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.
Cybersecurity vulnerability looms over the worldwide aviation industry, calling for a firm embrace on cybersecurity awareness, standards and best practices.
In late September of 2023, the Ukrainian hacktivist group IT Army launched a cyberattack on Leonardo — a Russian flight booking system (https://therecord.media/russia-flight-booking-system-leonardo-ddos). It was a widespread denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on the booking system, affecting several air carriers and downing their websites.
Such cyberattacks are taking place in the United States and other nations as well. Recently, cyberattacks were also reported at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the Baton Rouge Metro Airport, Geneva Airport in Switzerland, and Ireland’s Dublin Airport. The vulnerability of cybersecurity compromises is real, threatening and concerning.
The Severity of Cyber Risk in Commercial Aviation
Bobby Anderson Shift5
Bobby Anderson is the vice president and general manager for commercial aviation at Shift5, an IT security firm based in Arlington, VA.
There are many players in the end-to-end aviation supply chain and aviation has become a more attractive target for threat actors aiming to disrupt essential operations due to its increased interconnectedness with the global supply chain.
“The aviation ecosystem, a key part of critical infrastructure, has grown more technically complex as it has innovated over time,” explains Anderson. “Modern connected aircraft use faster, more advanced Internet-protocol (IP) based systems, as well as traditionally isolated on board operational technology (OT) systems, which generate vast amounts of raw data. Collecting and analyzing on board data is critical in developing modern, resilient aviation cybersecurity programs, but airlines can’t access the full breadth of the data produced on board their aircraft or through their fleets. Of the on board data that they can access, processing it using existing flight data management (FDM) systems can be cumbersome, and these systems aren’t designed to make cybersecurity assessments. With comprehensive analysis and correlation, data from on board aircraft can help build aircraft operational resilience against cybersecurity risks.”
Dr. Michael Klipstein Baker Donelson
The actual reach of a cyber threat can be underestimated if one does not consider how data compromise may expand beyond network infrastructure and into mobile devices in some cases. Dr. Michael Klipstein is the former director of international cybersecurity policy for the National Security Council, and is now a strategic advisor for Baker Donelson in Washington, D.C.
“Aviation cybersecurity vulnerabilities came to the forefront in 2015 when security researcher Chris Roberts allegedly hacked into a United Airlines plane mid-flight and issued a ‘climb’ command to one of the engines, causing sideways movement in the plane,” says Dr. Klipstein.
Dr. Klipstein adds that a few years ago, a security firm discovered over a dozen vulnerable airlines using a specific manufacturer’s in-flight entertainment system, allowing them to theoretically capture credit card information used for in-flight purchases and limited control of the cabin lights, seats, and the information being displayed to customers.
“As aircraft increasingly rely upon interconnected information systems for both passengers and operations, the risk continues to increase due to the increased attack surface,” adds Dr. Klipstein. “Case in point: aircraft need to process satellite signals (GPS) for navigation; however, no assurance mechanism exists to tell the computer whether the signal is true or has been modified. Adding to this, most airlines have an app for customers to book flights, access in-flight entertainment, order meals, etc. This opens more vulnerabilities to individual devices that potentially may spread malware through the plane and onto other people’s phones, further stealing personal information. Just one example is the 2018 breach of Air Canada’s app, which impacted the data of over 20,000 customers. Not only is the plane the target — it is the vector to other targets.”
Stephane Lagut EY
What further complicates cybersecurity efforts is the constantly changing nature of threats. What provides security today, may be weak for tomorrow’s threat. Cybersecurity requires constant vigilance and that is a challenge to the aviation community. Stephane Lagut is the global aerospace and defense sector leader with the consulting firm EY. Lagut is in Tokyo, Japan.
“The sector is hyper-vigilant, and rightly so. You are constantly thinking of the product, of passenger safety — both physical and digital — and the overall reputation, not just of your business but of the industry as a whole,“ says Lagut. “The cybersecurity efforts across the industry are always evolving because they know that the threats are evolving as well. Just because you’re ready today, doesn’t mean you’ll be ready tomorrow, and that is a constant consideration across the sector.
The threat landscape is also increasingly complex for commercial aviation as the layers of risk run wide and deep with so many different stakeholders. With such complexity, it’s just difficult to nail down the most vulnerable points of threat within the aviation infrastructure. Bad actors and hackers have many end points to explore.
