Going wireless strives to detangle aircraft connection problems while enhancing efficiency and reliability.
Aircraft communications systems have traditionally included operational communications systems on board the aircraft, as well as sensors for engines, landing gear and proximity to nearby objects such as vehicles and other aircraft. These intra-aircraft communication systems have been largely dependent on complex wired connectivity and harness fabrication; a large commercial passenger aircraft has more than 100,000 wires. This results in increased aircraft weight (which increases fuel burn), inflexibility in cabin design and higher maintenance costs. Also, wiring is a significant source of field failures and maintenance costs. These systems have proven to be unreliable and difficult to reconfigure, and rely on double or even triple redundancy to mitigate the risk of cut or defective wiring.
WAIC systems are intended to support data, voice and video communications between systems on an aircraft to monitor different areas on the aircraft and to provide communications for the crew. Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute image.
Wireless avionics intra-communication’s (WAIC) goal has been to detangle these problems. Designed to increase safety, WAIC systems are intended to support data, voice and video communications between systems on an aircraft to monitor different areas on the aircraft and to provide communications for the crew. With WAIC, wireless aircraft sensors at various points can wirelessly monitor the health of the aircraft structure and all of its critical systems, and communicate this information within the aircraft to those who can make the best use of such information. According to the Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute (AVSI) WAIC is:
• Radio communication between two or more points on a single aircraft.
• Integrated wireless and/or installed components to the aircraft.
• Part of a closed, exclusive network required for operation of the aircraft.
• Only for safety-related applications.
• Based on short range radio technology (< 100 m). • Low-maximum transmit power levels of 10 mW for low rate and 50 mW for high-rate applications. • Mostly internal — within fuselage/cabin. WAIC can produce: • Less need for complex electrical wiring and harness fabrication. • Significant gain in re-configurability through improved installation flexibility. • Reliable monitoring of moving or rotating parts — such as landing gear, in which brake temperature and tire pressure are reported in real-time to the pilot. • Improved reliability of aircraft systems by mitigating common mode failures with route segregation and redundant radio links. WAIC does not provide off-board air-to-ground, air-to-satellite or air-to-air service. It does not provide communications for passengers or in-flight entertainment.
Approved and Protected
There is a protected worldwide spectrum frequency band for WAIC: 4.2-4.4 GHz (4200-4400 MHz). It was recommended by the International Telecommunication Union Radio Communication Sector (ITU-R) and has the challenge of catering to the massive communication needs of aircraft. This spectrum enables the technical harmonization of equipment across regions and countries.
Several major aviation groups expressed concern to FCC staff that there could be potential harmful interference to aviation systems operating in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band, which is next to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, also known as the C-band. Because radio altimeter and WAIC systems operate in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band, “the uncompromised operation of both systems is essential to safety of flight,” the groups said in an ex parte filing.
AVSI helped form a special committee and working group tasked with developing WAIC standards that guided, produced and integrated WAIC applications. These experts ensured the spectrum usage fell within International Civil Aviation Org (ICAO) convention guidelines to obtain benefits for equipment certification. The two panels include RTCA SC-236 and EUROCAE WG-96. These are the two primary minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) requirements.
SC-236, Standards for Wireless Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) within 4200-4400 MHz established MOPS for wireless equipment, allowing WAIC systems to share the radio spectrum with other aviation systems. Its goal was to facilitate procedural planning and decision-making for the FAA and the aviation community.
A large commercial passenger aircraft has more than 100,000 wires.
Under AVSI project AFE 76 — WAIC Protocols, detailed network and hardware architectures, protocols, requirements and appropriate protection criteria for spectrum sharing are being defined to protect WAIC and legacy altimeter systems from interfering with each other. WAIC applications have been categorized as either Low Rate (< 10 kbits/sec data transmit rate) or High Rate (>10 kbits/sec), each having some unique SWaP, cost, and performance requirements. AFE 76 now addresses more detailed design issues, including: system boundaries where WAIC standards might be applied; plans for WAIC spectrum assignments to ensure efficient usage; channel allocation and channel spacing scheme for WAIC systems; methods for achieving coexistence between WAIC systems installed on different aircraft; and a road map for working with international regulatory and standards organizations to ultimately implement WAIC components and systems.
WAIC’s radio frequency band 4.3-4.4 GHz is shared with radar altimeters where safety-critical wireless may operate. Work continues to be carried out to explore coexistence scenarios and interference avoidance techniques between WAIC and the radio altimeters. Experimental flight tests at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center have been carried out in order to provide insight on WAIC coexistence and interference scenarios; the results of which will serve as a design tool for commercial wireless avionics development to abide by radio altimeter protection and coexistence criteria for the successful deployment of WAIC systems on aircraft.
EUROCAE WG-96 is a working group that developed a MOPS for a WAIC component that allows WAIC systems to safely coexist with radio altimeters in the frequency band 4200–4400 MHz. The MOPS will allow WAIC systems to share the band with radio altimeters and other WAIC systems in a way that (a) the safe operation of radio altimeters is not compromised and (b) allows the worst-case performance of a WAIC system to be pre-determined.
The WAIC project, conducted through AVSI, is a collaboration of major aerospace companies working together to address common issues associated with wireless avionics. The group achieved a worldwide radio frequency spectrum allocation for wireless avionics at the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15). According to AVSI, this WRC-15 frequency allocation enables a globally applicable licensing process. It provides harmonization of the technical and operational conditions across regions and countries.
