Traffic Flow Management Plan for\
Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM)

A CDM/DRVSM Work Group Report\
7 December, 2004

### Acknowledgements

The following members of the DRVSM Workgroup (WG) have contributed to
the preparation of this document.

Michael Birdsong Air Mobility Command

Roger Bruce FAA

Randy Carlson FAA

William Cranor US Airways

Gary Danielson USAF

Robert Deering American Airlines

James Diehl FAA/Contractor

John DiPaolo Southwest Airlines

David Frame FAA

John Gavin NBAA/Universal Aviation

Mike Krause FAA/Contractor

William Leber Northwest Airlines

Scott Godfrey FAA/Contractor

William Reabe USN

James Ries FAA

Amanda Stott FAA

Gary Tigert FAA

Thomas Wray FAA

Table of Contents

[**I. Introduction** 1](#i.-introduction)

[**Purpose** 1](#purpose)

[**Background** 1](#background)

[**Scope and Authority** 2](#scope-and-authority)

[**CDM DRVSM WG Goals** 2](#cdm-drvsm-wg-goals)

[**Workgroup Process** 2](#workgroup-process)

[**II. DRVSM Benefits and Risks for TFM**
3](#ii.-drvsm-benefits-and-risks-for-tfm)

[**Increased Flexibility for Traffic Management**
3](#increased-flexibility-for-traffic-management)

[**Increased Flexibility for Operators and Customers**
3](#increased-flexibility-for-operators-and-customers)

[**Improved System Capacity** 4](#improved-system-capacity)

[**Benefits and Metrics** 4](#benefits-and-metrics)

[**Risks** 4](#risks)

[**III. DRVSM Action Plan** 6](#iii.-drvsm-action-plan)

[**Introduction** 6](#introduction)

[**1. Optimize Altitudes and Routes for Presently Restricted Flows**
6](#optimize-altitudes-and-routes-for-presently-restricted-flows)

[**2. Re-Evaluate Mile-in-Trail Restrictions**
7](#re-evaluate-mile-in-trail-restrictions)

[**3. Reduce ATC Reroutes during Severe Weather**
9](#reduce-atc-reroutes-during-severe-weather)

[**4. Evaluate MAP Criteria and FAA Order 7210.3**
10](#evaluate-map-criteria-and-faa-order-7210.3)

[**5. Authorize Non-RVSM Compliant Aircraft in DRVSM Airspace**
11](#authorize-non-rvsm-compliant-aircraft-in-drvsm-airspace)

[**6. Provide Plan to Capture DRVSM Metrics**
13](#provide-plan-to-capture-drvsm-metrics)

[**IV. Collaboration with National Airspace Redesign (NAR)**
18](#iv.-collaboration-with-national-airspace-redesign-nar)

[**1. Full Integration of DRVSM into National Airspace Design**
18](#full-integration-of-drvsm-into-national-airspace-design)

[**2. Re-Analysis and Re-Negotiation of LOAs / MOUs**
19](#re-analysis-and-re-negotiation-of-loas-mous)

[**3. Re-Alignment of Sector Boundaries, Stratums and Shelves**
19](#re-alignment-of-sector-boundaries-stratums-and-shelves)

[**4. Improved Capacity for Airborne Holding**
20](#improved-capacity-for-airborne-holding)

[**5. DRVSM - NAR/HAR Integration Summary**
21](#drvsm---narhar-integration-summary)

[**V. Summary** 22](#v.-summary)

[**VI. Appendices** 23](#vi.-appendices)

[**Appendix A: Glossary** 23](#appendix-a-glossary)

[**Appendix B: Related Documents** 25](#appendix-b-related-documents)

[**Appendix C: PDARS Sample Excel Report**
26](#appendix-c-pdars-sample-excel-report)

[**Appendix D: PDARS Sample Custom Report**
27](#appendix-d-pdars-sample-custom-report)

Traffic Flow Management Plan for Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum (DRVSM)

# **I. Introduction**

## **Purpose**

This document is intended to complete the task assigned by S2K[^1] to
produce a document for a Traffic Flow Management (TFM) plan for Domestic
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM).

In September 2003, the Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) Program
assigned this task to the DRVSM Workgroup (WG). This document is
intended to provide a roadmap for DRVSM Traffic Management
implementation and analysis of its inherent benefits.

## 

## **Background** 

In 2001, as a part of its National Airspace System Operational Evolution
Plan (NAS OEP), the FAA committed to implement DRVSM in the airspace of
the lower 48 States of the United States, Alaska, Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic High Offshore Airspace (including Houston and Miami Oceanic
airspace) and the San Juan Flight Information Region (FIR). The planned
implementation date for DRVSM is January 20, 2005.

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) reduces the separation
standard from 2,000 to 1,000 feet between Flight Levels 290 and 410,
effectively adding six additional altitudes for suitably equipped
aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). RVSM is rapidly becoming
the accepted global environment. It has already been implemented in most
areas around the world. RVSM has revealed some promising benefits; the
most evident and most reported benefits are 1) fuel savings as a result
of flying closer to optimum altitude profiles, and 2) additional
operating flexibility for air Traffic Management. The increased
operating flexibility can lead to decreased delays, increased
throughput, and a reduced number of conflict points.

The implementation of DRVSM will be a very significant change for the
NAS. The addition of six new usable altitudes requires changes in
aircraft equipment, flight operations, airspace design, and air traffic
control procedures. To illustrate the significance of DRVSM, the
aviation industry's investment to enable the change is estimated at 800
million dollars for the period 2002 -- 2016. In return, the FAA
estimates a fuel savings of 5.3 billion dollars over the same time
period.

In addition to fuel savings, many other value-added benefits have been
identified. Specific benefits cited by aircraft operators are decreased
flight delays, improved access to desired flight levels, reduced average
flight times, increased likelihood of receiving a clearance for weather
deviations, consistent procedural environment throughout the entire
flight, reduced impact of adverse weather by permitting aircraft
deviations to other airways without efficiency loss, and seamless,
harmonious operations between adjoining RVSM airspaces. Additional
benefits identified for air traffic management are enhanced capacity,
reduced airspace complexity, reduction of user-requested off course
climbs for altitude changes, improved flexibility for peak traffic
demands, reduction of the effect of traffic converging at critical
points, and an increased number of options in deviating aircraft during
periods of adverse weather.

Traffic Flow Management (TFM) personnel are responsible for coordination
and management of the system wide flow of traffic throughout the NAS.
They will be intimately involved with implementation and monitoring of
DRVSM and its impact on the NAS. This document is therefore offered to
review the benefits, risks and plans for DRVSM from a TFM point of view.

## **Scope and Authority** 

The CDM DRVSM WG was tasked to develop TFM plans and strategies to
maximize value-added benefits. These include the primary benefit derived
from anticipated increases in the average requested and actual flight
level flown, from DRVSM within the responsible area of TFM. These plans
and strategies include recommendations for other organizations to assist
TFM in attaining the actualization of identified areas of possible
benefit within the originally mandated CDM/DRVSM WG Goals.

