data over Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) subnetworks or broadband Internet Protocol (IP) subnetworks.

ARINC Specification 844, Part 1 Guidance for Target Hardware Design, Part 1, Airborne High Speed Data Loader (ARINC Report 615-3) Adopted: April 27, 2016

ARINC 844, Part 1 is an avionics software loading standard that defines the requirements of a data loader from the target hardware point of view. This document is based on ARINC Report 615-3: Airborne Computer High Speed Data Loader. ARINC Report 615-3 is written from the data loader point of view. ARINC 844, Part 1 is expected to provide value to both data loader and target implementers. The referenced standardized implementation requirements and supported subset of features defined in ARINC 844, Parts 1 and 2 provide the blueprint for data loader implementations.

CONTINUED A summary of each ARINC Standard published in 2016 follows:

51

ARINC Specification 844, Part 2 Guidance for Target Hardware Design, Part 2, Airborne High Speed Data Loader (ARINC Report 615-4) Adopted: April 27, 2016

ARINC 844, Part 2 is an avionics software loading standard that defines the requirements of a data loader from the target hardware point of view. This document is based on ARINC Report 615-4: Airborne Computer High Speed Data Loader. ARINC Report 615-4 is written from the data loader point of view. ARINC 844, Part 2 is expected to provide value to both data loader and target implementers. The referenced standardized implementation requirements and supported subset of features defined in ARINC 844, Parts 1 and 2 provide the blueprint for data loader implementations.

ARINC Specification 845 Fiber Optic Expanded Beam Termini Adopted: October 13, 2016

ARINC 845 defines a fiber optic expanded beam termini intended for use with cabin in-flight entertainment equipment and similar systems. The goal is to avoid the proliferation of different designs of termini to serve the same functions on different aircraft models.

52

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS49 Active Projects

APIM Project Name Activity

AEEC PROJECTS

08-004CARINC 661, Cockpit Display Interface, Supplement 7 to Part 1, initial draft of Part 2

CDS

08-011BARINC Project Paper 836A, Cabin Boxes Mechanical Interfaces

CSS

09-009B EFB Users Group (3-year project extension) EFB

10-013BARINC 631, VHF Data Link Mode 2 Implementation, Supplement 7

DLK

11-005BARINC Project Paper 424, Navigation Database using UML Model, Supplement 22

NDB

11-011AARINC 633, AOC Message Standardization, Supplement 3

AOC

11-012C ARINC 834, Aircraft Data Interface, Supplement 7 EFB

11-013A ARINC Project Paper 766, AeroMACS AMX

12-004CARINC 664 Aircraft Data Network, Part 2 - Ethernet Physical and Data Link Layer Specification, Supplement 3

CSS

12-006ARINC Project Paper 813, Terrain Database and ARINC Project Paper 815, Obstacle Database

ADB

12-007ARINC 814, XML Compression for Aeronautical Databases

ADB

13-004C ARINC 825, CANbus, Supplement 4 NIS

13-005ARINC Project Paper 852, Data Logging for Information Security

NIS

13-007ARINC Project Paper 849, Shop Loading Networked LRUs

SDL

13-008ARINC Project Paper 845, Fiber Optic Expanded Beam Termini, plus Supplements to ARINC 803 - ARINC 807

FOS

13-009ARINC Project Paper 846, Fiber Optics Mechanical Transfer, plus Supplements to ARINC 803 - ARINC 807

FOS

13-011A ARINC 771, Low Earth Orbit Satcom, Supplement 1 AGCS

13-013ARINC 618, Air/Ground Character-Oriented Protocol Specification, Supplement 8

DLK

13-014BARINC 800, Cabin Connectors and Cables, Multi-Part Standard

CSS

53


14-001 ARINC Project Paper 820, Cabin Wireless Services CSS

14-007 ARINC Project Paper 792, Small Form Factor Satcom KSAT

15-001ARINC Project Paper 648, Cabin Passenger Seat Test Requirements

CDS

15-003 ARINC 665, Loadable Software Parts, Supplement 4 SDL

15-004ARINC Project Paper 658, Roadmap for Internet Protocol Suite Safety Services

IPS

15-005ARINC 702A, Advanced Flight Management System, Supplement 5

FMS

15-006ARINC 628 Part 1, Cabin Wireless Access Point (CWAP), Supplement 8

CSS

16-001 Avionics Software Performance and Reliability SAI

16-002

ARINC Project Paper 6xx, Common Specification Reference for Aircraft Software Loading, Security, and Management Standards

SDL

16-003ARINC 781, Mark 3 Aviation Satellite Communication System, Supplement 7

AGCS

16-004ARINC 842, Guidance for Usage of Digital Certificates, Supplement 2

NIS

16-005ARINC 628, Cabin Equipment Interfaces multi-part update and ARINC 809 3GCN – Seat Distribution System,

CSS

16-006ARINC 791 Part 1 and Part 2, Ku-Band and Ka-Band Satellite Communications System, Supplements 3 and 2 respectively

KSAT

16-007AARINC 622, ATS Data Link Applications over ACARS Air-Ground Network, Supplement 5

DLK

16-008 Data Link Users Forum (3-year project extension) DLK

16-009ARINC 653, Avionics Application Software Standard Interface, multi-part update

SWM

16-010ARINC 620, Datalink Ground System Standard and Interface, Supplement 9

DLK

16-011ARINC Project Paper xxx, Next Generation Cabin Data Bus (ARINC 485 replacement)

CSS

16-013

ARINC Characteristic 743A, GNSS Sensor, ARINC Characteristic 743B, GNSS Landing System Sensor Unit (GLSSU) and ARINC Characteristic 755 MMR and initiate ARINC Project Paper 743C

GNSS

54


16-014ARINC Project Paper 848, Broadband Network Interface for non-Safety Services

NIS

16-015ARINC Project Paper xxx, eEnabled Aircraft Ground System for Managing and Distributing Software Parts

SDL

AMC PROJECTS

14-102ARINC Project Paper 675, Aircraft Support Data Management

ASDM

14-103ARINC Project Paper 676, Guidance for Assignment, Accomplishment and Reporting of Engineering Investigation for Aircraft Components

SIWG

15-101ARINC 422, Modification Status Indicators and Service Bulletins, Supplement 1

MSI

15-102ARINC 667, Guidance for the Management of Field Loadable Software, Supplement 2

FLS

16-101Supplement 4 to ARINC Report 625: Industry Guide for Component Test Development and Management

TPS

FSEMC PROJECTS

14-204ARINC 439, Simulated Air Traffic Environment, Supplement 1

SATCE

15-201ARINC Project Paper 450, Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements

FDD

16-203ARINC Project Paper 4XX, Simulator Continuing Qualification

SCQ

99-200 EASA FSTD Technical Group EFTeG

CONTINUED Project Descriptions - 49 Active Projects

56

APIM 08-004CARINC Specification 661 Part 1 and Part 2 Cockpit Display Systems (CDS) Subcommittee

ARINC Specification 661: Cockpit Display System Interface is expanded into a two-part standard. Part 1 will be updated to Supplement 6 and contain the following:

• Multi-touch and touchscreen technology• Three-dimensional capability• Widget structure meta definition• New widgets and widget extensions• Data parameter synchronization

Part 2 is a new document that will define the User Interface Markup Language for Graphical User Interfaces. It will allow developers to specify the interface, the look, and the behavior of any graphical user interface. A mature Part 2 is expected in 2017.

APIM 08-011BARINC Project Paper 836A: Cabin Standard Enclosures Cabin Systems Subcommittee

ARINC Project Paper 836A will define miniature module enclosures for cabin equipment installed in a modular rack concept. The miniature modules are mounted in frames (rack type slots) and can be installed and removed without tools. The benefit is lower costs by reducing component size and weight and simplifying maintenance due to harmonized installation and quick replacement. The original ARINC 836 enclosures will remain as Type I modules. A mature document is expected in 2017.

APIM 09-009B Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum

The Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum continues to be a highly successful activity with broad participation of airlines, airframe manufacturers, EFB platform suppliers, software providers and regulators. The underlying goal is to coordinate EFB development efforts among these stakeholders and to create technical solutions that will enable the airlines to have connected aircraft within their IT infrastructure. The EFB Users Forum assembles specialists in the areas of Flight Operations, Engineering, Information Technology and other disciplines related to aircraft network installation and ground connectivity. The product of this activity is in the form of technical exchange and associated meeting reports.

AEEC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AEEC Projects

57

APIM 10-013BSupplement 7 to ARINC Specification 631: VHF Digital Link (VDL) Mode 2 Implementation Provisions

DLK Systems Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 7 to ARINC Specification 631: VHF Digital Link (VDL) Mode 2 Implementation Provisions to accommodate NextGen and SESAR data link services in the USA, Europe and globally to ensure VDL-2 interoperability. It will harmonize Controller Pilot Data Link (CPDLC) development activities. Supplement 7 will:

• Expand frequency management definition• Update Performance Implementation Conformance Statements (PICS)• Define airborne perceived channel utilization• Provide VLDM2 ground station address allocation guidance• Add ground station requirements to complement airborne requirements• Include recommendations from the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) Consortium• Address excessive network disconnects

A mature Supplement 7 is expected in 2017.

APIM 11-005B Supplement 22 to ARINC Specification 424: Navigation System Database Navigation Database (NDB) Working Group

ARINC continues to update Navigation Database standards. The current scope includes the development of Supplement 22 to ARINC Specification 424: Navigation System Database. The document will ensure interoperability between air traffic procedures and FMS implementations. This document is the update to ARINC Specification 424 changing it from an American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) to XML format. A mature Project Paper 424 is expected in 2017.

APIM 11-011A

Supplement 3 to ARINC Specification 633: AOC Messaging Standard

AOC Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 3 to ARINC Specification 633: AOC Air-Ground Data and Message Exchange Format to add new data structures for AOC messages:

• Organized Track System (OTS) – Oceanic Flights• Load Sheet • Lessons Learned – Examples

Supplement 3 will also update Flight Plan Schemas (e.g., fuel computations, NOTAMs, and others). A mature Supplement 3 is expected in 2017.

58

APIM 11-012CSupplement 7 to ARINC Specification 834: Aircraft Data Interface Function (ADIF) Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Subcommittee

Supplement 7 to ARINC Specification 834: Aircraft Data Interface Function (ADIF) will define the interface between avionics equipment and on-board file servers and Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs). It will provide the capability for EFB applications to use ACARS messaging and send print files to the cockpit printer. A mature Supplement 7 is expected in 2017.