Vince Dova Cyemptive Technologies
“With the world-wide aviation ecosystem, you are talking about a very broad and multi-dimensional threat landscape, so there’s no way to make a single, monolithic assessment about the overall risk,” says Vince Dova, vice president of security at Cyemptive Technologies in Snohomish, WA. “Just as important is how each one of those segments is subdivided: you have the aircraft themselves, the supply chain that builds and maintains them, the navigation and air traffic control infrastructure that guides them in flight, (including space-based comm-nav systems), the business systems that support operations, and the airports where they take off, land, and refuel.”
Grant Geyer Claroty
Grant Geyer is the chief product officer at industrial and critical infrastructure cybersecurity firm Claroty. Geyer has a similar vantage point to Dova: there are many players in the end-to-end aviation supply chain. He says that aviation has become a more attractive target for threat actors aiming to disrupt essential operations due to its increased interconnectedness with the global supply chain.
Standards are useful starting points, but they are by no means sufficient on their own to meet the challenge of cybersecurity threats, according to Quentin Hodgson, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation in Washington, D.C.
“Organizations can create a complete asset inventory and implement fixes/compensating controls, such as secure remote access, to prevent attacks and mitigate cyber risks,” says Geyer. “Cybersecurity was initially created to protect data, but now nation state actors are recognizing that future wars will not be fought with bombs and bullets, but by taking out another nation’s critical infrastructure. What was made clear from the shutdown of Colonial Pipeline from a cyberattack, is that attacks can cause cascading failures in other sectors that can cause harm to national security, economic security and public safety.”
William “Hutch” Hutchison SimSpace
If constant change in the threat landscape, added to the overall complexity of the aviation supply chain and stakeholders, is not enough to chew on, there’s also budget constraints as well. Cybersecurity isn’t cheap, especially in an industry that is already price competitive. William “Hutch” Hutchison is the CEO of SimSpace and a former U.S. Army fighter pilot. He points out that globally, commercial aviation has also been struggling with financial hardships that make it difficult to invest heavily in cybersecurity.
“Over the last few years, the global aviation industry has been left reeling by a post-pandemic sucker punch that hit the sector with over $185 billion in losses,” says Hutchison. “Once a bastion of American prosperity, airlines were forced into survival mode, cutting staff from their workforce and flights from their schedule. Capital preservation was the default setting for boards across the country, but as the sector emerges from the wrath of economic instability, CEOs and CISOs want to know where to invest to ensure long-term growth. The north star of success in aviation continues to be the safety of passengers, systems, and the data they house. However, for decades this safety was only challenged by spilled coffee, crosswinds and external market forces.
Setting Standards and Implementing Best Practices
Setting industry-wide standards for cybersecurity is generally a best practice in many industries. It’s also an effective means of breeding an environment of cyber hygiene and raising overall industry standards in the worldwide aviation community.
Two international standards — the DO-326A/ED-202A Airworthiness Security Process Specification and DO-355A/ED-204A Information Security Guidance for Continued Airworthiness — provide a necessary framework for compliance by operators with security of airworthiness. Both standards were jointly authored by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics and the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE). Operators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), the FAA and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also participated to provide some guidance beyond what OEMs recommend.
But is this enough? Are deeper and more specific standards needed?
Kevin O’Connor Adlumin
“As I understand it, the Aircraft Information Security Program (AISP) is not required to follow the framework requirements of DO-326A/ED-202A and that this may be self-selected by the manufacturer and operator,” says Kevin O’Connor, director of threat research for the cybersecurity firm Adlumin in Washington, D.C. “Given that the application of the framework is voluntary, not a rule-making oversight authorities can enforce, if the requirements for this type of framework were instead codified and appropriately funded for enforcement, it would position the U.S. as a real leader in international aerospace cybersecurity.”
Lawrence Baker NCC Group
Lawrence Baker is the aerospace technical lead in the transport practice at the NCC Group in Manchester, United Kingdom. He explains that DO-326A/ED-202A and DO-355A/ED-204A are focused on aircraft airworthiness, with the former focused on aircraft certification and the latter on continued airworthiness.
