Automated Radar Terminal System

Automated Radar Terminal System
Name	Automated Radar Terminal System
Acronym	ARTS
Developer	Raytheon (historical divisions), U.S. Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration
Introduced	1970s
Country	United States
Type	Terminal radar automation

Automated Radar Terminal System

The Automated Radar Terminal System is a terminal automation platform used in air traffic control facilities to process radar tracks, manage aircraft sequencing, and provide controller decision support at terminal control and tracon sites. It integrates radar inputs, flight plan databases, and human–machine interfaces to support procedures such as arrival sequencing, departure management, and conflict alerting for airspace around major airports. ARTS has been deployed and iterated by organizations including the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, and contractors such as Raytheon, interacting with standards from entities like RTCA and EUROCONTROL.

Overview

ARTS functions as a terminal automation backbone that fuses data from primary surveillance radars and secondary surveillance systems such as Secondary Surveillance Radar and Mode S transponders into coherent tracks for controllers. It provides tools for flight data processing linked to facilities like Terminal Radar Approach Control centers and major towers at hubs including John F. Kennedy International Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport. The suite historically includes display subsystems, track correlation, conflict probes, and automated handoff messages between adjacent centers such as En Route Automation Modernization-linked facilities. ARTS interacts with procedural frameworks established by Federal Aviation Regulations and operational concepts from NextGen modernization efforts.

History and Development

Development began in the late 1960s and 1970s amid modernization programs influenced by requirements from the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Air Force. Early programs drew on research from Massachusetts Institute of Technology laboratories and contractor initiatives by companies later consolidated into Raytheon and predecessors. Iterations addressed increasing traffic at major hubs like Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport and collision-avoidance concerns highlighted after incidents involving facilities serving LaGuardia Airport. Upgrades paralleled system advances exemplified by projects such as Host Computer System and coordination with projects under National Airspace System planning. Subsequent modernization efforts referenced Operational Evolution Partnership objectives and coordination with FAA Advisory Circulars and ICAO guidance.

System Architecture and Components

ARTS architecture comprises sensor interfaces, data processing modules, human–machine interface consoles, and communications gateways to adjacent facilities and airline data systems. Sensor input includes feeds from installations such as Airport Surveillance Radar and multilateration networks; secondary inputs include Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast consolidation and Flight Data Processing System records. Core components include the track fusion engine, conflict alert algorithms, electronic flight strip systems, and controller display units similar in role to those in En Route Automation Modernization facilities. Communications elements support protocols used by Air Traffic Control System Command Center and linkages to flight information from carriers like American Airlines and Delta Air Lines via data interchange standards promoted by RTCA panels.

Operational Use and Procedures

Controllers use ARTS to perform sequencing for arrivals and departures under procedures derived from guidance issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and coordinated with adjacent centers like New York Air Route Traffic Control Center and Chicago Center. Typical operations include automated handoffs, altitude and speed advisories, and runway occupancy monitoring at airports such as San Francisco International Airport. Procedures integrate ARTS outputs with approach control techniques developed from experiences at Atlanta Hartsfield and procedures encoded in Terminal Instrument Procedures charts. ARTS supports collaborative decision-making processes used during events like airspace congestion or ground interruptions, interfacing with traffic flow management systems run by agencies including the Air Traffic Control System Command Center.

Safety, Limitations, and Performance

ARTS provides safety enhancements through automated conflict alerting and track continuity but faces limitations tied to sensor quality, transponder reliability, and human factors documented in accidents and incidents investigated by bodies such as the National Transportation Safety Board. Performance can degrade in dense terminal airspace with complex procedures like simultaneous converging approaches used at airports including London Heathrow Airport (in comparative studies) or high-altitude sequencing at Denver International Airport. Limitations include legacy software architectures that complicate integration with modern systems such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast and cybersecurity concerns addressed in guidance from Department of Homeland Security and National Institute of Standards and Technology standards. Mitigations involve redundancy, procedural controls codified in FAA Order 7110.65, and upgrade programs aligned with NextGen objectives.

Regulatory and Certification Framework

Certification and operational approval of ARTS implementations follow processes overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration and are informed by standards from RTCA, ICAO, and advisory input from industry groups such as Air Traffic Control Association. Safety assessments reference methodologies used by National Transportation Safety Board investigations and Joint Authorities Technical Review-style panels for major modernization programs. Upgrades require compliance with rules in Federal Aviation Regulations and coordination with Airport Operations stakeholders, including airline operators represented by groups like Airlines for America, labor organizations such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and equipment suppliers governed by procurement frameworks used by General Services Administration and defense contracting practices when military interoperability is required.

Category:Air traffic control systems