## **CDM DRVSM WG Goals** 

The Goals of the CDM DRVSM WG include:

-   Develop and implement traffic flow management strategies/plan in
    support of DRVSM implementation in 2005.

-   Develop and implement strategies/plan to mitigate the compression of
    aircraft that may plan into a particular sector or airspace due to
    the availability of six additional flight levels.

-   Identify and implement strategies/plan to monitor and manage the
    impact of multiple non-RVSM approved aircraft operating in the
    system at one time.

-   Develop and implement strategies/plan to de-conflict primary and
    secondary traffic flows to increase efficiency and maximize en-route
    flexibility.

## **Workgroup Process**

The CDM/DRVSM WG was formed in fall 2003. It consists of FAA Traffic
Management Officers and Supervisors, Department of Defense
representatives, and customer members of CDM. The WG has met monthly
since October, 2003 to complete its goals. In June, 2004, the FAA's
Director of Tactical Operations, asked the Traffic Management Users Team
(TUT) to complete the development of DRVSM procedures and training in
order to assure adequate bargaining unit participation in the process.
At that time, the CDM/DRVSM WG briefed the TUT on its recommendations
and turned its focus to completion of this Plan and other operational
preparations.

[]{.mark}

# **II. DRVSM Benefits and Risks for TFM**

## **Increased Flexibility for Traffic Management**

With the advent of DRVSM and the availability of six additional
altitudes, controllers will have more options in resolving separation
conflictions. This will reduce off-course vectors for separation as the
controller will now have more altitudes available for vertical
separation. Safety will also be enhanced for this same reason.

Following are examples of other system benefits:

-   More Flexibility for Adverse Weather Situations. The additional
    altitudes associated with DRVSM provide increased flexibility during
    convective weather activity. If FL350 and above are the only
    available altitudes to go over an area of storms, DRVSM doubles the
    number altitudes that can be assigned by ATC, thus reducing the
    number of flights requiring lengthy routes around the weather
    system.

-   Reduced Conflict Points. DRVSM gives the controller additional
    options to resolve and accommodate crossing traffic situations. When
    an altitude change is required, the climb or descent will take less
    time to achieve as the aircraft will need to be moved only 2,000
    feet instead of the current 4,000 feet to remain right altitude for
    direction.

-   Improved Sector Throughput. DRVSM reduces the requirements for
    vectors and altitude changes. This in turn reduces the overall
    controller workload and provides the opportunity for an increase in
    sector traffic volume. Also, when an aircraft is moved to avoid a
    \"red sector\"[^2], the altitude change will result in only a 2,000
    foot change in altitude, as opposed to the current 4,000 foot
    change. In areas of non-radar coverage, the additional available
    altitudes will obviously increase sector throughput.

-   Reduced Route Restrictions. Because of the enhanced sector capacity
    and throughput, the number of route restrictions can be diminished.
    This includes daily Traffic Management initiatives and routes
    contained in letters of agreement between ATC facilities.

-   Reduced Altitude Restrictions. The current system requires altitude
    caps on some departing flights and early descents for some arriving
    flights. DRVSM provides improved altitude flexibility and will
    reduce or eliminate many of these requirements.

## **Increased Flexibility for Operators and Customers**

In general, DRVSM will allow operators more flexibility in achieving
optimum altitude and routing for increased efficiency. Some examples
are:

-   The additional DRVSM altitudes will increase the number of options
    when aircraft are deviating during periods of adverse weather.

-   During adverse weather situations, the military is frequently denied
    the use of Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and Special Use Airspace
    (SUA) because of traffic congestion. With more altitudes available
    through DRVSM, these situations of denied or restricted usage should
    be significantly reduced.

-   Reroutes, or off-course vectors, for crossing traffic will be
    reduced due to the increased ability of controllers to vertically
    separate crossing traffic.

-   The NAS frequently experiences periods of enroute holding for
    congested airports, severe weather, saturated sectors, and so forth.
    During these events, holding is often backed up to other facilities
    because of the current limitation on available altitudes for enroute
    holding. This results in extensive delays as aircraft are held
    further and further from their destination. With additional
    altitudes, these impacted aircraft will be able to hold closer to
    their destination.

-   Increased likelihood of operating aircraft at or near optimum fuel
    consumption altitude.

-   Fuel savings due to 2,000-foot instead of 4,000-foot step climbs.

## **Improved System Capacity**

**Enroute**: While capacity increases may not be immediately recognized,
the evolution of DRVSM with six additional altitudes, and the reduction
in controller complexity, should eventually lead to an increase in
capacity. True increases in system capacity will be realized when the
method for measuring capacity (Monitor Alert Parameters) is reevaluated,
as discussed in a later section.

**Terminal:** The NAS is experiencing growth issues with the reduction
in turbo-prop aircraft and the increase of regional jet activity. While
airport runway capacity is not directly affected by DRVSM, the ability
to more adeptly ensure that capacity is realized could be enhanced by
DRVSM. Treatment of jet traffic as one type of aircraft limits arrival
and departure flows to single stream operations. This inherently
increases delays and miles-in-trail (MIT) restrictions that must be
provided. A single flow over a four-corner post operation can only
provide a finite number of aircraft to the airport. This number may not
be sufficient to meet the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) published by the
airport. Through further evaluation, a means of supplying the airport
with sufficient numbers of aircraft may be enhanced through DRVSM; for
example, parallel arrivals, and stratified dual feeds.

Also, volume constraints in high altitude sectors frequently require
ground stops or miles-in-trail restrictions on departures. With the
implementation of DRVSM and the availability of additional altitudes,
these departure delays will be reduced as controllers will have more
options to reduce volume constraints.

## **Benefits and Metrics**

Several tools and methods to measure the benefits of DRVSM are under
investigation by both the FAA and customers. Current identifiable
metrics using FAA data are the use of city-pairs, Filed versus Flown
altitudes and routes, Time enroute using both filed Estimate Time
Enroute (ETE) and Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS), Traffic
Management Initiatives (TMI), reroutes, Letter Of Agreement (LOA)
crossing altitudes, altitude occupancy, MIT restrictions, busiest
sectors. Metrics used by the customer include reroutes, block time, fuel
burn, flown versus filed miles, delays and cancellations, and others.

While the customers will measure some of these items, the FAA will also
measure the results. The DRVSM WG recommends the use of the Performance
Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) tool for this purpose. See
Section III, 6 of this Plan for more details regarding the WG's
recommended metrics plan.

## **Risks**

There are risks that may reduce the potential benefits from DRVSM if not
adequately mitigated.