APIM 11-013AARINC Project Paper 766: AeroMACS Transceiver and Aircraft Installation Standards AeroMACS Working Group

ARINC Project Paper 766 will define a radio intended for Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS). The airborne transceiver will operate at 5091 to 5150 MHz and use the IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) protocols. AeroMACS is considered one of the future radio components bringing System Wide Information Management (SWIM) to the aircraft. A mature document is expected in 2017.

APIM 12-004C

Supplement 3 to ARINC Specification 664: Aircraft Data Network, Part 2 Cabin Systems Subcommittee

Supplement 3 to ARINC Specification 664: Aircraft Data Network, Part 2, Ethernet Physical and Data Link Layer Specification will leverage IEEE 802.3 Ethernet standards and define physical and data layers for 10 Gbps Ethernet interface for commercial aircraft. Both copper and fiber optic connectors and cabling will be included. The benefits are anticipated as follows:

• Needed for high-speed IFE content loading to enable download and distribution of high volume entertainment content in cabin systems

• Potential use in non-IFE Ethernet applications requiring 10GbE


CONTINUED Project Descriptions - AEEC Projects

59

APIM 12-006ARINC Project Paper 813: Embedded Interchange Format for Terrain Databases ARINC Project Paper 815: Embedded Interchange Format for Obstacle Databases Aeronautical Database (ADB) Subcommittee

ARINC Project Paper 813 will define database standards for terrain data. ARINC Project Paper 815 will define database standards for obstacle data. The benefit is that airlines will be able to choose between database providers. The documents will be aligned to RTCA DO-276 and RTCA DO-291 and will specify a database structure, supplemental data, data loading, index/configuration file definitions, features and attributes definitions, and a file format. Mature documents are expected in 2017.

APIM 12-007Supplement 1 to ARINC Specification 814: XML Encoding and Compression Standard Aeronautical Database (ADB) Subcommittee

ARINC Specification 814 defines an XML Encoding and Compression standard that can be applied to all types of aeronautical databases (e.g., Airport Mapping, Navigation, Obstacle, and Terrain). Better compression means smaller files, leading to shorter load times for databases and reduced communication costs for transferring data set. Smaller storage requirements onboard and reduced cost are also seen as potential benefits. This APIM is open in anticipation of potential changes necessary to support terrain database and obstacle database standards in 2017.

APIM 13-004C Supplement 4 to ARINC Specification 825: Controller Area Network (CAN) CAN Working Group

Supplement 4 to ARINC Specification 825: General Standardization of CAN (Controller Area Network) Bus Protocol for Airborne Use will be the product of this activity. The document will provide guidance pertinent to the CAN Flexible Data rate (CAN FD) standard, enabling CAN bandwidth to improve by a factor of eight. A mature Supplement 4 is expected in 2017.

60

APIM 13-005 ARINC Project Paper 852: Data Logging for Information Security Network Infrastructure and Security (NIS) Subcommittee

ARINC Project Paper 852: Data Logging for Information Security will provide guidelines applicable to e-Enabled aircraft that can be used to acquire IP data security information for the purpose of aircraft IP network monitoring. This effort will include the following tasks:

• Define criteria for collecting digital security data• Define event triggers for log entries• Define standard set of data elements to be stored• Guidance for monitoring, analyzing, and responding to security event data

A mature document is expected in 2017.

APIM 13-007ARINC Project Paper 849: Software Distribution and Loading (SDL) Subcommittee

ARINC Project Paper 849 will provide guidelines intended to standardize the format, content, and detail of the documentation required for in-shop data loading requirements for modern networked avionics. The information will provide airlines the information needed to enable bench testing and loading of operational software found in newer avionics used in the latest aircraft. A mature document is expected in 2017.

APIM 13-008 ARINC Specification 845: Fiber Optic Expanded Beam Termini Fiber Optics Subcommittee (FOS)

ARINC Specification 845: Fiber Optic Expanded Beam Termini was published in 2016. This document defines a contact for use in the cabin environment, particularly seat-to-seat interfaces. As a follow-on to this effort, several related ARINC Fiber Optic documents (ARINC 801-807) will be updated in 2017.

APIM 13-009 ARINC Project Paper 846: Fiber Optic Mechanical Transfer Termini Fiber Optics Subcommittee (FOS)

ARINC Project Paper 846 will define a Fiber Optic Mechanical Transfer termini for use in high density applications with less weight and a smaller area footprint. This effort will likely result in the need to modify related ARINC Fiber Optic documents (ARINC 801-807). A mature document is expected in 2017.


61

APIM 13-011ASupplement 1 to ARINC Characteristic 771: Low-Earth Orbiting Aviation Satellite Communication System Air Ground Communications Systems (AGCS) Subcommittee

ARINC Characteristic 771 defines aircraft installation standards for Iridium NEXT satcom equipment. Iridium NEXT capabilities include both voice and data for safety and non-safety services. The Satellite Data Unit (SDU) form, fit, function, the antenna, and the interfaces to avionics will be specified. A new antenna definition will be defined. As a benefit, airlines expect interchangeable equipment offered by the suppliers of Iridium NEXT systems. A mature Supplement 1 is expected in 2017.

APIM 13-014BARINC Specification 800: Cabin Connector and Cables Cabin Systems Subcommittee (CSS)

ARINC Specification 800: Cabin Connectors and Cables, is a four-part document:

• Part 1 – Description and Overview• Part 2 – Specification of Connectors, Contacts, and Backshells• Part 3 – Specification of Cables• Part 4 – Standard Test Methodology

Supplement 1 to ARINC 800, Part 2 and Supplement 1 to ARINC 800, Part 3 will define copper contacts and cables sufficient for 10 Gbps Ethernet. It will also define a hybrid (fiber optic/copper) connector insert and cable for use in a variety of cabin equipment installations.

APIM 14-001 ARINC Project Paper 820: Cabin Wireless Distribution System Cabin Systems Subcommittee (CSS)

ARINC Project Paper 820 will define a cabin wireless LAN architecture, interwiring and connectors for passenger wireless services. This will enable wireless delivery of media to passenger and crew devices and support media loading for seat centric In-Flight Entertainment Systems (IFES). This distribution system may be independent of any IFES or requirement that IFES be present. A mature document is expected in 2017.

62


APIM 14-007ARINC Project Paper 792: Small Form Factor Ku-Band and Ka-Band Satellite Communication System

KSAT Subcommittee

ARINC Project Paper 792 will define a small form factor Ku-band and Ka-band satcom system in a modular manner, considering technology improvements that will enhance satcom system performance. The objectives include the following:

• Accommodations of new antenna technologies, including mounting provisions (e.g., mounting points, protected volume, and connector penetrations) for multiple apertures

• Smaller, simpler, and lighter weight installations• Accommodation of airline requirements for gate-to-gate operation• Compatibility with ARINC 791 provisions

A mature document is expected in 2017.

APIM 15-001ARINC Project Paper 648: Guidelines for Cabin Passenger Seat Testing Cabin Systems Subcommittee

ARINC Project Paper 648 will provide requirements and recommended practices for seat testing to be performed at the seat manufacturer’s facilities prior to the shipment of the seats to the airframe manufacturers, MROs, or operators for installation in the aircraft. A mature document is expected in 2017.

APIM 15-004 ARINC Project Paper 658: Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) for Aeronautical Safety Services - Roadmap Document Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) Subcommittee

Aeronautical Safety Services using the Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) are the future of Air Traffic Services (ATS) communication. This activity includes a planning phase, a standardization phase, then enter the refinement phase as IP safety service implementations become available.

Step 1 will develop a roadmap for standardization and main architecture impacts of IPS introduction. The IPS Subcommittee will define the perimeter which needs to be standardized for IPS (air-to-ground and end-to-end) and in which timeframe each part shall be standardized. The output of Step 1 will be an ARINC Report.

Step 2 will develop an ARINC Standard for IPS safety services. The output of the IPS Subcommittee will be an ARINC Standard containing the specification of avionics architecture, functions, and an IPS profile which specifies implementation options and constraints as well as higher level details regarding the accommodation of different applications. Step 1 is expected to be complete in 2017. Step 2 will continue through 2019.

63

APIM 15-005Supplement 5 to ARINC Characteristic 702A: Advance Flight Management Computer System Flight Management System (FMS) Subcommittee

Supplement 5 to ARINC Characteristic 702A: Advanced Flight Management Computer System is expected to reflect RTCA DO-236C – Change 1 requirements and recommendations as follows:

• Magnetic variation model recommendations• Lateral offset recommendations• Lateral path transition containment refinement• Fixed Radius Turn refinements• Temperature compensation• AT and AT OR ABOVE speed constraints• Vertical path construction rules• ETA min/max computation and RTA performance• Crew selection of preplanned RNP values


APIM 15-006Supplement 8 to ARINC Specification 628, Part 1: Cabin Equipment Interfaces Cabin Systems Subcommittee

This activity will prepare Supplement 8 to ARINC Specification 628: Part 1, Cabin Equipment Interfaces Standard to include capability for a Cabin Wireless Access Point (CWAP) to detect geographic region. This will include:

• Coordinate with US and European Telecom Authorities• Standardize technical solutions for Global Management of CWAPs• Define methods and protocols to manage the CWAP configuration as required

by local Telecom Authorities• Consider automatic selection for local service and fixed channels for cruise

conditions

APIM 16-001ARINC Project Paper 6xx: Avionics Software Performance and Quality Software Metrics Working Group

This APIM calls for the development of software reliability metrics that will improve the performance of avionics software. The AEEC Executive Committee formed the Software Metrics Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee in 2016. The goal is to define measurable parameters that can be used to improve the reliability and overall performance of avionics systems.

