To: Mike Baker (SWA) CDM Chair and Mike Nadon (TWA)

From: Roger Beatty (AAL) Airline lead - Reroute Advisory Team

Collaborative Routing Group

Collaborative Decision Making Program

Date: Jan 31, 2001

Subject: Report on Reroute Advisory Team (RAT) activity

The Collaborative Routing Group of the CMD Program was tasked to develop
recommendations for improving the process for developing, disseminating
and utilizing reroute advisories that are produced by ATCSCC and
disseminated to other FAA facilities and to users of the NAS. See below
for a copy of this task taken from the S2K Action Matrix dated 11/28/00.

+---+--------+---------------+-----+----------------------------------+
| 1 | 22d    | **[CR         | *   | The group recognized the         |
| 3 | (6-3)  | "advisory"    | *1/ | combined reroute advisory        |
|   |        | workgroup]{   | 10/ | message                          |
|   |        | .underline}** | 200 |                                  |
|   |        |               | 1** | program did not work and         |
|   |        | **Lead:**     |     | recommended that it be           |
|   |        |               | **2 | discontinued.                    |
|   |        | **Roger       | /1/ |                                  |
|   |        | Beatty**      | 200 | The group also recommended the   |
|   |        |               | 1** | development of a graphical       |
|   |        | **Team        |     |                                  |
|   |        | includes:**   | **4 | representation of current        |
|   |        |               | /1/ | advisories. This representation  |
|   |        | **M. Abbott** | 200 | could                            |
|   |        |               | 1** |                                  |
|   |        | **D.          |     | be developed in either a         |
|   |        | Buckingham**  | **y | web-based or machine-readable    |
|   |        |               | ear |                                  |
|   |        | **Keith       | 200 | format for integration into      |
|   |        | Campbell**    | 2** | facility and airline displays.   |
|   |        |               |     |                                  |
|   |        | **Ed.         |     | ## TELCON                        |
|   |        | Corcoran**    |     |                                  |
|   |        |               |     | ######### Reco                   |
|   |        | **A. Davis**  |     | mmendations for improved wording |
|   |        |               |     |                                  |
|   |        | **R. Downer** |     | ***Structure, parsable           |
|   |        |               |     | advisory***                      |
|   |        | **Mike        |     |                                  |
|   |        | Nadon**       |     | ***True machine readable         |
|   |        |               |     | advisory by flight with links to |
|   |        | **Jeff        |     | CCSD, ADL via Volpe, Flight Id   |
|   |        | Richards**    |     | request for advisories***        |
+---+--------+---------------+-----+----------------------------------+

# Motivation

There are a number of reasons why the current reroute advisory process
needs to be enhanced. These include:

1.  Reducing the workload of the ATCSCC specialists who create these
    advisories;

2.  Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the ATCSCC Strategic
    Planning and Severe Weather teams (including teleconferences to
    develop strategic plans of operation with traffic managers from
    other FAA facilities and with AOC staff);

3.  Reducing training demands on FAA traffic managers and AOC staff;

4.  Increasing conformance of AOC filings and ARTCC refilings to ensure
    compliance with reroute advisories;

5.  Reducing the workload of FAA traffic managers and AOC dispatchers
    who need to respond to such advisories;

6.  Ensuring that AOCs are kept in the loop so that flights are
    appropriately fueled and equipped to fly the reroutes specified in
    advisories;

7.  Improving the ability of quality assurance analysts to assess the
    impact of reroute advisories on system performance.

# Scope

In our discussions and analyses, we have only focused on "Reroute
Advisories". It is clear that many of the development activities
discussed below need to go beyond this and apply the same approach to
developing an integrated system to handle all types of advisories.

# Sample Reroute Advisories

Below, several examples of actual reroute advisories are listed. This is
just a small sample of the variations in such advisories that were
reviewed by this subcommittee.

**Date:** 4/11/00 9:21:00 PM **Advn:** 66 Origin: ATCSCC **Facid:** DCC
**Title:** ROUTE ADVISORY

**IMPACTED AREA**: DFW EAST DEPARTURES

**REASON:** TSTMS

**ASSIGNED REROUTE:** NORMAL EAST DEPARTURES CAN EXPECT ROUTES SOUTH VIA
ACT CWK AND THEN ROUTES TO JOIN THE PREF.

**FACILITIES INCLUDED:** ZFW/ZHU

**VALID UNTIL:** 0000Z

**PROBABILITY OF EXTENSION:** MOD TO HIGH

**REMARKS:** ASSOCIATED RESTRICTIONS: 15 MIT

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**Date**: 5/18/00 1:48:00 PM **Advn:** 28 **Origin:** ATCSCC **Facid:**
DCC **Title:** REROUTE ADVISORY

**IMPACTED AREA:** DTW ARRIVALS

**REASON:** TSTRMS

**ASSIGNED REROUTE:** FROM ZNY\...PSB J60 DJB CETUS2 ZDC (METROS)\...J6
HVQ J85 DJB CETUS2 ZDC (SOUTH)\...MOL J24 HVQ J85 DJB CETUS2
ZTL/ZJX/ZMA\...AMG J85 DJB CETUS2 ZTL (ATL ONLY)\...J91 HNN DJB CETUS2
ZKC\...VHP FWA MIZAR3 ZME/ZFW/ZHU\...FLM DQN MIZAR3
ZMP/ZDV/ZLC/ZSE/ZOA/ZAB/ZLA\...VIA OBK FWA MIZAR3