-   The greatest risk to improved capacity is the potential increase in
    frequency congestion and sector saturation in the lower altitudes,
    as non-compliant aircraft that currently operate above FL290 will be
    forced into altitudes at FL280 and below.[^3] Also, there may be an
    increase in the number of MIT restrictions as aircraft that are
    currently spread out in the current structure (for example, DFW
    flights 20 MIT at FL310) may be stacked at several altitudes
    requiring expanded MITs to allow the sequencing controller space to
    blend the multiple altitudes.

-   Some other capacity questions that need to be monitored involve
    sector saturation and sector design. Are there sectors where
    saturation will become more prevalent due to increased numbers of
    flights at more altitudes? The related question is whether the
    current sector redesign in anticipation of DRVSM is correct. If
    sectorization and sector impact assumptions are not correct, then
    the potential capacity benefits expected could be reduced.

-   Increases in enroute capacity will only result when the definition
    of enroute capacity is revised (that is, Monitor Alert Parameter;
    paragraph 17-17-1 of FAAO 7210.3). Regular evaluations of MAP values
    should consider DRVSM impact.

# **III. DRVSM Action Plan**

## **Introduction**

This Section of the document will describe major operational activities
and opportunities that will be evaluated and pursued along with the
introduction of DRVSM. Each action area will be described, and potential
objectives for the action area will be listed.

## **1. Optimize Altitudes and Routes for Presently Restricted Flows**

### **Background**

The altitude structure above FL290 has been limited by 50 percent of its
capacity[^4] for the life of the jet age. DRVSM will provide
opportunities for re-optimizing the altitudes flown in two ways:

-   The actual en-route capacity for flights to occupy six new altitudes
    (even Flight Levels 300 to 400) will now be available.

-   New strategies for vertically separating crossing or conflicting
    enroute flows can be employed.

### TFM Opportunity

Presently there are multitudes of flows that are deliberately restricted
vertically to reduce complexity and eliminate conflicts traffic with
hard vertical limitations. These restrictions in many cases will ease
with the new availability of altitudes because they are obvious and
simple; orderly changes will occur. A general example is a westbound
flight formerly restricted to FL310 by the hemispherical rule now may
operate more optimally at FL320 and FL340 rather than waiting for FL350
in today's environment.

Other changes are not as clear and spelled out to all stakeholders.
These will require removal of old restrictions that have evolved as
coping mechanisms for volume and complexity. These may include Preferred
Departure Routes (PDR)/Preferred Departure and Arrival Routes (PDAR) and
limited final altitudes for shorter flight crossing major flows of
traffic. A general example of this change is a STL-MSP flight issued a
final altitude of FL280 due to conflictions with heavy volume flows into
and out of ORD over the state of Iowa. Even with the availability of the
new DRVSM altitudes it may not be possible to cross the primary flow
with the secondary flow across the full newly available spectrum of
DRVSM altitudes. However, selection and designation of a specific or
singular optimal crossing altitude for the secondary flow will likely be
achievable. Perhaps in this example the STL - MSP flight could now
operate at FL310 or FL330 but not FL350 or FL370.

### TFM Challenge

The challenge for TFM will be to re-think and eliminate previous
practices or strategies about vertical separation of flows now rendered
obsolete by the new DRVSM capacities. Newly formed and modeled
strategies must be proposed, tested, and implemented with care and
anticipation of the consequences of these strategies in the new
operating environment.

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

The benefit of these efforts by TFM will be an anticipated increase in
the average of the Flight Level already identified as the primary
benefit of DRVSM. We believe these efforts could greatly increase the
average Flight Level across the system where flights are presently
restricted.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

Baseline snapshots of current altitude restrictions and average Flight
Levels should be gathered nationally and for certain specific routes or
areas. These baselines can be compared to metrics gathered after the
DRVSM implementation.

A post-implementation comparison might be made with the baseline whose
creation is recommended in this plan.

In addition, anecdotal evidence or "storyboard benefits" should be
solicited from NAS customers and operators.

### **Responsible parties**

FAA should collect baseline and post-implementation statistics regarding
altitude assignments and complete a comparison of before and after DRVSM
implementation.

Customers should also collect data regarding altitude preferences and
assignments and should contribute storyboard benefit evidence as it
becomes available.

## **2. Re-Evaluate Mile-in-Trail Restrictions**

### **Background**

Today\'s 2,000-foot separation requirement above FL290 makes for
difficult circumstances for the enroute controller to accomplish
mile-in-trail (MIT) restrictions. For example, limited altitudes require
excessive altitude changes, as well as excessive vectoring to meet MIT
restrictions.

Of all the tools utilized by Traffic Management to mitigate enroute
congestion, MIT restrictions are the most common and most costly to the
NAS and customers alike. Use of MIT restrictions provides predictability
and manageability to traffic flows through chronically congested
sectors; they are not, however, without their consequences. For example,
MIT restrictions contribute to expanded block times, increased taxi
times, and increased fuel burn for the customers. MIT restrictions often
contribute to airport gridlock and reportable delays in the NAS.

### **TFM Opportunity**

Studies have shown the major benefits to traffic managers and
controllers to include, but not be limited to: (1) enhanced capacity;
(2) reduced airspace complexity; (3) reduction in the effect of traffic
converging at critical points; and (4) improved flexibility for peak
traffic periods.[^5] These enhancements for air traffic control can
subsequently lead to benefits for the customers, such as: (1) reduced
delays; (2) time and fuel savings; and (3) reduced average flight
times.[^6]

Further, implementation of DRVSM \"has been shown to decrease controller
workload.\"[^7] As such, a reduction in workload will allow for a more
\"efficient utilization of airspace.\"[^8] These improvements in
efficiency due to workload and complexity reductions are expected to
provide another opportunity to fine tune Traffic Management's use of MIT
restrictions. Quite simply, the implementation of DRVSM provides more
altitudes for more flexibility to work existing situations, thus leading
to the elimination or reduction of MIT restrictions. Even if MITs remain
the same, in some circumstances, \"more sector throughput\"[^9] will
allow for less painful accomplishment of the MIT restriction.

In summary, enhanced efficiency could bring opportunities to possibly
(1) eliminate some pre-existing routine MIT restrictions, and (2) reduce
MIT requirements in some pre-existing routine restrictions. Perhaps some
of these described circumstances will remain unchanged, but, for the
reasons provided above, this will still be an improvement for all
because accomplishing the MITs will be much easier and thus reduce some
of the costs associated with MIT restrictions.

### **TFM Challenge**

Two possible scenarios exist with MIT restrictions after DRVSM
implementation:

(1) It is possible that MIT restrictions will be implemented in areas
    where they have never existed before, due to increased flight path
    usage associated with more available altitudes.

(2) It is possible that existing MIT circumstances could experience an
    increase in MIT spacing requirements.

Again, this is due to increased flight plan usage associated with more
available altitudes. Nevertheless, the costs associated with these
possibilities are much less in the post-DRVSM implementation world than
in today\'s air traffic world.