64


APIM 16-002ARINC Project Paper 6xx: Common Standards for Software Data Loading and Data Management Software Distribution and Loading (SDL) Subcommittee

This APIM calls for the development of common standards for aircraft software loading, security, and management. It will document reference information common to airborne data loading and software standards. Examples of expected guidance include:

• Common terminology to avoid different definitions across multiple standards• Software security standard references • Standardized file nomenclature, numbering, and header descriptions• Hard cover labeling guidance

APIM 16-003Supplement 7 to ARINC Characteristic 781: Mark 3 Aviation Satellite Communication System AGCS Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 7 to ARINC Characteristic 781 describing Inmarsat SwiftBroadband (SBB) satcom equipment, installation and new services:

• Add Security Overlay option (e.g., VPN) in support of ACARS over SBB safety services

• Define SBB Ethernet Ports (Align with ARINC 771 – Iridium Certus)• Expand Data Security Analysis

APIM 16-004

Supplement 2 to ARINC Specification 842: Guidance for Usage of Digital Certificates NIS Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 2 to ARINC Report 842: Digital Certificate Guidance. The goal is to re-align ARINC 842 with ATS Spec 42 on the same subject. A mature document is expected in 2018.

65

APIM 16-005 ARINC Specification 628: Cabin Equipment Interfaces ARINC Specification 809: 3GCN – Seat Distribution System CSS Subcommittee

This APIM calls for several cabin systems standards to be updated to include:

• High-Definition Landscape Camera and 4K Ultra High Definition Video standards• USB 3.1 Interface• Update of Network System Components

APIM 16-006Supplements to ARINC Characteristic 791 Part 1 and Part 2: Ku-Band and Ka-Band Satellite Communications System KSAT Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 3 to ARINC Characteristic 791, Part 1 to include several changes that will benefit the installation and operation of Ku-band and Ka-band satcom systems. The APIM also calls for Supplement 2 to ARINC Characteristic 791 Part 2 to provide proper references to network interface definitions, revisit antenna installation issues, and update the Management Information Base (MIB) definition.

• Supplement 3 to ARINC Characteristic 791 Part 1: Ku-Band and Ka-Band Satcom System Definition is expected to be mature in 2017.

• Supplement 2 to ARINC 791 Characteristic Part 2: Ku-Band and Ka-Band Satcom System Definition is expected to be mature in 2017.

APIM 16-007A Supplement 5 to ARINC Specification 622: ATS Data Link Applications over ACARS Air-Ground Network DLK Systems Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 5 to ARINC Specification 622: ATS Data Link Applications Over ACARS Air-Ground Network. The document is expected to add Air Traffic Services (ATS) Wind Uplink Service for Advanced Interval Management. Draft Supplement 5 is expected to be mature in 2017.

APIM 16-008 DataLink Users Forum

The DLK Users Forum was formed by the airline community in 1988 to leverage the business aspects of datalink. The goal of the DataLink Users Forum is to provide continuous improvements to data link system performance in a way that maximizes the operational benefit to the user community. Datalink regulations are monitored to keep the airline users and other stakeholders informed. The DLK Users Forum participants include airlines and cargo carriers, aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, Datalink Service Providers (DSP) and Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP).

66


APIM 16-009

ARINC Specification 653: Avionics Application Software Standard Interface

APEX Subcommittee

ARINC Specification 653: Avionics Application Software Standard Interface is published as a seven-part ARINC Standard:

• Part 0 Overview of APEX Services• Part 1 Required Services• Part 2 Extended Services• Part 3A Conformity Test Specification for Required Services• Part 3B Conformity Test Specification for Extended Services• Part 4 Subset Services• Part 5 Core Software Required Capabilities

ARINC 653 defines multi-core processor services for emerging avionics systems. Conformity Test Plans for Extended Services (Part 3B) are expected in 2017.

APIM 16-010Supplement 9 to ARINC Specification 620: Datalink Ground System Standard and Interface

DLK Systems Subcommittee

This APIM calls for Supplement 9 to ARINC Specification 620: Datalink Ground System Standard and Interface Specification (DGSS/IS). The scope of the proposed changes is related to the deployment of Media Independent Aircraft Messages (MIAM). Supplement 9 will address a specific routing problem with MIAM messages that use a Message Function Indicator (MFI). ARINC Specification 620 will:

• Add guidance on how DSPs should process ACARS/AOA/MIAM messages that use MFIs.

• Address interoperability issue associated with EFB ACARS messages with a Supplementary Field Address (SFA).

• Assign MFIs to Onboard Network System (ONS) applications (Boeing requested).

67

APIM 16-011 ARINC Project Paper xxx, Next Generation Cabin Data Bus (ARINC 485 replacement) CSS Subcommittee

This APIM calls for a new ARINC Standard to define the next generation cabin data bus. This will be the successor to the ARINC 485 bus (published 2001) and include the following activities:

• ARINC Specification 664: Aircraft Data Network will be updated to include IEEE 802.3bw Energy-Efficient Ethernet, leveraging commercial standards. The bus is expected to yield 100 Mbps using a twisted pair medium. Supplement 4 to ARINC Specification 664 Part 2 will define the physical and network layers for 100BaseT1 and 1000BaseT1 Ethernet, based on IEEE 802.3bw (100BaseT1) and 802.3bp (1000BaseT1).

• Develop ARINC Project Paper 8xx in two parts to define protocols and messaging for cabin system functions: Part 1 – Define In-Seat network connectors and cabling, electrical interfaces, bus protocols, and messaging protocols for an Ethernet in-seat network and Part 2 – Cabin Lighting System Interfaces.

APIM 16-013 ARINC Characteristic 743A: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Sensor ARINC Characteristic 743B: GNSS Landing System Sensor Unit (GLSSU) ARINC Project Paper 743C: GLSSU with VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) Receiver ARINC Characteristic 755: Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) GNSS Subcommittee

This APIM calls for the expansion of several ARINC Standards as follows:

• Supplement 6 to ARINC Characteristic 743A: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Sensor

• Supplement 1 to ARINC Characteristic 743B: GNSS Landing System Sensor Unit (GLSSU)

• New ARINC Project Paper 743C: GLSSU with VHF Data Broadcast (VDB) Receiver

• Supplement 5 to ARINC Characteristic 755: Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR)

68


APIM 16-014 ARINC Project Paper 848, Broadband Network Interface for non-Safety Services NIS Subcommittee

This APIM calls for the definition of Broadband Network Interface for Air/Ground non-Safety Services. The goal is to define at the IP network level, a method for connecting non-safety IP communication systems on the aircraft (e.g., AIS) with one or more IP broadband communication systems. For example, an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) in the AIS domain might connect using passenger broadband communication services in the PIES domain.

APIM 16-015ARINC Project Paper xxx, eEnabled Aircraft Ground System for Managing and Distributing Software Parts Software Distribution and Loading (SDL) Subcommittee

The APIM calls for ARINC Project Paper 8xx to define eEnabled Aircraft Ground System for Managing and Distributing Software Parts. This APIM proposes a phased approach to standardization. Initially, industry will draft a document defining API to allow access between an airline’s ground software management tools to any airplane software distribution mechanism. This is represented in the diagram as API-1. This phase provides value to the airlines by simplifying a portion of their ground infrastructure requirements.

The complete list of APIMs approved in 2016 is summarized in this report. Copies of the APIMs may be obtained from the ARINC website: www.aviation-ia.com/aeec. For more information about the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, contact the AEEC Executive Secretary and Program Director, Paul Prisaznuk ([email protected]).

69

APIM 14-102Aircraft Support Data Management ARINC Project Paper 675 Aircraft Support Data Management (ASDM) Working Group

APIM 14-102 calls for the development of standard airline-industry guidance to manage uploading, verification, and activation of aircraft support data; that is, content, media, applications, and scripts that are not subject to the field-loadable software regulations and procedures. In general, this content does not affect the core function or operation of any on-board system, require supplier formal acceptance test or configuration control, reside within the onboard loadable software control system or Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC), or require aircraft paperwork or technician touch labor to install. Aircraft support data is important to the operators because they directly affect the passenger experience. Often these items are transient; that is, they are loaded quickly to provide a targeted message and are often quickly removed and replaced with new data.

APIM 14-103 Engineering Investigation for Aircraft Components ARINC Project Paper 676 Special Investigation (SI) Working Group

APIM 14-103 calls for the development of a new ARINC Report to provide guidance for the assignment, accomplishment, and reporting of Investigations for components which exceeds the regular workshop analysis and repair process. Regulatory Authorities and reliability issues have required the operator or its repair facility to provide additional attention to aircraft components, which have produced either a flight incident or have not reached the intended reliability. This might happen on a specific serial number or on the complete series of components. A standardized process will:

• Clarify Content and Scope of Investigation• Provide a Comprehensive Report• Avoid Delays and Cost• Improve Reliability

APIM 15-101 Modification Status Indicators and Service Bulletins ARINC Report 422, Supplement 1 Modification Status Indicators (MSI) Working Group

The MSI Working Group will review and update ARINC Report 422: Guidance for Modification Status Indicators and Avionics Service Bulletins to ensure accuracy and consistency with evolving industry practices. The update is intended to ensure the continued viability of ARINC Report 422 with incursion of the new components development and support proper tracking of modification and LRU configuration.

AMC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AMC Projects

70

CONTINUED Project Descriptions - AMC Projects

APIM 15-102Field Loadable Software ARINC Report 667, Supplement 2 Field Loadable Software (FLS) Working Group

The FLS Working Group will update ARINC Report 667: Guidelines for the Management of Field Loadable Software. The effort will:

• Coordinate with all stakeholders involved with software intensive aircraft • Enhance airplane software distribution, loading, configuration control, and

management• Update the standard driven by revision and creation of peripheral and related

standards (ARINC Report 615A, 615-4, 664, 665, 666, and 827)

Updates to ARINC 667, although driven by interests and designs of newer airplane programs, will accommodate both new and current airplane programs. ARINC 667-1 served well defining theory and methods for media-less distribution of airplane software. However, current specifications require modification to meet contemporary and future industry needs. The resulting supplement to ARINC Report 667 will address these issues and include material on e-enabled aircraft.

APIM 16-101Test Program Test (TPS) Quality ARINC Report 625, Supplement 4 Test Program Test (TPS) Quality Working Group

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) often deliver a Technical Support and Data Package (TSDP) that contain a cornucopia of documents. The relevant Test Specification data is obscured and difficult to ascertain within the large amount of data that is not relevant to the Test Specification. The aim of this project is to update the ARINC Report 625-3 to emphasize the importance that the OEM provides a Test Specification that is intelligible, unobscured, and complete as possible.

The role of the TSDP is to provide the minimal amount of data required to fully understand and implement the Test Specification. Only data that is pertinent to the Test Specification should be provided. It should be separate and independent of all non-pertinent data.

