NASA/CP-- 2002-211845

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation

(VAMS) Project

First Technical Interchange Meeting

/

Prepared by Computer Sciences Corporation

Recording Secretaries:

Robert Beard

Robert Kille

Richard Kirsten

Paul Rigterink

Henry Sielski

Edited by." Melinda F. Gratteau, Raytheon ITSS

Proceedings of a technical interchange

meeting sponsored by the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration and held at

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California

May 21-23, 2002

July 2002

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20030007808 2018-05-15T15:33:09+00:00Z
The NASA STI Program Office ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to

the advancement of aeronautics and space

science. The NASA Scientific and Technical

Information (STI) Program Office plays a key

part in helping NASA maintain this important

role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by

Langley Research Center, the lead center for

NASA's scientific and technical information.

The NASA STI Program Office provides access

to the NASA STI Database, the largest

collection of aeronautical and space science STI

in the world. The Program Office is also

NASA's institutional mechanism for

disseminating the results of its research and

development activities. These results are

published by NASA in the NASA STI Report

Series, which includes the following report

types:

TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of

completed research or a major significant

phase of research that present the results

of NASA programs and include extensive

data or theoretical analysis. Includes

compilations of significant scientific and

technical data and information deemed to

be of continuing reference value. NASA

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal

professional papers, but having less

stringent limitations on manuscript length

and extent of graphic presentations.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM.

Scientific and technical findings that are

preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g.,

quick release reports, working papers, and

bibliographies that contain minimal

annotation. Does not contain extensive

analysis.

CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and

technical findings by NASA-sponsored

contractors and grantees.

CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.

Collected papers from scientific and

technical conferences, symposia,

seminars, or other meetings sponsored

or co-sponsored by NASA.

SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

technical, or historical information from

NASA programs, projects, and missions,

often concerned with subjects having

substantial public interest.

TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.

English-language translations of foreign

scientific and technical material

pertinent to NASA's mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI

Program Office's diverse offerings include

creating custom thesauri, building customized

databases, organizing and publishing research

results ... even providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI

Program Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI Program Home

Page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI

Help Desk at (301) 621-0134

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

(301 ) 621-0390

Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace

Information

7121 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/CP-- 2002-211845

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation

(VAMS) Project

First Technical Interchange Meeting

Prepared by Computer Sciences Corporation

550 Weddell Drive, Suite 7, Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Recording Secretaries:

Robert Beard

Robert Kille

Richard Kirsten

Patti Rigterink

Henm' Sielski

Edited by." Melinda F. Gratteau, Raytheon ITSS

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field. CA 94035-1000

Proceedings of a technical interchange

meeting sponsored by the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration and held at

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California

May 21-23, 2002

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California 94035-1000

July 2002
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7121 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

301-62 !-0390

Available from:

ii

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

703-605-6000
Virtual Modeling and Simulation (VAMS) Project

Technical Interchange Meeting Number 1

Table of Contents

Preface

Agenda

1 Welcome

2 VAMS TIM

3 SLIC Sub-element

4 VAST Sub-element

5 SEA Sub-element

6 ATM Conops and their Impact on the NAS

7 System Level Capacity Increasing Concept

8 Technologies Enabiling All-Weather Maximum Capacity by 2020

9 Massive PTP and On-Demand ATS Investigation

10 Optimization in the National Airspace System

11 Daily Agenda Questions and Comments

12 Capacity Improvements Through Automated Surf. Traffic Control

13 Surface Operations Automation Research

14 Centralized Terminal Operation Control

15 Terminal Area Capacity Enhancement Concept

16 Langley Wake Vortex Research Supporting VAMS

17 Advanced Airspace Concept

18 An approach to Technology Roadmaps

19 University Concept Team Draft Report

20 Breakout Session No. 1 - Technology Roadmaps

21 AATT: Distributed Air Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM)

22 Daily Agenda Questions and Comments

23 Breakout Session No. 2 - Metrics/Scenarios

24 Breakout Session No. 3 - Guidelines

25 VAST Prototype Demonstration

26 Socio-Economic and Demand Forecasting

27 Next Steps in Concepts and a Preview of TIM 2

28 Summary of Recommendations for Future TIMS

Appendix A: Acronyms

Appendix B: Attendee List

Appendix C: Presentations

Jacobsen

Swenson

Fong

Romer

Lozito

MacKenzie

Schwab/Sipe

Krozel

Sorensen

Sridhar

Swenson

Capozzi

Cheng

Fergus

Arkind

Rutishauser

Erzberger

Weathers

Zellweger

Facilitators _

Mogford

Swenson

Facilitators _

Facilitators _

Roth/Miraflor

Cavolowsky

Swenson

CSC

_Corker, Del Balzo and Van Landingham

.°°

111
This page intentionally left blank.

iv
PREFACE

A three-day NASA Virtual Airspace and Modeling Project (VAMS) Technical

Interchange Meeting (TIM) was held at the NASA Ames Research Center in

Mountain View, CA, on May 21 through May 23, 2002. The purpose of this

meeting was to share initial concept information sponsored by the VAMS Project.

An overall goal of the VAMS Project is to develop validated, blended, robust and

transition-able air transportation system concepts over the next five years that will

achieve NASA's long-term Enterprise Aviation Capacity goals. This document

describes the presentations at the TIM, their related questions and answers, and

presents the TIM recommendations.

This TIM provided a forum for concept developers to discuss their proposals with

each other and with the modeling and simulation elements of the project. The

objective was to present a level of detail that is fully equivalent to that found in

technical proposals and related work. For those TIM participants discussing a

specific operational concept, this level of detail meant exchanging information

equivalent to their NRA proposed operational concept guideline topics.

Breakout meetings, separate from the concept discussions, were held on concept

guidelines, metrics and operational scenarios and technology roadmaps. The

purpose of the breakout meetings was to achieve a common and consistent view

of these critical topics by leveraging the experience and expertise of the TIM

participants. After each breakout session a special topic was discussed, these

included NASA's work on the Distributed Air Ground concepts (DAG), the

Virtual Airspace Simulation Technologies (VAST) modeling system prototype

and the initial socio-economic and demand forecasting effort. The purpose of

these special topics was to convey information about related work that may

impact the concepts.

V
This page intentionally left blank.

vi
TIM #1 Aitenda

PST

21 -May

Tuesday

22-May

Wednesday

23-May

Thursday

7:30

7:45

8:00

8:15

8:30

8:45

9:00

9:15

9:30

9:45

10:00

10:15

10:30

10:45

11:00

11:15

11:30

11:

Noon

12:15

12:30

12:45

1:00

1:15

1:30

1:45

2:00

2:15

2:30

2:45

3:00

3:15

3:30

3:45

4:00

4:15

4:30

4:45

5:00

Facility opens

and

Meeting Registration

NASA Welcome

(Jacobsen)

VAMS Project overview

(Swenson)

SLIC Sub-element overview

(Fong)

Break

VAST Sub-element overview

(Romer)

SEA Sub-element overview

(Lozito)

Federal Aviation Administration

(MacKenzie)

Catered Lunch

in Patio Room

System Level Capacity

Increasing Concept Boein 9

Technologies Enabling All-Weather

Max. Cap. By 2020 Metron

Break

Massive PTP & On-Demand

ATS Invest. Seagull Tech.

System Wide Optimization

(Sridhar)

Special Breakout Session:

Facilitator/Recorder

Meeting

(others adjourn for day)

Facility opens

Daily Agenda

Automated Airport Surface

Traffic Control Metron

Surface Operation Automation

Research Optimal Synthesis

Centralized Terminal Operation

Control Northrop Grumman

Break

Air Transport System Capacity

Increasing Concept Raytheon

Wake Vortex Avoidance Concept

(Rutishauser)

Advanced Airspace Concepl

(Erzberger)

Catered Lunch

in Patio Room

An Approach to Technology

Roadmaps (Weathers)

University Concepts

, (Zeltweger) i

i Breakout #1i:

Technology Road.maps

(3 separate parallel _essions)

Break

• Breakout ;re_rtwr,=ng#!

• a _allel special topic --

Dhltrtbuted Air Ground,

Report on Breakout #1

Facility opens

Dally Agenda

i Breakout #2:

Metrics/Scenarios

(3 sep_lrate parallelisessions)

Break

Breakout report writing #2

with a parallel special topic ;-

i,i ...... VAST, Prototype .......

Report on Breakout #2

Catered Lunch

in Patio Room

j

i Breakout #3:

i Guideline_

(3 separate parallel isessions)

E

Break

#3:

m, ;_ ........... ,.........

Report on Breakout #3

Next Steps in Concepts

and a Preview of TIM 2

5/23/02, Rev. 6

vii
This page intentionally left blank.

.°.

Vlll
lo

NASA Welcome to the Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation

Project Technical Interchange Meeting No. 1

Mr. Robert Jacobsen

Director, Airspace Systems Program, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Jacobsen's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Dr. Victor Lebacqz gave the introduction and welcome to the first technical

interchange meeting (TIM) of the Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation

(VAMS) project. He indicated that the VAMS efforts will be the baseline for the

start of the next 10 or more years of work in capacity improvements.

Key Comments by Mr. Jacobsen

NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise (Slides 2 - 3)

An increase in the capacity of the national airspace system (NAS) is mandatory in

order for the system to handle the passenger demands that are projected over the

next 25 years. The Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has identified a set of goals

based on projections of annual passenger emplanements. These goals include

doubling the capacity of the aviation system within 10 years and tripling the

capacity within 25 years. Intercity transportation time will be reduced by half in

10 years and two-thirds in 25 years. Long-haul transcontinental travel time will be

reduced by half in 25 years. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that VAMS is the most

important project the country is working on in this area.

Airspace Systems Goals and Objectives (Slide 4)

The ASP is required to develop "'revolutionary operations systems and vehicle

requirements" to meet these goals. "Vehicle requirements" mandate that we

develop operations concepts using Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft (STOL)

and Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (VSTOL) aircraft systems to make better

use of existing facilities, rather than the aircraft themselves. Initial development

of these concepts was part of an earlier ASP [the Short-Haul Civil Tilt-rotor

(SHCT) project].

FAA Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) (Slides 5 - 6)

The FAA has an OEP approved by the Secretary of Transportation and endorsed

by the RTCA. This plan represents the national policy for NAS modernization.

OEP support is important to the program, but the degree of capacity improvement

in the OEP falls short of what will be needed. The necessity for new operational

concepts for the future has led to VAMS and its System-Level Integrated

Concepts (SLICs).
Airspace Systems Projects and Roadmap (Slides 7 - 9)

VAMS is the starting point for defining and developing ideas on the direction for

the future. The VAMS project will build on previous or current ASPs, which

include the following:

• Terminal Area Productivity (TAP) (1994 - 2000), which

developed AVOSS technology and that will now will be brought

into VAMS to turn it from a "technology" project to a system

concept (WakeVAS)

• Short Haul Civil Tilt-Rotor (SHCT) (1994 - 2001), an aircraft

technology project, whose data need to be used to develop new

aircraft operations concepts

• Airspace Operations Systems (AOS) Base project, the basic

Human Factors project

• Advanced Air Transportation Technologies (AATT) (1996 - 2004)

• Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) (2001 - 2005),

which is new in ASP and will be the focus of point-to-point (PTP)

concepts

Concept of operations research is not in the VAMS name, but it is the most

important part of the VAMS effort. Congress is verbally supportive but wants to

see something concrete before providing real support. VAMS will develop the

vision for the future.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Jacobsen

There were no questions or comments for Mr. Jacobsen from the NASA research

announcement (NRA) participants.

2
o

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation

Technical Interchange Meeting

Mr. Harry N. Swenson

VAMS Project Manager, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Swenson's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Swenson

Introduction (Slides 1 - 3)

This meeting is a TIM not a workshop. For the purpose of Ames' Legal office

this TIM is a closed meeting; participants and companies signed nondisclosure

agreements, contracts or Space Act Agreements to participate. Open exchange of

information is desired. The VAMS NRA contracts, Space Act agreements, and

any other method to get the project goals accomplished will be used to bring

participants to the project. This agreement to share and blend ideas will be critical

to the success of the project and for the Aviation community at large.

We're looking for a vision of the future in operational concepts and we are

planning to utilize NASA and other's (FAA/RTCA) concepts to do this. NRA

participants are expected to provide a significant contribution to operations

concepts. We need to develop a view of the future that links NASA and the FAA

far-term visions. This includes development of the National Airspace System

modeling and simulation tools, along with evaluation methods and techniques, to

help us understand how these concepts can be put into operations over time and

an with the understanding of their benefits, limitations and costs. The three pillars

of VAMS which form the vision of the project are: Modeling and Simulation

Tools; Evaluation Methods and Techniques; and Operational Concepts.

The remainder of this briefing will discuss project description, project

management, project schedule, and an overview of the TIM, its objectives and

agenda.

A View of the Current System (Slides 4 - 6)

I will describe my view of today's baseline air transportation system (ATS)

operations. Today's ATS operations concept starts with an airplane at a gate and a

dispatcher giving him a request to fly the aircraft (passengers and/or cargo) from

its location (gate) to its destination (gate) in a specified period of time. Then the

aircraft asks for clearance from a controller in a tower to achieve this request and

it then progresses through the surface operation to the takeoff phase. Today, this

is all clone through voice directions from dispatch, to the pilot and back to the

controller, with the pilot and controller using just their eyes as sensors. The

takeoff phase is the stage at which advanced technology starts being used (radars,
etc.). The aircraft then moves through one or perhaps several controllers as it

enters and leaves the terminal phase into the en route airspace. The aircraft climbs

and enters en route airspace, going through many sectors and perhaps many

centers. Each handoff requires voice interaction between the pilot and a

controller. The aircraft then starts its descent phase back into a terminal

environment, talking to controllers and then finally to the surface again. The taxi

surface phase occurs when the flight plan is cleared. After the pilot talks to the

dispatcher, they begin their next adventure. Again, this is my view of the ATS.

As an example, a flight (Swenson's usual flight to NASA headquarters) from San

Francisco to Dulles passes through 35 sectors in a single flight:

• Six surface and terminal departure sectors

• Twenty-three en route sectors

• Six arrival sectors

At each stage of this flight a request has to be made to transition each of these

sectors along with the generation of permission to proceed. Now this example is

for a single aircraft, but the daily operations of 5000+ aircraft simultaneously is a

very complex scenario. The possible implication is that with the required amount

of coordination, and the large number of control structures to support them in the

current ATS, may be causing the system to become highly inefficient and overly

complex. On the other hand, with all the necessary checks and balances it is very

safe.

The new concepts must support known as well as unknown demands.. Since many

flights encounter off-nominal conditions in the routine of a 24 by 7 operation,

these advanced concepts must be tested against off-nominal conditions. The most

noteworthy example is September 11,2001. (Video of FACET/ETMS playback

of September 1 l th shutdown of the NAS is shown). The shutdown of the NAS is

just one of the off nominal conditions that our current ATS handles, and one

which must be handled by any future system.

VAMS Project Goals and Issues (Slides 7 - 9)

VAMS is required to provide new models and simulations to provide the safe

investigation of new concepts and technologies. The current process for

conceptual and technological introduction into the NAS includes extensive and

expensive real-time simulation and field testing, but the process is limited in the

complexity of analysis it can support. Typically, we simulate our technologies

using the feedback of one to four controllers, where the concept or technology can

have impact on hundreds of controllers or aircraft. VAMS will try to extend the

number of controllers' actions that can be used to evaluate, via simulation, the

real impact of advance concepts and technologies. The VAMS project was given

enough money to think and analyze, but not enough to develop technologies other

than those necessary to model or simulate the airspace system.

New operational concepts need to be explored in relation to the following:

• Benefits, risks, and limits

4
• Infrastructurerequirements

• Transitionalstrategiesfor operationsandinfrastructure

Weneedto startdevelopingtheadvancedconceptstoday.Thiswill leadto

developingtechnologyroadmapsfor R&D aswell astransition.In addition,we

needto determinehowour ideaswill addresslimits, i.e.,infrastructurechallenges

to achieveNASA's long-termperformancegoals(threetimesemplanements,

twicethemobility).

A goodway to understandthis requirementisto look at historicaldemand.The

propagationof existingemplanementdataintothefuturesupportsthegoalsto

achievethreetimescapacityfor theNAS in the2020's. Thereisalsoadirect

relationshipbetweenthespeedof thetransportationsystemandtheeconomic

growthit supports. If wewish to continuethelong-termeconomicgrowththatis

attributedto thequick andexpeditiousmovementof peopleandgoods,thanwe

needto find waysto increasethecapacityof theNAS. Wewerequestionedin

thedaysfollowing September11thas to why we're starting VAMS now.

Couldn't we wait a couple of years? Data shows that in the past, demand has

leveled off at times (as in our current crisis) but there has always been a rebound

that is followed a steady growth in delays.

There are several issues that this project is addressing. The NAS is on the verge of

gridlock and this will have severe negative impacts on our economy and mobility.

New concepts are needed to meet the future capacity demands. Substantial

change is needed to NAS operations. What we are doing is focusing this project

beyond the current path of development (i.e., over the next 5-7 years) -- looking

beyond 2010 to 2020. A substantial change in the system requires substantial

improvement to the tools. This implies a revolutionary approach (concept) and the

ability to model, simulate, and evaluate these tools and concepts in the NAS as a

whole. In other words, we need to develop a "seamless digital airspace" as

described in the NASA Blueprint for Aviation.

VAMS Project Overview (Slides 10 - 13)

We know that there are existing models that need to be pulled into an extensible

architecture. There is also a need for improved models, which are more

encompassing in nature. A need also exists to validate a tool set developed as part

of this effort.

Three major project goals exist:

1. Validate a tool set based on existing ATS concepts.

2. Evaluate and assess a revolutionary integrated operational concept based

on validated tool set.

3. Develop a technology roadmap to implement the advanced concept.

This is really the project's major deliverable.

The terms and definitions we've been using within VAMS are consistent with the

way the has FAA described the evolution of the NAS operational concept for a

5
numberof years. Definitions how here are: Operational Concept; Modeling;

Simulation; Real Time; and Non Real Time. Operational Concept definition

addresses the functions required in an ATS. The future system will have to

address all the functions that the current air transportation system addresses. How

VAMS functions are implemented may change over time, and we will need to be

aggressive to meet future needs (i.e., adding new, more aircraft). We need to

establish a functional link between the current FAA OEP-oriented approach and

this future-oriented program that looks backwards from the performance needs of

the future. Modeling and simulation definitions are pulled very nearly from

Webster's. The real-time is a special qualifier on simulation that is needed to

support the human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments. Non-real-time simulations

can be faster or slower than real world, usually to support Monte-Carlo

approaches to analysis.

The VAMS technical process describes, "how we're going to do it." Within this

process, we are defining and analyzing operational concepts and scenarios using

the taxonomy you'll hear more about later from Rob Fong. We need to analyze

these with policy goals and socio-economic models. We are also developing a

modeling environment. This environment will start out low fidelity and non-realtime, but will evolve to high fidelity and real-time over the next few years. We

need to do this keeping in mind our three project goals. This process of

developing concepts and using our modeling environment to evaluate them and

the development of our roadmaps is an iterative one. It will be cycled at least

twice with an integration step over the next five to six years.

There are lots of technical challenges. (The technical challenges for each of the

three VAMS areas - Modeling and Simulation; Evaluation and Assessment; and

Operations Concept and Analysis - in slide 10 were discussed.) Operations

Concept and Analysis, the focus of this TIM, centers on figuring out how to

develop operational concepts that will achieve NASA's Enterprise goals (e.g., the

three times the emplanements). Seamless integration of all the concepts and tools

to be developed requires people meeting and working together. We need to

answer how we will accomplish the Enterprise goals using analysis of operational

concepts developed and their supporting technologies. As a result, we will bring

together and evaluate various operational concepts, that are expected to result in a

"'best of breed."

