Talk:Allied Standards Avionics Architecture Council

To Hervegirod,

Very helpful page. The link to Def Stan 00-74 was broken -- the target appears to have been removed after you created the page. I corrected it and added a second link to Part 2 of the standard.

It is my understanding that ARINC 653 is most suited to systems that require only periodic processes that are not interrupt-driven and therefore require relatively low latency (e.g., systems where a complete fixed schedule of some number of processes might executed at up to 1,000Hz or so), while Def Stan 00-74 handles interrupt-driven processes that require the low latency more typical of a traditional real-time operating system. Examples of the former might be a process that checks for weight-on-wheels, while the later might be detecting and responding to incoming ordnance in a fighter jet. If you agree, I could add that.

Regards, RobHn (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks !! There was nothing in wikipedia about Modular Avionics concept and related standards before. ARINC 653 have been used in liners IMAs such as in A380, but I don't think they used it for interrupt-driven processes like you said. However, it's a good idea to add this information IMHO. I seem to understand why you think that ARINC 653 "behaves" like that. Partitioning in ARINC 653 may imply that some process will have to wait for their turn to handle an interrupt. Is it your understanding ? Hervegirod (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for interest
As one who was there - I am responsible for the UK network concept being based on ATM and SDH, and I'd hardly admit that were it not true - this article confuses the phases and stages of ASAAC.


 * The Allied Standard Avionics Architecture Council (ASAAC) was established by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America with the objective of establishing the core processing standards to be applied to the embedded avionics of future military aircraft.


 * ASAAC Phase I: (Sept-92 to Feb-94)


 * This part of the programme was a feasibility study researching the possibilities of a Core Avionics Architecture Concept. It defined the main objectives of: Inter-changeability, Re-usability, Portability, Technology Transparency, Fault Tolerance, Extendability [sic], Maintainability[,] etc.


 * It also identified the concepts of the:


 * • Three Layer Software Model [Three Layer Stack]


 * • System Bueprints [sic]


 * The ASAAC Phase II programme was sponsored by the Ministry of Defence's of France, Germany, and the UK through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The French SPAé was the executive agency for the ASAAC programme and the Prime Contract was let to Dassault Thomson Avionique Modulaire (DTAM), a GIE type organisation under French company law formed on a 50-50 basis by Dassault and Thomson. The main aeronautic and electronics companies of France, Germany, and the UK took part in the ASAAC programme as sub-contractors of the DTAM GIE. The UK and German teams were the Industrial Avionics Working Group (IAWG), comprising GEC-Marconi, British Aerospace, and Smiths Industries Aerospace and Defense Systems; and the DASA ESG ASAAC Team (DEAT), comprising Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus and ESG Elektroniksystem-und Logistik-GmbH. Both teams had co-prime participant status in the programme with the DTAM. The contract was let on the 18th November 1997.


 * ASAAC Phase II - Stage 1: (Nov-97 to May-99)


 * This was purely a paper based part of the programme in which the ASAAC Standards and Concepts were defined and documented in a series of reports.


 * ASAAC Phase II – Stage 2: (Dec-99 to Sept-03)


 * This was the part of the programme where the concepts and standards defined in Phase II – Stage 1 were validated through a series of demonstrations using ASAAC standard software and hardware.

Some of the above can be verified at http://www.asd-stan.org/MOAA.html. Thanks are due to Matt M. for most of the rest. However, I have changed the tense of some of this to the past. Graham.Fountain | Talk 15:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a bit hard to find a reference for the US involvement in ASAAC Phase I. I've got this, from the introduction to a paper presented at ERA’94 Conference by Ross Edwards.


 * The Allied Standard Avionics Architecture Council (ASAAC) was established by the Air Senior National Representatives of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America with the intention of reducing procurement and support costs and improving technical and operational interoperability between NATO aircraft and aircraft weapons subsystems.

I do have a copy of the paper, but can't find a live version of it anywhere and aren't certain if or to where I could upload it. It's not classified, but I assume it's copyright. If Ross is the copyright holder, I guess I could contact him, but that might be tricky, as he's retired now. There's a reference to this paper at http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/media/computerscience/documents/researchprojects/WMC2013neil.pdf as "R. A. Edwards, “ASAAC Phase I Harmonized Concept Summary,” in Proceedings ERA Avionics Conference and Exhibition, UK, 1994.". There are some others that cite it, if searched for, and I think there’s some stuff from Alan Grigg and Allan Wake, etc., but none of these seem to mention US involvement themselves, and the references to Ross’ paper are much the same. Still, it doesn’t have to be on line to be citable in WP.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've emailed ERA in Leatherhead for the publication details of Ross' paper. Hopefully, they'll give enough to complete the reference. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The full ref from ERA is:
 * "R. A. Edwards, "ASAAC Phase I Harmonized Concept Summary", 1994 Avionics Conference and Exhibition Systems integration - is the sky the limit? Conference proceedings, ERA Report 94-0973, ERA Technology Ltd., August 1995, ISBN 0 7008 0587 7.

If no one objects to Ross’ paper or the ASD-STN web page as reliable, published sources, I’ll have a look at describing the ASAAC phases and stages better, citing these for reference.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)