# Presentation: 277039

## ATC BriefingDRVSM Overview

**Diane Tyler**
**FAA/ATP-110 **

- Brief 5

## Air Traffic Control

- DRVSM
- DoD MOU
- Major Milestones
- DRVSM Benefits
- DRVSM Simulations
- DRVSM Implementation Strategy
- Automation Modifications
- Procedural Issues
- Future Simulations

## Air Traffic Control (Continued)

- Coordination with Canada and Mexico
- Tactical Implementation of RVSM
- Implementation Requirements
- FAA RVSM Website

## DRVSM

- Creates six additional altitudes from FL 290 through FL 410 by the reduction of vertical separation from 2000 ft. to 1000 ft.
- Airspace will be exclusionary for RVSM approved aircraft with the exception of accommodating DoD and lifeguard flights.
- Non-approved aircraft may transition through DRVSM airspace.

## Memorandum of UnderstandingFAA and DoD

- Memorandum of Understanding signed between FAA and DoD in December 2001
- Agreement governs the use of Domestic RVSM Airspace by DoD aircraft
- Policy:  The FAA will accommodate non-compliant DoD aircraft operation within RVSM airspace

## Major Milestones

- Kick-off Meeting 			September 2000
- User Meetings			Feb & May 2001
- SUPCOM Briefing			May 2001
- ATC Simulations			October 2001
- DoD MOU				December 2001
- Final Simulation Report    	January 2002
- Air Traffic Service Briefing       	February 2002
- ATC Regional 530 Briefing       March 2002
- First DRVSM Seminar		April 2002
- Publish NPRM			April 2002
- Second ATC Simulations		June 2002
- Publish Final Rule			June 2003
- RVSM Implementation		December 2004 (Proposed)

## DRVSM Benefits

**ATC **
- Increased ATC efficiency
- Increased throughput
- Decreased workload/less vectoring
- Reduction in conflict points
- Enhanced capacity
- Reduction in potential for error

## DRVSM Benefits Continued

**User Benefits**
- Daily Fuel Savings 11.3 million lbs
- More  Fuel-efficient Altitudes
- More Fuel-efficient Routes
- Higher probability of being cleared to desired Altitude
- Potential Departure Delay Reductions

## DRVSM Simulations Objectives (First Set)

- Identified impact of DRVSM on en route controller
- Workload
- Complexity
- Potential for error
- Compared impacts of DRVSM in three altitude bands:
- FL350 – FL390
- FL330 – FL390
- FL290 – FL410
- Compared three altitude bands above to conventional separation
- Identify ATC procedural implications

## DRVSM SimulationsOverview Of Simulation Results

- Workload, Complexity and Potential for Error were assessed using a scale of 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest).  DRVSM from FL290 to FL410 yielded superior results.

## DRVSM Simulations

**DRVSM Simulations**
**Results**

##     DRVSM Simulations

-     **DRVSM Simulations**
**Results**

## DRVSM Simulations

**DRVSM Simulations**
**Results**

## DRVSM SimulationsResults

- Subjective results validated by analysis of the following objective data:
- Frequency and duration of A/G and G/G communications
- Number of pointouts, unaccepted handoffs, pilot requests denied
- Number of non-DRVSM-approved aircraft transitioning through exclusionary airspace, conflict alert warnings, altitudes used and aircraft per altitude
- Number of hear-back errors, separation errors

## DRVSM Implementation Strategy  

- As a result of the DRVSM Simulations, it appears the optimum implementation altitude stratum would be FL 290 through FL410 in December 2004.

## Automation Modifications

- Automation changes for Operational Error Detection Patch, (Conflict Alert).
- Automation changes in support of the visual cue for the controller display to enable a ready distinction between RVSM approved and non-RVSM approved aircraft.  *Note:  The visual cue will likely be applied to non-RVSM aircraft because it is anticipated that they will comprise less than 5-10% of the overall fleet now operating at RVSM altitudes.*

## Procedural Issues

- The following items may require new procedures:
- Accommodations for DoD and lifeguard flights.
- Process to transition non-RVSM aircraft through RVSM airspace.
- Process to transition from RVSM operation to non-RVSM and back.
- Mountain Wave Activity.

## Future Simulations

- Potential Areas of Consideration:
- More scenario variations of previous FL290-FL410 simulations
- Assess impact on High and Super -High Sectors
- Increase numbers of non-approved DoD and Lifeguard flights
- Increase numbers of non-approved transitioning flights

## Future Simulations (continued)

- Increased number of conflicts with non-approved flights in RVSM airspace.
- Simulate an outage of an aircraft’s DRVSM equipment
- Specific procedural issues
- Evaluate tactical use of RVSM altitudes in a Conventional Vertical Separation environment
- Transition to and from non-RVSM airspace.

## Future SimulationsSchedule

- Site selected January 2002
- Indianapolis ARTCC
- Simulations in June 2002

## Coordination with Canada and Mexico

- Canada will implement RVSM in northern airspace (above 57:00N latitude) - Independent of U.S. RVSM implementation.
- Southern Canadian airspace has been coordinated  for a simultaneous implementation with U.S. domestic airspace.
- Planning for the possible inclusion of selected areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

## Tactical Implementation of RVSM

- Exploring tactical use of RVSM for potential use after DRVSM rule published in June 2003
- Build on oceanic and European tactical experience
- Possible Guidelines: RVSM FLs not used for flight planning: tactical RVSM used at controllers discretion

## Implementation Requirements

- Three Areas:
- ATC Readiness
- User Readiness
- Safety Assessment
- ATC Readiness: Simulations, Procedures, ATC Automation modifications, Training
- User Readiness: Appropriate percentage of approved aircraft for RVSM operation
- Safety Assessment completed