A Frequency Spectrum Management Panel (FSMP/3) held in September 2022 approved the draft WAIC SARPs, which will prevent interference between WAIC systems and radio altimeters in order to ensure the safe operation of aircraft. WAIC SARPs will be included in Chapter 4 of Annex 10, Volume V, under a new section 4.5 dealing with the frequency band 4200-4400 MHz. That section will also then be appropriate for the radar altimeter SARPS once they are completed.
At the World Radiocommunication Conference 2023 changes were agreed to the international radio frequency regulations which provide for sharing of the frequency band 4200-4400 MHz by WAIC systems under the aeronautical mobile (route) service, and radio altimeters under the aeronautical radio navigation service. The associated ITU Resolution 424 (WRC-15) requires that the WAIC systems protect the operation of the radio altimeters and operate in accordance with SARPs as contained in Annex 10. Also, there was a plan to develop and maintain standards and regulation practices (SARPs) and guidance to prevent WAIC/radio altimeter interference.
Looking to the future, WAIC will bring significant advantages in efficiency and flexibility while reducing the costs of installation and maintenance over traditional avionics networks. While progressing steadily, there remain WAIC technical challenges and fundamental design principles that must be fully developed and deployed.
Automated test equipment (ATE) plays a vital role within the aerospace industry. The aerospace industry is incredibly complex and involves interdependent systems such as communication, navigation, command and control systems, but ATE can deliver high-quality, fully featured solutions to fulfill these needs. ATE allows for multiple components and systems to be tested simultaneously, repeatable testing and full documentation as well as saving time. It aids in compliance with federal regulations, standards and safety specifications.
The configurable GPSG-1000 is a portable, easy-to-use GPS and Galileo positional simulator. VIAVI Solutions image.
“ATE allows for tests to be done under various environmental stresses that may be too time-consuming for manual tests,” says Joseph Engler, president of Intepro Systems, Tustin, Calif. “It also allows for ease of collection data versus environmental settings as most systems have recording software to record and store your findings.”
Using a model-based digital twin testing approach and harnessing the power of artificial intelligence (AI), Eggplant Test Software provides extensive coverage, optimizes user experience, speeds up release cycles and improves the quality assurance process. Keysight Technologies image.
The ATC-5000NG is an RF signal generator/receiver for testing Mode A, C and S transponders. VIAVI Solutions image.
MK Test Systems
Hugo Aniksztejn MK Test Systems
Because functional safety is such a primary concern, ATE methods and processes are a priority in aerospace manufacture and MRO. “Automation of traditional manual measurement and test processes enables standardization of methods and tolerances, automatic judgement of pass, fail, retest requirement, and full traceability of test and measurement results throughout the manufacturing process and the operating lifetime of the aircraft,” says Hugo Aniksztejn, sales manager of MK Test Systems, Somerset, United Kingdom. “With increasing pressure on deliveries, ATE plays a significant role in ensuring quicker testing, data gathering and eliminating human errors. Automated testing not only impacts production in the short term by reducing errors and testing time but also gives OEMs and MROs greater access to valuable data which is then used to drive future changes and improvements.”
VIAVI Solutions
Jeff Coltvet VIAVI Solutions
According to Jeff Coltvet, senior product manager, VIAVI Solutions, Scottsdale, Ariz., ATEs perform tests that allow for the continued development and maintenance of avionics LRUs (line replaceable unit) in the aerospace industry for:
• MOPS Certification – Using ATC-5000NG and RGS-2000NG
• AIMS Certification– Using IFF-45TS
• Design Verification – Using ATC-5000, RGS-2000NG, IFF-45TS
• Factory – Using ATC-5000, RGS-2000NG, IFF-45TS
• Return to Service – Using ATC-5000, RGS-2000NG, IFF-45TS
Common Types of ATE Test
Darcy Smith Keysight Technologies
Avionics ATE is usually dedicated to a limited set of test capabilities such as position location, direction finding, or battery test. Darcy Smith, aerospace defense government solutions business lead at Keysight Technologies Inc., Lake Oswego, Ore., explains these instruments tend to be used at the aircraft site so features like size, weight, and battery operation are prioritized over breadth-of-test coverage. “However, the primary test functions needed for testing aircraft electronics can easily be met by more general-purpose test equipment like signal generators, signal analyzers, oscilloscopes, and vector network analyzers which can serve a variety of use cases over the product development life cycle compared to the specialized testers.”
Joseph Engler Intepro Systems
Intepro Systems specializes in power electronics and battery testing within the aerospace field, and since it focuses on the power side the aircraft, Engler says he is seeing increases in the power distribution on the aircraft and the movement to electric drive on many systems. “The importance of testing these power components exponentially increases the more these parts are part of the critical flight equipment. Intepro’s ATEs are customized to meet these tests. We are integrating higher AC or DC sources and loads to simulate the power distribution for the aircraft systems. Measurement and communications instruments are also included to simulate the real-life environments and monitoring in the aircraft. Our testers include digital multimeter and oscilloscope along with the sources, loads, and communication buses. We then have interface to test the units, typically a Virginia Panel mass pin interface, and then simply program the automatic test using our fill-in-the-screen PowerStar software.”
The large number of circuits involved in an aircraft, transmitting power and signal means that it is impractical to attempt to carry out testing using traditional manual methods. Because of this, ATE is commonly used in testing the electrical characteristics of those circuits, via high-density switching matrices. ATE is connected to the aircraft systems and circuitry via the switching matrices and test signals delivered in the aircraft under software control.
