UASSG – RPAS Command and Control Links Presentation to ICAO ACP Gerry Corbett 28 January 2013
Scope………………… • Introduction/outline of C2 link tasks • Elements from GM chapters affecting ACP • Additional points/issues
C2 link supports the following communication tasks Control uplink to RPA: • data to modify behaviour and state of the RPA; – Control downlink from RPA: • data to indicate the position and status of the RPA; – Detect and avoid downlink: • sensor data and processed sensor information (related to, traffic, weather, terrain airport visual data,) and manoeuvre – recommendations (RA) and detect and avoid automatic response (initiation and description), etc. ; Detect and avoid uplink: • sensor selection /control, CA auto response state select (on/off) and override (pilot option to cancel CA manoeuvre) ; – Data to support RPS handover • data from transferring remote pilot/RPS to accepting remote pilot/RPS – Data to support RPS handover • data from accepting remote pilot/RPS to transferring remote pilot/RPS. – Data to support ‘Flight Data recording ‘ requirements • The link will also provide acknowledgment to the remote pilot or the RPS of correct receipt of critical data • ATC voice and data link communication tasks may be relayed between the aircraft and the RPS on the same C2 link.. ATC voice communication relay (ATC to remote pilot via RPA) VHF, • ATC voice communication relay (remote pilot to ATC via RPA) VHF; • Note: It is unlikely that ATC HF and /or satellite voice will be relayed though the RPA as there are more efficient direct – alternatives; ATC data link relay (ATC to/from RPA) (eg Link 2000,local air space requirement) . •
Typical operational configurations VLOS only operation • BVLOS Control • – pilot does not visually monitor the aircraft and may be based at the operating airfield or many thousands of miles away – control interface may be restricted when compared to that of a conventional manned aircraft the delay resulting from the C2 link may be significant in certain situations. – difference between Radio line of sight operation and Beyond radio line of • sight – From an operational perspective, key difference will be the delays associated with control and display information and the design features selected to accommodate for the available link capacity. – – Given that BRLOS C2 links in general are expected to have lower data capacity and suffer higher message delays than RLOS C2 links
Classes of BVLOS RPS Control 3 broad classes with different minimum control interface capabilities • for which different Pilot licences type rating may be required. – BVLOS Class A Attitude control RPS (Basic Instrument flying) • sufficiently low communication delays to allow conventional aircraft attitude displays to work – correctly and for pilot inputs equivalent to a control stick and throttle to be available. BVLOS Class B Vector control RPS ( Conventional autopilot) • moderate delays in the C2 link such that heading altitude ( level) and speed can be accurately – monitored and the provision of a pilot interface that allows these parameters to be directly controlled. BVLOS Class C Strategic Control RPS ( waypoint steering) • Characterised by significant delay in the C2 Link such that key flight parameters cannot be – accurately monitor in real time and that pilot control is limit to changing 4d waypoints in the pre ‐ planned mission. Plus Combinations of the above • VLOS control (or monitoring with the potential to take control if necessary) for • takeoff and or landing with handover to BVLOS control once airborne
BRLOS and RLOS terminology C2 architectures usually classified as • Radio Line of Sight (RLOS ) or – Beyond Radio Line of Sight. BRLOS – While these terms are well established they imply different things in different situations • RLOS ‐ can mean • a) Direct radio line of sight from the RPS to the RPA b) situations where the RPS is linked to a remote transmitter via an extensive ground network’ providing that the remote transmitter has direct radio line of sight to the RPA BRLOS • generally accepted meaning ‐ use of a satellite communication link directly connected to the RPA – The label BRLOS provides no information about – the network between the RPS and the satellite nor • the number of earth to satellite signal hops nor • the consequential signal delay. • BRLOS is assumed to introduce the key operational challenges of • increased and potentially unpredictable signal transmission delay – regulatory challenge of certification or regulatory oversight of the Satellite Communication Service Provider – However the key challenges of BRLOS may typically be present in the second case of RLOS ( Case b) above) • these include increased signal delay and involvement of a external communication service provider – If fact there is no significant regulatory difference between case b) RLOS and BRLOS, as generally understood, • Also There is no agreed term for situations where a satellite link is used as part of the ‘ground network’ described in • case b) if the final link to the RPA is from a ground relay station remote from the RPS Nor is the case where the satellite network used to link to the RPA is wholly under control of the RPA operator ( • e.g. a private dedicated satellite adequately covered in the naming conventions.
C2 Architectures a) RLOS C2 • Co ‐ located RPS and transmitter • Single remote transmitter – Linked to RPS via private network (RPAS operator controlled ) – Linked to RPS via a Communication service provider network • Multiple remote transmitters – Linked to RPS via private network(RPAS operator controlled – Linked to RPS via a Communication service provider network
BRLOS C2 Satellite • Co ‐ located RPS and satellite transmitter • • private (RPAS Operator Controlled ) satellite network Single satellite • Multiple satellite • • Communication service provider satellite network • Single satellite • Multiple satellite Remote satellite transmitter • • private (RPAS Operator Controlled) satellite network – Single satellite – Multiple satellite • Communication service provider satellite network – Single satellite – Multiple satellite
Dual simultaneous differential link architecture Using both RLOS and BRLOS or, • either dual RLOS or • dual BRLOS with different frequency, • to increase link availability/quality of service. Note 1 RPS may be located on the ground or on a moving platform (e.g. ship, aircraft etc). Note 2 While in principle all of the above options could be used to support VLOS operations it is likely that most VLOS activities will use option a (1) the RLOS collocated RPS and transmitter, typically in a hand held configuration Note 3 Aircraft relay of ATC Voice to/from RPA using the C2 Link Whichever architecture is selected, if the C2 link is used to relay ATC voice via the RPA, the architecture design needs to accommodate this (see section 10.6)
C2 –Required Communication Performance (C2-RCP) The C2 RCP concept is derived from ICAO Doc 9869 • used to assure confidence that the operational communications supporting the RPAS – functions will be conducted in an acceptably safe manner. The specific C2 RCP requirements will depend on • the operation being carried out and – the requirements of the given airspace. – The required C2 RCP type(value) results from the analysis of specific operations to be – undertaken, system design and equipage. ATC communication will also have a required ATS RCP • a special assessment of Voice communication requirements may be required to allow – the allocation of an RCP Type If the ATC (voice or data) communication is relayed via the C2 link, the link must support – the requirements of the most demanding RCP. If ATC voice communication is relayed though a ground data link that link must also – meet the required RCP. The C2 RCP Type parameters need to be agreed but will include: • Communication transaction time – Continuity – Availability – Integrity –
Implications of Link Quality of service RPAS systems design should be such that either • a loss of the C2 link does not directly lead to a catastrophic event (although – normal operation will be suspended and a lost link procedure initiated.) or ‐ the probability of link loss due to all possible causes should be lower than the acceptable probability of a catastrophic event. Given the above, there will be a trade ‐ off between Link RCP ( and the • pilots ability to command a manoeuvre) and the integrity of the auto collision avoidance function If link availability is very high, then the overall safety is less dependent on • the operation of the Auto CA system, however if the link is less reliable both the pilot initiated separation function and the Pilot initiated collision avoidance functions may be lost and the integrity required of the auto CA system is much higher. This could lead to the need for a duplex or even triplex redundant CA function.
Recommend
More recommend
