**ICE-FM Meeting Notes 1/7/04, MITRE/CAASD**

**ATTENDEES**

Kelly Connolly MITRE CAASD 703-883-6627 kconnoll@mitre.org

Rafe Katkin MITRE CAASD 703-883-6350 rkatkin@mitre.org

Joe Lahoud FAA/AUA-740 202-385-8459 joseph.lahoud@faa.gov

Ved Sud FAA/AUA-740 202-385-8474 ved.sud@faa.gov

Jon Mintzer Metron Aviation 317-846-6171 mintzer@metronaviation.com

Claude Jackson MITRE CAASD 703-883-6271 cjackson@mitre.org

Gretchen Wilmouth Metron Aviation 703-234-0749
wilmouth@metronaviation.com

Tejal Topiwala MITRE CAASD 703-883-7398 tejal@mitre.org

Mike Krause AUATAC 703-345-6943 mike.krause@auatac.com

Fred Hayoz AUATAC 202-314-1476 frederic.hayoz@auatac.com

Bob Hekl MITRE CAASD 703-883-7760 bhekl@mitre.org

Michelle Duquette MITRE CAASD 703-883-4550 <duquette@mitre.org>

Amy Spencer OSU 614-402-8385 amy.spencer@columbus.rr.com

Phil Smith OSU 614-292-4120 smith.131@osu.edu

Mark Klopfenstein Metron Aviation 703-453-9192
klopfens@metronaviation.com

Bill Leber NWA 612-727-0293 william.leber@nwa.com

Patrick Somersall ATCSCC 703-904-4472 patrick.somersall@faa.gov

Charlie Bailey MITRE CAASD 703-883-3731 cbailey@mitre.org

**REVIEW OF MEETING NOTES**

Mark, Ved, and Rafe had comments to add to the draft notes from the Dec
17 meeting. Fred will update and set a revised copy to the Exploder for
distribution. A separate copy was sent to Pat Summersall who is not on
the Exploder list. (Gretchen W. will see to it that Pat is added to the
Exploder).

**OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS**

There is a CRWG meeting in Phoenix, Jan 20^th^. Ved and Bill will make
some presentation to that group regarding the ICE-FM group at a
break-out session. Where the ICE-FM group falls is under discussion.

**CATEGORIES of PROBLEMS LIST**

The group reviewed the categories of problems that was drafted by
Gretchen Wilmouth from the brainstormed list of current problems from
the Dec 17 meeting.

The categories were accepted with the addition of a new category:
Communication and Coordination Processes. This area includes technology,
process, and collaboration elements. This will be a separate category,
listed as Number 8.

**"SCREAMERS"/"Low Hanging Fruit"**

The group spent time discussing items of quick and easy potential. Two
lists, from Phil Smith and Bill Leber were presented. A quick summary of
the lists follows:

From Phil Smith:

1.  Integrate FCA/Reroute creation software with RMT to generate
    CDRs/Plays around an FCA as quick, pre-canned solutions.

2.  Integrate FPPP with National Logs to display TMI constraints
    associated with each potential route.

3.  Allow Traffic Manager creating the FCA or Reroute to pick from
    suggested route alternatives to include those deemed 'acceptable' in
    advisory. Once options are 'embedded' in the FCA/FEA Tool, then TMs
    could easily select a subset of acceptable options for inclusion in
    ADVZYs.\
    \
    The combination of 1, 2, and 3 could be a powerful way to combine
    technology with human tacit knowledge to create better explicit
    knowledge sharing opportunities for better decision-making.

4.  Use Reroute creation tool to create CDR advisories for better user
    flexibility in planning (e.g., prepare for 2 -- 3 given options). We
    believe this is a "MED" candidate for ETMS 7.9.

From Bill Leber:

1.  Retrieve MIT information from National Log. Allow MIT information to
    be used for analysis with GDPs, CDR/Playbook, FEA/FCAs, and
    eventually for prediction of NAS delay for any given flight.

2.  TSD/CCSD with RMT. Query for CDRs or Plays from TSD (probably in
    7.8).

3.  Electronic Exception and Reroute Modeling. Both are in infant stages
    but discussion should begin on how to integrate the two.

4.  FCA-based GDPs. ICE-FM could start the groundwork.

It was determined that this list of items included some things that
could be addressed fairly quickly and easily, as well as items that were
noted/known to be very important but which might take longer to
accomplish or need predecessor technology development. Bill Leber made
the comment that the need for integration is universal.

Screamers fall in all time categories -- some are low hanging, some are
high priority. Example: MIT from National Logs just now available (after
10 yr effort). Could be used to investigate MITs and interactions with
GDP (MIT thrown on top of GDP negating some effects).