“There are other jointly authored standards by RTCA and EUROCAE covering different aspects, including DO-393A/ED-205A, which provide guidance for the certification Air Traffic Management ground systems and DO-392/ED-206 Guidance on Security Event Management, as well as a number of other standards currently in development,” says Baker. “EUROCAE produced ED-201 Aeronautical Information System Security Framework Guidance that provides context to aviation cybersecurity and a framework for how various organizations can interact, though there is no RTCA counterpart to this. There are several other cybersecurity standards produced by various aviation industry bodies. The cybersecurity industry itself contains a multitude of standards, which while not aviation specific, are often applicable to the sector.”
Quentin Hodgson RAND Corporation
Standards are a good start. But there’s much more follow-on work to be done. Quentin Hodgson is a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation in Washington, D.C. He says that standards are useful starting points, but they are by no means sufficient on their own to meet the challenge of cybersecurity threats.
“Implementing standards needs to be risk-based, not compliance-based. We have seen that even when companies and organizations start from a risk perspective — what are the threats we face and how could they impact operations — they inevitably devolve into a compliance-based approach — have we implemented a particular security control,” says Hodgson. “This approach is not dynamic enough to adapt to a changing threat landscape. And we know that regardless of rhetoric, the bias is towards implementing new technology before the security implications are fully understood. In aviation safety and security, it is critical to not let this happen. Even more important is that we need aircraft that can operate safely even when subject to cyberattack. That’s job #1, because we cannot assume that our preventative measures will prevent all attacks. More standards are not the answer; better approaches to ensuring security and resiliency are.”
Aimei Wei Stellar Cyber
Standards and regulations have good intentions, but they do require the allocation of resources like training, simulation, patching, and constant monitoring. Aimei Wei is the chief technical officer (CTO) and founder at Stellar Cyber, a cybersecurity company that protects critical infrastructure operations based in San Jose, California. She opines that standards help less mature organizations understand the “rules they need to play by.” “More mature organizations are less at risk from less mature organizations,” says Wei. “That said, regulations without training, process and rigorous monitoring do not get the desired result. The idea of regulation in many people’s minds is a dirty word or seen as overhead that takes away from productivity or product margin. That is true, however, if we want to see the aerospace industry reduce risk, in a global supply chain environment, something must be done. And the standards help to implement and sustain minimum actions to reduce risks. Since aerospace is a global market and supply chain, this is extremely difficult with each region trying to push their own views. It will take time for the economics to be worked out in terms of the right amount of regulation and what cost to each supplier in the chain.”
Ian Ferguson Lynx Software Technologies
Ian Ferguson, vice president of marketing for Lynx Software Technologies, advises stakeholders in the aviation industry to take a multi-layered approach and implement layered cybersecurity defense to match the level of potential impact. And he’s also not a big fan of more standards.
Instead, he directs focus onto three things: thinking about security implementations as a first-class citizen during the development phase; recognize that security capabilities in a deployed system have to improve over time; spend as much time, resources, or money, on recognizing if a system has been compromised as they do on creating a large vault door in an attempt to block initial incursions.
“By treating cybersecurity as a risk management function rather than a cost center, mission-critical firms can make smart investments in resilience. Conduct rigorous vulnerability testing and cyber exercises. Where is the weakest link? Is it a system or a human? How do those areas get enhanced?”
He further advises investigating how systems we create could be compromised for nefarious purposes. “Recall the Mirai attack in 2016, in which malware reprogrammed Linux-based consumer devices like IP cameras and DVRs into launching attacks on popular internet sites,” explains Ferguson. “Outsourcing is OK. Many companies initially created their own security solutions due to concerns about leaking intellectual property or customer information outside the organization. The reality is that if your expertise is in an area other than security, it’s best to outsource this work to a partner that focuses just on that. We have often seen hackers picking targets — a police force or school district, for example — where it is not the focus of the organization.”
Removing the “Unknown Unknowns”
Bolstering aviation data and networks to be completely free from cyberattack is a daunting task. Just as one door of vulnerability closes, another one opens. As “Hutch” Hutchison notes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step to mitigate the risk of an attack and reduce the dwell-time of ubiquitous attackers.
Says Hutchison: “If an aviation organization loses less than one percent of their customers as a result of a data breach, millions of dollars in revenue could be lost. Carriers and manufacturers need the data and insight into their IT and [operational technology] OT environments to see what is working, and what isn’t. By removing the ‘unknown unknowns’ of cyber threats, businesses can achieve the maximum levels of protection needed to keep their company safe.”