Future Concepts (Slides 14- 17)

A goal of the VAMS project is to break down barriers across all airspace domains

(strategic, regional, and tactical) for "seamless operation and reduced constraint."

The use of predictive aircraft trajectory knowledge of the future to break down the

barriers, is an extension of what we've been trying to accomplish with AATT,

OEP, and free flight phase 1 (FFP 1).

In the next 2-3 years we, as part of VAMS, will develop and assess the new

concepts. We'll have to develop tools to assess these new concepts and define the

"goodness of being seamless" as part of this project. Mr. Tom Romer will
provide details of the system tools approach for the airspace concept evaluation in

one of the next briefings.

Major steps include the following:

1. Requirements

2. Gap analysis and validations

3. Extension: a major extension of models--adding the real-time aspect

A library of models and an open architecture will be created for expansion of the

project into the community, so its members can participate in an evaluation of

concepts. We will also provide access to simulation and laboratory capability to

increase the fidelity of the "best" concepts. Annual software builds and an

incremental increase in capability will also be built into the project.

VAMS Project Summary, TIM Objectives (Slides 18 - 23)

VAMS will not deviate from project goals (the project deliverables are restated).

Annual updates to all the products associated with meeting these goals (including

annual builds of the modeling system) will be produced. Accomplishing these

goals requires us to do many jobs in parallel. You can see by looking at the

VAMS Roadmap (a linearized version of the VAMS Process chart), that this is a

complex project. Parallelism of elements increases development speed, but

challenges development integration. We're identifying concepts, scenarios and

metrics to meet the long-range goals of the Enterprise. The early focus will be on

requirements, definition, and non-real-time simulation and later on real-time

experiments. Facility integration isn't important until later when we get to the

large real-time experiments necessary to validate our integrated concepts.

We want to look to the future and define real-time experiments that extend what

we are currently able to do. We know how to do simulations with small numbers

of pilots and controllers. Our goal is to be able to simulate the actions of a large

number of controllers, increase fidelity by adding larger numbers of aircraft and

facilities, and validate the advanced concepts we develop. As we progress over

time on VAMS, we want be able to do NAS wide simulations first in non-realtime and later, if required, with as many real-time attributes as required to

understand the critical interactions of the humans within the NAS. We can then

feed the results of these experiments back to the concept developers, who can use

the later builds of the tools to evaluate them. The final activity at the end of the

roadmap is an evaluated, integrated system-wide concept of operations that

NASA can be proud of, and which is consistent with the project's interpretation of

the OMB and NASA management guidance.

As seen from this organization chart, VAMS is a large, distributed project.

(Identification of Harry as project manager, Del Weathers as deputy,

administrative support plus Project Level 3 leaders.)

One of this TIM's objectives is to integrate and begin to organize the project to

help manage it across multiple NASA centers and organizations: Ames Research

Center (ARC), Langley Research Center (LaRC), and Glenn Research Center
(GRC), along with our FAA and DOT collaborators. This is a programmatic

constraint of the project. VAMS is following the contracting guidance of NASA

Headquarters that specifies approximately 70 percent of its resources will be

contracted to the US aerospace industry and universities. To facilitate

coordination, all participants will meet twice a year. At this TIM we're going to

discuss the initial air transportation system concept definitions that we acquired

via the out NRA's. There were numerous proposals and we selected the best

concepts via this fair and open competition. ! congratulate the awardees and

welcome them aboard. There are also three items we've been struggling with,

which are the focus of the breakout sessions we have scheduled during this TIM:

initial technology roadmap definition; initiation of evaluation scenarios and

metric definition and development; and guideline development for concepts

assessment. In particular, we have not received guidance from Headquarters on

what a technology roadmap is. We hope we have the brainpower here to help us

determine what we will need to develop in this regard.

(Description of Agenda, along with TIM logistics is presented).

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Swenson

There were no questions for Mr. Swenson.

8
am

System-Level Integrated Concepts (SLIC) Overview

Mr. Robert Fong

Level 3 Manager, SLIC Sub-element, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Fong's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Fong

SLIC Overview (Slides 1 - 5)

The System-Level Integrated Concepts (SLIC) sub-element development process

is introduced. This first TIM has a concept element focus and is designed to

develop a common understanding of the problem, share initial concepts

information among all the concept developers, and transfer concepts information

to the modeling/simulation and assessment groups. The TIM will help the SLIC

meet its goals, which are to 1.) develop a unified capacity-increasing concept

from the concepts presented by the participants and 2.) create a technology

roadmap on how to develop and implement the unified concept. This will require

SLIC and participants to analyze, integrate, and synthesize the independent

concepts presented in the TIM into a unified capacity-increasing system concept.

Developing the Concepts (Slides 6 - 14)

SLIC will use a broad-based system engineering approach to develop the

concepts. The goal of this process is to produce mature concepts ready for

blending into a unified system-level operational concept. SLIC will use a fourphased concept development approach over the next 5 years. The initial concepts

were developed by six companies and also include three Government and one

university concept. These concepts will be discussed in more detail later in the

TIM. Note that social, economic, and political challenges exist and participants

must consider cost and safety benefits as well. Also note, the interactions that will

occur among the SLIC, VAST, and SEA sub-elements to exchange the necessary

requirements and information to develop, in-parallel, the mutually-dependent

concepts, simulation and modeling tools, and common scenario and metrics to

meet the VAMS project goals

Future Challenges (Slides 15 - 16)

SLIC will assign technical monitors to each concept team and participate in TIMs

twice a year to ensure necessary information is passed between concept

developers. It is important to note that the groups must continue to collaborate to

meet the key challenges.
Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Fong

After Mr. Fong's presentation, Harry Swenson (NASA VAMS project manager),

volunteered the following comments:

• This is no longer a competition. (The competition is over.)

Companies need to focus on developing and sharing their

concepts. (There will be plenty of opportunities for private

companies in the implementation of the concepts.)

• Participants need to cooperate and interact in an open dialog.

10
o

Virtual Airspace Simulation Technologies (VAST) Overview

Mr. Tom Romer

Level 3 Manager, VAST Sub-element, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Romer's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Romer

Introduction and VAST Overview (Slides 1 - 5)

The Virtual Airspace Simulation Technologies (VAST) sub-element includes

development of models and simulation capabilities to assess air transportation

system concepts and technologies. Presented today will be a VAST description,

VAST development approach, VAST interdependencies, VAST challenges, and a

summary.

VAST provides a validated virtual airspace simulation environment to assess the

integrated behavior of current and future air transportation system concepts by

developing two key components: the Airspace Concept Evaluation System

(ACES) - a system-level non-real-time environment, and the human-in-the-loop

(HITL) real time simulation environment. The next VAMS TIM, which will

occur in August, will be for VAST.

The ACES environment will be the initial focus of VAST development. ACES

will be used to identify the impact of new technologies, procedures and concepts

of operation on the safety, capacity, economics and security of the nation's air

transportation system.

The VAST organization consists of the following sub-task managers under Tom

Romer: Karlin Roth, ARC (ACES); Scott Malsom, ARC (HITL); and Steve

Mainger, GRC [Communication, Navigation, Surveillance (CNS)]. In addition,

Roger Remington, ARC [Human/Team Performance (HTP)] as a Level IV

manager looks to Karlin Roth for guidance on modeling. The ACES work is

under active development now. The HITL work is in a requirements development

phase through mid-2003. The CNS modeling at GRC is just getting underway. It,

and the HTP work, are scheduled for initial integration within ACES Build-3 (to

occur during CY04).

The VAST development approach for airspace modeling and simulation begins

with the development of ACES. This includes the system architecture and

development of models to support ATM system assessments through simulation

and analysis. Appropriate models and technologies developed within ACES will

be transferred and leveraged within the real-time simulation environment.

11
ACES Prototype and Simulation Build Development (Slides 6 - 10)

Current air transportation modeling and simulation systems are typically

monolithic and provide limited flexibility to evaluate new concepts. ACES will be

an airspace modeling toolbox designed to be flexible and expandable. Users will

be able to select interactive agent-based models appropriate for their

investigations. ACES development is leveraging the DOD's high-level

architecture (HLA) Run-Time Infrastructure (RTI) for the architecture

ti'amework. Simulation control for the agent-based models will be provided by a

simulation command and control system, and historical and generated data will

reside and be collected in a data repository.

Prototype demonstration scenario. Demonstration of the proof-of-concept

prototype occurred in February, 2002. It included federates of multiple airlines

flying through en route/sectors managed by controller federates. The prototype

used low-fidelity models, had 1,000 aircraft, and controllers in multiple sectors

and centers. Data, including fuel usage, conflicts and near misses, were recorded

to a database. A demonstration of this prototype will be conducted for the TIM

participants on Thursday.

ACES, Build-I development. Build-1 will establish the core architectural

foundation designed for flexibility, scalability and extensibility, and will expand

the initial set of models within the toolbox. In this build, efficiency will be traded

for improved run-time capability. Build-1 will not include the ability to study

radical system changes such as "free flight" (FF). This is due at the end of CY02.

Build-1 simulation description. Demonstration of Build-1 will use a scenario

based on the current ATM system, with multiple federates representing

functionality of the ATCSCC, ARTCCs, TRACONs, Airports, Aircraft, and

AOCs. The demonstration will prove the feasibility of the development approach

to capture the interactions between NAS entities.

ACES development summary. ACES will be developed and released in multiple

Builds throughout the life of the VAMS Project. The initial build focuses on

architecture development with low-to-medium model development. ACES will

progress with toolbox enhancements that will add more NAS functionality at

higher levels of fidelity. System and model validation will occur for each build.

The timeframe for the releases will be: Build-1 at the end of CY02, Build-2 at the

end of CY03, Build-3 in late CY04, and Build-4 at the end of CY05.

HITL Simulation (Slides 11 - 12)

Preliminary requirements are currently being established for the design of a

distributed network capability that integrates ATM simulators with real-time

software models. Requirement definitions will be completed in mid-CY03.

Development of the initial real-time system will progress until late CY04 and will

conclude with a validation experiment. Applicable models and technologies will

be leveraged from ACES and other uniquely real-time elements will be

developed. Multiple facility integration will be added and tested in late CY05.

Development of VAST real-time to support evaluations of future concepts will

12
continuethroughCY06 andexperimentalsupportwill beprovidedthrough the

end of the project.

Human/Team Performance Modeling (Slides 13-14)

Human and team performance models will be defined and developed for the

airspace modeling toolbox. Our current approach is to define cognitive demands,

individual and team decision strategies, and to evaluate means to develop rapid

reconfigurable operator models to assess new concepts. These models will be

initially integrated into the toolbox in Build-3.

Two sub-modeling teams will focus on the following:

1. Human performance models and team models operating in supervisory

paradigms and mixed initiative (human and automation) systems.

2. CNS modeling with focus on infrastructure requirements to support the

OPCONS (Glenn Research Center is the lead on CNS modeling)

CNS Modeling and Simulation (Slides 15 - 16)

Communication, navigation and surveillance modeling is being started at GRC by

defining gaps and needs. Existing models and tools will be leveraged first.

The simulation concept involves identification and characterization of CNS

element models for all NAS entities. An examination of all CNS interactions will

then allow for development of transactions-based models. These efforts will be

initially integrated into the toolbox in Build-3.

Conclusion and Summary (Slides 17 - 20)

The virtual airspace simulation environment concept and philosophy of design,

simply stated, is to create both non-real-time and real-time systems, with flexible

and expandable architectures, that will support modular "plug and play"

capabilities to select interactive models (and in the real-time system simulators)

for the assessment of air transportation system concepts.

Many VAST has interdependencies with other VAMS level 3 elements. Specific

inputs and outputs at each stage are required, with feedback to SEA and SLIC.

Annual Build releases of all software (minimum) will occur.

VAST challenges exist. VAST will need to be able to handle concepts that push

the limits of today's simulation capability. Identifying models in use across multielements, multi-agency, and multi-country boundaries will be demanding. The

project will need to impose some model structure standards to ensure the plugand-play structures will cooperate. There are also process challenges. How and

when do you give access to users? Early in the project? Late? As it matures,

release it to the whole community? We need to gain a consensus from other

modelers. Current models are internal to the lab and concept developers will

initially look to NASA for development.

13
Synopsisof Questions and Answers for Mr. Romer

After the presentation, Mr. Romer responded to questions from NRA participants

as follows:

Question: How do you find "gaps" in modeling capability?

Answer: As concepts mature we will have a better picture of what needs to

be modeled and we will begin to see gaps. Hopefully, future TIMs will

provide a mechanism we can use. A framework for finding the gaps will need

to be created.

Question: If we have existing models, can we bring them to the table? Or,

will NASA develop all the VAMS models?

Answer: Tom Romer and Harry Swenson: A framework will exist to allow

integration of legacy models through the Federation Object Model

specification (initial version to be released by the next TIM). This

specification can also be used to develop new models and form the basis for

others to contribute models, both open and "proprietary" ones.

Question: When will you do integration between HITL and the non-real-time

component?

Answer: The two systems are envisioned to be separate systems supporting

different perspectives of assessment. They will be complementary to each

other and provide feedback for improvement. The combined use of the two

systems will probably occur in 2005, sometime after the release and

validation of the initial real-time system.

14
So

Systems Evaluation and Assessment (SEA) Overview

Sandy Lozito

Level 3 Manager, SEA Sub-element, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Ms. Lozito's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Ms. Lozito

VAMS Sub-Elements Relationships (Slides 2 - 3)

The Systems Evaluation and Assessment (SEA) sub-element is new to the VAMS

project. The role of SEA is to develop the methods and metrics that the VAMS

project will use for evaluation of concepts. The SEA sub-element is

interdependent on the SLIC sub-element and the VAST sub-element. SEA will

provide scenario and metrics requirements to VAST, which will develop the

models for use in concept evaluation. SEA will then test the models and provide

strategies for testing to the SLIC sub-element. SLIC will provide the developed

concepts to SEA for evaluation. SEA will conduct the assessment and evaluation

of the selected concepts.

The SEA sub-element also has a relationship with the concept developers. The

concept developers will conduct a self-assessment of their concepts using their

own scenarios and metrics. The self-assessment metrics and scenarios will be

provided to the SEA sub-element for use in the overall definition of scenario and

metric requirements.

SEA Technical Challenges (Slides 4 - 5)

The VAMS project has identified key technical challenges in modeling and

simulation, evaluation and assessment, and operational concept and analysis. SEA

will focus on the evaluation and assessment technical challenges, which include

defining gate-to-gate and door-to-door measurable metrics, supporting and

defining appropriate scenarios, and the application of appropriate evaluation

methods. Evaluation methods and techniques similar to those used in the airground integration experiment will be the starting point for SEA activities.

SEA General Tasks and Goals (Slide 6)

SEA will be responsible for developing the requirements for the scenarios and

metrics that will drive the real-time tools created by the VAST sub-element. After

these tools are developed by VAST, the SEA sub-element will conduct an

evaluation assessment on the tools.

SEA will then use the VAST tools to conduct an initial assessment of the concepts

submitted to VAMS. A combined or blended set of concepts is planned for Phase

15
4 of VAMS. SEA will use the VAST tools to conduct an initial assessment of this

integrated set of concepts and the final evaluation of the selected concepts.

Scenario/Metric Requirements, Topics and Issues (Slides 7 - 9)

A common set of scenarios and metrics will be developed and used to evaluate the

capacity-increasing concepts of the VAMS project. SEA will be responsible for

defining the requirements of this standard set of scenarios and metrics. However,

it is realized that the scenarios and metrics will have to be tailor able to evaluate

some concepts. The starting point for the definition of the VAMS scenarios and

metrics will come from the concept developers themselves. Each concept will be

required to conduct a self-assessment using a set of scenarios and metrics. These

scenarios and metrics will be provided to SEA for use in developing the VAMS

scenario and metrics requirements.

SEA has also developed a set of guidelines that are listed in this presentation. In

addition, a set of scenario/metric questions has been developed that are the subject

of this TIM's second breakout session. These guidelines, and the output from the

breakout session, will be used by SEA to define the framework for the scenario

and metrics development.

SEA General Team Members (Slide 10)

The SEA team consists of NASA researchers along with representatives from San

Jose State University, VOLPE Transportation Systems Center, Seagull

Technology, Inc., and Monterey Technologies, Inc. The team is working on the

scenario definitions, metrics definitions, and framework to support the subelement.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Ms. Lozito

After the presentation, Ms. Lozito responded to questions and comments from

NRA participants as follows:

Question: Is there a requirement for SEA to validate the real-time tools

developed by VAST?

Answer: Sandy Lozito: There is not a specific requirement for SEA to

validate the real-time tool. The SEA group will do this implicitly through the

use of the real-time tool. It is a milestone in the VAST system engineering

plan.

Question: Will the methods and metrics developed by SEA consider the

business case as a stakeholder? How much of the business side will VAMS

consider?

Answer: Harry Swenson: There has been some delving into the business case

that has already been started by concept developers. There will be a need to

have limits put on the business-related issues addressed by VAMS.

Question: Will the new models be validated against the 1997 baseline of

concepts?

16
Answer: Yes, they will be validated both for non-real-time and real-time

model evaluation (a challenge).

17
6.

Air Traffic Management Concept of Operations and Their Impact

on the National Airspace System (NAS)

Wayne MacKenzie

FAA/ATP-401, Deputy Air Traffic Planning Division

Member Nominated by the US on the ICAO Air Traffic Management

Operational Concept Panel (ATMCP)

A copy of Mr. MacKenzie's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. MacKenzie

Background (Slides 1 - 5)

Evolution of an air traffic management (ATM) system from concept to

implementation proceeds through the "vision/operational capabilities" phase, the

"architectural development" phase in which the ATMS system design is

formulated, and the implementation phase.

Operational concepts relate to the planning process, with the global planning

[developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)] and regional

planning [also performed by ICAO] serving to facilitate the integration of

operational concepts from the national level, so that they do not conflict or

become counterproductive with each other, but, rather, work together. Regional

planning is influenced in a top-down fashion by global planning and in a bottomup fashion by the national plan. National planning is performed by the ICAO

member states (e.g., USA) themselves.

Operational concepts, along with other plans and services, affect the NAS

modernization process of the USA. This includes the NAS architecture and its

R&D efforts. Results in enhanced capabilities for the NAS are achieved through

the guidance/approval process under the FAA's Acquisition Management System.

Gate-to-Gate ATM Operational Concept (Slide 6)

The focus of the ICAO ATMCP has been to develop and describe a gate-to-gate

ATM operational concept that facilitates evolutionary implementation of a

seamless global ATM system. Such an operational concept is visionary, i.e., not

limited by the present level of technology, lead to the benefits expected from

CNS/ATM, and provide the basis for cost-benefit analyses of the ATM systems.

ICAO has now developed such a gate-to-gate operational concept. This endeavor

has required two years of effort, by 29 people representing 29 nations that include

representatives from the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers

Association and the International Association of Airline Pilots Association.

18
Invariant Processes and Their Key Conceptual Changes (Slides 7- 10)

ICAO's Operational Concept Document has identified the following items as

invariant processes (i.e., must be considered in any ATM system design), each

with the key conceptual changes listed:

• Airspace organization and management: all airspace will be the

concern of ATM, airspace management is dynamic and flexible,

and any airspace restrictions are transitory.

• Aerodrome operations: runway occupancy time is reduced, safe

maneuvering occurs in all weather, precise surface guidance

occurs, and the position and intent of all vehicles and aircraft are

known.

• Demand and capacity balancing: assets are optimized to

maximize throughput, adjustment is made to mitigate imbalance,

and dynamic adjustment is made to the organization of airspace.

• Traffic synchronization: dynamic 4-D trajectory control and

negotiated conflict-free trajectories are made, chokepoints are

eliminated, and traffic sequencing is optimized.

• Airspace user operations: accommodation of mixed-capabilities

and worldwide implementation needs are made, ATM data are

available as needed, relevant airspace information is available,

dynamically optimized 4-D trajectory planning is performed,

impacts on the ATM system are taken into timely account, and

aircraft are designed with ATM system optimization as a key

consideration.

