IAOPA WORLD ASSEMBLY
South Africa
April 2012
Steve Brown, RTCA Co-Chair
NACSC Membership
Steve Brown, NBAA, NACSC Co-Chair
Tom Hendricks, A4A, NACSC Co-Chair
Airlines – 7
Airports – 3
GA – 4
Government – 10
Labor – 5
Manufacturers – 22
2
NACSC Work Groups
Airspace & Procedures (APWG)
Integrated Capabilities (ICWG)
Business Case & Performance Metrics
(BCPMWG)
DataComm (DCTG)
3
NACSC Work Groups
Airspace & Procedures (APWG)
Integrated Capabilities (ICWG)
Business Case & Performance Metrics
(BCPMWG)
DataComm (DCTG)
4
Regional Airspace Recommendations
Recommendation #1: RNAV off the Ground (ROTG)
FAA should validate the safety and capacity benefits of RNAVOff The-Ground (ROTG) as part of the implementation process.
Recommendation #2: Houston Ultra High Sectors
RTCA agrees with the Houston Optimization of Airspace and
Procedures (OAPM) Study Team and recommends additional
analysis of the potential benefits of Houston Center (ZHU)
Ultra-High Sector modifications.
Recommendation #3: Denver RNAV Implementation
Monitor the timeline of the Denver RNAV Implementation
project closely and ensure that the expanded scope of the
project does not significantly impact the implementation
schedule or the realization of operational benefits.
5
Regional Airspace Recommendations
Recommendation #4: Chicago Airspace Program (CAP)
 Finish design and implementation of the current phase of the
CAP within the O’Hare Modernization Project (OMP) time
constraints.
 Work with the FAA to develop potential airspace and
procedures improvements for the Chicago Metroplex to be
considered and developed after the CAP is done. Consider
use of technology and procedures that have evolved since
the original CAP design process began several years ago
that could be allowed within the current EIS.
 Continue to encourage full stakeholder participation in the
development of CAP with the intent of achieving as many
optimized procedures as possible within the constraints of
the EIS.
6
NACSC Work Groups
Airspace & Procedures (APWG)
Integrated Capabilities (ICWG)
Business Case & Performance Metrics
(BCPMWG)
DataComm (DCTG)
7
Metroplex Prioritization Hierarchy
8
Seven Identified Metroplexes
• New York
• Philadelphia
• Chicago
• Atlanta
• Charlotte
• Dallas/Fort Worth
• Southern California
9
Commonly Identified Capabilities in
All Seven Metroplexes
 Surface Management – departure delays,
managing runway use
 Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) procedures
 Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) – internal
to FAA
 Examine development and implementation
priorities
10
Outcomes and Moving Forward
 Evaluation of capabilities based on feasibility of
implementation and likely benefits
 All are designed to assist the FAA in helping to
prioritize in a budget-constrained political
environment
 Industry needs proof of concept/proof of
benefit to make investments of their own
resources
 Need data for high fidelity, quantitative
evaluations of benefits/costs & implementation
issues associated with deploying operational
improvements
11
TF-5 View
of Metroplex*
Regional
Deployment
BOS
BOS
BED
Boston
Chicago
MKE
ENW
UGN
ORD PWK
RFD DPA
MDW
ARR
LOT
GYY
IGQ
SWF
New York
CDW TEB HPN
LGA
MMU
ISP
ABE EWR JFK FRG
Washington, DC
FDK
DMW
JYO
BWI
IAD
HEF
W66
MTN
DCA
NACSC Work Groups
Airspace & Procedures (APWG)
Integrated Capabilities (ICWG)
Business Case & Performance
Metrics (BCPMWG)
DataComm (DCTG)
13
Finding
Finding : To understand whether NextGen
improvements are having the expected
impact, a set of interim targets between
now and 2018 will help to measure
whether sufficient progress is being made
with FAA and stakeholder efforts.
14
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Executive level metrics to
capture NextGen impacts:
• Accident Rate
• Total Trip Time
• Metroplex Capacity
• Fuel Efficiency
• NAS Cost Efficiency
Recommendation 2: The FAA should continue
to work with the NAC to develop an executive
level NAS Access metric.
15
The recommended High-Level Metrics complement
Messaging on “Energy, Environment & Economy”
Energy
Environment
Fuel
Efficiency
Economy
Metroplex
Capacity
NAS
Cost
Efficiency
Total Trip
Time
Fatal
Accident
Rate
SAFETY
16
Notional Marginal Cost vs. Benefit
$
Operator Costs
GAP: Costs
exceed
benefits
Incentives may be
needed to reach this
point
NO GAP:
Benefits exceed
costs
GAP: Mass
Required for
Benefits
Operator Benefits
Incentives needed if
societal / system
benefit target is
beyond this point
Percent of NAS Users Equipped
18
NACSC Work Groups
Airspace & Procedures (APWG)
Integrated Capabilities (ICWG)
Business Case & Performance Metrics
(BCPMWG)
DataComm (DCTG)
19
Brief History of DataComm
Universal
agreement to
harmonization via
ATN B2
Europe PETAL trials
SC214/WG78
Standards
2013
2012
US CPDLC trials
ICAO established
ATN Panel to
develop SARPs
2000
1993
1983
Boeing develops FANS
1 to meet the needs of
oceanic airlines
Europe
establishes
mandate for
Link2000 (ATN)
by 2013-2015
ICAO creates Special
Committee on FANS
which introduced the
CNS/ATM concept
20
DataComm Mid-Term
FANS/ATNB1
Altitude
Heading
Speed
IC/TOC
Time Based Metering
RNP
WX Reroutes
VDL-2
ARTCCs
Network
TFM Reroutes
TOWER
VDL-0/2
ATCSCC
Fix
Initial
Tailored
Arrivals
VDL-2
FANS
Digital ATIS
DCL
21
Approximately 40% of Controller Workload
(‘Hello, Goodbye’ - IC/TOC)
A/c in communication
with sector A, under
control of sector A
A/c in communication
with sector B, under
control of sector A
X
A/c in communication
with sector B, under
control of sector B
X
Transfer of
Communications Point
Sector A
Transfer of
Control Point
Sector
Boundary
Sector B
22
Benefits of Basic
Controller-Pilot DataComm
Moving routine communications from voice digital datalink
Benefit
Increased Capacity
Mechanism
Controllers can handle more
traffic
Reduced Delay
Reduced frequency congestion
More efficient weather reroutes
Enhanced Safety
Reduce ‘mis-communications’
Increased ATC Services Reduce controller workload
FAA stated goals for program:
•Align with user needs and provide operational benefits
•Meet international commitments
•Set path to deliver the future NextGen services
23
RTCA Committee Consensus
Minority Opinion
 Dissenters present minority position that states:




their view of the issue
why they are unable to join the consensus
their preferred position/action & supporting rationale
a list of those who hold the minority view
 The consensus group documents:
 why it believes the consensus position is superior
 how the minority position has been addressed in the
development
 The Minority Position Paper is included as a
separate part of the final document to FAA
25