When it comes to managing MRO operations in an integrated manner, there are two types of solutions that are commonly used. The first is Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software that has been designed for use in a wide range of businesses, with the ability to be customized to some extent for each of them. The second is MRO IT enterprise management (MRO IT) system software that has been purpose-built to serve the aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul industry.
ERP software is generally built to be industry agnostic and can be configured for the given deployment based on specific industry needs, to a certain degree, according to Saravanan Rajarajan Saran, Ramco Systems’ director of solution consulting.
What ERPs Can Do for MROs
ERP systems are used by industries such as manufacturing to integrate business functions such as finance, human resources, inventory management, and production planning into end-to-end unified platforms. This makes it possible for all aspects of the business to be seen and managed using a common shared system. Such integration makes it easier for managers to stay on top of what’s going on, and to spot and remedy problems quickly when they occur. Oracle, SAP, and Microsoft are among the big names in the ERP market.
One potential advantage of using standard ERP systems and customizing them for use in the MRO sector is cost. Since ERP systems are widely used across lots of different industries, they often come with a lower price tag compared to MRO-specific solutions. This is because ERP vendors sell in higher volumes than MRO IT systems vendors due to their sales into many markets. This higher volume allows ERP vendors to lower their per-unit cost.
A second advantage of using ERP systems is training costs, but only if employees in the MRO are familiar with using ERP systems from other industries.
As well, ERP systems can be modular in their design, allowing customers to only buy those components that are relevant to their businesses. Meanwhile, basic business practices like accounting, inventory, customer databases, and sales are common to every industry, and can easily be adapted in a standard ERP system. In fact, some ERP modules may not need any customization at all.
A further advantage associated with ERP systems is the ability to enable improved integration across different departments within an organization. Once an ERP system is in place, information flows seamlessly between departments. This enables better coordination and decision-making throughout the organization.
Saravanan Rajarajan S (SARAN) Ramco System
As to whether ERP systems can be sufficiently customized to work well in the MRO sector? That depends on the specific ERP system, said Saravanan Rajarajan Saran, Ramco Systems’ director of solution consulting. “Effective usage of the ERP in core maintenance operations depends on how flexibly the ERP can be configured to unique maintenance requirements, both in terms of usability and functionality,” he explained. “For example, an airline wants to see an aircraft’s manufacturer serial number rather than having it recorded in the ERP as a generic asset number.”
What Makes MRO IT Systems Stand Out
The big difference between ERP systems and MRO IT systems is that the latter have been designed with MRO requirements and functionality in mind. As such, these platforms are tailored to the specific needs of the MRO industry, their clients and suppliers. This means that major program customization is unnecessary, which is not the case with standard ERP system software.
One such MRO IT system is made by Ramco. “The Ramco Aviation Solution is a fully web-centric application developed from the ground up specifically for the aviation industry,” said Saran. This system offers an integrated platform for airlines, defense clients, helicopter operators and MROs to centrally manage functions such as maintenance and engineering, supply chain, safety, compliance, quality, planning and financial control, among others.
“ERP software is generally built to be ‘industry agnostic’,” said Saran. “It can be configured for the given deployment based on specific industry needs, to a certain degree. In contrast, MRO-specific IT systems are built to address the specific industry, segment or function within the aviation industry. ERP systems normally encompass most of the functional modules required for an organization — for example, Human Resources, Finance, Supply Chain, Maintenance, and Engineering — whereas MRO-specific IT systems may need to interface with additional systems to support a company’s complete organizational needs.”
Chris Clements Swiss AviationSoftware
Swiss AviationSoftware (Swiss-AS) is another maker/vendor of MRO IT system software. Its AMOS system “has been on the market now for more than 30 years,” said Chris Clements, senior sales representative with Swiss AviationSoftware. “This solution has established itself as one of the go-to solutions when new businesses are looking to upgrade their current solution or indeed start-ups who are looking for best of breed from Day One. Within a single solution, MRO activities can be managed from first contact, quotation, execution and ultimately billing.”
MRO IT systems are specifically designed to manage complex aircraft maintenance workflows, track aircraft components and their service history, handle work orders and inspections and ensure regulatory compliance. Vortex Aviation image.
Like many ERP systems, AMOS is modular. This means that different components can be fitted together to customize the solution as needed.
