Joint Planning Development Office Interagency Portfolio Systems

Joint Planning Development Office Interagency Portfolio & Systems Analysis Division Next. Gen Long Term Tradespace Analysis Strategy January 27, 2010 GMU Innovations in NAS-Wide Simulation Workshop

Key Points 1. Next. Gen Stakeholder Key Decisions Roadmap 2. Commitment & Alignment Issues 3. Key Decisions 4. Tradespace Exploration 5. Alternative Modeling Abstraction Issues

Next. Gen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond Business Cases & Commitments Conduct R&D Deployment & Operations 16 15 Policy Approved 1 High Fidelity Con. Ops 2 Portfolio Results Demos Risk Management Coordination 3 b Policy Strategies 7 4 5 3 10 9 3 a Partnership Commitments 1 3 c Architecture Baselined 3 d Partnership Plans Baselined 3 e Budgets 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test 1 Implementatio n Validation Includes manufacturers & airports 6 Policy Development Standards Development 8 13 Testing 12 Development, Theoretical Feasibility Established Safety, Security, V&V 17 Mfg, Implementation 11 R&D Development Standards Approved 14 Infrastructure, Performance Established Stakeholder Procurements V&V Certification 18 Training, Facilities Deployment 19 Operations GOA L

Next. Gen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond 1 High Fidelity Con. Ops 3 a 2 Portfolio Results 3 3 b Risk Management Coordination Policy Strategies Partnership Commitments 1 3 c Architecture Baselined 3 d Partnership Plans Baselined 3 e Budgets 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test Business Cases & Commitments/ Alignment Where we are today: Vision, Con-Ops, IWP, RTT’s, Primary & Secondary Owners, Initial Issues: Portfolio Results Integrated Work Plan is a menu of possible Next. Gen long term implementations. Not sufficient specificity to focus partnership R&D. Initial portfolio results for the long term have significant challenges in environmental costs and potentially highend GA equipage costs. Research Technology Transfer teams require more customer specifications and long term industry alignment.

Next. Gen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond ALIGNMENT 1 High Fidelity Con. Ops 3 a 2 Portfolio Results 3 b Risk Management Coordination RESEARCH Policy Strategies POLICIES 3 Partnership Commitments 1 3 c Architecture Baselined INFRASTRUCTURE 3 d Partnership Plans Baselined 3 e Budgets 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test PROCECURES Business Cases & Commitments MANUFACTURING

Next. Gen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond ALIGNMENT 1 High Fidelity CRITICAL DECISIONS Con. Ops 3 a 2 Portfolio Results 3 3 b Risk Management Coordination Policy Strategies Partnership Commitments 1 3 c Architecture Baselined 3 d Partnership Plans Baselined 3 e Budgets 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test Business Cases & Commitments 1. Air/Ground Division of Responsibility. 2. Level of Automation 3. Equipage Requirements and Timing. 4. Mandated Environmental Targets. . 5. Airports Strategies. 6. Facilities Consolidation. 7. Information Sharing Architecture.

Critical Long Term Next. Gen Decisions The capabilities, performance, costs, schedule and risk associated with the development, implementation and operation of the Next. Gen system will be determined by decisions made in resolving seven key design issues. These decisions involve explicit trade-offs. Objective and transparent resolution of these decisions by the FAA, multi-agency and stakeholder community ensures the management of consistent expectations and the timely achievement of Next. Gen. Therefore, policy-level plans and milestones to arrive at informed resolution of these key decisions are essential 1. Air/Ground Division of Responsibility. The division of responsibility between the flight deck and ground controllers for trajectory management and aircraft separation determines the amount of capability required in aircraft flight management systems and the associated costs. 2. Level of Automation. Higher levels of automation for trajectory management and aircraft separation enable higher NAS performance. However, validation and verification of a software intensive system can be a major cost driver. System resilience to offnominal operations and failures must be assured, including human capacity to manage degraded system conditions. 3. Equipage Requirements and Timing. The cost and timing of new equipage relative to the availability of modernized NAS infrastructure and procedures that provide user economic benefits is the largest variable in the users’ business case. Early decisions on equipage standards and timing maximize cost-beneficial forward-fit strategies but need to be accompanied by complimentary mandate and incentivization decisions for fleet retrofits. 4. Mandated Environmental Targets. The stringency of environmental constraints is the largest variable in determining NAS future performance – particularly capacity. Decisions will drive the priority of technology and operational requirements. 5. Airport Strategies. Future runway parallel separation standards will define the extent to which capacity at currently congested airports and metro-plexes can be increased or whether secondary airports are required for future demand. 6. Facilities Consolidation. A major factor in both capital and operating costs is the facilities plan for the Next. Gen NAS and the degree to which it eliminates, consolidates, and finds dual public uses for Federal aviation domain requirements. 7. Information Sharing Architecture. The Next. Gen architecture is premised on net-centric information sharing across system users and operators. Decisions on governance and information security standards will set the boundaries within which the

