APIM 13-012
ARINC Project Initiation/Modification (APIM)
1.0
Name of Proposed Project
APIM 13-012
Low Frequency Underwater Locator Beacon (LF-ULB)
2.0
Subcommittee Assignment and Project Support
2.1
Identify AEEC Group
ULB Working Group of SAI Subcommittee
2.2
Support for the activity
Airlines:
FedEx, United, Southwest, Lufthansa, TAP Airframe Manufacturers:
Boeing Airbus Bombardier Suppliers: Today identified
Dukane (Sarasota, Florida) Novega (Sulzberg, Germany) Thales (Toulouse, France)
2.3
Commitment for resources
Airlines: TBD Airframe Manufacturers: Airbus - Yes Boeing - Yes Bombardier - TBC Suppliers: TBD Chairman:
Robert Swanson (FedEx)
2.4 Recommended
Coordination with other groups
SAE Aerospace related to AS6254Minimum Performance Standard for Low Frequency Underwater Locating Devices (Acoustic - self-Powered)
3.0
Project Scope (why and when standard is needed)
Today, aircraft are equipped with Flight Recorders with Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB). The range of the current used Flight Recorder ULB’s is limited due to the used frequency of 37.5 kHz.
An initiative has been founded to investigate in Wreckage Localization Technology where among other things, a Low Frequency ULB transmitting on a frequency between 8 to 9 kHz was proposed.
In 2012 SAE Aerospace has published an Aerospace Standard (AS6254) to cover the Minimum Performance Standard for Low Frequency Underwater Locating Devices (LF-ULB) transmitting on a frequency of 8.8 kHz ±1 kHz.
ICAO published its annex 6 amendment 36 (Nov 2012), stating that a LF-ULB shall be installed on all aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of over 27,000 kg, operating over water at particular distances to land suitable for making an emergency landing.
This ICAO requirement is currently in the process to become national rules by local Airworthiness Authorities.
3.1 Description
This APIM proposes standardization of the LF-ULB/bracket footprint to Aircraft structure, taking the location of the four fixation points into account.
The ARINC standard will include: - The definition of the fixation points
- The standardization of the maximum space envelop (Depth: Wide: Length) of the parts to be installed.
- The definition of the bracket
- The determination of the maximum acceleration the ULB shall remain attached to the local structure.
3.2
Planned usage of the envisioned specification
New aircraft developments planned to use this specification yes no Airbus: A320, A330, A340, A380 and A350 family Aircraft
Boeing: TBD
Bombardier: TBD
Modification/retrofit requirement yes no
Specify: Airworthiness Authorities may require retrofit
Needed for airframe manufacturer or airline project yes no Airbus: A320, A330, A340, A380 and A350 family Aircraft
Boeing: TBC
Bombardier: TBC
Mandate/regulatory requirement yes no
Program and date:
ICAO annex 6 (AMD 36) at the earliest practical date but not later than 01.01.2018
Is the activity defining/changing an infrastructure standard? yes no
Specify (e.g., ARINC 429)
When is the ARINC standard required? 2015
What is driving this date? As specified in ICAO annex 6 (AMD 36) and Aircraft manufacturing lead time
Are 18 months (min) available for standardization work? yes no If NO please specify solution:
Are Patent(s) involved? yes no
3.3
Issues to be worked
Mechanical Interface (ULB bracket(s) to aircraft structure) Maximum space envelope of the ULB with bracket
Maximum acceleration by which the bracket (with ULB installed) will not separate from the local Aircraft structure.
o SAE AS6254 §6.1 requires tests with 1000g for ULB/bracket o CS 25-561 - Crash survival loads - different loads up to 16g o CS-25 - Amendment 13 AMC 25.1459 (b)
10g - applicable for DFDR Battery check/change
3.3.1
Proposal for bracket footprint with mounting holes to Aircraft
structure
Hereafter are given some preliminary information about the definitions which could be selected in the ARINC standard.
Based on the available information about particular ULB dimensions, a model in cylindrical form with the maximum dimensions of L=17 cm, D=6.5 cm has been prepared. Taking the recommended brackets (see §§ 3.3.3 & 3.3.4) into account, the footprint will be as follows.
Figure 1: Example ULB footprint
For the screw holes, a diameter of 6.4 mm has been chosen to fix the brackets with appropriate screws (Ø=6.35 mm 0.25”) to the Aircraft structure.
9.0cm 6.0cm 18.0cm 4.5cm 2.0cm 2.0cm
3.3.2
Maximum space allocation for Bracket with ULB installed
Taking an ULB with a maximum length of 17 cm, a diameter of max 6.5 cm and the recommended bracket into consideration by adding a margin of 1 cm into each direction, the calculated space is as follows.
Figure 2: Simplified space envelop model
Based on the type of bracket, accessibility for ULB replacement is to be considered. 9.0cm 5.5cm 5.5cm 12.0cm 10.0cm 6.0cm
3.3.3
Example 1 - ULB single bracket design
Figure 3: Bracket with ULB
3.3.4
Example 2 - ULB dual bracket design
4.0 Benefits
4.1 Basic
benefits
Operational enhancements yes no
For equipment standards:
a. Is this a hardware characteristic? yes no
b. Is this a software characteristic? yes no
c. Interchangeable interface definition? yes no
d. Interchangeable function definition? yes no
If not fully interchangeable, please explain:
Is this a software interface and protocol standard? yes no Specify:
Product offered by more than one supplier yes no
Identify: Thales, Dukane, Novega
4.2
Specific project benefits
To have a standardized equipment interface supporting interchangeability and lower cost.
4.2.1
Benefits for Airlines
To be able to choose between several interchangeable LF-ULBs.
4.2.2
Benefits for Airframe Manufacturers
To have one aircraft installation defined for the different LF-ULB sources
4.2.3
Benefits for Avionics Equipment Suppliers
To be able to offer their LF-ULB to airlines and airframers, without requiring a specific installation.
5.0
Documents to be Produced and Date of Expected Result
5.1 Meetings
and
Expected Document Completion
The following table identifies the number of meetings and proposed meeting days needed to produce the documents described above.
Activity Mtgs Mtg-Days (Total)
Expected
Start Date Completion Date Expected
New ARINC
Standard Monthly WebEx End 2013 April 2015
Two 2-days meetings for kick-off and final review 4
6.0 Comments
For IA Staff use
Date Received: IA Staff Assigned:
Estimated Cost: Potential impact:
(A. Safety B. Regulatory C. New aircraft/system D. Other)
Forward to committee(s) (AEEC, AMC, FSEMC): Date Forwarded:
Committee resolution:
(0 Withdrawn 1 Authorized 2 Deferred 3 More detail needed 4 Rejected)
Assigned Priority: Date of Resolution:
(A High - execute first B Normal - may be deferred.)