AMOS starts with a “core solution,” Clements explained. “Then you can add various optional modules such as AMOSmobile/EXEC, the mobile solution for maintenance technicians; AMOSmobile/STORES, which allows stores keepers to work away from the stores counter; and most recently AMOSeTL, which brings AMOS on board the aircraft and puts it directly in the hands of pilots, cabin crew and technicians.
Because they are not cookie-cutter solutions, MRO IT systems tend to cost more than ERPs and can take longer to implement. But that’s the price for adopting an enterprise management system tailored specifically to the MRO industry’s needs, and the benefit. “AMOS’ strength as an MRO-specific software solution lies first and foremost in its integration capabilities, both internal and external,” said Clements. “The totally integrated processes that AMOS provides ensures that the flow of data is seamless, supporting the customer’s processes whilst ensuring consistency and real-time updates.”
In situations where an MRO needs to connect its system to those of external customers such as airlines and suppliers, an MRO IT system such as AMOS “has a huge number of APIs available” to make this possible, Clements said. “This enables consistency and real-time updates across all of the connected systems. Again, as a software solution, AMOS has been developed from day one from within an aviation environment (Crossair) to ensure that industry needs were met directly.”
One area where ERP systems may not be able to meet MRO requirements is the specialized maintenance and repair processes used in the aviation industry that are not employed anywhere else. In contrast, MRO IT systems are specifically designed to manage complex aircraft maintenance workflows, track aircraft components and their service history — which is very important in this time of widespread counterfeit parts — handle work orders and inspections, and ensure that everything being done within the organization complies with regulations.
As well, trying to adapt a broad-based ERP system to meet MRO industry needs can be daunting. At the very least, doing so will require “considerable time, deep expertise, and customization costs to develop and maintain this ERP system over the life cycle of its usage,” said Saran.
In addition, there will be exposure to risk by the ERP’s users due to the reconfiguration of the system and the use of potentially untested alterations to make it work. “Then there is the learning curve for the users,” Saran said. “The ERP may not work the way they are accustomed to, so learning to use the ERP tends to be longer when compared to MRO-specific IT systems.”
Because they are purpose-built for aviation, MRO IT systems are more likely to integrate seamlessly with related software applications such as flight operations management and inventory control. This allows for better coordination between different departments within an MRO or airline, justifying the decision to use an MRO IT system rather than an ERP.
A further area where ERP systems may fall short is with respect to industry-specific analytics and reporting requirements. Many MRO IT systems are designed to provide detailed insights into aircraft performance, maintenance costs, and forecasting for future needs. These features allow airlines to make data-driven decisions regarding fleet maintenance, and MROs to tailor their offerings to these decisions accordingly.
“MRO IT systems are designed within the context of industry practices, which means that the solution can be deployed with no, or minimum, customization,” said Saran. “As MRO IT systems R&D is focused on a specific domain, products get enhanced continuously with respect to regulatory and statutory requirements. In ERP deployments, such enhancements may result in additional costs, depending on the extent of vendor support and/or customization.”
Making the Choice
We’ve seen the facts. So how does an MRO decide between an ERP and MRO IT system? Should they base the decision on cost or capability?
The answer lies in what the MRO is seeking from its enterprise management platform. “If the organization wants a higher degree of fit or quick turnaround, then the MRO IT systems options would be the best fit,” Saran said. “An ERP could be the best fit if the organization has the preparatory knowledge to execute whatever needs to be customized and has the internal talent to maintain the system.”
Another salient question to ask is what is the ‘Total Cost of Ownership’? For instance, an ERP may cost less than an MRO IT system initially, but a user has to factor in the additional costs of making the ERP work in an MRO environment? Is the ERP really ‘off-the-shelf’ ready or does it require customizations and maintenance that will push up its total cost? And remember: It’s a well-known fact that cookie-cutter ERP systems make their bread and butter on customizations.
“At Swiss-AS, convincing customers to invest in AMOS can be a challenge for our salespeople,” Clements admitted. “However, this challenge is quickly overcome when clients determine the best path for realizing added value in their business. “When supporting our sales prospects in making their best decisions, we are able to demonstrate that AMOS offers the opportunity to implement industry best practices, ensure consistency in data quality and ultimately have control of all the events driving financial data and processes. As well, for those clients who want to digitalize their businesses, Swiss-AS is able to provide digital solutions that combine mobility and paperless processes.”