• Conflict management: strategic conflict management reduces

separation provision, the pre-determined separator is the airspace

user, role of the separator may be delegated, separation provision

intervention capability is made, conflict horizon is extended, and

collision avoidance systems are a part of safety management.

• ATM service delivery management: services are delivered on an

as-required basis; ATM design is determined by collaborative

decision making (CDM), safety, and business cases; services are

balanced and user-requested trajectories optimized; and

management is by trajectory.

Information services are included as enablers, but are not invariant processes;

these include information management, meteorological information, and other

essential services.

RTCA NAS Concept of Operations (Slides 11 - 12)

The RTCA NAS concept of operations (CONOPS) relates to the ICAO model

with the following observations: it is NAS-specific (i.e., at the national level),

incorporates needs and requirements of NAS users and service providers, and is

19
basedontheFreeFlight(FF)concept.Thus,furtherdevelopmentof FF will affect

the RTCA concept.

The RTCA NAS CONOPS has the following characteristics:

• Safety is the first priority.

• Environmental considerations are taken into account.

• Implementation of any new technologies must improve safety and

efficiency of the operation environment.

• HITL is included.

• Quality of data, information exchange, and collaborative decision

making are key.

• Separation assurance remains the responsibility of the service

provider (although it can be delegated to flight crews for specific

operations).

• It is divided into near-term (2005), mid-term (2005 - 2010), and

far-term (2010 - 2015).

• In contrast, the ICAO global operational concept is based on

2025.

• It specifically mentions the following:

- Systems [instrument landing system (ILS), microwave landing

system (MLS), global positioning system (GPS), enhanced

ground proximity waming system (EGPWS), cockpit display

of traffic (CDTI), etc.]

• Facilities [Air Traffic Control System Command Center

(ATCSCC), Airline Operations Center (AOC), final operating

capability (FOC)]

• Procedures (DPs)

• Solutions (pre-departure clearances, ATIS-type messages)

• In contrast, a global operational concept is technology

independent; no system acronyms exist.

• It is written with the civil user, DOD users, and space

transportation users as the only community affecting or depending

on use of the NAS.

• In contrast, the ICAO global operational concept defines the

"ATM Community" as one that includes the airport operators,

support industry, regulatory authorities, etc.

Where Do We Go from Here (Slide 13)

The International Civil Aviation Organization plans the release of the draft ICAO

Operational Concept Document in the June/July time frame to all member states.

20
It is theirintentthatit beadoptedat theICAO meetingin 2003.(A copyof this

draftdocumenthasbeenplacedontheWebsitefor thisNRA TIM,

www.asc.nasa.gov/vams/.)

BasedontheOperationalConceptsDocument,theICAOP's ATMCP will prepare

operationalcapabilities,needs,andrequirements.

TheRTCA is currentlyworking onthenextversionof theNAS CONOPS,which

will includetheadditionof securityfunctions.

Conclusions(Slide 14)

Concept of operations should be the basis for R&D and requirements

development, thus ensuring a focus on operational needs, not necessarily technical

capabilities. CONOPS are of critical importance to understanding future

directions of the NAS.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. MacKenzie

There were no questions for Mr. MacKenzie.

21
o

System Level Capacity Increasing Concept

Mr. Bob Schwab and Mr. A! Sipe

Boeing Operational Concepts Team

A copy of Mr. Schwab's and Mr. Sipe's presentation is attached as part of the

appendix and is available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Schwab and Mr. Sipe

Boeing's Development Process (Slides I - 6)

Comments by Mr. Schwab: The Boeing development process includes the use of

"'working together teams" to address the broad questions needed for operational

concepts that drive the system's technical requirements and architecture.

Especially important is the need to use a formal system engineering process that

establishes a measure of mission, a measure of effectiveness, and system

performance requirements. Trade studies are an important part of the process and

should focus on processes as well as provide answers to specific questions. The

initial operational concept is capacity driven with cost as an important factor. The

fundamental services a new ATC system will perform with the support services

required are described. In preparing their concept, Boeing has separated the

planning component from the execution component.

An operational concept trade study result is depicted in slide 5. In this study,

Boeing is determining how far they can push the planning horizon to facilitate

separation management. The lower the traffic density, the more one can use free

flight and procedural control instead of traffic management advisor radar

vectoring and strategic concepts.

Concepts (Slides 7 - 12)

Comments by Mr. Sipe: The core concepts and key ATM functions of a new ATC

system are described. The identification of core concepts allows an analyst to

study the functions supported by the users of the system. Boeing quantifies

requirements to trade off performance against system constraints. Trade studies

are used to optimize total system performance. Three trade studies are cited as

examples. The first study's objective was to determine how far you can plan and

still keep the system stable (e.g., if something unusual happens, the effect this has

on the plan). The second study's objective was to determine what functions

needed to be done on the ground versus in the air. The third study's objective was

to determine which functions were to be done by machine and which required

human beings. Boeing has identified more than 150 trade studies that need to be

completed. The overall schedule is shown in slide 12.

22
Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Schwab and Mr. Sipe

After the presentation, Mr. Schwab and Mr. Sipe responded to questions from

NRA participants as follows:

Question: What equipage will be needed?

Answer: Boeing is laying out their operational concepts before they

determine their technology and equipage needs. The trade studies will

provide metrics for making decisions.

Question: How does Boeing know they have the right answer given that

different users need different things?

Answer: Boeing's decisions will be based on affordability. Their challenge is

to price each aspect.

Question: What is the stability of their answer? Are they working with a nonlinear system?

Answer: Part of Boeing's assessment will be to evaluate the stability of their

plan.

Question: Are Boeing's activities similar to those conducted to determine

scenarios and metrics?

Answer: They must collaborate with the group, determining scenarios and

metrics for maximum efficiency.

Question: Does Boeing separate planning activities?

Answer: Yes, establishing the planning horizons is a key part of our concept.

23
go

Technologies Enabling All-Weather Maximum Capacity by 2020

Dr. Jimmie Krozel

Metron Aviation

A copy of Dr. Krozel's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Krozel

The Need for All-Weather Capabilities (Slides 1 - 8)

Weather is a key factor in an effort to increase capacity. Currently, the NAS is not

robust to weather disturbances. Systems work in low weather interference but

when increased demand and weather interference are combined, an interactive

amplification of the problem occurs. Use of the Post-Operations Evaluation Tool

(POET) tool can be leveraged to show differences in flights as flown, as opposed

to as filed, to identify hotpots or trials done.

Core Ideas (Slides 13 - 18)

The triad of stakeholders [flight decks (FD), airline operation centers (AOC), and

air traffic service providers (ATSP)] all need to have buy-in. Key ideas are

optimal weather avoidance and robust weather avoidance. The notion of a feasible

route has implications for sensitivity studies. We'll also need to look into

incorporation of weather predictions into estimated time of arrivals and be able to

accommodate the maximum information available into collaborative decision

making to improve predictability.

Enabling Technologies (Slides 19 - 23)

In the area of weather sensing and prediction, we will completely mosaic the NAS

by 2010. Data mining and prior historical data will be used to focus the areas of

concern in the NAS and weather. Synthetic vision, new displays, etc., for ATSP

and the flight deck will be used to lessen the impact of severe weather. Further

efficient surface automation is needed to reduce the impact of severe weather on

capacity.

Metrics of Goodness (Slide 24)

Capacity, flexibility, efficiency, predictability, safety, environment, and delay are

important metrics.

Costs and Benefits (Slides 27 - 31)

The tools POET, Future ATM Concepts Evaluation Tool (FACET), Noise

Integrated Routing System (NIRS) Tool, and the Airspace, Design, Planning and

Evaluation Tool (ADEPT) will be used to help visualize the problems and

24
solutionsfrom theexistingdata,helpingto providethe analysis of historical data

and development of the metrics of goodness for the scenario-based concept

development. Multiple iterations of this analysis and concept

development/evaluation will be necessary.

Getting There (Slide 32)

We have the talent, knowledge, and ideas. We just need to pursue them and

validate them through demonstrations.

Synopsis of questions and Answers for Dr. Krozel

No questions were asked following Dr. Krozel's talk.

25
e

Massive Point-to-Point and On-Demand

Air Transportation System Investigation

John Sorensen

Seagull Technology, Inc.

A copy of Mr. Sorensen's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Sorensen

Concept PTP Team (Slide 3)

The Point-to-Point (PTP) Concept team consists of industry representatives, each

with a specific area of expertise. Seagull Technology will focus on air traffic

management (ATM). Honeywell will focus on aircraft and avionics, weather

delays, airborne human factors, and security. ITT will focus on CNS. Titan will

focus on how to integrate safety and ground system human factors. United

Airlines will provide information on general aviation and commercial operations,

including fractional jet operations. Federal Express will supply a package delivery

perspective.

Issues with Future NAS (Slide 4)

The hub-and-spoke system in use by the airlines is rapidly approaching gridlock.

The addition of new runways at major hubs is costly and politically difficult to

achieve. The hub and spoke system is becoming time inefficient and unpleasant to

the traveler. Many business travelers are moving to smaller jets for direct flights.

This will increase the need for new smaller jets requiring instrument flight rules

(IFR) services.

The current airspace structure was designed to accommodate moderate traffic

flows that follow static air routes. This design is inconsistent with the free flight

systems under development. In addition, the static sector design is affected by

dynamic weather conditions. En route densities will only increase with the

addition of the smaller jet traffic.

The NAS has over 5,400 airports currently underutilized. Will they be converted

to shopping malls or become an airport point of entry for terrorists?

Concept PTP Core Idea (Slide 5, 9 - 10)

Using census data, the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) project has

determined that 93 percent of the population resides within 30 minutes of a

SATS-type airport, 41 percent reside within 30 minutes of any commercial

airport, and only 22 percent reside within 30 minutes of a major or hub airport.

The concept PTP core idea is to facilitate and incorporate massive use of point-topoint and on-demand air transportation, principally from the smaller underutilized

26
airports.Thepremisebehindthe PTP concept is that it will add overall

transportation capacity and relieve hub and spoke gridlock. When implemented,

the PTP concept will take advantage of SATS-type airports and new airplanes

with augmentations to the existing NAS system components. These components

include the ATM systems, fleet operations infrastructure systems, and commercial

aircraft operations management processes.

Key Assumptions and Benefits to PTP Concept (Slides 6 - 7)

The increase of passenger travel over the next 25 years will create a demand for

smaller aircraft serving more airports and other facilities. Continued urban sprawl

and road congestion will increase the overall door-to-door travel time. The

increase in the number of aircraft to service the demand will create a demand for

point-to-point routing between airports. Corporate America will require an ondemand travel service to avoid airport hassles, provide for improved security, and

save time.

The PTP concept will harness the existing smaller unused airports to increase

NAS capacity. The use of additional airports and the point-to-point routing will

provide an increase in transportation efficiency. The benefit analysis with a doorto-door multi-modal perspective will measure the reduction in total travel time.

The system modeling planned and subsequent benefit analysis will provide an

estimate of the potential overall gain in NAS capacity.

Concept Poses Key Technical Challenges (Slide 8)

The six core ideas of concept PTP are designed to address the key technical

challenges that are anticipated in utilizing the smaller airports and increased

number of aircraft. The key challenges to be addressed involve unifying fleet and

flow management infrastructure; the need for a more flexible, distributed ATM

system; and the need for better equipped aircraft in terms of capable and uniform

avionics.

Six Basic Concept PTP Core Ideas (Slides 11 -21)

Each core idea is presented with a high-level summary of what areas the core idea

will address. The six concept PTP core ideas are:

• Provide non-towered airports with ATM automation

• Use terminal area time-based ATM

• Integrate strategic en route ATM and flight management

• Integrate PTP fleet operations (dispatch)

• Accommodate broader aircraft spectrum with advanced avionics

• Provide integrated CNS and weather information infrastructure

27
First Steps in Describing Concept PTP (Slides 22 - 23)

The first step of the PTP concept will concern the two models to be created. The

initial model will be based on year 2020 projections for traffic demand and will

focus on high-use areas such as the northeast corridor or the Los Angeles Basin. It

will include city-pair flight plans within the region for various types and number

of aircraft, and will be used to quantify ATM and fleet management challenges.

This model will also be used to study what aircraft functions can be moved from

large airports to small ones.

The second model the functional and will emphasize the components needed to

complement the hub-and-spoke developments. This functional model will help

define the roles of the participants and automation within the concept.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Sorensen

After the presentation, Mr. Sorensen responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Comment: The new security requirements being considered may require all

aircraft to be radar tracked.

Comment: There will be resistance from the aircraft owners and fleet

operators to new equipment requirements that this concept may require.

Question: How much capacity increase will be available with Concept PTP?

Answer: That is a good question that is part of the task.

Question: Does the concept include any analysis of the environmental effect

(noise, traffic) of small airport use?

Answer: Not at this time, but it could be added.

28
10.

Optimization in the National Airspace System

Dr. Banavar Sridhar

NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Dr. Sridhar's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Sridhar

Problem Description (Slides 1 - 5)

Definitions of the terms capacity, throughput, efficiency, and traffic flow

management (TFM) objective are provided so the participants can share a

common perspective for the TFM problem that is being studied. The particular

focus is on the development of en route algorithms to optimize traffic flow rates

to meet demand. There is a potential of sector congestion in the en route area if

one went from 10,000 to 50,000 aircraft. Air route traffic control centers having

many inter-center boundary connections [such as the Kansas City Center (ZKC)]

will have more complicated sector traffic.

Research Plan (Slides 6 - 7)

The research planned is divided into developing algorithms and concepts to

maximize the capabilities of the current system, and, developing algorithms and

concepts for the future system. The future system will require the development of

a scenario database. Research efforts will be coordinated with other VAMS

concept development efforts and evaluate research results with FACET. FACET

provides an excellent tool for exploring advanced ATM concepts and has been

created in a manner that balances fidelity with flexibility.

Examples (Slides 8 - 14)

Two examples of the use of FACET are provided. In the first example, he shows

how FACET could be used to study departures from New York when "west

gates" are not available. The current system is overloaded even in nominal

conditions. Simulation shows that departure delays from LaGuardia and Newark

can be used to solve the "no west gates" problem and the key is to determine the

best combination of departure delays.

The second example demonstrates how FACET can be used when existing

constraints are not in place (i.e., the free flight era). FACET compares the results

from wind-optimal routes, versus sequential trajectory planning, versus great

circle routes. Continuous replanning could take care of conflicts in the free flight

era.

29
Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Dr. Sridhar

After the presentation, Dr. Sridhar responded to questions from NRA participants

as follows:

Question: Have you looked at uncertainties?

Answer: Yes, but it is unclear if examining probabilities helps the ATC that

much.

Question: Are optimization algorithms iterative?

Answer: They are performed sequentially. The use of sequential calculations

has not been a problem since only a few optimizations are performed.

Question: Was the optimal ATC video at 35,000 feet only?

Answer: Yes, this is why there were so few aircraft in the movie.

30
11.

Daily Agenda Questions and Comments

Mr. Harry Swenson

VAMS Project Manager, NASA Ames Research Center

Mr. Swenson encouraged participants of the TIM to forward any general

questions and comments to him. He indicated he would provide the answers to

the group during the Daily Agenda session on Day 2 and Day 3 of the TIM.

Questions and Answers for Mr. Swenson during the Daily Session for Day 2:

Question: Do we have an acronym list?

Answer: Yes, it is available at the registration desk.

Question: Will the VAST architecture support concept models?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Who will code the VAST product?

Answer: The VAST team will contribute the general models necessary for

multiple concept modeling. Concept developers will work within the

Federates Object Model (FOM) and the Application Program Interface (API)

framework to produce concept models specific to their concept.

Question: When will the CD with the presentations be available?

Answer: The program is targeting Wednesday, 5/29, to mail a CD to each

presenter and/or organization that is working on VAMS.

Comment from floor: Develop the Integrated Concepts sooner in the

[VAMS] project. Do not develop separate concepts then try to "staple

integrate" too late in the project.

Response - There is nothing in the project that stops this desire.

Comment from floor: It seems that CNS tools are integrated late, i.e, Build3 of VAST. [VAMS] Needs to deliver and integrate sooner.

Response - Every build will have limited CNS capabilities as a function of

the scenarios.

Comment from floor: Need to release VAMS framework requirements

sooner.

Comment from floor: We need a common WWW-site location where

information can be distributed on concepts, models and overviews.

31
12.

Capacity Improvements

Through Automated Surface Traffic Control

Dr. Brian Capozzi

Metron Aviation

A copy of Dr. Capozzi's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Capozzi

The Need for Surface Automation (Slide 3)

The Metron Aviation concept will study improvements in the automation of

surface movement of aircraft. It can be assumed that the number of runway and

taxiway incursions will increase as the number of aircraft moving on the surface

increases. Factors that affect the number of incursions include gate availability,

runway configurations, runway occupancy time, wake vortex separation

requirement, communications difficulties, visibility, and controller workload.

Metron has assembled a team of topical experts in the fields of path optimization,

algorithmic design, autonomous systems, surface automation, decision support

tools, ATSP experience, and human factors to address the concept.

Concept Overview and Core Ideas (Slides 5 - 9)

The automation of surface traffic will be controlled by a synchronized motion

plan for each aircraft. This motion plan will be determined by a set of algorithms

and will control a set of taxi lights imbedded into the airport surfaces. The pilot

will simply follow the green taxi lights across the airport surface. Taxi clearances

will be generated and received via automation. Aircraft positions will be

monitored with the assistance of GPS and automatic dependent surveillancebroadcast (ADS-B) systems. Automation will provide updated flight strip

information to the terminal and en route automation systems. The human role will

be to establish the motion goals and parameters and monitor the system's safety.

The inputs to the planning algorithms will consist of the surface movement goals

and constraints, NAS demand inputs, the number of gate resources available, and

aircraft position. Output of the planning algorithm will be a set of best path maps

with multiple plans to account for uncertainty in the system. The planning

algorithm will also factor in non-constant constraints such as passenger load and

unload times, gate services/maintenance times, de-icing requirements, and other

traffic flow management initiatives.

Representative examples of the possible failure states of the operational concept

are provided. The examples show what will happen when blunders or failure

conditions are detected. The system will attempt to resolve the conflict. If the

32
conflict cannotberesolved,thesystemwill generateastopconditionthatwill

thenrequirehumaninterventionto resumeoperation.

Enabling Technologyand TechnologyRoadmaps(Slides10- 3)

Thisconceptwill requireimprovementsin certainenablingtechnologiesthat

include:aircraftpositioningvia GPS,ADS-B, or airportsurfacedetection

equipment-ModelX; taxiway light controlsystems;andweatheranduser

responseprediction.Otheradvancesin displaytechnologysuchascockpitdisplay

of traffic (CDTI) movingmapsandaugmentedreality displayscanbe

incorporatedinto theconceptof automationof surfacetraffic.

Thetransitionin therolesandresponsibilitiesof pilotsandcontrollerswill alsobe

akey factorin thetransitionto this system.But thetransitionwill evolveover

timeasnewtechnologiesbecomeavailable.Theuseof smallerairportssuchas

thosesuggestedby thepoint-to-pointconceptcouldbea startingplaceforthis

system,followed by a migrationto largerairports.

Metrics of Goodness (Slides 14- 16)

Metron plans to use a number of their proposed metrics to evaluate this concept.

These metrics, with available tools such as POET and FACET, will provide a

measure of the performance of the system.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Dr. Capozzi

After the presentation, Dr. Capozzi responded to questions and comments from

NRA participants as follows:

Question: Who gives final (takeoff) clearances?

Answer: There is a handoff between the surface and terminal agents. The

answer is it depends on what the terminal concept is. For an intelligent

runway system, it may be that system.

Question: Would surface vehicles need special equipment?