The complete list of APIMs approved in 2016 is summarized in this report. Copies of the APIMs may be obtained from the AMC website: www.aviation-ia.com/amc. For more information about the Avionics Maintenance Conference, contact the AMC Executive Secretary and Program Director, Sam Buckwalter ([email protected]).

71

APIM 14-204Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments (SATCE) ARINC Specification 439A SATCE Working Group

APIM 14-204 intent was to produce a supplement to ARINC Report 439 to maintain the document’s currency with industry developments in this important area of flight simulation. During the course of the working group, it became evident that the standard should be a specification because it was referenced in other industry standards and regulatory documents. Therefore, the FSEMC published ARINC Specification 439A in 2016, effectively replacing the original ARINC Report 439 in its entirety.

SATCE can be considered a newly emergent sub-system for FSTDs. Over the next few years SATCE systems are expected to be developed, integrated, tested and approved using a variety of approaches and differing technologies. Industry guidance on scope, functionality, appropriate technologies, maintenance and certification will need to reflect best practices and lessons learned to be of most benefit.

APIM 15-201FSEMC Data Document (FDD) ARINC Specification 450 FDD Working Group

Develop a standard to provide Flight Simulation Training Device operators, Training Device Manufacturers (TDM), airplane manufacturers or other sources of approved data and vendors of airplane equipment, with a standard, describing the scope and content of data required to build, test, qualify, and provide lifecycle support for a FSTD of adequate fidelity to meet flight crew training requirements. ARINC Specification 450 will address:

• Regulatory requirements that are concerned with how FSTDs are built, used, and updated (FAA Part 60, EASA CS-FSTD(A), ICAO 9625, each document as amended).

• Ensure support for legacy devices, held to a prior version of a standard. • Address that the device level may affect the amount/depth/breadth of

data required and be substantially different than a highest-level device. The document will describe these scenarios as well as best case solutions.

• Address the operators’ need for additional data specific to accomplishing maintenance training.

FSEMC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FSEMC Projects

72

CONTINUED Project Descriptions - FSEMC Projects

APIM 16-203Simulator Continuing Qualification (SCQ) SCQ Working Group

The intent of this activity is to initiate discussion to alternative means of continuing qualification and validation of Flight Simulator Training Devices (FSTD)– and share and promote new ideas and ways of optimizing regular testing and checking methods.

This activity will entertain the contrarian opinion about an over reliance on Quality Test Guides (QTG) for annual validation for performance and handling of the FSTD. The premise for this point is that the QTG is a valuable testing tool to validate the simulation software initially, but often does not lend itself to identify problems with the simulation software over a recurring period. However, as an industry we spend thousands of hours repeating tests – where the actual software has not changed. The challenge is to develop a more optimized approach to validating the simulation software and focus more on the hardware in the loop, where there are regular areas that should be checked and problems often occur, effectively over the lifecycle of the FSTD.

This activity will seek to define methods or procedures for alternate means of compliance for continued qualification of FSTDs. We will explore ways we can potentially separate software validation from hardware testing – and thus more effectively test our machines

APIM 99-200EASA FSTD Technical Group (EFTeG)

The EASA FSTD Technical Group (EFTeG) provides an open forum for flight simulation industry professionals to discuss technical and regulatory related topics with European aviation regulators (EASA and other National Aviation Authorities (NAAs)). The meeting provides simulator operators who are subject to the European Aviation Safety Agency’s regulatory requirements an opportunity to discuss technical and regulatory issues in an informal forum. This dialogue between the operators and EASA representatives is intended to promote a common understanding of the current and future regulatory arena.

The complete list of APIMs approved in 2015 is summarized in this report. Copies of the APIMs may be obtained from the FSEMC website: www.aviation-ia.com/fsemc. For more information about the Flight Simulator Engineering and Maintenance Conference, contact the FSEMC Executive Secretary and Program Director, Sam Buckwalter ([email protected]).

74

AEECMessage from the Chairman

By: James McLeroy, UPS

The aviation industry has changed tremendously since the time when AEEC started in 1949 as an airline organization. AEEC has evolved in its role as an international standards organization serving aviation for over 65 years. The AEEC standards, published as ARINC Standards, are implemented in all types of aircraft and they provide benefits to the entire aviation community.

AEEC activities are an important piece for the aviation community. These standards produce benefits for the entire community. These include common interface protocols and connections between systems, competitive market between suppliers, implementation of new technologies on aircraft, the ability to use common parts across operators, and many more.

The integration of AEEC into the SAE family has been successful with no impact to the AEEC activities. I applaud the efforts by SAE and the AEEC staff to ensure that business continues as usual. In fact, having the resources of SAE has provided AEEC additional benefits such as development of apps to assist with the AEEC|AMC General Session, potential for training modules, and an overhaul of the ARINC Industry Activities website (coming soon).

2016 was a busy and productive year for ARINC Industry Activities. The aviation industry continues to move forward with new technologies coming with the development of the Boeing 787, 777X, and 737NG, and Airbus 350, 380, and 320 Neo. Avionic systems are becoming highly integrated and software driven. The AEEC is actively engaged in evaluating the need for standards to assist with system integration and software implementation.

Today’s aircraft are being delivered with onboard networks that enable avionics equipment to connect to external ground networks in an effort to improve efficiencies and operation of the aircraft. The connection of these aircraft to ground networks drive new requirements for operators to ensure security is maintained for the aircraft as well as the ground network. This requires more involvement from an operator’s IT department to ensure the infrastructure is established, available, and security is maintained. AEEC took the action at the AEEC Mid-Term Session in Toulouse to standardize the network requirements between aircraft manufacturers. This effort will require the assistance of IT oriented participation and demonstrates the continuing evolution of the industry and the AEEC organization. This will allow an operator to implement and maintain one system regardless of the aircraft manufacturer.

AEEC Chairman 2014-2015

75

Aircraft systems are becoming highly integrated and software oriented. Airlines have experienced the shift from the “old” hardware standards (FFF = Form, Fit, Function) towards software standards. We’ve learned how to handle hardware very efficiently. However, software is different. Software requires different processes and confronts us with new challenges. No longer can we specify hardware-only requirements that control the functions and reliability of the components. We have entered a new world in which software is in control of the operation of the system. Although thorough requirements have been created by regulatory agencies and aircraft manufacturers, systems are still being released into the aviation industry with software system defects. These software defects can be minor in nature in which an operator can “work around” the issue or major in nature in which the software must be corrected. Operators are finding that the correction of these software defects can be very expensive with very long implementation schedules. Another significant outcome of the AEEC Mid-Term Session in Toulouse was AEEC’s decision to define a method to measure the functional performance of an avionics system as a function of the software within that system. This evolution will continue to advance the industry to better understand and improve products for better overall aircraft reliability.

Regulation requirements continue to advance around the globe. Many countries are redesigning their airspace requirements from a ground based system to a space based system. In doing so, many regulations are being implemented that affects aircraft systems such as transponders (RTCA DO-260B), GPS system requirements (SA-Aware or SBAS), communication system requirements (CPDLC and VDL2), displays, flight management systems, and others. Also, many regulations are being implemented in an effort to improve safety. For example, to improve rescue recovery efforts, the industry is developing Global Aircraft Tracking solutions, low frequency locator beacons, and 90-day battery high frequency locator beacons on Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR). The AEEC has been actively involved in defining these systems and ensuring that standards are maintained for the industry.

I have been involved in the AEEC industry activities for almost 20 years. I am always impressed at the involvement of the AEEC industry, the ARINC IA staff, and the amount of value it brings to the aviation industry. The meetings not only help the industry, but help me as well. It allows me to not only stay up to date on current requirements and activities around the world in the aviation industry, but provides me a mechanism to get technical insight to aircraft systems as well as make connections with other industry partners. I view this activity an essential role in improving operations and controlling cost at UPS Airlines.

The AEEC Executive Committee primarily consist of US and European operators. I sincerely encourage all operators to evaluate the high value the AEEC industry activities can bring to your organization.

I look forward meeting many of you at the 2017 AEEC | AMC General Session in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

James McLeroy UPS Airlines

AEEC Chairman 2016-2017

76

AEEC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS (As of December 31, 2016)

James McLeroy Chairman

Piet van den Berg

John Melvin

Dennis Zvacek

Wolfgang Hornbacker

Mike Nebylowitsch

Jim Lord

Robert Swanson

77

* Non-voting member

For more information about the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, contact the AEEC Executive Secretary and Program Director Paul Prisaznuk ([email protected]).

Jürgen Lauterbach

Brian Gleason

Jose Almeida

Rich Stillwell

David Setser

Jean-Francois Saint-Etienne

Jessie Turner

ARINCINDUSTRY ACTIVITIESSM

An SAE ITC Program

Paul Prisaznuk*

78

AEEC SUMMARY 2016

AEEC MissionThe Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) improves cost effectiveness and reduces life-cycle costs by conducting engineering and technical investigations and developing voluntary engineering and technical standards for airborne electronics.

AEEC OverviewThe AEEC is an international standards organization that promotes the technical positions of the air transport industry. The AEEC provides a forum for collaboration, teamwork and decision making. The products of AEEC’s efforts are published as ARINC Standards that collectively promote market competition and deliver economies of scale. Aircraft manufacturers and avionics suppliers work with the AEEC in this endeavor.

AEEC CompositionThe AEEC Membership is open to airline operators, airframe manufacturers, general aviation and the military. These organizations fund a significant portion of the AEEC work program and are eligible to be voting members of the AEEC Executive Committee.

The AEEC Executive Committee serves in a leadership role for ARINC Standards development and coordinates nearly 25 AEEC Subcommittee activities which produce ARINC Standards. Decisions made by the AEEC Executive Committee fully consider inputs of the supplier community, regulators, and other stakeholders. Supplier companies and other organizations that benefit from doing business with the airlines are invited to participate as Corporate Sponsors.

The AEEC General Session and the AEEC Mid-Term Session present and coordinate the efforts of the AEEC Subcommittee activities responsible for the preparation of ARINC Standards. These meetings also serve a coordinating role with ICAO, RTCA, EUROCAE, and the like.

The value of AEEC membership has been demonstrated over six decades:

• Improving the efficiency of air transportation through the development of new operating concepts and technologies.

• Influencing the development of new aircraft and derivatives.

• Shaping aircraft capabilities necessary for operating in NextGen, SESAR, and CARATS airspace environments.

