**Target Generation Facility (TGF)**

**ACB-860 Simulation Group**

**Project Summary**

**Fiscal Year 2002**

**Dan Warburton**

**October 12, 2002**

**Table of Contents**

**Executive Summary**

**1.1 Simulation: New York TRACON Chokepoint Training (ARTS IIIE)**

**1.2 Simulation: ZDC Chokepoint (DSR)**

**1.3 Simulation: PHL Chokepoint Training (ARTS IIIA)**

**1.4 Simulation: DRVSM (ZOB) -- Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum**

**1.5 Simulation: HAT Study a.k.a HAD (High Altitude Demonstration)
(IIF)**

**1.6 Simulation: STARS EDC (DCA)**

**1.7 Simulation: STARS FS1 (PHL)**

**1.8 Simulation: ZLA/ZOA/SCT (TATCA Study)**

**1.9 Simulation: NexCom 1 Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)**

**1.10 Simulation: NYRD 1 - Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)**

**1.11 Simulation: DRVSM 2 (ZID)-Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum**

**1.12 Simulation: NYRD 2 -- Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)**

**1.13 Simulation: STARS FS2/2 (PHL)**

**1.14 Simulation: Direct --To Tool (IIF/PAS)**

**1.15 Simulation: GOERS Preparation (DSR)**

**1.16 Simulation: STARS FS2+ PHL Training**

**1.17 Simulation: Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC)**

**1.18 Simulation: MITRE URET PARR (Preparation) (IIF)**

**1.19 Simulation: McTMA (Non Interfere Demo)**

**TGF Project Summary**

**FY 2002**

**Executive Summary**

The Target Generation Facility (TGF) completed another successful
simulation year. All simulations were provided on-time and met or
exceeded customer expectations.

TGF provided research and development (R&D) support to Domestic Reduced
Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM) and Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)
studies such as NexCom. TGF airspace redesign efforts included the
Administrator's Chokepoint Study and HFL's NY Redesign. TGF has provided
ongoing support for operational test and evaluation (OT&E) efforts such
as STARS EDC, FS1 OT&E, and FS2/2+ OT&E. TGF is also providing ongoing
support for STARS PHL. (STARS training has been identified by the
Government Accounting Office (GAO) as a problem area for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)).

TGF began using a new simulation model program. Under development for
several years, the new simulation dynamics represents a completely new
design from first principles and is implemented in JAVA using
object-oriented techniques. TGF has deployed this new simulator to the
HFL and the Integration and Interoperability Facility (IIF). It is also
driving the Display System Replacement (DSR) Labs in the main building.

On the international front, TGF maintained it relations with NAVCANADA,
providing technical support for the micro-TGF in use there. TGF expanded
its relations with Eurocontrol and plans for joint research in
simulation methods and interfaces are under way.

Looking forward towards FY03, TGF appears to be booking quickly. A third
DRVSM simulation, more MITRE Problem Analysis Resolution and Ranking
(PARR) studies, Multi-Center Traffic Management Advisor (McTMA) testing,
controller training for DCA, continued STARS test support, Interop and
NexCom studies in the HFL are already scheduled.

**Section 1 -- Simulation Projects Supported**

This section summarizes the simulation efforts supported by the Target
Generation Facility during the fiscal year.

**1.1 Simulation: New York TRACON Chokepoint Training** **(ARTS IIIE)**

Simulation Dates: October 1, 2001 -- October 25, 2001

Program Office: ATA-1

Contacts: Thomas Zaccheo NATCA N90\
Rusty Umbrell NATCA N90

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

Once the Chokepoint studies were completed and the results accepted, the
next hurdle was how to train 180 controllers between 9/01 and 12/27/01
when final implementation was to commence. It was evident that due to
the massive scale of the training, the training labs at the individual
facilities were not adequate for the task. The William J Hughes
Technical Center (WJHTC) is not a training facility, but it had all the
human capital, material assets and creativity to get the training done
in the short time allowed. Therefore, the WJHTC (through the TGF) was
tasked to put together a simulation that would be acceptable to allow
the controllers to train to receive their required certification for the
new airspace design. Working with NATCA representatives, the TGF
simulation team was able to build six scenarios:
chokepointEwrTrainingSW, chokepointEWRTrainingNE,
chokepointTrainingSWMug, chokepointTrainingNEMug,
chokepointTrainingNEArd and chokepointTrainingSWArd. The TGF staff,
along with Ernie Heinz, scheduled and configured the ARTS3E lab in order
to enable the controllers to receive their training.