The Bottom Line
There is no doubt that standardized ERP systems, when properly customized, can provide efficiencies for the MRO industry. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the more focused functionality offered by MRO IT systems is more intrinsically suited to the needs of the aviation industry.
Mike Schulter is a career aviation professional, having flown aircraft such as the F-16 and B-737 for more than 10,000 total flight hours. Schulter leads a talent-filled pool of professionals committed to customer service and innovation in aviation. His company, PIVOT, produces portable, protective EFB cases and mounting solutions. Designed from a pilot’s perspective, PIVOT products enhance EFB function and user experience, while increasing device protection and flexibility when selecting devices. The PIVOT universal mounting system provides EFB operators with the only futureproof solution on the market, providing protection from the ever-changing selection of EFB devices. He is devoted to the needs of pilots and EFB programs and oversees the expansion to marine, rail, and other mass transit solutions in need of PIVOT functionality. Schulter is a dedicated family man and enjoys golf and offshore fishing when the opportunity presents.
Aerospace Tech Review: Give our readers some background about PIVOT and all of the products you offer. You’re a commercial airline pilot — why is that an important factor in the development of your products?
Mike Schulter: PIVOT equips airlines and military operations with a unique EFB mount and case system, making EFB integration simple while providing unequaled cockpit utility. Flight deck integration includes a large selection of both temporary and permanently installed mount systems. This range allows flight groups to deploy EFB programs instantly and at low cost using temporary mounts such as suction cups or our aircraft specific Long-Term Removable Mounts™ (LTRM™), while planning for installed options from our growing list of STC partners. PIVOT protects EFB devices with robust cases for the most popular EFB tablets, each providing secure and reliable connection to flight deck mounts using our patented and standardized mounting system. PIVOT products provide better connection between EFB and aircraft, and between pilot and data, while protecting valuable EFB assets both in and out of the aircraft. In fact, our mantra is: Better Connection. Better Protection.
As a commercial airline pilot, I witnessed the aviation industry’s initial transition from paper to electronic EFB solutions. From my seat on the flight deck, I was able to see the shortcomings of the EFB integration solutions of the time, which were very limited. I also received more than my fair share of anecdotal observations, none too positive, vocalized openly by the community of early EFB adopters. Pilots are never short on suggestions for how things can be done better. And my peers weren’t wrong. There was a better way to integrate EFB into our daily routine. As an EFB user, I was able to identify some key areas of opportunity for improvement. After some brainstorming with the R&D team and a handful of prototypes, we developed the PIVOT case and mount concept, meant to overcome the obstacles I had observed out in the field. We were prepared to address the problems in the industry with some unique perspective and new ideas that became the PIVOT product family. Designed from a pilot’s perspective, PIVOT products enhance EFB function and user experience, while increasing device protection and flexibility.
ATR: You work with clients from all sectors of aviation — including the military. Is that correct?
Schulter: We help solve EFB integration challenges around the world for commercial, private, and military flight groups. No context of use is ever the same and each has different variables in the equation to be solved. Our work with military flight groups is typically set to some very specific conditions of use and EFB application, including all types of aircraft from fighters to cargo and refueling tankers. Commercial and private carriers offer their own list of exacting standards to be met whether in the flight deck, cabin, or underwing environments.
ATR: Talk about your work with the military and with commercial aviation. How do those two groups differ?
Schulter: Deployment schedules and mission parameters make for some unique deliverables with our military collaborations. For example, we might need to consider ejection conditions, night vision applications, or even tactile feedback solutions for those operating touch screens in low-visibility conditions or where the user may be wearing a thick glove. In commercial contexts, PIVOT EFB cases and mounts still meet and exceed demanding physical performance requirements, but also need to be customer-facing and aesthetically considered as such. We do our best to marry form and function in all PIVOT products and are proud to offer exceptional options for customization and customer-branded cases.
ATR: Talk about what makes PIVOT’s products stand out from others on the market.
Schulter: PIVOT equips airline and military operations with the only truly standardized EFB mount and case system, providing unequaled cockpit utility for EFB, but also offering complete flexibility with EFB devices. Changing device type, manufacture or form factors is not a concern for PIVOT users. Every device protected in a PIVOT case featuring the patented PIVOT mounting system will connect safely and securely to every PIVOT mounting system, regardless of age or aircraft. PIVOT customers can futureproof their EFB program, making device transitions seamless and deployment of new or mixed EFB device types quick and easy. Our products stand out from all other solutions because PIVOT is EFB made simple.