• Developing consensus-based industry standards reflecting the collective views of aircraft operators, airframe manufacturers, equipment suppliers, regulators and other stakeholders.

• Ensuring the viability of AEEC as a long-standing technical resource for the airline industry.

The success of the AEEC is a result of a simple, yet refined, approach to collaborative decision making. This approach yields standards that are used voluntarily by the airline industry and their suppliers; standards that no one organization could possibly develop on its own.

79

AEECAEEC Subcommittees and Working Groups

Activity Leadership Acronym

Aeronautical Databases Brian Gilbert, Boeing ADB

Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications (AeroMACS)

Tom McGuffin, Honeywell AMX

Aeronautical Operational Communications (AOC)

Dirk Zschunke, Lufthansa AOC

Air-Ground Communication SystemsRobert Holcomb, American Airlines

AGCS

Avionics Application/Executive Software

Pierre Gabrilot, Airbus NDB

Gordon Putsche, Boeing APEX AOC

Cabin SystemsDale Freeman, Delta Air Lines

EFB

Rolf Göedecke, AirbusARINC Project Paper 766, AeroMACS

AMX

Gerald Lui-Kwan, Boeing CSS CSS

Cockpit Display System InterfacesChad Weldon, Rockwell Collins

CDS

Controller Area Network Thomas Joseph, GE Aviation CAN

Data Link SystemsBob Slaughter, American Airlines

DLK

Data Link Users Forum Colin Galant, British Airways

Brian Gleason, Southwest Airlines DLK

Digital Flight Data Recorder Robert Swanson, FedEx DFDR

Digital Video Working Group Tim Keller, Great River Technology

DVE

Electronic Flight BagSonja Schellenberg, Lufthansa Systems

EFB

Maurice Ingle, American Airlines

Electronic Flight Bag Users ForumPhilip Haller, Austrian Airlines Eill Ware, Southwest Airlines

EFB

Fiber Optic Interfaces Robert Nye, Boeing FOS

80

Activity Leadership Acronym

Flight Management Computer System Mike Bakker, GE Aviation FMS

Galley InsertsRalph Schnabel, Airbus Scott Coburn, Boeing

GAIN

GNSSJulien Sanscartier, CMC Electronics

GNSS

Internet Protocol Suite for Aeronautical Safety Services

Luc Emberger, Airbus Greg Saccone, Boeing

IPS

Ku/Ka Band Satellite Communications Peter Lemme, Totaport KSAT

Navigation Database Chuong Phung, FedEx NDB

Network Infrastructure and Security Steve Arentz, United Airlines NIS

NextGen/SESAR Sam Miller, MITRE SAI

Software Distribution and LoadingTed Patmore, Delta Air Lines Rod Gates, American Airlines

SDL

Software Metrics Working Group Reinhard Andreae, Lufthansa SWM

Systems Architecture and InterfacesBob Semar, United Airlines Reinhard Andreae, Lufthansa

SAI

Traffic Surveillance, ADS-B, TCAS Jessie Turner, Boeing TCAS

For more information about the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, contact the AEEC Executive Secretary and Program Director, Paul Prisaznuk ([email protected]).

CONTINUED AEEC Subcommittees and Working Groups

Aeronautical Databases (ADB) Chairman: Brian Gilbert, Boeing Secretary: Peter Grau

This ADB Subcommittee is responsible for the standardization of the aeronautical database structures for airport surface data, terrain data and obstacle data. The ADB Subcommittee works in conjunction with RTCA SC-217. Overall, it is developing the capabilities to improve the pilot’s situational awareness of the airport facility and the terrain. XML Compression standards are being developed as well.

81

Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communication (AeroMACS)Chairman: Tom McGuffin, Honeywell Secretary: José Godoy

The AeroMACS Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee is developing ARINC Project Paper 766: Standard Airborne AeroMACS Transceiver for Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications. The AeroMACS transceiver will operate at 5091 to 5150 MHz using IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) protocols. AeroMACS is considered one of the future radio components bringing System Wide Information Management (SWIM) to the aircraft. The document is expected to define traditional form, fit, function, and interface standards that will ease installation in commercial aircraft.

Aeronautical Operational Communication (AOC)Chairman: Dirk Zschunke, Lufthansa Secretary: José Godoy

A standardized set of Airline Operational Control (AOC) messages are defined by this activity. The messages are defined independent of the medium. The AOC messaging application can by hosted on an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). The message types are common to all types of operations. They are intended to be used by multiple airlines on multiple aircraft types.

Air-Ground Communication Systems (AGCS)Chairman: Robert Holcomb, American Airlines Secretary: José Godoy

The goal of the Air/Ground Communication Systems (AGCS) Subcommittee is to ensure that current and emerging air-ground communication systems are specified based on airline operational requirements and defined for cost-effective implementation based on established aircraft architectures. The current activity is focused on developing standards that support broadband and safety services for geostationary (Inmarsat SwiftBroadband) and low earth orbit (Iridium Certus) satcom systems.

Avionics Application/Executive Software (APEX)Co-Chairman: Pierre Gabrilot, Airbus Co-Chairman: Gordon Putsche, Boeing Secretary: Scott Smith

This APEX Subcommittee is responsible for developing software interface standards for Real-Time Operating Systems (RTOS) used with Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA). ARINC Specification 653: Avionics Application Software Standard Interface defines a standard interface between avionics application software and the software operating system capable of providing RTCA DO-178B, Level A service.

82

Cabin Systems (CSS)Chairman: Dale Freeman, Delta Air Lines Co-Chairman: Rolf Gödecke, Airbus Co-Chairman: Gerald Lui-Kwan, Boeing Secretary: Tom Munns

Airlines provide In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) for their passengers. The Cabin Systems Subcommittee (CSS) defines equipment installation and cost-effective network infrastructure that enables airlines to offer news and entertainment for their passengers. This includes interface standards to allow airlines to implement their preferred systems for their passengers. Cabin communications, interface protocols, and connector standardization are integral parts of this activity.

Cockpit Display System Interfaces (CDS)Chairman: Chad Weldon, Rockwell Collins Secretary: Peter Grau

The CDS Subcommittee develops flight deck display interface standards for primary display systems and their interface to avionics equipment (e.g., communication, navigation, and surveillance systems). ARINC Specification 661 is intended to support new airplane development programs for air transport, regional, general aviation, military, and rotorcraft. The updates will ensure growth for CNS/ATM applications used in NextGen and SESAR airspace environments.

Controller Area Network (CAN)Chairman: Thomas Joseph, GE Aviation Secretary: Tom Munns

The Controller Area Network Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee is developing Supplement 4 to ARINC Specification 825: General Standardization of Controller Area Network (CAN) for Airborne Use. Supplement 4 will incorporate CAN Flexible Data Rate (CAN FD).

Data Link Systems (DLK)Chairman: Bob Slaughter, American Airlines Secretary: José Godoy

The Data Link Systems Subcommittee develops standards that promote reliable, uniform, and cost efficient transfer of data between the aircraft and various locations on the ground. These standards cover the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS®) and the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN). Ground locations include civil aviation agencies, manufacturers of avionics and engines, data link service providers, weather providers, and departments within the airlines such as payroll, maintenance, operations, engineering, and dispatch.


83

Data Link Users Forum Co-Chairman: Colin Gallant, British Airways Co-Chairman: Brian Gleason, Southwest Airlines Secretary: Vic Nagowski/José Godoy

The Data Link Users Forum is a coordinating activity among airlines and cargo carriers, data link service providers, aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and others. It focuses on technical issues of mutual interest to operators. The discussions lead to the identification and resolution of numerous issues that collectively improve data link performance. The product of this activity assures that operators receive significant operational and economic benefits of air/ground communication services. This activity provides input on the direction and schedule of new Air Traffic Service (ATS) data link programs.

Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR)Industry Editor: Robert Swanson, FedEx Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The DFDR Subcommittee is temporarily dormant following the publication of Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) standards, ARINC Characteristic 757-6 and ARINC Characteristic 757A-1. The updates improve aircraft installation guidance provided for the CVR. The goal of this activity is to monitor developments in the regulatory community as they evolve following an accident investigation. The ARINC Standards are updated to comply with international regulations and installation preferences.

Digital Video Working Group (DVE)Industry Editor: Tim Keller, Great River Technology Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The Digital Video Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee is temporarily dormant following the publication of ARINC Specification 818-2: Avionics Digital Video Bus (ADVB). This standard is viewed to be mature and is now being implemented in commercial and military applications. The working group will monitor ARINC 818 development activity and to recommend changes to the standard as the need arises.

Electronic Flight Bag (EFB)Co-Chairman: Sonja Schellenberg, Lufthansa Systems Co-Chairman: Maurice Ingle, American Airlines Secretary: Peter Grau

The EFB Subcommittee is developing hardware and software standards for the EFB. This includes EFB hardware installation standards as well as EFB software application standards. This is a rapidly evolving technology with wide-ranging applications. Airlines, airframe manufacturers, and EFB suppliers are expected to benefit from reduced EFB integration costs.

84

Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum - a Joint Activity with IATACo-Chairman: Phillip Haller, Austrian Airlines Co-Chairman: Will Ware, Southwest Airlines Secretary: Peter Grau

The Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Users Forum is a joint activity with IATA that enables airlines and other aircraft operators to voice their preferences in the evolution of EFB hardware and software, as well as EFB connectivity to an airline’s infrastructure. The goal is to maximize the operational and the economic benefit of the EFB and associated EFB applications. Flight Operations, Information Technology, Engineering, and Maintenance disciplines are represented among the participants of the EFB Users Forum.

Fiber Optic Interfaces (FOS)Chairman: Robert Nye, Boeing Secretary: Scott Smith

The FOS Subcommittee role is to develop standards for fiber optic components and interfaces. This effort includes the preparation of fiber optic design guidelines, component criteria, testing and maintenance procedures. The standards specify the performance requirements with an objective of minimizing the cost of procurement, implementation, and maintenance.

Flight Management Computer System (FMS)Chairman: Mike Bakker, GE Aviation Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The Flight Management System (FMS) Subcommittee is preparing Supplement 5 to ARINC Characteristic 702A-5: Advanced Flight Management Computer System Standard.