The anticipated result of DRVSM implementation is that MIT restrictions,
especially for sector saturation issues, will be reduced and in some
cases eliminated. Although this will be true in some instances, there
will be an increase or new need for basic MIT restrictions for some
other areas and sectors. The rationale for this is that today with only
three primary altitudes for westbound traffic (310, 350, and 390) and
the predominant altitude being 350, there is an automatic separation
built into the system without the need for restrictions. For example,
aircraft at the same altitude must be handed off to the receiving
controller with positive separation. Stacked aircraft are not a great
issue due to the limitation of altitudes. Upon implementation of DRVSM,
however, westbound traffic will be able to proceed at 300, 320, 340,
360, 380, and 400.

The increased numbers of altitudes may require that MIT be implemented
to ensure that stacks do not overload and incapacitate a sector. On the
positive side, MIT restrictions for specific airports and destinations
will not \'bleed\' over into other flows of traffic. Presently, due to
the limited number of altitudes and routes, aircraft outside of airports
requiring Traffic Management initiatives are often caught up in the
spacing for these impacted airports and routes.

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

These MIT benefits and impacts will be monitored and measured across the
NAS.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

Mile-in-trail restrictions should be monitored continually following
implementation and a formal analysis of results should be made at a
point six months following; that is, July 2005.

### **Responsible parties**

Each TMU and Facility NAR/HAR team should be tasked with
pre-implementation and post-implementation data compilation.

## **3. Reduce ATC Reroutes during Severe Weather**

### **Background**

Enroute congestion during severe weather events results in reroutes and
other traffic management initiatives (TMIs) to force aircraft around the
weather and impacted sectors. These reroutes have a second order impact
that creates an additional ripple effect on adjacent sectors. Many
reroutes are often tactical in nature, with little planning, and
aircraft may be moved long distances off their preferred trajectories
because of the limited availability of altitudes. These reroutes result
in increased fuel burn, increased time en route, diversions and missed
passenger connections. An additional impact caused by severe weather is
that ground stops and ground delay programs may be implemented to
prevent saturation at specific altitudes.

### **TFM Opportunity**

The additional altitudes with DRVSM will give controllers more options
to clear more aircraft through their sectors at altitudes not impacted
by weather. For example, if the tops of an area are FL350, DRVSM
provides three additional altitudes for aircraft to top the weather, and
not have to be rerouted. Also, sectors adjacent to the convective
weather now have six additional altitudes to handle the deviating
traffic as opposed to the constraints caused by the current limitation
on altitudes. Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) can then implement
strategies maximizing throughput in these adjacent sectors and reduce
the length, and number, of reroutes. With additional altitudes, ground
stops and ground delays in support of Severe Weather Avoidance
Procedures (SWAP) should also be reduced.

### **TFM Challenge**

While it is anticipated that one of the benefits of DRVSM will be a
reduction of reroutes during adverse en route weather events, it will be
very difficult to measure. Each weather situation is unique and
constantly changing.

In addition, diverse controller and pilot techniques will have an impact
upon how effective the additional altitudes are utilized. Old habits
that have been ingrained for many decades will be slow to change. Also,
an increase in flexibility and tools available to traffic managers may
lead to increased diversity of individual techniques causing less
consistency in the system. It is imperative that all facilities
encourage the expansion of DRVSM opportunities, while maintaining system
integrity.

Another issue to be addressed is the potential for sector saturation and
frequency congestion caused by numerous aircraft being forced into the
same altitude stratums. Where these aircraft would normally be in
different stratums or sectors, severe weather will force large volumes
of aircraft over, under or around hazardous weather.

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

The number of flights requiring lengthy reroutes around severe weather
can be significantly reduced. Benefits of this effort could be measured
by the FAA tracking all TFM-initiated reroutes, and customers tracking
block times. Further case studies and anecdotal analysis of severe
weather events in the 2005 timeframe may also provide useful measures of
benefits.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

Specific severe weather events in the spring and summer of 2005 will be
analyzed using PDARS, and compared to similar events of 2004. Initially,
filed versus flown times and miles should be compared with the results
available by the fall of 2005.

In general, measurement of any improvement could be extremely difficult.
There are too many other variables that cannot be statistically
isolated, and these severe weather events are therefore already very
difficult to evaluate.

### **Responsible parties**

Systems Operations Quality Assurance Branch, and evaluations by all TMUs
at the local level.

Storyboard evidence from customers and traffic managers may again be
very valuable here as well.

## **4. Evaluate MAP Criteria and FAA Order 7210.3**

### **Background**

The Monitor Alert Parameter (MAP) Program is the only current method for
measuring enroute sector capacity. While these numbers are limited in
their ability to reflect the actual limitations of workload, they are
the primary tool used to measure and adjust the workload. It is also the
MAP sector number that is used to identify a constrained sector and
dictate that TMIs will be implemented to control the volume. This
program is based mainly on average sector flying time and has been in
existence for over 10 years without change. With the anticipated
reduction in sector complexity, this program needs to be adjusted to
reflect the availability of six additional altitudes.

### **TFM Opportunity**

If the MAP values can be adjusted upward based on the availability of
additional altitudes between FL 290 and 410, true system capacity
increases will be recognized. This may also lead to a reduction in TMIs
resulting in improved system throughput.

### **TFM Challenge**

The implementation of DRVSM has the potential to reduce the complexity
of airspace in significant ways. Assuming a decrease in complexity will
allow a corresponding increase in sector volume, the net effect is an
increase in throughput and controller productivity. The exact amount of
adjustment in MAP values is dependent on an intense analysis of each
sector's reduced complexity. Other factors need to be considered besides
the current primary factor of \"average sector flying time.\"

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

The benefits in the upward adjustment of MAP values will reflect a true
increase in system capacity as most current TMIs are implemented based
on MAP values.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

ARTCC Traffic Management Officers (TMOs) review MAP requirements and
values, per FAA Order 7210.3, and adjust as necessary to reflect reduced
sector complexity with additional altitudes by July 20, 2005.

### **Responsible parties**

ARTCC TMOs.

## **5. Authorize Non-RVSM Compliant Aircraft in DRVSM Airspace**

### **Background**

In accordance with the *Final Rule, RVSM in Domestic United States
Airspace*[^10], and FAA policy, accommodation of non-RVSM compliant
aircraft operations in DRVSM airspace will be limited to the following
authorized operators for whom they will be approved based upon traffic
and safety considerations:

-   [Lifeguard]{.underline}. Air ambulance flights using a Lifeguard
    call sign as described in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)

-   [Department of Defense]{.underline}. In accordance with the
    FAA/Department of Defense (DoD) Memorandum of Understanding,
    non-compliant military aircraft operations

-   [Aircraft Certification and Development]{.underline}. After
    coordination and consultation provided for in Appendix G, Section 5,
    flights conducted for aircraft certification and development and
    customer acceptance purposes

-   [Foreign State Aircraft]{.underline}. Pre-coordinated, non-compliant
    foreign state aircraft

-   Non-compliant aircraft that are [climbing through DRVSM flight
    levels]{.underline} without intermediate level off to operate above
    DRVSM airspace at FL 430 and above

### **TFM Opportunity**

Upon DRVSM implementation, the opportunity will exist to maximize
utilization of domestic RVSM airspace by customers operating both DRVSM
compliant and authorized non-compliant aircraft to the extent
practicable based upon traffic and safety considerations.

