Joint Planning Development Office Interagency Portfolio & Systems Analysis Division January 27, 2010
advertisement
Joint Planning Development Office Interagency Portfolio & Systems Analysis Division NextGen Long Term Tradespace Analysis Strategy January 27, 2010 GMU Innovations in NAS-Wide Simulation Workshop Key Points 1.NextGen Stakeholder Key Decisions Roadmap 2.Commitment & Alignment Issues 3.Key Decisions 4.Tradespace Exploration 5. Alternative Modeling Abstraction Issues NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond Business Cases & Commitments 15 1 High Fidelity ConOps 9 3a 2 Portfolio Results Risk Management Coordination 7 4 3b Policy Strategies Policy Development Partnership Commitments1 3c 6 Architecture Baselined 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e Budgets 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test 1 Includes manufacturers & airports Standards Development 8 Safety, Security, V&V 16 Policy Approved Standards Approved 13 Testing 12 17 Development, Mfg, Implementation 11 R&D Development 3 10 Demos Theoretical Feasibility Established 5 Deployment & Operations Implementation Validation Conduct R&D 14 Performance Established Infrastructure, Training, Facilities 18 19 Stakeholder Procurements V&V Certification Deployment Operations GOAL NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond 1 High Fidelity ConOps 3a 2 Portfolio Results Risk Management Coordination 3b Policy Strategies 3 Partnership Commitments1 3c Architecture Baselined 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test Budgets Business Cases & Commitments/Alig nment 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 NextGen 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 high-end GA equipage costs. Research Technology Transfer teams require more customer specifications and long term industry alignment. NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond 1 ALIGNMENT High Fidelity ConOps 3a 2 Portfolio Results Risk Management Coordination RESEARCH 3b Policy Strategies POLICIES 3 Partnership Commitments1 3c Architecture Baselined INFRASTRUCTURE 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e 20 Budgets PROCECURES Business Cases & Commitments Iterative Org. / Reality Test MANUFACTURING NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond 1 ALIGNMENT High Fidelity ConOps 3a 2 Portfolio Results Risk Management Coordination 3b Policy Strategies 3 Architecture Baselined 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e 20 Budgets Business Cases & Commitments Iterative Org. / Reality Test 1. Air/Ground Division of Responsibility. 2. Level of Automation 3. Equipage Requirements and Timing. Partnership Commitments1 3c CRITICAL DECISIONS 4. Mandated Environmental Targets.. 5. Airports Strategies. 6. Facilities Consolidation. 7. Information Sharing Architecture. Critical Long Term NextGen Decisions The capabilities, performance, costs, schedule and risk associated with the development, implementation and operation of the NextGen 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 NextGen. 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 off-nominal 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 costbeneficial 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 NextGen NAS and the degree to which it eliminates, consolidates, and finds dual public uses for Federal aviation domain requirements. 7. Information Sharing Architecture. The NextGen 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 NextGen system must operate Portfolio Tradespace Analysis Automation vs. Human Implementations Timeframes Adv. Traffic Management Systems Policies & Key Decisions Security & Safety Levels Equipage Strategies Procedures & Rules of the Road Physical Infrastructure (Facilities, Ports, Stations, Hubs, Centers) Portfolio Tradespace Analysis Extent of Deployment Technology Level Time (Ground Based and Airborne) % Avionics Geographic Distribution of Airports Airframe/Engine Equipage New Runways Secondary Airports Up-Gauging # Alternative 1 FAA RTCA TF5 2018 NGOps-3 Commercial: 100% GA: 50% As defined by TF5 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 4 Secondary Airports Solution 2025 NGOps-4 Everywhere Commercial: 100% GA: 50% 5 Aircraft Solution 2025 6 Super Dense NGOps-4 7 Airlines Manufactures Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Additional runways with improved rules Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Where Applicable As planned Secondary arpts first; new hubs when req'd Baseline Baseline Baseline Commercial: 100% GA: 50% Where Applicable As planned plus new stub runways Baseline Baseline Accelerated Accelerated 2025 NGOps-4 everywhere Commercial: 100% GA: 50% Baseline As planned Baseline Baseline Accelerated Accelerated Super Dense NGOps-5 NGOps-5 @ Congested A/P, 2025 NGOps-4 everywhere else Mixed Fleet Baseline As planned Baseline Baseline Accelerated Accelerated 8 Full Aircraft Solution NGOps-5 @ Congested A/P, 2025 NGOps-4 everywhere else Mixed Fleet Baseline Only existing TAF Baseline New A/C included at 10% per year Baseline Baseline 9 Full Solution 2025 NGOps-5 Commercial: 100% GA: 50% Where Applicable NextGen enabled runways Secondary Airports selected for OEP35 Baseline Accelerated