**Appendix C**

**Joint Research Project Descriptions (JRPDs) for ATM Research**

**and Technology Development**

**JRPD Index**

  -------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------
  **JRPD   **Title**                                                **Page**
  \#**                                                              

  J11      ATM Advanced Concept Studies and Exploration             C-1

  J12      Human Factors for Evolving Environments                  C-9

  J13      System Performance Assessment and Investment Analysis    C-13

  J14      ATM Operational, Engineering, and Safety Methods and     C-19
           Analysis                                                 

  J16      Application of Aircraft Capabilities to ATM Advanced     C-25
           Concepts                                                 

  J21      Collaborative Decision Making                            C-29

  J31      Airport Surface Management Technologies                  C-37

  J41      Final Approach Spacing Tool                              C-43

  J42      Dynamic Final Approach Spacing                           C-47

  J43      Parallel Runway Spacing Reduction                        C-51

  J45      CTAS Adaptation/Implementation in Complex Airspace       C-55

  J46      Collaborative Arrival Planning                           C-59

  J47      RNAV/FMS Terminal Routing                                C-63

  J48      Arrival/Departure Management Integration                 C-67

  J51      Controller Capabilities to Manage Traffic in Transition  C-71
           Airspace                                                 

  J54      Controller Capabilities for Improved Problem Prediction  C-75

  J55      Controller Capabilities for Improved Problem Resolution  C-81

  J56      Integration with Other Technologies and Domains          C-85

  J57      Other Initiatives to Enhance Decision Support Systems    C-89

  J58      Integration and Application of Decision Support Tools at C-93
           Sector                                                   