ATR: Explain the complexities of the two main components, the case and the mount, and how they are interconnected.
Schulter: PIVOT cases feature the standardized mounting channel and retention clip assembly, which interfaces with the mounts. Each mount includes the PIVOT mounting plate. Users simply align the case’s mounting channel with the mounting plate and guide them together until hearing an audible “Click!”, signaling the connection is complete and secure. The cases and mounts are manufactured with precision to ensure the experience of connecting the two is consistent and reliable every time. The PIVOT system is designed to be operated with only one hand for installation onto mount, and removal. With only a few minutes of practice, many users can blindly connect and release their cases, both for convenience and for safety.
ATR: Talk about your cases — you say they are ruggedized and durable. What makes them so? Any examples of how rugged they are?
Schulter: We’ve tested our cases in lab environments to exceed the most exacting performance standards for both in-flight and hand-carried, in-transit contexts. This includes vibration testing, 20 g shocks, sustained load applications and drop testing to MIL-STD 810G. Anecdotally, we regularly receive customer testimonials describing how their PIVOT case protected a device from a 12-foot fall off the jet bridge. Or how after leaving an EFB on the roof of a car, one pilot successfully retrieved his device unscathed from the side of the highway after it eventually blew off at speed and they were signaled by a fellow driver as to what had happened. Just for fun one day in the lab, we repeatedly dropped a ball-peen hammer from four feet onto our cases and covers in hopes of breaking an iPad. We were unsuccessful!
ATR: Talk about the ”Click-Connect” device you incorporate with the mount. What makes it unique?
Schulter: Our PIVOT cases and mounts interface unshakably using our “click-connect” system. This describes the audible “Click!” users receive as confirmation their case and device have been securely connected to the mount. This system is unique in that from the very beginning we knew it must be operated with only one hand, and blindly operated if necessary. With one hand and one simple motion, users connect their EFB devices to the mount. Even more easily, users can blindly detach the PIVOT case from the mount by releasing the clip and sliding the case off the mount. The “click-connect” system is there to increase ease of use, utility and safety on the flight deck, or wherever PIVOT is being used.
ATR: Why are your mounts different/better than cradles?
Schulter: Cradles for EFB devices are often bulky, inconvenient to use and do not allow for the deployment of multiple device generations, types, form factors, or devices from different manufacturers. Most cradles fit only the device itself and do not offer any protection for valuable EFB assets. PIVOT mounts and cases are standardized for futureproof compatibility and ultimate device flexibility. They provide superior device protection both inside and outside of the flight deck and keep EFB devices in service for years on end.
ATR: The PIVOT design joins the case and mount together with a patented universal ”Click-Connect” system. Why is this important to understand?
Schulter: The connection between the device and the mount is integrated into the case itself. This results in lower-profile, lighter-weight mounts, that don’t use bulky cradles or other mechanisms to hold devices. As well as form-fitting cases for each device type, which do not compromise device accessibility or protection. Again, it’s all part of the PIVOT mantra: Better Connection. Better Protection.
ATR: Talk about the difference between portable mounts and those installed with an STC. Is there still a need for portable mounts? Haven’t most commercial operators moved to installed?
Schulter: While many commercial carriers now have permanently installed mounts on the flight deck with full PIVOT connectivity, there is still a large demand for the portable mounts we offer. Installed STC mounts take time. The portable mounting solutions are the fastest way to get flying and make EFB deployment as simple as possible. They are the interim solution most EFB operations start with when evaluating the PIVOT product ecosystem, fitting to new or old aircraft, or testing new mount locations for cabin service crew or under-wing ops.
ATR: You all say your solutions are scalable. What do you mean by that and how can that help operators?
Schulter: PIVOT EFB solutions are scalable on several levels. First is the range of mounting solutions we discussed, ranging from low-cost, immediately deployable suction-cup mounts to the mid-tier Long-Term Removable Mounts™ (LTRM™), which is custom fit to each aircraft type, and then the installed STC mount. Carriers can operate with all three tiers of mounting options in their fleet and their EFB devices, protected in PIVOT cases, will connect identically to every mount. Secondly, is the scalable flexibility provided by the PIVOT EFB cases. Because of the standardized mounting connection features, EFB operations can deploy any combination of device type simultaneously. This means new deployment rollouts, upgrades or mixed-device deployments can be scaled to meet the operator’s schedule, budget, and other specific needs.