Accelerated 10 2035 Target (2025 delay) 2035 NGOps-5 Baseline Where Applicable NextGen enabled runways Secondary Airports selected for OEP35 Baseline Accelerated Accelerated 11 Environment (N+2 accelerated) 2025 NGOps-4 Commercial: 100% GA: 50% Baseline Baseline Secondary Airports selected for OEP35 Baseline Accelerated Accelerated 12 Market Policy (Gov't limits demand) 2025 No additional improvements; NG-3 Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline 13 DoD Scenario Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Accelerated NGOps-5 2025 NGOps-4 Everywhere 100% DoD equipped 100% DoD 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 Objective Develop a way of translating the different portfolios of Operational Improvements (defined in the IWP associated) with a NextGen Operational Level (NGOps-X) into costs, benefit and risks that can feed the Interagency Portfolio and System Analysis models and is consistent 10 Ois to NGOps Levels ID Name NGOps-1 NGOps-2 OI-0303 TMI with Flight-Specific Trajectories 1 OI-0305 Continuous Flight Day Evaluation 1 OI-0306 Provide Interactive Flight Planning from Anywhere OI-0307 Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management OI-0309 Use Optimized Profile Descent OI-0311 Increased Capacity and Efficiency Using RNAV and RNP NGOps-3 NGOps-4 NGOps-5 NGOps-6 1 1 1 OI-0316 Enhanced Visual Separation for Successive 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 OI-0325 Time-Based Metering Using RNP and RNAV Route Assignments OI-0326 OI-0327 OI-0330 11 1 1 1 1 Airborne Merging and Spacing - Single Runway Surface Management - Arrivals/Winter Ops/Runway Configuration 1 Time-Based and Metered Routes with OPD 1 1 1 COSTS Translation from Ois to NGOps Level to Costs Target Portf olio Mapped to Operational Improvements Translating between IWP elements and Business Case drivers Enabler Enabler OI OI OI Target Portfolio Benefits Story Logical grouping Logical grouping OI OI Alternative OIs to achieve benefits Operational Improvements Mapped to Key Enablers OI # Stakeholder Enabler # 0302 0306 0325 0330 0350 0352 0358 0360 ATO EN-1204 EN-1209 OIs not in the scope of the Target Portfolio IOC Description Air - Ground Data Exchange – Data Communications Management Services – En Route 2014 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Clearance and Instructions Services – En Route Group 1 2014 These enablers provide En Route air /ground data exchange for clearance and instructions services. EN-1220 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Advisory Services – En Route Group 1 2014 Missing Aeronautical Telecommunication Network Fixed Radio - Data Communications Level 1 2014 Mobile Data Communications Management Applications - Level 1 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Clearance and Instructions Services – En Route Group 1 2012 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Advisory Services – En Route Group 1 2014 Commercial Service EN-1033 Aircraft Operator EN-1062 EN-1209 EN-1220 Enabler 2010 2014 Enabler Enabler Enabler ? OI OI Missing Critical Enablers OI OI Stakeholder Programs Future System Future Activity Future System Future Activity 4 Key Enablers Allocated to Conceptual Architecture Provides inter-domain routing between the ATO and aircraft. Ground-based VHF Digital Link - Mode 2 (VDL-2) radio is fielded for operational use as a commercial service. These enablers provide initial air /ground data exchange for clearance and instructions services. Key Enablers Mapped To Functional Clusters Stakeholder Enabler Group Performance Cluster Functional Cluster Initial En Route ATM applications Initial Data Link Applications Initial TRACON ATM applications Intermediate En Route ATM applications ATC Data Link Communications ATO Advanced En Route ATM applications Advanced Data Link Applications and Infrastructure Advanced TRACON ATM applications Advanced Tower ATM applications ATS-Specific Subnetwork Functional Clusters Enabler Group En route ATM Mapped to Cost Objects Functional Cluster I nitia l En route ATM a pplica tions Type of Cost Object Sof twa re intensive I nterm edia te En route ATM a pplica tions Sof twa re intensive Adva nced En route ATM a pplica tions Sof twa re intensive Adva nced En route ATM a pplica tions used f or sepa ra tion by a utom a tion Sof twa re intensive Cost Object 5.1.1 I nitia l En Route ATM Applica tions 5.1.2 I nterm edia te En Route ATM Applica tions 5.1.3 Adva nced En Route ATM Applica tions 5.1.4 Adva nced En Route ATM Applica tions Used f or Sepa ra tion Giles et al., PRELIMINARY TRADE SPACE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE LEVELS OF NEXTGEN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE, MITRE/CAASD MP090272, January 2010 13 [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 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 R1 to meet DO-278 AL4 Analogy ER-AST-AST in P-ATM Analogy Cost Results (2009 $ millions) Approp. WBS WBS Element Min Cost Mode Cost Max Cost F&E 1.0 Mission Analysis Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional F&E 2.0 Investment Analysis Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional F&E 3.0 Solution Development Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional F&E 