Statement of Dan Martinec, ARINC

MR. MARTINEC: Well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

It certainly is a pleasure to be here and to be able to inform such a distinguished group on the activities of AEEC. I've been Chairman of AEEC now for going on 10 years.

I'd like to cover a number of topics in my presentation today. These will include a little bit of background on ARINC and the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee. Following that, I'll describe current ARINC recording system standards, the status of our work program and our goals for the future.

First, I would like to talk about the AEEC. The ARINC Board of Directors formed AEEC on May 17, 1949, just a few days short of exactly 50 years ago. This was in response to the airline's realization that avionic system standards were needed to control system configurations and ultimately the cost of these systems. The work of AEEC continues to be monitored and reviewed by the ARINC Board of Directors.

The work of AEEC in its preparation of avionic standards is supported directly by representatives from avionics users, service providers and equipment and airframe manufacturers. All of the standards released by AEEC are prepared in an environment where all technical meetings are open to any interested parties.

AEEC comprises 11 North American airlines and six European airlines. The members from Europe form the steering group of the European Airlines Electronics Committee. We have a member from Japan Airlines who represents the Oriental Airlines Association. We also have members from what we call the "alphabet" groups. These include the International Air Transport Association, the Air Transport Association which is located right here in Washington, D. C., the NBAA and the United States Air Force.

AEEC gets its technical support from over 7,000 individuals from the air transport industry.

The basic function of AEEC is to prepare standards that promote competition in the marketplace. This competition typically results in reasonable prices in avionics and improved reliability due to marketplace pressures.

The standardization activity also benefits avionics vendors and airframe manufacturers. The avionics vendors from the standards are able to compete equally in the marketplace. The airframe manufacturers benefit by their ability to start new airplane designs based on avionics standards rather than having to wait for the actual hardware.

Of course, with the standardization comes consistency in the equipment. Consistency promotes improved predictability in performance, which in turn promotes safety. Better knowledge of systems due to standards helps the certification process.

AEEC recognizes that there are numerous other organizations at the national and international levels that are key to promoting standards and a safer environment in the air transport industry. AEEC works closely with these organizations. These include RTCA, EUROCAE and the International Civil Aviation Organization. IEEE, ANSI and ISO standards form the basic elements of numerous parts of our standards. And last but certainly not least are the regulatory agencies of the various different countries. They provide the direction for much of AEEC's work.

Now I would like to talk about some of the standards that ARINC has already published.

One of the oldest standards is ARINC 542, the oscillographic recorder. It is sometimes called the scratch recorder. It has been classified as obsolete by AEEC and is no longer applicable for use in numerous countries around the world.

An updated digital version that can employ magnetic tape or solid-state memory as its recording medium is the 542-A. The 542-A version is a direct replacement for this older unit and can accommodate recording an increased number of data parameters.

Its capability, however, still doesn't compare to the newer recorders. The ARINC 557 cockpit voice recorder and the ARINC 573 flight data recorders are starting to show their age. The airlines are finding these difficult to repair due to the lack of replacement parts. Many airlines are starting to replace these with more modern versions.

ARINC 717 is not a standard for a recorder. It is actually a data acquisition unit which is located in the electronics bay of the airplane. It collects data and sends it out to the flight data recorder.

The other standards that I would like to talk about a little more in detail are the 757, the 767 and the 747. When I talk about these numbers, please don't confuse these with airplanes. The like numbering is simply a coincidence.

The ARINC 747 flight data recorder is a modern recorder that accommodates solid-state memory and it can be a direct replacement for the old 573 flight data recorder. It is also directly compatible with the data acquisition units that were made for the older recorders.

One of the desirable features of the ARINC 747 standard is that the memory is expandable and can accommodate a somewhat larger amount of aircraft data.

The ARINC 747 is the standard typically used in new installations. AEEC does not plan any revisions to the 747 standard at this point in time.

The ARINC 757 standard is a relatively new cockpit voice recorder definition. It accommodates solid-state memory as a recording medium and can replace the tape-based 557 cockpit voice recorder. While the standard recording time of the 757 is 30 minutes, it is easily upgradable to a 120 minute capability.

The AEEC recorder subcommittee has prepared a supplement to this 757 standard. This supplement updates the 757 to a 757-1 version. This is a significant step for the airlines.

The supplement introduces a data recording capability on the cockpit voice recorder. Recorders built to the 757-1 standard will be combination recorders that will record voice and aircraft flight data. These are typically called combi recorders.

These will be plug-in replacements for the older 557 and more recent 757 cockpit voice recorders. Once a 757-1 is installed on an airplane, a redundant data recording capability will be achieved.

With the installation of a 757-1 recorder, the airlines are expecting to get better dispatchability from their airplanes. While this is not exactly the dual redundant configuration that was recommended by NTSB in their recent letter, it certainly is a significant step in enhancing safety and it comes voluntarily from the airlines without any regulatory mandate.

Of course, the work on the cockpit voice recorder will not be complete until the protocol for the data link recording capability is completed. I'll talk about the data link recording capability a little bit later.