Answer: In reality, the gate will probably be under the control of a person, so

they will probably handle these. If the vehicle is on the runway, the tower

controllers will probably handle this on an exception basis.

Question: The presentation mentioned that there would not be any equipment

changes for the aircraft. What would be required for the airports?

Answer: That is a subject that will be explored in the concept.

33
13.

Surface Operations Automation Research

Dr. Victor H. L. Cheng

Optimal Synthesis Inc.

A copy of Dr. Cheng's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Cheng

Background (Slides 1 - 8)

The Federal Aviation Administration's National Airspace System (NAS)

Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) has identified that congestion at key hub

airports has become a major problem and airports are a congestion point for the

NAS. The Surface Operations Automation Research (SOAR) concept seeks to

increase capacity by enhancing space (increasing runways and taxiways) and

density (reducing separation). Increasing real estate (runways) is only part of the

solution. In particular, Dallas/Fort Worth airport (DFW) has seven runways,

which has led to other problems, e.g., inside runways block outer runways and

ramp areas. In addition, DFW now has more runway crossings to handle. An

example is a taxi delay problem at DFW where up to nine aircraft may have to

queue up to get to a runway. The OEP is seeking solutions for runway-crossing

issues for the mid-term (2002 - 2004) and far-term (2005 - 2010).

Surface Operation Automation Research (SOAR) Concept (Slide 9)

The SOAR concept will depend on a centralized decision-making distributed

control paradigm. SOAR will automate ground control and the flight deck. A

prototype Ground-Operation Situation Awareness and Flow Efficiency (GOSAFE) system has been developed as well as a flight deck automation for the

ground operations system. The SOAR concept is founded on the integrated

operation of both systems.

Ground Control and Flight Deck Automation (Slides 10 - 22)

The desired functions for ground-control operations are shown on slide 10. The

GO-SAFE system addresses these desired functions. Controllers can edit taxi

routes to optimize taxi routing with GO-SAFE. This system allows new taxi

spatial routing and can be used to make taxi temporal adjustments. The GO-SAFE

system contains conflict detection, resolution functions, and a decision support

system. The cockpit will still have ultimate responsibility but the use of auto-taxi

will require increased automation. The decision support system contains a

schedule manager to perform scheduling for runway use and runway crossings. In

particular, this system allows several aircraft to cross a runway at difference

points. The GO-SAFE system also contains a clearance manager (see slide 19)

and an information exchange system (see slide 20).

34
Thedesiredfunctionsthat will beperformedontheflight deckareshownin slide

21. A flight deck system is needed for the tight control requirements of precisiontaxi. The pilot interface is a key challenge and current systems are not acceptable.

It is expected that the near-term system will contain automation assistance for

more control.

Integration of Automation Systems and Evaluation Metrics (Slides 23 - 25)

The focus is on creating a more user-friendly integration of ground and flight

deck automation systems. The top-level model for the new system is shown in

slide 24 and the criteria for evaluating the new system is shown in slide 25. If you

reduce uncertainty, there is less chance of conflict and safety is increased even if

less separation exists.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Dr. Cheng

After the presentation, Dr. Cheng responded to questions from NRA participants

as follows:

Question: How will Metron and Optimal Synthesis concepts be integrated?

Answer: The VAMS environment and framework will be used to aid

integration. The details of this integration have not been fully developed.

Comment from the floor: We will study the limiting factors and create a

timeline of surface-movement stages in bottleneck situations.

Question: How effective has the system been to date?

Answer: The SBIR results did not focus on getting the required data.

Comment from floor: We need to know how accurately we need to make

the required predictions.

35
14.

Centralized Terminal Operation Control (CTOC) Concept

John Fergus

Northrop Grumman Information Technology

A copy of Mr. Fergus' presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Fergus

Operating Domains (Slide 3)

The operating domain of the Centralized Terminal Operation Control (CTOC)

concept will address is the terminal area. Specifically, the concept applies to the

departure and arrival phase of a flight. The concept will provide for the sharing of

information and interfaces with overlapping areas such as runway allocations and

en route processing.

Current Terminal Issues (Slides 4 - 5)

An under-utilization of terminal airspace exists in the system in the form of

spacing inconsistencies. Some of these are due to pilot reactions to controller

directives, communications errors, reduced visibility conditions, and aircraft

performance differences. There are also conditions for which a controller can

identify an unauthorized use of the airspace but cannot prevent it.

CTOC Concept and Core Ideas (Slides 6 - 8)

The premise behind the Centralized Terminal Operation Control (CTOC) concept

is to provide remote control of the aircraft while it is in the terminal area. This is

similar to the maritime industry's use of a harbor pilot to navigate specific harbors

and approaches. Terminal specialists will be the equivalent of the harbor pilot.

The approach is based on the reasoning that having a single operator reduces

communications and behavior variability.

This concept will depend on improved aircraft technologies such as datalink and

flight management system (FMS). The CTOC will interface with decision support

tools to provide predictable, consistent, and conflict-free trajectories. Remote

control of the aircraft may be adjusted based on ATM flow constraints. The pilot

will always have the ability to override the CTOC commands for flight safety.

CTOC Benefits/Metrics (Slide 9)

The potential benefits are increased capacity, efficiency, safety, and reduced

costs. Each candidate benefit has its own set of metrics identified.

36
CTOC Challenges (Slide 10)

The challenges to the CTOC concept will include acceptance by all parties, in

particular the flight crew and flying public. Other CTOC challenges are the

human factors considerations for the terminal specialist, operational procedures

for transfer of control, overrides protocols to be established, and the presence of

aircraft of different types. The legal impact of CTOC roles and responsibilities

will also be a challenge for the CTOC concept.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Fergus

After the presentation, Mr. Fergus responded to questions from NRA participants

as follows:

Question: At what point would the pilot take over from the "specialist"?

Answer: The pilot may take over at the surface threshold. This is uncertain

because an active runway system could be involved.

Question: Have you considered unmanned aerial vehicles?

Answer: Nothing we have done excludes this. It should fit into the concept.

Question: Have you considered different airport layouts like Dulles?

Answer: We have not really considered them.

Question: Have you considered departures, active weather, and satellite

airports?

Answer: Yes, we have considered them to a limited degree at this point.

Question: Do you have specialists for different types of aircraft? How many

aircraft do you think each can handle?

Answer: We do not know yet. It is a good research question.

37
15.

Terminal Area Capacity Enhancement Concept (TACEC)

Mr. Ken Arkind

Air Traffic Management Systems, Raytheon

A copy of Mr. Arkind's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Arkind

Background (Slides 1 -5)

Raytheon's definition of the terminal area-operating domain mirrors the

description in the Federal Aviation Administration's Operational Evolution Plan.

VAMS and the OEP are predicting dramatic increases in the number of airport

operations despite the fact that NAS is operating at or near capacity. To solve the

capacity problem, the FAA OEP envisions that the majority of capacity growth

will come from building new runways; in contrast, his capacity-increasing

concepts will focus on new technologies. The consequences of increased traffic in

the terminal area are shown on slide 5.

TACEC (Slides 6- 14)

Raytheon's Terminal Area Capacity Enhancement Concept (TACEC) is built on

the belief that the technology exists today to significantly reduce separation

standards. We need to build confidence in this technology and, in particular, the

fault-monitoring technology. The evolution will be difficult and all stakeholders'

requirements must be addressed. Key elements for increasing capacity in the

terminal area are the new data link which must provide secure communications

and the use of the local area augmentation system.

Within TACEC, the operational environment can be created by computations

with specific algorithm approaches developed to maximize throughput. TACEC

will still require the human element as well as some enhancing automation. In

particular, humans will be required to ensure proper response to abnormal

situations. As an example of a problem that must be resolved, humans commit to

vectoring an aircraft, while a computer does not commit if later calculations show

a new alternative.

Implementing TACEC will require a redefinition of the human role in the system.

The core of the redefined role will be the division between what the participant

controls and what they manage. In addition, if personnel are working on multiple

tasks, we need to know how quickly they can react to an abnormal situation and

how quickly they can recover. We will need a variety of ways to get information

to the controller in order to improve his or her situational awareness.

38
Examples(Slides15- 16)

Two specificexamplesof visualizationconceptsfor improving situational

awareness are given. In the first example, visual displays for enhancing

sequencing approach and departure aircraft are described. In the second, a

visualization concept that uses visual metaphors to manage flight schedules in

time-space is described. The key point is that if we relinquish control from the

controller, can the controller react to situations properly. These examples show

how research might answer the question "How will you rapidly acquire situation

awareness?"

TACEC and the Government-Furnished Information (GFI) Model (Slides 17

- 19)

A description of how the GFI top-level architecture would be modified for

TACEC is shared. A focus on individual elements of the architecture is expected.

Safety and Benefits Assessment (Slides 20 -21)

Safety will be a key element of the research given that we are relinquishing some

of the control function to the computer. However, the benefits of increased, more

reliable operations make this research valuable.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Arkind

After the presentation, Mr. Arkind responded to questions from NRA participants

as follows:

Question: Will you get a factor of two increase in capacity? Will wakevortex be a limiting factor?

Answer: It is uncertain how much capacity will increase at this time. Sideby-side landings could be used.

Question: Aren't environmental impacts and legal roadblocks a huge issue?

Answer: Yes, noise constraints are particularly an issue. A full solution to

this problem does not exist at this time.

Question: Do you need a trajectory negotiation concept for decent (such as

the DAG-TM concept)?

Answer: Yes, it is assumed it will be there.

Question: What is the expected link between the air and the ground?

Answer: The computational horsepower is expected to be on the ground with

the air component supplying the data.

Question: What will be the impact of SATS on TACEC?

Answer: It is expected SATS will help. The focus is on hub-and-spoke

technology.

39
40
16.

NASA Langley Research Center

Wake Vortex Research Supporting VAMS

Mr. David Rutishauser

NASA Langley Research Center

A copy of Mr. Rutishauser's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and

is available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Rutishauser

AVOSS Background (Slide 2)

NASA researchers have designed a system to predict aircraft wake turbulence on

final approach, so airliners can be spaced more safely and efficiently. This

technology, known as the Aircraft VOrtex Spacing System (AVOSS),

demonstrates an integration of technologies that provides weather-dependent

dynamic aircraft spacing for wake avoidance in a real-time relevant environment.

AVOSS was successfully demonstrated at Dallas Fort-Worth Airport in July

2000. The demonstration represented the culmination of 6 years of field-testing,

data collection, and development.

Wake Vortex Issue (Slide 3)

All aircraft produce wake vortices, two small horizontal tornadoes trailing behind

the wing tips. The larger and heavier the plane, the stronger the wake. Weather

plays a big part in the motion and decay rate of these trailing twisters. Until now,

no system could accurately predict wake vortex patterns and quantify the spacing

needed for safety. Current operations use fixed spacing intervals behind aircraft to

avoid wake vortices. The spacing is preset based on aircraft weight classes.

AVOSS determines how wind and other atmospheric conditions affect the wake

vortex patterns of different types of aircraft. The system uses a type of laser radar,

or lidar technology, to confirm the accuracy of those forecasts. All this

information is processed by computers, which can then provide safe spacing

criteria.

AVOSS DFW Research Results (Slides 5 - 11)

The maximum theoretical gain of instrument flight rules (IFR) throughput is

calculated to be 16 percent based on a 50-second runway occupancy time. This

improvement is interesting because it shows the system can approach the

maximum capacity of the runway. When wake considerations are ignored, the

maximum possible spacing compression gain is about 16 percent (based on 2.5-

nm of spacing for all aircraft pairs at DFW). AVOSS research indicates use of

wake turbulence detection systems will lead to arrival rates restricted by runway

occupancy time rather than wake turbulence.

41
Future Wake Vortex Research Activities (Slides 12 - 14)

Two organizations within NASA's Langley Research Center (LaRC) will support

the VAMS project: the Airborne System Competency organization and the

Aerospace Systems Concepts and Analysis Competence organization. These

organizations will work on defining operational concepts and models, such as the

Wake Vortex Avoidance System (WakeVAS), that will apply AVOSS products to

the wake vortex problem. NASA plans to use the technology models developed

by LaRC in the larger NAS simulations developed at ARC.

LaRC FY2003 and Beyond (Slide 15)

LaRC will continue technology model development and target larger, more

comprehensive NAS simulations as they are developed. Ongoing research will

allow LaRC to refine existing technology models and concept designs. LaRC will

continue to keep paths open to concept and/or technology implementation by

maintaining consistency and synergy with FAA and NASA wake vortex research.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Rutishauser

After the presentation, Mr. Rutishauser responded to questions and comments

from NRA participants as follows:

Question: Is there a benefit to setting rules based on aircraft type and using

different miles-in-trail spacing based on aircraft type?

Answer: Yes, these rules can then be programmed into a decision support

tool (DST) or cockpit tools.

Question: Do you still need expensive (e.g., LIDAR-type) sensors even at

SATS-type airports?

Answer: It will be necessary to rely on static tables without some sensors to

recalibrate the prediction algorithm every so often.

Question: Is the data from the project available to the VAMS concept

developers?

Answer: Yes, large amounts of data are available.

Comment: The NASA team may want to consider extending the parameters

of the Wake Vortex program and experiment with the results of the parameter

extensions.

42
17.

Advanced Airspace Concept

Dr. Heinz Erzberger

Senior Scientist,NASA AmesResearchCenter

A copy of Dr. Erzberger's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Erzberger

Introduction (Slides 1 -2)

This presentation is an update to several presentations given over the last l0

years. Northrop and Raytheon have similar ideas for NASA, but the means to get

there is still to be determined. The following items will be discussed: limitations

of the existing system, the Advanced Airspace Concept (AAC), candidate

architecture for the AAC, separation assurance and conflict avoidance system

(Tactical Separation Assurance Flight Environment or TSAFE), and ground-air

interactions.

Current System Limitations (Slides 3 - 5)

Limitations of the current paradigm lie fundamentally in the area of controller

workload. Sector sizes cannot be made any smaller. Current DST technology can

provide some improvements, but cannot achieve the gains necessary to

circumvent basic controller workload limits. Operational errors were up 50

percent in the year 2000. Currently, NASA is focusing on en route limitations.

The cloning method for estimating en route airspace capacity potential is

described. For this study we performed an estimate of all the sectors' en route

capacity in the Cleveland Center, it was decided to assume one can fly aircraft

through the airspace, maintaining separation without considering controller

workload. The study looked at airspace available for 4D trajectories that were

conflict free, given current separation standards, and used enhanced traffic

management system data from high-occupancy sectors in Cleveland Center.

The advanced airspace concept has the potential to more than double (maybe

triple) baseline capacity, based on even the worst cast analysis of the Cleveland

Center sector data, if controller workload is not a constraint. The bottom line is

that lots of airspace is available for additional trajectories as compared to the

baseline without changing separation rules. Methods for reducing controller

workload must be determined.

Overview of AAC (Slides 6 - 8)

The ground-based system sends separation assurance advisories to equipped

aircraft while advisories are assumed to be sent via data link. Controllers are not

responsible for monitoring and controlling separations of equipped aircraft. The

43
needfor super-sectorsto minimize coordinationrequiredbetweensector

controllershasbeenhypothesized.As abackup,voicecontrol is still availablefor

bothequippedandunequippedaircraftor emergencies.TheACC operational

conceptdefinition leadsto thethemeof a safetysub-systemwithin thesystem

managinga largeairspace"chunk" (super-sector)to reducecoordinationandto

optimizeroutingefficiency.

Designguidelinesenvisiontheuseof currentlyavailabletechnologies(ModeS,

GPS,ADS-B, etc.).While onboardequipagewill bekeptto aminimum,thedatalink andcockpitdisplayof traffic areessential.Of course,anFMSis highly

desirableto helpwith moreadvancedfunctions.Otherthantheneedfor voice

backup,thesafetynetrequiredforthis systemremainsthegreatestdesign

challenge.

A simplified view of theAAC architectureis described:theAutomatedAirspace

ComputerSystem(AACS) augmentedby TSAFE. An advanced version of

CTAS could be used for the AACS. TSAFE is a redundant component and a

simple backup supervisory system that can step in for safety assurance if AACS is

lost.

TSAFE (Slides 9 - 15)

TSAFE is needed because the AACS may encounter problems it was not designed

to solve. Furthermore, AACS is too complex to verify. A completely different

approach, independent of the 4-D trajectory solution provided by the AACS is

needed. TSAFE will be less complex and easier to validate and maintain. It is

symbiotic with the use of TCAS onboard, which operates without knowledge of

intent.

Key functions of the TSAFE architecture are trajectory error analysis, conflict

detection, critical maneuver and no-transgression-zone detection, and conflict

avoidance advisories (resolution). The object is to try to create a short-term

conflict-free (approximately 3-minute) condition to allow controller takeover.

The TSAFE conflict detection and avoidance strategy includes a short detection

horizon (about 3 minutes) that allows simplifying assumptions to be made. This

still allows conflict alerts to be provided with about 2 minutes of warning to loss

of separation (LOS). An avoidance maneuver is then generated (climb or descend,

turn right or left) to provide a short period of conflict-free flight. A simplifying

assumption is that kinematic models of aircraft are used for generation of these

maneuvers, which are then packaged in to the advisories and sent via data link.

Then the aircraft are handed off to either the controller or the AAC system for

implementation of a more "strategic" solution.

TSAFE's critical maneuver detection is a key unique feature. A method for

detecting critical horizontal and vertical maneuvers was shown. Critical maneuver

detection was designed to see if a failure to execute a planned maneuver will

result in conflict. During TSAFE development several incidents of involving

operational errors that occurred at the Fort Worth Center over the last 3 years

were examined. Most operational errors occur during climb or descent. TSAFE

44
was incorporatedintoCTAS (D2/CPTP)forresearchandevaluationandtested

usinglive data.Eventually,it will bea separatesystem.

An exampleof atypical"critical maneuver"showsthegroundtracksof two

aircraftheadingtowardameterfix. Failureof descendingaircraftto stopat

assignedaltituderesultsin lossof separation.TSAFEfirst givesacritical

maneuverwarningandthena conflict alert20secondsbeforelossof separation

occurs.It hasapplicationto currentoperationalprocedures.Alerting is basedon

geometryof intent(andhumanerrorpropensity).

Discussion of Operational Responsibilities (Slide 16)

Trajectory replanning and TSAFE alert monitoring will be added to the pilot's

duties. However, shifting the workload for separation monitoring to the fight deck

will have consequences. A need exists to filter out unnecessary alerts in order to

minimize pilot workload. TSAFE allows for the possibility of implementation in

current operations.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Dr. Erzberger

After the presentation, Dr. Erzberger responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Question: Is this applicable to TRACON airspace?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Does this concept rely on the existing route structure; i.e., is this

compatible with free flight?

Answer: This is neutral vis-a-vis free flight.

Question: What is the difference between conflict alert and TSAFE?

Answer: We are very familiar with conflict alert. The differences lie mostly

in the area of critical maneuver alerting and better use of knowledge of intent.

Question: What are the levels of false alerts within TSAFE?

Answer: False alerts can be minimized but never completely eliminated. The

issue of how alerts will be displayed needs to be investigated.

Question: Does the MIT data include reduced vertical separation minimum

(RVSM) data?

Answer: No, but this might make the workload problem for controllers

worse.

Question: Have you seen more than one aircraft in conflict at a time when

you add the clones?

Answer: Clones were eliminated when the first conflict was detected.

Therefore, the multiple conflict situation did not arise. We just eliminated the

clones did not attempt to resolve conflicts between parents and clones.

Therefore, our capacity estimate is conservative.

45
46
18.

A Suggested Approach for Producing VAMS

Air Transportation System Technology Roadmaps

Del Weathers

VAMS Deputy Project Manager, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Weather's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Weathers

Background (Slides 2- 3)

The Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation (VAMS) project requires the

production of technology roadmaps to help guide the research. These roadmaps

are to be produced by each concept team, updated annually, discussed at the

technical interchange meetings (TIMs), shared among all VAMS participants, and

made available electronically. These concept-specific technology roadmaps will

be subsequently blended ("not pureed") into an integrated catalog of roadmaps,

technical discussions, and research recommendations under the leadership of the

System-Level Integrated Concepts (SLIC) sub-element lead, Rob Fong. Links

will be provided to AvSTAR, the OEP, and NASA's long-term air transportation

system strategy.