  J61      Advanced Oceanic Automation System Development           C-99

  J62      Common Separation Methods and Standards                  C-105
  -------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | ATM Advanced Concept Studies and Exploration    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J11                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 1/27/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Steve Bradford (ASD-130): 202-358-5224          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Mike Hawthorne (AND-720): 202-358-5087          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Del Weathers (NASA): 650-604-6911               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Randy McGuire (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-7925       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | SYSTEM/CROSS-CUTTING AREA                       |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | RTCA Free Flight Final Report, October, 1995.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA Air Traffic Service Plan.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA Free Flight Action Plan, 1996.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To support FAA and NASA management decision     |
|                    | making on how the Air Traffic Management (ATM)  |
|                    | system should evolve by assessing system-level  |
|                    | issues and developing promising operational     |
|                    | concepts for further research at the domain     |
|                    | level.                                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The Interagency ATM IPT will work with the Free |
|                    | Flight Steering Committee on a continuing basis |
|                    | to identify the major issues or concepts        |
|                    | requiring attention.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The FAA and the aviation community are jointly  |
|                    | making recommendations and decisions about how  |
|                    | the ATM system should evolve in accomplishing   |
|                    | the goals of Free Flight. For example, the RTCA |
|                    | Free Flight Steering Committee is leading an    |
|                    | on-going effort to ensure that the              |
|                    | recommendations of Task Force 3 are carried out |
|                    | in a manner that meets user needs and           |
|                    | priorities. A number of technical and           |
|                    | operational issues exist that must be addressed |
|                    | in deciding whether and how the recommendations |
|                    | can be accomplished. Also as free fight         |
|                    | objectives and principles mature, there will be |
|                    | a continuing need for research to address       |
|                    | additional recommendations and changes in user  |
|                    | needs/priorities.                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The specific research issues to be addressed    |
|                    | will be decided by the IAIPT in concert with    |
|                    | the Free Flight Steering Committee and the      |
|                    | aviation community in general; the results of   |
|                    | the research activities in turn will support    |
|                    | the Free Flight Steering Committee's planning   |
|                    | efforts on the evolution of ATM capabilities.   |
|                    | The research results will include proposed      |
|                    | operational concepts including user and service |
|                    | provider roles and responsibilities, system     |
|                    | functional needs and domain allocations, NAS    |
|                    | architectural impacts, and candidate decision   |
|                    | support capabilities and technologies required  |
|                    | to implement new concepts. Most importantly,    |
|                    | recommendations will be made to the IAIMT about |
|                    | whether the issue or concept merits more        |
|                    | detailed evaluation at the domain-level. Such   |
|                    | explicit decision making will help the FAA and  |
|                    | the user community to channel precious research |
|                    | resources toward the highest payoff concepts.   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Preliminary operational concepts and issues     |
|                    | papers will be drafted to capture initial and   |
|                    | proposed functionality, roles/responsibilities  |
|                    | for all affected users and service providers,   |
|                    | and top-level benefits, costs and NAS           |
|                    | architecture impacts. Then exploratory          |
|                    | experiments (in the research laboratory and/or  |
|                    | the field) will be conducted to evaluate the    |
|                    | feasibility of elements of those future ATM     |
|                    | concepts, define the parameters of the concept  |
|                    | elements, and to develop detailed scenarios to  |
|                    | support the exploration of the concept elements |
|                    | at the domain level. As a result of the         |
|                    | analyses, there will be a recommendation made   |
|                    | to the IAIMT for development decisions.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The assessment of system-level issues and the   |
|                    | development of operational concepts will be     |
|                    | supported by several joint projects from the    |
|                    | System/Cross-Cutting area as follows:           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   J12 (Human Factors for Evolving             |
|                    |     Environments) will support the assessment   |
|                    |     of human factors issues related to the      |
|                    |     concepts being examined, for example the    |
|                    |     impact of changing roles and                |
|                    |     responsibilities on the users and service   |
|                    |     providers.                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   J13 (System Performance Assessment and      |
|                    |     Investment Analysis) will provide forecasts |
|                    |     on the future economic environment, trends  |
|                    |     in operational practices, and future        |
|                    |     aircraft performance characteristics to set |
|                    |     the stage for evaluation of potential       |
|                    |     alternatives to a future NAS. These         |
|                    |     activities as well as more specific         |
|                    |     performance analyses will enable a          |
|                    |     determination of initial cost/benefits for  |
|                    |     proposed concepts and aid in deciding       |
|                    |     whether the concept is promising enough to  |
|                    |     proceed with further evaluation.            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   J14 (Air Traffic Management Operational and |
|                    |     Engineering Methods and Analysis) will      |
|                    |     provide the capabilities necessary to       |
|                    |     conduct supporting technical and            |
|                    |     operational analyses of the impact of the   |
|                    |     proposed concepts.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   J16 (Aircraft Systems and Operational       |
|                    |     Requirements for ATM Advanced Concepts)     |
|                    |     will provide support related to current and |
|                    |     future aircraft systems required for the    |
|                    |     proposed concepts. Refer to the JRPD        |
|                    |     write-ups for these projects for more       |
|                    |     detail.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | **Initial Focus Areas:** Based on the RTCA Task |
|                    | Force 3 report and the FAA's Free Flight Action |
|                    | Plan, the following are the examples of major   |
|                    | issues that will be assessed starting in FY'97; |
|                    | additional issues will be identified and        |
|                    | addressed based on priorities set by the user   |
|                    | community and the Interagency IPT Management    |
|                    | Team. The issues at this level would require    |
|                    | further definition before being supplied to the |
|                    | JRPD 11 team for analysis. Examples of advanced |
|                    | concept areas are as follows:                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Examine under which conditions is free      |
|                    |     maneuvering a feasible concept and if so    |
|                    |     what is the benefit and cost (e.g., is it   |
|                    |     worth doing?)                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   What should be the approach to efficient    |
|                    |     management of transition and Terminal       |
|                    |     traffic under Free Flight? Among the issues |
|                    |     to be examined are the accommodations of    |
|                    |     user preferences, merging of En Route and   |
|                    |     Terminal traffic.                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   What are the concepts, requirements and     |
|                    |     standards for the integration of current    |
|                    |     and future FMSs with ATM automation?        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   What airspace redesign issues can be        |
|                    |     addressed in order to reduce system         |
|                    |     inefficiencies?                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | Air Traffic Services, ASD-100, AND-720, and     |
| esponsibilities:** | NASA, working in concert with the RTCA Free     |
|                    | Flight Steering Committee and other user        |
|                    | organizations, have primary responsibility for  |
|                    | leading the evaluation of advanced concepts for |
|                    | ATM decision support capabilities and planning  |
|                    | the evolution of NAS capabilities.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The IAIPT will support those efforts by         |
|                    | conducting research in accordance with the      |
|                    | above approach and by providing research        |
|                    | products that will aid in decision on the       |
|                    | evolution of the NAS.                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Both the FAA/CAASD and NASA will be responsible |
|                    | for conducting advanced ATM concept research,   |
|                    | including laboratory and field evaluations      |
|                    | where necessary to fully evaluate the issue at  |
|                    | hand.                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The ATM research efforts will be conducted in   |
|                    | close coordination with other FAA IPTs. Those   |
|                    | FAA IPTs will provide support for research,     |
|                    | development and demonstration of other          |
|                    | capabilities (e.g., CNS, aircraft avionics)     |
|                    | necessary to the candidate ATM concept. Results |
|                    | of these multiple efforts will of necessity be  |
|                    | integrated to formulate the total system answer |
|                    | to the particular research question.            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | Free Flight and NAS Architecture                |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | # NAS Architecture Development                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operational Concept validation              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological leadership and      |
|                    | productivity of the NAS. Therefore, these       |
|                    | performance analyses and related database of    |
|                    | results must be funded and supported by the     |
|                    | IAIPT to provide the analytic bases for FAA and |
|                    | NASA research into the technical areas of       |
|                    | highest payoff.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   User Access (2.04)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   User-Preferred Trajectories (3.05)          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved Airspace Access (3.06)             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   More Efficient FAA Service Delivery (3.14)  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved RE&D Planning and Assessment       |
|                    |     (3.15)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Operational Concept (4.117)                 |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** | -   Required Functional Capabilities for        |
|                    |     Integrated Aircraft, ATC, and AOC Systems   |
|                    |     (4.124)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   3-D User-Preferred Trajectory Trials        |
|                    |     (4.125)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Airspace Redesign Recommendations (4.126)   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational Capability and Performance      |
|                    |     Requirements (4.127)                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Timeliness - percent deviation from schedule    |
| etrics/Performance | milestones                                      |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
|                    | Acceptability - explicit acceptance by Free     |
|                    | Flight Select Committee, FAA RE&D, NASA         |
|                    | Executive Steering Committee                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Reduced risks and costs                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Rout Efficiencies                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | The approach assumes a responsibility for each  |
| Descriptions:**    | of the JRPD focus areas exploring an advanced   |
|                    | concept to provide a sufficient description of  |
|                    | that concept to support initial evaluation and  |
|                    | recommendation. The ATM concepts research       |
|                    | products will provide enough information for    |
|                    | the FAA and the user community to make informed |
|                    | decisions about whether to proceed with more    |
|                    | extensive (and costly) research efforts. The    |
|                    | following elements, at a minimum, will make up  |
|                    | the advanced ATM concept research products:     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational Concept (4.117) - Draft system  |
|                    |     level operational concept, including        |
|                    |     projected roles and responsibilities for    |
|                    |     all affected users and service providers,   |
|                    |     and assumptions related to evolving         |
|                    |     technologies (e.g., CNS capabilities        |
|                    |     available by time frame). This includes     |
|                    |     operational concepts to a level of detail   |
|                    |     to support more detailed analysis (e.g.     |
|                    |     identification of issues for assessment).   |
|                    |     The analyses associated with the cross      |
|                    |     cutting JRPDs will be a resource for this   |
|                    |     initial concept definition, but the concept |
|                    |     development and specification will be       |
|                    |     initiated by and carried out in the project |
|                    |     area (e.g. TFM, Terminal, Oceanic)          |
|                    |     associated with its development.            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • Required Functional Capabilities for          |
|                    | Integrated Aircraft, ATC, and AOC Systems       |
|                    | (4.124) - Work with industry to define the      |
|                    | functional capabilities required for            |
|                    | integrating aircraft, ATM, and Airline          |
|                    | Operation Center automation systems, via        |
|                    | datalink, to facilitate the realization of Free |
|                    | Flight concepts.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • 3-D User-Preferred Trajectory Trials          |
|                    | (4.125) - In conjunction with the FMS-ATM Next  |
|                    | Generation (FANG) government/industry           |
|                    | consortium, conduct flight trials and document  |
|                    | the benefits and impacts of the use of          |
|                    | three-dimensional user-preferred trajectories   |
|                    | in the NAS.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • Airspace Redesign Recommendations (4.126) -   |
|                    | Plans and standards that define the strategic   |
|                    | focus and implementation approach for he        |
|                    | National Airspace Redesign, including airspace  |
|                    | changes that will result in performance         |
|                    | improvements in the Eastern Triangle and field  |
|                    | evaluations of key concepts for dynamic         |
|                    | airspace reconfigurations.                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • Operational Capability and Performance        |
|                    | Requirements (4.127) -- Through concept         |
|                    | validation exercises, determine the impact on   |
|                    | ATC operations, from both the ground and air    |
|                    | perspectives. The objective of these exercises  |
|                    | is to provide information on human and system   |
|                    | information loads in order to develop           |
|                    | capability and performance requirements for     |
|                    | fulfilling the NAS 2005 Operational Concept.    |
|                    | The validation efforts will include:            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Summary of Rough Order of Magnitude         |
|                    |     benefits and costs                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Initial assessment of NAS                   |
|                    |     architecture/infrastructure impact (if any) |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 4/99 - Report outlining the benefits and        |
| Milestones:**      | impacts of 3-D UPT on ATM in the NAS            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4/99 - Operational Concept Validation Master    |
|                    | Plan                                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4/99 - Development of Traffic Model for Use in  |
|                    | Evaluating 2005-era ATM Operational Concepts    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/99 - National Airspace Redesign Management    |
|                    | Strategy and Plan                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/99 - En Route Operational Concept Validation  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Air/Ground Integration Experiment        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Airspace Boundary Adjustments            |
|                    | Operational Concept Validation                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Eastern Triangle Airspace Structure      |
|                    | Analysis                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Conclusions and Recommendations on       |
|                    | Dynamic Sectorization                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Evolutionary Concept and Plan for NAS    |
|                    | Systems Management                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/99 - Distributed Air-Ground Operations       |
|                    | Concept Developed                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Definition of Near-Term Concepts and     |
|                    | Implementation Strategies                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Potomac TRACON Airspace Redesign         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/00 - Eastern Triangle Implementation         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/00 - High-Altitude Airspace Redesign         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/01 - NAS-Level Assessment of 2005 Operational |
|                    | Concepts                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/01 - Laboratory Environment for System        |
|                    | Concept Validation                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/01 - Concept, Architecture, and Interfaces    |
|                    | for COTS-Based Monitor and Control for NAS      |
|                    | Systems                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/01 - Validation of NAS-Wide Information      |
|                    | System Concept                                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | • 1/98 - 2015 Operational Concept               |
| Accomplishments:** |                                                 |
|                    | • 1/98 - 2005 Pre-Flight Planning Tasks and     |
|                    | Scenarios                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • 4/98 - 2005 Surface Operations Tasks and      |
|                    | Scenarios                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • 6/98 - 2005 Oceanic Operations Tasks and      |
|                    | Scenarios                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • 9/98 - 2005 TFM Operations Tasks and          |
|                    | Scenarios                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • 9/98 - FANG Required Functional Capabilities  |
|                    | Specification                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • 12/98 - 3-D UPT flight trials                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | There are no direct ties to specific F&E        |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | prototype or system upgrade programs.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | Benefits to the ATM system are discussed in the |
|                    | *Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3, Free Flight |
|                    | Implementation*. Benefits include greater       |
|                    | safety and efficiency for users and service     |
|                    | providers, including reduced losses of life and |
|                    | property, reduced fuel burn, time-driven direct |
|                    | operating costs of aircraft, passenger time     |
|                    | savings, and improved productivity. The         |
|                    | magnitude of costs of delays to member airlines |
|                    | has been estimated by the Air Transport         |
|                    | Association to be \$3.5 billion per year.       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | This JRPD is necessary to identify the decision |
|                    | support needs and changes to ATM operations     |
|                    | required to continue the evolution to Free      |
|                    | Flight. This JRPD will provide the additional   |
|                    | benefit of providing top-down direction for     |
|                    | expenditure of research dollars. Promising      |
|                    | concepts will be identified early and a         |
|                    | stronger case for the research will be          |
|                    | established. Marginal research initiatives will |
|                    | also be identified early and terminated if the  |
|                    | situation warrants.                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | If the JRPD is not funded, there will be        |
| Funding the        | insufficient information on which to base       |
| JRPD:**            | requirements for automation and infrastructure  |
|                    | procurements. Further, the JRPD is necessary to |
|                    | ensure that FAA budgets are used for programs   |
|                    | that provide operational benefits; operational  |
|                    | concept validation provides the assessments     |
|                    | necessary to gauge operational effectiveness of |
|                    | the proposed concepts. Concept validation and   |
|                    | National Airspace redesign form the basis for   |
|                    | establishing performance requirements for the   |
|                    | modernized NAS.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Human Factors for Evolving Environments         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J12                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 11/12/98                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mark Rodgers (ASD-130): 202-358-5372            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Kevin Corker (NASA): 650-604-0055               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Tom McCloy (AAR-100): 202-267-7167              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | SYSTEM/CROSS-CUTTING AREA                       |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | RTCA Free Flight Final Report, October, 1995.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA Air Traffic Service Plan.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA Free Flight Action Plan, 1996.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Flight 2000 Operational Concept, 1997.          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To develop and maintain the database,           |
|                    | methodology, and infrastructure needed to       |
|                    | assess and resolve human factors issues.        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | This project is a complement to the modeling    |
|                    | and simulation JRPD J14 and is based on the     |
|                    | advanced concepts and scenarios developed       |
|                    | through JRPD J11. Other individual programs     |
|                    | within the Air Traffic Management (ATM) IPT are |
|                    | mandated to address human factors issues        |
|                    | specific to their particular implementation.    |
|                    | The bases for these specific human factors      |
|                    | decision are provided by research in this       |
|                    | element. However, there are complex underlying  |
|                    | human factors issues such as air/ground         |
|                    | integration, distributed control modes, team    |
|                    | decision making, and display and procedures for |
|                    | flight operations and in support of             |
|                    | user-preferred routing.                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | This Human Factors JRPD will coordinate and     |
|                    | leverage the development of a unified           |
|                    | human/machine interface protocols and           |
|                    | consistent procedural interaction styles among  |
|                    | the human-machine elements of the advanced NAS  |
|                    | ATM.                                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | This project will develop the required          |
|                    | management process and infrastructure to ensure |
|                    | that emerging human factors issues are          |
|                    | identified and that research necessary to       |
|                    | address them is accomplished. The project will  |
|                    | provide a mechanism for addressing broadly      |
|                    | relevant human factors research issues that are |
|                    | identified within the individual programs or    |
|                    | which surface during implementation. Human      |
|                    | factors metrics and draft standards will be     |
|                    | developed.                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Some of the cross-cutting issues have already   |
|                    | been identified, and efforts are already        |
|                    | planned, or ongoing, to address them,           |
|                    | including:                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Air/Ground Integration and Data Link        |
|                    |     Operations: Systematic investigation of     |
|                    |     flight crew performance in using datalink,  |
|                    |     including evaluation and design             |
|                    |     recommendations for message display and     |
|                    |     format, changes in flight crew procedure,   |
|                    |     inter-aircraft data exchange, intent        |
|                    |     exchange, intra-cockpit information         |
|                    |     transfer, and ground decision-support       |
|                    |     system integration issues, air-ground       |
|                    |     coordinated decision making through digital |
|                    |     and voice information exchange.             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Free Flight: Exploration of human factors   |
|                    |     issues associated with NAS 2005 and Free    |
|                    |     Flight operational concepts to aid          |
|                    |     development of cockpit and ground-based     |
|                    |     display, procedure and communications       |
|                    |     requirements, and distributed decision      |
|                    |     making definition to support Free Flight    |
|                    |     operations. Provide support to research and |
|                    |     development efforts of air and ground-based |
|                    |     decision support tools. Development and     |
|                    |     evaluation of metrics for safe effective    |
|                    |     human-machine performance.                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Integration: Inclusion of human      |
|                    |     operators in multi-agent systems requires   |
|                    |     attention to the efficient and effective    |
|                    |     system-wide integration of human            |
|                    |     performance factors, and fault-tolerant     |
|                    |     operation. The development of dynamic       |
|                    |     large-scale evaluation methods and          |
|                    |     human-centered design for consistent aiding |
|                    |     is a focus of this research and development |
|                    |     area. The research provides specification   |
|                    |     of the multi-sector and air/ground          |
|                    |     interaction requirements in procedure and   |
|                    |     communications among aiding technologies.   |
|                    |     Full-mission linked air-ground simulation   |
|                    |     and field tests will be undertaken to       |
|                    |     evaluate system design and effectiveness.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Furthermore, this JRPD will define system       |
|                    | safety models and metrics for ATM functioning   |
|                    | in nominal and off-nominal conditions.          |
|                    | Definition of fail-soft and system diagnostic   |
|                    | support for system operators will be            |
|                    | undertaken. Finally, issues of training         |
|                    | requirements and possible training technologies |
|                    | for advanced potential ATM technologies will be |
|                    | investigated.                                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA and NASA jointly share responsibility   |
| esponsibilities:** | for problem identification, and coordination    |
|                    | with various laboratories and organizations.    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA is responsible for targeting problem        |
|                    | application and in development of               |
|                    | implementation path.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA is responsible for experimental            |
|                    | requirements and infrastructure development     |
|                    | within NASA and for base and applied research   |
|                    | activities.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Relationship to  | Free Flight and NAS Architecture                |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | Human Factors Elements of Flight 2000           |
| Initiatives:**     | Operational Concept                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Advanced Air Transportation Technologies, Human |
|                    | Factors and Operations Plan                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | # NAS Architecture Development                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operational Concept validation              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The NASA and FAA technical developments for     |
| Relevance:**       | decision support systems in the NAS for both    |
|                    | flight deck and ground operations assert the    |
|                    | need for a human-centered, human-responsible    |
|                    | design for automation and human performance     |
|                    | enhancements in procedures and communications.  |
|                    | The Human Factors Area technical charter is to  |
|                    | provide the tools to assure that human-machine  |
|                    | interaction is appropriately supported across   |
|                    | all of the operating domains of the NAS.        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Improved Safety for ATM (3.01)              |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved RE&D Planning and Assessment       |
|                    |     (3.15)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Initial Human Factor System Evaluation      |
| O                  |     Tools (4.102)                               |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   Human-Machine Interface Evaluation Phases 1 |
|                    |     & 2 (4.103)                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Effective Human-Machine Integration             |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Increased Operating Efficiency for Flight Deck  |
|                    | and Ground Ops                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Reduced Operational Impact of Error             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Reduced Incident Reporting & Reduced            |
|                    | Variability in Performance and Workload         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Minimum Operating Performance Specification |
| Descriptions:**    |     (MOPS) for Procedures and Communications &  |
|                    |     Methods and Metrics for Safety Analyses.    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 9/99 - Provide Computational Evaluation Tools   |
| Milestones:**      | for System/ Human Performance Evaluation        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 8/00 - Establish Procedure and Communications   |
|                    | MOPS for Baseline CONOPS                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3/03 - Complete Safety Evaluation of            |
|                    | Human-System Performance                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/03 - Establish Human Performance Safety       |
|                    | Metrics                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/04 - Final MOPS with transitions specified    |
|                    | for 2015                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   TBD                                         |
| Accomplishments:   |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | No F&E and Ops Components                       |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Benefits:          | TBD                                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | TBD                                             |
| Funding the        |                                                 |
| JRPD:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | System Performance Assessment and Investment    |
|                    | Analysis                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J13                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/9/99                                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Steve Bradford (ASD-130): 202-358-5224          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Phil Snyder (NASA): 650-604-4592                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Rick Boland (NASA): 757-864-7845                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Michelle Blucher (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-5714    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | SYSTEM/CROSS-CUTTING AREA                       |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA-FAA MoA concerning Advanced Subsonic       |
|                    | Technology and Airspace System Investment       |
|                    | Analyses.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project, Benefits and Safety Assessment Level 3 |
|                    | Plan.                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | National Research Investment Model (NARIM)      |
|                    | Operational Concept.                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide NAS system-level analysis that can   |
|                    | support comprehensive system performance        |
|                    | (cost/benefit/risk) assessment and investment   |
|                    | portfolio analysis for use by concept           |
|                    | evaluation, prototype development, and          |
|                    | full-scale development efforts. These analyses  |
|                    | and their associated data will be used to       |
|                    | support the choice of strategies and            |
|                    | technologies that ensure the continued          |
|                    | technological leadership and productivity of    |
|                    | the NAS and its users.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | System performance assessment and investment    |
|                    | analysis is concerned with the potential        |
|                    | avenues for growth in the NAS (economic,        |
|                    | geographic, operational) and how a combination  |
|                    | of new operational concepts and the human       |
|                    | factors, operational, and engineering           |
|                    | implications of these concepts on the NAS fit   |
|                    | together to meet this growth in a manner that   |
|                    | makes a plausible and compelling investment     |
|                    | strategy.                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | New Air Traffic Management (ATM) operational    |
|                    | concepts will be defined by the work of JRPD    |
|                    | J11. The human factors (J12) and operational    |
|                    | analysis (J11) will provide an assessment of    |
|                    | the system impact on controller activities.     |
|                    | Analytic tools (J14) will support operational   |
|                    | analyses (J13, J11) that will provide insight   |
|                    | into delay, throughput, and other system        |
|                    | capacity, efficiency and safety measures, and   |
|                    | engineering analysis (J14) into new             |
|                    | human-machine system bottlenecks. The system    |
|                    | performance assessment and investment analysis  |
|                    | activity (J13) then translates these activities |
|                    | via a variety of performance metrics into       |
|                    | indications for meeting customer desires, FAA   |
|                    | cost and productivity goals, and indications of |
|                    | risk. The system performance assessment and     |
|                    | investment analysis activity highlights the     |
|                    | economic and political aspects to future ATM    |
|                    | infrastructure changes.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | This research area has four (4) elements, as    |
|                    | follows:                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | \(1\) Metrics and measurement techniques will   |
|                    | be developed to quantify user and FAA benefits  |
|                    | of the proposed operational concept/            |
|                    | technology.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   This includes baseline performance analysis |
|                    |     for later comparisons with changes made to  |
|                    |     the NAS.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Continued development of user focused       |
|                    |     metrics, and to develop a series of         |
|                    |     FAA-centric metrics based on an initial ATS |
|                    |     measure set.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     \(2\) An investment trade methodology will  |
|                    |     be developed to guide the trades between    |
|                    |     ATM program elements and technical          |
|                    |     alternatives.                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Development of an investment alternatives   |
|                    |     trade methodology based on a hierarchical   |
|                    |     analysis capability. The methodology would  |
|                    |     allow for the identification of investment  |
|                    |     alternative targets and display the         |
|                    |     underlying trades amongst alternatives.     |
|                    |     This methodology will include graphical     |
|                    |     methods for investigating trade response    |
|                    |     curves and surfaces.                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     \(3\) Databases will be developed to        |
|                    |     forecast system and program performance in  |
|                    |     relation to the developed metrics and,      |
|                    |     through time, track program performance     |
|                    |     through the design phase, development       |
|                    |     phase, and into deployment.                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Includes baselining NAS performance         |
|                    |     statistics by quantifying current levels of |
|                    |     air traffic services and NAS operations, to |
|                    |     include user preferences and service        |
|                    |     flexibility. The System/Cross-Cutting Area  |
|                    |     Work Team will provide a high fidelity      |
|                    |     measurement of FAA IPT product benefits.    |
|                    |     This will establish a baseline for          |
|                    |     estimated FAA and user benefits from        |
|                    |     improved functionality for each product of  |
|                    |     the FAA IPT. Any changes to the             |
|                    |     functionality and their associated benefits |
|                    |     would be measured against this baseline.    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   To perform the necessary system performance |
|                    |     tracking, the ATM IPT will consolidate and  |
|                    |     maintain the required modeling databases.   |
|                    |     These databases will include the following  |
|                    |     data:                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | a)  Weather                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | b)  NAS Demand                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | c)  Aircraft Performance                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | d)  ATC Infrastructure                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | e)  Economics                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Establish program life-cycle database to    |
|                    |     support program performance analysis        |
|                    |     operational scenarios, operational factors, |
|                    |     technical factors, human performance        |
|                    |     factors, and investment analysis            |
|                    |     calculations. This assessment will indicate |
|                    |     whether there is a shift in need and        |