Supplement 5 will:

• Recognize many evolving technologies that promote efficient flight operations using the FMS

• Align with and refer to the corresponding RTCA/EUROCAE standards

• Align with evolutions since the last major update (e.g., datalink, surface map)

• Standardize interfaces for FMS Landing System/Instrument Approach Navigation (FLS/IAN), and Final Approach Segment (FAS) data block

Galley Inserts (GAIN)Co-Chairman: Ralph Schnabel, Airbus Co-Chairman: Scott Coburn, Boeing Secretary: Tom Munns

The GAIN Subcommittee standardizes the physical dimensions and electrical interfaces for Galley Inserts. Areas of standardization are electrical and mechanical. This includes electrical interfaces, standard wiring, CANbus protocols, standard electrical connectors, water connectors, physical interfaces, and equipment mounting rails.


85

Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)Industry Editor: Julien Sanscartier, CMC Electronics Secretary: Jose Godoy

The GNSS Subcommittee was reactivated in 2016. The current activity will update several ARINC Standards for GNSS-based navigation and approach equipment. These include ARINC 743A, ARINC 743B, and ARINC 755. These standards specify a high level of performance with an objective of minimizing the cost of procurement, implementation, and maintenance. The latest update will provide VHF receiver integration into the GNSS for improved accuracy during airport approach and landing.

Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) for Aeronautical Safety ServicesCo-Chairman: Luc Emberger, Airbus Co-Chairman: Greg Saccone, Boeing Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The IPS Subcommittee was formed to develop an industry roadmap and a development plan for defining an IPS for Aeronautical Safety Services, including airborne, ground-based and space-based communication systems. Activities will be coordinated with aviation Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and others with an interest.

Ku/Ka Band Satellite Communication System (KSAT)Chairman: Peter Lemme, Totaport Secretary: Tom Munns

The KSAT Subcommittee is updating Ku-band and Ka-band satellite system installation provisions, electrical interfaces and mechanical interfaces. This equipment is intended to provide broadband communication to the aircraft using Internet Protocols (IP). This includes the introduction of small form factor avionics intended to simplify installation and reduce cost of equipage.

Navigation Database (NDB)Chairman: Chuong Phung, FedEx Secretary: Sam Buckwalter

The NDB Working Group is responsible for periodic updates to ARINC Specification 424: Navigation System Database used by aircraft operators, airframe manufacturers, Flight Management System (FMS) developers, and database suppliers. The goal is to define the navigation data formats in a way that improves overall aircraft performance and operational efficiency.

Network Infrastructure and Security (NIS) Chairman: Steve Arentz, United Airlines Secretary: Vanessa Mastros

The NIS Subcommittee is developing Gatelink and related security data logging standards. The goal is to enable fleet-wide solutions based on open standards for lower development cost, increased flexibility, higher reliability, reduced complexity, longer lifespan, and ease of configurability and maintenance.

86

NextGen/SESAR AvionicsIndustry Editor: Sam Miller, MITRE Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The NextGen/SESAR Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee is temporarily dormant following the publication of ARINC Report 660B: CNS/ATM Avionics Architectures Supporting NextGen/SESAR Concepts. The document provides a common understanding of NextGen/SESAR concepts among the airspace providers and the airlines.

Software Distribution and Loading (SDL)Co-Chairman: Ted Patmore, Delta Air Lines Co-Chairman: Rod Gates, American Airlines Secretary: Scott Smith

The Software Distribution and Loading Subcommittee expanded its scope in 2016. It is responsible developing standards for eEnabled aircraft and the associated requirements for software distribution and loading. Standards for file format, media type, part numbering, and terminology will be developed in a way that can be used for various software loading services and communication protocols.

Software Metrics Working Group (SWM)Chairman: Reinhard Andreae, Lufthansa Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The Software Metrics Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee was formed in 2016 to address airlines concerns in the areas of software performance and reliability. The goal is to establish measurable parameters that can be used as indicators for the performance of software over the entire software lifecycle. Phase 1 is to identify the areas where the greatest improvement can be made. Phase 2 will include the preparation of an ARINC Standard.

Systems Architecture and Interfaces (SAI)Co-Chairman: Bob Semar, United Airlines Co-Chairman: Reinhard Andreae, Lufthansa Secretary: Paul Prisaznuk

The SAI Subcommittee provides technical leadership in the development of standards for new aircraft programs and major derivative programs. It coordinates top-level avionics requirements for emerging airspace environments, namely NextGen, SESAR, and CARATs. The SAI Subcommittee works with international air navigation service providers to develop standards for CNS/ATM, including ADS-B. Working together with several AEEC Subcommittees, the SAI Subcommittee investigates the application of new technologies and prepares/reviews new project proposals (APIMs) where operational benefits and financial benefits are achievable.


87

Traffic SurveillanceChairman: Jessie Turner – Boeing Secretary: José Godoy

The Traffic Surveillance Working Group of the SAI Subcommittee is temporarily dormant following the publication of ARINC Characteristic 735B-2 defining an airborne Traffic Computer. This activity has defined traffic surveillance equipment suitable for operation in the NextGen, SESAR and CARATS airspace environments. This includes traditional Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). Traffic surveillance requires the use of the Air Traffic Control Transponder and Traffic computer.

A summary of AEEC Subcommittees and Working Groups is provided in this report. As this information is subject to change with industry developments, readers are encouraged to visit the ARINC website at www.aviation-ia.com/aeec or contact the AEEC Executive Secretary, Paul Prisaznuk at [email protected].

88

AMCMessage from the Chairman

By: Marijan Jozic, KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesAMC Chairman 2012 – Present A Note from the AMC Chairman:

Every now and then we stop for a moment and evaluate the past. For many years, it was business as usual. No big or revolutionary changes in aviation. We were optimizing our processes and trying to lower the costs by doing smart things. That was our job.

But our customers are demanding lower ticket prices and when our economists considered the cost pattern, they concluded that fuel consumption was too high and that engineers should

fix that problem. When economists talk about big money (and it is big), the engineers immediately had some room to design great things. A few years later, B787 and A350 types of aircraft were a reality. But if you consider the lifetime of the aircraft, you will immediately discover that design and manufacturing of the aircraft is just a small part.

The designers were ready and aircraft was handed over to the whole new group of engineers who were supposed to take care of those birds for next 30 to 40 years. That handover takes usually 3 to 5 years. Maintenance engineers must learn the new technologies, new systems, new philosophies and figure out why it is designed the way it is designed. You can call it the era of chaos because besides technologies and new techniques, we must get used to totally new business models. Everybody was in total confusion. The way we did business in the past was not good any more. That was the biggest burden on an engineer. Learning new technologies and fighting intellectual property issues was tough.

I have a funny feeling that we are now at the end of the transition period and that we can start to enjoy our new wonderful toys called B787 and A350. Designers have done their job and operators are getting up to speed on how to operate those birds economically to be able to generate some profit. I am certain, more than ever, that AMC played crucial role in the transition process.

Not only did we fix many problems during the Q&A session in open forum, we played a very important role in the education of our engineers. Our seminars were of superb quality because we carefully picked the subjects that were desperately needed. Our biggest success (you could say that we took the bull by the horns, or hit the nail on the head) were seminars about intellectual property, predictive maintenance, 3D-printing and PMA parts. Also, we managed to issue one very important ARINC Standard called SCEA (Standard for Cost Effective Acquisition), which is a baseline for modern engineering and maintenance with respect to contracts and intellectual property. We created awareness on both sides: operators

89

and suppliers and helped both sides to get closer to each other. AMC created a level playing field. That was not easy. It was hard. But we did it satisfactorily.

I am proud to say that we evolved into a flexible, efficient, and extremely knowledgeable organization. Therefore, as a chairman I can only be proud and privileged to be part of it. AMC is taking a leading role and that is good. It is always better to be a leader than follower. How do I know that? Well, it is easy to find out. If you approach the newcomers at AMC and ask them during the second or third day: What do you think of the AMC conference? You will get the same answer every time from every newcomer: “You guys are good!” Also, they say they will definitely come back next year. That means a lot to me.

Our surveys are also showing excellent marks because we are good. Saying that, I realize that we are as good as the last conference. Every year, each year, we must perform better. We supposed not to meet but to beat our high marks. Therefore, we must be willing and able to improve ourselves no matter what. That is not only my desire but it is the industry demand. If we want to feel comfortable, we should strive to excellency. Good is not enough anymore.

It all started with two bicycle makers in Kitty Hawk. Look what we have now: the airplane which can take off at any place and fly to any spot-on earth comfortably and without refueling, bringing 250 satisfied passengers. Those people don’t have a clue that AMC engineers (airframes, suppliers, operators) are playing an important part in it. Nevertheless, we enjoy full satisfaction because we from AMC are a special bread of people.

Marijan Jozic KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

AMC Chairman 2012 – Present

90

AMC STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS (As of December 31, 2016)

Marijan Jozic Chairman

Roger Kozacek

Anand Moorthy

Dean Connor

Dan Ganor

Satomi Ito

Ted McFan Vice Chairman

Prewitt Reaves

91

* Non-voting member

For information about the AMC Steering Group, contact the AMC Executive Secretary and Program Director Sam Buckwalter at (sam.buckwalter@ sae-itc.org).

Sven Biller

Ricardo de Azevedo e Souza

Ozgur Arayici


An SAE ITC Program

Sam Buckwalter* AMC Executive Secretary

92

AMC SUMMARY

AEEC MissionReduce life cycle costs of air transport components by improving maintenance through the exchange of technical information.

IntroductionThe objectives of AMC are to promote reliability and to reduce operating and life cycle costs of air transport avionics by improving maintenance and support techniques through the exchange of technical information.

AMC consists of representatives from the technical leadership of the air transport avionics maintenance community. The membership of AMC consists of the representatives of commercial air transport operators. AMC accomplishes its objectives through a number of activities including: the annual Avionics Maintenance Conference, known worldwide as the AMC; Steering Group meetings; Plane Talk®, a quarterly newsletter; AMC Task Group activities to define industry best practices; and through liaison with the other aviation committees, AEEC and FSEMC, and other related industry organizations.

The benefits of AMC for airlines are long-term success in economic management and operation of commercial aircraft. This long-term success will require a more holistic approach to AMC (i.e., maintenance) and AEEC (i.e., engineering) aspects of aircraft equipment. Simply put, what is built today based on a new design specification has to be maintained tomorrow.

