‘CENTRAL FAULT DISPLAY SYSTENS P. Vauversin * and J. P. Potocki de Nontalk Airbus Industrie ‘Tovlouse-Blagnac, France Abstract Many Atreraft presently in service, including the early digital aircraft, have built-in test equipment (BITE) systens. Hovever, these systens were designed independently, and thus usi different design rules, vithout effective means of fault correlation. This has contributed to Less-than-ideal fault diagnosis in service, resulting in vaste of maintenance resources and reduction in regularity. The increasing use of avionie systens makes it important to avoid such vaste ‘The A320 4s the first aircraft to enter service with BITE systens vithout these deficiencies, which have been avoided by adherence to a single set of BITE design rules, and the use of a connon set of controls and displays for all the systems, integrated into @ single Central Fault Display System (CFDS). The CFDS allovs fault data to be processed at all Unes, enabling fault reporting to be carried out in flight df required. ‘The design and operation of the CFDS 4e described and future developments are discussed. Introduction A characteristic of large commercial aircraft is that, over the years, increasing use is being nade’ of electrical and electronic systens to provide efficient, reliable function: Starting vith communication facilities, then vith navigation and guidance, and continuing vith information processing conbined vith improved control of "conventional" systens, electronics fare nov applied in almost all the facilities that Aircraft rely on. The electronic technologies changing : electron tubes, magnetic. + Semiconductors, integrated circuits, ‘analogue and digital computing having gradually given vay one to the other, offering improvenente in volume, veight, pover consumption, and reliability. functionality, better using the information available on the aircraft, as @ means of improving efficiency. However, there is a price to pay. The incre fanettonellty and Righer use of ate having sede the systens concerned nore efficient, have also nade then less easy to understand and to trouble-shoot by the average mechanic. Also, the (Gesirable) greater reliability has led to fever faults, reducing the mechanics’ familiarity vith the systens. Furthernore, electronic controls are being used in non-traditional application leading to fault-finding methods that differ fron ‘those habitually used by the mechanics concerned. The initial difficulty 4s thus compounded. The need to improve maintenance effectiveness has led to the development of an innovative concept, the Central Fault Display System. (CFDS). Background ‘4300 When the A300 vas entering service in 1974, it vas realised that the increasing complexity of avionie systens on board the aircraft justified aircraft-vide maintenance facilities that vent beyond the BITE that vas implemented at the tine. Airbus Industrie vere already unique in having at the disposal of the airlines a shop test ‘equipaent, vith a softvare suite that could check out alnost all the avionies, and vhat vas needed vas a matching facility on the aircraft itself. A start had been made on the APS, even on A300 and Concorde (1976). These complex, multi-LRU systens have central maintenance displays and controls, and experience has proven that, vith proper attention to detail by the airline, they are Indeed renarkably effective. Hovever, they are ot easy to use, and the requisite displays and date exchange netvorks do not exist on nost other ‘Reeded vere systems vith more ition, vhich could be operated ‘skilled personnel. This meant that the systens had to behave in a sinilar fashion, and had to have easy-to-use controls aso hen the A310 (1963) vas being designed, a nunber of other multi-unit and/or multi-sensor’ systens Were introduced, such as EFTS, ECAM, and FNS. These systens have poverful displays, and sit in fa data bus wed. Vhat vas missing on previous generation aircraft vas nov beconing available. Simultaneously, the cost of computing and data storage vas dropping fast. ‘The task of incorporating maintenance information facilities vith connon rules vas added to the developeent tasks on these systens, and on other ‘ones vhere displays vere incorporated specifically for BITE. The rules stated that clear English text, rather than fault codes, should be used for fault location to LAU level, ‘and that a certain amount of data on past flight legs had to be carried. In spite of this effort, the disparity of designs ‘and display media used, along vith the linited ‘applications selected have resulted in a junble of aaintenance facilities on all aircraft of this period. The A310 and A300-600 (1984) are only a Little better than their contenporaries. Tt is Still necessary to search among a number