Technology Roadmap Framework and Characteristics (Slides 4 - 12)

The "rearview mirror of the past" helps us better see the future and technology

roadmap framework examples already exist for the ATM models for 1940

through 1999. Such frameworks need to be created for 2002 (today), 2006 (nearterm), 2010 (FAA OEP horizon), 2015 (medium-term vision horizon), 2020

(longer-term NASA vision horizon), and 2025 (longer-term stakeholder vision

horizon).

The technology roadmaps need to show the time for a specific technology's

evolution from concept to market availability (NAS use). Roadmaps will also

discuss the science understanding, and the performance needs/requirements

indicate the alternative approaches possible and the risks (technical, political,

legal/certification), identify the critical challenges, estimate the costs (by phase),

describe the scenarios to demonstrate the concept's features, and provide

supporting documentation. Stovepipe solutions are not acceptable.

An informative graphical representation of the ATM architecture for each of the

years 1940 through 1999 in 10-year increments is shared.

A key goal is to be able to show how each individual concept relates to each of

the other concepts, and how to fit them into an integrated technology roadmap.

47
Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Weathers

After the presentation, Mr. Weathers responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Question: Will there be other ways to get there? Is evolutionary the way to

go? (Questioner remark that he does not know of any other way to go.)

Answer: This was purposely left this offthe charts. This is TBD.

Question: What about affordability, cost, political, and legal issues? How are

we to deal with these?

Answer: "A prepared mind is a better mind;" i.e., anticipate these

issues/problems and address them as best you can. VAMS needs to exist in

the real world. The solution must be coordinated and collaborative.

Comment from Harry Swenson: You must lay out what it takes to bring

about your concept.

48
17.

University Concept Team Draft Report

Dr. Andres Zellweger

Senior Scientist, NASA Headquarters

A copy of Dr. Zellweger's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Zellweger

Introduction and Team's Objective (Slides 1 - 3)

The University Concept team's objective is to identify what university research is

to do. This is essentially a mid-term report of a 10-person team. The final report is

due in July. The most important charge is to identify a research agenda, and to

this end the team has completed three of five planned meetings. The group

recognizes that 25 years is a long time, and it must develop concepts that are

resilient to changes in the assumptions made.

Since concept development rests on the development of good research, the team

tbund it needed to do research before filling in the details of any particular

concept.

Drivers, Enablers, and Timing (Slides 5 - 7)

High-demand urban centers will continue to use the hub-and-spoke model to

some degree, as this is very efficient. At the same time, point-to-point and

regional jet traffic are expected to increase.

Capacity/demand/security are important drivers (the focus is to not force general

aviation (GA) related industries out of business later). More unmanned aerial

vehicles (UAVs) are expected to meet cargo and military needs. General aviation

will increase, especially if "air taxi" (for example, Ray Moore, Oregon) and

Eclipse are successful. Low-cost operators need to be persuaded to not adding

excessive costs. Developing regional approaches to ATM is a key driver and

environmental issues (not just noise) are becoming more important. Other drivers

are reduced homogeneity of speed, cost, and sustainability. Airspace is being

viewed increasingly as a national resource. Markets and economics (regional

interests) will be played off against national and (perhaps) international

ones--globalization vs. what is best for the USA. As discussed earlier, technology

is not really an issue. The future must be driven by policy for public benefit, not

vested interests of special interest groups.

The program should be driven through policy, not benefits. Transition is viewed

as a key inhibitor to system development; therefore a benefits-driven transition is

not likely to work. Our team thinks its important to learn from the past and

understand what's required for successful transitions to a new concept. A key

point to note is that the public is the customer (not just the airlines).

49
In 5-7years,whenasignificantpercentageof controllersretire,aconfluenceof

eventswill makethetime ripe for political leadershipto stepupanddrive change.

New Concepts (Slides 8 - 12)

The bifurcated system concept involves a high-density network, low-density

network, and the autonomous instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)

operations that have been briefly studied by the team. The bifurcated system

consists of two parts. The high-density network is highly structured for efficient

flow. The low-density network is structured similarly to today's ATC

environment. For the high-density network concept to be successful, the different

elements of system have to be "impedance matched" to achieve robustness.

The high-density and low-density network boundaries will be based on traffic

load, not geographical regions. Low-density network space will be external to but

possibly intertwined around high-density airspace. Transition points will exist

between high-density and low-density space and separate optimizations will be

required for each instance.

Airport system flows are also important and the key will be taking care of the

groundside.

The Tube Concept (Slides 12 - 15)

Conducting research into the tube concept is the best chance of early success for

en route.. Like the high-density network, it is highly structured, with efficient

flow, but offers limited flexibility. It is similar to TRACON flows but is

throughout the network, allowing maximum use of key resources. It follows the

"highway in the sky" metaphor and features routes, on/off-ramps, breakdown

lanes, and standard (posted) detours around obstructions (like weather). Required

aircraft control includes RTA, in-trail separation, and pair-wise maneuvering.

Ground controls include sequencing, scheduling, and structure. The tube concept

allows controllers to deal with aircraft in high-density (en route) situations, but

problems will still exist at airports.

To overcome these transition issues, leadership must be established and political

and public support must be obtained. In addition, workforce buy-in must be

obtained early on. Issues, opportunities, and inhibitors/opposition must be

identified and broken down. The tube concept will need to be demonstrated in

experimental corridors in high-value target markets (ORD-NYC, LA-SFO, DCANY-BOS). For this experiment the number of corridors will be limited and simple

on/offramps and break-down lanes will be used. In addition, pair-wise selfseparation (station keeping) will be implemented for closer spacing. Efforts will

be made to keep technology and procedures simple. Preference should also be

given to demo participants.

Research will be necessary to determine experimental corridors; design tubes and

procedures, pair-wise separation protocols, and abnormal procedures; redesign

airspace; identify equipment requirements; and prove interoperability.

5O
Other Concepts (Slides 16 - 18)

The highly interactive dynamic planner concept features dynamic air-ground

trajectory negotiation (a la DAG-TM) with 4-D trajectories that facilitate selfseparation. This concept evolves from the tube, but many issues still exist.

The market-based system involves the allocation of "slots" via public auctions.

By employing strategic, near-term, and spot auctions, it may also be possible to

put a price on runway occupancy. Eventually, this could ensure that peal< runway

loading is reduced to government-mandated safety standards and capacityoptimized schedules. This will force the aircraft size to be driven by a

combination of airline profits and maximum emplanement opportunities.

The regional airport system concept's objective is to increase the capacity of highdemand regions, especially where primary airport expansion is limited. Initially,

regional/alternative airports are being examined. To be effective, this concept will

require multi-modal transportation concepts.

Autonomous IMC Operations Concept (Slides 19 - 21)

By 2025, there will be no "low-density" regions left, and there will be too many

planes for ATC as we know it today. A Class Q, or automated airspace, will be

established below 17,000 feet. Separation will be the responsibility of the aircraft

and all aircraft will be fully equipped and capable of handling weather problems

with advanced avionics and visualization tools. The ground will primarily provide

a monitoring function. Traffic management will be limited to control of density,

and Class Q airspace will be segregated from high-density airspace (Class A).

To facilitate a transition, mandating equipment that can effect acceleration must

be considered. It is expected that Class Q airspace will grow to higher altitudes;

however, a clear transition path must exist. Capstone or Safe Flight 21 transition

models are inadequate. Small, but typical, "trial" regions will be necessary to

prove the concept.

Research is necessary into airspace density limits (for safety) and failure modes

(what they are, how to use them, what is the ground/satellite infrastructure, what

ground ATM function is needed, how to co-exist with the rest of the ATC system,

how to use SATS).

Autonomous "SATS" Airports (Slide 22)

The goal of SATS is higher instrument meteorological condition (IMC) rates at

non-towered airports. An hourly rate of 10-15 operations is needed. Research

issues include feasibility, hourly rate to be achieved, avionics requirements, use of

WAAS, the need for ground-based system for control, what to do about

unequipped aircraft, and the interface to the rest of the ATC system.

Continue Current ATM Paradigm, "Muddling Along" (Slides 23 - 24)

Attention will need to be focused on the issue of "muddling along." The cost of

doing the same things in the same way will lead to a system that cannot meet the

51
demand and will lessen the economic benefits of aviation. Non-part 121 will

slowly be driven out of the transportation business and it is likely dispatchers will

do more ATM in this scenario. Research is needed into WAAS enhancements,

better information flow, common situational awareness, moving CDM to tactical,

separation standards, and given knowledge of intent. The bottom line is that this is

a band-aid that will have a negative effect on the economy.

Crosscutting Research to be Done (Slide 26)

The following is an incomplete list of crosscutting research topics that need to be

studied:

• understanding of the current system

• separation standards

• reduction of capacity variability

• how to deal with major anomalies

• total system performance

• transition, selection and training of controllers

• human factors

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Dr. Zellweger

After the presentation, Dr. Zellweger responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Question: How do you prioritize research?

Answer: It is not prioritized yet but this will be done.

Question: What is the life span of concepts?

Answer: This was not considered.

52
20.

Breakout Session No. 1--Technology Roadmap

Facilitators: Mr. Joseph Del Balzo, Dr. Kevin Corker, Mr. Earl

VanLandingham

A copy of their reports is attached as part of the appendix and is available on the

Web site.

For the Breakout Session No. 1, the workshop participants were divided into three

groups. Each group was asked to respond to the following four topics related to

the creation of a "technology roadmap" for the development of the new airspace

capacity concepts:

1. What is the purpose of the technology roadmap? Is it a tool for decision

makers? Why do we need it?

2. What should a technology roadmap contain?

• Timelines for technology insertion?

• Probable cost for required research, development, and

implementation?

• Performance goals of a future ATM system?

• Research options? Identification of key enabling technologies?

• Socio-economic projections/assumptions? Dynamically mapped

and adapted to changing projections/assumptions?

• Socio-political activities necessary to implement the concept?

3. Where do transition plans fit into the roadmap? Is it a part of the

roadmap?

4. Should the format of the technology roadmaps change to include a

different emphasis for each phase of the project? What should the

roadmap look like for each phase? What should the roadmap look like at

the end of the project?

Answer: After the groups met, the facilitators for each group gave a 5- to 10-

minute report on the key concepts discussed by their group. All agreed that having

a technology roadmap was a good idea and additional detail for the roadmap

should be supplied as the project progresses. There was a suggestion that more

discussion of the technology roadmap be held at the next TIM. In addition, the

participants generally agreed that the project needs to focus on more than

technology issues if the concepts are to be fully implemented. For the VAMS

Project to succeed, political, policy, environmental, legal, cost, human factor,

weather issues, etc., also needed to be addressed.

53
Othercommentsincludedthefollowing:

• A technologyroadmapstartsasafunctionalstatementandthen

iteratesinto a specifictechnology.

• A technologyroadmapshouldbeupdatediterativelyandchanged

in form by projectphase.

• Theendresultof usingaroadmapneedsto bestandardized.

• All conceptsshouldhavethesamefunctionalarchitectureand

roadmap.

• A roadmapidentifieslongtechnologypolesandhelpsprioritize

research;It shouldcontaincritical decisionpoints.

• A roadmapprovidesguidelinesanda timeline;it is differentfrom

theprojectplan.

• NASA needsto know whattechnologyisrequired to be

developed.

• Technicalpersonnelneedconfirmationthattheyareonthecorrect

track.

• Theroadmapshouldcontainkeytechnology,functional

architecturecomponents,timeframe,performanceobjectives,

applicationof technology,measuresof accuracyrequired,andcost.

• Key, essentialtechnologyneedsto beestablished.

• A concept'sviability andcostestimatesareneeded.

• Thetypesof expertise that is required to implement different

concepts need to be studied.

54
21.

The Advanced Air Transportation Technologies (AATT)

Project:

Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM)

Dr. Richard Mogford

NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Dr. Mogford's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Mogford

Background (Slides 1 -7)

This presentation presented an overview of active Distributed Air Ground Traffic

Management (DAG-TM) work and reported on its overall progress to date. It does

not include details on the concept elements (CEs).

The team includes NASA Langley and NASA Glenn Research Centers.

The DAG-TM research project is defined (see slide 3) as a concept development

and definition project and no tools will be delivered.

The project is gate-to-gate but is also broken down into discrete concept elements

that are segments of the gate-to-gate system. Of the 14 concept elements, three

are being explored actively: CE-5, CE-6, and CE-11. VAMS could activate some

of the other CEs if they are relevant to a capacity solution. DAG-TM will

eventually transition from an AATT project to VAMS.

Overview of CE-5 (Free Maneuvering for User-Preferred Separation

Assurance and Local TFM Conformance) Presented (Slides 7 - 9)

CE-5 is based on the premise that future demand will grow such that current

ground-based ATC cannot accommodate all the requests for changes. The flight

deck will get new equipment that will allow aircraft to self-separate and deviate

from the flight plan or flight path. This assumes the existence of some ADSB/GPS-type technology that will provide a technical basis for this equipage. The

aircraft will manage its own trajectories (altitude and path), while ground-based

tools will monitor separation.

The two animations shown to demonstrate benefit are examples of before (today's

system) and after (how the system could operate).

Overview of CE-6 [En Route (and Transition) Trajectory Negotiation for

User-Preferred Separation and Local TFM Conformancel Presented (Slides

10-11)

In contrast CE-6 is more ground-based, but has a very similar effect/benefit to

CE-5. The controller clears the aircraft request change. It is assumed to be

55
automatedthroughsomeFMS-to-ground-basedtool exchange/negotiation.

Onboardfunction initiatesmaneuverandmonitorscompliancewith thecleared

change.

An animationshowsthetrajectorynegotiationbetweentheaircraftandground.

Overview of CE-I 1 (Self-Spacing for Merging and In-Trail Separation)

Presented (Slides 12 - 14)

CE- 11 reduces the excessive spacing on final airport arrivals. A properly

equipped aircraft allows the tightening up of spacing using maneuvering and selfmerging algorithms. ATC monitors the overall spacing and parameters used.

An animation shows examples of CE-11 and its potential benefit.

DAG BENEFITS. The CE-5 self-management aspect support scalability and

improved flexibility of the system. Failure modes will be included in CE

evaluations.

NASA DAG RESEARCH. This slide identifies the work breakout for the DAG-TM

project. ARC is mostly pursuing ground-based air traffic control aspects of CEs-5

and 11. LaRC is examining flight deck aspects of CE-5 and CE-I 1. (GRC work

was not discussed.) ARC is also working on CE-6. Each team is pursuing parallel

research but the integration of these efforts is planned to begin soon.

Research Concepts and Scenarios (Slides 18- 22)

These graphics represent how the research is planned to start with the basic

scenario and then add complexity over time. This complexity will increase with

the addition of static weather, and then increase again when dynamic weather

when a Special Use Area (SUA) is added. There will be limited delegation of selfspacing and merging in the TRACON environment. The effort is focused on

airspace leading to TRACON.

Facilities and Past Results (Slides 23 - 41)

Ames and Langley facilities for pursuing DAG-TM research are presented. ARC

will focus on research involving human factors. LaRC is working on algorithms

and the past results from tests run at LaRC (AUTRII and ATAAS experiments)

are discussed in terms of flight crew testing of the flight deck concepts and tools.

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Dr. Mogford

After the presentation, Dr. Mogford responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Question: Where is the transition zone of CE-5?

Answer: The boundary is at the edge of terminal airspace, plus from nonmanaged to managed airspace. This is a challenge to manage.

Question: Will the DAG program be continued by VAMS?

Answer: Harry Swenson: Yes.

56
Comment: Richard Mogford: We will put you on the DAG-TM mailing list,

if you want. Documents are on the Web site.

Comment: Harry Swenson: Information on the dynamic weather server is

now available. Dr. Mogford: Yes, it is a very rich set of data.

57
22.

Daily Agenda Questions and Comments

Mr. Harry Swenson

VAMS Project Manager, NASA Ames Research Center

Mr. Swenson encouraged participants of the TIM to forward any general

questions and comments to him. He indicated he would provide the answers to

the group during the Daily Agenda session on Day 2 and Day 3 of the TIM.

Questions and Answers for Mr. Swenson during the Daily Session for Day 3:

Question: Please clarify the VAMS Program goals and constraints regarding

a common ground of concepts and implementation.

Answer: The VAMS program is not performing implementation of concepts.

Concept developers are to complete their concepts including computer

analysis.

Question: Since we have opened the door to changing ATC procedures,

when will we open the door to discussing changes to AOC procedures (e.g

schedules)?

Answer: The door to AOC procedure changes has already been opened with

the Point to Point concept proposed by Seagull Technologies.

Question: Can we get demographics study data and projections from SATS

so that we can better understand demand in the future?

Answer: Yes, the data will be coming via the Airspace Systems Program

Office.

Question: What is the long term plan to manage and disseminate concept

updates to the supporting SEA and VAST teams?

Answer: TIMS will be a part of the dissemination process. In addition,

program documentation will be available to all parties via distribution on

common servers. The details of this distribution will need to be worked out.

Comment from the floor: The maximum capacity (and throughput)

operational point is not necessarily the cost optimal operating point of the

system.

Comment from the floor: SEA and VAST need to understand concept

evaluation requirements sooner rather than later.

Comment from the floor: The VAMS TIM introduction mentioned concepts

without implementation, but several projects have already been

implemented, or plan field testing or implementation in the future.

Comment from the floor: There is a need multiple copies of handout book

electronically

• Participants will take the old version first; and get a new version later

58
Comment from the floor: Please make the printed slides larger in the

handout book. Most slides are unreadable.

• The notes space is not needed

• The margins could be much smaller.

59
23.

Breakout Session No. 2mMetrics/Scenarios

Facilitators: Mr. Joseph Del Balzo, Dr. Kevin Corker, Mr. Earl

VanLandingham

A copy of the breakout summary presentations are attached as part of the

appendix and are available on the Web site.

Along with concept developers, the Systems Evaluation and Assessment (SEA)

sub-element of VAMS will develop those scenarios and metrics required for

testing the new concepts that reside within the System-Level Integrated Concepts

(SLIC) sub-element in the VAMS project. These concepts will come from the

NRA process, space act agreements, a university group, and other NASA

researchers. The emphasis of those concepts is to increase capacity while at least

maintaining the current safety level.

The concept providers will initially develop their own scenarios and metrics for

self-evaluation. In about a year, the SEA sub-element will become responsible for

conducting initial evaluations of the concepts using a common scenario and

metric set. This set may derive many components from the scenarios and metrics

used by the concept providers. Ultimately, the common scenario/metric set will be

used to help determine the most feasible and beneficial concepts.

A set of 15 questions and issues, discussed below, pertaining to the scenario and

metric set, and its use for assessing concepts, was submitted by the SEA subelement for consideration during the breakout session. The questions were divided

among the three breakout groups. Each breakout group deliberated on its set of

questions and provided a report on its discussion.

BREAKOUT GROUP A

1. What should we consider for our baseline scenarios and metrics?

Answer: The baseline scenarios should be sufficient to address the 2x and 3x

goals defined for VAMS. A question was raised in the group as to whether the

OEP 2010 goals should also be considered for the baseline scenario definition.

At a high level, the baseline metrics should consider: cargo passengers and

operations; passenger miles per unit of time; number of operations; average

delays: economic value; operational costs; safety; environment considerations;

trip time; and activity metrics.

2. What are the special considerations for real-time and non-real-time

scenarios?

Answer: The answer to this question is not straightforward. The group

determined that many questions needed to be addressed first. These questions

include the following:

• What are the set of questions VAMS needs to answer?