Portfolio Tradespace Analysis Automation vs. Human Implementations Timeframes Adv. Traffic Management Systems Policies & Key Decisions Security & Safety Levels Equipage Strategie s Procedures & Rules of the Road Physical Infrastructure (Facilities, Ports, Stations, Hubs, Centers)

Portfolio Tradespace Analysis Technology Level Time (Ground Based and Airborne) Extent of Deployment % Avionics Geographic Distribution of Airports Airframe/Engine Equipage New Runways Secondary Airports Up-Gauging # Alternative 1 FAA RTCA TF 5 2018 NGOps-3 Commercial: 100% GA: 50% As defined by TF 5 As planned Baseline 2 Runway Solution 2025 NGOps-3 Mixed Fleet Where Applicable Additional runways with current rules 3 Runway Plus Solution 2025 NGOps-4 Mixed Fleet Where Applicable Secondary Airports Commercial: 100% 2025 NGOps-4 Everywhere Solution GA: 50% Commercial: 100% GA: 50% 4 5 Aircraft Solution 2025 NGOps-5 Airlines Manufactures Baseline Baseline Additional runways with improved rules Baseline Where Applicable As planned Secondary arpts first; new hubs when req'd Baseline Where Applicable As planned plus new stub runways Baseline Accelerated 6 Super Dense NGOps Commercial: 100% 2025 NGOps-4 everywhere -4 GA: 50% Baseline As planned Baseline Accelerated 7 NGOps-5 @ Congested A/P, Super Dense NGOps 2025 -5 NGOps-4 everywhere else Mixed Fleet Baseline As planned Baseline Accelerated 8 Full Aircraft Solution 2025 NGOps-5 @ Congested A/P, NGOps-4 everywhere else Mixed Fleet Baseline Only existing TAF Baseline New A/C included at 10% per year Baseline 9 Full Solution 2025 NGOps-5 Commercial: 100% GA: 50% Where Applicable Secondary Airports Next. Gen enabled selected for OEPrunways 35 Baseline Accelerated 10 2035 Target 2035 NGOps-5 (2025 delay) Baseline Where Applicable Secondary Airports Next. Gen enabled selected for OEPrunways 35 Baseline Accelerated 11 Environment 2025 NGOps-4 (N+2 accelerated) Commercial: 100% GA: 50% Baseline Secondary Airports selected for OEP 35 Baseline Accelerated Baseline Baseline Baseline Accelerated 12 13 Market Policy (Gov't 2025 limits demand) Do. D Scenario No additional improvements; NG-3 2025 NGOps-4 Everywhere 100% Do. D equipped 100% Do. D facilities

Systematic Approach to Evaluate A Portfolio of Operational Improvements (Ois) for Costs, Risks and Benefits Contributors: Marc Narkus-Kramer, Monica Alcabin and Bob Hemm January 25, 2010

10 Objective 4 Develop a way of translating the different portfolios of Operational Improvements (defined in the IWP associated) with a Next. Gen Operational Level (NGOps-X) into costs, benefit and risks that can feed the Interagency Portfolio and System Analysis models and is consistent