of facilities to obtain the fault-finding help that As available, and there is no means of correlating indications from several facilities, apart from establishing that the events happened fon the same flight. % Nov with Sundstrand Aerospace Europe, Tovlouse-Blagnac, France. Copyright © 1988 by ICAS and AIAA. Al ight reserved. nea‘The end result is favlt-finding effectiveness that is no better than on previous aircraft, overall. ‘The systems of the A300 and of the 4310/A300-600 are sinilar in many vays, but the later aircraft have greatly increased functionality in many areas. Both aircraft families have been in-service for several years in broadly comparable environsents. A comparison of intenance statistics carried out in 1988 shoved that reliability of the later aircraft's avionic systens vas greatly inproved, that the cost of repair (when needed) was lover, but that the proportion of faults correctly diagnosed at the Hirst attempt vas also sonevhat lover. (Table 2). ‘The advanced technology 1g thus achieving its objective, but its effectiveness is still being diluted by ineffective fault-finding. 4320 ‘The 4310 4s, by contemporary standards, a highly-integrated alreraft. The experience gained on this atreraft shoved that an even higher level ion vould be cost-effective, and the hhave been designed accordingly. ‘The level of integration achieved haz made it possible for all the systens on the aircraft that contain avionics to be connected to a single mmeans of accessing maintenance information - eliminating the inconvenience of aultiple displays It Is to be noted that the overvhelming majority of the afrcraft systens do use avionies, in one vay or another, and are directly connected to ros. ‘The "common rules" used for selected ‘4310/4300-600 BITE aystens are expanded to include inproved fault correlation neans, principally time-of-occurrence, and menory has been added to record BCAM caution and warning messages. ‘The Multi-purpose Control and Display Units are the primary means of access to the data, vith a printer available to produce permanent records. Maintenance personnel thus have at thelr disposal clear, unanbiguous data, in one place, ina uniform fornat, enabling then to trace faults and verify their repair on over 70 systens. (Table 3). ‘The maintenance panels used on previous aircraft have their functions carried out by the CFDS. As ‘a contrast, compare the several square feet of panel area needed on A310. and contemporary aircraft, scattered over the flight compartment ‘and the front faces of various equipaent populating the avionics racks (Fig. 1), vith the Few square inches of HCDU area used on” 4320 (Fig. 3). The resulting simplicity in operation also does avay vith the need for the mechanic to carry a seall library of trouble-shooting guides in his pockets, These are replaced by one, simpler, manual. 1165 CFDS system Architecture Characterist ‘The architecture used allovs + Standardisation of the failure record of each Lau. Use of plain text on the controls and displays, for less Line maintenance personnel training and better understanding by everybody. Use of a single type of HCDU in the cockpit to access the BITE of each connected aysten, replacing the maintenance panel. Simplification of equipment front faces (nost of thes are blank). Provisigy for outputs to a paren ©) and to acars (3, for efficient transmission of the CFDS information to maintenance personnel at the airport of arrival or at the maintenance base. These characteristics vere developed in close eopacation vith thgyjeeosteys and are now industry standards © Inplenentation ‘The architecture used is shown in Fig. 2. The tvo MoDU’s and the printer are shared vith other systems, such as FAS, ACARS and AIDS, and are Located in the cockpit. ‘The CFDIU has partial redundancy, to enable fault Alagnosis in the critical systens even after a single CFOTU fault. ‘The CFDS includes the BITE portions of the connected systens. It is to be noted that similar systems, using sinilor architectures, are used on all’ the large conmercial transports’ (both nev and derivative) that are presently planned to enter service after x20. Operational Interface The CFDS is a system that ains at simplicity of operation, but does not require very rapid response. ‘Consequently @ menu-driven design has been used for the MCDU, using 12 Line-keys to enable the mechanic to’ select the desired function. Where standard features are used, their Line keys have standard locations. The functions Of the other Line keys depend on the needs of the individual application. Base of operation is facilitated by + = Use of plain English, vith standard abbreviations, rather than fault codes. = Display of data enabling faults to be correlated vith pilots’ reports (GAT, flight hnunber and phase, ECAM cautions/varnings as displayed to the flight crev ete.). (Pigs. 5 and 6).Clear identification of the faulty LRU by nane, part number and FIN, as appropriate. A single report (the POST FLIGHT REPORT) vhich hag all the information that is usually needed. (Hg. 7). = Availability of a permanent record of anything displayed on the HCDU, using the printer. (Fig. 5 ete) Fault classification. ‘Three fault classes have been defined. Class 1 faults may affect the flight in Progress, or dispatch for the next flight, and fare innediately displayed to the flight cfev on their normal caution/varning systen. Glass 2 faults do not affect the flight in Progress or dispatch, but require timely Fectification. These are normally displayed to the crew after touchdown, but may be called-up at any tine, as required. Clase 3 faults may be deferred until routine ‘maintenance and are not normally displayed to the crev. They may also be called-up at any tne. Automatic test at pover-up of most units after fan LAU replacement, with display of the unite that did not test satisfactorily on the AVIONICS STATUS page. (Fig. 9). = Use of the MCDU to carry out any manual testing needed using the SYSTEW REPORT/TEST page, avoiding having to enter the avionics bay. (Fig. 10, 11), and enabling other controls to be manipulated as required. Availability of fault date for the 63 previous flight legs (Fig. 8). ‘The above facilities are intended for use by the Line mechanic. Access to internal fault environsent data is available for use by engineering technicians on the aircraft, and for shop mechanics in the LRU repair workshop. This Information is somevhat detailed, and is normally coded. Rederated CFDS During early studies of the concept, federated ‘and centralized CFDS's vere envisaged. Federated systens rely on decision-aaking within the individual connected sub-system, and need Little ‘computing pover in the central means of access. Central systems place the intelligence in the central means of access, and rely on sub-systens to do Little more than send data. The dividing Line is somevhat broad, as can be imagined. Experience on certain A310 systens with similar, but less videspread, features shoved that sajor configuration control complexities could be expected from a centralized aysten, due to ite sheer size and interdependence vith connected sub-systens. These complexities vere expected to inhibit development, both as regards inprovenents in the eub-aystens themselves, and inprovenents An thelr CFDS features over the life of the aircraft. A federated CFDS ie used in the A320, vith the Central Unit (the CFDIU) being little more than nessage svitching and storage centre. ACARS Interface ‘The CFDS aay be connected to an ACARS data link. Its connection enables the maintenance needs of the aireraft to be knovn in detail prior to arrival of the aircraft, and engineering assistance at outstations 1s eased since the operator's engineering specialists can see the same thing that the mechanic is seeing, if needed. At least one airline anticipates being able to obtain gains in maintenance productivity and regularity by having A320 CFDS data available throughout their network via ACARS. Bach airline has differing ACARS requirenents, and as a result an industry standard installation hhas been developed for A320 (ARINC characteristic 724) that enables each user to supply his ovn ACARS unit, editing and formatting CFDS and other information in accordance vith his ovn needs. This standard te nov also used on a mumber of other large commercial transports. CFDS Developrents Further improvenents in fault correlation, extension of the CFDS task to cover servicing heeds and technological inprovenents are to be ‘expected on future aircraft. Experience also shows that further standardisation in text Aisplays ie desirable. In a longer tine-scale, the areas vhere BIT and BITE lack teeth vill need to be addressed, such as the folloving. = Performance-related faults are not amenable to machine detection at present. One of the problens is that technology nov allovs the designer to do more than in the past, vith more complex (and less easily understandable) systens, and increased scope for design errors, oF softvare bugs: = Machine favlt identification is not perfect (alnost by definition), leading to many more unjustified renovals than a systen’s fault detection probability vould lead one to believe | This 1s because the small number of mis-Identified faulty units are each responsible for a large number of unjustified renovals, as mechanics then have to resort to “shotgun® techniques to restore serviceability. ne "aifficult™ fault can occasionally result in over a dozen renovale of healthy equipment before the culprit is finally found. Hovever good a fault identification systen may bey as long as it is not perfect, there may be still be a chance of achieving an on-tine departure by changing a readily accessible computer in the avionics compartment, vhereas changing the "correct" LRU, if it isin a less accessible area vill almost alvays result in a departure delay. 