60
• Does a difference exist between real-time and non-real-time

scenarios?

• Does VAMS need different scenarios for real-time or non-realtime?

• When would a real-time scenario be used? When would a non-realtime scenario be used?

3. What are the special considerations for real-time and non-real-time

metrics?

Answer: The answer to this question was developed after the group considered

why the real-time metrics are different from the non-real-time metrics. Metrics to

be collected during a simulation depend on the kind of scenario and the particular

parameters expected to provide the researchers a measure of quality.. The metrics

will also depend on the concept question, objective, level of detail, and scope.

Some metrics for a concept cannot be measured in both a real-time scenario and a

non-real-time scenario. In addition, the instrumentation used to collect the metrics

measurements may be different in a real-time environment than in a non-real-time

environment. A consideration for cost, availability of resources, and repeatability

must be included in determining real-time and non-real-time metrics. The group

provided examples of real-time and non-real-time metrics in the report out.

4. What mixes of aircraft capability need to be represented in the scenarios?

Answer: The group determined that the concept scenarios must address all

aircraft relevant to that domain over a range of capabilities. Capabilities to be

considered include aircraft performance, equipment capability such as Traffic

alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), aircraft type such as tilt rotor, and

UAV. The emphasis needs to be placed on instrument flight rule operations.

5. What CNS capabilities need to be represented in the scenarios?

Answer: The group determined that the concept scenarios must address all CNS

relevant to that domain over a range of capabilities. How the CNS capabilities are

modeled or included in the scenario will depend on the concept question being

addressed. Consideration should be made to represent the NAS architecture that is

expected in the 2020 timeframe.

In summary, the group determined that the choice of scenarios and metrics

depends on the VAMS concept area being addressed. The individual concept

questions must clearly be defined before the development of scenarios and

metrics can be determined.

BREAKOUT GROUP B

6. What amount of traffic should we assume for our scenarios?

7. What amount of traffic should we assume for our metrics?

Answer: The group combined these two questions into one and recommended

that the scenario developers be mindful of a distinction between real-time

61
scenariosandnon-real-timesimulationrequirements.Thesedifferencesare

relatedto thehumanvariability inthescenarioenvironmentandthefidelity of the

NAS systemresponserequiredin theevaluationof aconcept.

Thetraffic demandmodelwill dependontheconcept'sinfluenceonthe capacity

solutionorbusinesscase.Thisappliesto thereal-timescenariosaswell asthe

non-real-timescenarios.Thetraffic loadshouldbescalableto thegoalssetwith

ASPandVAMS. A complexityfactor(Ix, 2x, 3x)shouldbeconsideredin the

scenariodevelopment.

8. How long do the scenariosneedto beto reflect realism for our concepts?

Answer: Thegroupdeterminedthelengthof a specificscenariodependson

whetherthesimulationis real-timeor non-real-time.In anon-real-timescenario,

thedurationof a scenarioshouldapproximatea day'sworth of timeandthis could

rangefrom 2 to 26hours.In addition,sincetraffic loadsvarydependingonthe

day,thescenariosshouldhavemultiple"days" defined.Theresolutionof

necessaryscenariodata(millisecondsor minutes)will dependontheconcept

underevaluation.

In a real-timeenvironmentthelengthof thescenariocouldbeanywherefrom 10

minutesto 2 hours.Thedurationwill dependontheconceptunderevaluation.

Thedurationwill alsodependonwhetherthescenariorequiresa NAS-wide

simulationor is sitespecific.It isrecommendedthatguidelinesbeestablishedto

facilitatethedeterminationof ascenarioduration.Guidelinesshouldalsoinclude

thedurationsrequiredfor local singleconceptevents,pulseeventssuchasan

airportrush,andNAS-wideconceptevaluations.It wasgenerallyagreedthat

durationsfor fatigueeventsor capacitystrainevaluationcouldgoaslongas8

hours.

9. How do we try to ensure buy-in from the stakeholders regarding the

validity of our scenario and metrics?

Answer: The stakeholder community will include a range of users from the

current concept developers to the super-users of the concepts and to any future

users the concept will create. The start of stakeholder buy-in may come from

using demand models provided by the airline community. The current set of

practitioners can assist in the scenario buy-in by assisting with the definition of

roles and responsibilities of those who will be the end user of the concepts.

The timing of the introduction of the new concept into the NAS will have an

effect the buy-in of the concept and the scenarios used to validate it, and may be

assisted by the use of the cadres of controllers.

10. What are the "challenge" events that are relevant for these scenarios

(e.g., choke points, weather)?

Answer: The list of challenge events for scenario consideration should include:

weather, failure modes, system shutdown conditions, military operations with

NAS, security events, demand load variability such as holiday travel conditions,

62
airspace sectional loss, information infrastructure events, data integrity, and

equipment-dependent failures. In addition, other conditions occur that may

require exploration, but are not necessarily considered challenge events; these

include the use of collision risk models, formation flying, and how tight the

scenarios should be coupled. These should be addressed in a validation plan for

the concept under evaluation.

BREAKOUT GROUP C

11. What are the "challenge" events relevant for these metrics (e.g., choke

points, weather)?

Answer: The group interpreted a "challenge event" to be a perturbation that must

be included in the scenarios during the execution of the simulation of the concept.

The important capacity metrics should include: weather events, schedule events

for which demand exceeds capacity, scheduled and unscheduled outages, human

error events, terrorist events, resource loading events, environmental factors,

aircraft mix, airspace restrictions such as airspace closures or special use areas

(SUA), runway events, wake vortices, different separation events, and labor/union

events.

12. What are the measures that need to be addressed in the scenarios? (These

should consider economic, safety, security, environment, and human

performance factors.)

Answer: The group provided a list of various measures that need to be addressed

in the scenarios. This list includes delay measures; passenger, cargo, and aircraft

throughput; cost and cost allocation measures; equity; safety metrics; access

measures; unused capacity; system stability; predictability; environment

measures; passenger satisfaction; staffing measures; efficiency; sector density;

and political constraints or public mandates.

13. What are the technical challenges in scenario development?

Answer: The group assumed technical challenges were framework issues (not

events) that need to be considered in the development of scenarios. The list of

challenges for scenario development include: schedules; demand; fleet mix;

weather conditions; discernability of the phenomena; appropriate

complexity/fidelity; ability to capture variability in procedures; scenario relevance

to the concept: accurate reflection of the airline's business case; non-normal

operations; and human factors representation. In addition, a clear statement of the

scenario objective should exist. The scenario should contain a representative set

of conditions for concept evaluation.

14. How do we ensure the appropriate testing of the concepts that include

only one domain versus those that are gate-to-gate?

Answer: The group provided a number of specific recommendations that must be

considered in testing the concepts; however, some open issues were identified that

are related to the question. Open issues that should be considered are

63
incompatible concept/system architectural issues and how to know when the

concept has been tested enough.

15. Since we will have multiple scenarios, how do we ensure some

comparability between them so we can fairly test some single domain

versus gate-to-gate concepts?

Answer: To answer this question, the group determined that certain assumptions

would have to be made. It must be assumed that the scenarios to be developed

will facilitate the concept-blending process planned for later phases of VAMS. It

must also be assumed that the scenarios to be developed are to be used for

evaluation and validation of the concepts.

64
24.

Breakout Session No. 3--Guidelines

Facilitators: Mr. Joseph Del Balzo, Dr. Kevin Corker, Mr. Earl

VanLandingham

For the Breakout Session No. 3, the workshop participants were divided into three

groups. Each group was asked to respond to the following six questions in three

categories related to the creation of "guidelines" for the development of the new

airspace capacity concepts.

Breakout Session No. 3 Agenda, Six Questions in Three Categories

Guidelines:

1. Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions of the guideline

elements

2. Are the concept guidelines sufficient and necessary to meet project

goals?

Concept grading guidelines and procedures:

3. Does the concept-grading guidelines and procedures provide the

necessary feedback to the concept development process?

4. What clarifications are necessary?

GF1 model o[+A TM[unctions:

5. Can the GFI model of ATM functions be improved to account for major

paradigm shifts in the operation of the ATM?

6. Is the GFI model sufficient to blend, model, analyze, and assess the

current collection of concepts? What more is needed?

1. Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions of the guideline

elements?

GROUP A: Yes, but we suggest a change in the order as follows:

• Area 1: issues and operating domain (concept specific),

quantitative goals

• Area 2: core ideas, assumptions

• Area 3: functions, performance, human factors (roles and

responsibilities of persons and machines, user interfaces),

system integrity and redundancy

• Area 4: architecture, technology requirement, challenges,

transition plan (roadmaps)

• Area 5: NAS operational risks: security, safety

65
• Area6: benefits/metrics,cost/metrics,conceptual

competitors

GROUP 2: No response

GRouP 3: Probably, but the following obstacles were noted:.

• The functions in element (area) 2 for the top-level

description do not follow through in the detail area

(element 3).

• The GFI functional model is too constraining.

• A better set of definitions (VAMS terminology) is needed.

• Sector overload, capacity, throughput, demand, delay, etc.

• In element (area) 6, conceptual competitors is another term

that needs clarification:

• Is this like the price of fuel going so high or some

breakthrough in telecommuting lowering the demand for

flying?

• What is NASA's intent for the information on the

"conceptual competitors"?

2. Are the concept guidelines sufficient and necessary to meet project goals?

GROUP 1 : Assuming the project goal is to develop a blended unified

concept at the end of Phase Four, the guidelines may be

adequate, however:

• Not enough information exists to trade off parameters.

• Concepts address different aspects of NAS.

• Individual concepts may employ different scenarios and/or

metrics.

• Mapping concepts to GFI helps but this will not ensure

blending.

It is difficult to fit concepts to the GFI top-level model.

GROUP 2:

There lacks an explicitly defined compatibility link.

Goodness may subsume costs and benefits.

GRouP 3: Yes, they are necessary. For now, the concept guidelines are

sufficient, but this will need to be reviewed as the project

evolves and prioritization of the guideline elements is needed:

• The importance of political and legal aspects should be

higher.

66
• Area 3, "Human Factors," should be "Human

Performance."

• Area 4, "Architecture," should have a lower priority.

• Area 6, "Conceptual Competitors," should probably have a

lower priority. Maybe this should be an Area 1, "Issues"

item.

• Prioritization should be a "living" attribute through the life

of the program.

Do the concept-grading guidelines and procedures provide the necessary

feedback to the concept development process?

GROUP 1:

GROUP 2:

1

Yes

• A set of standards for grading is needed to level the playing

field.

• Proper combination of criteria (weighting, etc) has to be

developed to perform the assessment.

GRouP 3: Maybe, with the clarifications noted below.

4. What clarifications are necessary?

GROUP 1: Nothing.

GROUP 2:

GROUP 3:

• Clarifications are needed for the following terminology:

practical; definable; self-diagnostic; constructible;

documented; revolutionary; accurate; compatible; model

able.

• Terminology that should not be on list as applicable to an

OPSCON: constructible, compatible (with what?),

accuracy.

• We assume that these are the evaluation criteria on page 3

of handouts.

• More explicit mapping is needed of concept guidelines to

the evaluation criteria.

• Definition of criteria is needed.

5. Can the GFI model of ATM functions be improved to account for major

paradigm shifts in the operation of the ATM?

GROUP 1: This cannot be answered until it is known what paradigm shifts

will occur.

67
.

GROUP 2: The GFI Model lacks the following:

• Airports as a dedicated aggregate

• Domains of the transportation system

• Utility increases with intermodal considerations

(transportation system: air, ground, quantum)

• The passenger/payload in the model

• A higher level of abstraction for information function

• Allocation

• Quantification

• Demand function

GROUP 3: Yes, but:

• It seems disconnected from the VAST architecture.

• Should we drive deeper into the GFI model or VAST

architecture?

• A better understanding of VAST architecture is needed.

• Is there a plan for convergence?

• The model needs to accommodate the drawing of domain

boundaries.

Is the GFI model sufficient to blend, model, analyze, and assess the

current collection of concepts? What more is needed?

GROUP l: No, because:

• It is not domain specific.

• Concepts do not always map cleanly/clearly into it.

• Lower level models are needed and may be more difficult

to map.

• It is already busy.

• It does not describe the operational concepts behind the

concept.

• It does not help present/explain/describe the concept.

• After the concept is developed, you could organize it this

following the GFI model since it helps simulation but does

not help define concept.

• The current GFI model will not help to blend all the current

concepts -- more detail is needed.

• After year one we will have a better idea how to

schematically communicate ideas in a common framework.

68
GROUP 2:

GRouP 3:

Yes, but it needs further decomposition as follows:

• Matrix/vector compatibility within each function (reference

Corker compatibility charts: high level, low level)

• Differentiate the tools from OPSCONs to support crossOPSCON evaluation

No, because it needs:

• A hierarchically decomposed model with more details.

• Other things for blending.

• Common scenario definitions.

• A comparison of assumptions.

• Analysis of incompatibilities, unions, intersections, and

synergisms.

69
25.

VAST Prototype Demonstration

Dr. Karlin Roth and Mr. Ray Miraflor

NASA Ames Research Center

Dr. Roth and Mr. Miraflor presented the current status of the VAST prototype to

the NRA participants. Dr. Roth made the following points before Mr. Miraflor

performed the demonstration:

1. Excellent models are available but they are deficient in what is needed to

understand gate-to-gate, and system-level effects. NASA has selected an

approach that leverages DOD investments in modeling and simulation,

supports the re-use between fast- and real time simulations and captures

interactions among system entities.. The VAST prototype development

effort started in October 2001 and completed a proof-of-concept

demonstration in February 2002. The goal for Build-1 of the software is

to establish the fundamental architecture that can be scaled and extended

to address the needs of all the VAMS concepts.

2. Feedback is requested from the NRA participants on the VAST modeling

and simulation requirements and the questions that this new system

should be designed to answer

3. Everyone needs to have realistic expectations for the VAST modeling

and simulation system. We are on an aggressive path that has developed

an initial prototype in 4 months on the ATMSDI contract. The initial

prototype runs on a distributed platform consisting of three PC

workstations and on a laptop in a standalone mode for demonstration

purposes. Build-l is scheduled to be delivered in October 2002, and will

contain a suite of low-fidelity models. NASA will continue to evaluate

feasibility of the modeling approach and to set model validation practices

using Build-1. Based on timing, new concepts unveiled at this TIM can

be incorporated in later releases during FY03-04. NASA will need inputs

from the concept developers to set modeling requirements for these later

releases.

Mr. Miraflor: The existing prototype is demonstrated. It contains five federates

and is designed to run on three PCs. The demonstration's data contains 500

managed flights (ATC-governed flights) and 500 unmanaged (free flights). The

demo can be run in real-time or non-real-time.

In particular, the flight path of two aircraft is shown. One aircraft is managed and

follows waypoints, while the other is unmanaged and goes directly to its

destination. The system models the effect of ATCSCC directives on these flights

including setting the sector capacity to "zero". (The managed aircraft requests

permission to enter the sector whereupon the ATC denies the request and the

70
aircraft is put in a holding pattern. The unmanaged flight goes around the sector.)

How a controller gives a command to an aircraft to go to a different waypoint was

also simulated.

The data collected is performed by the data collection federate. The data includes

metrics for managed and unmanaged aircraft (including conflicts and aircraft

flight information).

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Miraflor

After the presentation, Mr. Miraflor responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Question: What are your data collection needs?

Answer: It is expected that the POET tool will be needed to collect data

from the existing ATC system.

Question: What is the total number of airplanes that could be simulated in

the presence of weather?

Answer: This has not been determined yet. Currently we are simulating

1,000 aircraft.

Comment from floor: The use of DOD standards such as HLA and

distributed systems have had mixed results in the past.

Comment from floor: NASA expects to leverage the big investment DOD

has made in HLA and leverage previous SAIC experience with DOD

simulation systems.

Question: What are the bottlenecks in processing?

Answer: Currently the simulation slows down as the number of aircraft

increases. Interprocessor communication may also slow the system's

performance down.

71
26.

Socio-Economic and Demand Forecasting

John A. Cavolowsky, Ph.D.

NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Cavolowsky's presentation is attached as part of the appendix and

is available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Dr. Cavolowsky

Introduction (Slides 1 - 7)

VAMS is responding to heightened national needs. Socio-economic and demand

forecasting research project complements the other NASA VAMS technology

research projects by identifying the demonstrable benefits needed by stakeholders.

An intermodal perspective and operational-level scenarios are being used to

understand the role of transportation in general and air transportation in particular

within the U.S. economy. Currently there is a 6-month effort underway with

support from the Logistics Management Institute, Gellman Research Associates,

Volpe National Transportation System Center, and affiliated consultants and

universities to identify transportation scenarios with the greatest probability of

being realized. These scenarios, along with driving forces and uncertainties, can

predict air travel demand volume and its distribution.

Ongoing Research (Slides 8 - 19)

Research is being conducted in three parts:

1. Create a description of the current state of knowledge on the relationship

between transportation and the economy (see slides 9 and 10). In

particular, identify strengths and weaknesses of past studies and models.

2. Revise, update, and expand current transportation scenarios to reflect

current and future conditions (see slides 11 to 16). Focus on demand

drivers and supply issues to align demand to scenarios. Current existing

forecasts run from 10 to 50 years.

3. Develop a set of demand forecasts for each defined scenario (see slides

17 to 19). The volume of air travel is a function of the overall health of

the economy, demographic trends, security issues, and the relative

attractiveness of competing surface modes.

Follow-on Activities (Slides 20 -29)

Follow-on activities are to include the identification of institutional factors and

societal concems affecting changes in the aviation system as well as identification

of inhihitors to system improvement.

72
Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Cavolowsky

After the presentation, Dr. Cavolowsky responded to questions from NRA

participants as follows:

Question: How far are you projecting demand?

Answer: Projected demand is 20 years.

Question: Are you making forecasts of both point-to-point and hub-andspoke systems?

Answer: Gellman Research Associates models do some of this.

Question: Will other studies such as terminal area forecasts supply much of

the data he needs?

Answer: That will be determined after studying the existing literature.

Question: When will a rough forecast be available?

Answer: A product is expected at the end of the calendar year 2002.

Question: Are SATS data and studies available?

Answer: This is uncertain, but their availability will be determined.

73
27.

Next Steps in Concepts and a Preview of TIM 2

Harry Swenson

VAMS Project Manager, NASA Ames Research Center

A copy of Mr. Swensons' presentation is attached as part of the appendix and is

available on the Web site.

Key Comments by Mr. Swenson

The amount of participation and feedback the group presented is encouraging.

The next TIM is scheduled for August 27-29, 2002. The technical presentations

will include the following subject areas:

• Developing VAST capabilities

• Airspace concept evaluation system - Build-1 requirements

• Real-time HITL

• Human and team modeling

• CNS Modeling

• Scenarios and metrics

• Other revolutionary ideas

Synopsis of Questions and Answers for Mr. Swenson:

After the presentation, Mr. Swenson responded to questions and comments from

NRA participants as follows:

Comment: The team requests feedback from the VAMS Project Office as to

guidelines and direction that come out of TIM No. 1. In particular, 1)

definitions are needed and 2) roadmap clarifications are required.

Answer: The VAMS Project Office will provide this direction.

Question: The contract calls for a specific amount of TIM attendance per

phase. VAST TIM is not included as the second TIM. No contractor

deliverables exist for the VAST TIM. Is there another TIM with deliverables

for this phase?

Answer: Yes, the next contractual TIM is planned for January 2003.

Question: The preliminary concept is a contract deliverable. Does the

deliverable need all sections filled in or should contractors provide what they

have at the time? Some sections may not have a lot of content. This is a

project milestone.

74
Answer: The Project Office needs to inform concept developers and

contractors of specific requirements for this deliverable.

75
28.

Summary of Recommendations for Future

Technical Interchange Meetings--5/23/02

Breakout Sessions

Facilities: Include a slide projector capable of being driven by a

laptop for each Breakout session:

• This facilitates group agreement by presenting the draft

material to the entire group for corrections.