|                    |     benefit, requiring reassessment of the      |
|                    |     program decisions.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     \(4\) In order to make informed             |
|                    |     investments, the potential for change in    |
|                    |     airspace user behavior in response to       |
|                    |     changes in the ATM system needs to be       |
|                    |     understood. Examples of such important      |
|                    |     behaviors are gaming, scheduling, and       |
|                    |     equipment investments.                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Gaming - The user community will            |
|                    |     legitimately seek advantage by using new    |
|                    |     rules and procedures to gain operational    |
|                    |     advantages. This effort will seek to        |
|                    |     analyze various gaming strategies that the  |
|                    |     user community may use such that rules and  |
|                    |     procedures will create an environment fair  |
|                    |     to all users.                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Scheduling - Benefits to an airspace user   |
|                    |     can be multiplied through an adjustment in  |
|                    |     aircraft operator schedules. Also,          |
|                    |     scheduling has a strong impact on           |
|                    |     experienced airspace user delays. This      |
|                    |     effort will seek to understand and quantify |
|                    |     the impact of scheduling on the NAS.        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Equipment Investments - Future ATM          |
|                    |     operational changes will be highly          |
|                    |     influenced by the equipage of aircraft.     |
|                    |     Attention should be directed towards the    |
|                    |     drivers of airline equipment investments    |
|                    |     (e.g., affordability) in order to plan for  |
|                    |     and stimulate airspace user equipment       |
|                    |     investment. This effort will seek to        |
|                    |     document the nature of aircraft equipage    |
|                    |     investments and their effect on NAS         |
|                    |     efficiency.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA and NASA will manage and perform the    |
| esponsibilities:** | following tasks:                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Research, develop, select and implement the |
|                    |     investment models                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Distribute and provide training to NARIM    |
|                    |     users                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Help establish a benefits baseline for the  |
|                    |     NAS                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Develop a project performance tracking      |
|                    |     methodology and the supporting database     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Research and implement the ATM IPT          |
|                    |     investment analysis strategy                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Perform selected system studies             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Develop all, or part of, supporting         |
|                    |     databases and conduct analyses on user      |
|                    |     equipage and aircraft performance           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Incorporate ASAC tools into IAIPT decision  |
|                    |     making                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     NASA will manage and perform the following  |
|                    |     tasks:                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Develop a project performance tracking      |
|                    |     methodology for NASA projects               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Research and implement the ATM IPT          |
|                    |     investment analysis strategy for NASA       |
|                    |     projects                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | Free Flight and NAS Architecture                |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | NAS Architecture Development                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operational Concepts validation             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA ATM Executive Steering Committee           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA RE&D ATM Advisory Committee                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological leadership and      |
|                    | productivity of the NAS. Therefore, these       |
|                    | performance analyses and database should be     |
|                    | funded and supported by the IPT to provide the  |
|                    | analytical bases for FAA and NASA research.     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goal:**  | -   Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Improve Safety for ATM (3.01)               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improve RE&D Planning and Assessment (3.15) |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Safety Analysis of Detailed End-State ATM   |
| O                  |     Operational Concept (4.110)                 |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   Portfolio Analysis & Selection Methodology  |
|                    |     (4.142)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Metric Tracking System (4.143)              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Timeliness and cost - percent deviation in      |
| etrics/Performance | schedule and cost for this JRPD.                |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
|                    | Acceptance - number of analyses conducted using |
|                    | the performance tools, user satisfaction as     |
|                    | measured through survey.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | > • Safety Analysis of Detailed End-State ATM   |
| Descriptions:**    | > Operational Concept (4.110) - Provide an      |
|                    | > operational concept and evolution plan for    |
|                    | > mitigating future NAS congestion and          |
|                    | > improving NAS efficiency while maintaining    |
|                    | > system safety. Identify the impact of         |
|                    | > reducing separation, defining where and when  |
|                    | > improvements are needed. Define factors that  |
|                    | > are critical to the reduction in separation   |
|                    | > and system efficiency enhancements. Assess    |
|                    | > the roles of technology and other factors in  |
|                    | > enhancing system efficiency. Develop target   |
|                    | > levels of safety for terminal and en route    |
|                    | > airspace, including the development of        |
|                    | > functional hazard lists associated with       |
|                    | > reduced separation and dynamic                |
|                    | > resectorization.                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • Portfolio Analysis & Selection Methodology    |
|                    | (4.142) - Required methodologies for producing  |
|                    | cost, performance, and risk assessment for ATM  |
|                    | concepts, including program life-cycle model    |
|                    | with validated database for R&D projects and    |
|                    | ATM products. This will support planning and    |
|                    | resource allocation. This product also includes |
|                    | methodologies for analyzing the R&D portfolio,  |
|                    | prioritizing, and selecting new concepts for    |
|                    | inclusion and models of user behavior and user  |
|                    | response to new systems and increased freedom.  |
|                    | Standard data set for investment analysis and   |
|                    | evaluation of new concepts and procedures.      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | • Metric Tracking System (4.143) - NAS          |
|                    | performance metrics and measurement techniques  |
|                    | to detect and quantify system inefficiencies    |
|                    | and imposed costs, including processes for      |
|                    | tracking project performance.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 1/99 - Completed analysis of controller         |
| Milestones:**      | resolution efficiency                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 7/99 - Completed strategic performance plans    |
|                    | that represent ATS commitments to improved      |
|                    | operational service to its users                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Defined the relationship between ATM     |
|                    | system performance and airspace user economic   |
|                    | performance                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Defined/Assessed factors critical to     |
|                    | reducing separation standards and enhancing     |
|                    | system safety and efficiency                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Developed baseline system performance    |
|                    | metrics                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Initial benefits assessment of AATT      |
|                    | products                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Multi-sector Analysis                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/00 - Completed prototype of a graphical       |
|                    | investment trade tool to guide the trades       |
|                    | between ATM program elements and technical      |
|                    | alternatives.                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/00 - Establish a user service strategic       |
|                    | planning and performance assessment structure   |
|                    | that is consistent with GPRA                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/00 - Apply CNS/ATM operational safety         |
|                    | assessment methodology to identify NAS safety   |
|                    | objectives and requirements                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/00 - Baseline existing NAS performance        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/01 - Safety analysis of detailed end-state   |
|                    | ATM operational concept                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/04 - Final AATT Benefit/Cost/Safety           |
|                    | assessment                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   1/98 - Developed metrics tracking system    |
| Accomplishments:   |                                                 |
|                    | -   1/98 - Completed development of en route    |
|                    |     controller and pilot communication baseline |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   5/98 - Completed five baseline scenarios    |
|                    |     for use in analysis                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   10/98 - Generated future growth scenarios   |
|                    |     for use in analysis                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   10/98 - Completed analysis of current       |
|                    |     separation standards and the parameters     |
|                    |     that affect them                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | No F&E and Ops Components                       |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | The project benefits result from the FAA and    |
|                    | NASA\'s ability to focus research on the        |
|                    | technical areas of highest payoff. Enhanced and |
|                    | well-integrated modeling and analysis           |
|                    | capabilities will allow better assessments of   |
|                    | total system operational and engineering        |
|                    | impacts, associated benefits and costs, and     |
|                    | thus sound investment decision-making.          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | By not funding this JRPD, the IAIPT will        |
| Funding the        | limited in its ability to assess system         |
| JRPD:**            | performance and investment analysis.            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Air Traffic Management Operational,             |
|                    | Engineering, and Safety Methods and Analysis    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J14                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/9/99                                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Diana Liang (ASD-430): 202-358-5236             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Phil Snyder (NASA): 650-604-4592                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | SYSTEM/CROSS-CUTTING AREA                       |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA-FAA MoA concerning Advanced Subsonic       |
|                    | Technologies and Airspace System Investment     |
|                    | Analyses.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technology     |
|                    | Program Plan.                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project, Benefits and Safety Assessment Level 3 |
|                    | Plan.                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | National Research Investment Model (NARIM)      |
|                    | Operational Concept.                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To:                                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1\) Provide operational, engineering, and       |
|                    | safety analyses to support NAS concept          |
|                    | exploration, research issue investigations;     |
|                    | and,                                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2\) Provide system level tools to evaluate      |
|                    | NAS-wide benefits and safety impacts of         |
|                    | advanced technological and procedural           |
|                    | improvements to the air transportation system.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The Air Traffic Management (ATM) IPT delivers   |
|                    | decision support concepts and technology for    |
|                    | use in future operational ATM systems. This     |
|                    | activity addresses the development of methods   |
|                    | and tools to assess the operational,            |
|                    | engineering, and safety impacts of these        |
|                    | concepts and technologies.                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | In order to meet the above requirements, the    |
|                    | System/Cross-Cutting Area Work Team will        |
|                    | develop an integrated suite of tools that       |
|                    | assist government organizations, industry, and  |
|                    | the public in:                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Conducting local and NAS-level impact       |
|                    |     assessments in the concept exploration      |
|                    |     phase                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Providing methods for extrapolating local   |
|                    |     benefits assessments to the NAS-level       |
|                    |     during the concept development phase and    |
|                    |     beyond                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Providing validation and verification       |
|                    |     information for tracking concept            |
|                    |     performance over the concept life cycle     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     The program will leverage existing work to  |
|                    |     the extent possible to create/ improve the  |
|                    |     modeling capabilities.                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     If existing tools are insufficient in       |
|                    |     areas, one of these several actions will be |
|                    |     taken:                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Work with the commercial tool providers to  |
|                    |     enhance and improve the tool to meet        |
|                    |     requirements                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Enhance and improve the tool to meet ATM    |
|                    |     IPT requirements                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Create new tools when necessary             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     The modeling capabilities will be           |
|                    |     integrated based on state-of-the-art        |
|                    |     software engineering technologies and       |
|                    |     methods.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     The four (4) areas of assessment are:       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1)  [Procedural And Airport/Airspace Design     |
|                    |     Operational Assessment]{.underline}: The    |
|                    |     operational assessment models will assess   |
|                    |     the effects of different air traffic        |
|                    |     management operations on air traffic flows. |
|                    |     Typical metrics from such models include    |
|                    |     throughput, delay, block time and fuel      |
|                    |     burn, conflict analysis, and collision      |
|                    |     risk. This modeling and simulation suite    |
|                    |     will exist in a range of levels, functions  |
|                    |     and detail. At least one level must model   |
|                    |     the National Airspace System. Other levels  |
|                    |     may be more analytical; for example,        |
|                    |     capable of modeling specific technology and |
|                    |     procedures, aircraft mix, or predicting or  |
|                    |     evaluating capacity.                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2)  [ATM Procedural Application and/or System   |
|                    |     Development Executable Engineering          |
|                    |     Models]{.underline}: The second type of     |
|                    |     models will be executable engineering       |
|                    |     models. These models can analyze the        |
|                    |     information flow throughout the NAS and     |
|                    |     identify potential human, machine, and      |
|                    |     procedural bottlenecks. These models will   |
|                    |     use operational model output as triggering  |
|                    |     events to simulate the movement of          |
|                    |     information whether it is from              |
|                    |     surveillance, navigation, automation or a   |
|                    |     representation of a controller's actions.   |
|                    |     The engineering model capability will       |
|                    |     answer the question, "Can the               |
|                    |     infrastructure support the potential        |
|                    |     changes/improvements?"                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3)  [Integrated Operational and Engineering     |
|                    |     Evaluation]{.underline}: The next stage for |
|                    |     these two above two areas is to link the    |
|                    |     models so that the operational impact and   |
|                    |     the infrastructure impacts can be played    |
|                    |     concurrently. This will ensure that the     |
|                    |     results are consistent and not a result of  |
|                    |     the marginal analysis inherent in running   |
|                    |     the operational and infrastructure models   |
|                    |     sequentially.                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4)  [Safety Assessment and                      |
|                    |     Evaluation]{.underline}: New operational    |
|                    |     concepts and technologies can affect the    |
|                    |     safety level of the NAS. A detailed         |
|                    |     methodology for hazard analysis of the      |
|                    |     operational change and technology, followed |
|                    |     by the development mitigation strategies    |
|                    |     and an operational impact assessment is     |
|                    |     necessary for the ultimate determination of |
|                    |     whether the change is both safe and         |
|                    |     beneficial. The methodology will be         |
|                    |     coupled, where possible, to the integrated  |
|                    |     assessment environment to enable better     |
|                    |     quantification and identification of        |
|                    |     potential safety hazards.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     The modeling capabilities developed under   |
|                    |     this JRPD will undergo frequent validation  |
|                    |     studies by both the FAA and NASA. Timely    |
|                    |     validation studies will target the          |
|                    |     assessment of critical ATM changes under    |
|                    |     exploration by the ATM IPT. These studies   |
|                    |     will use NASA and FAA real-time simulators  |
|                    |     and NAS operational data to aid in the      |
|                    |     modeling validation.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The IAIPT will co-lead a government-sponsored   |
| esponsibilities:** | team to collaborate in developing a             |
|                    | comprehensive modeling effort that covers U.S.  |
|                    | domestic NAS modeling needs.                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The team will develop the necessary database    |
|                    | structures, analysis methodologies, and models. |
|                    | The team will conduct validation of these       |
|                    | databases, methodologies, and models through    |
|                    | their application to critical assessments of    |
|                    | ATM IPT technology and procedural development   |
|                    | (J11, J13).                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | Free Flight and NAS Architecture                |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | NAS Architecture Development                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operations Concepts Validation              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA ATM Executive Steering Committee           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA RE&D ATM Advisory Subcommittee              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological leadership and      |
|                    | productivity of the NAS. The ATM IPT is         |
|                    | developing and delivering decision support      |
|                    | tools to support future operational concepts    |
|                    | and measures the NAS-wide benefits and safety   |
|                    | impacts of their tools.                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Other (2.06)                                |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Improve RE&D planning and assessment (3.15) |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Integrated Operational & Engineering        |
| O                  |     Analysis Model (4.107)                      |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Timeliness and cost - percent deviation in      |
| etrics/Performance | schedule and cost for this JRPD.                |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
|                    | Acceptance -- number of analyses conducted      |
|                    | using the performance tools, user satisfaction  |
|                    | as measured through survey.                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Impact to the safety of the current NAS         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | Integrated Operational and Engineering Analysis |
| Descriptions:**    | Model (4.107) - The FAA's existing modeling and |
|                    | simulation capabilities are currently being     |
|                    | enhanced and integrated by FAA/ASD in           |
|                    | collaboration with NASA as the NARIM. NARIM is  |
|                    | envisioned to be an integrated set of           |
|                    | analytical tools and models that focus on       |
|                    | providing statistics on the benefits and costs  |
|                    | of changes to the National Airspace System and  |
|                    | its Surface, Terminal, and En Route components. |
|                    | The goal is for NARIM to provide a benefits and |
|                    | cost modeling capability ranging from low to    |
|                    | high fidelity and from a local to national      |
|                    | perspective. NARIM will combine a software      |
|                    | representation of the NAS infrastructure, which |
|                    | provides an analysis capability of how the      |
|                    | components interact with each other based on    |
|                    | the flow of CNS data and automation solutions,  |
|                    | with the current suite of operational models.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | A detailed methodology for hazard analysis of   |
|                    | the operational change and technology, followed |
|                    | by the development mitigation strategies and an |
|                    | operational impact assessment is necessary for  |
|                    | the ultimate determination of whether the       |
|                    | change is both safe and beneficial.             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Coordination with Eurocontrol Fast-Time         |
|                    | Simulator Developer Sub-group and the Transport |
|                    | Modeling System (TMS) group to create and adopt |
|                    | a universal standard for fast time simulation   |
|                    | models and tools integration. This effort also  |
|                    | include joint research and development of       |
|                    | common components/modules to support the        |
|                    | assessment of operational concepts in the U.S.  |
|                    | and Europe.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The Air Traffic Airspace Program Office will    |
|                    | develop an integrated modeling capability to    |
|                    | support national airspace redesign planning and |
|                    | analyses. This national airspace redesign lab   |
|                    | complements and supports a process and set of   |
|                    | standards that govern airspace redesign         |
|                    | activities, and provides an enhanced air        |
|                    | traffic management performance analysis         |
|                    | capability. Components of the lab will include  |
|                    | sophisticated data analysis and archiving       |
|                    | capabilities, airspace design tools (e.g.,      |
|                    | SDAT), simulation models (e.g., TAAM, RAMS),    |
|                    | and processes and personnel to support          |
|                    | effective utilization of these tools. The       |
|                    | expected initial operational date of the lab is |
|                    | early spring 1999. The lead for developing this |
|                    | integrated capability is the FAA's Air Traffic  |
|                    | Airspace Program Office, and it is expected     |
|                    | that the lab, especially the data analysis      |
|                    | capabilities, will support other FAA and NASA   |
|                    | efforts for concept validation and performance  |
|                    | analysis. CAASD will support the Air Traffic    |
|                    | Airspace Program Office in developing a lab     |
|                    | operational concept, functional evolution plan, |
|                    | and integration plan in 1999.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 3/99 -- RAMS/OPGEN prototype                    |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Draft Design Prototype CAT for managers  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - ADS-B analysis and prototype             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Multi-sector Planner with RAMS           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Simulation model of Eastern Triangle to  |
|                    | Support Airspace Design Studies                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Concept and functional evolution plan    |
|                    | for national airspace redesign lab              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/00 - Capabilities and Architecture Tool (CAT) |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Information Flow Modeling Capability     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Enhanced System Simulations to Support   |
|                    | Airspace Design Alternatives Assessment         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | • 10/98 -- NARIM Build 3 Dates                  |
| Accomplishments:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   12/98 - RAMS/OPGEN prototype                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | No F&E and Operations Components                |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | The project benefits are a result of the FAA    |
|                    | and NASA's ability to focus research on the     |
|                    | technical areas of highest payoff. Enhanced and |
|                    | well-integrated modeling and analysis           |
|                    | capabilities will permit better assessments of  |
|                    | total system operational and engineering        |
|                    | impacts, associated benefits and costs, and     |
|                    | thus more informed investment decision-making.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | By not funding this JRPD, the FAA and NASA will |
| Funding the        | be hampered in making NAS improvement           |
| JRPD:**            | decisions.                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The purpose of the operational, engineering and |
|                    | safety models are to evaluate the NAS benefit   |
|                    | and impacts of safety for new operational       |
|                    | concepts.                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Application of Aircraft Capabilities to ATM     |
|                    | Advanced Concepts                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J16                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 1/27/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mark Ballin (NASA): 757-864-2080                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Michael Hawthorne (AND-720): 202-358-5087       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Monica Hughes (NASA): 757-864-3942              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | SYSTEM/CROSS-CUTTING AREA                       |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | RTCA Task Force 3 Report.                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To evaluate and develop aircraft systems and    |
|                    | operational procedures to enhance the           |
|                    | efficiency, flexibility, and safety of the Air  |
|                    | Traffic Management (ATM) system in the          |
|                    | evolution towards achieving Free Flight         |
|                    | operations for all NAS users. This effort will  |
|                    | evaluate existing and future aircraft on-board  |
|                    | systems to determine their operational impact   |
|                    | as part of the migration to the proposed        |
|                    | air/ground infrastructure of the modern NAS.    |
|                    | New technologies for the aircraft flight deck   |
|                    | will also be researched and developed toward    |
|                    | enhancing efficient and safe Free Flight        |
|                    | operations.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | This project will identify the operational      |
|                    | capabilities of current and future aircraft     |
|                    | systems including rotorcraft and general        |
|                    | aviation aircraft and will evaluate their       |
|                    | operational potential and impact of achieving   |
|                    | Free Flight for all NAS users.                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | New airborne systems concepts will be developed |
|                    | for the aircraft by drawing upon ongoing        |
|                    | research in sensor, crew situation awareness,   |
|                    | and data exchange technologies. These concepts  |
|                    | will first be evaluated in simulation, with the |
|                    | most beneficial concepts then being further     |
|                    | tested and demonstrated in an actual flight     |
|                    | environment. The research will include          |
|                    | development of procedures for NAS 2005          |
|                    | improvements in air/ground negotiations as well |
|                    | as flight technologies for 2005-2015 migration  |
|                    | from modernization to Free Flight.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The flight testing of airborne systems will be  |
|                    | integrated with evolving ground-based concepts  |
|                    | for free fight.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | NASA, FAA's Office of Communications,           |
| esponsibilities:** | Navigation, Surveillance Systems (AND), and     |
|                    | MITRE CAASD are working together to develop an  |
|                    | integrated approach to research involving       |
|                    | ATM-compatible flight deck systems and          |
|                    | procedures.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Through the Interagency IPT, NASA, AND, and     |
|                    | CAASD will work collaboratively to assure that  |
|                    | operational concepts, demonstrations,           |
|                    | validations, and procedures are developed in an |
|                    | integrated manner to best achieve national      |
|                    | goals.                                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | Free Flight and NAS Architecture                |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | NAS Architecture Development                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operations Concepts Validation              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Safety                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The migration of the NAS from ground-based to   |
| Relevance:**       | shared infrastructure is a stated goal of the   |
|                    | FAA. It will increase the efficiency of the     |
|                    | operations as well as reduce the cost of        |
|                    | sustaining an aging infrastructure. The         |
|                    | development and demonstration of improved       |
|                    | flight deck products will improve the           |
|                    | efficiency of user operations as well as        |
|                    | shorten the time of transition.                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   User-Preferred Trajectories (3.05)          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   User-Preferred Scheduling (3.07)            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
|                    |     (3.11)                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved RE&D Planning and Assessment       |
|                    |     (3.15)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Flight deck automation tools and displays   |
| O                  |     (4.123)                                     |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   Identification and funding of best Free     |
|                    |     Flight concepts (4.120)                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Increased throughput in reduced visibility      |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Reduced risk and cost                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Concepts to provide to flight deck crews    |
| Descriptions:**    |     the information to dynamically plan and     |
|                    |     re-plan routes for maximum efficiency       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Airborne automation tools (e.g., conflict   |
|                    |     resolution), flight data and situation      |
|                    |     displays (e.g., 3-D view of airspace) which |
|                    |     can be used to assure safe and further      |
|                    |     reduced separation.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Assessment of airborne implications of the  |
|                    |     application of new technologies (e.g.,      |
|                    |     Global Positioning System/Automatic         |
|                    |     Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, advanced  |
|                    |     Flight Management System) to support Free   |
|                    |     Flight operations                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Assessment of methods to streamline         |
|                    |     certification of capabilities and           |
|                    |     procedures associated with new cockpit      |
|                    |     capabilities                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Draft Standards for various procedures      |
|                    |     (e.g., Minimum Operational Performance      |
|                    |     Standard, Airports Organization)            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   NAS 2005 datalink applications              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 3/99 - Business Model Alternatives Analysis for |
| Milestones:**      | FIS                                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 8/99 - Operational Procedures and Technical     |
|                    | Performance Requirements for ADS-B/CDTI         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Draft CPDLC-II Functional Requirements   |
|                    | and Analysis                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - ATN Software Architectural               |
|                    | Recommendations and Test Evaluation Results     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 8/99 - Recommended Sequence and Packaging of    |
|                    | FANG Services                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 8/99 - Flight Information Services (FIS)        |
|                    | Functional and Performance Requirements         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 7/99 - Report on Certification Streamlining     |
|                    | Recommendations to RTCA Task Force 4            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/99 - Flight deck concepts definitions         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 10/99 - Evaluations of Data Link Human Factors  |
|                    | and Pilot/Flight Deck CHI                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/99 - Demonstration of Commercially-Available |
|                    | FIS Capabilities                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Demonstration in Alaska and Ohio Valley  |
|                    | of FIS Capabilities, with emphasis on viability |
|                    | of aircraft technologies                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3/01 - Flight deck planning system definitions  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/01 - Field Evaluations of FMS-ATM-AOC         |
|                    | Services Concepts/ Benefits                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/02 - Initial FMS-ATM-AOC Service              |
|                    | Implementation                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3/03 - Demonstration of flight deck concepts    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 00-03 - Government/Industry Evaluations of      |
|                    | Proposed ADS-B/CDTI Capabilities and Concepts   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | 12/98 - Established work-station based Free     |
| Accomplishments:   | Flight simulation capabilities                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/98 - Defined an initial airborne strategic   |
|                    | re-planning                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | Data link program for Controller Pilot Data     |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | Link Communications has been through the JRC    |
|                    | process and funding has been identified. NASA   |
|                    | will need to coordinate with the FAA to gain    |
|                    | access to operational ARTCC and TRACON          |
|                    | facilities. For other research efforts under    |
|                    | this JRPD, there are no ties to current F&E     |
|                    | prototype developments or operational system    |
|                    | upgrades.                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Efficiency (User):]{.underline}                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Reduces fuel consumption and passenger time   |
|                    | > by aiding in the availability and selection   |
|                    | > of optimal routes.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Safety:]{.underline}                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Provides aircraft systems and procedures to   |
|                    | > assist pilots in maintaining safe operation   |
|                    | > in the NAS as the system evolves toward Free  |
|                    | > Flight.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Flexibility:]{.underline}                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Provides tools to allow users more            |
|                    | > flexibility in selecting desired flight       |
|                    | > paths.                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Impact of not      | All domestic research in distributed air/ground |
| Funding the JRPD:  | traffic separation and management would end,    |
|                    | thereby jeopardizing the goals of Free Flight   |
|                    | and the user community's objectives of making   |
|                    | better, more cost effective use of the aircraft |
|                    | technologies in which they are investing.       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Collaborative Decision Making                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J21                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 8/19/98                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Steve Alvania (AOZ-400): 202-233-5039           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Tony Chambliss (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6611      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT AREA                    |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | RTCA TF3 Final Report.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA Air Traffic Service Plan.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide:                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1)  All Traffic Flow Management (TFM) users     |
|                    |     with a common picture of the NAS            |
|                    |     environment;                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2)  NAS airline customers and FAA flow managers |
|                    |     with enhanced operational flexibility to    |
|                    |     optimize the utilization of resources       |
|                    |     (e.g., crews, aircraft, airspace, etc.);    |
|                    |     and,                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3)  Enable on-line, operational analyses of     |
|                    |     past, current, and future TFM conditions to |
|                    |     monitor and continually enhance the TFM     |
|                    |     process.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Ultimately, the result will be collaborative    |
|                    | traffic flow management in the Free Flight      |
|                    | paradigm.                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The project includes a group of activities that |