The scenarios developed consisted of six (6) sectors from the N90
airspace:

> [Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}
>
> 4A 120.150
>
> 2G 125.625
>
> 4P 128.550
>
> 5H 132.750
>
> 4U 127.600
>
> 4H 132.800

The scenarios ranged in size from 74 to 154 flight plans. Each one was
designed to exercise a specific aspect of the chokepoint problem. These
scenarios were all designed to last approximately 1 hour. The
simulations required 11 simpilots to fly the 6 sectors. Each simulation
had two ASR9 radars configured, EWR and JFK

**1.2 Simulation: ZDC Chokepoint - (DSR)**

Simulation Dates: October 29, 2001 -- November 9, 2001

Program Office: ATA-1

Contacts: Kevin M. Aurandt NATCA ZDC\
Michael Goodson NATCA ZDC

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation of the ZDC en route airspace was performed to train
controllers in the new airspace configuration designed to reduce
congestion in the northeast corridor. This simulation ran in parallel
with the PHL chokepoint but since it was an en route simulation, it
required different TGF resources. Since ZDC was a different part of the
chokepoint problem a completely different set of simulation scenarios
had to be developed by the TGF staff in order to provide acceptable
training for the NATCA controllers to receive their required
certification. There were eleven scenarios developed which were being
revised and improved during the training: zdc01c1a, zdc01c2a, zdc01c2b,
zdc01c3a, zdc01cp1, zdc0ccp2, zdc01cp3, zdc01c2c, zdc01c2d, zdc01c3b.

The scenarios developed consisted of seven sectors from the ZDC
airspace:

> [Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}
>
> 10 132.270
>
> 12 126.870
>
> 16 134.020
>
> 17 134.500
>
> 18 132.520
>
> 19 125.450
>
> GHOST 123.450

The scenarios ranged in size from 123 to 371 flight plans. Each one was
designed to exercise a specific aspect of the chokepoint problem. These
scenarios were all designed to last approximately 1 hour. The
simulations required 15 simpilots to fly the 7 sectors. Each simulation
had 5 long-range radars configured: QBE, QVH, QPL, QBN and QIE.

**1.3 Simulation: PHL Chokepoint Training (ARTS IIIA)**

Simulation Dates: October 22, 2001 -- December 20, 2001

> January 7 2002 -- January 8 2002

Program Office: ATA-1

Contacts: Steve Nogar NATCA PHL\
Kevin Bair NATCA PHL

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation of the PHL airspace was performed to train controllers
in the new airspace designed to reduce congestion in the northeast
corridor. This simulation ran in parallel with the EWR chokepoint and
required the same TGF staff to run both simulations. Since PHL was a
different part of the chokepoint problem a completely different set of
simulation scenarios had to be developed by the TGF staff in order to
provide acceptable training for the NATCA controllers to receive their
required certification. In all, there were eight scenarios developed but
only four were utilized for the training: PHL_EASTSIM_18, PHL_EASTSIM_5,
PHL_WESTSIM_18 and PHL_WESTSIM_5. The scenarios developed consisted of
seven sectors from the PHL airspace:

> [Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}
>
> SD 119.750
>
> SA 126.600
>
> 4P 125.120
>
> ND 124.350
>
> 4U 126.070
>
> Y 123.800
>
> NA 128.400

The scenarios ranged in size from 157 to 174 flight plans. Each one was
designed to exercise a specific aspect of the chokepoint problem. These
scenarios were all designed to last approximately 1 hour. The
simulations required 11 - 14 simpilots to fly the 7 sectors. Each
simulation had the PHL ASR9 radar configured for it.

**1.4 Simulation: DRVSM (ZOB) -- Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum** **(DSR)**

Simulation Dates October 29, 2001 -- October 30, 2001

Program Office: ATP-110 En Route Procedures

Contacts: Vince Lasewicz ACB-330 HITL Simulation & Analysis\
Group\
Dianne Tyler ATP-110 En Route Operations/ Procedures\
Branch

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation of Cleveland Center (ZOB) was performed to identify the
impact of reduced vertical separation on an air traffic controller's
workload. The study was designed to compare several alternative
approaches toward implementing reduced vertical separation in the
domestic airspace. Three bands of altitude were chosen for evaluation:
FL290 -- FL410, FL330 -- FL390, and FL350 -- FL390. Three en route
sectors encompassed the airspace for the simulation: 57, 59, and 67. The
procedure is scheduled for activation in late 2004 to early 2005 time
frame and TGF provides an excellent environment in which the
controller's workload can be evaluated.