MK Test Systems
Jason Evans MK Test Systems
“Common tests include continuity resistance, low-voltage isolation, capacitance and high-voltage insulation,” says Jason Evans, managing director at MK Test Systems. “With the increasing number and complexity of databus and communication systems being installed on aircraft, more complex ‘Function’ test ATE is being applied during manufacture and MRO. To deliver testing efficiencies in line with the electrical tests described above, ATE manufacturers are working on developing switching modules that are able to switch these functional signals into the aircraft without degrading the signal.”
Coltvet explains that “if your focus is making improvements to your traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) LRUs to keep up with market requirements, you want to be able to efficiently run a design and verification test. This is best accomplished using an ATE.” He cites the following components would be common in a design verification ATE design:
• RGS-2000NG TCAS Test Set
• Power supply
• Switching resource
• DMM
• Test control computer
• Required test software
• Databus instrument
Coltvet adds that as an OEM of an avionics transponder production line, one needs to efficiently maintain production rates and that the following components would be common in a final-production test ATE design:
• ATC-5000NG Transponder Test Set
• Power supply
• Switching resource
• DMM
• Test control computer
• Required test software
Advances in ATE
MK Test has recently introduced a Real Time Scanning (RTS) equipment which dramatically reduces the need for interfacing, hookup and testing time. Aniksztejn explains this project initiated as a cooperation with Airbus to reduce testing challenges during production and has proven to have a significant impact as MK Test’s technology is currently in use on all FALs in Toulouse before being installed on other production sites across the globe. “This highlights the push from OEMs to modernize its operation to maximize the output and reduce bottlenecks.”
Engler explains that test departments can lead their companies to a true net zero solution. Bi-directional AC and DC power supplies and regenerative electronic loads reduce the environmental impact of the test department. “The use of bi-directional, regenerative, and four quadrant equipment are huge advancements. While they tend to be more expensive, bi-directional and four quadrant equipment offers greater power densities, reduced heat and potentially reduced equipment in the system that can be either a load or a source. This is especially useful when testing energy storage units.
“Our system’s open hardware architecture means we can take advantage of the latest instruments without impacting the test programs. We can swap an instrument without writing or changing the test program code. A good option for futureproofing our systems.”
“The underlying technologies used in avionics have not evolved quickly,” Smith says. “In fact, many aircraft and avionics systems have been around for decades and must still be maintained. As a result, obsolescence is a big concern for avionics manufacturers. As new instruments are swapped out due to discontinuance, it’s important to take the opportunity to modernize the measurement software. Measurement software that is agnostic to the underlying measuring equipment minimizes the maintenance costs and provides a path to enhanced features required by new avionics solutions. Thus, legacy and new avionics systems can be designed, manufactured, and maintained by this common ATE.”
Addressing the issue of time and tenure with ATEs, Coltvet says due to the longevity of aircraft flying around the world, it is not uncommon for some technologies to be utilized for 20 years or more. He believes this creates a dichotomy where ATEs and instruments must continue to test legacy avionics while being adaptable enough to handle new avionics standards. “VIAVI instruments that go into ATEs are being updated to test to the newer industry standards such as RTCA DO-260C and DO-181F, as well as AIMS 17-1000.
• Additional Squitters (RTCA DO-260C and DO-181F)
• ATC-5000NG, RGS-2000NG
• Phase Overlay (RTCA DO-260C and DO-181F)
• ATC-5000NG, RGS-2000NG
• Mode 5 Level IIB – including ADS-B In (AIMS 17-1000)
• IFF-45TS
“Many of the new ATE instruments have embedded computers running some version of Windows or Linux. This results in not one but several computers in the ATE working together, in an integrated fashion, to accomplish avionics testing.”
A flight data recorder (FDR) is an electronic recording device placed in an aircraft to help investigate aviation accidents and incidents. They are used not only for flight evaluation after an unexpected event, but also for a pilot training, pilot skills assessment, diagnostics of onboard systems, and evaluation of aircraft systems as a whole. Often referred to as a black box, an FDR consists of two devices that can be combined into a single unit. The FDR preserves the recent history of the flight through the recording of dozens of parameters collected several times per second, while the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) preserves the recent history of the sounds in the cockpit, including the conversation of the pilots.
Since their inception as a photograph-based flight recorder (the record was made on a scrolling photographic film) developed by François Hussenot and Paul Beaudouin in 1939 at the Marignane flight test center in France, FDRs have advanced and become more sophisticated. They have evolved to meet new regulatory mandates, exploit new technologies, and increase the amount of information available to accident investigators. Even their nickname “black box” has become outdated; FDRs are now required to be painted bright orange to aid in their recovery by making them more visually conspicuous in accident debris.
Generational Progress
The first real generation of FDRs was introduced in the 1950s. Many first-generation FDRs used metal foil as the recording medium, with each single strip of foil capable of recording 200 to 400 hours of data. This metal foil was housed in a crash-survivable box installed in the aft end of an airplane.
Second-generation FDRs were introduced in the 1970s as the requirement to record more data increased, but they were unable to process the larger amounts of incoming sensor data. To remedy this, the flight data acquisition unit (FDAU) was invented. A flight data acquisition unit receives various discrete, analog and digital parameters from a number of sensors and avionic systems and then routes them to a flight data recorder (FDR) and, if installed, to a Quick Access Recorder (QAR). Information from the FDAU to the FDR is sent via specific data frames, which depend on the aircraft manufacturer.