|                    | fall into three general areas:                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1)  Data Exchange which provides a              |
|                    |     Collaborative Decision Making (CDM)         |
|                    |     communications infrastructure and NAS data  |
|                    |     interfaces;                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2)  Collaborative Decision Making Capabilities  |
|                    |     which provide enabling algorithms and       |
|                    |     processes; and,                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3)  NAS Flow Analysis Tools that provide near   |
|                    |     real-time feedback on the performance of    |
|                    |     the NAS and TFM process.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Improvements will include data exchange         |
|                    | capabilities, algorithms, information displays, |
|                    | and other decision-making aids that will be     |
|                    | implemented as a set of integrated modules in   |
|                    | the emerging TFM infrastructure. From the Air   |
|                    | Traffic Management (ATM) perspective,           |
|                    | capabilities will appear as an integrated suite |
|                    | of decision making aids.                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Development efforts will emphasize the use and  |
|                    | display of improved information flows.          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The resultant research capabilities will        |
|                    | transition as a sequence of functional packages |
|                    | to the TFM domain for full-scale development    |
|                    | and integration into the evolving TFM           |
|                    | automation infrastructure.                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | This project will be accomplished in close      |
|                    | coordination with J14.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | Primary responsibility rests with FAA/AAR and   |
| esponsibilities:** | FAA/AOZ-400 for concept exploration, for        |
|                    | concept development and prototyping leading to  |
|                    | full-scale development. FAA/AOZ-400 would have  |
|                    | the lead for the development and fielding of    |
|                    | capabilities associated with the Free Flight    |
|                    | Phase 1 (FFP1) time frame.                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Relationship to  | This JRPD directly supports the following Free  |
| Current Aviation   | Flight Action Plan initiatives: 6, 8, 10, 11,   |
| Community          | 14, 15, 16, 24, and 25.                         |
| Initiatives:**     |                                                 |
|                    | Airline Operations Center personnel and FAA     |
|                    | flow management personnel are full members of   |
|                    | the CDM Development Team.                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | ATM, Airlines, and Aviation Industry            |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | By implementation of cost effective mechanisms  |
| Relevance:**       | for the exchange of electronic data between     |
|                    | users and the FAA, processes, practices and     |
|                    | procedures may be developed to enhance NAS      |
|                    | efficiency through collaborative decision       |
|                    | making among the user community and the FAA ATM |
|                    | specialists.                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Better Information Distribution (3.03)      |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Collaborative Planning (3.06)               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   User-Preferred Scheduling (3.07)            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Flow Control-Induced Delays (3.12)  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved RE&D Planning (3.15)               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Data Exchange for Ground Delay Program      |
| O                  |     Enhancements (GDPE) (4.212)                 |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   ASD Data to Industry (4.211)                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Enhance Collection and Distribution of NAS  |
|                    |     Status Information (4.213)                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Initial Ground Delay Program Enhancements   |
|                    |     (GDPE) (4.221)                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Expanded GDPE (4.222)                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Collaborative Routing (4.224)               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interactive Flight Planning (4.225)         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Impact Assessment (4.231)            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Compliance Monitoring (4.232)               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Performance Assessment (4.233)              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Automated Problem Recognition (4.234)       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Dynamic Density Monitor (4.235)             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Post Operational Evaluation Tool (POET)     |
|                    |     (4.236)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Program Analysis/Selection Tool (4.237)     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Improved NAS capacity management through timely |
| etrics/Performance | exchange and utilization of information from    |
| Indicators:**      | airlines.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Improved buffer of safety through more          |
|                    | balanced/reduced controller workloads.          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Reduced and more equitable distribution of user |
|                    | delays based on collaborative decision making   |
|                    | using shared information.                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Improved FAA and industry operational           |
|                    | flexibility through more effective resource     |
|                    | management.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Attainment of sufficient information to prepare |
|                    | adequate F&E acquisition documentation.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Data Exchange for Ground Delay Program      |
| Descriptions:**    |     Enhancements (GDPE): Provide capability to  |
|                    |     exchange relevant data between the FAA TFM  |
|                    |     system and the airlines to facilitate GDPE. |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Airline Situation Display (ASD) Data to     |
|                    |     Industry: Provide industry with permanent   |
|                    |     access to filtered ASD data.                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Enhance Collection and Distribution of NAS  |
|                    |     Status Information: Exchange timely,        |
|                    |     consistent information regarding NAS        |
|                    |     resource status to service providers and    |
|                    |     external users, including Dynamic Special   |
|                    |     Use Airspace (SUA) Information Distribution |
|                    |     which provides timely data on the status of |
|                    |     military Special Use Airspace.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Initial Ground Delay Program enhancements   |
|                    |     (GDPE): Enhanced capabilities to improve    |
|                    |     scheduling including Flight Schedule        |
|                    |     Monitor, Schedule compression, and Ration   |
|                    |     by Schedule.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Expanded GDPE: Provides additional GDPE     |
|                    |     capabilities including Simplified Flight    |
|                    |     Substitutions, and Control by Time of       |
|                    |     Arrival; Flight Substitution Process        |
|                    |     Simplification develops new rules to        |
|                    |     replace the requirement to identify flight  |
|                    |     pairings with a more general process for    |
|                    |     assigning arrival slots and Control by Time |
|                    |     of Arrival modifies the process of managing |
|                    |     airport arrival resources so that           |
|                    |     controlled times of arrival are used        |
|                    |     instead of estimated departure clearance    |
|                    |     time.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Collaborative Routing: Allows service       |
|                    |     providers and users to collaborate on       |
|                    |     routing strategies. Provides the traffic    |
|                    |     flow specialist with decision support       |
|                    |     automation relating to severe weather       |
|                    |     routing as well as traffic congestion.      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interactive Flight Planning: Provide NAS    |
|                    |     users with knowledge of the state of the    |
|                    |     NAS (restrictions, options) and the         |
|                    |     rationale governing the modification or     |
|                    |     rejection of a filed flight plan.           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Impact Assessment: Develop a         |
|                    |     real-time predictive tool that allows TFM   |
|                    |     decision makers to predict effects of       |
|                    |     specific operational decisions made or      |
|                    |     proposed by NAS users and/or service        |
|                    |     providers.                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Compliance Monitoring: Develop methods for  |
|                    |     measuring compliance and adherence to       |
|                    |     ground rules in the context of CDM, (e.g.,  |
|                    |     ensure that the system is fair to all).     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Performance Assessment: Develop             |
|                    |     capabilities to analyze the performance of  |
|                    |     the NAS as it pertains to TFM.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Automated Problem Recognition: Design and   |
|                    |     implement an early warning capability that  |
|                    |     could recognize and measure projected       |
|                    |     demand on a NAS resource and inform TFM     |
|                    |     when capacity was projected to be exceeded. |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Dynamic Density Monitor: Develop            |
|                    |     capabilities for monitoring and predicting  |
|                    |     sector loading under evolving Free Flight   |
|                    |     conditions.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Post Operational Evaluation Tool: Develop   |
|                    |     capability to evaluate system performance   |
|                    |     based on a comparison of planned versus     |
|                    |     actual NAS operations through the use of    |
|                    |     detailed FAA and airline system performance |
|                    |     data.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Program Analysis/Selection Tool: TBD        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 9/99 - Completion of Expanded GDPE PD           |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 3/00 - Start of Expanded GDPE FSD               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3/00 - Completion of Collaborative Routing CD   |
|                    | 5/00 - Completion of Enhance Collection and     |
|                    | Distribution of NAS Status Information          |
|                    | Prototype Development (PD)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/00 - Start of Enhance Collection and         |
|                    | Distribution of NAS Status Information          |
|                    | Full-Scale Development (FSD)                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/01 - Completion of Collaborative Rerouting PD |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/01 - Start of Collaborative Rerouting FSD    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/00 - Completion of Interactive Flight         |
|                    | Planning Concept Exploration (CE)               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/01 - Completion of Interactive Flight         |
|                    | Planning Concept Development (CD)               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/02 - Completion of Interactive Flight         |
|                    | Planning PD                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/02 - Start of Interactive Flight Planning    |
|                    | FSD                                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/00 - Completion of System Impact Assessment   |
|                    | CD                                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/01 - Completion of System Impact Assessment   |
|                    | PD                                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3/01 - Start of System Impact Assessment FSD    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/99 - Completion of Compliance Monitoring CD   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/00 - Completion of Compliance Monitoring PD   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/00 - Start of Compliance Monitoring FSD      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/99 - Completion of Performance Assessment CD  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/00 - Completion of Performance Assessment PD  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/00 - Start of Performance Assessment FSD     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/00 - Completion of Dynamic Density Monitor CE |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/01 - Completion of Dynamic Density Monitor CD |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 5/02 - Completion of Dynamic Density Monitor PD |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/02 - Start of Dynamic Density Monitor FSD    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   5/98 - Completion of Data Exchange for GDPE |
| Accomplishments:** |     PD                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   5/98 - Completion of Expanded GDPE Concept  |
|                    |     Development (CD)                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   5/98 - Completion of Automated Problem      |
|                    |     Recognition CE                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   6/98 - Completion of Initial GDPE PD        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   9/98 - Completion of Performance Assessment |
|                    |     CE                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   9/98 - Completion of System Impact          |
|                    |     Assessment CE                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   9/98 - Completion of Compliance Monitoring  |
|                    |     CE                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   11/98 - Start of Data Exchange for GDPE FSD |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   11/98 - Start of Initial GDPE FSD           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   ASD Data to Industry (ASDI) is available    |
|                    |     via airline sponsored AOCNet.               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Communications infrastructure for future    |
|                    |     data exchange capabilities has been         |
|                    |     implemented.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Data sharing between the FAA and airlines   |
|                    |     has been initiated.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Disseminated aggregate demand lists to the  |
|                    |     airlines to facilitate decision making.     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Implemented procedures for initial          |
|                    |     collaborative decision making.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Researched and developed collaborative      |
|                    |     decision making operational concepts to     |
|                    |     capture and resolve decision timing issues. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | Planning and coordination have necessarily      |
| with F&E and Ops   | included F&E and Ops from the initial CE phase  |
| (O&M):**           | and each subsequent development and             |
|                    | implementation phase.                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | Collaborative Decision making capabilities are  |
|                    | necessary to give NAS users greater flexibility |
|                    | and control over operational decisions.         |
|                    | Flexibility will enable NAS users to optimize   |
|                    | their operational schedules while reducing      |
|                    | their operating costs associated with system    |
|                    | constraints. The service that the FAA provides  |
|                    | NAS users will thus be improved. These          |
|                    | enhancements have been identified by the Air    |
|                    | Traffic Service Plan and RTCA Implementation    |
|                    | Task Force 3 reports.                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Since TFM is a strategic process, significant   |
|                    | system-wide impact is likely. Through increased |
|                    | flexibility, system users will be better able   |
|                    | to respond to small and large system            |
|                    | disruptions permitting them to reduce the       |
|                    | impact on operational costs. Flexibility and    |
|                    | greater system access will also allow users to  |
|                    | reduce fuel costs, delays, and actual block     |
|                    | times. The financial impact of these            |
|                    | improvements is extremely difficult to fully    |
|                    | quantify, however, an indication of the         |
|                    | magnitude of potential benefits can be gotten   |
|                    | from considering the following two examples     |
|                    | which consider the airline perspective:         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1)  If airlines are able to reduce routine      |
|                    |     flying times, departure delays, and better  |
|                    |     respond to system disruptions, they will be |
|                    |     able to reduce scheduled block times.       |
|                    |     Considering only the scheduled domestic jet |
|                    |     fleet, an average two-minute decrease in    |
|                    |     scheduled block times will reduce operating |
|                    |     costs by \$360 Million a year (Ref: RTCA    |
|                    |     Task Force 3 Final Report, Page 92). This   |
|                    |     reduction mainly results from crew and      |
|                    |     equipment cost savings.                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2)  Increased information flows and a more      |
|                    |     collaborative decision-making process       |
|                    |     associated with National Ground Delay       |
|                    |     Programs are estimated to save airlines     |
|                    |     \$221 million a year (Ref: RTCA Task Force  |
|                    |     3 Final Report, page 94, sum of "Most       |
|                    |     Likely" entries"). These operational costs  |
|                    |     savings are based primarily on crew cost    |
|                    |     savings associated with reduced delays      |
|                    |     occurring during national ground delay      |
|                    |     programs. Savings associated with reduced   |
|                    |     missed connections, reduced cancellations,  |
|                    |     improved on-time performance, etc. will     |
|                    |     greatly increase potential benefits.        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | The purpose of this JRPD is to support research |
| Funding the        | to provide cost-effective mechanisms for the    |
| JRPD:**            | exchange of electronic operational data between |
|                    | the FAA and Users. It also includes the         |
|                    | development of applications methods and         |
|                    | procedures that allow for collaborative         |
|                    | decision making; and methods for evaluating     |
|                    | traffic flow strategies to make better use of   |
|                    | available airspace and facilities. If the RPD   |
|                    | is not funded, then the FAA cannot:             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | a)  Comply with the Free Flight Action Plan     |
|                    |     initiatives embodied in Recommendations 6,  |
|                    |     8, 10,11, 14, 15, 16, 24, and 25, nor,      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | b)  Support collaborative decision making to    |
|                    |     provide more efficient use of existing      |
|                    |     airspace through increased operational      |
|                    |     flexibility and predictability of the NAS.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Project Name:**  | Airport Surface Management Technologies         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J31                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 9/24/98                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Darren Fields (ACT-250): 609-485-6803           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | John Gordon (NASA Ames): 650-604-2763           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | SURFACE AREA                                    |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005,      |
|                    | September, 1997.                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To perform research, development and evaluation |
|                    | of future surface management technologies that  |
|                    | will reduce taxi delays and optimize airport    |
|                    | capacity. Develop and document the development  |
|                    | of automation tools and synthetic vision        |
|                    | devices/capabilities to maintain the safety and |
|                    | efficiency of airport surface operations under  |
|                    | reduced visibility conditions.                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | New surface/tower management technologies will  |
|                    | offer predictive capabilities and augment the   |
|                    | airport users' operational decision making      |
|                    | process in relation to movement of aircraft on  |
|                    | the airport surface. These technologies will be |
|                    | developed as part of NASA's surface operations  |
|                    | R&D activities in the Advanced Air              |
|                    | Transportation Technologies and the Terminal    |
|                    | Area Productivity programs. Emerging            |
|                    | technologies will be integrated with existing   |
|                    | tools and systems.                              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Collaboratively develop analytical, functional  |
|                    | and engineering prototypes with user-driven     |
|                    | requirement definition for solving real world   |
|                    | airport problems such as airport congestion,    |
|                    | runway use imbalances, and inefficiencies of    |
|                    | airport operations during periods of reduced    |
|                    | visibility. Develop and/or incorporate existing |
|                    | and new information sharing technologies,       |
|                    | automation tools (e.g., Center TRACON           |
|                    | Automation System), and capabilities for vision |
|                    | augmentation for Air Traffic Control (ATC),     |
|                    | airline and airport user groups.                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Functional requirements are defined by          |
|                    | operations analysis, human factors research and |
|                    | inputs from all three airport surface user      |
|                    | groups (air traffic controllers/supervisors;    |
|                    | airlines; airport operators). The project will  |
|                    | consist of:                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Surface Advisory Tool R&D]{.underline}:        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Develop Surface Management Technologies     |
|                    |     (SMT) consisting of software tools in       |
|                    |     addition to client-server and network       |
|                    |     system builds.                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Prepare a detailed tower/surface            |
|                    |     technologies R&D plan.                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     [Collaborative Departure                    |
|                    |     Scheduling]{.underline}:                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Investigate and/or incorporate existing     |
|                    |     improvements to joint airline/airport/ATC   |
|                    |     operating procedures to reduce departure    |
|                    |     taxi delays and airport congestion.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Investigate new collaborative surface       |
|                    |     user-preferred procedures (e.g. market      |
|                    |     based dynamic slot allocations, integration |
|                    |     of airline tools such as Flight Schedule    |
|                    |     Monitor and Surface Management              |
|                    |     Technologies, etc.)                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     [Gate-to-gate Planning]{.underline}:        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Explore user-preferred procedural           |
|                    |     integration of Surface Management           |
|                    |     Technologies with other ATC automation      |
|                    |     tools, cockpit data-link, and Airline       |
|                    |     Operations Center collaboration.            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     [Surface Research]{.underline}:             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Investigate novel approaches to managing    |
|                    |     airfield surface operations. Perform        |
|                    |     analyses of operations at a variety of      |
|                    |     large airports. Develop models of airport   |
|                    |     surface behaviors.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Explore and develop technologies to         |
|                    |     facilitate management of crossing active    |
|                    |     runways and for the prevention of runway    |
|                    |     incursions by aircraft and vehicles         |
|                    |     operating on the airport surface in         |
|                    |     collaboration with programs such as Airport |
|                    |     Movement Area Safety System and Airport     |
|                    |     Traffic Identification Display System.      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Perform functional validation of prototype  |
|                    |     tower/surface system architectures with     |
|                    |     user participation.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Develop and conduct simulations for         |
|                    |     Computer-Human Interface evaluations,       |
|                    |     prototyping, software development/          |
|                    |     demonstrations, network interfaces, and     |
|                    |     functional hardware standards, using the    |
|                    |     Surface Development and Test Facility, or   |
|                    |     other means of high-fidelity simulation.    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Identify, develop and/or test any promising |
|                    |     new airport surface related technologies    |
|                    |     such as projection technologies (e.g.       |
|                    |     heads-up displays), virtual                 |
|                    |     reality/synthetic vision and voice          |
|                    |     recognition technologies with user          |
|                    |     participation.                              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | FAA, AOZ-100 (Surface Automation Products       |
| esponsibilities:** | Office) Team for operational inputs, prototype  |
|                    | development, and full-scale development.        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA for concept exploration/development, and   |
|                    | documentation of tools. FAA and NASA for        |
|                    | associated field tests.                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | NAS Modernization 2005, FAA/Industry Free       |
| Current Aviation   | Flight, NAS Architecture, Advanced Air          |
| Community          | Transportation Technology/ Terminal Area        |
| Initiatives:       | Productivity                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | ATC, Airline/Aviation Industry, Airports        |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Congressional    | Surface Automation R&D provides significant     |
| Mandates and NTSB  | development needed by RTCA Task Force 3 and     |
| Initiatives:**     | Free Flight initiatives.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | Surface automation uses NAS generated data.     |
| Relevance:**       | This data must be safe-guarded by the FAA to    |
|                    | preclude external tampering and maintain system |
|                    | security, therefore no other "non-Government"   |
|                    | agent can be reasonably expected to fund or     |
|                    | conduct this research.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Improved Safety for ATM (3.01)              |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved Planning Process (3.04)            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Collaborative Planning (3.06)               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Greater Throughput at Airports (3.11)       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Flow Control-Induced Delays (3.12)  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) (4.304)      |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** | -   Collaborative Departure Scheduling Tool     |
|                    |     (4.307)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Gate-to-Gate Integration of SMA Tools       |
|                    |     (4.308)                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | -   Reduction in taxi delays of at least 1      |
| etrics/Performance |     minute per departure                        |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
|                    | -   NAS capacity enhancements                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Increased efficiency                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Industry Capacity Enhancements              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Surface Movement Advisor - An airport       |
| Descriptions:**    |     automation system that facilitates the      |
|                    |     sharing of information among ATC, airline,  |
|                    |     and airport operations communities.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Collaborative Departure Scheduling Tool -   |
|                    |     Provides improvements to joint              |
|                    |     airline/airport/ATC taxi procedures to      |
|                    |     reduce departure taxi delays and airport    |
|                    |     congestion.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Gate-to-Gate Integration of SMA Tools -     |
|                    |     Integrates surface tools with ATC           |
|                    |     automation tools, cockpit datalink, and AOC |
|                    |     collaboration.                              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 1/00 - Completion of SMS Prototype Development  |
| Milestones:**      | and Assessment                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 8/00 - Completion of CTAS/SMS Integration       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/00 - Completion of Collaborative Departure   |
|                    | Scheduling Tool Concept Exploration             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/01 - Completion of Low/Zero Visibility Tools  |
|                    | Concept Exploration                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 10/01 - Completion of Collaborative Departure   |
|                    | Scheduling Tool Concept Development             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 8/03 - Completion of Collaborative Departure    |
|                    | Scheduling Tool Prototype Development           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   TBD                                         |
| Accomplishments:   |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | F&E funding scheduled as defined in NASA        |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | Architecture 4.0. No O&M funding planned at     |
|                    | this time.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Safety:]{.underline}                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Helps enhance safety by improving situational |
|                    | > awareness, helps reduce ground control        |
|                    | > frequency congestion, and reduces or          |
|                    | > eliminates runway incursions.                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Capacity:]{.underline}                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Increases capacity of the existing airport    |
|                    | > surface.                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Efficiency (User):]{.underline}                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > A benefits analysis was completed in October, |
|                    | > 1997. The total benefits that can be          |
|                    | > attributed to SMA at Atlanta's Hartsfield     |
|                    | > International Airport is over \$200 million   |
|                    | > over a ten-year life-cycle period. Airport    |
|                    | > taxi-out times were reduced over a minute, as |
|                    | > indicated by empirical data. The analysis     |
|                    | > also indicates that a convenience of benefit  |
|                    | > achievement is 95 percent.                    |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > The Collaborative Departure Scheduling tool   |
|                    | > and Gate-To-Gate Integration of SMA are each  |
|                    | > anticipated decreasing delays further. The    |
|                    | > \"target pool\" (largest single source of     |
|                    | > delay) of taxi delays, which automated        |
|                    | > surface tools will impact, runs into billions |
|                    | > per annum. The accumulated savings of the SMA |
|                    | > and other surface tools are expected to       |
|                    | > easily exceed \$10-Billion during their life  |
|                    | > cycle.                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Efficiency (FAA):]{.underline}                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Helps controllers provide more efficient        |
|                    | management of the surface and queuing of        |
|                    | departing aircraft. Surface products are        |
|                    | expected to increase tower/ground controller    |
|                    | traffic management capabilities.                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | The 1998 Aviation Capacity Enhancement (ACE)    |
| Funding the        | states "Aviation capacity in the U.S. is        |
| JRPD:**            | expected to grow significantly over the next    |
|                    | decade. This increased demand will be placed on |
|                    | an aviation system in which key airports and    |
|                    | terminal areas are already frequently           |
|                    | congested. By 2012, aircraft operations at the  |
|                    | top 100 airport are projected to increase to    |
|                    | 35.4 million (a 30 percent increase over 1997), |
|                    | and enplanements to one billion persons (a 67   |
|                    | percent increase over 1997)."                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The ACE plan further states that "more delays   |
|                    | occur during the taxi-out phase of flight than  |
|                    | any other phase". Surface Automation R&D        |
|                    | functionality development provides the catalyst |
|                    | to managing the airport operations of the       |
|                    | future.                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The impact of not funding Surface Automation    |
|                    | R&D functionality could result in increased     |
|                    | delays at the nations busiest airports.         |
|                    | Collective management of the nation\'s airfield |
|                    | environment would not be implemented.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Final Approach Spacing Tool (FAST)              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J41                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/10/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Leonard Tobias (NASA Ames): 650-604-5430        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan, July 1, 1997.                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA National Airspace System (NAS)              |
|                    | Architecture, Version 4.0, January, 1999.       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY 2000 FAA Performance Plan.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To develop active advisory tools that assist    |
|                    | Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)        |
|                    | controllers in efficiently spacing arrival      |
|                    | aircraft on final approach in order to maximize |
|                    | arrival runway utilization.                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Active Final Approach Spacing Tool (aFAST)      |
|                    | provides heading and speed advisories to TRACON |
|                    | arrival controllers in order to achieve         |
|                    | efficient, conflict-free trajectories. These    |
|                    | advisories are in addition to the sequence      |
|                    | number and runway assignment provided by the    |
|                    | Passive FAST (pFAST) decision support tool.     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | aFAST research will focus on algorithmic,       |
|                    | procedural, and human factors issues. Weather   |
|                    | data is provided by the Integrated Terminal     |
|                    | Weather System (ITWS) and will also be          |
|                    | incorporated into aFAST. The integration will   |
|                    | allow for better trajectory generation based on |
|                    | improved wind profiles. ITWS will provide the   |
|                    | weather information required to generate        |
|                    | alternative routes during times when nominal    |
|                    | routes are weather impacted.                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Human-computer interface issues (physical       |
|                    | characteristics, implementation, and user       |
|                    | interface) will be examined in a series of real |
|                    | time simulation studies which began in FY 1998, |
|                    | and will continue through FY01. The algorithmic |
|                    | and procedural issues will be examined in       |
|                    | simulations prior to a field site evaluation.   |
|                    | In particular, algorithms for de-confliction    |
|                    | and sequencing developed for pFAST need to be   |
|                    | upgraded to support aFAST. Simulation           |
|                    | evaluations of the modified algorithms will     |
|                    | begin in FY99. These simulations will be        |
|                    | initially conducted at NASA Ames, with          |
|                    | validation occurring at the FAA William J.      |
|                    | Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC). Pending        |
|                    | results of these simulations, a prototype will  |
|                    | be developed for evaluations at a field site.   |
|                    | Based on the field site evaluations and a cost  |
|                    | benefit analysis, a decision will be made by    |
|                    | the FAA as to whether the product is suitable   |
|                    | for full-scale development (FSD).               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | aFAST will first be developed for Dallas-Ft.    |
| esponsibilities:** | Worth TRACON, with NASA taking the lead for     |
|                    | concept development and exploration, as well as |
|                    | prototype development, if undertaken. NASA is   |
|                    | responsible for an initial benefits study (for  |
|                    | entering the prototype development phase).      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The FAA is responsible for providing expertise  |
|                    | on ATM, operational users' needs and            |
|                    | operational environment requirements, prototype |
|                    | non-interference testing with the NAS, and      |
|                    | support to prototype system laboratory and      |
|                    | operational assessment. FAA is responsible for  |
|                    | coordinating this program with the appropriate  |
|                    | FAA related programs such as the Standard       |
|                    | Terminal Automation Replacement System.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NASA and the FAA are jointly responsible for a  |
|                    | cost-benefit analysis, which will include an    |
|                    | extrapolation to potential deployment sites,    |
|                    | for an FAA investment decision in FY02.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Relationship to  | The RTCA Free Flight Report specifically        |
| Current Aviation   | identifies Passive FAST (pFAST) for deployment  |
| Community          | "which is expected to provide increased         |
| Initiatives:**     | terminal area productivity by delivering        |
|                    | aircraft to the runways in the most effective   |
|                    | manner." aFAST is expected to be approved for   |
|                    | development as an enhancement to pFAST.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goal:     |
|                    | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
|                    | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
|                    | the application of aerospace resources.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | Airlines, air traffic controllers, and          |
| stomer/Stakeholder | appropriate unions.                             |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | aFAST is the evolutionarily result of pFAST     |
| Relevance:**       | which will be deployed under the Free Flight    |
|                    | Phase 1 Program. As a result, NASA and FAA have |
|                    | the technical staff and laboratory facilities   |
|                    | to support aFAST concept exploration as well as |
|                    | the prototype development and implementation    |
|                    | phases. As with pFAST, portions of the aFAST    |
|                    | development and evaluation activities, which    |
|                    | require government leadership and resources,    |
|                    | will be done at operational sites.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
| Outcomes:**        |     (3.11)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Active CTAS Advisories (4.412)              |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| M                  | Increase in throughput in a full capacity       |