11 Ois to NGOps Levels ID Name NGOps-1 NGOps-2 NGOps-3 NGOps-4 NGOps-5 NGOps-6 OI-0303 TMI with Flight-Specific Trajectories 1 OI-0305 Continuous Flight Day Evaluation 1 OI-0306 Provide Interactive Flight Planning from Anywhere 1 OI-0307 Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management OI-0309 Use Optimized Profile Descent OI-0311 Increased Capacity and Efficiency Using RNAV and RNP 1 1 Enhanced Visual Separation for Successive OI-0316 Approaches OI-0318 Arrival Time-Based Metering - Controller Advisories 1 OI-0319 Time-Based Metering into En Route Streams 1 OI-0320 Initial Surface Traffic Management 1 OI-0321 Enhanced Surface Traffic Operations 1 OI-0322 Low-Visibility Surface Operations 1 Time-Based Metering Using RNP and RNAV Route OI-0325 Assignments 1 OI-0326 Airborne Merging and Spacing - Single Runway OI-0327 Surface Management - Arrivals/Winter Ops/Runway Configuration 1 OI-0330 Time-Based and Metered Routes with OPD 1 1 1

COSTS

13 Translation from Ois to NGOps Level to Costs Giles et al. , PRELIMINARY TRADE SPACE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE LEVELS OF NEXTGEN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE, MITRE/CAASD MP 090272, January 2010

[1] Example of Translating Functional Descriptions into Costs ESLOC (k) 14 Capability Functionality Description Ride reports provided to ATC automation via data link, and processed by ATC automation Estimate Source ER-RRPT-ACDR in P-ATM FAA Data Comm Initial Investment Analysis 15 More complex clearances 112 Updates to CPDLC and context management applications in ERAM; introduction of ADS-C application to ERAM 20 Automated clearance delivery for TFM route and altitude change, TOD maneuvers, and pilot requests received via data link ER-ACLR-TRC, ER-ACLR-RPR, ER-ACLRTODC in P-ATM 15 State and intent information provided to ATC automation via data link, and processed by ATC automation ER-TRAJ-TMED in P-ATM 15 Routine information disseminated via data comm 11 Pilot requests received via data comm and notified to controller 10 Clearances in Response to Pilot Requests 20 Clearances (including those for TFM route and altitude change) delivered via data comm FAA Data Comm Initial Investment Analysis Analogy ER-ACLR-RPR in P-ATM Analogy 4 Problem resolutions generated for TFM changes and pilot requests received via data comm Analogy 15 Transfer of comm automatic (or manually initiated) for aircraft capable of data comm 10 Automatic Sector Transfer 171 Redevelopment of ERAM R 1 to meet DO-278 AL 4 Analogy ER-AST in P-ATM Analogy

Cost Results (2009 $ millions) Approp. WBS Element Min Cost Mode Cost Max Cost F&E 1. 0 Mission Analysis Pre-decisional F&E 2. 0 Investment Analysis Pre-decisional F&E 3. 0 Solution Development Pre-decisional F&E 4. 0 Implementation Pre-decisional F&E 5. 0 In-Service Management Pre-decisional F&E Total Pre-decisional O&M 5. 0 In-Service Management Pre-decisional O&M 6. 0 Disposition Pre-decisional O&M Total Pre-decisional Grand Total Pre-decisional

BENEFITS

17 Translation from Ois to NGOps to Benefits OIs NGOps Key addition to explain translation From NGops to model parameters Benefit Mechanisms Model parameters

Benefit Mechanisms Maximize Individual Runway Capacity Time-based Metering with RNAV/RNP Precision 4 -DT TMA and Mc. TMA Wind-dependent Wake arrivals MIT Point in space metering Tailored arrivals Improved precision delivery to meter fix Deconflict departures, IFR and MVFR CAVS Tighten precision spacing to the threshold 3 D PAM increase departure gates, Fully utilize departure runways Single runway MIT/ wind-based Separation reduction Departure RNAV Divergent departures Improved flows ‘through en route system Improved regular flows through system removes gaps, improved sequencing, reduce controller Meter fix Approach fix Threshold Runways Merging and spacing in the terminal area - to reduce vectoring and deliver aircraft to the final approach fix workload constraints Reduced Separation to 3 nmi 18 RPI Improved C-ATM/TFM Integrating Wx into Decision Support Tools Increased Controller productivity Integrated Arrival and Departure (big airspace) ADS-B Merging And Spacing Reduced intersecting Routes and reduced route width RNAV/RNP

19 Maximize Multi-runway Capacity departure Improved flows ‘through en route system Meter fix Approach fix Runways Runway Access (parallel and converging runways) Departures Arrivals CSPR Dependent Class-based Dependent Wind-based Paired CSPR displaced TH Dependent Wind-based Paired wind-based Wake Vortex CSPR - all wt class >=1200 ADS-B assisted paired depared - wind dependent simultaneous/ independent >=2500 Wake Vortex CSPR - current order Small & Large >= 1200 Wake Vortex CSPR - all wt class >=1200 Wind-based >=750 ft