In the forum created by the Avionics Maintenance Conference, the airlines have various opportunities to influence and determine future directions in system and component design, reliability, and cost effectiveness. Speaking in the context of their daily operations, airlines can bring together ideas for improved standardized maintenance concepts and provide valuable feedback to the equipment manufacturers in their daily operations, thus closing the loop in the total process to minimize complex issues.

93

AMCAMC Working Groups

Aircraft Support Data Management (ASDM) Working GroupChairman: Selcuk Yigit, Delta Airlines Secretary: Tom Munns

This Standards Activity will develop standard airline-industry guidance for managing uploads, verification, and activation of aircraft support data. This content is media, applications, scripts that are not subject to the field-loadable software regulations, and procedures. In general, this content does not affect the core function or operation of on-board systems, require supplier formal acceptance test or configuration control. Nor does the content reside within the onboard loadable software control system or Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC), or require aircraft paperwork or technician touch labor to install.

Aircraft support data are important to the operators because they can directly affect the passenger experience. These items can be transient, that is, be loaded quickly to provide a targeted message and are often quickly removed and replaced with new data.

The scope of this activity is to identify applicable aircraft support data that will be considered and to establish guidance and best practices for managing and documenting the upload, verification, and activation of the applicable data. The goal is consistent procedures throughout an operator’s fleet and among applicable operators, system suppliers, and data providers.

Special Investigation Working GroupChairman: Karsten Montebaur, Lufthansa Technik Secretary: Sam Buckwalter

The Special Investigation Working Group will create a new standard ARINC Project Paper 676: Guidance for Assignment, Accomplishment and Reporting of Engineering Investigation for Aircraft Components. This standard will provide guidance for the assignment, accomplishment, and reporting of Investigations for components which exceeds the regular workshop analysis and repair process. Regulatory Authorities and reliability issues have required the operator or its repair facility to provide additional attention to aircraft components, which have produced either a flight incident or do not reach its intended reliability issues.

94

Field Loadable Software Working GroupCo-Chairman: Ted Patmore, Delta Airlines Co-Chairman: Rod Gates, American Airlines Secretary: Scott Smith

The FLS Working Group will update ARINC Report 667: Guidelines for the Management of Field Loadable Software. The effort will:

• Coordinate with all stakeholders involved with software intensive aircraft

• Enhance airplane software distribution, loading, configuration control, and management

• Update the standard driven by revision and creation of peripheral and related standards (ARINC Reports 615A, 615-4, 664, 665, 666, and 827)

Updates to ARINC 667, although driven by interests and designs of newer airplane programs, will accommodate both new and current airplane programs. ARINC 667-1 served well defining theory and methods for media-less distribution of airplane software. However, current specifications require modification to meet contemporary and future industry needs.

Test Program Set (TPS) Quality Working GroupChairman: Ted Patmore, Delta Airlines Secretary: Sam Buckwalter

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM)s often deliver a Technical Support and Data Package (TSDP) that contain a cornucopia of documents. The relevant Test Specification data is obscured and difficult to ascertain within the large amount of data that is not relevant to the Test Specification. The aim of this project is to update the ARINC Report 625-3 to emphasize the importance that the OEM provides a Test Specification that is intelligible, unobscured, and complete as possible.

The role of the TSDP is to provide the minimal amount of data required to fully understand and implement the Test Specification. Only data that is pertinent to the Test Specification should be provided. It should be separate and independent of all non-pertinent data.

Project chairmen and secretary assignments change from time to time. For a current list of projects and their chairmen and secretaries, please visit our web site at www.aviation-ia.com/amc/projects/ or contact the AMC Executive Secretary, Sam Buckwalter, at [email protected].

CONTINUED AMC Working Groups

95

Our conference in Hong Kong is an excellent example of how, despite the logistical challenges of holding a conference in distant locations, that we can still come together as a global organization to push our industry forward in a collaborative way. FSEMC 2016 was attended by 215 individuals from 31 countries, addressing 99 discussion items over three and a half days. Eight technical presentations, along with our regulatory panel discussion and popular Technology Workshop discussion, rounded out one of the best conferences to date.

The annual conference continues to present a forum by which ideas can be discussed openly, and allows a larger group to hear a common message on the current state of topics like Upset Prevention and Recovery Training, current and future challenges of digital data packages, regulatory issues, and qualification testing.

Other FSEMC success stories for 2016 include publishing ARINC Specification 450: Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements, after obtaining the copyrights to the technical material from IATA which had allowed the document to become dated. Other successes include the adoption of two new standards:

• ARINC Specification 439A: Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments in Flight Simulation Training Devices

• ARINC Report 446: Guidance for Flight Training Device Documentation Structure, Content, And Maintenance

In 2016, FSEMC Working Group Activity included:

• Simulated Air Traffic Control Environment (SATCE) team’s completion of ARINC 439A

• Approval of the APIM for Simulator Continuing Qualification (SCQ)

• The FSEMC Data Document (FDD) Working Group update to ARINC 450

• The popular annual EASA Technical Working Group, EFTeG

There is also much work to do in 2017 for the FSEMC. By the time you read this, both the Simulator Continuing Qualification Working Group and the FSEMC Data Document (FDD) Working Group will have met near EASA’s global headquarters in Cologne, Germany. Participation is also expected to increase in the upcoming EASA FSTD Technical Group meeting, with about 30 attendees participating in the previous meeting. FSEMC intends to grow this concept of regionally-focused regulatory collaboration by working to establish a similar technical group in China, and to expand our participation in the U.S. based Simulator Technical Issues Group (STIG).

96

FSEMCMessage from the Chairman

By: Marc Cronan, Rockwell CollinsFSEMC Chairman 2016 – Present

In my humble opinion, one of the best movies of 2016 was “Sully,” the story of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger who landed his Airbus A320 in the middle of the Hudson River following a bird strike that rendered both of the plane’s engines inoperative shortly after takeoff. Spoiler alert – he landed successfully, saving the lives of all 155 people on board! In that movie, flight simulators figured prominently in the recreation of the incident during the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearings that followed.

The NTSB review showed that re-creations flown in the flight simulators indicated that landing was still possible at two airports despite the loss of engine power. Sully challenged the simulated flight results and revealed that only after 8 failed attempts were the successful simulator landings made!

Now, I am obviously a big proponent of full flight simulators, but I think this scenario illustrates something worth noting: simulators, despite all the advancements in technology, all the accuracy in performance and handling and systems simulations, despite all of this – simulators still aren’t real enough! To be sure, the simulators in the movie replicated the behavior of the aircraft perfectly. What they did not do, however, is accurately replicate the intensity of the environment in that cockpit during the three minutes and 20 seconds between bird strike and water landing. Absent from the simulated flights was the cockpit chaos created by aural warnings, EGPWS callouts, Air Traffic Control communications, checklist procedures, problem analysis, and split-second decisions that, if made incorrectly, could have cost the lives of 155 people.

To be sure, the whole point of training in a simulator is to condition a pilot’s response to an emergency under conditions of relative safety, but my point here is that we can never stop being vigilant in our quest to advance the state of the art of flight simulation in order to get the training environment to a higher level of fidelity. We have to continue to push beyond the status quo and challenge ourselves to ask, “What can we do better?” And I think that quest is at the very core of the FSEMC. It is through our development of industry standards, resolution of common issues, and the competitive landscape that we operate within, that we do just that.

97

The upcoming FSEMC 2017, hosted by FedEx in Memphis, Tennessee, September 18-21, offers more than just the promise of a possible Elvis sighting. On tap for this year are more fascinating technical presentations, including the first-ever FSEMC presentation by a member of the China Academy of Civil Aviation Science and Technology on the subject of Flight Test Data Collection Programs for Simulators in China. I am particularly excited by this presentation because I think it signifies that the larger FSEMC goal of reaching other simulator operators, users, and experts, particularly in the fast-growing Asia Pacific region, is becoming more and more of a reality.

Our industry has much to be optimistic about: the promise of profitable growth for our companies, new and exciting technologies, and global collaboration. And the best part is, we are not relegated to the position of spectator. We have the opportunity to be players; active participants driving that optimism, in control of our future. Please join me and all of the FSEMC members as a player at this years’ conference and beyond. And if you haven’t already seen it, make sure you get to see “Sully.” You won’t be disappointed.

See you in Memphis!

Marc Cronan Rockwell Collins Simulation and Training Solutions

Chairman, FSEMC 2016

98

FSEMC STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS (As of December 31, 2016)

Marc Cronan Chairman

David Neilson

Joshua Brooks

Richard Van de Nouweland

Neil Cothran

Christopher Curtis

Stefan Nowack

Adel M. Sowedan

Mike Jackson


An SAE ITC Program

Sam Buckwalter* FSEMC Executive Secretary

99

* Non-voting member

For information about the FSEMC Steering Committee, contact the FSEMC Executive Secretary and Program Director Sam Buckwalter at ([email protected]).

Eric Fuilla Weishaupt Vice Chairman

Troy Fey

Jean Bergeron

Howard Gallinger

Jeremy Wise

Rick Lewis

Hiromitsu Koyano

M.S.C. bv John Muller


An SAE ITC Program

Scott Smith* FSEMC Assistant Executive Secretary

100

FSEMC SUMMARY

FSEMC MissionTo be recognized as the international authority on the Aviation Training Device industry. To enhance the safety and operational efficiency of aviation worldwide through the dissemination of engineering, maintenance, and associated technical information, including the development of consensus standards. To promote and advance the state of the art of the Aviation Training Device industry.

IntroductionAttended by more than 275 flight simulator experts from around the world, FSEMC has grown from existing only as a dream to becoming the premier annual event in flight simulation. The annual conference identifies technical solutions to flight simulator engineering and maintenance issues resulting in immediate and long-term savings and increased efficiency for simulator users. This was confirmed by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University selecting FSEMC for their Pinnacle Award. Why? Because FSEMC brings people together to solve difficult flight simulator challenges through its annual conference and working group activities and the industry benefits.

The diversity of the flight simulator industry is what helps to make it so exciting. For the technical staff, the daily tasks are as varied as any job you can imagine. The Simulator Technician can be involved in aircraft systems, electronics, mechanics, hydraulics, or software to name a few. In many cases they may be concerned with a combination of several systems.

Simulators Engineering can be equally as wide-ranging. Involvement with all the different aircraft systems from the different airframe manufacturers both large and small can prove to be complex and daunting. Whether the engineering function is related to an update of a 10-year old simulator or the development of a simulator for an aircraft that has yet to fly, the diversity of challenges is extreme and tackled daily by individuals attending this conference. FSEMC is the place to solve your engineering needs and the place to promote your engineering abilities.