**1.5 Simulation: HAT Study aka HAD (High Altitude Demonstration)**
**(IIF)**

Simulation Dates: October 22, 2001 -- December 20, 2001

January 29, 2002 -- January 31, 2002

February 1, 2002 -- February 7, 2002

Program Office: ATA1 Air Traffic Airspace Management Program

Contacts: Jerry Hadley ACB-330, 609-485-7920\
Sabra W. Kaulia ATA-1 Program Director

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation of the Memphis Center was undertaken as part of the
National Airspace Redesign Project. The purpose of the High Altitude
Demonstration (HAD) was to compare several types of air traffic control
procedures that are being evaluated for use in the redesigned National
Airspace System (NAS). The following are the specific air traffic
control procedures that were evaluated: RVSM parallel routes, RNAV
routes, RVSM, and Grid navigation. All of these procedures were tested
in conditions with and without weather.

In order to save valuable air traffic control resources and significant
overtime pay, the study was conducted in the IIF laboratory with the DSR
system split between two separate simulators running two separate
simulations.

The adaptation was an en route environment using sectors 21 and 44 of
ZME center.

The following long-range radars were used: QRV, QYB, QPB, QRB, QXR, and
TXK.

A large number of flight plans representing the different type of air
traffic control procedures were created. Their names were as follows:
BASE.fp, MIXED.fp, RNAV1.fp, RVSM1.fp, baseMIX.fp, baseRNAV.fp,
baseRVSM.fp, baseSUA.fp, baseWX.fp, direct1.fp, gridsua.fp, and
gridwx1.fp

**1.6 Simulation: STARS EDC (DCA)**

Simulation Dates: October 10, 2001 -- October 11, 2001

Program Office: ATB

Contacts: Jack McAuley ATB-230 (Acting) FS2/2+ Product Lead

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

The STARS Early Display Configuration (EDC) was a simulation of the
Washington area airspace in order to validate the Computer Human
Interface (CHI) of the EDC. It required TGF staff working in conjunction
with DCA (Washington area) controllers to develop five scenarios so that
the controllers could test and evaluate all the features of the EDC.
These scenarios were named 11N60A, 11N_A, 11N_B, 20N_A and 20N_B. This
simulation also ran in conjunction with the chokepoint studies,
requiring TGF personnel to work double shifts. The TGF staff, along with
Ernie Heinz, scheduled and configured the ARTS3E lab. These scenarios
made use of seven sectors:

[Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}

West Departure 118.950

East Departure 125.650

Over Flights 128.350

East Arrival 124.200

West Arrival 119.850

E-Ghost 131.500

W-Ghost 135.400

The scenarios ranged in size from 403 to 478 flight plans. Each one was
designed to exercise a specific aspect of the STARS system. These
scenarios were all designed to last approximately 1 hour. The
simulations required 11 simpilots to fly the 7 sectors. Each simulation
had two ASR9 radars configured: DCA and ADW.

**1.7 Simulation: STARS FS1 (PHL)**

Simulation Dates: November 19 2001, November 20 2001,

> January 28 2002 - January 31, 2002,
>
> March 1 2002, March 13 2002, March 14 2002

Program Office: ATB

Contacts: Jack McAuley ATB-230 (Acting) FS2/2+ Product Lead

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

The STARS Full Service 1 (FS1) simulation was an operational test and
evaluation (OT&E) of the STARS FS1 build. TGF staff, along with
controllers, were tasked to build three new scenarios that would enable
the test controllers to exercise the FS1 builds to their fullest
capabilities. These scenarios were to be used in conjunction with
previously built scenarios. The reused scenarios were called phl_cp,
phl_cp1, phl_cp1_2735 and phl_cp_20_21z. The new scenario went through
four revisions through the course of the FS1 testing. The final
scenarios were acAv4, acBv4 and acCv4. As part of the testing there were
numerous short notice simulations for the STARS team to check out
Program Trouble Reports (PTR's) in support of the OT&E effort. These
short notice simulations were critical to the STARS team being able to
meet its deadlines. These scenarios made use of eight sectors:

[Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}

SA 126.600

FV 125.400

NA 128.400

W 127.350

Y 123.800

SD 119.750

ND 124.350

PHL Tower 118.500

The scenarios ranged in size from 39 to 179 flight plans. Each one was
designed to exercise a specific aspect of the STARS FS1 system. These
scenarios were all designed to last approximately 1 hour. The
simulations required 11 -- 14 simpilots to fly the 8 sectors. Each
simulation had the PHL ASR9 radar configured.

