![[Image]](pict1.jpg)
Dsiplay Systems From
Burroughs
U.S. General Accounting Office Staff
Study ARTS III
System Description for Automated Radar
Terminal Air Traffic Control System (ARTS II) - Enhancements
One of the recommendations of a presidential task force, established in 1961, called for the application of computer technology to the air traffic control system. The FAA's automation efforts have been in two broad, but related, areas--the enroute system and the terminal system.
In 1961, President Kennedy asked for a long-range plan to ensure safe and efficient control of all air traffic within the United States. A taskforce was established by the Administrator of the FAA to prepare this plan. The task force report, under the name "Project Beacon," submitted an analysis of the existing methods of air traffic control, recommended a number of near term improvements, and presented an advanced concept for an air traffic control system to meet future needs.
The task force recognized the huge demand for air transportation and the implications the rapid rate of increase would have on the air traffic controllers, who were already considered to be operating at capacity. One solution to this problem obviously, would have been to steadily increase the number of controllers. Terminal facilities are limited by space however, and this answer would have prompted more problems than solutions. An alternative, which "Project Beacon" recommended, called for the application of computer technology to the system. The Automated Radar Terminal System {ARTS) is one outgrowth of this proposal. In addition, they recommended IFR aircraft be equipped with a transponder which would electronically provide the aircraft's identity and altitude to the controller.
Control of aircraft in the terminal airspace requires that each aircraft be precisely identified by position, altitude and speed. Prior to automation, the controller identified each "blip" on his radar display by extensive radio communications with the pilot. Not only was this time consuming; it was also arduous and inefficient as the controller either relied on his memory or wrote all this data on paper or plastic strips ("shrimp boats") which were then placed on the radar display adjacent to its associated blip. As the aircraft and its corresponding blip moved on the radar display, the controller then physically moved the associated shrimp boat.
ARTS was conceived to eliminate these manual chores and reduce the amount of radio communications required to establish aircraft identity. Continuous positive aircraft identity, ground speed and altitude would now be obtained via the transponder and computer and shown in code (alphanumerics) directly on the radar display. As a result, the controller would be free to effectively serve more aircraft than before. Safety hazards inherent in the old system would also be overcome. The FAA completed a system implementation plan in June 1962 and work was begun on the development of a workable automated air traffic control system for use in high volume terminal areas. The first installation (ARTS-I), at Atlanta, served as an operational test system. Later, an automated terminal system (ARTS I-A) was installed in a common IFR room established to provide airports in the New York City area with radar control capability.
Originally, the FAA planned to use the same type of terminal automated air traffic control equipment as that being developed for the Enroute centers. However, the requirements for terminal operations are significantly different than those for enroute centers. For instance, terminal controllers are primarily interested in the actual position and identity of each aircraft. Enroute controllers are concerned more with the reconciliation of planned position to the actual position. Another difference, due to greater concentration of aircraft in the terminal airspace, is that a higher RADAR antenna rotation rate is required in the terminal areas. Also, obtaining physical space for the installation of automation equipment presented more of a problem at the terminals than it did at the enroute centers.
In February, 1969, the FAA awarded a contract to the Univac Federal Systems Division of Sperry Rand Corporation for development, production and installation of an automated radar terminal system (ARTS-III). The ARTS III consists of three subsystems: (1) a data acquisition subsystem; (2) a data processing subsystem; and (3) a data entry and display subsystem.
The data acquisition subsystem receives beacon video and control signals from which it detects beacon replies, generates range and azimuth data, and transmits reply messages to the data processing subsystem. The latter performs target detection, tracking, processing of flight data, transfer of control, controller message processing, and display processing consisting of "formatting" display data and refreshing the data entry and display subsystem. This last subsystem displays the analog representation of both the radar and beacon video, displays the alphanumeric data, and transmits controller-entered keyboard data to the data processing subsystem.
Univac, the prime contractor, produced the data processing subsystem and computer software. The data acquisition subsystem was built by the Burroughs Corporation and the data entry and display subsystem by Texas Instruments Incorporated, as Univac subcontractors.
Sixty-four (64) of these systems will be installed throughout the country. As the demand for service increases at each airport and & more functions are required, these systems can be expanded modularly. The first system was delivered on December 22, 1970. Since then an additional 62 have been delivered (as of February 1, 1973) and current proections are that the last system will be tested and in use by late-1973.
The purpose of the Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS III) is to increase safety and to provide better service to the user by providing for (1) alphanumeric information on the terminal area air traffic controller's radar display and (2) the automatic transfer of flight data between computers in the terminal areas and the Air Route Traffic Control Centers.
The ARTS III system consists of three subsystems: (1) a data acquisition subsystem; (2) a data processing subsystem; and (3) a data entry and dis- play subsystem. Sixty-four (64) of these systems are being procured for locations throughout the country. As of February 1, 1973, 63 systems had been delivered; initial operating capability had been achieved by 56; and operational readiness demonstration had been achieved by 48.
The ARTS III program is a follow-on system of the earlier ARTS I and ARTS IA systems installed at Atlanta and New York respectively.
The ARTS II system is an automation system being designed for smaller airports served by FAA radar-equipped control towers. A contract was recently awarded by the FAA for delivery of prototype systems for testing and evaluation.
The ARTS III program is a follow-on system of the earlier ARTS I and ARTS IA systems installed at Atlanta and New York respectively. The ARTS II system is an automation system being designed for smaller airports served by FAA radar-equipped control towers. A contract was recently awarded by the FAA for delivery of prototype systems for testing and evaluation.
Control of aircraft in the terminal airspace requires that each aircraft be precisely identified by position, altitude and speed. Prior to automation, the controller identified each "blip" on his radar display by extensive radio communications with the pilot. Not only was this time consuming; it was also arduous and inefficient as the controller either relied on his memory or wrote all this data on paper or plastic strips ("shrimp boats") which were then placed on the radar display adjacent to its associated blip. As the aircraft and its corresponding blip moved on the radar display, the controller then physically moved the associated shrimp boat.
ARTS was conceived to eliminate these manual chores and reduce the amount of radio communications required to establish aircraft identity. Continuous positive aircraft 1dent1ty, ground speed and altitude would now be obtained via the transponder and computer and shown in code (alphanumerics) directly on the radar display. As a result, the controller would be free to effectively serve more aircraft than before. Safety hazards inherent in the old system would also be overcome. The FAA completed a system implementation plan in June 1962 and work was then begun on the development of a workable automated air traffic control system for use in high volume terminal areas. The first installation (ARTS-I), at Atlanta, served as an operational test system. Later, an automated terminal system (ARTS I-A) was installed in a common IFR room established to provide airports in the New York City area with radar control capability.
Originally, the FAA planned to use the same type of terminal automated air traffic control equipment as that being developed for the enroute centers. However, the requirements for terminal operations are significantly different than those for enroute centers. For instance, terminal controllers are primarily interested in the actual position and identity of each aircraft. Enroute controllers, though, are concerned more with the reconciliation of planned position to the actual position. Another difference, due to greater concentration of aircraft in the terminal airspace, is that a higher radar antenna rotation rate is required in the terminal areas. Also, obtaining physical space for the installation of automation equipment presented more of a problem at the terminals than it did at the enroute centers.
Initial operating capability (IOC) was first achieved by an ARTS III system on February 19, 1971, at the FAA Academy.
The first operational readiness demonstration (ORD) of an ARTS III system was also held at the FAA Academy in February 1971.
System Description for Automated Radar Terminal Air Traffic Control System (ARTS II) - Enhancements