The digital world signaled another generation for FDRs. FAA rule changes in the late 1980s required the first-generation FDRs be replaced with digital recorders. Many of the older FDRs were replaced with second-generation magnetic tape recorders that can process incoming data without an FDAU. Most of these second-generation digital FDRs (DFDRs) can process up to 18 input parameters (signals). This requirement was based upon an airplane with four engines and a requirement to record 11 operational parameters for up to 25 hours.
“Recording media/storage has evolved very significantly, moving from tapes to solid state media providing large capacity,” says Dror Yahav, CEO, Universal Avionics, Tucson, Ariz. “Digital recording support provides much more flexibility to operators, supporting more exhaustive aircraft data collection over an extended period. Data retrieval interval can be extended when aircraft are not easily accessible while ensuring no recorded data loss. In addition, Universal Avionics has introduced much faster download speed with its Kapture recorders.”
FDR Advances
Robert Zehnder, director of sales airborne solutions at HENSOLDT, Immenstaad, Germany, explained some of the advances FDRs have made in the past 30 years. Zehnder says the requirements of the minimum performance specifications (MOPS); the requirements for crash survival increased; the high temperature fire test (1100°C) increased from 30 minutes to 60 minutes; a new low temperature fire test (260°C for 10 hours) was incorporated; the duration of sea water immersion test changed from 30 to 90 days; and new shear and tensile test, which will guarantee that in the event of an accident the ULB will not be separated from the crash protected memory unit within the recorder.
He stated that the recording capacity (e.g., two hours of audio versus 25 hours, or also the amount of flight data) has increased. Data acquisition units (DAU) are now often integrated into the CVR or FDR or CVFDR. The size and the weight have decreased and the read-out process is now easier and faster, Zehnder said.
Zehnder adds that the first generation of solid-state recorders have continued with a legacy ARINC 573, later ARINC 717 format which was originally based on Harvard Biphase encoding to record a signal directly onto magnetic tape. “This has finally been superseded with new interface types such as CAN-Bus and Ethernet, although legacy formats such as ARINC 717, ARINC 429, Discrete Analogue / Frequency Inputs are still supported for earlier generation aircraft.”
Componentry Advances
Improvements in lithium battery technology, specifically power density and thermal runaway protection have enabled CVR/FDRs flight recorders to meet the FAA TSO-C121b mandate for Ultrasonic Locator Beacons (ULBs) to transmit for a minimum of 90 days when activated. “In addition, ULBs feature thermal runaway protection when using lithium batteries in order to meet the DO-227A requirement,” Zehnder says. “Furthermore, design improvements have reduced the quantities of lithium below thresholds for transportation — i.e., ULBs shipped separately from recorders as spares — where additional precautions would be required for transporting hazardous materials.”
HENSOLDT’s Lightweight Crash Recorder (LCR) combines all acquisition and recording functions that were previously spread across different devices into one single box. Its smaller dimensions and reduced weight makes it ideal for small aircraft platforms, helicopters and UAVs. HENSOLDT image.
Universal Avionics’ Kapture Recorders contain an innovative Recorder Independent Power Supply (RIPS) which is internal to the CVR unit. Yahav says this all-inclusive, internal RIPS eliminates weight and cost of an external LRU or bolt-on RIPS unit.
Universal Avionics say their KAPTURE Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder is designed for operators seeking a recording solution that meets all of the latest certifications and requirements around the world and can hold 25 hours of data. Universal image.
Advances in memory technology, such as single-level cell (SLC) flash devices have sufficiently fast read/write times that enable imagery from multiple video sources such as cameras and multi-function displays to be recorded alongside voice, datalink and flight data parameters. Zehnder explains this meets new Airborne Image Recording System (AIRS) requirements for certain categories of Part 23 airplanes and Part 25 helicopters.
Advances in Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology has produced highly accurate 3-axis gyros and accelerometers in devices packages that can be built into flight recorders. This can eliminate, in some cases, the need to install a separate data acquisition unit. It can reduce the installation cost of wiring to the AHRS (Attitude Heading Reference System) and the corresponding certification effort required when connecting to a mandatory aircraft system.
Zehnder says semiconductor and manufacturing technology, such as high-density FPGAs and memory devices, along with multi-layer printed circuit board technology have made it possible to create very lightweight units: ED-155 recorders such as SferiRec LCR 100 weighing less than 1 kg. “This is an advantage especially on smaller helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft, eVTOLs and UAVs where weight, space and electrical power are at a premium.”
Aircraft have migrated from conventional point-to-point data buses, such as ARINC 429, toward CAN and Ethernet networks. These operate at significantly higher data rates, e.g., 100Mbps Ethernet versus 100 kbps ARINC429, allowing significantly larger parameter sets to be recorded at higher sampling rates. The networking approach also reduces aircraft wiring considerably and can eliminate the need to fit a separate Data Acquisition Unit.
Zehnder explains high-capacity SD cards, built into the recorder, are providing an ultra-low cost Quick Access Recorder (QAR) solution for flight data monitoring programs, such as FOQA (Flight Operations Quality Assurance).
Reliability and Maintenance Advances
FDR’s Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) has increased considerably over the last 30 years when tape-based recorder achieved around 5,000 hours before failure. Latest generation recorder routinely achieve >25,000 hours MTBF.