Smith: real low hanging -- feasible in 2-3 yrs

> #1 The 3 tools should be integrated. CDR and Playbook are pre-canned
> solutions with low need for coordination.
>
> #2 "new" -- major opportunity. Capability is close
>
> #3 "new" - TM allowed to offer suggested options. E.g. - Here is
> problem and here are 3 solutions (suggestions). Then monitor for
> capacity to fill up options. (If all users pick 1 CDR, capacity could
> be exceeded). Benefit to traffic manager is easily identified options.

Currently, there is no time or tools to come up with options (maybe a
single CDR only). What is needed is an easy way to generate alternative
routes.

Jon Mintzer noted that the Centers handle the major carriers and major
facilities while individual controllers handle smaller airports and
their flights.

Ved reminded the group that the research organizations need to come up
with initiatives/tasks derived from the brainstorming ideas.

Pat Somersall also noted that communications is an issue:
controller-controller, center-center, and tool-tool.

> #4. Communications to use CDRs in flexible manner. The idea is to use
> RAT-like mechanisms. The software should be available in Fall '04, but
> recommendations are needed on how to implement this.

#3) and #4) no one is working on. A prototype should be developed before
even trying to get on the implementation list. Research organizations
need work efforts to begin.

Leber #4: FCA-based GDPs have been desired for a long time. The group
could tackle this through a discussion of issues and solutions in a
white paper.

This group could collate various reports, identify issues, and plug
individuals from ICE-FM into other WGs to continue the work. Otherwise,
the handoff is often difficult to do without loosing momentum. This
group can serve as advocates to other groups' priorities.

Leber #2 is being worked. On TSD, one can query for CDRs. CCSD will have
the capability in V7.8.

On deep projects, prototyping is needed to demonstrate the benefits.

We discussed how to do both hand-offs or final/firm solution efforts
effectively. Accompanying detail regarding "What/Why/How Much" for a
given solution or project will be very helpful. In other words, a
"business case" set of information should be provided; this is an R.
Chew directive anyway.

Jon Mintzer suggested that one more item for integration possibility was
the capability to do post-op analysis on GS programs to determine the
effectiveness/impact of GSs. Pat Somersall indicated that some form of
post-op analysis may be possible in ETMS 7.8. POET will be able to
populate OPSNET data for evaluation. By spring, FSM will be able to
generate list of flights affected by a GS/GSD. In managing ground stops,
we can't give specific flight list to towers.

The ICE-FM group could flesh out requirements to hand off to other
groups for development and implementation.

The draft charter for this group is awaiting CDM decision.

**FPPP Data Use Analysis**

Bob Hekl walked us through a presentation on a previous study of flight
profile predictability -- how actual flights compared to 'ideal' descent
and route profiles.

The intent of the study was to compare actual vs. expected flight plans
to look at the data needs, planning needs, impacts, etc. to assist
airlines with flight planning/predictability. The study involved looking
at a few flights from a specific airline, and comparing both altitude
restrictions vs. the 'ideal' trajectory and actual route flown vs.
requested/expected route.

The results indicated that the distance flown at less than optimal
altitudes was significant. It seemed, however, that there was not
significant increase in the actual route flown distance vs. the route
expected.

Some issues the study might highlight are:

-   Some LOAs/SOPs used for comparison may be outdated and might affect
    the data/results. This might be better with CCLD, or if all
    appropriate info was in ETMS.

-   There may not be not clear accountability for impacts on a
    'system-wide' basis; often individual facility needs could negate
    system wide benefits

-   The study highlights the gap between ideal/optimal flight
    trajectories and those actually required/flown

    -   Wx only exacerbates this issue; e.g., a flight gets put back on
        a pref route but right into Wx area

    -   CCLD may help but the waterfall is very slow.

It was noted that it is difficult to get facilities/airlines to
co-operate with just supplying data. Prototypes must be developed and
shown to get co-operation.

Next Steps:

-   determine savings to airlines

-   examine predictability further (e.g. pref route changes for things
    like Wx, changing airline preferences due to wind, load, etc)

-   examine accuracy by expanding the source data and sample size of the
    study.

-   determine how centers change pref routes day-to-day, etc.

The HOST applies pref routing to airline flight plans before broadcast
to ETMS

With preferred arrival routes (PARs), preferential departure routes
(PDRs) and preferential departure arrival routes (PDARs), there is no
accountability for inter-center conflicts. FPPP was designed from an
airline perspective. It is in limited use because not all pref routes
are entered. CCLD is suppose to maintain all PDRs and PARs.

It was determined that this topic is worth a white paper from this
group.

ACTION ITEM: Bob Hekl will post presentation to the exploder after MITRE
clearance for publication.