Consider running all breakout session topics concurrently, e.g.,

roadmaps breakout session (and the same for each of the three

topic areas) held during each of the three breakout sessions, rather

than having all the breakout topics at any given time addressing the

same topic.

PRO:

• This allows the NASA coordinator to attend and "resource" all

breakout sessions of his or her topic.

CONS:

• The "discussions in the hallway" could be minimized (e.g., a

given topic is on everyone's mind since they have all just

discussed the same topic).

• This may cause lower participation in the later breakout

sessions since the topics will no longer be new topics to the

whole group. It will be easier to justify that one has heard

enough from that topic just by talking with others, or that a

given topic area was not very worthwhile just because one

of the earlier sessions in that topic area was not productive.

Presentation Slides Available to Note Takers Before a Presentation

This worked very well except for about three presentations for

which slides were unavailable. Note taking was seriously degraded

for these presentations.

Note takers must have a hard copy o['all presentations before the

talk is given, even if the conference staff has to make those copies

in real-time and then bring them to the note takers before the

presentation can begin.

• Format for note taker's notebook: single slide occupying the

first page, with the other page ruled for notes, printed double

sided, and GBC-bound

76
• Theoriginal PowerPointversionsof theslidesareneededto

producethis format.

• Graphicsin thepresentations,suchasdrawingobjects,can

makethefiles verylarge,andhardto work with. We suggest

giving presentationauthorsguidanceto convertall drawing

objectsto simple"'pictures"asa final stepin productionof

their slidesto minimizethesizesof thePowerPointfiles. As

anexample,theSorensonpresentation(whichcontaineda lot

of MS Drawingobjects)wasreducedin file sizeusingthis

techniquefrom morethan15MBto lessthanIMB.

Printingof thenotetaker'snotebook:at the"gray-scale"option

shouldbeusedin theprintwindow, sinceotherwiseablack-andwhite print hasatendencyto printthecolor picturesasall black.It

is bestto originallyprint eachnotetaker'sbook,sincecopier

machineswill totally blackenevenmostgray-scalefigures.

• Printingof aslidefile name(author_organization_one-wordtopic.pptis ourrecommendationfor a file-namingstandard)as

a footeroneachslidewill helpnotetakerfind slidesquickly.

• All slidesmustbepage-numbered(evenif submittedwithout

pagenumbers)to facilitatecommunicationandreferencing.

• It maybenecessaryto havethenotetaker'snameasafooterof

thenotetaker'snotebook.Thisis notmuchextraeffortdueto

theoriginalprintingof eachnotetaker'snotebook.(We did not

havethis, butit allows for anotetakerto simply Xeroxhis

notesandhandthemto theleadnotetakerfor thatsessionon

thedayof thetalk.)

Processfor generationof theminutes:electronicallytranscribing

notesis probablythebestapproachfor manyreasons,including:

• Distribution

• Configurationmanagement

• Ensuringthat thenote-authorprovidesintelligiblenotesto the

sectionleads

Evaluationof TIM by attendees:

• Thiswasnotdone.A suggestionisto includeanevaluation

questionnaireto obtaingoodideas.

77
• Action items:

Action Item

Discover if there is a way to compress

bit-image graphics on PPT slides,

without losing the ability to edit the

slides.

Assigned to

H Sielski

Due Date

Aug. 15, 2002

Comments/

Resolution

Closed 6/24/02 --

Suggestions developed

for presentation authors.

78
AAC

AACS

AATT

ACES

ADS-B

AOC

ARC

ARTCC

ASP

ATC

ATCSCC

ATM

ATMCP

ATN

ATMSDI

ATSP

AVOSS

AvSTAR

CDM

CDTI

CE

CNS

CTAS

CTOC

DAG-TM

DFW

DOD

DST

FACET

FD

FF

Appendix A

NASA VAMS Project TIM No. 1

Acronyms

Advanced Airspace Concept

Automated Airspace Computer System

Advanced Air Transportation Technologies

Airspace Concept Evaluation System

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast

Airline Operations Center

Ames Research Center

Air Route Traffic Control Center

Airspace Systems Program

Air Traffic Control

Air Traffic Control System Command Center

Air Traffic Management

Air Traffic Management Operational Concept Panel

Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

Air Traffic Management Software Development and Integration

Air Traffic Service Provider

Aircraft Vortex Spacing System

Aviation System Technology Advanced Research

Collaborative Decision Making

Cockpit Display of Traffic

Concept Element

Communications, Navigation and Surveillance

Center/TRACON Automation System

Centralized Terminal Operation Control

Distributed Air Ground Traffic Management

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

Department of Defense

Decision Support Tool

Future ATM Concepts Evaluation System

Flight Deck

Free Flight

79
FMS

FOC

FOM

GA

GFI

GO-SAFE

GPS

GRC

HITL

HLA

HTP

ICAO

IFR

ILS

IMC

LIDAR

LOS

NAS

NRA

NRT

' OEP

POET

PTP

R&D

RT

RTI

RVSM

SATS

SE

SEA

SHCT

SLIC

SOAR

STOL

SUA

TACEC

FlightManagement System

FinalOperatingCapability

FederatesObjectModel

GeneralAviation

Government FurnishedInformation

Ground-OperationSituationAwarenessandFlowEfficiency

GlobalPositioningSystem

GlennResearchCenter

Human-In-The-Loop

High-Level Architecture

Human Team Performance

International Civil Aviation Organization

Instrument Flight Rules

Instrument Landing System

Instrument Meteorological Conditions

Light Detection and Ranging

Loss of Separation

National Airspace System

NASA Research Announcement

Non-real-time

Operational Evolution Plan

Post-Operations Evaluation Tool

Point-To-Point

Research and Development

Real-time

Run-Time Infrastructure

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

Small Aircraft Transportation System

Systems Engineering

Systems Evaluation and Assessment

Short-Haul Civil Tilt-rotor

System-Level Integrated Concepts

Surface Operation Automation Research

Short Take Off and Landing

Special Use Area

Terminal Area Capacity Enhancement Concept

80
TAP

TBD

TCAS

TFM

TIM

TRACON

TSAFE

VAMS

VAST

VSTOL

Wake VAS

Terminal Area Productivity

To Be Determined

Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System

Traffic Flow Management

Technical Interchange Meeting

Terminal Radar Approach Control

Tactical Separation Assurance Flight Environment

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation

Virtual Airspace Simulation Technologies

Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing

Wake Vortex Avoidance System

81
Appendix B

Attendee List

Paul Abramson

Anthony Andre

Kenneth Arkind

Rose Ashford

Stephen Atkins

Ronald Azuma

Robert Beard

Karl Bilimoria

Matthew Blake

AngelaBoyle

Chris Brinton

Wayne Bryant

Karen Buondonno

Brian Capozzi

Burton Carniol

Phillip Carrigan

Patricia Carroll

Naomi Castillo-Velasquez

John Cavolowsky

Victor Cheng

Jesse Clayton

William Cleveland

Kenneth Cobb

Thomas Cochrane

Kevin Corker

GeorgeCouluris

Goli Davidson

Kevin Day

Joseph Del Balzo

Dallas Denery

Marie Dorish

DonaldEddy

Thomas Edwards

Heinz Erzberger

Todd Farley

Greg Feldman

David Felio

John Fergus

L.S. Fletcher

Robert Fong

David Foyle

Michael Freed

PDA Associates

Interface Analysis Associates

Raytheon Company

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

HRL Laboratories

Computer Sciences Corporation

NASA Ames Research Center

Seagull Technology, Inc.

Raytheon ITSS

Metron Aviation, Inc.

NASA Langley Research Center

Federal Aviation Administration

Metron Aviation, Inc.

Metron Aviation, Inc.

Raytheon Company

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

Optimal Synthesis, Inc.

Metron Aviation, Inc.

NASA Ames Research Center

Raytheon ITSS

Raytheon ITSS

San Jose State University

Seagull Technology, Inc.

Metron Aviation, Inc.

Northrop Grumman Information Technology

JDA Aviation Technology Solutions

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

BAE Systems

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

Northrop Grumman Information Technology

Geneva Aerospace

Northrop Grumman Information Technology

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University

82
TsuyoshiGoka

MelindaGratteau

Ty Hoang

BeckyHooey

Alex Huang

GeorgeHunter

CarlaIngram

DouglasIsaacson

Mike Jackson

RobertJacobsen

Kevin James

DavidJara

MatthewJardin

CharlesJohnson

YoonJung

Kellie Keifer

RodKetchum

RobertKille

RichardKirsten

ParimalKopardekar

JimmyKrozel

AndrewLacher

MichaelLandis

Victor Lebacqz

RonaldLehmer

DianaLiang

SandraLozito

WayneMacKenzie

StevenMainger

Scott Malsom

LynneMartin

P.K.Menon

Mary Miller

RaymondMiraflor

SarahNowlin

Nell O'Connor

RobertPadilla

MarianoPerez

JackPerkins

JamesPoage

Martin Pozesky

LeightonQuon

JohnRekstad

Roger Remington

PaulRigterink

Tom Romer

David Rosen

RaytheonITSS

RaytheonITSS

NASA AmesResearchCenter

MontereyTechnologies,Inc.

SeagullTechnology,Inc.

SeagullTechnology,Inc.

NorthropGrummanInformationTechnology

NASA AmesResearchCenter

HoneywellAerospaceElectronicSystems

NASA AmesResearchCenter

NASA AmesResearchCenter

SanJoseStateUniversity

NASA AmesResearchCenter

NASA Headquarters

NASA AmesResearchCenter

NorthropGrummanIT

FederalAviation AdministrationACB-100

ComputerSciencesCorporation

ComputerSciencesCorporation

Titan Systems

Metron Aviation

The Mitre Corporation

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

Northrop Grumman Information Technology

Federal Aviation Administration

NASA Ames Research Center

Federal Aviation Administration

NASA Glenn Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University

Optimal Synthesis, Inc.

Raytheon Company

NASA Ames Research Center

Northrop Grumman IT

NASA Langley Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

Volpe National Transportation Center

Voipe National Transportation Center

MTP Associates

Northrop Grumman/Logicon

Federal Aviation Administration

NASA Ames Research Center

Computer Sciences Corporation

NASA Ames Research Center

Orbital Sciences

83
RobertRosen

Karlin Roth

David Rutishauser

David Schleicher

BobSchwab

Barry Scott

Tom Sharkey

MarianneShelley

HenrySielski

David Signor

Alvin Sipe

GeorgeSolomos

JohnSorensen

EdwardSpitzer

BanavarSridhar

EdwardStevens

DouglasSweet

HarrySwenson

Terrence Thompson

Leonard Tobias

William Usab

Earl Van Landingham

Savita Verma

Michael Wambsganss

Chris Wargo

David Waring

Del Weathers

Sheryi Wold

Daryl Wong

Robert Yackovetsky

Andres Zellweger

Robert Zimmerman

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Langley Research Center

Seagull Technology, Inc.

Boeing Air Traffic Management

NASA Ames Research Center

Monterey Technologies

NASA Ames Research Center

Computer Sciences Corporation

Seagull Technology, Inc.

Boeing Air Traffic Management Division

The Mitre Corporation

Seagull Technology, Inc.

Volpe National Transportation Center

NASA Ames Research Center

Raytheon Company

Seagull Technology, Inc.

NASA Ames Research Center

Metron Aviation

NASA Ames Research Center

Continuum Dynamics, Inc.

NASA Ames Research Center

San Jose State University

Metron Aviation, Inc.

Computer Networks & Software, Inc.

Boeing Air Traffic Management Division

NASA Ames Research Center

Raytheon ITSS

NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Langley Research Center

NASA Headquarters

Raytheon ITSS

84
Appendix C

Presentations

85
This page intentionally left blank.

86
Airspace Systems Program

Virtual Airspace Modeling

and Simulation Project

Technical Interchange Meeting #1

Robert Jacobsen

Director,

Airspace Systems Program

May 21, 2002

O Revok.dionize Aviation

Enable a safe environmentally friendly

expan_ of aviation (Baseline: 1997)

Airspace

System

Program

@Advance Space Transportation

OPioneer Technology Innovation

OCommercialize Technology

Objectives

, Reduee_e_teraftac¢k:ient:ratebyafactor i

of five within 10,years, and by a fa_er of t_n

within 25 years

- Double the capacity of the atA_ _

within _o years and tripte'_25 years

based on 1897 levels

25 years;.mdu_ long.hau4

travel timoby _mtf wlthin 25 years

• Reduce NOX emissions of future aircraft by

70% five within 10 years, and by 80% within

25,years.

• Reduce the perceived noise of future aircraft

by a f_ctor of two within 10 years, and by a

factor of four within 25 years

87
ANNUAL PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS

(Billions)

1997 Baseline

1990 199S 2OO0 2005 2010 201S 202O 2025

FAA L,_n_-Ra_ Acro_p_'_ Fl.-_a._t_ F¥ ̧ 2()1 _ 21)20, _ _)2_ I June. 2(X_

Demand is escalating faster than the

general economic growth

!!iii!il!!_}iiii;iii i; ̧i!

:__r increases in the capacity

of the air transportation

:__gh development of

revotutio__.ty operations systems &

__irements

NAS capacity and mobility

i validate & transfer advanced concepts, technologies and

_es to the customer commun ty

__ary Objectives:

!!

"._e access, flexibility, collaboration and predictability of the NAS

system safety, security and environmental protection

Er, al_ runway-independent aircraft and general aviation operations

.... _ Er_le modeling and simulation of air transportation operations

88
ililiili ii!iii _ iiiii!

Provides National Policy for NAS Modernization

The Operational Evolution

Plan (OEP)

• Developed by FAA

• Approved by Secretary of

Transportation

• Endorsed by RTCA

• Vetted with Community

• Arrival Departure Rates

• Additional runways and new procedures

• Smaller gaps in arrival and departure streams

• Management of surface congestion

• En Route Congestion

• Adapt resources to high-demand areas

• Take advantage of new aircraft capabilities

• More flexible routing

• Airport Weather Conditions

• All-weather capability at airports

• Quick reconfiguration for weather

• En Route Severe Weather

• Joint planning to reduce effects of uncertainty

• Finding best routes around weather

But the degree of capacity improvement outlined in

this plan falls short of what is needed

89
iii!i!iii  ̧ ̧i! ii

I__-to-gate air traffic

__ increase capacity

flexibility Model/simulate the NAS

• i i ' ̧

__od capacity

_nli_ due to weather

::::_ed in 2000)

and explore next

generation of advanced

concepts

VAMS Project '02-'07

Understand & model

human/systems

Improve public mobility &

community access with

small aircraft/airports

SATS Program '01-'05

Off-load small commuter

traffic from runways for use

by large transports

(Complcte._i in 2001)

AOS Base Project _ ....

! _!iTAP Project '94-'00 SHCT Project '94-'01

lst-gen A TM aids

I

2nd-gen A TM auto

9O
VAMS-AvSTAR Projects

Explore, simulate and develop advanced concepts and

technologies for next generation air transportation system

/

/ Virtual Airspace Simulation /

/ Technology

/

/

_prAoje MS B _ .

/ _ "_ " i " _Augmentation

System-Level Concept ,,mr, "

I _v_-_me_and Evalua'i°n Y TC° hnPoIcn;ims

91
VIRTUAL AIRSPACE MODELING AND

SIMULATION

Technical Interchange Meeting

RLV

E_m

_Y

Security

Harry N. Swenson

Project Manager

NASA Ames Research Center

May 21, 2002

Project Vision

The Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation Project

will provide the technologies and processes for

conducting trade-off analyses amongst future air

transportation system's concepts and technologies

92
Outline

• VAMS Project Description

• VAMS Project Management

• VAMS Project Schedule

• Technical Interchange Meeting

• Objectives

• Agenda

Background: Today's ATS Operational V._._

Concept Baseline

93
Flight from San Francisco to Dulles

Route of flight includes transition through 35 sectors:

- 6 surface/terminal area sectors (departure)

- 23 en route area sectors

- 6 terminal/surface area sectors (arrival)

Off Nominal ATM Scenario

_T

94
_ Project Goals & Objectives V_

• Develop the capability to model and simulate behavior of air

transportation system concepts and their elements to neverbefore-achieved levels of fidelity

- Develop a set of analytical and computational models and methods

to conduct detailed assessments of candidate operational

concepts

- Establish simulation capability that will enable safe investigation

of complex advanced air transportation concepts, and develop a

deeper understanding of human performance interaction within it

• Develop advanced air transportation concepts

- Develop a set of potential operational concepts, concepts of use,

and architectures, providing definitions of the future air

transportation system and its elements

- Develop technology roadmaps to achieve these concepts

• Conduct assessments of advanced air transportation concepts

- Address potential benefits, identify risks and limits, and evaluate

performance, safety, operations, and National Airspace System

infrastructure and transition challenges

::AT 7

_ Air Transportation System Status _S

TOTAL UJ_. ATC SYSTEM DELAY

IThousands of Flights with Deioy>15 mios)

MONTHLY PA_;ENGER ENPLANEMENTS

(Millions}

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

19_) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

95
Issues

• TheNationalAirspaceSystem(NAS)onthevergeof gridlock

- Excessive delays result

- Negative impact on economy and mobility

• New concepts beyond currently planned are needed to meet

future capacity demands

• Substantial change is required in the approach to NAS

operations

• Total NAS evaluation requires substantial improvement to

current modeling and simulation capabilities

• NASA has extensive experience in airspace systems

development and an outstanding modeling and simulation

capability

AT

Project Summary

Existing Models Impro_odels

Develop &

Validate Toolset

(Models & Simulation)

Set of Operational

Concepts

Develop New

Concepts

Baseline Project

Deliverable #1

Project

Deliverable #2

Project

Deliverable #3

10

96
_IL"

Terms & Definitions -_11_

Operational Concept: An operational concept describes what a specific

set of air transportation system capabilities does or will do to provide

specific operational services to an identified set of system users.