1166The avionics conpartaent being dry and temperate, may or may not have anything to do vith the mechanics decision f Gonclusion Centralized on board maintenance data processing beings the folloving main advantages, = For the Line mechanic : Less training required ond faster repairs because there are: + No more inconsistency problens (the same control display unit 1s used for all electronic. systens) + Messages in plain English with standard abbreviations (no specialized docunentation is required to use the CFDS and maintenance sanuals are simplified). = A reduction of the nunber of operations in the avionics bay since all electronic systens can be interrogated fron the cockpit. = For aircraft components : + Allovs blank front faces on electronic units. + Avolds duplication of diagnosis in case of fallure «Improves MTBF/WTBUR ratio thanks to a sore coherent maintenance philosophy. ~ For dispatch regularity + » Allovs shorter duration of operations and so shorter times-to-repair, usually within the scheduled turn-around tine. ‘This is further Improved 1f CFDS is coupled to an ACARS system for in-flight real tine failure transmiesion. Acknovledgenents ‘The authors vish to record their thanks to Airbus Industrie for permission to publish this paper and to state that the statenents made represent thelr personal vievs and are not necessarily those of Airbus Industrie or its Partner companies. Thanks are due to the many colleagues who provided information and assistance vith this paper, particularly J.P. Desnoulins and F Bachellerie. 1167 Reference (1) ARINC Equipment characteristic 740 Yultiple Input Cockpit Printer. (2) ARINC Equipment Characteristic 7248 Aircraft Comminieations and Reporting System (ACARS). (3) ARINC Report 604 : Guidance for Design and Use of Built-In Test Equipment (BITE).ACARS —- Aircraft Communication and Addressing -BFIS___- Blectronic Flight Instrument syste System (An air-ground data link). HIS - Blectronic Instrument System. AIDS ~ Aircraft Integrated Data Systen. FIN ~ Functfonal Identification Nonber. BI Built In Test. Wms Flight Management syst BITE Built In Test Equipment. uu Line Replaceable Unit (or removable crDIU —- Central Fault Data Interface Unit. aircraft component). crs - Central Fault Display System Woo - Multipurpose Control and Display Unit. BoM Electronic Centralized Aircraft MOBF Mean Tine Betveen Failures. Monitor (includes the Master Warning System and other functions). MTBUR ~ Mean Time Between Unscheduled Renovals. TABLE 1 - GLOSSARY C T 75300 | __310/4300-600 / Reliability (TBF) 2710 mes 4360 HRs i Average Shop Cost | Ceonbbrned Renova) 3200 2300 Average Shop Cost (Unconfirmed Removal) 1200 400 | Fault-finding effectiveness 739% | or |__orraunswrae) (typical) l TABLE 2 — EFFECT OF INCREASING FUNCTIONALITY AND RELTABILTTY ON ELECTRONTCS MAINTENANCE 1168Air Condi tioning Pressurisation Systens ‘Ait Conditioning system Equipment Cooling System Cargo Heating Systens. Autopilot Autoflight and Flight Managenent Syste Communications Cabin Interconmunication Data Systems ‘Audio Managenent Systen Radio Management Panels BF Systene Blectrical Fover Main Electrical Generating System Bnergency Electrical Generating System Dic. Pover System. Hire Protection Engine Fire Detection Systens APU Fire Detection Systems Snoke Detector Systes Flight Controls Blectronte Flying Control Systens Flap and Slat syste Fuel Fuel Quantity Indicating systen. Hydraulic Pover Reports via other systems. Toe and Rain Protection Probe Heat Systems. TABLE 3 1169 Indicating/Recording Systens Plight Warning systens Electronic Instrument Systens Flight Recorder System Airborne Integrated Data Systen Veight and Balance Systens Printer Landing Gear Landing Gear Control Systens Brake and Steering Control Systems ‘Tyre Pressure Indicating Sys! Air Data Systens Inertial Reference systens Us's voR’s at ATC Transponders Mis's Radio Altinetere Weather Radars aDF's Head Up Display. Pneumatic Bleed Control Systens Water/vaste Toilet systen. Airborne Aucilaty Pe AuxtLiary Pover Unit. ngines Engine Control Systens Engine Vibration Monitor. 1 Directly connected systems only Listed. ‘one, tvo or several sub-systens are connected as appropriate. Not all LRU's Vithin a sub-system are directly connected to the CFDS - typically, one L.R.U. reports for several others. CFDS USER SYSTENS,\ ‘ge 1 CFS Component son gos Laat Ce ag Papo BITE Cones ond iin (965) Figure & CFOS wobiocre Fame