| etrics/Performance | environment                                     |
| Indicators:        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Initial Benefits study (for entering        |
| Descriptions:**    |     prototype development phase)                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Comprehensive evaluation (WJHTC             |
|                    |     simulations)                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational validation                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   aFAST algorithmic description               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Technology transfer materials               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost/Benefits Analysis for FAA investment   |
|                    |     decision                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Draft A-level Specification (including      |
|                    |     Computer-Human Interface (CHI)              |
|                    |     requirements) and JRC package               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | **NOTE:** Draft specification may not include   |
|                    | some implementation requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 6/99 - Concept Development                      |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 6/99 - Initial benefits study                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 12/01 - Operational validation                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/02 - Cost/benefits analysis                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/02 - Draft A-level specification              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2/02 - FAA investment decision                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   4/98 - aFAST is built upon pFAST, which     |
| Accomplishments:** |     provides sequence number and runway         |
|                    |     assignment. Field tests at DFW have         |
|                    |     demonstrated a 10 percent increase in       |
|                    |     throughput and a high controller acceptance |
|                    |     of pFAST-generated advisories. The pFAST    |
|                    |     prototype is now in operational daily use   |
|                    |     at DFW.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) are the total   |
| with F&E and Ops   | F&E and RE&D costs included in the current and  |
| (O&M):**           | out-year budgets. Any funding listed under      |
|                    | FAA-to-NASA (\$M) are F&E costs associated with |
|                    | maintaining and providing operational (M&OS)    |
|                    | support to the current FAST prototype at DFW.   |
|                    | Note that when pFAST is deployed under Free     |
|                    | Flight Phase 1 (FFP1), M&OS costs for pFAST at  |
|                    | DFW will be provided by the FFP1 Program Office |
|                    | (AOZ). If the aFAST concepts are proven         |
|                    | beneficial, an FAA Joint Resource Committee     |
|                    | (JRC) decision will be made for further         |
|                    | development and implementation and that effort  |
|                    | will be funded under FAA program F&E.           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Funding requested under FAA Program RE&D will   |
|                    | cover technology transfer of aFAST concepts     |
|                    | from NASA to the FAA and/or to the FAA          |
|                    | development contractors. Any benefits analyses, |
|                    | simulations and operational assessment support  |
|                    | are included in both the FAA and NASA budget    |
|                    | estimates. The current and future DFW field     |
|                    | research and test environment (e.g., hardware,  |
|                    | etc.) will be included in the NASA budget       |
|                    | estimates. The FAA has included costs for       |
|                    | future CTAS laboratory hardware upgrades at the |
|                    | WJHTC in the FY01 budget estimate.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | aFAST is estimated to provide a benefit of      |
|                    | \$100M (constant 1996 dollars)                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Impact of not      | Potential decrease in maximum usage of arrival  |
| Funding the JRPD:  | runways.                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Dynamic Final Approach Spacing                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J42                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/12/98                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Leonard Tobias (NASA Ames): 650-604-5430        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Rose Ashford (NASA Ames): 650-604-0914          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Everett Palmer (NASA Ames): 650-604-6073        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Brad Perry (NASA Langley): 757-864-8257         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Terminal Area Productivity Program Plan,   |
|                    | 1997.                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA National Airspace System (NAS)              |
|                    | Architecture, Version 4.0, January, 1999.       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1999 FAA National Aviation Research Plan,       |
|                    | Draft, October, 1998.                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To optimize in-trail separation requirements by |
|                    | dynamically evaluating factors affecting wake   |
|                    | vortex persistence and runway occupancy time.   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | This project will determine controller          |
|                    | operational parameters for a dynamic spacing    |
|                    | requirement, analyze the impact of dynamic      |
|                    | spacing on traffic stability, and develop Air   |
|                    | Traffic Control (ATC) procedures and advisories |
|                    | for effecting dynamic spacing based on the      |
|                    | Center TRACON Automation System (CTAS) Passive  |
|                    | Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST) tool. The   |
|                    | effectiveness of the technique will be          |
|                    | evaluated through full-mission simulations.     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Terminal Area Productivity (TAP) Air Traffic    |
|                    | Management (ATM), Regional Sector Office (RSO), |
|                    | and Low Visibility Landing and Surface          |
|                    | Operations (LVLASO) Teams are working together  |
|                    | to develop and evaluate the dynamic spacing     |
|                    | concept. The benefits of this concept will      |
|                    | depend on:                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (1) Aircraft Vortex-Spacing System (AVOSS) that |
|                    |     is being developed by the TAP RSO Team to   |
|                    |     provide dynamic separation requirements     |
|                    |     based on vortex persistence predictions     |
|                    |     validated by sensor measurements; and,      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (2) Dynamic Runway Occupancy Management (DROM)  |
|                    |     system being developed by the TAP LVLASO    |
|                    |     Program for determining a lower bound on    |
|                    |     separation requirements based on runway     |
|                    |     occupancy time.                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | NASA Ames and NASA Langley are jointly          |
| esponsibilities:** | responsible for concept exploration and concept |
|                    | development. The FAA and NASA are jointly       |
|                    | responsible for the concept validation, safety  |
|                    | assessment, a cost/benefits analysis, and if    |
|                    | determined to be potentially beneficial, a      |
|                    | draft A-level specification and package for FAA |
|                    | investment decision for further development and |
|                    | implementation.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goals: By |
| Current Aviation   | 2007, reduce U.S. aviation fatal accident rates |
| Community          | by 80 percent from 1996 levels.                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
|                    | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
|                    | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
|                    | the application of aerospace resources.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | None                                            |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | Determining safe separation standards is the    |
| Relevance:**       | sole responsibility of the FAA. As a government |
|                    | agency with relevant experience, NASA offers    |
|                    | the FAA an ideal partner. It would be a         |
|                    | conflict of interest for industry to assume     |
|                    | this responsibility.                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Improved Safety for ATM (3.01)              |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
|                    |     (3.11)                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Flow Control-Induced Delays (3.12)  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Dynamic Wake Vortex Spacing (4.402)         |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Decrease in wake vortex separation minimums     |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Increase in arrival throughput                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Product            | -   Capability to model the transport and       |
| Descriptions:      |     demise of wake vortices                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   "Nowcasting" weather predictive capability  |
|                    |     for 30-50 minutes into the future           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Ground-based sensor suite capable of        |
|                    |     detecting wake vortices in all weather      |
|                    |     conditions for validation of vortex         |
|                    |     persistence predictions                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational concept (based on the above     |
|                    |     products) for optimized in-trail spacing    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost/benefit studies to demonstrate payback |
|                    |     of system                                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 9/99 - AVOSS algorithm evaluations              |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Completion of Dynamic Final Approach     |
|                    | Spacing Concept Development                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   Deployment at DFW of integrated AVOSS,      |
| Accomplishments:** |     including "now-casting" atmospheric         |
|                    |     conditions up to one hour into the future,  |
|                    |     AVOSS wake vortex prediction and wake       |
|                    |     vortex sensors to validate and update       |
|                    |     prediction.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Dynamic Spacing simulation in which         |
|                    |     controllers spaced traffic approaching the  |
|                    |     runway using a time variant spacing matrix. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) (see below) are |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | the total R,E&D costs included in the current   |
|                    | and out-year budgets. Assuming the Dynamic      |
|                    | Final Approach Spacing concept is proven        |
|                    | beneficial to implement, the concept would be   |
|                    | funded under FAA Program F&E. NASA will         |
|                    | coordinate with FAA Operational facilities.     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Capacity:]{.underline}                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Improved wake vortex and runway occupancy       |
|                    | predictions allow optimization of in-trail      |
|                    | separation with no loss of safety, hence        |
|                    | increasing capacity.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Efficiency (Users):]{.underline}               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Automation of ATC enables controllers to direct |
|                    | traffic at reduced and dynamically changing     |
|                    | separations with acceptable workload.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Impact of not      | Decreased ability to optimize in-trail          |
| Funding the JRPD:  | separation.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Parallel Runway Spacing Reduction               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J43                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/12/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Leonard Tobias (NASA Ames): 650-604-5430        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Rose Ashford (NASA Ames): 650-604-0914          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Brad Perry (NASA Langley): 757-864-8257         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Jerry Welch (MIT Lincoln Laboratory):           |
|                    | 871-981-7412                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Terminal Area Productivity Program Plan,   |
|                    | 1997.                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA National Airspace System (NAS)              |
|                    | Architecture, Version 4.0, January, 1999.       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1999 FAA National Aviation Research Plan,       |
|                    | Draft, October 1998.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To develop and demonstrate flight deck based    |
|                    | situational awareness tools that will allow     |
|                    | independent parallel runway operations to       |
|                    | runways spaced more closely than the current    |
|                    | standard. The goal is to reduce lateral spacing |
|                    | below the 3400 feet distance that Parallel      |
|                    | Runway Monitor (PRM) provides.                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The capacity of a U.S. airport with             |
|                    | simultaneously-operating multiple runways       |
|                    | (parallel, converging, or intersecting) is      |
|                    | significantly affected by its ability to        |
|                    | conduct visual terminal operations. In visual   |
|                    | terminal operations, responsibility for         |
|                    | maintaining safe separation during takeoff,     |
|                    | initial climb-out, approach, landing and        |
|                    | rollout rests with the flight crew of each      |
|                    | airplane. Conversely, in non-visual terminal    |
|                    | operations, responsibility for maintaining safe |
|                    | separation rests with ATC. The result is a set  |
|                    | of separation standards that varies             |
|                    | significantly for each operational condition    |
|                    | (visual/non-visual). As a prime example, in     |
|                    | visual operations airplanes are permitted to    |
|                    | make \"independent\" simultaneous approaches to |
|                    | parallel runways whose centerlines are          |
|                    | separated by 700 feet; in non-visual operations |
|                    | this distance is increased to 3400 feet with    |
|                    | PRM technology, and 4300 feet at most airports. |
|                    | Thus, when visibility deteriorates to           |
|                    | non-visual conditions, the ability to conduct   |
|                    | independent arrivals to pairs of runways is     |
|                    | lost at some airports with significant          |
|                    | reduction in arrival rates. It should be noted  |
|                    | that the visual/non-visual distinction for      |
|                    | application of separation standards is only     |
|                    | applicable in the U.S.; most other countries    |
|                    | require \"non-visual operations\" for all air   |
|                    | carrier flights.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | A logical approach to improving this situation  |
|                    | would be to provide flight crews with the       |
|                    | necessary information to permit them to assume  |
|                    | responsibility for maintaining safe separation  |
|                    | in meteorological conditions that are now       |
|                    | classified as \"non-visual\" conditions. This   |
|                    | research, called Airborne Information for       |
|                    | Lateral Spacing (AILS), will provide the flight |
|                    | crews of aircraft operating on parallel runways |
|                    | with accurate navigation capability so they can |
|                    | maintain their own assigned approach path,      |
|                    | display of proximate traffic, and timely        |
|                    | alerting should another aircraft threaten the   |
|                    | own ship, together with procedures to break off |
|                    | the approach, turning away from the threatening |
|                    | aircraft should this become necessary for       |
|                    | collision avoidance.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The FAA approach to date has been to improve    |
|                    | the ground-based technology to support higher   |
|                    | performance by controllers in handling          |
|                    | converging and parallel runway operations. Two  |
|                    | examples are the Converging Runway Display Aid  |
|                    | (\"ghosting aid\") and the PRM. These           |
|                    | technologies will potentially improve capacity  |
|                    | at several airports. However, analysis has      |
|                    | shown that there are practical limits to a      |
|                    | ground-centered concept for maintaining         |
|                    | separation on closely-spaced parallel runways   |
|                    | given the time-critical nature of the           |
|                    | operation; in fact, the operational limit of    |
|                    | the PRM system is currently 3400 feet runway    |
|                    | centerline separation.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Therefore, NASA and FAA are developing concepts |
|                    | to improve current lateral separation limits.   |
|                    | Understanding and providing what the airborne   |
|                    | crew requires to maintain safe separations      |
|                    | during approaches is critical. If the pilot     |
|                    | community is to accept responsibility for       |
|                    | non-visual approaches, with lateral separation  |
|                    | significantly less than achieved by PRM, then   |
|                    | two goals must be met. The first goal is to     |
|                    | provide improved lateral navigation precision   |
|                    | on final approach. The second goal is to        |
|                    | provide adequate onboard warning and            |
|                    | situational awareness so the crew can react in  |
|                    | time to protect an aircraft from collision      |
|                    | should an intrusion threat develop from         |
|                    | adjacent parallel traffic.                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Develop, test, and demonstrate techniques to    |
|                    | improve navigation precision, of aircraft on    |
|                    | closely spaced parallel approaches, so the      |
|                    | probability of an intrusion is reduced.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Develop, test, and demonstrate conflict         |
|                    | detection, alerting, and appropriate displays   |
|                    | necessary to prevent a near miss in the event   |
|                    | that an intrusion from an adjacent parallel     |
|                    | approach were to occur.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Define and demonstrate airborne and air/ground  |
|                    | information technologies that utilize improved  |
|                    | navigation and conflict detection capability to |
|                    | enable lateral spacing for non-visual           |
|                    | approaches to be reduced, as much as possible,  |
|                    | below PRM standards while preserving current    |
|                    | levels of safety.                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | NASA is responsible for concept exploration and |
| esponsibilities:** | concept development. MIT Lincoln Laboratory is  |
|                    | responsible for data collection, data analysis, |
|                    | and model validation. The FAA is responsible    |
|                    | for pre-production prototype development,       |
|                    | full-scale development, and deployment. The FAA |
|                    | is responsible for approval of procedures and   |
|                    | separation standards.                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goals: By |
| Current Aviation   | 2007, reduce U.S. aviation fatal accident rates |
| Community          | by 80 percent from 1996 levels.                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
|                    | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
|                    | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
|                    | the application of aerospace resources.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The Closely-Spaced parallel Approaches          |
|                    | Sub-Group of Working Group 1 (Operations and    |
|                    | Implementation) of RTCA SC-186 (ADS-B) has been |
|                    | formed to develop an integrated operations      |
|                    | concept for AILS including both the flight deck |
|                    | and ATC perspectives.                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | Northwest Airlines                              |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | Determining safe separation standards is the    |
| Relevance:**       | sole responsibility of the FAA. As a government |
|                    | agency with vast experience, NASA offers the    |
|                    | FAA an ideal partner.                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Improved Aviation Safety (3.01)             |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
|                    |     (3.11)                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Flow Control-Induced Delays (3.12)  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Multiple Runway Spacing Reduction - Flight  |
| O                  |     Deck (4.413)                                |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Increase in arrival throughput during           |
| etrics/Performance | instrument approach conditions for affected     |
| Indicators:**      | runways                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Alerting algorithms and displays for        |
| Descriptions:**    |     situational awareness and blunder detection |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Operational concept and procedures          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Technology transfer materials               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost/benefit analysis                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Standards & operational guidelines          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 9/00 - Completion of Parallel Runway Spacing    |
| Milestones:**      | Reduction Concept Development                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4/01 - Concept Validation and Safety Assessment |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 10/01 - Draft Standards & Operational           |
|                    | Guidelines                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/02 - FAA Implementation Decision              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   Draft Operations Concept document completed |
| Accomplishments:   |     by RTCA Sub-Group                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   "Analysis of the Role of ATC in the AILS    |
|                    |     Process" document prepared                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Safety and operational analysis of the AILS |
|                    |     alerting algorithms underway using the      |
|                    |     FAA's ASAT Monte Carlo simulation model.    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Preparations underway for a joint flight    |
|                    |     test using the NASA Boeing 757 and a        |
|                    |     Honeywell G-4 at Wallops and MSP in August  |
|                    |     '99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) (see below) are |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | the total RE&D costs included in the current    |
|                    | and out-year budgets. Assuming the Dynamic      |
|                    | Final Approach Spacing concept is proven        |
|                    | beneficial to implement the concept would be    |
|                    | funded under FAA Program F&E.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Capacity:]{.underline}                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The concept developed under this project can    |
|                    | significantly increase the arrival throughput   |
|                    | during instrument arrival conditions at         |
|                    | airports that have parallel runways closer than |
|                    | 3400 feet.                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Safety:]{.underline}                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The concept can integrate new technologies into |
|                    | the system to increase the timeliness and       |
|                    | resolution of blunder detection during          |
|                    | simultaneous independent operations.            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Impact of not      | No decrease in lateral spacing during           |
| Funding the JRPD:  | non-visual terminal operations and reduced      |
|                    | terminal throughput as air traffic growth       |
|                    | continues. Potential for lost benefits due to   |
|                    | continued inefficient use of airport resources. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | CTAS Adaptation/Implementation in Complex       |
|                    | Airspace                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J45                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/10/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Leonard Tobias (NASA Ames): 650-604-5430        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan, July 1, 1997.                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA National Airspace System (NAS)              |
|                    | Architecture, Version 4.0, January 1999.        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1999 FAA National Aviation Research Plan,       |
|                    | Draft, October 1998.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To develop procedures and automation tools      |
|                    | built upon Center TRACON Automation System      |
|                    | (CTAS) tools to create efficient planning aids  |
|                    | for the most congested, complex regions of      |
|                    | airspace.                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | CTAS has been adapted to some sites with        |
|                    | relatively homogeneous airspace                 |
|                    | characteristics. However, the most congested    |
|                    | airspace regions, with additional complexities  |
|                    | of operation, will require special provisions   |
|                    | and procedures for proper adaptation. Planning  |
|                    | aids will address the following: 1)             |
|                    | multi-facility issues (e.g., interaction        |
|                    | between adjacent CTAS and non-CTAS sites and    |
|                    | operation when several en route centers and/or  |
|                    | Terminal Radar Approach Controls (TRACONs) are  |
|                    | feeding traffic to one or more CTAS-equipped    |
|                    | TRACONs), 2) dynamic flexibility and redesign   |
|                    | of air route structures, and 3) user preference |
|                    | routing including, but not limited to, design   |
|                    | of rotorcraft routing for efficient operations. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | The extensions of Traffic Management Advisor    |
|                    | (TMA) to multi-facility operations will be      |
|                    | developed. Algorithms for workload-impacted     |
|                    | planning and for multi-center scheduling will   |
|                    | be added to TMA and the resultant tool will be  |
|                    | tested in a series of simulations and in live   |
|                    | traffic operations. These functional additions  |
|                    | will constitute the completion of CTAS Build 2  |
|                    | functionalities. Issues of data acquisition and |
|                    | the allocation of delays across facilities will |
|                    | then be addressed. The revised TMA algorithms   |
|                    | will then be tested in simulations at NASA and  |
|                    | at the William J. Hughes Technical Center       |
|                    | (WJHTC) prior to a field site evaluation. If    |
|                    | these reveal required and significant algorithm |
|                    | changes from the original TMA, a cost-benefit   |
|                    | study will be conducted, and a decision will be |
|                    | made as to whether or not to pursue full-scale  |
|                    | development for the enhanced TMA.               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Two initial studies, one defining an            |
|                    | operational concept for multi-facility          |
|                    | operations, and the other addressing airspace   |
|                    | redesign, will examine options for CTAS         |
|                    | adaptations for complex airspace. These studies |
|                    | will help define the scope of a major           |
|                    | simulation study of the Complex Airspace to     |
|                    | determine the controller acceptability and      |
|                    | benefits of the planning tools for complex      |
|                    | airspace operations. The Complex Airspace does  |
|                    | not have a follow-on field site study planned   |
|                    | at this time.                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Based initial research, comprehensive studies   |
|                    | of CTAS adaptations, operations, and human      |
|                    | factors considerations will be conducted by     |
|                    | NASA and the FAA prior to concept validation at |
|                    | the Philadelphia International Airport.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The extensions of TMA to multi-facility         |
| esponsibilities:** | Operations (without the airspace redesign) will |
|                    | first be developed for Dallas-Ft. Worth, with   |
|                    | NASA taking the lead for concept development    |
|                    | and exploration. The FAA is responsible for     |
|                    | providing expertise on ATM, operational users'  |
|                    | needs and operational environment requirements, |
|                    | prototype non-interference testing with the     |
|                    | NAS, and support to prototype system laboratory |
|                    | and operational assessment.                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Relationship to  | The RTCA Free Flight Report raises the concern  |
| Current Aviation   | that "possible improvements to Free Flight      |
| Community          | should not be lost in the transition to         |
| Initiatives:**     | congested airspace" and recommends that "mature |
|                    | elements of CTAS" are needed to "ensure         |
|                    | adherence to Free Flight principles." The focus |
|                    | here is to ensure the effectiveness of CTAS     |
|                    | even under the most complex situations and to   |
|                    | provide user-preferred routing wherever         |
|                    | possible.                                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goal:     |
|                    | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
|                    | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
|                    | the application of aerospace resources.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | Airlines, air traffic controllers, and          |
| stomer/Stakeholder | appropriate unions.                             |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Congressional    | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA have the technical staffs and  |
| Relevance:**       | laboratory facilities to support the concept    |
|                    | exploration and development as well as the      |
|                    | prototype development and implementation phases |
|                    | of the ATM tool development process. In         |
|                    | addition, portions of the development and       |
|                    | evaluation, which require government            |
|                    | leadership, will be done at operational sites.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
| Outcomes:**        |     (3.11)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   TMA Enhancements (4.415)                    |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Airport acceptance rate                         |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Initial Benefits study for CTAS in the      |
| Descriptions:**    |     Complex Airpace                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational Concept for CTAS in the Complex |
|                    |     Airspace                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   TMA multi-center adaptation description     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Comprehensive evaluation (WJHTC             |
|                    |     simulations)                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational validation                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Technology transfer materials               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost/Benefits Analysis for FAA investment   |
|                    |     decision                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Draft A-level Specification and JRC package |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | **NOTE:** Draft specification may not include   |
|                    | some implementation requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 4/99 - Initial studies with alternatives for    |
| Milestones:**      | Multi-Center TMA at PHL completed under NASA    |
|                    | Research Announcement                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/99 - Initial Complex Airspace Concept         |
|                    | Development                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/00 - Initial TMA adaptation for Complex       |
|                    | Airspace                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/00 - Concept validation via high-fidelity     |
|                    | Complex Airspace Simulation Environment         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/01 - Concept validation via field assessment  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3/01 - Cost/Benefits Analysis                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/01 - Draft A-level Specification              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 9/01 - FAA investment decision                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   TBD                                         |
| Accomplishments:   |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) are the total   |
| with F&E and Ops   | F&E and RE&D costs included in the current and  |
| (O&M):**           | out-year budgets. Any funding listed under      |
|                    | FAA-to-NASA (\$M) are F&E costs associated with |
|                    | maintaining and providing operational (M&OS)    |
|                    | support to the Complex Airspace field           |
|                    | evaluation sites. If significant algorithmic    |
|                    | changes to the baseline TMA are required and    |
|                    | proven cost beneficial, an FAA Joint Resource   |
|                    | Committee (JRC) decision will be made for       |
|                    | further development and implementation of       |
|                    | TMA/Multi-Center with adaptations and that      |
|                    | effort will be funded under FAA program F&E.    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Funding requested under FAA Program RE&D will   |
|                    | cover technology transfer of any new TMA        |
|                    | algorithms and/or functionality from NASA to    |
|                    | the FAA and/or to the FAA development           |
|                    | contractors. Any benefits analyses, simulations |
|                    | and operational assessment support are included |
|                    | in both the FAA and NASA budget estimates.      |
|                    | Costs for any required changes to existing TMA  |
|                    | hardware for laboratory and field assessments   |
|                    | will be included in the NASA budget estimates.  |
|                    | The FAA has included costs for future CTAS      |
|                    | laboratory hardware upgrades at the WJHTC in    |
|                    | the FY01 budget estimate.                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Capacity:]{.underline}                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Improve capacity in the nations highest       |
|                    | > density airspace. The potential improvements  |
|                    | > in capacity should exceed those projected for |
|                    | > less complex airspace (based on scale) such   |
|                    | > as Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Atlanta.    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Efficiency (Users):]{.underline}               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Increased capacity and reduced in-flight time |
|                    | > will translate into substantial user savings. |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Predictability:]{.underline}                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Reliability of schedule will translate into     |
|                    | substantial user savings.                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | If this JRPD is not funded, TMA will not be     |
| Funding the        | suitable for deployment at all desired Centers  |
| JRPD:**            | and major free flight capabilities will not be  |
|                    | available for Complex Airspace implementation.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Collaborative Arrival Planning                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J46                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/10/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Leonard Tobias (NASA Ames): 650-604-5430        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan, July 1, 1997.                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA National Airspace System (NAS)              |
|                    | Architecture, Version4.0, January 1999.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1999 FAA National Aviation Research Plan,       |
|                    | Draft, October 1998.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide greater user flexibility and         |
|                    | preferences in the air traffic management of    |
|                    | airborne arrival traffic without negatively     |
|                    | impacting air traffic controller workload.      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The immediate effort involves the sharing of    |
|                    | airport arrival data and user fleet operations  |
|                    | data between airline users and Air Traffic      |
|                    | Control/Center TRACON Automation System         |
|                    | (ATC/CTAS), allowing improved and more          |
|                    | efficient decision making. This project will    |
|                    | enable the development of automation tools that |
|                    | accommodate user preferences in Center/Terminal |
|                    | Radar Approach Control (TRACON) arrivals, and   |
|                    | reduce the amount of verbal queries from        |
|                    | airlines to ATC regarding airport               |
|                    | characteristics and operational plans.          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | A real-time passive, one-way "repeater" of CTAS |
|                    | TMA (Build 2) will be provided to airline users |
|                    | who in turn share user fleet and aircraft       |
|                    | specific data with CTAS. The CTAS arrival       |
|                    | sequence and schedule information, time of      |
|                    | arrival predictions, and Air Route Traffic      |
|                    | Control Center (ARTCC)/TRACON airport arrival   |
|                    | management data will assist the user with       |
|                    | dispatch and gate operations, particularly      |
|                    | during degraded weather or ground delay         |
|                    | scenarios. Improved user arrival/departure      |
|                    | "bank" management should result, including more |
|                    | efficient use of airline ground personnel,      |
|                    | equipment, and gates. Airline supplied data     |
|                    | will enhance and improve CTAS algorithms, for   |
|                    | example, aircraft weight will improve           |
|                    | trajectory modeling.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Collaborative arrival planning automation tools |
|                    | will allow the user to request and influence    |
|                    | intra-airline arrival characteristics from ATC  |
|                    | via CTAS. The tactical Collaborative Arrival    |
|                    | Planner (CAP) tool will assist and improve the  |
|                    | handling of individual aircraft arrival         |
|                    | preferences, allowing the user to better manage |
|                    | off-schedule aircraft or aircraft facing        |
|                    | possible airport diversion. The strategic CAP   |
|                    | tool will alter CTAS arrival sequence within a  |
|                    | carrier's aircraft given an arrival preference  |
|                    | order or relative priority ranking.             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAP tools will be developed through the         |
|                    | successful CTAS paradigm of developing the      |
|                    | concept via operations research, analysis,      |
|                    | controller in-the-loop simulations, and         |
|                    | validating the concept by field trials with     |
|                    | constant input from the airlines and ATC        |
|                    | personnel throughout the process.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The CTAS TMA (Build 2) "repeater" and CAP tools |
| esponsibilities:** | will first be developed for the Ft. Worth ARTCC |
|                    | and Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) TRACON airspace for  |
|                    | airlines with substantial hub operations at DFW |
|                    | airport (e.g., American Airlines, Delta         |
|                    | Airlines). NASA will take the lead for concept  |
|                    | development and exploration, in collaboration   |
|                    | with airline users and FAA controller           |
|                    | personnel. FAA is responsible for providing     |
|                    | expertise on Air Traffic Management (ATM),      |
|                    | operational environment requirements, prototype |
|                    | non-interference testing with the NAS, and      |
|                    | support to prototype system laboratory and      |