Mean Time between Unscheduled Removal (MTBUR) has been a historical issue with flight recorders. Often, flight recorders would be removed from an aircraft if a parameter was not functioning correctly or flatlining. “Often the recorder was merely recording outputs from failed sensors and the so-called “bad pulls” resulted in high No Fault Found (NFF) rates,” Zehnder says. “Today’s recorders feature power-on, pilot initiated and continuous Built in Test (BIT) features that rapidly identify and report any fault conditions or bad sectors due to memory degradation over long-term use. Fault conditions are reported over an Onboard Maintenance (OMS) system, as part of a Central Maintenance Computer (CMC) used by pilots for tech log write-ups and by line maintenance engineers for ground troubleshooting.”
There have even been advances that give operators secure and reliable maintenance records compliant with aviation’s highest standards, including all FAA, EASA, and ICAO mandates for flight data recorders. Dallas-based Flight Data Systems’ SAFR Readout is a state-of-the-art secure Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) data analysis service addressing the requirement for aircraft operators to perform periodic maintenance readouts on flight recorder systems at least once a year.
Flight Data Systems’ Readout analysts examine all recorded parameters for their validity and serviceability and create recognized CASA or EASA readout reports that state the condition of the aircraft’s flight recorder system serviceability. By generating all necessary reports and documentation required by aviation authorities, Flight Data Systems’ SAFR Readout services take the guesswork out of this process and help eliminate the operators’ costly in-house troubleshooting process.
The above FDR advances have all been evolving the aviation and aircraft industry toward safety. Furthermore, aircraft modernization programs are further anticipated to propel the growth of the flight data recorder market. The rise in the demand for situational alertness, the increase in aircraft deliveries worldwide, the upsurge in air traffic, and the adoption of high-tech commercial aviation technologies have been major driving factors.
Aviation apps are making flying safer, simpler, more cost-efficient and convenient for pilots.
Tailored, mobile applications (apps) paired with smartphones and lightweight tablets such as Apple’s iPad hosted on electronic flight bags (EFB) allow flight crews to perform many functions that were traditionally accomplished by using paper products and tools. Hundreds of aviation apps are available today to make pilots’ jobs easier in many ways, all of which enhance their flight performance. Apps provide easy access to flight paths, airports and available support services, which helps pilots fly smarter, more safely and efficiently and potentially save on fuel costs.
“Some of the most widely used EFB apps today include flight planning capabilities, weather data, airport information, navigation charts, document library, performance data, weight and balance reporting and briefings,” said Julia Larsson, director of operations EMEA at Web Manuals, Malmö, Sweden. “Needs and preferences have a stake in which EFB apps are used.”
Above is Air Navigation Pro’s 3D View which offers an EFIS-like realtime navigation view with attitude from internal device gyroscopes and accelerometers as well as a 3D terrain model with satellite photos. Air Navigation Pro image.
One way apps have taken a key role in aircraft operations is by replacing paper charts, flight documents and manuals. “Pilots now have real-time information thanks to constant access to the internet and other sources,” said Oliver Maiwald, project manager of Air Navigation Pro, Lausanne, Switzerland. “The possibility to display information to the pilot in a graphical manner, rather than in plain text form, greatly improves navigation and situational awareness. Being able to synchronize information across devices, either company-wide or within the members of a flight crew performing a flight, supports the communication greatly. Since everyone is on ‘the same page’ regarding the status of the flight or operational procedures in force, communication errors or misunderstandings are less likely to happen.”
Web Manuals says their product gives access to operationally critical documents anytime, anywhere. Manuals are instantly updated, which ensures all devices are up to date. Photos courtesy of Web Manuals.
Connecting to apps at altitude means pilots are never out of touch and always have access to their favorite services. EFB apps improve communication between pilots and ground staff by providing a digital platform for exchanging information.
“This helps reduce miscommunications and improve overall efficiency,” said Stefan Baudoin Bundgaard, director of products at Web Manuals. “Also, a digital platform used for storing and accessing critical information reduces the upkeep of paper books and lightens the extra load of bringing a flight bag of physical manuals onto the aircraft for each flight. With this, the cost savings over time can be quite substantial if you count the administration staff’s time and fuel savings through the onboard weight reductions.”
What are the main apps for use on commercial operators’ aircraft today? Daniel Cook, head of marketing, Bytron Aviation Systems, Kirmington, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom, said, “That’s a tricky question to answer as there are quite a few EFB options and they can massively vary in quality, price and product features; it’s especially difficult without being biased to our own EFB.In no particular order the main ones we tend to come across that focus on a pilot’s digital briefing and journey log process are: Aviator by Boeing, Mission+, Aviobook, EFBOne by IFS and our own solution, skybook by Bytron Aviation Systems.”
Apps Aiding Pilots
Newer avionics systems are being built with connectivity in mind, allowing EFB apps to not only interchange routes or waypoints, but Maiwald predicts they’ll be able to receive critical flight parameters from on-board systems. “Besides using this data for displaying improved calculations to the pilot, EFBs will soon monitor other parameters such as current fuel onboard and alert the pilot in case of discrepancies with the expected parameters, thus helping in the decision-making processes.”
EFB apps are becoming more advanced at automating more processesEFBs are integrating with a wide range of aviation software and hardware platforms, in an effort to make life easier on the flight deck, reducing a pilot’s need to keep switching between multiple applications and reducing manual input; data can simply be added to the EFB with the tap of a button. “A current example of this is Aircraft Interface Devices which provides a link between the aircraft’s avionic system and an EFB; so data such as waypoint information or OOOI times can be grabbed automatically from the airplane, removing the requirement for manual input by the pilot,” Cook said.