4.0 Implementation Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional F&E 5.0 In-Service Management Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Total Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional F&E O&M 5.0 In-Service Management Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional O&M 6.0 Disposition Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Total Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Grand Total Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional O&M BENEFITS Translation from Ois to NGOps to Benefits OIs NGOps Key addition to explain translation From NGops to model parameters Benefit Mechanisms Model parameters 17 Benefit Mechanisms Maximize Individual Runway Capacity Time-based Metering with RNAV/RNP Precision 4-DT Wind-dependent Wake arrivals MIT TMA and McTMA Point in space metering Tailored arrivals IFR and MVFR CAVS Improved precision delivery to meter fix Tighten precision spacing to the threshold Deconflict departures, 3D 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 RPI Improved C-ATM/TFM Integrating Wx into Decision Support Tools Integrated Arrival and Departure (big airspace) Increased Controller productivity ADS-B Merging And Spacing Reduced intersecting Routes and reduced route width RNAV/RNP 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 19 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 How to Use Benefit Mechanisms Define the benefit mechanisms associated with the portfolio of Ois Relate these Ois to “pseudo programs” so that the costing and benefits are consistent Check to see that bottlenecks don’t move from one constrained resource to another (often not done) Translate benefit mechanisms into model parameters (e.g. inter-arrival average times and the standard deviation at the meter fix) 20 RISK ASSESSMENT Implementation Steps* Business Cases & Commitments Conduct R & D Validation implementation Deployment & Operations 15 16 1 Stakeholder Procurements Policy Approved High Fidelity ConOps 10 9 3a Standards Approved Demos 2 13 Risk Management Coordination 7 4 3b Policy Development Policy Strategies Theoretical Feasibility Established R&D Development Partnership Commitments1 V&V Certification Development, Mfg, Implementation 18 11 5 3 17 Testing 12 Portfolio Results 14 Performance Established 8 Infrastructure, Training, Facilities Safety, Security, V&V Deployment 19 Operations 6 Standards Development GOAL 3c Architecture Baselined Category 3d Throughput (flights / day) Partnership Plans Baselined Average Delay (min) 3e Climate (total fuel burn) Budgets •Being updated to be consistent with other documents describing this process 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test 1 Includes manufacturers & airports LAQ (fuel burn below 3000 ft) 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 ConOps (Concept of operations) Portfolio Results (benefits and constraints) 1 Partnership Commitments Interval Management/ Delegated Time Visual in IMC or MMC Exists done Risk Risk Assessment done none Exists but not for mixed equipage done done none SBS office and UPS but seeking US Airways Much of the development was for VMC CAVS and this needs to be extended to MMC and IMC conditions 1 year Concern that there won't be a partner airline Low 4 R&D Development (proof of concept) 5 Standards Development (end-to-end performance and technical requirements; interoperability requirements) Much of the standards were developed for the VMC UPS application 6 Validate feasibility (operational procedures and human factors) Safety,Security, V&V (operational safety assessment) Live Demos (demonstration and validation) Initial feasibility has been established for aircraft in lab 9 Standards Approved (certify equipment) Result of standards effort 10 Performance Established (no separate item) Part of US Airway live demonstrations 7 8 23 No significant safety analysis has been done US Airways 2 years •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 configuration meets medium 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 D More effort needed to address wake risk medium along with stds Security is still a major issue and must be medium development addressed; dealing with spoofing Simultaneous Still a risk that no major airline will sign up medium with R and D unless there are subsidies; planned as part of SBS program part of 3 years Not serious risk if other issues are completed low satisfactorily 1 additional year with larger trials Not serious risk if other issues are completed low satisfactorily Estimated Time Line for Implementation 2010 High Fidelity ConOps 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 Final V&V Certification (ops approval) Deployment Operations Policy Approved Stakeholder Procurements 24 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 What Does the Analysis Indicate Not completed (detailed analysis not run yet) Most complex operational improvement portfolio (NGOps-5 and 6) is potentially too risky to be achieved by 2025 and could be very expensive The next level down (NGOps-4) is achievable but still risky; within reasonable costs as stated by the FAA for NextGen This coupled with expansion of secondary airports could result in a reasonable 2025 solution