**FACILITIES INCLUDED**: ZOB/ZNY/ZDC/ZTL/ZJX/ZMA/ZID/ZKC/ZME
ZHU/ZFW/ZAB/ZLA/ZOA/ZDV/ZLC/ZSE/ZMP/ZAU

**VALID UNTIL:** 1800Z

**PROBABILITY OF EXTENSION:** LOW TO MODERATE

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**Date:** 5/18/00 4:04:00 PM **Advn**: 47 **Origin:** ATCSCC **Facid:**
DCC **Title:** REROUTE ADVISORY

THIS IS DTWEAST_1 WITH MODIFICATIONS

**IMPACTED AREA:** SPICA/CETUS AREA -DTW/ZOB-

**REASON:** TSTRMS

**ASSIGNED REROUTE:** TRAFFIC TO DTW NORMALLY OVER CETUS/SPICA VIA\...
FROM CZY\...ECK FNT POLAR POLAR1 DTW ZBW\...SYR BUF ECK FNT POLAR POLAR1
DTW NY METROS\...GAYEL J95 BUF ECK FNT POLAR POLAR1 DTW PHL\...J6 COLNS
J134 FLM DQN MIZAR3 DTW DC METROS\...LDN J134 FLM DQN MIZAR3 DTW
RIC/ORF/RDU\...MOL J24 FLM DQN MIZAR3 DTW GSO/CLT/JAX/CHS/SAV/SJU\...FLM
DQN MIZAR3 DTW ZJX/ZMA\...CTY J91 ATL J89 IIU VHP FWA MIZAR3 DTW
ZID\...FWA MIZAR3 DTW ZKC\...IIU DQN MIZAR3 DTW ZME\...PXV IIU DQN
MIZAR3 DTW ZAU\...LFD MIZAR3 DTW ZMP\...GRB MBS POLAR1 DTW **FACILITIES
INCLUDED:** ZOB/ZBW/CZY/ZNY/ZDC/ZID/ZTL/ZJX/ZMA ZKC/ZAU/ZMP

**VALID UNTIL:** 1800Z

**PROBABILITY OF EXTENSION:** LOW TO MODERATE

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**Date:** 5/18/00 5:48:00 PM **Advn:** 70 **Origin:** ATCSCC **Facid:**
blank **Title:** REROUTE ADVISORY

**IMPACTED AREA:** FILE J6 TO DFW ONLY

**REASON:** SUPPORT OFFLOADED TRAFFIC ONTO J6

**ASSIGNED REROUTE:** TRAFFIC OFF ZBW ZNY ZDC NORMALLY FILED J6 TO DFW
ONLY: ZDC:PSK J22 VXV J46 BNA LIT BYP3 ZNY: J48 MOL J22 VXV J46 BNA LIT
BYP3 ZBW: J48 MOL J22 VXV J46 BNA LIT BYP3

**FACILITIES INCLUDED:** ZBW ZNY ZDC ZTL ZME

**VALID UNTIL:** 2000Z

**REMARK:** THIS CLARIFIES ADVZY 066

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\
**Date:** 9/23/00 12:53:00 PM **Advn:** 41 **Origin:** ATCSCC **Facid:**
DCC **Title:** REROUTE ADVISORY

**IMPACTED AREA:** CETUS AND MIZAR STARS

**REASON:** TSTMS

**ASSIGNED REROUTE:** TRAFFIC LANDING DTW DEPARTING ZDC/ZJX/ZMA/ZTL
ZTL:(ATL AND WEST)J89 IIU VHP GIJ LFD MIZAR3 DTW ZTL:(EAST OF ATL) HMV
FLM VHP GIJ LFD MIZAR3 DTW ZDC: J134 FLM VHP GIJ LFD MIZAR3 DTW ZNY:
(PHL MDT ABE) J6 J134 FLM VHP GIJ LFD MIZAR3 DTW ZJX: (EAST OF ATL) CAE
SPA HMV FLM VHP GIJ LFD MIZAR3 DTW (SOUTH OF JAX) J89 IIU VHP GIJ LFD
MIZAR3 DTW ZMA: J89 IIU VHP GIJ LFD MIZAR3 DTW

**FACILITIES INCLUDED:** ZID/ZTL/ZDC/ZNY/ZJX/ZMA/ZAU/ZOB

**VALID UNTIL:** 1600Z

**PROBABILITY OF EXTENSION:** LOW

**REMARKS:** SVR WX YC

# Problems 

There are a number of areas for improvement in the format and content of
these advisories, as well as with the process for creating and using
them. These include: improving the transfer of reroute information by
providing:

1.  Better wording of Reroute Advisories

2\. Better structure to Reroute Advisories

3\. A graphical interface to identify alternative reroutes and create
the advisory

4\. Consistent structure and terminology to allow machine readability
and to

> allow specific advisories to be transmitted to the appropriate
> individuals

5\. A graphical interface to display advisory information

6.  Data structures and tools to support quality assurance and analysis.

Additional details on these issues can be found in the attached report
on "Design Recommendations for an Integrated Approach to the
Development, Dissemination and Use of Reroute Advisories" written by
Beatty and Smith (December, 2000).