### **TFM Challenge**

The TFM challenges associated with non-compliant aircraft operations in
DRVSM airspace will be:

-   To maximize the number of approved operations in DRVSM airspace by
    authorized non-compliant aircraft while not unnecessarily or unduly
    impacting the operations of compliant aircraft, or compromising the
    overall operation of the NAS

-   To evaluate requests for accommodation by authorized non-compliant
    aircraft in a timely manner while providing accurate, sound
    recommendations regarding the granting or denying of specific
    accommodation requests

-   To effectively manage the coordination workload associated with
    evaluating and responding to requests for accommodation by
    non-compliant aircraft

-   The ability to track and log all requests and denials may be
    extremely difficult for "file and fly" military operations if they
    are handled strictly at the local sector and area level

### **Military Operations Risks**

In addition, the military has identified the following risks associated
with authorized non-compliant aircraft operations in DRVSM airspace

-   High level of non-accommodation of DoD aircraft in DRVSM airspace
    can lead to unacceptable military mission degradation, changes in
    mission/training profiles and resulting mission/training
    deficiencies

-   High level of non-accommodation for any authorized non-compliant
    operator can lead to unacceptable increases in operating costs and
    impacts

-   High levels of requests for accommodation of non-compliant aircraft
    could create a large coordination burden

-   The airspace between FL220 and FL280 will have increased aircraft
    usage as civilian non-RVSM compliant aircraft attempt to fly at the
    most fuel efficient altitudes possible. Also, non-compliant bomber,
    fighter, and training aircraft will increase their usage of these
    altitudes because they may or may not be accommodated by the FAA.
    This can affect military operations in the following manner

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Altitude Reservation coordination and approval process may become
    more difficult and require more lead time

-   Normal day-to-day aircraft operations between FL220 and FL280 may be
    affected due to increased traffic at these altitudes

-   Air Refueling Operations may be affected due to increased aircraft
    in these altitudes

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Projected increase in industry operations in DRVSM airspace may lead
    to an increased percentage of non-accommodation

-   The limited number of DoD aircraft requires the DoD operators to
    conduct multiple flights per day with each aircraft. To accomplish
    the multiple flights, within current contract maintenance work
    schedules, DoD "non-equipped" aircraft are required to fly during
    normal industry peak flight periods, which may result in a higher
    percentage of non-accommodation. Adding hours to maintenance
    contracts or adding enroute stops on cross country flights will
    result in increased costs to the DoD

-   If pre-coordinated flights are not given any priority or guarantee,
    pilots will not only be required to plan flights for their primary
    and alternate destination (based on requested altitude) but also
    plan their flight based on non-DRVSM altitudes

### **Planned Benefit Objectives**

The benefit of a realistic, effective policy for non-compliant aircraft
in DRVSM airspace will be the safe, efficient accommodation of the
maximum number of authorized non-compliant aircraft operations. This
will afford non-compliant aircraft the potential to achieve some of the
same benefits available to compliant aircraft, such as enhanced
operating efficiencies through reduced airspace complexity and decreased
flight delays.

An effective exception procedure will also provide for accommodation of
"non-compliant U.S. military operation within RVSM airspace, considering
the national security and defense responsibilities."[^11]

The metrics for this objective are:

-   The number of approved requests for non-RVSM compliant aircraft to
    operate in DRVSM airspace, as a percentage of the number of total
    requests

-   The number of approved operations that are allowed to complete their
    entire desired flight profile within DRVSM airspace, versus aircraft
    forced out of DRVSM airspace (due to traffic or safety
    considerations) prior to their planned exit from the airspace

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

Procedures for handling non-DRVSM aircraft in DRVSM airspace have been
completed.

Coordination procedures for handling non-RVSM equipped aircraft in DRVSM
airspace will be reevaluated 90 days after DRVSM implementation.

### **Responsible party**

FAA based upon the approved procedures recommended by the TFM Users
Team.

## **6. Provide Plan to Capture DRVSM Metrics**

### **Background**

During initial discussions within the DRVSM Work Group, industry
representatives added the fourth task to the Work Group's original
directives (see pg. 2, CDM DRVSM WG Goals). That task required that the
WG develop a TFM plan "to de-conflict primary and secondary traffic
flows to increase efficiency and maximize en-route flexibility." The
plan must provide data analysis that confirms or refutes the perceived
benefits of RVSM.

During subsequent meetings, the WG considered many of the conventional
tools and techniques utilized to measure airline and ATC efficiency.
Most were deemed inappropriate, or too difficult, and there was no
single source capability. The WG struggled with the metrics requirement
for several months.

Concurrently, the WG was faced with estimating the number of potential
non-approved RVSM operations in RVSM airspace, the impact of those
operations at the sector level, as well as local and national
coordination requirements in support of non-approved operations. The WG
eventually utilized PDARS (Performance Data Analysis and Reporting
System) to gather this information. The data on non-approved operations
became a very important WG product. When the WG received the data
provided by PDARS on the number of non-approved operations, they also
received a demonstration on using PDARS to measure the benefits of RVSM.
At this point, the group recognized the value of PDARS as a potential
measure of DRVSM benefits and impacts. PDARS was designed for this type
of analysis.

#### [PDARS Background and Architecture:]{.underline}

PDARS is a joint FAA/ NASA program that captures Host and ARTS data. The
objective of PDARS is to collect and process local data and provide
measures for traffic at individual facilities through a system wide
Internet Protocol (IP) based network. The PDARS Local Area Network
captures Common Message Set data from all domestic Host Computers and
also from selected ARTS facilities.

The PDARS architecture consists of a database (DB) layer (utilizing flat
files as well as an Oracle DB), on top of which sits the PDARS
application, on top of which sits the graphic user interface (Excel and
Graphical Airspace Design Environment (GRADE)). The central DB site is
located at ATAC, Inc. in California. Data is processed locally, but
batched for reports each morning. Security is ensured with appropriate
Security Certification and Authorization Packages. PDARS' ease in
switching back and forth between counts and graphics is very powerful
and a very intuitive help for traffic managers used to looking at visual
depictions. Since October, 2004, PDARS has been able to capture data on
all Center flights at any point in time. Data and charts can be pulled
easily into other Office products for reports, documents, and
presentations.