Many believe EFB apps are most valuable — especially compared to paper — in the major increase in safety following document digitization. Bundgaard explains new flight procedures can be received onboard the aircraft and sent to all crew in seconds with a clear indication if they have been seen. With night-mode or dark-mode options in the EFB apps pilots can access their information without having to use a light source or risk night’s-eye adaptation in a dark cockpit.
Cook explains, “Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) data is also becoming easier to digest on EFB apps with clever filtering to provide pilots with the most relevant and crucial briefing information; improving their safety awareness. With an end-to-end EFB solution, dispatchers can easily send instant messages to make pilots aware of any vital changes to the flight plan and briefing packages.”
More Sustainable
EFB apps can provide pilots with real-time access to more accurate and recent weather information, which allows them to better plan and execute flights. Digital flight briefings on EFB apps are more interactive than when they were originally hosted in a PDF briefing pack. For example, pilot charts now include more detailed turbulence, wind and temperature data on vertical profile charts. Weather and environment awareness is improving with near real-time interactive maps that show the route information, planned position and weather period data, ensuring pilots have the most accurate information read for their flight. Avoiding areas of unfavorable weather leads to faster and more economical routes, decreases emissions and fuel consumption, and reduces the risk of flight disruptions.
Air Navigation Pro has a weather function that displays rain radar, wind, cloud, gusts, visibility and pressure modules. Air Navigation Pro image.
Also, EFB apps can provide pilots with information about turbulence, which allows them to plan alternative routes. This not only makes the flight smoother for passengers, but it can also save fuel by reducing the need for the aircraft to fly at lower altitudes.
“Fuel consumption monitoring at the fingertips of the pilots allows them to optimize fuel efficiency,” Larsson said. “With this information, you can adjust the aircraft’s speed, altitude and route, which reduces emissions and lowers the operating costs. Updated navigation charts help pilots to navigate more efficiently. This can support in reducing flight times and fuel consumption, as well as improve safety by reducing the risk of navigation errors.”
Certain EFBs have the capability to extract the accurate data and use it within a reporting and analytics system, to gain useful insights on not only fuel analysis, but also delays and on-time performance analysis. Using the flight data to find trends will lead to more efficiencies and observing which aircraft are performing more sustainably. Cook explains highly configurable EFBs allow fields such as fuel data to be as in-depth as the airlines require.
At Cranberry Twp., Pa.-based Automated Systems in Aircraft Performance Inc., EFB consultant and marketing manager Torie S. Tezik said her company can “preserve an aircraft’s engine life through reduced power takeoffs. ASAP STAR displays icons — such as check marks — that change color to notify users of errors and warning signs to further reduce errors. ASAP STAR provides a one-engine inoperative turn process and is the first in the industry to render and showcase them in a wide variety of formats such as YouTube videos, PDF documents, Google Earth, and text. ASAP STAR engineers help ensure that the pilot fully comprehends the turn procedure and the terrain they are flying out of.”
App Learning
As helpful as apps are, they are useless unless pilots know how to correctly use and set them up. Cook believes an important aspect of EFB training is ensuring that the airline has a designated EFB manager or trainer in place that can make sure all the pilots are on the same versions of the app, arrange regular training sessions and provide pilots with the most up-to-date training material.
“In commercial operations, pilots usually don’t have much of a choice and need to go with the solution provided by their company,” Maiwald said. “Companies need to appoint an EFB administrator, who, depending on the size of the company, is also responsible for training. EFB administrators are usually in contact with EFB software developers and provide valuable feedback for future improvements to the system.”
Companies who are in the process of adopting an EFB solution should consult with the pilots about available solutions. Important questions to be answered:
– Does the EFB application provide the data and information that is important for my type of operation?
– What functions are available? Are all my operational needs covered?
– Does the system provide central management capabilities allowing for the synchronization of flight-critical information?
EFBs are here to stay. Industry experts predict in the coming years these systems will become more and more integrated in the cockpit as more advanced features are being developed.
Electronic flight bags (EFB) are being asked to do more and more. They already store and retrieve documents needed for flight operations such as aeronautical charts, operating manuals, airport information, weather information, route information, flight logs and other required information. Loaded with specialized software, these computers have replaced pilots’ flight bags stuffed with information on paper and save not only aircraft weight, but also time. With this real-time data, EFB solutions improve fuel efficiency, increase airline efficiencies by lowering ground operation costs, and streamline pilot workflows.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, EFBs are attractive because — relative to traditional avionics — they come at a low initial cost, they can be customized, and they are easily upgraded. Other EFB benefits include reduction in costs associated with data management and distribution, potential reduction in training costs, and even the avoidance of medical costs associated with pilot injuries from carrying heavy flight bags filled with paper. Some airlines are even working directly with vendors to design EFB solutions for their specific needs.
IFS says it has reinvented the old Paperless Flight Bag into a modern and easily customizable cross-platform EFB solution. IFS Image.
The performance of an aircraft will never be changed by an EFB system, because — as Jens Pisarski, COO of International Flight Support (IFS), Copenhagen, Denmark, explains — the aircraft’s performance is defined by its manufacturer’s design. “But the data quality and optimization calculations, accessibility and effectiveness during pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight reporting carried out by the crew can indeed be influenced … by establishing an integrated EFB cross-platform solution which includes flight data storage and data import/export from/to all needed third-party IT systems,” Pisarski says.