# Mid-Term Solutions (1-2 Years)

A number of these issues are being addressed by planned enhancements to
existing operational systems. The relevant systems include:

> 1\. The ATCSCC Advisory, CDR and National Playbook Web pages\
> 2. VOLPE's Common Constraint Situation Display\
> 3. VOLPE's enhanced TSD Reroute Advisory Tool\
> 4. MITRE's CRCT and Proposal for Enhanced Reroute Advisories concepts\
> 5. ATCSCC's National Logs Project
>
> 6\. Metron's CDR Tool\
> 7. Metron and CSE's POET.

(Note that if we go beyond considering Reroute Advisories and consider
the need for an integrated system that covers all types of advisories,
then additional systems such as FSM also need to be included in this
list.)

**It is clear from our review, however, that although the currently
planned enhancements to these systems will help address some of the
weaknesses of the current Reroute Advisory system:**

1.  **No formal development plan has been completed to ensure that all
    of the necessary components for an integrated Advisory System are
    being designed and implemented. (Our review suggests that some
    important components are not currently being addressed.)**

2.  **The currently planned enhancements to the tools listed above need
    to be reviewed in terms of future compatibility with an overall
    integrated system.**

While Beatty and Smith (December, 2000) map out many of the requirements
for such an integrated approach, there is a need to complete a formal
development plan. In addition to the two concerns listed above, **such a
plan is also needed to allow the airlines to begin implementing the
tools that their dispatchers and flight crews need in order to take
advantage of such enhancements to the Advisory System.**

**Short-Term Solutions**

The requirements to develop an effective integrated Advisory System, as
outlined above, are too significant to make any major enhancements
before the 2001 severe weather system. There are, however, some minor
changes that could be made that would be helpful. Furthermore, these
short-term changes are necessary to evolve toward a more integrated
system, so the effort will not be wasted.

**Lexicon Development.** The first improvement would be to develop a
standard lexicon and to provide clear definitions for all of the terms.
At present, different words and abbreviations are used for the same
concepts in different advisories. In addition, phrases like "LA Basin"
are not adequately defined. Both of these problems are barriers to the
development of software to help traffic managers, dispatchers and
quality assurance analysts in completing their jobs. While it is
probably impossible to define all of the relevant terms by this spring,
a number of the most important or most frequent terms could be dealt
with as a start at this effort. The Reroute Advisory Team is currently
awaiting additional airline input on terminology that might be confusing
or ambiguous to users. The short-term plan calls for the ATCSCC web site
to be updated by this spring to provide access to this lexicon as it is
further developed.

**Training to Ensure Consistent Use of Advisory Fields.** There are many
cases where the existing fields in the Reroute Advisories are used
inconsistently. Like the problem with inconsistent wording, this is a
barrier to developing software to assist with the processing of
advisories. It is also a problem for the people who must read the
advisories, as they may overlook important information because it is not
in the correct field.

**Introduction of Additional Fields/Subfields.** A MITRE report
presenting a "Proposal for Enhanced Reroute Advisories", (Campbell,
December 2000) suggests that it may be possible to add a small number of
additional fields or subfields to the existing templates used to create
Reroute Advisories. Suggested additional fields include:

1.  Labeled origin and destination facilities

2.  Enhanced description of effective times.

This suggestion should be reviewed carefully, along with consideration
of whether there are additional fields that could be added to the
existing advisory templates in order to improve their clarity both for
the people reading them and for automated systems that could be used to
process the advisories.

# Conclusion

There is little doubt that the current advisory system is a significant
barrier to the efficient and effective planning and implementation of
reroutes. There are also potential safety concerns, as the cumbersome
nature of the current process may leave AOCs out of the loop when
certain advisories are implemented.

In the short term, there are some minor improvements that could be made
for next summer. These are worthwhile, as they are necessary steps in
the evolution toward an integrated system. Significant improvements,
however, require that new software tools be developed. While some of the
relevant software enhancements are already proceeding, at present there
is no plan to ensure that a complete, integrated Advisory System will be
available in the next 1-2 years. Such a plan is clearly warranted, as
current practices are a significant impediment to efficiency and safety
in the NAS.

To appreciate the potential scope of this task, we strongly advise the
readers of this memo to review the attached document "Design
Recommendations for an Integrated Approach to the Development,
Dissemination and Use of Reroute Advisories". It is possible that the
design and cooperative (Airline and ATCSCC) development of Reroute
Advisory automation might be the first steps in producing a GDP-E/FSM
like approach to the enroute airspace congestion problem.

One of the problems faced by the Reroute Advisory Team is that many of
the parts needed to produce an integrated solution are under independent
development by various vendors and governmental organizations. It is
beyond organizational authority of this small group to marshal these
various efforts into a single strategic plan.