ACTION ITEM: MITRE will:

-   research and collect various papers, studies, etc. on
    "predictability" and the impact of Pref Routes, LOA restrictions,
    etc.

-   summarize the results

-   identify areas of further study, investigation, benefits, etc.

Note: some previous studies on the impact of SOPs, LOAs, etc. have shown
limited impact/benefit on sector counts and were therefore not pursued.

**STORYBOARDING**

(see Very Rough Draft to Stimulate Discussion)

The objectives are to identify existing functions that would benefit
from integration and to identify gaps in the functionalities of existing
tools. The scenario team deals with broad ops concepts but this
addresses deeper targets

Two Areas:

1)  Situation Assessment

> With MIT and NTML data available, generate graphs of FCAs, generate
> flight lists and display them.

2)  Generate options.

> Map displacement with constraints. Search databases (RMT, other
> sources) for allowable routes and come up with acceptable options.
> Query NTML to see if other constraints are applied to the routes.
>
> Potentially this is Phil's #1, #2, and #3. MITRE, Metron, and OSU want
> to further refine this thrust in an extended, offline discussion.

On Phil's #1, the tools already exist, but you have to fit new solutions
into the existing tools. If some other WG is already working on
integrating FCA creation and reroute creation tools, when this group
should stay out.

Details of the storyboard team:

Step 1 Situation Assessment

Step 1A. Identify primary constraint area. Example: Wx problems in one
area may cause congestion in another area. Currently the system does not
communicate the primary constraint. It is too "cumbersome" to describe
the constraint, and then describe the solution.

Step 1B. Find and characterize the flights covered by the primary
constrained area.

> If FCA is a primary constraint, provide data on the constrained
> flights. The data can be taken from non-integrated databases. Flights
> should be tagged with TMIs. What additional information could be
> helpful and displayed, such as: visual depictions, city pairs
> involved, flights still on the ground, and other TMIs associated with
> the flights.

This effort could build on TSD capabilities.

MITRE CAASD is already working on some "progressive planning" concepts
-- TMIs on TMIs, 'future' flight lists, etc. It may be valuable for the
WG to see some of the work/concepts being explored.

ACTION ITEM: CAASD to provide exec summary efforts on progressive
planning (TMIs on TMIs) that could be used as a building block for other
efforts.

Step2. Identify and Evaluate Alternative Solutions (Generate Options)

a)  Support a negotiation type strategy: early intent, early
    negotiation. This may change the nature of problem. Many of these
    solutions could be procedural in nature. (No technology enhancement
    required after situation is assessed).

b)  Find filters to apply to define a subset of the flow that needs to
    be moved to reduce a problem area. This is already picking part of a
    solution. The current tool set encourages changes to a small number
    of flights.

Other Discussion Points:

There is a cultural barrier within the FAA. The system is geared toward
action, not problem definition and analysis. I.e. go to the solution.

Is the "time" required to deal with options and negotiations possible
and beneficial in the way we deal with traffic?

Is the paradigm shift from quick, efficient reaction to more
pre-planning always a "good" thing? There was a discussion of relative
"goodness" at this point. It can be defined differently depending on
your point of reference.

The Step 1 above (i.e., better and earlier assessment) seems more
obviously beneficial to most. Step 2) is harder, more complex, more
costly, etc.

How do we define and measure the capacity reduction needs when planning
some constraint?

It was agreed that "Human-Centered Design" must be an emphasis for
proceeding with design or integration concepts. The human judgment
element is still essential for system optimization. The idea is to
provide filtering, sharing, graphical presentations, etc. to improve
decision-making capabilities.

ACTION ITEM: MITRE (Kelly), METRON (Mark), OSU (Phil, Amy) and VOLPE to
meet to discuss current status, laying out what is available (tools
,prototypes, etc) and take a first cut at capabilities or
functionalities.

Graphics associated with FEA/FCA -- presented by OSU (Phil Smith and Amy
Spencer):

FCA with CDRs displayed (e.g., show all CDRs within 100 mi. of the FCA).
First filter is the flight list affected by the FCA. In this example,
there could be 320 CDRs. Next filter is to have only 2 CDRs per city
pair.

There is time-based data mixed with space-based solutions.

CDRs could provide pre-canned set of alternatives from which to pull the
best options.

It is often easier to edit out unacceptable solutions than create new
ones.

**SCENARIO UPDATE**

The work group reviewed the graphic depictions of the Operational
Sequence Diagram flows, along with the Data Needs, Sources, and Areas of
Potential Integration prepared by the Scenarios Subteam.

It was pointed out that the reason for the Scenarios and associated
Operational Sequence Diagrams was to provide input for an eventual
operational concept paper and not necessary to propose solutions.