EFB Advancements
At their onset, EFBs were oriented toward individual pilots taking their personal equipment onto aircraft, such as laptops with standard office software to help with calculations. Today, advanced EFBs are fully certified as part of the aircraft avionics system, and many predict they will be integrated with aircraft systems such as the flight management system (FMS). Advancements and developments can display an aircraft’s position on navigational charts, depict real-time weather, and perform many complex flight-planning tasks.
Obviously, eliminating the onboard portage of heavy flight bags with thousands of pieces of paper for each flight is a great EFB perk. “Many features have been introduced in the EFBs in the past years from charting, electronic flight folder, weather data, aircraft performance calculations, documentation and checklists,” says Captain Olivier Aspe, Airbus flight ops and training expert pilot and EFB advisor for NAVBLUE, Blagnac, France. “These features have been designed and developed to be integrated in the pilot tasks/workflow and aircraft cockpit. The use of connectivity (Wi-Fi, 3G/4G) eases the exchange and update of data between the different sources of information. That’s the first benefit we can find compared to paper folders.”
GE’s Connected Flight Management System allows for safe and secure bi-directional communication between an EFB and the FMS, enabling the next generation of applications that improve operational efficiency and situational awareness. GE Aviation Systems image.
Joachim Hochwarth, principal engineer, communication and connected technologies, GE Aviation Systems, Grand Rapids, Michigan, says the biggest EFB advancement came when portable EFBs started to become available with the introduction of the iPad. “EFBs were around before and had many advantages. The portable EFB not only replaces a lot of paper but allows for accessing up-to-date information when connected to the internet. EFB connectivity to the internet allows for up-to-date information to be shared with the flight crew. This is especially critical for environmental conditions such as significant weather, e.g. turbulence. GE Aviation’s Connected Flight Management System (CFMS) allows for a bi-directional connection with the FMS. This is in addition to EFBs just reading data from avionics (e.g., via an Aircraft Interface Device (AID)).”
One area of EFB improvement, according to Boeing’s Jeppessen, has been the depiction of contextual information. The top image shows Jeppesen FliteDeck Pro’s Smart Airport Maps, where pilots see dynamic airport maps with low visibility conditions when those weather conditions apply. It clearly shows which taxiways are prohibited for their particular aircraft’s wingspan. Boeing Global Services images.
International Flight Support’s EFBOne has a back-office portal engine where all flight data in/out of the EFB system goes through and is stored and which integrates the data flows with the airline’s various IT back-end systems used, such as flight planning systems, scheduling and crew planning systems, maintenance systems, and other IT system types. “EFB app-based solutions typically do not provide a common back-office solution,” Pisarski says. “If they do, they typically only cover the particular app’s data, but not the data related to other EFB app outputs which actually provide the airline with a relatively fragmented IT data-flow structure. The EFBOne cross-platform solution can gather all pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight reporting data in one place and facilitate easy integration to any third party system using robust standard REST APIs. Its integrated modular architecture provides a faster and more precise workflow than if the pilot has to jump around too many different EFB apps and has to re-enter the same data multiple times to get calculations and inputs done from various apps. Use of EFBOne can in most cases help reduce crew check-in time by 10 minutes due to its efficiency, and pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight reporting can typically be done in less than half the time it takes to do it when using multiple EFB apps which are not integrated.”
Rene de Vogel, flight deck and data solutions at Boeing Global Services, Frankfurt, Germany, explains how one area of EFB improvement has been the depiction of contextual information as seen with the products of Jeppesen, a Boeing company. “Jeppesen products implement so-called ‘Smart EFB Technology,’ which enables the depiction of contextual information specific to the user, their airline, the particular aircraft flown or even current weather conditions. We already see this in Jeppesen FliteDeck Pro’s Smart Airport Maps, where pilots see dynamic airport maps with low visibility conditions when those weather conditions apply, and clearly see which taxiways are prohibited for their particular aircraft’s wingspan. It means two pilots using the same FliteDeck Pro application at the same airport may see different airport maps depending on their aircraft type or airline. Each pilot receives the most important information for their flight, yet is protected against data overload. Contextual information is not restricted to the airport phase of flight. En route pilots access flight information based on their location along the route with our SmartNotes function, and see company-specific decompression routes, no-fly areas or company airport information presented on their dynamic tailored en-route map.”
Another concrete example de Vogel cites of how EFB developments increase aircraft performance is the Optimal Runway Exit (ORE) capability in Jeppesen FliteDeck Pro. “Airlines using Boeing’s Onboard Performance Tool can share and visually display auto-brake values (e.g. distance, brake cooling times, etc.) on dynamic airport maps in FliteDeck Pro. This leads to reduced maintenance costs and brake wear-and-tear.”
EFB Apps
A growing number of apps are being developed and introduced to benefit EFBs and boost their performance, and Hochwarth says their number is limitless. “The FAA reported at a previous EFB Users Forum that after the most recent Advisory Circular (AC) 120-76D (Authorization for Use of Electronic Flight Bags) was published, the number of apps for which approval is requested continues to grow.”
NAVBLUE says its objective is to consolidate all the relevant information and functionalities for the mission of the pilot in one single app and to provide all that they need at every stage of the flight. NAVBLUE images.