|                    | operational assessment. NASA and the FAA are    |
|                    | jointly responsible for a cost-benefit          |
|                    | analysis.                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Relationship to  | RTCA Free Flight report specifically mentions   |
| Current Aviation   | increased user flexibility, user preference,    |
| Community          | and collaborative (e.g., airline, ATC) decision |
| Initiatives:**     | making as goals for the Free Flight activity.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | RTCA SC-191 "Collaborative Decision Making and  |
|                    | Near-Term Procedures" is directly relevant,     |
|                    | which is focused on increased user flexibility, |
|                    | user preference, and collaborative (e.g.,       |
|                    | airline-ATC) decision making.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goal:     |
|                    | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
|                    | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
|                    | the application of aerospace resources.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | A NASA/FAA/Airline "Participant Memorandum of   |
| stomer/Stakeholder | Agreement "CTAS/Airline Data Exchange" has been |
| Involvement:**     | signed by American Airlines for the use of TMA  |
|                    | at their DFW System Operations Center and an    |
|                    | agreement is in the process of being signed by  |
|                    | Delta Airlines for using TMA at their DFW ramp  |
|                    | tower. Additional airline involvement will be   |
|                    | solicited and obtained through active           |
|                    | participation in the RTCA SC-191 group.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Mission Relevance: | NASA and the FAA have the technical staff and   |
|                    | laboratory facilities to support the concept    |
|                    | exploration and development as well as the      |
|                    | prototype development and implementation phases |
|                    | of the ATM tool development process. The        |
|                    | airline user's have their own extensive and     |
|                    | elaborate Airline Operational Control centers   |
|                    | and are uniquely qualified to determine their   |
|                    | business interests for any user-benefit type    |
|                    | initiative. In addition, portions of the        |
|                    | development and evaluation, which require       |
|                    | airline and government leadership, will be      |
|                    | conducted at airline facilities or ATC          |
|                    | operational sites, respectively                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Collaborative Planning (3.06)               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Initial Collaborative Arrival Planner (CAP) |
| O                  |     Tool (4.410)                                |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| M                  | Number of airline diversions                    |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Tactical CAP tool and Strategic CAP tool    |
| Descriptions:**    |     Concept Definition                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Initial Airline evaluation of CTAS          |
|                    |     "repeater"                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Simulation evaluation of Tactical/Strategic |
|                    |     CAP tool                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational validation of CAP tools         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Algorithm description                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Technology transfer materials               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost-benefit analysis                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Draft A-level specification and JRC package |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | **NOTE:** Draft specification may not include   |
|                    | some implementation requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 6/99 - Concept development                      |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 10/99 - Concept assessment (simulations)        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4/01 - Concept validation                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/01 - Algorithm description                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4/02 - Cost/Benefits Analysis                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 10/02 - Draft A-level Specification             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 11/02 - FAA investment decision                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   4/98 - Completed initial installation and   |
| Accomplishments:** |     evaluation of CAP Tools at American         |
|                    |     Airlines DFW System Operations Center.      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) (see below) are |
| with F&E and Ops   | the total RE&D costs included in the current    |
| (O&M):**           | and out-year budgets. Assuming the CAP tools    |
|                    | are proven cost beneficial and an FAA decision  |
|                    | to deploy these tools would be funded under FAA |
|                    | Program F&E.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Funding requested under FAA Program RE&D will   |
|                    | cover technology transfer of the CAP concepts   |
|                    | to the FAA and/or FAA development contractor,   |
|                    | any benefits analyses, and simulation and field |
|                    | site support. Some funding for deployments may  |
|                    | be furnished by the airlines.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | Specific economic benefits are difficult to     |
|                    | project, as the are highly dependent on the     |
|                    | individual airline user operations and          |
|                    | implementation. However, it is estimated that   |
|                    | if only 5 aircraft diversions a month were      |
|                    | avoided by the sharing of CTAS data, at an      |
|                    | average cost of \$50K per diversion, that       |
|                    | airline would save \$3 M/year. As this is a     |
|                    | very conservative number of saved diversions    |
|                    | per month and average cost impact, and reflects |
|                    | only one airline at one hub, the actual total   |
|                    | airline savings would much higher.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | Accommodating user preferences and flexibility  |
| Funding the        | through collaborative (ATC-airline) decision    |
| JRPD:**            | making is a central tenet of the free-flight    |
|                    | mandate, and a vital ingredient to ensuring     |
|                    | economic vitality and growth of the U.S.        |
|                    | airline industry and the NAS. Not pursuing this |
|                    | JRPD would seriously undermine these efforts    |
|                    | and national objectives.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | RNAV/FMS Terminal Routing                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J47                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/10/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Tom Becher (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-5590          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Emil Blassic (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6273        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | Flight Management System-Air Traffic Management |
|                    | Next Generation (FANG) Operational Concept,     |
|                    | FANG Team, July, 1997, DOT/FAA/AND-97/7.        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Airline Operational Control Overview, FANG      |
|                    | Team, July, 1997, DOT/FAA/AND-97/8.             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Route Oriented Planning and Control for         |
|                    | Terminal Automation, S.C. Mohleji, July, 1989,  |
|                    | The MITRE Corporation, MTR-88W00223.            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Terminal Routes Using Speed Control Techniques: |
|                    | Concept Description and Prototype Design, D. R. |
|                    | Barker et. al., September, 1997, The MITRE      |
|                    | Corporation, MTR-97W00000108.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FAA National Airspace System (NAS)              |
|                    | Architecture, Version 4.0, January, 1999.       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1999 FAA National Aviation Research Plan,       |
|                    | Draft, October, 1998.                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To explore operational procedures that          |
|                    | facilitate the use of RNAV/FMS terminal routing |
|                    | and to identify any automation requirements     |
|                    | needed make the procedures operationally        |
|                    | viable.                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Major contributors to terminal delays are large |
|                    | variances between flight paths/times considered |
|                    | for planning traffic flows and actual           |
|                    | paths/times flown. RNAV/FMS equipped aircraft   |
|                    | have the ability to precisely navigate from     |
|                    | point-to-point. A majority of aircraft at major |
|                    | airports is currently RNAV equipped. Procedures |
|                    | based upon terminal routing and the use of      |
|                    | speed control are the primary method for        |
|                    | managing the terminal flow. These procedures    |
|                    | will improve the overall efficiency of          |
|                    | operations at those airports where a            |
|                    | significant number of aircraft are equipped     |
|                    | with RNAV/FMS.                                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Use human-in-the-loop simulations to determine  |
|                    | RNAV/FMS terminal routing procedural viability  |
|                    | and to explore identify any automation          |
|                    | capabilities (e.g., support for using speed     |
|                    | control) needed for assisting the terminal      |
|                    | controller in maintaining inter-arrival spacing |
|                    | between aircraft with varied navigation         |
|                    | performance. These simulations would involve    |
|                    | defining or redefining Flight Management System |
|                    | (FMS) routes at a chosen facility, creating a   |
|                    | front of the panel simulation to reflect the    |
|                    | facility operations, developing an operational  |
|                    | concept using newly developed procedures and    |
|                    | aids, and conducting experiments with the       |
|                    | facility controllers to determine viability. If |
|                    | the concept proves viable, assess the impact on |
|                    | Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST)     |
|                    | (JRPD J41) to integrate the operational         |
|                    | concept.                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA and MITRE CAASD are jointly responsible |
| esponsibilities:** | for concept exploration and demonstration,      |
|                    | validation cost/benefits analysis, and          |
|                    | developing a draft A-level specification if     |
|                    | shown to be beneficial.                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | These procedures would support Free Flight by   |
| Current Aviation   | ensuring that any benefits obtained in the en   |
| Community          | route domain are not lost in the Terminal Radar |
| Initiatives:       | Approach Control (TRACON).                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goal:     |
|                    | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
|                    | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
|                    | the application of aerospace resources.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | Possibly the airlines, air traffic controllers, |
| stomer/Stakeholder | and appropriate unions.                         |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and MITRE CAASD have the technical      |
| Relevance:**       | staff and laboratory facilities to support the  |
|                    | concept exploration and development of terminal |
|                    | RNAV/FMS routes and procedures using speed      |
|                    | control as well as any needed simulation        |
|                    | development. In addition, portions of the       |
|                    | prototype development and evaluation that       |
|                    | require government leadership will be done at   |
|                    | operational sites.                              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   User-Preferred Scheduling (3.07)            |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
|                    |     (3.11)                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Tactical Routing Inefficiencies     |
|                    |     (3.13)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Area Navigation (RNAV)/FMS Terminal Routing |
| O                  |     Procedures (4.405)                          |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Airport acceptance rate                         |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Reduced amount of voice commands needed for     |
|                    | maintaining separation                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   RNAV/FMS laboratory study of concept        |
| Descriptions:**    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Controller Evaluations                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Procedural enhancements, route definition   |
|                    |     and improvements to FMS, and Global         |
|                    |     Positioning System                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Concept validation                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Field evaluation of terminal routing        |
|                    |     procedures                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Identification of any automation            |
|                    |     requirements needed for procedure viability |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Technology transfer materials               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost/benefit analysis                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Integration with existing terminal          |
|                    |     automation                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Managed Free Flight Concept Exploration     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | **NOTE:** Draft specification may not include   |
|                    | some implementation requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 6/99 - Initial concept definition               |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 1/00 - Initial concept evaluation (simulations) |
|                    | and field evaluations of procedures             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/01 - Comprehensive evaluation (WJHTC          |
|                    | simulations)                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/02 - Concept validation                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/03 - Cost/benefit analysis                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/03 -- Specification for RNAV/FMS routing      |
|                    | automation capabilities (if needed)             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/04 - FAA investment decision                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/05 - Completion of FMS/RNAV Routing           |
|                    | integration with existing and newly developed   |
|                    | terminal automation                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   9/98 -- Phase 1 Laboratory Simulation       |
| Accomplishments:   |     Verification Completed.                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) (see below) are |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | the total RE&D costs included in the current    |
|                    | and out-year budgets. Assuming the FMS/RNAV     |
|                    | concept is proven cost beneficial and an FAA    |
|                    | decision to deploy the tool would be funded     |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Funding requested under FAA Program RE&D will   |
|                    | cover technology transfer to the FAA and/or the |
|                    | FAA development contractor, benefits analysis,  |
|                    | and simulation and field site support.          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Capacity:]{.underline}                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The concept will reduce controller workload via |
|                    | simplified operations and reduce the            |
|                    | inter-arrival spacing error and thus increase   |
|                    | the arrival throughput of the airport. Flying   |
|                    | FMS approaches reduces vectoring and therefore  |
|                    | frees up voice frequency to permit more         |
|                    | efficient operations.                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Efficiency (Users):]{.underline}               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The concept will reduce Air Traffic Control     |
|                    | constraints and support user-preferred          |
|                    | trajectories that will translate into reduced   |
|                    | fuel burn and delay.                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | Efficiencies gained from use of FMS/RNAV routes |
| Funding the        | and equipage in conjunction with terminal       |
| JRPD:**            | automation would be delayed.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Arrival/Departure Management Integration        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J48                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/10/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Richard Van Suetendael (ACT-250): 609-485-5831  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Leonard Tobias (NASA Ames): 650-604-5430        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | TERMINAL AREA                                   |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan, July 1, 1997.                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1999 FAA National Aviation Research Plan,       |
|                    | Draft, October 1998.                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To develop integrated planning and advisory     |
|                    | decision support tools for efficient management |
|                    | of airborne traffic from take-off through       |
|                    | climb-out in Terminal Radar Approach Control    |
|                    | (TRACON) airspace to insertion into en route    |
|                    | traffic streams.                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The Expedite Departure Path (EDP) tool will     |
|                    | focus on departure traffic management and       |
|                    | control of both arrival and departure traffic   |
|                    | where they are interdependent.                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Decision support tools will be developed for    |
|                    | sequencing, scheduling, and route planning of   |
|                    | departure traffic from take-off until the       |
|                    | aircraft is merged into the en route traffic    |
|                    | stream or is established on its preferred       |
|                    | route. Algorithms developed for Final Approach  |
|                    | Spacing Tool (JRPD J41) may be modified where   |
|                    | appropriate. Conflict-free four-dimensional     |
|                    | trajectories will be generated for each         |
|                    | aircraft included in the EDP planning           |
|                    | algorithms. The EDP tool will provide           |
|                    | controllers with speed, heading, and altitude   |
|                    | advisories that depict the results of the       |
|                    | planning and trajectory calculations.           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The human factors interface, algorithmic, and   |
|                    | procedural issues will be examined in a series  |
|                    | of real-time simulation studies prior to a      |
|                    | field site evaluation. These studies will be    |
|                    | initially conducted at NASA Ames, with          |
|                    | validation occurring at the William J. Hughes   |
|                    | Technical Center (WJHTC). Pending results of    |
|                    | these simulations, an EDP prototype will be     |
|                    | developed for evaluation at a field site. Based |
|                    | on the field site evaluation and a cost benefit |
|                    | analysis, a decision will be made as to whether |
|                    | this is suitable for full-scale development.    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | EDP will first be developed for DFW TRACON,     |
| esponsibilities:** | with NASA taking the lead for concept           |
|                    | development and exploration, as well as         |
|                    | prototype development, if undertaken. NASA is   |
|                    | also responsible for an initial benefits study  |
|                    | (for entering the prototype development phase). |
|                    | FAA is responsible for providing expertise on   |
|                    | Air Traffic Management (ATM), operational       |
|                    | users' needs and operational environment        |
|                    | requirements, prototype non-interference        |
|                    | testing with the NAS, and support to prototype  |
|                    | system laboratory and operational assessment.   |
|                    | FAA is also responsible for coordinating this   |
|                    | program with the appropriate FAA- related       |
|                    | programs such as the Standard Terminal          |
|                    | Automation Replacement System, Departure        |
|                    | Sequencing Engineering Development Model, and   |
|                    | Surface Movement Advisor. NASA and the FAA are  |
|                    | jointly responsible for a cost-benefit analysis |
|                    | including an extrapolation to potential         |
|                    | deployment sites.                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | FY2000 FAA Performance Plan Strategic Goal:     |
| Current Aviation   | Provide an aerospace transportation system that |
| Community          | meets the needs of users and is efficient in    |
| Initiatives:       | the application of aerospace resources.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | Airlines, air traffic controllers, and          |
| stomer/Stakeholder | appropriate unions.                             |
| Involvement:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Congressional    | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | NASA and FAA have the technical staffs and      |
| Relevance:**       | laboratory facilities to support the concept    |
|                    | exploration and development as well as the      |
|                    | prototype development and implementation phases |
|                    | of the ATM tool development process. In         |
|                    | addition, portions of the development and       |
|                    | evaluation, which require government            |
|                    | leadership, will be done at operational sites.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
| Outcomes:**        |     (3.11)                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Expedite Departure Path Tool (4.408)        |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Number on unrestricted climbs with EDP          |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Delay in time from take-off to level-off        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Initial Benefits study                      |
| Descriptions:**    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Integrated Arrival/Departure Simulation     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   EDP Algorithmic description                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Comprehensive evaluation (WJHTC             |
|                    |     simulations)                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Operational Validation                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Technology transfer materials               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Cost-Benefits Analysis                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Draft A-level specification & JRC package   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | **NOTE:** Draft specification may not include   |
|                    | some implementation requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 12/99 - Concept Development                     |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 6/00 - STARS Integration                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/01 -- Comprehensive evaluation (WJHTC         |
|                    | simulations)                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/01 - Concept validation                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1/02 - Cost/benefits analysis                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 4/02 - Draft A-level specification              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 6/02 -- FAA investment decision                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   9/98 -- Draft document for near EDP         |
| Accomplishments:   |     operational concept completed.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | The funding listed as FAA (\$M) (see below) are |
| with F&E and Ops   | the total F&E and RE&D costs included in the    |
| (O&M):**           | current and out-year budgets. If the EDP        |
|                    | concepts are proven beneficial and a decision   |
|                    | is made to go ahead with a production version,  |
|                    | this FSD effort will be funded under FAA        |
|                    | program F&E. Funding requested under FAA        |
|                    | Program RE&D will cover technology transfer of  |
|                    | EDP concepts to the FAA or FAA Contractor, any  |
|                    | benefits analyses, simulation and operational   |
|                    | assessment support, as well as any costs for    |
|                    | modifying the current field test environment.   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | Greater achievable traffic throughput at        |
|                    | airports and I terminal airspace.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Impact of not      | Decreased ability to manage and control         |
| Funding the JRPD:  | interdependent arrival and departure traffic    |
|                    | streams with associated en route centers.       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Controller Capabilities to Manage Traffic in    |
|                    | Transition Airspace                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J51                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/22/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mary Lee Cale (ACT-250): 609-485-6381           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Banavar Sridhar (NASA): 650-604-5450            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | EN ROUTE                                        |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAASD Product Based Work Program                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | Enable the TMC and sector controller to         |
|                    | effectively manage traffic flow between the     |
|                    | ARTCC and TRACON.                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | To better manage traffic in transition          |
|                    | airspace, this project integrates the FFP1      |
|                    | Conflict Probe (URET CCLD) and CTAS Traffic     |
|                    | Management Advisor metering scheduling          |
|                    | capabilities. This integrated capability will   |
|                    | provide conflict free and fuel-efficient paths  |
|                    | to the Terminal Radar Approach Control boundary |
|                    | enabling the maximum use of terminal airspace   |
|                    | and airport capacity.                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Conduct lab evaluations of URET CCLD and        |
|                    | Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) adapted to a   |
|                    | common site. Develop decision support software, |
|                    | display formats and operational procedures in   |
|                    | cooperation with controllers and pilots through |
|                    | a combination of fast-time simulation,          |
|                    | real-time simulation, shadow testing, and       |
|                    | possible live traffic tests.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA will develop an initial capability to   |
| esponsibilities:** | exchange messages between conflict probe and    |
|                    | traffic management advisor. The FAA and NASA    |
|                    | will conduct research to identify appropriate   |
|                    | ways to provide for fuel-efficient descents.    |
|                    | The FAA and NASA will also investigate ways to  |
|                    | provide TMA and CP capabilities from a common   |
|                    | architecture.                                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | RTCA's Free Flight Efforts                      |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | FAA's NAS Architecture 3.0                      |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | ATS Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005   |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:       | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological evolution and       |
|                    | improvement of the NAS. Federally funded        |
|                    | technical staffs and laboratory facilities are  |
|                    | used to support the concept exploration and     |
|                    | development as well as the prototype            |
|                    | development and implementation phases of the    |
|                    | ATM tool development process. Portions of the   |
|                    | development and evaluation may be done at       |
|                    | operational sites, requiring government         |
|                    | leadership.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goal**   | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   More Predictable Transit Times (3.02) --    |
| Outcomes:**        |     Uplink 1                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Greater Achievable Throughput at Airports   |
|                    |     (3.11) -- Uplink 2                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Flow Control-Induced Delays (3.12)  |
|                    |     -- Uplink 3                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Integration of Conflict Probe and metering  |
| O                  |     scheduling (4.510)                          |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   Integration of Conflict Probe and user      |
|                    |     preferred descent profiles (4.511)          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Integration of Conflict Probe with user     |
|                    |     preferred routes through terminal airspace  |
|                    |     (4.512)                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Transit time accuracy                           |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Airport throughput                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Delay                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Fuel usage                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Integration of conflict probe (URET CCLD)   |
| Description:**     |     and CTAS TMA (4.510) - Provide TMA          |
|                    |     scheduled times of arrival to conflict      |
|                    |     probe in order for conflict probe to        |
|                    |     determine if aircraft must be delayed to    |
|                    |     meet the defined time, and to identify      |
|                    |     conflict free delay absorption maneuvers    |
|                    |     (CAASD/NASA). Continued research into an En |
|                    |     Route/Descent Advisor (E/DA) capability     |
|                    |     (NASA).                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Integration of conflict probe and user      |
|                    |     preferred descent profiles (4.511) -        |
|                    |     Optimize user descent profiles by inputting |
|                    |     user preferred profiles into conflict probe |
|                    |     (CAASD) or identify optimum descent         |
|                    |     profiles, direct climbs, and direct routes  |
|                    |     (NASA).                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Integration of conflict probe with user     |
|                    |     preferred routes through terminal (4.512) - |
|                    |     TBD; Identified as a research area to       |
|                    |     address a need in the ATS 2005 operational  |
|                    |     concept. There is currently no research     |
|                    |     underway to satisfy this need.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | Integration of Conflict Probe and TMA metering  |
| Milestones:**      | scheduling (4.510):                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/00 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab         |
|                    | > evaluations - 2/00, 7/00)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/01- Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 1/01; Field evaluations - 7/01)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Integration of Conflict Probe and user          |
|                    | preferred descent profiles (4.511):             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/99 - Concept Exploration (Field            |
|                    | > evaluation - 6/99)                            |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/01 - Concept Development (NASA simulation   |
|                    | > of TMA/DA - 3/00)                             |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 9/01 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 1/02 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Integration of CP and TP with user preferred    |
|                    | routes through terminal airspace (4.512) -- TBD |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   9/98 - Draft functional requirements for    |
| Accomplishments:** |     URET/TMA integration                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   8/98 - Lab adaptation of URET to Dallas-Ft. |
|                    |     Worth Center                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   7/98, 11/98 - E/DA simulations/field tests  |
|                    |     at Dallas-Ft. Worth Center                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | Assuming these products are proven cost         |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | beneficial during Concept Exploration (CE) and  |
|                    | Concept Development (CD), an FAA decision to    |
|                    | develop and deploy these tools will be funded   |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | -   Higher airport acceptance rates with same   |
|                    |     staffing/level of safety.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced delays and fuel consumption due to  |
|                    |     optimized delay allocation between Center   |
|                    |     and TRACON.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | -   Decreased ability to reduce restrictions    |
| Funding the        |     that are currently in-place to procedurally |
| JRPD:**            |     separate and sequence aircraft arriving in  |
|                    |     terminal airspace. Complying with such      |
|                    |     restrictions cause NAS users to fly along   |
|                    |     non-optimum paths.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Decreased ability to accommodate increased  |
|                    |     traffic without imposing delays that could  |
|                    |     be minimized or perhaps eliminated with     |
|                    |     automation enhancements.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Controller Capabilities for Improved Problem    |
|                    | Prediction                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J54                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/22/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mary Lee Cale (ACT-250): 609-485-6381           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Banavar Sridhar (NASA): 650-604-5450            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | # EN ROUTE                                      |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAASD Product Based Work Program                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide integrated en route decision air     |
|                    | traffic controller support tools in the NAS     |
|                    | 2005 environment which: 1) enhance user         |
|                    | flexibility for routing and reduce the ATC      |
|                    | system's dependence on the structured route     |
|                    | system with its associated constraints and      |
|                    | restrictions, and 2) provide airspace users     |
|                    | with an environment in which flights can be     |
|                    | planned and conducted with predictable flight   |
|                    | performance and arrival times, and are          |
|                    | integrated with other key functions of the NAS  |
|                    | 2005.                                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Conflict Probe capabilities, representing a     |
|                    | first step in facilitating user-preferred       |
|                    | routing, are expected to be in place as part of |
|                    | FFP1 prior to the NAS 2005 time frame. This     |
|                    | capability which includes automated conflict    |
|                    | detection is targeted primarily for use by the  |
|                    | Data controller. The future NAS 2005 time frame |
|                    | functions will augment this initial capability  |
|                    | by developing enhancements to                   |
|                    | aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-space      |
|                    | problem prediction, and enabling the detection  |
|                    | of potential aircraft conflicts with hazardous  |
|                    | weather and complex traffic airspace, and       |
|                    | non-compliance with flow constraints.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Building on concepts and capabilities to be     |
|                    | implemented as part of FFP1 (i.e., URET CCLD    |
|                    | and CTAS TMA), further research using           |
|                    | laboratory and possible field demonstrations    |
|                    | will be performed to revise and validate the    |
|                    | following:                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   The controller team operational concept for |
|                    |     conflict detection involving                |
|                    |     aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-          |
|                    |     to-airspace conflicts and adherence to flow |
|                    |     instructions including meter fix/arrival    |
|                    |     times, altitude and speed constraints, and  |
|                    |     other dynamic or routine constraints        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational and functional performance      |
|                    |     requirements and updated algorithms with    |
|                    |     evaluation and development of aspects such  |
|                    |     as:                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   trajectory prediction                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   advisory timing                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   false and missed advisory rate              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   controller computer-human interface         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   conflict probabilities                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   traffic management advisories               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Inter-facility operations                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Benefits to be used for investment          |
|                    |     decisions                                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA and NASA will perform experiments       |
| esponsibilities:** | leading to validation of an operational concept |
|                    | and definition of operational and functional    |
|                    | requirements for a single integrated set of     |
|                    | capabilities for the En Route environment. The  |
|                    | FAA will conduct research to provide            |
|                    | enhancements to the FFP1 conflict probe (URET   |
|                    | CCLD). NASA will conduct further research into  |
|                    | the en route/descent advisor, and will develop  |
|                    | dynamic density indicators for workload         |
|                    | prediction. The FAA will also conduct           |
|                    | independent verification and validation of the  |
|                    | suggested enhancements to the FFP1 core         |
|                    | capabilities.                                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | ATS Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005   |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | Airlines, RTCA                                  |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | ATS Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological evolution and       |
|                    | improvement of the NAS. Federally funded        |
|                    | technical staffs and laboratory facilities are  |
|                    | available to support the concept exploration    |
|                    | and development as well as the prototype        |
|                    | development and implementation phases of the    |
|                    | ATM tool development process. Portions of the   |
|                    | development and evaluation may be done at       |
|                    | operational sites, requiring government         |
|                    | leadership.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **FAA Mission      | -   Safety                                      |
| Goals**            |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   User-Preferred Trajectories (3.05) - Uplink |
| Outcomes:**        |     1                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Tactical Routing Inefficiencies     |
|                    |     (3.13) - Uplink 2                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Improved Safety for ATM (3.01) - Uplink 3   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Enhancements to aircraft-to-aircraft and    |
| O                  |     aircraft-to-airspace problem prediction     |
| utputs/Products:** |     (4.540)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Aircraft-to-weather problem prediction      |
|                    |     (4.541)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Aircraft-to-flow compliance problem         |
|                    |     prediction (4.542)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Aircraft-to-complex traffic airspace        |