#### [PDARS Measurements:]{.underline}

PDARS captures data recorded for user-defined events and segments. Data
is obtained by tapping directly into the FAA's Host or ARTS systems.
PDARS can measure common metrics in areas such as throughput,
efficiency, safety, and predictability. PDARS produces Excel-based
reports that permit drill down capability to the data elements and
events that are folded into the report. Through the graphic tool, GRADE,
PDARS has a three dimensional plan view and altitude profile
capabilities for demonstrating radar tracks, and has the ability to
shape and reorient these graphics for increased perception. A list of
the most popular, readily available "canned" reports is available and
can be provided. Additional "customized" reports can be developed if
needed. See Appendix C for an example of a PDARS Excel report. In
addition, PDARS can combine flight history reported by adjacent
facilities to prepare graphic and "drill-down" table based performance
histories of the end-to-end flight. This may aid in the post-flight
analysis of air traffic and Traffic Management actions with respect to a
particular flight.

### **TFM Opportunity**

PDARS is a well-established program that has a proven track record of
providing quality analysis of various NAS components. These analyses
include noise abatement, SUA utilization, final approach stability,
daily event analysis, system impact analysis, RVSM stratification data,
and the impact of non-approved operations in RVSM airspace.

A customized daily DRVSM report provided by PDARS will provide
decision-makers at local and national levels with a set of comprehensive
measurements that will capture the benefits of RVSM airspace as well as
day-to-day ATC operations.

### **Potential DRVSM Analysis Capabilities**

There are two major categories of benefits associated with DRVSM:

-   Fuel savings as a result of flying closer to optimum altitudes, and

-   Added operational flexibility for air traffic management

The measurable quantities produced by PDARS that support an analysis of
altitude utilization and sector efficiency include:

-   Full 3-D animation capability

-   Customized Excel reports with the following:

    -   Charts and Graphs

    -   Number of operations -- quantified by aircraft identification
        (ACID), Type of operation, classification

    -   Altitude distributions, number and percent for each altitude

    -   Total flight time in sector

    -   Average flight time in sector

    -   Total distance flown through sector

    -   Average distance flown in each sector

    -   Average speed

    -   MAP values

    -   Average throughput per hour for any given period

    -   Maximum throughput per hour

    -   Maximum instant count

    -   Average instant count

    -   Number of operations within altitude strata - particular
        emphasis on military, general aviation (GA), before and after
        implementation, with specific numbers of non-approved operations

Potential longer-term integration needs for PDARS to show the benefits
likely to be realized for DRVSM and other programs include:

-   PDARS integration with National Traffic Management Log (NTML) to
    capture restrictions and miles in trail information to go along with
    traffic pictures

-   PDARS integration with ETMS to provide sector related measures
    showing planned or actual DRVSM exceptions on TSD to actual sector
    counts

-   PDARS integration with national weather data used for sector design
    analysis to show flow or "What if" analysis

### The Challenge

A clear, comprehensive, planned metrics program is necessary for NAS
stakeholders to know whether they have achieved DRVSM objectives.
Currently, there does not appear to be a unified, system-wide DRVSM
metrics plan in place.

### Planned Benefits

Measurements of NAS operations before and after DRVSM will be tracked to
check for planned DRVSM benefits such as:

-   Fuel savings as a result of flying closer to optimum altitudes

-   Added operational flexibility for air traffic management

-   Non-compliant operations

Measurements of NAS operations for DRVSM must consider the following
factors to monitor potential DRVSM benefits:

-   Measures will be sector specific.

-   High altitude sector data will be consolidated to show changes in
    both Center and entire NAS operations

-   Economic values applied to the data can be defined by the proper
    authority

-   The data collection will be continuous

-   The Sample used to demonstrate benefits and impacts can be defined
    by proper authority

-   See Appendix D for an example of a customized PDARS report

#### [PDARS Reports:]{.underline}

PDARS-collected data contains many elements that can be used to measure
the performance of the enroute system. Daily DRVSM reports will provide
information to both FAA facility and national offices regarding:

-   The fundamental elements of air travel -- time, distance, speed, and
    altitude

-   The recognized indicators of sector throughput -- counts per hour,
    maximum throughput, and MAP

The Daily RVSM Report will provide consistent across-the-board analysis
for all sectors and centers. For the first time, daily analysis of miles
flown in en route airspace and total time flown in en route airspace, as
well as specific altitude information, will be available to PDARS users.
Dollar values can be attached to many of these quantities; for example,
distance flown, time flown, and fuel burn at higher altitudes.

Reports with most of the relevant data already exist; it is an easy
matter to combine data and design and produce one report for all
centers.

#### [PDARS Report Design Capabilities:]{.underline}

-   Each individual center sector can be quantified as per data provided
    above.

-   Summary data for all sectors and each facility is also available.

-   Separate analysis for high and low sectors is available although
    RVSM impact on low stratum is probably minimal. PDARS provides the
    capability to split high altitude data out, which will save
    processing time and space. The DRVSM reports will provide a way to
    analyze the benefits of HAR and any other sector re-design
    activities.

-   Baseline and subsequent data can be matched to restriction data.

-   Report data can be made available to customers.

-   Drill down capability for extended route segments is available to
    include for example, 'city-pairs' analysis, specific flight info,
    and non-compliant operations.

-   Multiple center data can be combined.

-   All center values can be combined to present a national perspective.

### Timelines and Milestones

The steps to lead to an effective metrics program would include the
following:

-   PDARS has been installed in all enroute facilities. Baseline data
    exists for all facilities from July 2004 for all facilities except
    ZDC, ZNY & ZBW. NAS-wide baseline data is available since November
    2004.

-   Identify normal days in the NAS as baseline days. If installation is
    late, use available data to demonstrate benefits.

-   TMOs identify specific sectors where value added gains are possible.

-   Establish DRVSM daily report format with ATAC, Inc., the FAA's
    contract producer of PDARS.

-   ATAC provides independent report on principal benefits; that is,
    altitude utilization, throughput, and non-approved ops.

-   TMOs provide specific reports on value added benefits for specific
    sectors.

### **Recommendation**

The DRVSM WG recommendations regarding DRVSM metrics include the
following:

1.  Identify an office of system capacity to establish the DRVSM
    analysis needs.

2.  The office of system capacity, PDARS office, will task ATAC to:

-   Develop a customized RVSM report, with instructions for use, based
    on the WG's defined metrics

-   Provide a customized RVSM report to all centers at least one month
    prior to RVSM implementation

-   One month after RVSM implementation, conduct a one-day analysis of
    all high altitude sectors comparing pre- and post-DRVSM
    implementation data against the following metrics

    -   Altitude utilization

    -   Average distance flown

    -   Average time in sector

    -   Non-approved operations

-   Analyze this data set as follows:

    -   Check for difficulty and problems.