Arnaud Thurat, head of EFB Business Solutions at NAVBLUE, Blagnac, France, explains there are currently many applications in the EFB market that serve (most of the time) only a single purpose. “Under this context, there is a recurring request of the market to integrate more and more of these applications into one single platform. The development of EFB apps focuses on the integration of the different functionalities previously provided by different apps and the creation of value through the synergies that result from this combination. The objective is to consolidate in one single app all the relevant information and functionalities for the mission of the pilot and to provide all that they need at every stage of the flight, meaning they don’t have to go from one application to another. Integration means the right information at the right time at the right place. Today, we are moving from EFB standalone applications to an electronic flight assistant (EFA) with the recent launch of NAVBLUE Mission+. It gathers all information pilots need in one platform. This is a significant upgrade to current ways to operate with paper or standard EFBs. This brings significant benefits such as time savings, reduced manual entries and risk of errors, and enhanced pilot situational awareness.”
Collins Aerospace says EFBs are the interface for multiple data sources and operational services. EFB applications and their ground counterpart should have full access in real time to the Information Systems operated by the airlines, Collins says. Collins Aerospace images.
Charlotte, N.C.-based Collins Aerospace is bringing to market a new generation of EFB applications specifically designed to generate incremental operational value. Philippe Lievin, principal marketing manager at Collins Aerospace, does not consider an EFB application as a standalone piece of software running in an aircraft. “We believe that an EFB application has both an airborne and a ground application, acting as a middleware interfacing multiple data sources and other operational services run directly by the airlines or by external stakeholders. As a result, it means that an EFB application — and more precisely its ground counterpart — has full access to the Information Systems operated by the airlines: Flight Planning Systems, Documentations Management, MIS (Maintenance Information Systems), ATC Data (e.g., SWIM Access). Most of the data processing (e.g. Optimization Algorithms) is run on the ground, with only the result of the computation being sent to the airborne EFB application.”
Lievin says this approach has multiple advantages:
• The EFB application has direct access to accurate data refreshed in real time.
• There’s no data duplication or paper copy. The EFB application can directly interface services (e.g., the Crew Management System and the Flight Planning System to get the Crew IDs and the Flight Plan).
• It is easy to scale the capacity of the application on the ground (Elastic Services if run in the Cloud); it is more challenging to scale a PED.
• It offers optimal management of the AirGround data link. As only the result of the computation is sent to the aircraft, there is no need to push Mbytes of raw data to the aircraft.
• Optimization is continuous. The EFB component running on the ground can run complex optimizations that can’t be run in the aircraft (lack of memory / CPU capacities). As a result, the insights computed by those applications are more accurate and able to take into account more parameters.
IFS says the data quality, optimization calculations, accessibility and effectiveness during pre-flight, as well as the in-flight and post-flight reporting carried out by the crew can be influenced by establishing an integrated EFB cross-platform solution. IFS image.
Incorporating EFB solutions based solely on EFB apps does not provide the airline with a common EFB IT data structure, and Pisarski cautions this means data can be spread out in multiple EFB apps/data servers. He further warns the gathering of all flight data in one central location can become a challenge, or an outright nightmare in some cases. “EFB solution projects are typically decided by the flight operations teams. However, it still comes as a surprise to most operators that when selecting an EFB platform consisting entirely of apps, they realize too late that the airline does not obtain the common back-office data structure that an EFB Platform solution would provide. IFS recommends that an EFB platform solution is considered as the main tool first and foremost, and then a few specialized apps can be added on the side as per preference, such as Chart Viewer or Performance apps, and the airline avoids gathering data from multiple data sources and the maintenance thereof.”
Eye on EFB’s Future
Looking to the future, Aspe says there are many EFB opportunities ahead within the limits of the certification requirements. “On our path to flight efficiency and sustainable aviation, we expect more and more flight optimization features to be introduced in EFBs. As an example, single engine taxi-in and taxi-out recommendations to support the pilot via the EFB. As for the charting function, the market will move toward dynamic data with the end of the PDF terminal charts and the introduction of contextual data for a unique globe user experience.”
Collins Aerospace takes the approach that an EFB application will be “agnostic” and will be more a generic component rendering information on the pilot’s EFB. This “generic” aspect will enable a fully incremental approach. For example, Lievin explains, an airline will start its EFB journey by providing a basic application displaying weather layers and high-level flight briefing information. When this basic solution is fully deployed, the airline can activate additional layers of services (e.g. a FPO Service, additional WX Objects, etc.).
Gary Goz, product leader of Connected Aircraft for GE Aviation Systems, Clearwater, Fla., says that as connectivity becomes more prevalent, he anticipates that non-safety critical functionality will gradually move from the safety-critical embedded avionics to the EFB. He says this will allow for faster innovation, as development of avionics software is costly and runs on very performance- and memory-limited hardware. “An example of this can be seen today where graphical flight planning can be done on an EFB using latest weather, NOTAM, etc. data. Once that flight plan can be transmitted into the avionics system securely, the need for manually re-entering the same flight plan will be unnecessary, making the embedded avionics instance redundant, but available as a secure backup.”
De Vogel predicts that in the near future we will see EFB solutions continue to develop with the seamless integration of these applications into a single app for each user persona. “I think we will see increased operational efficiencies coming from the ability to leverage aircraft parameters with newer aircraft via capabilities such as Onboard Network Servers (ONS) or via Aircraft Interface Devices (AIDs). Together with inflight connectivity, we will experience a shift to more information being readily available and exchanged between the aircraft and ground, and assuring the information remains up to date during the flight.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.