Each of 16 possible decision points or areas of possible integration
were depicted on the charts and then broken down into more detail
regarding:

A.  Means of Coordination

B.  Data needed for coordination

C.  Source used to obtain/disseminate data

D.  Potential Integration

E.  Research & Development sources (to be completed later)

The group reviewed the first 6 decision/coordination points focusing on
the "Potential Integration" ideas.

Example: The CWSU supplies valuable input to the restriction process.
TMIs are most likely to be initiated from regional data (fed to CCFP and
then fed back to all regions). One potential would be to provide a
"CCFP-like" common platform to integrate more "regional" weather needs
and sources and potential facility constraints. Then attach a Wx
"picture" to any TMIs that need to be issued. The Weather Applications
WG may want to work on something like this.

It was noted that there is nothing to tie tactical TMIs or CCFP to a
systems approach, and that

CIWS is being used more than CCFP

[ACTION]{.underline}: Include this Weather Coordination Process and
Information Flow in the briefing to be given at Phoenix CRWG Meeting as
an example of the possible integrations the ICE-FM WG is considering.
(Scenario Subteam). This idea could then be shared with the Weather
Applications WG for their consideration.

On #3, TMC/ASIC/Controller/TRACON/Tower Local Coordination Process:

-Regarding the FCA/FEA capabilities, it was noted that FEAs introduced
by a TMU can now be easily converted to an FCA by a TMC at the ATCSCC.

\- The Create Reroute Dialog box used to create an FCA does attach a
Flight List to the associated advisory. However, this list is 'static'
in nature and those affected by the FCA must continue to monitor a
dynamic list on their displays to stay current with a developing /
changing situation.

\- At this time, no Flight List is attached to a "shared" FEA -- the
Dynamic List has to be monitored.

\- One integration possibility to execute a local TMI (w/o airline
involvement yet) is to automate what GIs to attach to what flights and
where to disseminate the right data to the right controllers.

[ACTION]{.underline}: Regarding FCA/FEA Work Group Coordination: (Mike
Krause)

1\. Query FCA/Reroutes WG on the details of what scenarios they would
like to see simulated with help from ICE-FM/Jupiter.

2\. Get 1 hour on Agenda of upcoming FCA WG meeting (FEB or MAR) to
provide exchange of information/ideas between the ICE-FM and FCA WGs.

[ACTION]{.underline}: ICE-FM Team. Review the Scenarios presented by the
Scenarios Subteam for input/mods/etc.

[ACTION]{.underline}: ICE-FM Team. Forward any questions for the FCA WG
to Mark K.

[ACTION]{.underline}: Scenarios Subteam. Prepare scenario of "desired or
envisioned state" with the integrations suggested complete.

**WRAP UP**

The group briefly discussed coordination/interface requirements and
strategies necessary to be successful. Activities that might help:

-   Inter-team communications is being emphasized at the CDM Leadership
    level with a ½ day dedicated to sharing knowledge with all team
    leads.

-   We will use the Phoenix CRWG meeting as an opportunity to share and
    learn from other groups about what is going on. To successfully
    explore opportunities for integration, the ICE-FM group must have a
    general awareness about almost everything that is being looked at
    and designed by other teams.

-   Get on the FCA WG Agenda for FEB or MAR.

The major action items were summarized:

-   *Scenario Team*: Try to [depict 'what could be'
    pictures]{.underline} with benefits. To provide a 'vision' for
    integration efforts.

-   *Team Leads*: Prepare [briefing for CRWG]{.underline} Phoenix
    meeting.\
    Include: Process and Overview (Ved) and Scenario Step 1 with
    'business case'/benefits (Scenario Subteam)

-   *Mark, Kelly, Phil, Claude* and then review by *Volpe* [Design
    functions/capability for integration demonstrations]{.underline}.

-   *MITRE* : [Research and summarize studies on impact of routine LOA
    restrictions/SOPs/Pref routes/etc.]{.underline}

-   *Mike Krause:* [Coordinate with FCA/Reroutes WG]{.underline}
    regarding simulations and agenda time for sharing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *ICE-FM Team*: [Review the Scenarios]{.underline} presented by the
    Scenarios Subteam for input/mods/etc. Forward any questions for the
    FCA WG to Mark K.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Ved Sud*: Define [Agenda]{.underline} for next meeting ( 5 FEB 04)

It was also noted that any impact on technology/ETMS must be defined in
rudimentary form by May time frame for inclusion in ETMS V 8.0 (Spring
of 05 implementation). ETMS 8.0 requirements review will likely be in
mid-July 04.

[Next Meeting]{.underline}:

-   Thursday, 5 FEB 04, 0830 -- 1230 (tentatively): At Metron Aviation
    in Herndon, VA