    -   Adjust analysis process as necessary

    -   Set sample size for primary analysis

    -   Apply dollar values to distance and time data

    -   Estimate dollar value of fuel burn savings

    -   Determine impact on non-approved aircraft

-   Following initial analysis, conduct an analysis of all high altitude
    sectors comparing pre- and post-RVSM implementation data against the
    metrics provided above based on determined sample size

-   Submit findings as per tasking direction

-   Six months to one year after RVSM implementation, conduct an
    analysis of all high altitude sectors comparing pre- and post-RVSM
    implementation data using the previous metrics plus sector
    throughput analysis using the following metrics:

    -   Average count per hour

    -   Maximum count per hour

    -   Maximum instant count compared to MAP

    -   MAP changes

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Submit findings as per tasking direction

3.  One month to six months after RVSM implementation, TMOs analyze
    specific sectors for evidence of benefits using customized RVSM
    report.

-   Submit findings as per tasking direction

4.  Analyze City Pair data available on request for:

-   Filed altitude versus altitude flown

-   Average distance flown

-   Average time en route

### Responsible Parties

FAA identify and establish an office to set up the DRVSM analysis needs.

TMOs and ATAC, Inc., through the Office of Performance Analysis, ATO-P,
will support the assigned office to develop the specific analysis plan.

# **IV. Collaboration with National Airspace Redesign (NAR)**

The redesign of national airspace is an ongoing activity for the FAA.
The introduction of additional altitudes between FL290 and FL410 will
obviously have an effect on NAR design plans. The NAR and DRVSM programs
will have a strong interaction at many points. The maximization of
benefits from DRVSM will depend in the long run on optimization of
airspace design to take advantage of the new altitudes available. This
section describes some of the collaboration and interaction requirements
between the two programs.

## **1. Full Integration of DRVSM into National Airspace Design**

### **Background**

Current Airspace redesign efforts have included a complete review of the
required airspace changes by each affected facility \[intra and inter
facility\] within the en route stratum as related to the implementation
of DRVSM. All required changes are currently being implemented under the
direction of the High Altitude Redesign (HAR) Program Office.

### **TFM Opportunity**

The post-implementation of DRVSM offers the opportunity to identify new
areas and procedures that can produce as yet unidentified benefits as
well as changes to the airspace design required to facilitate increased
efficiency of traffic flows in response to the specific recommendations
included in the "DRVSM TFM Action Plan" section of this report.

### **TFM Challenge**

The initial challenge for the DRVSM program will be the implementation
itself. This will likely be a full time activity for several months
following the start-up date of January 20, 2005. Therefore, the initial
coordination and integration between DRVSM and NAR will be somewhat
limited to allow full implementation and understanding of DRVSM
procedures before complicating the procedures with airspace redesign.
The delay of further integration actions will also allow some time for
feedback regarding exactly what airspace optimizations may be necessary
or helpful for best results with DRVSM.

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

The recommended post-implementation airspace review has been identified
as the vehicle that will allow basic high altitude stratum airspace
changes as well as the integration of specific HAR initiatives. The
resulting restructuring of the airspace should produce both capacity and
efficiency benefits.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

In conjunction with the results of the DRVSM Post Implementation Action
items as listed in the "Checklist" which was produced by the
workgroup[^12], the post-implementation review should address short term
issues that exist on July 20, 2005 and mid to long term issues after
that date.

### **Responsible Party**

Director of Systems Operations and Safety

## **2. Re-Analysis and Re-Negotiation of LOAs / MOUs**

### **Background**

The NAS contains an extensive array of restrictions that are determined
due to the coordination required between the different air traffic
facilities that comprise the operational structure. These required
operational limitations are mostly embodied in the LOAs and MOUs written
between the adjoining facilities. The HAR office recently completed a
review of these agreements in preparation for and as a result of the
airspace changes made for implementation of DRVSM.

### **TFM Opportunity**

Once the DRVSM implementation is under way, it is anticipated that
different and possibly less restrictions will be necessary in order to
maintain efficient traffic flows and the required coordination between
the various air traffic facilities. This opportunity to reduce
controller workload and to adjust or remove unnecessary or outdated
restrictions should be utilized as well as the opening to advise the NAS
customers of the changes that impact their planning and real time
operations, and the challenge to TFM to address new and more effective
ways to manage traffic flows.

### **TFM Challenge**

The DRVSM WG recommends a review of existing LOAs and MOUs, and the
publication in advance of the new agreements (or the re-publication of
existing agreements) in an easily accessible database to help with
updates to individual flight planning systems. This recommendation is
aimed at achieving the available benefits of reduced controller
workload, adjustment and removal of restrictions to enhance efficient
traffic flows, and identification of innovative and more effective
methods through Traffic Management of maximizing the new altitude
capabilities.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

Again, as above, in conjunction with the results of the DRVSM Post
Implementation Action items as listed in the "Checklist"[^13] the
post-implementation review should address short term issues at July 20,
2005 and a full review with completion being the establishment of the
publication database should start after that date and terminate within
one year.

Also, any new or changed LOAs/MOUs must be published well in advance of
January 20, 2005 to allow operational changes and flight planning system
adjustments prior to the implementation date.

### **Responsible Party**

Director of Systems Operations and Safety

## **3. Re-Alignment of Sector Boundaries, Stratums and Shelves**

### **Background**

This item might rightfully fall within the near-term conditions of the
first item in this section. Again this initially was accomplished during
the HAR airspace review and redesign associated with the preparation for
the implementation of DRVSM. Also, this activity is included within the
second item of this section as the resulting changes that impact
adjoining facilities are addressed in LOAs and MOUs.

### **TFM Opportunity**

Changes to boundaries and stratums were made according to DRVSM
information and research summarized in various studies by The Mitre
Corporation and others. LOAs and MOUs have been modified accordingly.

Follow-up analyses should be undertaken during 2005 to ensure the
correct sector adjustments have been made.

### **TFM Challenge**

Sector adjustments were made on the best information and assumptions
available prior to DRVSM implementation. There is a risk that some
sector stratifications are incorrect, which could reduce the attainable
DRVSM benefits for either customers or the FAA. Therefore, once feedback
is obtained from actual implementation flows and behaviors, new
adjustments should be made as necessary to obtain maximum benefits
possible.

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

Some of the planned benefits have already been discussed and include
such things as: increased high altitude capacity, reduced controller
vectoring, more flown-as-filed trajectories, reduced structured
routings, flexibility during severe weather, and others.

### **Timeline and milestone schedule**

As noted under the **Background** section above, this recommendation
would be limited to the near-term time constraints as it addresses
specific airspace changes within and adjacent to the DRVSM altitude
structure.

Therefore, an initial reevaluation of sector designs should be scheduled
to begin before July 20, 2005. A second evaluation should be undertaken
by the end of calendar year 2005 to determine if any further possible
adjustments are desirable based on additional feedback and experience.