**1.8 Simulation: ZLA/ZOA/SCT (TATCA Study)**

Simulation Dates: February 11, 2002 -- February 14, 2002

Program Office: Free Flight

Contacts: Chuck Romano ACB-620 TMA Test Lead\
Terrence Moore ACB-840 TFM Laboratory Manager

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

TGF provided radar data simulation for TATCA/TFM training of ZLA and SCT
controllers in the DSR and ARTS labs.

**1.9 Simulation: NexCom 1 -- Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)**

Simulation Dates: February 11, 2002 -- February 14, 2002

Program Office: AND-360

Contacts: Randy L. Sollenberger ACB-220 NAS Human Factors Group\
James Eck AND-360 PT Lead for Air/Ground

> Communications (Acting)
>
> Karol Kerns

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This study was conducted using the generic airspace, Genera, developed
by the air traffic controllers within the Human Factors Laboratory.
Intermediate Sector "18", arrival, departure and over-flight aircraft
were included to maximize the use of communications in this voice
communications study. Specifically, this study evaluated analog vs.
digital communication equipment.

The TGF, as the provider for aircraft simulation in the Human Factors
Laboratory, achieved an important step: the introduction of the new
Java-based simulator. This simulator has upgraded aircraft performance
dynamics to provide a high-fidelity simulation for air traffic
controllers.

**1.10 Simulation: NYRD 1 -- Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)**

Simulation Dates: April 8, 2002 -- April 17, 2002

Program Office: ATB 1

Contact: Todd R. Truitt ACB-220 NAS Human Factors Group\
Bill Voss Director of Terminal Business Service

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation was an arrival concept study where New York Center
controllers worked along side New York TRACON controllers in one
building with adjoining sectors. In this study, en route sectors (74 and
75) dealing directly with the associated TRACON arrival sectors were
allowed to use reduced separation (three miles lateral in lieu of the
standard five miles). The flow of traffic was from the west (Cleveland
Area) into the New York Broadway area with the Newark and LaGuardia
aircraft.

TGF supplied the aircraft simulation, reenacting three periods of actual
traffic into Newark and LaGuardia during heavy periods of the day. In
addition, TGF personnel assisted in the site development of the New York
airspace into the TGF.

**1.11 Simulation: DRVSM 2 (ZID)-Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum**

Simulation Dates: April 22, 2002 -- April 25, 2002

May 6, 2002 -- May 9, 2002

Program Office: ATP110 En Route Procedures

Contacts: Vince Lasewicz ACB-330 HITL Simulation & Analysis\
Group\
Dianne Tyler ATP-110 En Route Operations/Procedures\
Branch

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation of the Indianapolis Center is a continuation of the
DRVSM 1 study. The major difference in this study is the decision to
focus on the FL290 -- FL410 altitude band to compare the various
approaches to implementation. A further goal for this study was to
determine the effect of non-RVSM equipped aircraft. This en route
simulation involved four sectors of Indianapolis Center: 87, 88, 97, and
98. The DRVSM procedure is scheduled for activation in late 2004 to
early 2005 time frame and TGF provides an excellent environment in which
the controller's workload can be evaluated.

**1.12 Simulation: NYRD 2 -- Human Factors Laboratory (HFL)**

Simulation Dates: May 17, 2002 -- May 27, 2002

Program Office: ATB 1 TERMINAL BUSINESS SERVICE

Contact: Todd R. Truitt ACB-220 NAS Human Factors Group\
Bill Voss Director of Terminal Business Service

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation was a departure concept study where New York Center
controllers worked along side New York TRACON controllers in one
building with adjoining sectors. In this study en route sectors (39 and
55) dealing directly with the associated TRACON Departure sectors were
allowed to use reduced separation (three miles lateral in lieu of the
standard five miles). The flow of traffic was Newark, LaGuardia, &
Kennedy Airports to the west and southwest.

TGF supplied the aircraft simulation re-enacting three periods of actual
traffic departing Newark, LaGuardia, and Kennedy Airports during heavy
periods of the day.