FSEMC includes users of flight and cabin simulators (dynamic and static). Users include airlines, commuter airlines, and other simulation users. Participants include airframe manufacturers, aircraft equipment suppliers, and simulator equipment suppliers.

For those who attended the FSEMCs, there should be little need to urge your return. For those who are still not convinced, try answering the following questions:

• Does your company have chronic simulator engineering and maintenance issues?

• Would your company benefit from one-on-one access to a broad cross-section of simulator equipment manufacturers and suppliers, service organizations, airframe manufacturers, and other users in one location?

102

FSEMCFSEMC Working Groups

Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments (SATCE) Working GroupChairman: Ted Chapman, FlightSafety International Secretary: Scott Smith

The Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments Working Group (SATCE) completed work on ARINC Report 439: Guidance for Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments in Flight Simulation Training Devices. It provides guidance on the design, implementation, and use of air traffic control interfaces used in simulated flight training. The guidance defines levels of immersion for each task or evolution of training phase, including generic, representative, and specific. The document describes the features and fidelity of all air traffic control interactions with student aircrew, as well as a primer on the increasing usage of datalink in air transport operations.

A secondary accomplishment of the SATCE was the interface with the ICAO International Pilot Training Consortium (IPTC). The guidance found in ARINC Report 439 will shape the ICAO Flight Simulation documents in the near future.

FSEMC Data Document (FDD) Working GroupChairman: Mike Jackson, FedEx Secretary: Sam Buckwalter

The FDD was chartered by the FSEMC Steering Committee in response to comments and input received in recent FSEMC Conferences. The intent of this project is to define the scope and content of data required to build, test, and qualify a Training Device of adequate fidelity to meet flight crew training prerequisites. The resulting document will become an ARINC Standard applicable to new aircraft and avionic update programs, as well as assisting training device operators in maintenance, engineering, and long term support of existing devices

Simulator Continuing Qualification (SCQ) Working GroupChairman: Tom Shaw, The Boeing Company Secretary: Sam Buckwalter

The intent of this activity is to initiate discussion to alternative means of continuing qualification and validation of Flight Simulator Training Devices (FSTD) – and share and promote new ideas and ways of optimizing regular testing and checking methods.

This activity will seek to define methods or procedures for alternate means of compliance for continued qualification of FSTDs. We will explore ways we can potentially separate software validation from hardware testing – and thus more effectively test our machines

103

EASA FSTD Technical GroupChairman: Stefan Nowack, Lufthansa Flight Training Secretary: Sam Buckwalter

In recent years, the FSEMC constituents have repeatedly asked for a direct technical exchange meeting with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on flight simulation issues. The EASA FSTD Technical Group met in December 2016, discussing regulatory issues common to airlines and simulator users governed by EASA regulations. The attendees remarked on the outstanding value of having a face-to-face meeting with the EASA FSTD team and the candor with which the discussions were held. Acknowledged as a resounding success, the FSEMC will continue this activity in the future.

Project chairmen and secretary assignments change from time to time. For a current list of projects and their chairmen and secretaries, please visit our web site at www.aviation-ia.com/fsemc/projects or contact the FSEMC Executive Secretary, Sam Buckwalter, at [email protected].

104

ANNUAL AWARDS

Austin Trumbull AwardThe Trumbull Award is given annually to an airline employee who has made an outstanding contribution to the work of the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee by leadership in the development of ARINC Standards and related activities.

The award is named in honor of Austin Trumbull, an engineer working for United Airlines, who “developed the concept into its final form, made the original drawings, and consummated the follow-up work to make it a successful and acceptable Standard” for ARINC 404 which was renamed Austin Trumbull Radio (ATR) Racking. ARINC 404 was first published in 1940 and was renamed in 1967 by a unanimous act of the AEEC. Austin Trumbull received what would become the first Trumbull Award.

The Trumbull Award recipient is an airline employee that has demonstrated a personal commitment to AEEC goals through their contribution of time and effect towards the achievement of these goals.

Austin Trumbull Award - AEEC Recipient: Mark Sorensen, Delta Air Lines April 2016 – Atlanta (Presentation by Kathleen O’Brien, Boeing)

Roger Goldberg AwardIn an effort to honor Roger Goldberg, an award was created by AMC and FSEMC for those individuals who have done something extraordinary for either the AMC or FSEMC. The first Service Award was given to Roger S. Goldberg, posthumously, in recognition of his extraordinary ideas, outstanding service, and endless passion.

Roger Goldberg Award - AMC Recipient: Rod Gates, American Airlines April 2016 – Atlanta, Georgia

105

Edwin A. Link Award Each year, FSEMC encourages the contribution of ideas, leadership and innovation by allowing individuals to be nominated for the Edwin A. Link Award prior to the annual FSEMC. The award recognizes one individual for outstanding personal achievement. The Edwin A. Link Award has become world-renowned as the simulation industry’s highest award for individual achievement.

Over the past 18 years, Edwin A. Link Awards have been presented to outstanding members of the simulation community. The Edwin A. Link Award is likely to be the most important award they have ever received.

Edwin A. Link Award - FSEMC Recipient: Bernard Mattos, Airbus October 2016 – Hong Kong

Volare AwardsEach year, the Airline Avionics Institute (AAI) recognizes individuals that have made an outstanding contribution of ideas, leadership, and innovation by presenting AAI Volare Awards at the AEEC | AMC conference. These awards recognize individuals in airline, airframe manufacturer and supplier organizations for outstanding personal achievement.

The AAI Volare Awards recognize individuals in the categories of Airline Avionics Maintenance and Engineering and Avionics Product Support. In addition to these Volare Awards, AAI presents a Pioneer Award and a Chairman’s Special Award on an as-deserved basis.

AAI President, Ray Frelk, presented Volare Awards to outstanding members of the airline avionics community as follows:

Volare Award for Significant Individual Outstanding Achievement, Avionics Maintenance Recipient: Mike Rennick, Delta Air Lines April 2016 - Atlanta

Volare Award for Significant Individual Outstanding Achievement, Avionics Engineering Recipient: Yves Saint-Upery April 2016 - Atlanta

106

CIN Cabin Interface Network

CNS Communications, Navigation, Surveillance

CPDLC Controller Pilot Data Link

CSS Cabin Systems Subcommittee

CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder

CWAP Cabin Wireless Access Point

DFDR Digital Flight Data Recorder

DLK Data Link

DSP Datalink Service Providers

DVE Digital Video Working Group

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

EFB Electronic Flight Bag

EFTeG EASA FSTD Technical Group

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FANS Future Air Navigation System

FDR Flight Data Recorder

FLS Field Loadable Software

FMS Flight Management System

FOS Fiber Optics Subcommittee

FSEMC Flight Simulator Engineering and Maintenance Conference

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device

GAIN Galley Inserts

GAPS Generic Aircraft Parameter Service

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

IA Industry Activities

IAAG Industry Activities Advisory Group

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Air Transport Association

IFES In-Flight Entertainment System

IMA Integrated Modular Avionics

IP Internet Protocol

IPC Illustrated Parts Catalog

IPS Internet Protocol Suite

IPTC International Pilot Training Consortium

KSAT Ku/Ka Band Satellite Communications

LAN Local Area Network

LEO Low-Earth Orbiting

ANNUAL REPORT ACRONYM LIST

4GCN 4th Generation Cabin Network

AAI Airline Avionics Institute

ACARS Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System

ADB Aeronautical Databases

ADIF Aircraft Data Interface Function

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast

AEEC Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee

AeroMACS Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System

AGCS Air-Ground Communications System

AID Aircraft Interface Device

AISD Aircraft Information Services Domain

AMC Avionics Maintenance Conference

AMDB Airport Mapping Databases

AMX AeroMACS

ANR Active Noise Reduction

AOC Aeronautical Operational Control

APEX Avionics Application/Executive Software Interface

API Application Program Interface

APIM ARINC Industry Activities (IA) Project Initiation/Modification

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange

ASDM Aircraft Support Data Management

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATN Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

ATR Air Transport Radio/ Austin Trumbull Radio

ATS Air Traffic Services

BITE Built In Test Equipment

CAN Controller Area Network

CAN FD CAN Flexible Data Rate

CARATS Comprehensive Assessment and Restructure of the Air Traffic Services

CDS Cockpit Display System

CEI Cabin Equipment Interfaces

107

LF-ULB Low Frequency Underwater Locator Beacon

LRU Line Replaceable Unit

LSP Loadable Software Part

MIAM Media Independent ACARS Messaging

MMM Manufacturer’s Code Assignment

MMR Multi-Mode Receiver

MRO Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul

MSI Modification Status Indicators

MSP Media Set Part

NAA National Aviation Authority

NDB Navigation Database

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System

NIS Network Infrastructure and Security

NOTAM Notice to Airmen

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

OGC Open Geospatial Consortium

OMS On-Board Maintenance System

OTS Organized Track System

PDMaT Product Development Guidance for Maintainability and Testability

PICS Performance Implementation Conformance Statements

PIESD Passenger Information and Entertainment Services Domain

QoS Quality of Service

RCP Required Communications Performance

RNP Required Navigation Performance

RSP Required Surveillance Performance

RTA Required Time of Arrival

RTOS Real Time Operating System

SAI Systems Architecture and Interfaces

SARPS Standards And Recommended Practices

SATCE Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments

Satcom Satellite Communication

SDD Simulator Documentation Delivery

SDL Software Data Loader

SDU Satellite Data Unit

SELCAL Selective Calling

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SFA Supplementary Field Address

SI Special Investigation

SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking

SSM Sign Status Matrix

SWIM System Wide Information Management

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System

TDDR Training Device Data Requirements

TDM Training Device Manufacturer

TPS Test Program Set

TSDP Technical Support and Data Package

ULB Underwater Locator Beacon

VDL VHF Digital Link

WLAN Wireless Local Area Network

XML Extensible Markup Language

XSD XML Schema Definitions

108

www.aviation-ia.com

www.aviation-ia.com

16701 Melford Blvd, Suite 120Bowie, MD 20715

P17166119

2016 annual report - arinc | sae itc · · 2017-12-04arinc specification 816-3aeec ......

Documents