### **Responsible Party**

Director of Systems Operations and Safety

## **4. Improved Capacity for Airborne Holding**

### **Background**

In the present NAS, sector capacities and complexities limit the amount
of safe and acceptable volume of airborne holding. Subsequently, the
efficient stop and re-start of traffic flows and the ability for the
system to absorb certain anomalies, as it was originally designed, is
hindered to the point of causing significant ripple impacts. These
ripple effects can negatively impact the system to a much greater degree
than the initial situation normally justifies.

### **TFM Opportunity**

With the addition of new en route altitudes as a result of DRVSM
implementation, the opportunity exists to design additional and more
flexible holding patterns. This would address the current requirements
of the NAS in accommodating unplanned air traffic control situations and
limiting the down line negative impacts to the entire NAS.

### **TFM Challenge**

As new holding patterns are developed, Traffic Management needs to
incorporate procedures that would enhance flow throughput and determine
flow capacities that would be increased with the proper utilization of
these new holding patterns. Additionally, the new holding pattern
capacities should be determined in order to identify limits that would
allow for other Traffic Management Initiatives to be utilized when the
holding patterns are being employed.

### **Planned Benefit Objective**

The recommendation to design and develop new high altitude holding
patterns is focused at allowing en route holding in a significantly
greater number of areas. The intent is to thus allow the individual
controller to utilize the holding procedure while limiting the impact to
traffic flows that are not directly involved in the immediate situation.
The resulting preservation of efficient traffic flows outside of the
immediately impacted aircraft would contribute to overall NAS
efficiency. Additionally, this will allow for a safer operation within a
sector where defined holding is available at multiple altitudes that
does not cause an avoidable stoppage of traffic based upon controller
workload constraints.

### **Timeline and Milestone Schedule**

This recommendation is a mid to far term issue. Although the benefits
should be easily attainable, the development and design of hold
patterns, especially the determination of specific geographical
positioning, will involve a significant combined effort nationally and
locally. The schedule for this would be suggested to start at the
completion of the re-alignment of sector boundaries, stratums, and
shelves recommended above in item number 3. Once begun, this effort
should be complete within 24 months.

### **Responsible Party**

Director of Systems Operations and Safety

## 

## **5. DRVSM - NAR/HAR Integration Summary**

Due to the amount and depth of the recommendations in this section, all
of which concern airspace and involve the NAR/HAR programs, the
development of a "DRVSM" office or program within those groups that
continues beyond DRVSM implementation should be considered. This would
facilitate completion of the recommendations, as detailed above, as well
as the achievement of the proposed benefits as determined by the
workgroup.

# **V. Summary**

This plan identifies and explores the opportunities to realize benefits
from the thoughtful stewardship of the six additional flights levels
that will be afforded by Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
introduction in North America and its adjacent airspace. These benefits
will not occur without a focused effort to achieve them. Instead, they
will result from identifying and stating the benefits sought as goals,
identifying strategies to achieve those benefits and overcome obstacles,
assessing and mitigating unacceptable risks, measuring the success in
achievement of those goals, and then fine tuning the process to increase
the benefits attained.

# **VI. Appendices**

## Appendix A: Glossary

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Abbreviation**   **Definition**

  ARTCC              Air Route Traffic Control Center

  ATCSCC             Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center

  CDM                Collaborative Decision Making

  CDR                Coded Departure Route

  CONUS              Continental United States

  DFW                Dallas-Fort Worth Airport

  DoD                Department of Defense

  DRVSM              Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

  ER-4               En Route Congestion initiative #4 (Reduced Vertical
                     Separation) in the OEP

  GRADE              Graphical Airspace Design Environment

  FAA                Federal Aviation Administration

  FIR                Flight Information Region

  FL                 Flight Level

  HAR                High Altitude Redesign

  LOA                Letter of Agreement

  MAP                Monitor Alert Parameter

  MIT                Miles In trail

  MOA                Memorandum of Agreement

  MOU                Memorandum of Understanding

  MSP                Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport

  NAR                National Airspace Redesign

  NAS                National Airspace System

  OEP                Operational Evolution Plan (FAA's ongoing 10-year
                     plan for capacity and efficiency in the NAS)

  ORD                O'Hare Airport (Chicago)

  PDAR               Preferred Departure and Arrival Route

  PDARS              Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System

  PDR                Preferred Departure Route

  PREF               Preferred Route

  RVSM               Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

  STL                Saint Louis Airport

  SUA                Special Use Airspace

  SWAP               Severe Weather Avoidance Plan

  TFM                Traffic Flow Management

  TMC                Traffic Management Coordinator

  TMI                Traffic Management Initiative

  TMO                Traffic Management Officer

  TMU                Traffic Management Unit

  TUT                Traffic Flow Management Users Team

  WG                 Work Group

                     

                     
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

##  

## **Appendix B: Related Documents**

*FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration, Part 5.
Traffic Management System, Chapter 17. Traffic Management National,
Center, and Terminal*

*Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in the Domestic United States
Airspace;* *Final Rule. Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday,
October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations.* \[Sometimes abbreviated as
*[Final Rule]{.underline}* in this document.\]

*FAA Operational Evolution Plan.* *En Route Congestion; ER-4: Reduced
Vertical Separation.* \[Sometimes abbreviated as *[ER-4]{.underline}* in
this document.\]

*Nav Canada SDRVSM Implementation Plan, Version 3.1, 02/25/04.*

## **Appendix C: PDARS Sample Excel Report**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="7.990972222222222in"
height="8.959722222222222in"}

## **Appendix D: PDARS Sample Custom Report** 

![](media/image2.wmf){width="7.0368055555555555in"
height="5.478472222222222in"}

[^1]: In late 1999, the FAA and President of Air Transport Association,
    agreed to a collaborative effort to mitigate air transportation
    delays anticipated in the spring of 2000. The group created, called
    S2K, has been continued since then.

[^2]: A Sector in which the ETMS assigned monitor alert parameter (MAP)
    is exceeded or predicted to be exceeded.

[^3]: See European RVSM flight level occupancy results summarized in
    Appendix G of NAV Canada's "SDRVSM Implementation Plan.

[^4]: That is, potential capacity, based on the assumption that vertical
    separation standards above FL290 could be reduced to those that
    apply to operations at or below FL290.

[^5]: Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in the Domestic United States
    Airspace; [Final Rule]{.underline}; Federal Register / Vol. 68, No.
    207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

[^6]: Ibid, and NAS Operational Evolution Plan, ER-4.

[^7]: Ibid.

[^8]: Ibid.

[^9]: Ibid.

[^10]: Ibid.

[^11]: Memorandum of Understanding between the DoD and FAA dated
    December 12, 2001

[^12]: See the Traffic Management Officer Checklist, which will be
    finalized and posted prior to implementation.

[^13]: Ibid.