**1.13 Simulation: STARS FS2 (PHL)**

Simulation Dates April 22 2002 -- April 25 2002, May 16 2002, May 17
2002,

> May 29 2002, June 3 2002, June 4 2002, June 28 2002,
>
> July 2 2002 -- July 11 2002

Program Office: ATB-230 STARS

Contacts: Jack McAuley ATB-230 (Acting) FS2/2+ Product Lead

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

The STARS Full Service 2 (FS2) simulation was an operational test and
evaluation (OT&E) of the STARS FS2 build. TGF staff, along with
controllers, were tasked to modify scenarios that would enable the test
controllers to exercise the FS2 build to its fullest capabilities. The
FS2 testing made use of the scenarios built for the FS1 testing and as
such the names are the same. As in the FS1 simulations, there were
numerous short notice simulations for the STARS team to check out
Program Trouble Reports (PTR's) in support of the OT&E effort. These
short notice simulations are critical to the STARS program's ability to
test PTR's for incorporation into the next build in support of OT&E.

The scenarios contained the same eight sectors as FS1:

[Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}

SA 126.600

FV 125.400

NA 128.400

W 127.350

Y 123.800

SD 119.750

ND 124.350

PHL Tower 118.500

The scenarios ranged in size from 39 to 179 flight plans. Each one was
designed to exercise a specific aspect of the STARS FS2 system. These
scenarios were all designed to last approximately 1 hour. The
simulations required 11 -- 14 simpilots to fly the 8 sectors. Each
simulation had the PHL ASR9 radar configured.

**1.14 Simulation: Direct-To Tool**

Simulation Dates: April 23, 2002 -- April 25, 2002,

September 24, 2002 -- September 26, 2002

Program Office: Free Flight Program

Contacts: Teri Lowe ACB-100 Direct 2 Test Lead\
Terrence Moore ACB-840 TFM Laboratory Manager

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

TGF provides radar data simulation for this PAS-based simulation effort.

D2 is being studied as part of Free Flight Phase 2. Rather than being
able to fly the most efficient route to its destination, today's
aircraft follow established airways that have inefficient components.
Additionally, air traffic control user interfaces keep controllers from
issuing user-preferred or more efficient routes, even under light
traffic conditions. The goal of the Direct-To tool is to identify
aircraft that can save at least one minute by flying directly to a
downstream point on the flight route. A list on the controller's display
shows eligible aircraft, the possible time-saved, the D2 points, and
whether there is any danger of aircraft conflict. Acceptance of the D2
advisory automatically sends a flight plan amendment to a host computer.

**1.15 Simulation: GOERS Preparation**

Simulation Dates: Planned October 22, 2002 -- November 15, 2002

Program Office: ATP110 En Route Procedures

Contacts: Vince Lasewicz ACB-330 HITL Simulation & Analysis Group

> Charlyn Davis ATP-110 En Route Operations/Procedures Branch

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation of the Jacksonville Center is being conducted to
understand the impact of a GPS outage on the workload of an air traffic
controller. The study is divided into three observations of GPS signal
outages: no outage, a partial outage, and a complete outage. These
observations were repeated in an environment in which the available
NAVAIDs have been depleted by 50%. This en route simulation involved
sectors 14, 15, and 78 of the Jacksonville Center. TGF provides a
flexible environment in which these observations can be simulated and
evaluated.

**1.16 Simulation: STARS FS2+ PHL Training**

Simulation Dates: September 5 2002 -- November 17 2002

Program Office: ACB-3, ATB, ATX-100, AEA-500, Philadelphia ATCT, NATCA

Contacts: Jack McAuley ATB-230 (Acting) FS2/2+ Product Lead\
Tom Norato ATX-100

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

This simulation is for training the PHL air traffic controllers in the
use of the STARS FS2+ system. It is being done by the TGF team at the
WJHTC because there are not enough positions at the newly constructed
air traffic tower at PHL and there would not be sufficient time to
complete the training for over 106 controllers in order to implement
STARS by 11/17/02. In addition, the labs and facilities at the WJHTC
have a much greater fidelity, technical support and responsiveness for
these particular circumstances. It should also be noted that the TGF
team and the WJHTC is doing its part to aid in STARS training, an area
that the GAO identified as being lacking. To accomplish this task, a
simulation was specifically built for this training. Its name is
phlStarsTraining and contains 195 flight plans. The same eight sectors
from STARS FS1 and FS2 were used, namely:

[Sector]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline}

SA 126.600

FV 125.400

NA 128.400

W 127.350

Y 123.800

SD 119.750

ND 124.350

PHL Tower 118.500

This scenario was designed to last approximately 45 minutes. The
training simulation requires 12 simpilots to fly the 8 sectors. Each
simulation had the PHL ASR9 radar configured.