20 How to Use Benefit Mechanisms 4 Define the benefit mechanisms associated with the portfolio of Ois 4 Relate these Ois to “pseudo programs” so that the costing and benefits are consistent 4 Check to see that bottlenecks don’t move from one constrained resource to another (often not done) 4 Translate benefit mechanisms into model parameters (e. g. inter-arrival average times and the standard deviation at the meter fix)

RISK ASSESSMENT

Implementation Steps* Business Cases & Commitments Conduct R & D Validation 15 1 16 Stakeholder Procurements Policy Approved High Fidelity Con. Ops 10 9 3 a Demos 2 Standards Approved 13 Risk Management Coordination 7 4 3 b Theoretical Feasibility Established Policy Development Policy Strategies 3 R&D Development V&V Certification Development, Mfg, Implementation 11 5 14 Performance Established 8 18 Infrastructure, Training, Facilities Safety, Security, V&V Partnership Commitments 1 Operations Standards Development Architecture Baselined GOAL Category 3 d 4 Throughput (flights / day) Partnership Plans Baselined 4 Average Delay (min) 3 e 4 Climate (total Budgets fuel burn) 4 LAQ (fuel • Being updated to be consistent with other documents describing this process 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test Includes manufacturers & airports Deployment 19 6 3 c 17 Testing 12 Portfolio Results 1 Deployment & Operations implementation burn below 3000 ft) 4 Noise (size of affected population) End State Performance Metrics

Risks and Time Estimates: Interval Management/ Delegated Visual in IMC or MMC Step # Step 1 2 3 High Fidelity Con. Ops (Concept of operations) Portfolio Results (benefits and constraints) Partnership Commitments 1 Interval Management/ Delegated Time Visual in IMC or MMC Exists done Risk Assessment done none Exists but not for mixed equipage done none SBS office and UPS but seeking US 1 year Airways Much of the development was for 2 years VMC CAVS and this needs to be extended to MMC and IMC conditions 4 R&D Development (proof of concept) 5 Standards Development Much of the standards were (end-to-end performance and developed for the VMC UPS technical requirements; application interoperability requirements) 6 Validate feasibility (operational procedures and human factors) Safety, Security, V&V (operational safety assessment) Initial feasibility has been established for aircraft in lab Live Demos (demonstration and validation) Standards Approved (certify equipment) US Airways Performance Established (no separate item) Part of US Airway live demonstrations 7 8 9 10 23 done No significant safety analysis has been done Result of standards effort Concern that there won't be a Low partner airline • Acceptance of wake mitigation tools; Medium • EFB issues and location associated with regional jets; • Ability of the altitude data coming from ADS-B to accurately be displayed (after processing) as a glide slope deviation. 3 years Could be less if the UPS medium configuration meets the IMC and MMC requirements but if additions are needed then additional work is needed on standards. Possibly addressing wake and displays. with R and More effort needed to address wake medium D risk along with Security is still a major issue and medium stds must be addressed; dealing with developmen spoofing t Simultaneou Still a risk that no major airline will medium s with R and sign up unless there are subsidies; D planned as part of SBS program part of 3 Not serious risk if other issues are low years completed satisfactorily 1 additional Not serious risk if other issues are year with completed satisfactorily larger trials low

Estimated Time Line for Implementation 2010 High Fidelity Con. Ops 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Final V&V Certification (ops approval) Deployment Operations Policy Approved Stakeholder Procurements Portfolio Results Partnership Commitments 1 R&D Development Standards Development Validate feasibility Safety, Security, V&V Live Demos Standards Approved Performance Established Development, Mfg, Implementation OTE Testing Infrastructure, Training, Facilities 24

What Does the Analysis Indicate 4 Not completed (detailed analysis not run yet) 4 Most complex operational improvement portfolio (NGOps-5 and 6) is potentially too risky to be achieved by 2025 and could be very expensive 4 The next level down (NGOps-4) is achievable but still risky; within reasonable costs as stated by the FAA for Next. Gen 4 This coupled with expansion of secondary airports could result in a reasonable 2025 solution