ATR: What are some of the biggest challenges when installing mounts with STCs? How can you help clients with those challenges?
Schulter: Every aircraft installation is unique. We partner with both aircraft manufacturers and top-tier STC mount providers to supply our global customers with solutions, which are designed to perform optimally in each unique context. Space on the flight deck is often a chief concern, along with ergonomic and safety considerations. Our development teams use the latest engineering software and field technologies such as 3D-scanning to virtually design optimized EFB solutions in collaboration with customers and STC suppliers.
ATR: Talk about how PIVOT cases and mounts help ease pilot workload.
Schulter: The complexity of today’s flight operations makes it imperative every member of the team is “in the huddle”, engaged and ready to operate craft and crew safely, effectively, and correctly from start to finish. PIVOT is designed to connect pilot and crew to critical data, to be effective in briefings and sharing information face to face. PIVOT EFB systems are easily tilted, adjusted, or simply removed the from the mount to visually exchange critical information clearly and efficiently. Studies demonstrate that retention of information is six times greater when it is presented by visual and oral means compared to when the presentation is done by the spoken word alone — PIVOT makes this effective collaboration possible.
ATR: What if something does break? Talk about PIVOT’s customer service and support.
Schulter: EFB devices protected in PIVOT cases boast a reported break-rate of less than 1% over the last decade. Many end their service life in grade-A condition at the end of the lease term or transition to resale market. In the event a PIVOT component fails or is damaged, we have full-time staff available for support. They can help to troubleshoot challenges, replace broken parts from our large, in-stock inventory, and offer other assistance as needed. We do recommend most EFB operations keep a small reserve of spares to deploy to pilots in the event of a break or misplaced EFB.
ATR: You also have products for general aviation operators and recently introduced the PIVOT T21A for the iPad Mini (6th gen.). What makes that product stand out?
Schulter: The iPad Mini (6th gen.) is truly an amazing device in a small form-factor that is the perfect fit for general aviation and smaller spaces. The PIVOT T21A, our latest generation case for the iPad Mini (6th gen.), incorporates the robust protection and flexible utility our cases are known for. What’s truly unique about the T21A model case is the new dual-shell design. The case is comprised of an inner and outer shell, which are reversible for configuring the case for use, or maximum protection when in transit. It also allows the user to shield the device from direct sunlight when needed to prevent excess heat buildup.
ATR: For any interested operators, how should they go about learning more and contact PIVOT for information about your products and services?
Schulter: General information is available on our PIVOT and FlyBoys branded websites: pivotcase.com and flyboys.com. For specific inquiries, we recommend contacting us directly by using any of the contact means listed on the websites.
ATR: What is the most unique aircraft your product flies in?
Schulter: It is difficult to choose a winner for “most unique aircraft” as PIVOT products are deployed across the globe in all manner of interesting flight scenarios. As a former F-16 pilot, I’ll always have a bias leaning towards some of our fighter craft deployments. But we have projects in the works now for all sectors that are vying for the top slot as “most unique.” Check back with me on that one.
ATR: Can you share any anecdotes of ways PIVOT’s cases and mounts have helped pilots or saved the day in an unusual situation?
Schulter: When one of our largest commercial airline customers made the switch from Windows-OS to iOS, the flexibility of their PIVOT EFB systems saved more than just the day — it saved time and money. With their standardized PIVOT mounts already in place from the previous Windows-OS EFB deployment, the customer was free to roll out the new iOS devices to their pilot groups in phases, on their timeline, and with no cost or downtime to switch aircraft mounts. They were able to make the transition seamless and efficiently, on their terms.
ATR: Please share any other key info our readers should know about.
Schulter: PIVOT will be at the upcoming Aerospace Tech Week Americas event in Atlanta, USA, November 14-15, in booth E2. Please come visit us at ATW to learn more. There are many choices to make related to developing and managing an effective EFB program. We’re honored to have become the standard in EFB for many flight operations worldwide and jump at opportunities to help EFB administrators solve unique challenges. Please get in touch to learn more about how PIVOT can get your EFB program flying today. PIVOT truly is EFB made simple.
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.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.