**1.17 Simulation: Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC)**

Simulation Dates: Canceled

Program Office: Free Flight Phase 1

Contacts: Evan Darby

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

TGF worked closely with the HFL and Datalink software developers to
produce an environment for prototyping Datalink concepts and procedures.
This capability now exists in both the HFL and TGF Display Laboratories.

**1.18 Simulation: MITRE URET PARR (Preparation) (IIF)**

Simulation Dates: Planned for: November 19, 2002 -- November 21, 2002

Program Office: Free Flight

Contacts: Mary Cale ACB-100\
Alfreda Gipson MITRE 609-272-7542

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

Problem Analysis Resolution and Ranking (PARR) is envisioned as an
enhancement to the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) Free Flight Phase
1 (FFP1) capability and has been designated as priority research for the
follow-on Free Flight Phase 2 (FFP2) effort. PARR is being developed as
a series of incremental enhancements to URET, with the Initial PARR
capabilities focusing on providing additional support to the Radar
Associate (D) Controller for the resolution of aircraft-to-aircraft and
aircraft-to-airspace problems.

This simulation of the Indianapolis Center involved four sectors of
Indianapolis Center: 87, 88, 97, and 98.

TGF worked closely with the Mitre Corporation to develop a simulation in
the IIF.

**1.19 Simulation: McTMA (Non Interfere Demo)**

Simulation Dates: May 2002

Program Office: Free Flight

Contacts: Dominic R. Timoteo ACB-100 Innovations Division\
Terrence Moore ACB-840 TFM Laboratory Manager

[Simulation Summary]{.underline}

TGF provided the NAS system build and simulation flight data upon which
this direct simulation was based.

**Section 2 -- Technical Summary**

This section summarizes the technical achievements of the TGF during the
fiscal year.

**2.1 JAVA-Based simulator Deployed**

Departure manager, RbxControl, DRAT improvements

**2.2 BARCO 2k x 2k Displays installed in the TGF Laboratory**

This year, TGF replaced its Sony 2k x 2k CRTs with BARCO 2k x 2k
flat-panel displays. TGF's Sony displays were reaching end of life.
BARCO developed a new plug-compatible replacement. TGF was able to get
four (4) displays from the initial production run and install them in
the TGF Display Laboratory.

**2.3 Sun Back-End Equipment refreshed**

**2.3 Cisco network infrastructure refreshed**

**TGF Acronyms and Abbreviations**

ADAR ARTS Data Acquisition & Router

AGW ARTS GateWay

ARTS Automated Radar Terminal System

ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower

CAS Controller Awareness Study

CTAS Center TRACON Automation System

CHI Computer Human Interface

CPDLS Controller Pilot Data Link Communications

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung (German Simulation)

DIS Distributed Interactive Simulation

DRVSM Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

DSR Display System Replacement

EDC Early Display Configuration

ETVS Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch

FAST Final Approach Spacing Tool

FFP Free Flight Phase

FS1, 2/2+ Full Service 1, 2/2+

GAO Government Accounting Office

GOERS GPS Outage En route Simulation

GPS Global Positioning System

HAD High Altitude Demonstration

HAT High Altitude Test

HFL Human Factors Laboratory

HLA High Level Architecture

IIF Integration and Interoperability Facility

LAAEP LA Arrival Enhancement Project

McTMA Multi-Center Traffic Management Advisor

NAS National Airspace System

NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association

PARR Problem Analysis Resolution and Ranking

PAS Pseudo Aircraft System

PDU Protocol Data Units

PTR Program Trouble Reports

RDHFL Research Development and Human Factors Laboratory

RNAV Area Navigation

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

STARS Stand Alone Terminal ARTS Replacement System

TATCA Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation

TFM Traffic Flow Management

TGF Target Generation Facility

TMA Traffic Management Advisor

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach CONtrol

URET User Request Evaluation Tool

WJHTC William J. Hughes Technical Center

XPVD X-windows Planned View Display

**TGF Airports and Centers**

ADW Andrews Air Force Base

DCA Ronald Reagan International Airport

EWR Newark International Airport

Genera Generic airspace generated for HFL studies

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport

PHL Philadelphia International Airport

ZDC Washington Center

ZID Indianapolis Center

ZJX Jacksonville Center

ZNY New York Center

ZOB Cleveland Center