|                    |     problem prediction (4.543)                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Operational Errors                              |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | User requests granted                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ATC directed maneuvers                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Deviation from Desired Route and Altitude       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Time and Distance Flown                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Conflict Counts                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Enhancements to aircraft-to-aircraft and    |
| Descriptions**     |     aircraft-to-airspace problem prediction     |
|                    |     (4.540) - Improve capability to predict     |
|                    |     potential problems associated with: 1)      |
|                    |     aircraft on block altitude clearances, or   |
|                    |     at interim altitudes, 2) military           |
|                    |     operations, and 3) non-radar operations     |
|                    |     (CAASD). This product also includes         |
|                    |     URET/CTAS conflict prediction accuracy      |
|                    |     studies (FAATC).                            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Aircraft-to-weather problem prediction      |
|                    |     (4.541) - Enable the detection of potential |
|                    |     conflicts with hazardous weather (CAASD).   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Aircraft-to-flow compliance problem         |
|                    |     prediction (4.542) - Notify the controller  |
|                    |     of compliance/non-compliance with flow      |
|                    |     constraints, such as scheduled times of     |
|                    |     arrival or miles-in-trail requirements      |
|                    |     (CAASD and NASA).                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Aircraft-to-complex traffic airspace        |
|                    |     problem prediction (4.543) - Determine when |
|                    |     aircraft trajectories will interfere with   |
|                    |     complex traffic airspace (CAASD) and        |
|                    |     identify dynamic density predictors for     |
|                    |     workload estimation (NASA) (in coordination |
|                    |     with JRPD 21).                              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | Enhancements to aircraft-to-aircraft problem    |
| Milestones:**      | prediction (4.540):                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/00 - Concept Exploration (Conflict Probe    |
|                    | > upgrades for block altitudes, military, and   |
|                    | > non-radar operations) (CAASD lab              |
|                    | > evaluations - 2/00, 7/00)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 2/01; Field evaluations - 7/01)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Aircraft-to-weather problem prediction (4.541): |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/01, 9/01)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 2/02; Field evaluations - 8/02)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Aircraft-to-flow compliance problem prediction  |
|                    | (4.542):                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/00 - Concept Exploration (NASA field       |
|                    | > evaluation of regional metering - 6/99; NASA  |
|                    | > simulation of DA/TMA - 3/00; CAASD lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/00, 9/00)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/02 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 5/01; Field evaluations - 10/01) |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/03 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/04 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/05 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Aircraft-to-complex traffic airspace problem    |
|                    | prediction (4.543):                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/00 - Concept Exploration (NASA constrained |
|                    | > airspace benefits study - 3/99; NASA          |
|                    | > simulation of tools for constrained           |
|                    | > airspace - 3/00; CAASD lab evaluations -      |
|                    | > 3/00, 9/00)                                   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/02 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 4/01; Field evaluations - 9/01,  |
|                    | > 12/01)                                        |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/03 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/04 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/05 - Initial Operating Capability           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   Ongoing - URET Daily use operations at      |
| Accomplishments:   |     Indianapolis and Memphis Centers (FAA)      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   7/98 - En Route/Descent Advisor (E/DA)      |
|                    |     evaluations at NASA Ames                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   11/98 - E/DA field test at Dallas-Ft. Worth |
|                    |     Centers (FAA)                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | Assuming these products are proven cost         |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | beneficial during Concept Exploration (CE) and  |
|                    | Concept Development (CD), an FAA decision to    |
|                    | develop and deploy these tools will be funded   |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | -   Increase the ability of an En Route         |
|                    |     controller to approve user-desired routes   |
|                    |     and altitudes.                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduce the restrictions required to manage  |
|                    |     traffic flows since controllers will be     |
|                    |     able to work additional traffic and better  |
|                    |     accommodate unstructured traffic.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | -   Decreased ability to reduce restrictions    |
| Funding the        |     that are currently in-place to procedurally |
| JRPD:**            |     separate aircraft (e.g., altitude for       |
|                    |     direction). The restrictions prevent NAS    |
|                    |     users from flying along desired routes and  |
|                    |     at desired altitudes.                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Decreased ability to accommodate predicted  |
|                    |     traffic increases without imposing more     |
|                    |     restrictions that will increase system      |
|                    |     delay.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Controller Capabilities for Improved Problem    |
|                    | Resolution                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J55                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/22/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mary Lee Cale (ACT-250): 609-485-6381           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Banavar Sridhar (NASA): 650-604-5450            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | EN ROUTE                                        |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAASD Product Based Work Program                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide integrated en route air traffic      |
|                    | controller decision support tools in the NAS    |
|                    | 2005 environment which: 1) enhance user         |
|                    | flexibility for routing and reduce the ATC      |
|                    | system's dependence on the structured route     |
|                    | system with its associated constraints and      |
|                    | restrictions, and 2) provide airspace users     |
|                    | with an environment in which flights can be     |
|                    | planned and conducted with predictable flight   |
|                    | performance and arrival times.                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Conflict resolution capabilities are expected   |
|                    | to be implemented as part of FFP1 prior to the  |
|                    | NAS 2005 time frame and represent a first       |
|                    | automated step in facilitating user-preferred   |
|                    | routing. This capability, which includes trial  |
|                    | planning and auto coordination, is targeted     |
|                    | primarily for the Data controller. The future   |
|                    | NAS 2005 time frame functions will augment this |
|                    | initial capability by including automated       |
|                    | problem resolution and en route clearance       |
|                    | advisories.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Building on concepts and capabilities to be     |
|                    | implemented as part of FFP1 (i.e., URET CCLD    |
|                    | and CTAS TMA), further research using           |
|                    | laboratory and possible field demonstrations    |
|                    | will be performed to revise and validate the    |
|                    | following:                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Operational and functional performance      |
|                    |     requirements and updated algorithms with    |
|                    |     evaluation and development of aspects such  |
|                    |     as:                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   controller computer-human interface         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   automated resolution advisories             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA will develop additional conflict        |
| esponsibilities:** | resolution capabilities to enhance the FFP1     |
|                    | conflict resolution capability. The FAA and     |
|                    | NASA will perform experiments leading to        |
|                    | validation of an operational concept and        |
|                    | definition of operational and functional        |
|                    | requirements for a single integrated set of     |
|                    | capabilities for the En Route environment. NASA |
|                    | will conduct conflict resolution research using |
|                    | the En Route/Descent Advisor capability.        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | RTCA's Free Flight Efforts                      |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | FAA's NAS Architecture 3.0                      |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | ATS Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005   |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological evolution and       |
|                    | improvement of the NAS. Federally funded        |
|                    | technical staffs and laboratory facilities are  |
|                    | available to support the concept exploration    |
|                    | and development as well as the prototype        |
|                    | development and implementation phases of the    |
|                    | ATM tool development process. Portions of the   |
|                    | development and evaluation may be done at       |
|                    | operational sites, requiring government         |
|                    | leadership.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **FAA Mission      | -   System Efficiency                           |
| Goals**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   User-Preferred Trajectories (3.05) - Uplink |
| Outcomes:**        |     1                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Tactical Routing Inefficiencies     |
|                    |     (3.13) - Uplink 2                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   More Efficient FAA Service Delivery         |
|                    |     (3.14) - Uplink 3                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Initial problem resolution aids (4.550)     |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** | -   Problem resolution aids with rated ranking  |
|                    |     of solutions (4.551)                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Automatic resolution generation (4.552)     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Pilot involvement with selection of         |
|                    |     resolution options (4.553)                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Conflict Counts                                 |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Deviation from Desired Route and Altitude       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Time and Distance Flown                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Initial problem resolution aids (4.550) -   |
| Descriptions**     |     Quick trial planning that automatically     |
|                    |     identifies conflict free resolution         |
|                    |     maneuvers to resolve predicted              |
|                    |     aircraft-to-aircraft and                    |
|                    |     aircraft-to-airspace problems (CAASD).      |
|                    |     Manual trial planning with separation and   |
|                    |     metering information (NASA).                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Problem resolution aids with rated ranking  |
|                    |     of solutions (4.551) - Enhanced quick trial |
|                    |     planning capability with improved problem   |
|                    |     analysis, resolution, and ranking of        |
|                    |     solutions to predicted aircraft-to-aircraft |
|                    |     and aircraft-to-airspace problems and       |
|                    |     metering problems (CAASD).                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Automatic resolution generation (4.552) -   |
|                    |     En Route Controllers can choose to be       |
|                    |     automatically advised when an aircraft      |
|                    |     should be maneuvered to resolve a predicted |
|                    |     problem and what the maneuver should be     |
|                    |     (CAASD). E/DA descent, climb, and en route  |
|                    |     clearance advisories (NASA).                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Pilot involvement with selection of         |
|                    |     resolution options (4.553) - TBD            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | Initial problem resolution aids (4.550):        |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/00 - Concept Exploration (NASA simulation   |
|                    | > of DA/TMA - 3/00; CAASD lab evaluations -     |
|                    | > 1/00, 7/00)                                   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 3/01; Field evaluation - 8/01)   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Problem resolution aids with rated ranking of   |
|                    | solutions (4.551):                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/00 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab         |
|                    | > evaluations - 1/00, 7/00)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 3/01; Field evaluation - 8/01)   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Full-Scale Capability                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Automatic resolution generation (4.552):        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/02 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/02, 9/02)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 4/03; Field evaluation - 11/03)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/05 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/06 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/06 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Pilot involvement with selection of resolution  |
|                    | options (4.553) - TBD                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   Ongoing- URET Daily use operations at       |
| Accomplishments:** |     Indianapolis and Memphis Centers (FAA)      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   7/98 - En Route/Descent Advisor (E/DA)      |
|                    |     evaluations at NASA Ames                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   10/98 - Problem Analysis, Resolution and    |
|                    |     Ranking (PARR) demonstration                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   11/98 - FY'99 E/DA field test at Dallas-Ft. |
|                    |     Worth Center (FAA)                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | Assuming these products are proven cost         |
| with F&E and Ops   | beneficial during Concept Exploration (CE) and  |
| (O&M):**           | Concept Development (CD), an FAA decision to    |
|                    | develop and deploy these tools will be funded   |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | -   Increased ability of an En Route controller |
|                    |     to review and approve user-desired routes   |
|                    |     and altitudes.                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Enabled controllers to work more aircraft   |
|                    |     not flying structured routes by reducing    |
|                    |     the numbers of potential conflicts          |
|                    |     involving individual aircraft.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced economic impact of a conflict       |
|                    |     resolution maneuver since most potential    |
|                    |     conflicts will be able to be resolved       |
|                    |     early.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | -   Decreased ability to reduce restrictions    |
| Funding the        |     that are currently in-place to procedurally |
| JRPD:**            |     separate aircraft (e.g., altitude for       |
|                    |     direction). The restrictions prevent NAS    |
|                    |     users from flying along desired routes and  |
|                    |     at desired altitudes.                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Reduced ability to accommodate predicted    |
|                    |     traffic increases without imposing more     |
|                    |     restrictions that will increase system      |
|                    |     delay.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Integration with Other Technologies and Domains |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J56                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/22/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mary Lee Cale (ACT-250): 609-485-6381           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Banavar Sridhar (NASA): 650-604-5450            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | EN ROUTE                                        |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAASD Product Based Work Program                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide information that enhances en route   |
|                    | decision support capabilities described in      |
|                    | JRPDs 51, 54, and 55. This project will also    |
|                    | provide the interfaces with other functional    |
|                    | capabilities and flight domains.                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Problem prediction and resolution capabilities, |
|                    | representing a first step in facilitating       |
|                    | user-preferred routing, are expected to be      |
|                    | implemented as part of FFP1 prior to the NAS    |
|                    | 2005 time frame. The future NAS 2005 timeframe  |
|                    | functions will augment this initial capability  |
|                    | by integration with other NAS 2005 systems.     |
|                    | This project will design a software interface   |
|                    | with:                                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Traffic Flow Management (TFM) allowing the  |
|                    |     efficient dissemination of: 1) real-time    |
|                    |     special use airspace information, and 2)    |
|                    |     Traffic Management Unit (TMU) defined       |
|                    |     reroutes to the sector team                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Controller-to-pilot datalink capabilities.  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Aircraft automation to obtain and use       |
|                    |     current aircraft (weight) and environment   |
|                    |     (wind) information for trajectory           |
|                    |     prediction.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Airline Operations Centers (AOCs) to obtain |
|                    |     and use current flight information for      |
|                    |     trajectory prediction                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Terminal systems                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Building on concepts and capabilities to be     |
|                    | implemented as part of FFP1, further research   |
|                    | using laboratory and possible field             |
|                    | demonstrations will be performed to improve and |
|                    | validate the fielded decision support tool      |
|                    | algorithms by incorporating the most current    |
|                    | TFM, aircraft intent, and flight information.   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA will develop concepts and capabilities  |
| esponsibilities:** | to disseminate TFM defined reroutes to the      |
|                    | sector team and incorporate aircraft intent     |
|                    | information into conflict probe. The FAA and    |
|                    | NASA will determine the intent information that |
|                    | is most useful to improve trajectory modeling.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | RTCA's Free Flight Initiative                   |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | FAA's NAS Architecture 3.0                      |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | NAS Architecture Development                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operational Concept validation              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological evolution and       |
|                    | improvement of the NAS. Federally funded        |
|                    | technical staffs and laboratory facilities are  |
|                    | available to support the concept exploration    |
|                    | and development as well as the prototype        |
|                    | development and implementation phases of the    |
|                    | ATM tool development process. Portions of the   |
|                    | development and evaluation may be done at       |
|                    | operational sites, requiring government         |
|                    | leadership.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **FAA Mission      | -   System Efficiency                           |
| Goals**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   User Access (2.04)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   Collaborative Planning (3.06) -- Uplink 1   |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved Airspace Access (3.09) -- Uplink 2 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   More Efficient Service Delivery (3.14) -    |
|                    |     Uplink 3                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Interface with TFM including SAMS and MAMS  |
| O                  |     (4.560)                                     |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interface with aircraft automation (4.561)  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interface with AOCs (4.562)                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interface with terminal systems (4.563)     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | User requests granted                           |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Deviation from Desired Route and Altitude       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Time and Distance Flown                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Human response times for critical actions       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Frequency of verbal communications for          |
|                    | coordination                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Memory recall for electronic flight strips      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Mental map recovery for situational awareness   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Interface with TFM including Special-use    |
| Descriptions**     |     Airspace Management System (SAMS) and       |
|                    |     Military-use Airspace Management System     |
|                    |     (MAMS) (4.560) - Send TMU defined reroutes  |
|                    |     for weather and traffic complexity to the   |
|                    |     sector for implementation as well as        |
|                    |     updating the conflict probe with real-time  |
|                    |     SUA information (CAASD).                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interface with aircraft automation          |
|                    |     (4.561) - Downlinking of aircraft weight to |
|                    |     improve conflict probe trajectory modeling  |
|                    |     (CAASD). User/ATM data exchange             |
|                    |     enhancements to ground-based DSS (NASA).    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Interface with AOCs (4.562) - AOC provision |
|                    |     of flight plan information to improve       |
|                    |     trajectory modeling (CAASD). User/ATM data  |
|                    |     exchange enhancements to ground-based DSS   |
|                    |     (NASA).                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Interface with terminal systems (4.563) -   |
|                    |     E/DA/TMA/FAST integration (NASA).           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | Interface with TFM including SAMS and MAMS      |
| Milestones:**      | (4.560):                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/01 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab         |
|                    | > evaluations - 1/01, 7/01)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 2/02; Field evaluation - 8/02)   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Interface with aircraft automation (4.561):     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/03 - Concept Exploration (Field            |
|                    | > evaluations of EDX - 6/99, 9/00; CAASD lab    |
|                    | > evaluations - 10/02, 6/03)                    |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/05 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 5/04; Field evaluation - 1/05)   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/06 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/07 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/07 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Interface with AOCs (4.562):                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Exploration (Field            |
|                    | > evaluations of EDX - 6/99, 9/00; CAASD lab    |
|                    | > evaluations - 4/01, 10/01)                    |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/03- Concept Development (WJHTC lab          |
|                    | > evaluation - 5/02; Field evaluation - 1/03)   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 7/05 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/06 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Interface with terminal systems (4.563):        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/00 - Concept Exploration (NASA lab         |
|                    | > evaluation of DA/TMA - 3/00)                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Development                   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Initial Operating Capability          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   Ongoing - URET daily use operations at      |
| Accomplishments:** |     Indianapolis and Memphis Centers (FAA)      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   6/98 -- Initial study of TMU-ATC            |
|                    |     interactions to communicate group rerouting |
|                    |     strategies                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   7/98 & 11/98 - E/DA simulations/evaluations |
|                    |     at Dallas-Ft. Worth Center                  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | Assuming these products are proven cost         |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | beneficial during Concept Exploration (CE) and  |
|                    | Concept Development (CD), an FAA decision to    |
|                    | develop and deploy these tools will be funded   |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | -   Efficient dissemination of TMU reroutes to  |
|                    |     the sector for implementation               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved trajectory modeling that will      |
|                    |     increase the accuracy of problem prediction |
|                    |     and resolution                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved dissemination of information to    |
|                    |     terminal facilities                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | -   Less efficient rerouting that will cost     |
| Funding the        |     system users time and fuel as well as       |
| JRPD:**            |     increasing system delays.                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Less accurate trajectory modeling causing   |
|                    |     unnecessary conflict prediction and         |
|                    |     possibly inappropriate resolution maneuvers |
|                    |     which will cost system users time and fuel  |
|                    |     as well as increasing system delay.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Other Initiatives to Enhance Decision Support   |
|                    | Systems                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J57                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/22/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mary Lee Cale (ACT-250): 609-485-6381           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Banavar Sridhar (NASA): 650-604-5450            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | EN ROUTE                                        |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technologies   |
|                    | Project Plan                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAASD Product Based Work Program                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of en  |
|                    | route decision support capabilities described   |
|                    | in JRPDs 51, 54, and 55.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Problem prediction and resolution capabilities, |
|                    | representing a first step in facilitating       |
|                    | user-preferred routing, are expected to be in   |
|                    | place as part of FFP1 prior to the NAS 2005     |
|                    | time frame. This project will augment these     |
|                    | capabilities by providing:                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   A capability to modify Air Traffic Control  |
|                    |     (ATC) sector boundaries to accommodate      |
|                    |     dynamic traffic flows expected when         |
|                    |     aircraft operate off of traditional         |
|                    |     airways.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Common capabilities and enhancements for    |
|                    |     the ATC decision support tools (DSTs).      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Building on concepts and capabilities to be     |
|                    | implemented as part of FFP1, further research   |
|                    | using laboratory and possible field             |
|                    | demonstrations will be performed to improve and |
|                    | validate the fielded decision support tool      |
|                    | algorithms by incorporating the most current    |
|                    | wind, airspace structure, and surveillance      |
|                    | data.                                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA and NASA will develop capabilities to   |
| esponsibilities:** | enhance decision support system technology.     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | RTCA's Free Flight Initiative                   |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | FAA's NAS Architecture 3.0                      |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | NAS Architecture Development                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operational Concept validation              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological evolution and       |
|                    | improvement of the NAS. Federally funded        |
|                    | technical staffs and laboratory facilities are  |
|                    | available to support the concept exploration    |
|                    | and development as well as the prototype        |
|                    | development and implementation phases of the    |
|                    | ATM tool development process. Portions of the   |
|                    | development and evaluation may be done at       |
|                    | operational sites, requiring government         |
|                    | leadership,                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **FAA Mission      | -   System Efficiency                           |
| Goals**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   More Efficient Service Delivery (3.14) -    |
| Outcomes:**        |     Uplink 1                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Better Information Distribution (3.03) -    |
|                    |     Uplink 2                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Tactical Routing Inefficiencies     |
|                    |     (3.13) - Uplink 3                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Flexible airspace structure (4.570)         |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** | -   Use of surveillance enhancements including  |
|                    |     Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast  |
|                    |     (ADS-B) and improved radar tracking (4.571) |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Development of common adaptation data and   |
|                    |     global named locations (4.572)              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Common trajectory modeler (4.573)           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved weather products (4.574)           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | User requests granted                           |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Deviation from Desired Route and Altitude       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Time and Distance Flown                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Flexible airspace structure (4.570) - TBD   |
| Descriptions**     |                                                 |
|                    | -   Use of surveillance enhancements including  |
|                    |     ADS-B and improved radar tracking (4.571) - |
|                    |     Use of surveillance enhancements to improve |
|                    |     conflict probe (CAASD).                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Development of common adaptation data and   |
|                    |     global named locations (4.572) -- Develop   |
|                    |     En Route Air Traffic Management Decision    |
|                    |     Support Tool (ERATMDST) Adaptation Tool to  |
|                    |     ease the adaptation process and to identify |
|                    |     common structures that can be used by more  |
|                    |     than one DST (MITLL).                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Common trajectory modeler (4.573) -         |
|                    |     Evaluate CTAS and URET trajectory model to  |
|                    |     determine the performance requirements for  |
|                    |     a common en route trajectory model (CAASD,  |
|                    |     NASA, FAA WJHTC).                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Improved weather products (4.574) -         |
|                    |     Downlink of winds to improve trajectory     |
|                    |     modeling (CAASD).                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | Flexible airspace structure (4.570) - TBD       |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | Use of surveillance enhancements including      |
|                    | ADS-B and improved radar tracking (4.571):      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/03 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/03, 9/03)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 3/04; Field evaluation - 10/04)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/06 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/07 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Development of common adaptation data and       |
|                    | global named locations (4.572):                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Exploration (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 6/01)                            |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Concept Development                   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Common trajectory modeler (4.573):              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Exploration (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 4/01, 8/01)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02 - Concept Development                   |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Improved weather products (4.574):              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/01 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/01, 10/01)                    |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/02- Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 3/02; Field evaluation - 10/02)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/03 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Initial Operating Capability          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   9/98 - Initial ERATMDST Specification       |
| Accomplishments:   |                                                 |
|                    | -   10/98 - Initial Feasibility Study of        |
|                    |     ERATMDST Adaptation Tool (EAT)              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | Assuming these products are proven cost         |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): | beneficial during Concept Exploration (CE) and  |
|                    | Concept Development (CD), an FAA decision to    |
|                    | develop and deploy these tools will be funded   |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | -   Improved trajectory modeling that will      |
|                    |     increase the accuracy of problem prediction |
|                    |     and resolution                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   More efficient and effective adaptation     |
|                    |     reducing the overall resources required to  |
|                    |     conduct the adaptation process              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | -   Less accurate trajectory modeling causing   |
| Funding the        |     unnecessary conflict prediction and         |
| JRPD:**            |     possibly inappropriate resolution maneuvers |
|                    |     which will cost system users time and fuel  |
|                    |     as well as increasing system delay.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Less efficient use of resources needed to   |
|                    |     adapt systems to a specific location.       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Integration and Application of Decision Support |
|                    | Tools at Sector                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J58                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 2/22/99                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Mary Lee Cale (ACT-250): 609-485-6381           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Banavar Sridhar (NASA): 650-604-5450            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Gene Wilhelm (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-6516        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | EN ROUTE                                        |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | NASA Advanced Air Transportation Technology     |
|                    | Program Plan                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | CAASD Product Based Work Program                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of en  |
|                    | route decision support capabilities described   |
|                    | in JRPDs 51, 54, and 55.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | Problem prediction and resolution capabilities, |
|                    | representing a first step in facilitating       |
|                    | user-preferred routing, are expected to be in   |
|                    | place prior to the NAS 2005 time frame. These   |
|                    | capabilities are targeted primarily for use by  |
|                    | the Data controller. The future NAS 2005        |
|                    | timeframe functions will augment this initial   |
|                    | capability by increasing the scope of usage     |
|                    | within the sector team (i.e., expanding to the  |
|                    | Radar controller), including:                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Enhancing the display of flight and weather |
|                    |     information at sector workstations.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Ensuring appropriate procedures are in      |
|                    |     place so controllers know how to employ the |
|                    |     decision support tools                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Developing and implementing reduced         |
|                    |     separation criteria.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | Building on concepts and capabilities to be     |
|                    | implemented as part of FFP1, further research   |
|                    | using laboratory and possible field             |
|                    | demonstrations will be performed to improve and |
|                    | validate the fielded decision support tools     |
|                    | computer human-interface and operational        |
|                    | concepts and procedures.                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA will develop, demonstrate, and evaluate |
| esponsibilities:** | the operational suitability of conflict probe   |
|                    | and resolution capabilities for the Radar       |
|                    | controller using different types of             |
|                    | computer-human interfaces, including            |
|                    | Operational Display and Input Development       |
|                    | (ODID) features. The FAA will also develop,     |
|                    | demonstrate, and evaluate various weather       |
|                    | depiction capabilities for the Radar and Flight |
|                    | Data controller displays as well as evaluate    |
|                    | different separation standards to apply based   |
|                    | on the quality of position information.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | Free Flight Initiative                          |
| Current Aviation   |                                                 |
| Community          | NAS Architecture                                |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Cu               | RTCA Free Flight Action Plan                    |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:**     | NAS Architecture Development                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Operational Concept validation              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The FAA and NASA are working together to ensure |
| Relevance:**       | the continued technological evolution and       |
|                    | improvement of the NAS. Federally funded        |
|                    | technical staffs and laboratory facilities are  |
|                    | available to support the concept exploration    |
|                    | and development as well as the prototype        |
|                    | development and implementation phases of the    |
|                    | ATM tool development process. Portions of the   |
|                    | development and evaluation may be done at       |
|                    | operational sites, requiring government         |
|                    | leadership.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **FAA Mission      | -   Safety                                      |
| Goals**            |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   User Access (2.04)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   More Efficient Service Delivery (3.14) -    |