One of the AEEC work programs that I'm very proud to describe is the new 767 recording system. Please allow me to point out again that this work is not being done by the airlines to meet any regulatory mandates.

The new system promises to be more efficient, more reliable and lighter in weight, and at the same time will provide improved recording capabilities for the benefit of analyzing aircraft operation in the event of an incident. The airlines plan to implement this system with the introduction of a new aircraft design.

The system will boast a combined voice and data recording capability using solid-state or perhaps even some advanced memory and a new interface in the data acquisition unit. It will be capable of a very high data capacity and of recording at least two hours of voice and data link communications.

That's not all. The voice recording will be digitized to assure the highest quality in audio playback. The increased recording capacity and the advancements in video compression should provide for a continuous video recording capability.

AEEC is also including provisions for an architecture allowing for forward and aft installations to enhance survivability. It will include 10 minutes of reserve power in each unit for the voice function.

For those of you who heard Dennis Grossi's presentation Monday, which described the recent recommendations of NTSB to the FAA regarding carriage of combined voice and flight data recorders, the draft ARINC 767 standard is virtually in complete alignment with those recommendations. We're proud to say that.

AEEC believes that when airplanes using newer technology with more advanced data buses, sensors, et cetera, are introduced into the air space system, the concurrent introduction of the ARINC 767 recording system will provide a win-win situation for the industry as a whole.

One very, very serious concern that the airlines have right now is that there could be a regulatory mandate for dual combination recorders prior to the availability of technology on airplanes that promotes the installation of the 767 system. If the mandate comes too soon, the airlines will be required to make a major investment in an enhanced 757 type combi recorder. The need to amortize this untimely investment would likely preclude the investment in a new 767 recording system at least in the near future.

It would be unfortunate if 30-year old system interfaces used on the 757 type recorder were to be proliferated any longer. The airlines want to improve their systems. Economics and technology will make it happen automatically without regulations.

Now I'd like to talk a little bit about data link recording, which is a real challenge. One of the most difficult issues being addressed by AEEC at this time is the determination of how to implement data link recording. The use of data link in place of voice communications is increasing dramatically. Special provisions must be made on the airplane to record data link communications.

There are numerous issues to be addressed. One problem is the selection of either centralized or distributed recording. The other is the need to accommodate recording of secure communications.

This slide presents an example of distributed recording. Various different devices on the airplane accept and generate data link messages. An approach to recording this information is to provide direct links between the recorder and each type of equipment. This dictates modifying each existing unit on the airplane. Multiple interfaces must also be provided on the recorder.

An alternative approach is to have a single input into the recorder from a centralized data link processor such as the communications management unit (CMU). The CMU typically interfaces directly with the equipment shown on the previous slide. It can process their messages for eventual transfer to the recorder.

Of course, with each approach there comes a tradeoff. With distributed recording it will probably be easier for accident investigators to determine the exact actions of the flight crew, which is their goal. In the centralized approach, wiring is reduced on the airplane and it precludes major modifications to the flight critical equipment on the airplane.

With the centralized approach, a little more work and analysis may be required on the part of the accident investigators. The cost to the airlines will be significantly less when a centralized data link recording system is used. They can make this technique work without compromising safety.

The next issue is data link security. AEEC has yet to deal with data link security. Currently, data link communications to and from the aircraft are being intercepted by individuals on the ground with radio receivers and decoding equipment. They are then posting these airline messages on the internet.

Many of these messages are taken out of context and are sometimes just plain incorrectly decoded. Obviously this is somewhat of a concern to the airlines.

In order to preclude this from happening, scrambling techniques are being investigated to enhance security. However, adding security by message encoding results in more complex decoding at the receiving end. Further complicating the problem is the need to use an electronic key to lock and then unlock the information.

The key is essentially known only by the sending and receiving equipment. The key will change at least on a daily basis. More sophisticated encryption methods could change the key even more frequently.

This would not cause any problems for the airlines in their day-to-day operations, however, equipment such as the CMU does not know what the key is. The CMU simply passes the entire message through with the key. A data recorder attached to the CMU will also receive the message with the key encoded internal to the message. However, in the event that an incident where the recorder content must be reviewed by an investigator, the key must be known to decode that information.

A logistics problem could exist with keeping a database which includes these keys. The problem could even be more complex if those keys are generated on the fly and automatically disposed of after use. The solution is not obvious to us at this time. However, we will continue to investigate this dilemma.

We expect to finish the work on the data link recording by the end of this year and this is being accomplished through the cooperation of AEEC's data link subcommittee and the flight data recorder subcommittee. AEEC expects to update the ARINC 757-1 combi recorder standard by early next year to accommodate the remaining technical requirements. And then, we expect to complete the all-new ARINC 767 system by the end of next year.

So in conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the goals of AEEC are very much in line with the goals of others promoting safety. We believe safety will be improved by the use of enhanced recorders and at the same time the airlines can reduce their own costs by using better and more reliable recording systems that take advantage of the latest technology.

Thank you very much.