| Outcomes:**        |     Uplink 1                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Better Information Distribution (3.03) -    |
|                    |     Uplink 2                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved Airspace Access (3.09) - Uplink 3  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Display of flight information (4.580)       |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** | -   Display of weather information (4.581)      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Concepts and procedures (4.582)             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Adaptive aircraft separation standards      |
|                    |     (4.583)                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Alternative computer human interface        |
|                    |     (4.584)                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | User requests granted                           |
| etrics/Performance |                                                 |
| Indicators:**      | Deviation from Desired Route and Altitude       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Time and Distance Flown                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Sector throughput                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Human response times for critical actions       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Frequency of verbal communications for          |
|                    | coordination                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Memory recall for electronic flight strips      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Mental map recovery for situational awareness   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | -   Display of flight information (4.580) -     |
| Descriptions**     |     Provide problem prediction and resolution   |
|                    |     capabilities on Radar-side Display System   |
|                    |     Replacement (DSR) as well as flight plan    |
|                    |     and general information (CAASD).            |
|                    |     Investigate common CHI for DST advisories   |
|                    |     (e.g., TMA, CP, EDA) (TBD).                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Display of weather information (4.581) -    |
|                    |     Provides weather reflectivity data on DSR   |
|                    |     Data-side display as well as contoured      |
|                    |     weather to use during trial planning        |
|                    |     (CAASD). Develop and evaluate alternative   |
|                    |     computer-human interface (CAASD/MITLL).     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Concepts and procedures (4.582) - Develop   |
|                    |     en route sector operational concepts, roles |
|                    |     and responsibilities, and procedures for    |
|                    |     utilizing new and evolving technologies and |
|                    |     operational objectives to fully realize the |
|                    |     enhancements presented in the 2005 NAS      |
|                    |     operational concept. The effort will look   |
|                    |     at new ways of doing business that may      |
|                    |     offer economic and operational advantages.  |
|                    |     This will include not only the use of new   |
|                    |     DSS capabilities but also procedural        |
|                    |     changes such as the greater use of RNAV/FMS |
|                    |     routing in en route airspace (CAASD).       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Adaptive aircraft separation standards      |
|                    |     (4.583) - Identified as a research area to  |
|                    |     address a need in the ATS 2005 operational  |
|                    |     concept. There is currently no research     |
|                    |     underway to satisfy this need.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Alternative computer-human interface (CHI)  |
|                    |     (4.584) - Develop an interactive website    |
|                    |     (similar to the Eurocontrol EATCHIP         |
|                    |     website) to demonstrate the ODID-like CHI   |
|                    |     displays and concepts to current            |
|                    |     controllers and gain their insights,        |
|                    |     suggestions, design considerations and      |
|                    |     eventual acceptance (MITLL).                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | Display of flight information (4.580)           |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/00 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab         |
|                    | > evaluations - 1/00, 7/00)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/02 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 6/01; Field evaluation - 12/01)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/03 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 3/05 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Display of weather information (4.581)          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 6/00 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab         |
|                    | > evaluations - 12/99, 5/00)                    |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/01 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab         |
|                    | > evaluation - 10/00; Field evaluation - 4/01)  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/02 - Prototype Development                  |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/03 - Full-Scale Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 6/04 - Initial Operating Capability           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Concepts and procedures (4.582):                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 12/02 - Concept Exploration (CAASD lab        |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/02, 9/02)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/04 - Concept Development (WJHTC lab        |
|                    | > evaluation - 6/03; Field evaluations - 2/04,  |
|                    | > 9/04)                                         |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/05 - Prototype Development                 |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/06 - Full-Scale Development                |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/07 - Initial Operating Capability          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Adaptive aircraft separation standards (4.583)  |
|                    | -- TBD                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Alternative CHI (4.584)                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > 9/00 - Concept Exploration (MITLL/WJHTC lab   |
|                    | > evaluations - 3/00, 7/00)                     |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/00 - Concept Development (WJHTC            |
|                    | > functionality demonstration - 11/00)          |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > 12/01 - Initial interactive website available |
|                    | > on-line                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   10/98 - Demonstrations of DSR R-side        |
| Accomplishments:   |     conflict probe, plans, flight data, and     |
|                    |     flight strip printer lists.                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   10/98 - Development of initial CHI          |
|                    |     Requirements Engineering Model (CREM).      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   11/98 -- Initial controller-in-the-loop     |
|                    |     real-time simulations conducted on          |
|                    |     ODID-like CHI using the CREM.               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   12/98 -- CREM initial test results          |
|                    |     presented at '98 ATM R&D Seminar to FAA and |
|                    |     Eurocontrol.                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | Assuming these products are proven cost         |
| with F&E and Ops   | beneficial during Concept Exploration (CE) and  |
| (O&M):**           | Concept Development (CD), an FAA decision to    |
|                    | develop and deploy these tools will be funded   |
|                    | under FAA Program F&E.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | -   Improved sector conflict prediction and     |
|                    |     resolution capabilities that will increase  |
|                    |     controller productivity                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced separation standards that will      |
|                    |     increase system throughput                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced controller workload for air traffic |
|                    |     service providers (sector and TMC           |
|                    |     positions)                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved information transfer to Host       |
|                    |     automation                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System assisted coordination with ODID-like |
|                    |     CHI will decrease telephone communications  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | -   Controller productivity will be constrained |
| Funding the        |     due to inadequate and possibly              |
| JRPD:**            |     inappropriate information displayed at the  |
|                    |     sector.                                     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Controller situational awareness and        |
|                    |     workload could be negatively impacted by    |
|                    |     increased demand without the aid of an      |
|                    |     easy-to-use CHI and decision support tools. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Oceanic Automation for a Common ARTCCC          |
|                    | Infrastructure                                  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (**WORK ON HOLD PENDING PURCHASE OR LEASE       |
|                    | DECISION FOR OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM**)       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J61                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 12/22/98                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Gus Nezer (ATO-100): 202-267-7940               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Andy Anderegg (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-7554       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | OCEANIC AREA                                    |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | RTCA Task Force 3 Final Report.                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005;      |
|                    | September, 1997.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | A Joint Government/Industry Operational Concept |
|                    | for the Evolution of Free Flight.               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Architecture, Version 3.0 (in progress).    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To increase the capacity of the Oceanic air     |
|                    | traffic system to accommodate traffic growth    |
|                    | estimated at 70 percent by the NAS 2005 time    |
|                    | frame. This research will explore and develop   |
|                    | tools that should increase controller           |
|                    | productivity and the efficiency of flight       |
|                    | operations for users, while maintaining         |
|                    | required levels of safety.                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | This project provides a path to analyze the     |
|                    | system needs, develop designs and procedures,   |
|                    | and in some cases prototype those designs to be |
|                    | pursued through the F&E budget to provide a     |
|                    | common En Route/ Oceanic automation             |
|                    | infrastructure which will allow for the         |
|                    | introduction of Free Flight in Oceanic          |
|                    | airspace. This research will explore and        |
|                    | develop tools that should increase controller   |
|                    | productivity and the efficiency of flight       |
|                    | operations for users, while maintaining         |
|                    | required levels of safety.                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | This project provides a path to analyze the     |
|                    | system needs, develop designs and procedures to |
|                    | provide a common En route/Oceanic automation    |
|                    | infrastructure which will allow for the         |
|                    | introduction of free flight in Oceanic          |
|                    | airspace. In the near and mid term, these       |
|                    | initiatives will seek to improve the controller |
|                    | productivity through two controller access that |
|                    | will allow shared responsibility between        |
|                    | controllers within a sector, a reduction and    |
|                    | elimination of flight strips, and improvements  |
|                    | in traffic monitoring and conflict detection.   |
|                    | These tools will mitigate operational           |
|                    | inefficiencies, allowing users to achieve the   |
|                    | full benefits from reduction of vertical and    |
|                    | horizontal separation standards. In the far     |
|                    | term, additional steps are required to attain   |
|                    | free flight in Oceanic airspace, in accordance  |
|                    | with the RTCA Free Flight Task Force 3 report.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA will be responsible for the research    |
| esponsibilities:** | activities.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Relationship to    | Close to 1,000 airframes have or have been      |
| Current Aviation   | ordered with Future Air Navigation System       |
| Community          | (FANS-1) capabilities. This area seeks to       |
| Initiatives:       | research and develop the tools to fully take    |
|                    | advantage of that capability while also         |
|                    | improving the capacity of the controller to     |
|                    | address higher volumes of traffic.              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | RTCA SC-189                                     |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:       | FANS Interoperability Team                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Modernization Task Force - Datalink Team    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | The capabilities researched under this activity |
| Relevance:**       | (e.g., tools for shared controller              |
|                    | responsibility in a sector, tools for ensuring  |
|                    | separation to our standards, and means for      |
|                    | transitioning away from flight strips) are      |
|                    | unique to the U.S. air traffic control          |
|                    | environment and have no commercial purpose      |
|                    | outside of the FAA.                             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   Safety                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Safety (2.01)                               |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Predictability (2.02)                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   More Predictable Transit Times (3.02)       |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Better Information Distribution (3.03)      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Improved Planning Access (3.04)             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   More Efficient Service Delivery (3.14)      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Two Controller Access (4.601)               |
| O                  |                                                 |
| utputs/Products:** | -   Reduced Dependence on Flight Strips (4.602) |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Enhanced Aircraft Monitoring and Conflict   |
|                    |     Prediction (4.605)                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Dynamic Airspace Con Ops (4.607)            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Seamless Domains (4.608)                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Commonality of Operations (4.609)           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Volume of traffic that can be managed at        |
| etrics/Performance | current FAA staffing level                      |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
|                    | Predictability in flight profile vs. pre-flight |
|                    | plan                                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Product          | Near-term research activities and the resulting |
| Descriptions:**    | products related to Oceanic Air Traffic         |
|                    | Management (ATM) capabilities are as follows:   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Develop procedures for two controller       |
|                    |     access to data link capabilities and shared |
|                    |     responsibility of control by sector based   |
|                    |     on existing NDI products for oceanic ATC.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Mid-term research activities and the resulting  |
|                    | products related to Oceanic ATM capabilities    |
|                    | are as follows:                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Additional DSS tools for reduced dependence |
|                    |     on paper flight strips and controller       |
|                    |     productivity                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    |     \(a\) Develop an enhanced conflict probe    |
|                    |     algorithm and investigate the separation    |
|                    |     rules that should be utilized; assess how   |
|                    |     conflict probe will function during         |
|                    |     transition between radar and Oceanic        |
|                    |     coverage/control; identify procedural       |
|                    |     changes. Evaluate certifiablity of probe    |
|                    |     and DSS tools to support situation/flight   |
|                    |     information displays as primary means of    |
|                    |     separation.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > \(b\) Evaluate the separation tools and       |
|                    | > techniques to be used to provide a common     |
|                    | > approach for transition between procedural    |
|                    | > and radar control in the ocean and en route   |
|                    | > domains.                                      |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > \(c\) Develop tools to measure operational    |
|                    | > performance (e.g., cost per flying hour) and  |
|                    | > conduct trend analysis assessments for the    |
|                    | > Oceanic system to aid in determining          |
|                    | > priorities for future enhancements.           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Concepts for the application of a dynamic   |
|                    |     sector boundary planning tool.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (a) Validate the need for dynamic sector        |
|                    |     boundaries in a shared responsibility       |
|                    |     environment.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (b) Evaluate the impact of mixed equipage and   |
|                    |     daily changing airspace structures on the   |
|                    |     procedures and system needs.                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (c) Develop the means for dynamically rerouting |
|                    |     individual flights or groups in high        |
|                    |     density airspace to avoid weather or        |
|                    |     unfavorable winds.                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (d) Determine how adaptive the airspace design  |
|                    |     must be to support projected demand, and    |
|                    |     develop a design for the dynamic airspace   |
|                    |     capability.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Concepts for seamless domains.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (a) Develop coordination techniques for         |
|                    |     seamless ATM (i.e., unhindered transfer)    |
|                    |     between oceanic and other domains and FIRs. |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (b) Develop the decision support tools that     |
|                    |     would allow user preferred routes and       |
|                    |     trajectories to be factored into daily      |
|                    |     determination of oceanic tracks and         |
|                    |     corridors and support real time             |
|                    |     coordination with adjacent ICAO states.     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (c) Determine coordination needed to support    |
|                    |     end-to-end flight reservations and evaluate |
|                    |     transition strategies for aircraft exiting  |
|                    |     oceanic airspace to get on NRP.             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (d) Evaluate random routes in Atlantic to       |
|                    |     determine how to support seamless           |
|                    |     operations between domains in areas of      |
|                    |     high-density traffic.                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | On-going Concept Exploration and Far-term       |
|                    | research activities and the resulting products  |
|                    | related to Oceanic ATM capabilities:            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Advanced tools/concepts for further         |
|                    |     separation reductions                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > \(a\) Develop enhanced DSS tools (e.g.,       |
|                    | > conflict resolution), flight data and         |
|                    | > situation displays (e.g., 3-D view of         |
|                    | > airspace) which can be used to assure safe    |
|                    | > and further reduced separation. Determine how |
|                    | > tools will allow for 4D profiles, hazardous   |
|                    | > weather and ADS intent data to be accounted   |
|                    | > for in procedural separation determinations.  |
|                    | > As a result of concept exploration and        |
|                    | > feasibility studies, some tools could be      |
|                    | > moved into the mid-term research.             |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > \(b\) Develop/evaluate operational concepts   |
|                    | > for moving Oceanic ATC toward the free flight |
|                    | > principles of free scheduling, routing and    |
|                    | > maneuvering; consider reallocation of roles   |
|                    | > and responsibilities.                         |
|                    | >                                               |
|                    | > \(c\) Develop concepts for interactions       |
|                    | > (e.g., data sharing, collaborative decision   |
|                    | > making, extended track advisory program,      |
|                    | > extended DARP procedure) among ATC, TFM and   |
|                    | > AOC to achieve enhanced operational           |
|                    | > efficiency.                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | (d) Assess alternative concepts for transition  |
|                    |     to aircraft based separation and ground     |
|                    |     control by exception to enhance Oceanic ATC |
|                    |     operations.                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 2Q/99 - Completion of procedures for Two        |
| Milestones:**      | Controller Access                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3Q/99 - Completion of Normalized Procedures     |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2Q/00 - Decision Paper on Dynamic Sector        |
|                    | Boundaries                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3Q/99 - Completion of design for Flight Strip   |
|                    | Backup                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1Q/00 - Completion of design & procedures for   |
|                    | Pre-requested 4-D Profiles                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1Q/01 - Completion of concept for Layered       |
|                    | Control                                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1Q/03 - Completion of design for Control by     |
|                    | Exception                                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **CY'98 Project    | -   Completed design and procedures for         |
| Accomplishments:** |     Automatic Dependent                         |
|                    |     Surveillance-Addressable & controller tools |
|                    |     for 50 longitudinal separation              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Completed design for Oceanic Data Link      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Completed design for Inter-facility         |
|                    |     communications                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Completed design and procedures for reduced |
|                    |     dependence on flight strips                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Coordination     | F&E projects exist to continue on from the      |
| with F&E and Ops   | first two milestones, the other activities are  |
| (O&M):**           | called out in the architecture.                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Infrastructure/System:]{.underline}            |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Provides new automation infrastructure,       |
|                    | > including software system and common network  |
|                    | > interface for domestic and Oceanic ATC        |
|                    | > systems. Provides reduction in overall        |
|                    | > communications costs.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Efficiency (User):]{.underline}                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Reduces fuel consumption and passenger time   |
|                    | > by aiding in the availability and selection   |
|                    | > of optimal routes. Provides support for the   |
|                    | > reduction of Oceanic horizontal separation    |
|                    | > standards.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Safety:]{.underline}                           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > Provides conflict probe and other automation  |
|                    | > support to assist the controller in           |
|                    | > maintaining safe separation in Oceanic        |
|                    | > airspace. The new infrastructure will also    |
|                    | > provide more effective back-up and recovery   |
|                    | > for air traffic control in Oceanic airspace.  |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Impact of not      | TBD                                             |
| Funding the JRPD:  |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Project Name:      | Ocean Separation Standards                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Joint Project    | J62                                             |
| Number:**          |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Revision Date:** | 12/22/98                                        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Contacts:**      | Brian Colamosca (ACT-520): 609-485-6603         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Andy Anderegg (MITRE CAASD): 703-883-7554       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Area Work        | OCEANIC AREA                                    |
| Team:**            |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **References:**    | RTCA Task Force 3 Final Report.                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Concept of Operations for the NAS in 2005;      |
|                    | September, 1997.                                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | A Joint Government/Industry Operational Concept |
|                    | for the Evolution of Free Flight.               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | NAS Architecture, Version 3.0 (in progress).    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Objectives:**    | To provide analysis and demonstrations leading  |
|                    | to the reduction of Oceanic horizontal and      |
|                    | vertical separation standards. The goal         |
|                    | horizontally is the reduction of lateral        |
|                    | separation in the Pacific Ocean from 100 nmi to |
|                    | 30 nmi, the reduction of lateral separation in  |
|                    | the North Atlantic Ocean from 60 nmi to 30 nmi, |
|                    | and the reduction in longitudinal separation    |
|                    | from 15 minutes (10 minutes using Mach number   |
|                    | technique) to 5 minutes, and the introduction   |
|                    | of distance based separation standards of 50    |
|                    | nmi and 30 nmi in the Pacific. The current      |
|                    | International Civil Aviation Organization       |
|                    | (ICAO) vertical separation standard in the      |
|                    | Pacific is 2,000 foot separation between flight |
|                    | level 290 and 410. The goal is the reduction of |
|                    | vertical separation to 1,000 feet, thus         |
|                    | increasing airspace capacity and allowing       |
|                    | greater availability of more fuel-efficient     |
|                    | altitudes and enhanced controller flexibility   |
|                    | to manage traffic through an increased number   |
|                    | of available altitudes.                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Overview:**      | The current Oceanic Air Traffic Control (ATC)   |
|                    | system is a procedural system which utilizes    |
|                    | infrequent high frequency (HF) radio position   |
|                    | reports to assure conformance with the filed    |
|                    | flight plan. The existing HF communications     |
|                    | system utilized to disseminate the position     |
|                    | reports is noise prone and subject to delays.   |
|                    | Due to the manual nature and current system     |
|                    | limitations, the allowable inter-aircraft       |
|                    | separations are necessarily large and vary as a |
|                    | function of Flight Information Region, airspace |
|                    | structure, and ATC procedures. Accordingly, the |
|                    | FAA made an international commitment in January |
|                    | 1994 to fund a fair share portion of the        |
|                    | research needed to reduce oceanic separation    |
|                    | standards needed to ensure benefits to U.S. ATC |
|                    | users.                                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Approach:**      | In January 1994, the FAA made an international  |
|                    | commitment to fund a fair share portion of this |
|                    | research to ensure benefits to U.S. customers.  |
|                    | The FAA approach as it pertains to research     |
|                    | required includes: the assessment of            |
|                    | requirements for a new separation method or     |
|                    | standard, planning for operational trials, and  |
|                    | development of procedures and airspace design.  |
|                    | To meet the NAS 2005 demand and advance the     |
|                    | methods of separation toward Free Flight, two   |
|                    | forms of initiatives will be pursued: 1)        |
|                    | incremental reductions in separation standards, |
|                    | and 2) limited transition of separation         |
|                    | assurance responsibility to the cockpit. Each   |
|                    | initiative begins with analysis of the          |
|                    | capabilities necessary in the ground system and |
|                    | avionics to meet the required safety level.     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **R                | The FAA is responsible for the research         |
| esponsibilities:** | activities.                                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Relationship to  | IPACG working group initiatives for 50 nmi and  |
| Current Aviation   | 30 nmi horizontal separation and 1000 ft.       |
| Community          | vertical separation.                            |
| Initiatives:**     |                                                 |
|                    | RTCA SC-186 targets oceanic airspace as the     |
|                    | first area for evaluation of limited transfer   |
|                    | of separation responsibility to the cockpit.    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Cu                 | RTCA SC-186, IPACG, NATSPG                      |
| stomer/Stakeholder |                                                 |
| Involvement:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Congressional      | None                                            |
| Mandates and NTSB  |                                                 |
| Initiatives:       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission          | This activity focuses on the research for the   |
| Relevance:**       | approval process for reduction in separation    |
|                    | standards, the design of airspace, and the      |
|                    | creation of new separation methods. These       |
|                    | activities have no outside commercial           |
|                    | application.                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Mission Goals:** | -   System Efficiency                           |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic        | -   Flexibility (2.03)                          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Delay Reduction (2.05)                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Other (2.06)                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **System (NAS)     | -   User-Preferred Trajectories (3.05)          |
| Outcomes:**        |                                                 |
|                    | -   Reduced Routing Inefficiencies (3.13)       |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | -   Airspace Design for 50 nmi Lateral          |
| O                  |     Separation (4.603)                          |
| utputs/Products:** |                                                 |
|                    | -   Airspace Design for Reduced Vertical        |
|                    |     Separation Minimum (RVSM) (4.604)           |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Role of Cockpit Separation (4.606)          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **M                | Difference between flight profile and wind      |
| etrics/Performance | optimal route                                   |
| Indicators:**      |                                                 |
|                    | Rate of granting user-preferred profile         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Products:**      | An ongoing activity will identify and analyze   |
|                    | the target levels of safety for each planned    |
|                    | change in separation method or reduction in     |
|                    | separation minima.                              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Near-term research activities and the resulting |
|                    | products related to Oceanic separation are as   |
|                    | follows:                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Evaluate airspace design alternatives for   |
|                    |     reduced vertical separation, accounting for |
|                    |     the need to accommodate non-equipped        |
|                    |     aircraft; coordinate with domestic ATC and  |
|                    |     the international community. Determine what |
|                    |     changes are needed to accommodate RVSM in   |
|                    |     the Pacific and provide recommendations to  |
|                    |     the rule-making process.                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | Mid-term research activities and the resulting  |
|                    | products related to Oceanic separation are as   |
|                    | follows:                                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Validate a concept for pairwise application |
|                    |     of reduced vertical separation. Evaluate    |
|                    |     separation assurance methodologies for      |
|                    |     reduced vertical separation that would      |
|                    |     account for pairwise application of the     |
|                    |     standards in the Western Atlantic. Extend   |
|                    |     this concept for use in domestic airspace.  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Identify concepts that improve existing     |
|                    |     procedures or identify new procedures that  |
|                    |     may result in increased capacity,           |
|                    |     throughput or airspace efficiency. Conduct  |
|                    |     analyses and/or simulations to support      |
|                    |     methodologies for addressing human factors, |
|                    |     performance, workload and contingency       |
|                    |     procedures. The result should be a set of   |
|                    |     simplified common procedures.               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Validate initial concepts of pilot          |
|                    |     initiated special maneuvers that would      |
|                    |     transfer separation responsibility to the   |
|                    |     cockpit (e.g., station keeping, in trail    |
|                    |     climb/in trail descent).                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Evaluate alternatives for integrating       |
|                    |     current aircraft capabilities into the      |
|                    |     overall Oceanic separation concept.         |
|                    |     Validate a concept for layered control with |
|                    |     appropriate tactical and strategic          |
|                    |     separation methods.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Evaluate the degree to which procedures for |
|                    |     separation should be normalized as part of  |
|                    |     achieving commonality across domains.       |
|                    |     Validate the concept for use of a layered   |
|                    |     mixture of tactical and strategic           |
|                    |     separation means (e.g. Distance-based and   |
|                    |     procedural-based separation) for oceanic    |
|                    |     and en route operations and determine the   |
|                    |     feasibility of ground control by exception. |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | ```{=html}                                      |
|                    | <!-- -->                                        |
|                    | ```                                             |
|                    | -   Identify and analyze the target levels of   |
|                    |     safety for each planned reduction in        |
|                    |     separation minima, including considerations |
|                    |     for contingencies and environmental         |
|                    |     conditions to establish aircraft            |
|                    |     requirements and validate ground system     |
|                    |     requirements.                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | On-going Concept Exploration and Far-Term       |
|                    | research activities and the resulting products  |
|                    | related to Oceanic separation standards:        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Validate additional concepts of pilot       |
|                    |     initiated special maneuvers that would      |
|                    |     further transfer separation responsibility  |
|                    |     to the cockpit. Evaluate sharing conflict   |
|                    |     advisory information with the cockpit and   |
|                    |     involving flight crews in the resolution.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Develop the methods for managing traffic in |
|                    |     a free routing environment with exception   |
|                    |     based intervention.                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Identify requirements and certification     |
|                    |     methods related to further reduction of     |
|                    |     separation standards; coordinate with the   |
|                    |     international community. Identify and       |
|                    |     analyze the target levels of safety for     |
|                    |     each planned reduction in separation        |
|                    |     minima, including considerations for        |
|                    |     contingencies and environmental conditions  |
|                    |     to establish aircraft requirements and      |
|                    |     validate ground system requirements.        |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Key              | 1Q/99 - Completion of Pair-wise RVSM concept    |
| Milestones:**      |                                                 |
|                    | 2Q/99 - Completion of Limited Self Separation   |
|                    | Trials                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2Q/00 - Completion of Pacific RVSM Airspace     |
|                    | Design                                          |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 2Q/00 - Completion of Western Atlantic RVSM     |
|                    | Airspace Design                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 1Q/02 - Completion of procedures for            |
|                    | high-density Random Routes                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | 3Q/05 - Completion of procedures and airspace   |
|                    | design for Mid-Term ops                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| CY'98 Project      | -   Reduced vertical separation established in  |
| Accomplishments:   |     the North Atlantic Airspace                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Completed airspace design for lateral       |
|                    |     separation reduction to 50 nmi,             |
|                    |     implementation in the North and Central     |
|                    |     Pacific (westbound)                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Established example for end-to-end          |
|                    |     certification methodology in SC-189         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Coordination with  | None                                            |
| F&E and Ops (O&M): |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Benefits:**      | [Efficiency (User):]{.underline}                |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | > The reduction in horizontal separation        |
|                    | > standards will allow users to fly more        |
|                    | > fuel-efficient routes (taking advantage of    |
|                    | > winds aloft and using more efficient weather  |
|                    | > avoidance routes). RVSM in the North Atlantic |
|                    | > will save operators over \$30M over the next  |
|                    | > ten years. Implementation in Pacific regions, |
|                    | > Western Atlantic Track Route System and then  |
|                    | > globally will substantially increase these    |
|                    | > cost savings.                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | [Capacity:]{.underline}                         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | The reduction in separation standards will      |
|                    | significantly increase capacity in Oceanic      |
|                    | airspace, resulting in increased granting of    |
|                    | user preferences.                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Impact of not    | The NAS Con Ops vision, nor the Oceanic         |
| Funding the        | Strategic Plan for the ocean will not be        |
| JRPD:**            | fulfilled.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

{This Page Intentionally Blank.}