These operational services include:

- Flight Planning - Separation Assurance

- Situational Awareness & Advisory - Navigation & Landing

- Traffic Management--Strategic Flow - Airspace Management

- Traffic Management--Synchronization - Emergency/Alerting

- Infrastructure/Information Management

An operational concept may be limited to a subset of these services

and the technology used to accomplish that concept; for example, the

operational concept might be "the air transportation system provides

separation assurance between aircraft"

Modeling: A set of mathematical constructs or equations and

parameters that describe a phenomenon or concept

Simulation: The time-based integration of models that use the passage

of time as one of its parameters

Real-Time: Simulations in which the passage of time replicates the

passage of time in the 'real' world associated with human-in-the-loop

(HITL)

Non Real-Time: Simulations in which the passage of time is either

.......AT slower or faster than the real world 11

_ VAMS Technical Process V_.._

12

9?
Technical Challenges

• Identifying and prioritizing a set of existing models

• Developing models to fill gaps _i! • Integrating and validating the set of models

• Integration with human-in-the-loop simulation and

validation

• Using appropriate evaluation methods 1 >

Defining gate-to-gate and door-to-door measurable metrics _ _

Supporting and defining appropriate scenarios (utilization) J _ _,

• Identifying Enterprise goal-achieving concepts

• Comprehensive modeling and analysis of concepts and

supporting technologies

• Seamless integration of concept elements

• Knowledge management

• Technology/concept assessments

• Information flow

]>O

w_m_

j,o

13

Conceptual Domains

Regional Tactical

14

98
Future Operational Concept Paradigm Shift _V_

Surface Terminal Enroute Terminal Surface

T_ay's

ATS

• Q

gate gate

AATT

OEP

FFP1/I=FP2

e

gate gate

................ : : L[

i , ! _1 " i i i VAMS

AvSTAR

gate

;:AT

Airspace Domains

J•

gate

15

Airspace Concept Evaluation System V_.._MS

"CAMSFramework (HLA RTI)

16

99
Future NAS-Wide Simulation mns

Analysis Architecture

Multi Simulu_on Runs

*tvmrlance in input parameters

NAS-wide Distributed Simulation System

Configure_ysis need

"Plug and Play" distributed simulation framework

Real Time Facilities Mu]U-lidc]il) rModels r--_r_

D'_ andmodels a_ ¢_. I _ _1t _ I

VAMS Framework

Immr-simulation Communication and Control _HLA RTI_

[ :

[

: -:]

Approach provides an open architecture embracing best-of-breed models and

simulations, and sockets for facilities in a NAS-wide, multi-fidelity framework

17

VAMS Project Deliverables

• Deliverable #1 - A real-time virtual airspace simulation

environment (3QFY06)

- Annual build of simulation capability

• Deliverable #2 - The identification and evaluation of

potential concepts of operation that meet the

objectives of the Enterprise's long-term capacity and

mobility objectives of the Revolutionize Aviation Goal

(3QFY07)

- Interim deliverables on a yearly basis

• Deliverable #3 - Technology roadmaps to achieve the

identified concepts (3QFY06)

- Interim deliverables on a yearly basis

18

100
VAMS Roadmap

FY 02 FY 03 FY04 FY 05 FY 06 i FY 07

I

Concept

SLIC

SEA

Virtual

Airspace

Simulation

Non

Real-Time

Real-Time

(R-T)

Technical

Interchange

Meetings

Preliminary

_ZiAT _, Milestone 19

VAMS WBS Management Structure

Economic Analysis i

Transportat on Needs

1 J. Cavolowsky

System Level i

Integrated Concepts

R, Feeg - Sub-Element Lead

f Identify Potential Operational

Concepts

Analyze Gathered Concepts

Refine Concepts

Integrate & Synthesize Concepts

Prepare Technology Roadmaps

Virtual Airspace Modeling and

Simulation Project

NASA Ames - Lead Center

H. Swanson - Project Manager

D. Weathers - Deputy Project Manager

F. Jonaeaon - Resource Management

M. Gratteau - Administrative Assistant

System Evaluation i

and Asl_ssment

S. Lozito - Sub-Element Lead

- Develop Experiments

- Validate Simulation Environment

- Evaluate Synthesized Concepts

- Prel0are Evaluation Reports

Systems Engineering i

and Integration

R. Zlmmerman

T. Cochrane

I

Virtual Airspace i

SimuIaUon Technologies

T. Romer - Sub-Element Lead

- Define Requirements for Airspace

Models

- Oes_gn Airspace Modeling Systems

- Del_gn the Airspace Simulefi_rl

Envkonrnent

- Develop Non ReaI-Tkne snd Humanin-the-Loop Simulation Environments

- Provide Documentation for Simulation

Environment Dellve_ables

Provide Simulation Tool User Support

and Receive Feedback

20

101
TIM Objective . m Mm

• Project integration and risk management

• Initial air transportation system concept

information definitions

• Initial technology roadmap definition and

development

• Initiate evaluation scenarios and metric

definition and development

• Guideline development for concepts

assessment

21

TIM Agenda

21 -May 22-Mly 23-Mly

Tuuchiy Wednesday 1_

Fac_vaneopens Fscl_ ooens F_C=_y o_ms

Mee0_g Re_rs_r_ I

AUI_mA_ Awpo_l Su_ace i [

4 : L=_ : : SurtE_e Opemt,on Autom_rbo. i B_ak_l ._

{Swe_son} Cenlrabze_ Termm=d Operatm_ (3 u_p0rllle p_'_H se_s_

SLIC S_menl _ew Conlr_ Norm,-_o Groan I

IFon_ e_a= i I

Break B_

A,r Transport Syst_ Ca_ly

VAST ,_Jb_en_ent ove_ IncreB_n_ Concep_ P._*ttle_

tfleme_l Wa_e Vorlex AvO*+_nce Cotlcept

SEA Sub-e_menl _w (Ruhlhluserl

fLozI_o_ AovanceO AiPJipalc_ Co#lcepl Ref)orl o_ Bce_l "2

Federal Avlat_ A0mtms_at_n IErzberget I

(LJang}

C_e_e_ Lunc_

System Levi _

Increaan_ Con_pI _oe_rl_,

Techn_ogms Enabkng Al-Wealher

Max Cap By _0_0 _et_o_

Brea_

Masm_e PTP _ O_-_

ATS I_ves_ Sea_u_ r_

System W_e Opl,m*zat,on

_S,_haq

S#eo= 8reakoul Ses_on

_.=tlng

(ol_er= a_l_rn tot day_

Ca_er_ Lunch1 Ca=_eo Lur_

,n P_o Room m Philo R_m

Un_r sll_ coecepls

IZe¢lweger )

ev_k i

Repo_ _ Bre_kou_ #1

_3-.k ...... !.....

B,ea_

Repot1 on Breakou_ #3

Next Sleps *n Go_epls

an_ a P,ev_w o_ _M 2

22

102
TIM Logistics

• Phone Calls

Messages can be left at (650) 604-2926 or 604-2082

• Computing

Macintosh computers and hookups for laptops are

available for your use in the Fireside area.

• Refreshments & Registration

• Breakout Assignments

,_ Macon Northwing

Showroom

• Restrooms

Located on the right side of the ballroom and

on your left just as you past the registration area.

23

Questions, Comments, Issues v .. uas

24

103
Background: Air Transportation System--__IS

25

]O4
System-Level Integrated

Concepts (SLIC)

v itlS

£gCkecy

RLV

Security

Robert Fong

System-Level Integrated Concepts Manager

NASA Ames Research Center

May 21, 2002

Outline V._IllS

• Criteria for a successful meeting

• SLIC Goals

• Approach

• Concept Development Process

• Concept Development Timeline

• Concept Development Framework

• Gathered Concepts

• Phase one focus

• VAMS Participant interactions

105
Criteria for a Successful

Technical Interchange Meeting

We all achieve a common understanding of:

- The project goals and approach

- The concept-development goals and approach

- The project terminology

- The necessary interactions between the concepts,

modeling/simulation and assessment group

:_:AT

SLIC Goals

• The goal of this concept development effort is to

produce, and evaluate the benefits of, a Unified

Capacity-increasing Concept.

° Develop Technology Roadmaps to layout out how

such a concept can be developed and implemented

in the NAS.

:;?AT

106
SLIC Approach v isIs

• Gather Concepts from industry, NASA, universities,

and other sources; concepts cover distinct domains

of the Air Transportation System (surface, terminal,

en route, and gate-to-gate)

• NASA's baseline references include OEP, RTCA

2005, ICAO...

• Concepts will address NASA's long-range Aerospace

Technology Enterprise goals (3X increase by 2022)

• Develop and Analyze Independent Concepts

• Integrate and Synthesize the independent concepts

into a unified capacity- increasing system concept

Transportation

_E_n_

Demographics

Technology

VIS_ON 2050

Secur_

_ Techlol_y

Insertion I

Concept Development Process

Metrics

Off-Nominal

Conditions Amdysls

IntegmUon of I

Concept

Elements

0Techn_y

Roadmap

107
_ SLIC Timeline

cY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4A

Phase 4Bi

Summary of Concept Development Phasing

Phase

Work

Requirements

Scenario

Requirements

Tools for

Evaluation

Phase One Develop concept Develop concept N/A

specific scenario

Evaluate and refine Use concept Own or available Phase Two concept specific scenarios VAST tool set

Phase Three Evaluate and refine Initial common VAST Tool set

concept scenario set

Participate in

Phase Four A blending of unified Expanded common, VAST Tool Set

system concepts scenario set

Phase Four B

Full common

scenario set

Support synthesis

and analysis of

unified system

concept

VAST Tool Set

_I_AT

108
Concept Common Framework

All concept developers shall describe their

concept using a common framework, the

"guidelines", to facilitate:

Modeling and simulation of concepts

Evaluation and assessments of concepts

The eventual blending of the concept.

:_:AT

II_AT

Concept Guidelines and Criteria

Concepts include:

• Issues

• Assumptions

• Challenges

• Operating domains

• Core Ideas

• Functions

° Roles/Resp of Human/Mach

• Performance

• User interfaces

• Architecture

• Controls philosophy

• Error Recovery ideas

• Metrics of goodness

• Technology requirements

• Costs/Benefits

• Conceptual competitors

%

Safe

Useful

Effective

Definable

Practical

S_le

Robust

Relial_e

Self-Diagnostic

Adaptable

Available

Accurale

Respensive

Predictable

Time/Effort Saver

Maintainable

Compatible

Evaluation Criteria address:

}

"t

Documented _e

Transition

Constructibte

Producible

Environmentally Compatit

Affordable I

Revolutienary J

Functions

Performance

Feasibility

10

109
Gathered Concepts - NRA

Boeing Air Transportation System Gate-to-Gate

Capacity Increasing Concepts

Research

Metron Technologies Enabling All- Gate-to-Gate

Aviation Weather Maximum Capeclty by

2020

Seagull Concept PTP: Massive Point- Gate-to-Gate

Technologies to-Point and On-Demand Air

Transportation

Northrop Centralized Terminal Operation Terminal

Grumman Control

Metron Capacity Improvement through Surface

Aviation Automated Airport Surface

Traffic Control

Optimal Surface Operation Automation Surface

Synthesis Research (SOAR)

I_AT

Gathered Concepts - NASA

NASA-ARC Advanced Airspace En route

Concept

NASA-ARC System-wide Gate-to-Gate

Optimization

NASA-LaRC Wake Vortex Terminal

Avoidance System

(WVAS)

DAT 12

110
Gathered Concepts - Others

v Ms

Raytheon Terminal Area Terminal

Capacity

Enhancing

Concept (TACEC)

University Group University System

(Zellweger) Concept(s)

CAT 13

Sub-element Interactions

Concept results

Scenarios

Socio-Econ/Demographic

Project Office

..,°°° ,°°°°°°°

::!:!rAT

Recommend Priorities

Concept results

Comments

Requirements

Feedback

Tool Capabilities

Testing/Eval.

Capabilities

.guidelines

• metrics

• CSS

VAST

• ACES

• RT-HITL

Requirements

(Conlinuous)

Exp. Plan

Requirements

Feedback

Tool Capabilities

°°,"

t4

111
VAMS Participant Interactions v Mm

• Technical Monitors assigned to each Concept

• Technical Interchange Meetings - two per

year

• Concept developer "deliverables"

_I:AT 15

Key Challenges

• Can the concept be analytically modeled?

• Can concepts be successfully blended?

-These are topics for the Guidelines Breakout

_:;,AT 16

112
Virtual Airspace Simulation Technologies

(VAST)

Tom Romer

VAST Sub-Element Lead

NASA Ames Research Center

tronte¢ @ rNall.arc._ .gov

May 21 2002

Outline

• VAST Description

• VAST Development Approach

• VAST Interdependencies

• VAST Challenges

• Summary

113
VAST Description

• VAST provides a validated virtual airspace simulation environment with

modeling and simulation capabilities to assess the integrated behavior of

current and future air transportation system concepts and technologies at the

system-wide level and at the detailed human-in-the-loop level

• Airspace Concept Evaluation System

- Interoperable models representing the actions and highly coupled interactions of

the air transportation system's key components

- Non-real-time environment capable of assessing the impact of new technologies,

procedures and concepts of operation on the safety, capacity, economics and

security of the nation's air transportation system

• Human-In-The-Loop Simulation

- Distributed network simulation capability that integrates real-time software

models, human interfaces and simulation labs and facilities

- Real-time simulation environment that adequately addresses human interactions

with air transportation system technologies

VAST Organization Chart

VAST

Tom Romer, ARC

Vomer @mail.arc_ nasa.gov

650-604-6463

CNS Modeling

Steve Mamger(Acting),GRC

StevenW Maioger@grc.nasagov

216-433-3548

Airspace Modeling

and Simulation

KadinRoth,ARC

kroth@mall.arc.nasa.gov

650-604-6678

1

Human/Team

Performance Modeling

Roger Remington, ARC

rremington @ mail.arc.nasa .gov

650-604-6243

I

Real-Time

Human in the Loop

Simulation

Scott Malsom,ARC

smalsom@mail.arc.nasa.gov

650-604-1164

ll4
VAST Development Approach

Airspace Modeling and Simulation

• Develop the architecture for the Airspace Concept Evaluation System

• Develop models to support ATM system assessments through simulation

and analysis

;......... -

VAhIS

VAMS Framework _'HLA RTI)

• Transfer appropriate models and technology for application within the

real-time simulation environment

Prototype Simulation Description v.P.aRs

NAS- Wide Enroute Simulation Interwoven agent interactions:

- different Aidines l different strategies

- controller interactions with AC

ZTL

Unmanaged Aircraft Managed Aircraft

Red - Airline #1 (All Managed _. :_..\, _:

Blue - Airline #2 (All Unmanaged)

115
Prototype Demonstration Scenario

• Airline federate schedules

- Airline #1 with a fleet of 500 unmanaged aircraft

- Airline #2 with a fleet of 500 managed aircraft

- Flight schedules generated using a "random flight scheduler" based on

ETMS data

• En Route federate

- Simulates En Route NAS, modeling geometry, infrastructure, and various

NAS dynamic and static agents at low fidelity (Pilots, AOCs, ATCSCC,

ARTCC, Controllers, NAS geometry, etc.) as these airlines fly across the

NAS

• Controller federate

- Simulates ZNY56, ZDC04, ZDC12

• Simulation Manager controls the simulation

• Data Collection federate

- Fuel, conflicts, near misses logged to a database

Airspace Concept Evaluation System

Build-1 Development

• Emphasizes establishment of the core architectural foundation that is

designed for flexibility, scalability and extansibllity

• Expands the initial set of models within the toolbox

- Enables study of benefits from candidate improvements such as Arc and

flight deck enhancements

- Enables evaluation of the effect of increased future traffic demand

- Precludes study of radical system improvements such as aggressive

implementation of free flight

• Focuses on run-time capability versus efficiency

• Integrates / develops basic simulation control, data collection and

visualization

116
Build-1 Simulation Description

ATC

L

Scalable, plug & play, I_

reconfigurable !

............................... .if;;;.............. ..

TRACON

....... AIRPORT

........ ..

%°, ........... o.,°°.° ....... oo,O-"°°

Airspace Concept Evaluation System

Development Summary

• Demonstrated a proof-of-concept prototype

- Selected the DoD's HLA-RTI infrastructure with agent-based software to

enable fast-time NAS-wide simulation

- Established a modeling lab that leverages existing and emerging models

and tools

• Provinq the feasibility of the approach to capture the interactions between

NAS entities (Build-I)

- Integrate a suite of tow-medium fidelity NAS models

- Model dynamic effects of interactive agents

- Assess NAS operational performance

• Enhancina the modelinq toolbox by adding NAS functionality

- Develop and validate new models of NAS components

- Increase model fidelity and simulation speed

• Defining requirements for usability to enable technolo.qy transfer to

airspace analysts

lO

117
f_ _ Real-Time Human-In-The-Loop Simulation

• Design a distributed network capability that Integrates ATM simulator facilities,

labs and real-time software models to support assessments of human

interactions with airspace concepts and technologies

- Define real-time environments and establish preliminary design

- Complete requirements and initial design

• Develop initial capability and validate against a defined operational concept

- Adapt models developed within the Airspace Modeling and Simulation Task for

use in real-time simulation

- Develop models unique to real-time simulation

- Develop interface requirements to simulators and labs

• Enhance capability to include multi-facility functionality

- Establish infrastructure to conduct multi-facility simulations

• Complete capability to support concept development

AT

Real-Time Concept

_/ VAST HITL

RT SIMULATION

CAPABILITY

12

118
Human/Team Performance Modeling

• Develop and validate human and team models that predict operator

performance within VAMS operational concepts

- Define and model cognitive demands of supervisory control in highly-automated

human-machine systems

- Define and model individual and team decision strategies

- Define and model performance characteristics of mixed-initiative systems

• Develop rapid re-configurable airspace operator models for new concepts

- Software architecture: interoperable, portable, versatile, scalable, extensible

- Usability: high-level modeling language, model debugging support, and data

visualization tools

- Model building blocks: templates for human-computer interaction, and libraries of

reusable physical environment widgets

- Integrate Human/Team Performance models into Build 3 of modeling toolbox

:!AT 13

Human/Team Performance Modeling

Simulations Concept ][

Human Factors Evaluations 1

Reat-T/me F_t- TIme

Simulation Suite Simulation Toolkit

t t

Simulated Human Agent

Situation Distributed Commurdcatlon

/u.leument Dedaion Making

Operator Task Demands

Model Support Tools I

Modeler AR

Behavioral Templates

.... B;

Psychological Theory & Data 14

119
CNS Modeling

• Develop requirements for CNS modeling that supports evaluation of VAMS

operational concepts

- Identify and categorize CNS modeling and simulation capabilities and needs

- Identify approach to CNS model and CNS infrastructure assessment

• Develop communication, navigation and surveillance models for today's

system, technologies currently being considered within the FAA's OEP, and

technologies being considered for the future

- Develop and demonstrate standard communications traffic model for assessing

CNS model elements and architectures

- Integrate CNS modeling activities into Build 3 of modeling toolbox

15

CNS Simulation Description X Mm

ILS

16

120
Virtual Airspace Simulation Environment V_

Concept

Multi Simulation Runs

w/variance in input parameters

NAS-wide Distributed SimulaHon System

Contigu_ysis need

f,,a---- "Plug and Play" distributed simulation tramc_ork "_

Real Time Facilities Mulli-fidelitv Models [--_r_

_____llill I_ andmodcls h ¢'_. ] _ _11 ! _ I

VAMS Framework

Inter-simulation Communicmion end Control (HLA RTI)

)._uaalysls

Tools

17

VAST Interdependencies

Tool

tommend Priorities

lo¢ot results

nme, ms

Fements

bilities

',suits

Requirements

Priorities

Testing/Eval.

Capabilities

• metrics

• CSS

VAST

*ACES • RT-HITL I

Socio- Econ/Demographic

Project Office

8

.:

SEA

Feedba

Tool Capabilitie.¢"

°o°°,°*

• Common

Scenario Set

(CSS)

- Evaluation

Criteria

- Metrics

- Methods

- Experimental

Plan (EP)

18

121
VAST Challenges

• VAST's overarchlng measure of success is to produce analytical models and

analysls results that enable the Implementation of new ATM technologies and

concepts

• Technical Challenges

- Identifying and prioritizing a set of existing models

- Developing models to fill gaps

- Integrating and validating the set of models and methods

- Integrating with human-in-the-loop simulations and validating those methods

• Process Challenges

- Fostering a cooperative environment and proposing standards within the ATM

modeling and simulation community

- Providing verified and validated simulation testbeds that represent the air

transportation system

- Advancing the fundamental understanding of the dynamic interactions within the NAS

- Making the tools accessible to users

E AT 19

Summary

• VAST seeks to produce new national capabilities to assess airspace

concepts at the system-level and detailed human-in-the-loop level

- Architectures that are scalable, extendable and re-configurable, and support

distributed simulation in non-real-time and real-time domains

- Toolbox of agent-based models to select from and build simulations

- Facility interface standards

- Simulation and assessment tools and utilities

• VAST success requires a cooperative effort

- Concept developers

- Concept evaluators

- Modeling and simulation developers

• Efforts within VAST are underway and progressing well toward early project

milestones

• VAST Focused TIM #2

2o

122
Systems Evaluation and Assessment

(SEA)

Sub-element

Sandy Lozito

Level 3 Manager

SEA Sub-element

1

Relationship between the VAMS

Sub-elements

irspace Modeling and Simulation

SI.1C = S_,stern Level Integrated Concepts

VAST = Virtual Air,,pacc Simulation Technologies

SEA = Systems Ev_dualiOn and As_£v, stl_2nt

123
Relationship between the

Sub-elements

System Evaluation and AssessmentiM_S

Technical Challenges

• Identifying and prioritizing a set of existing models

• Developing models to fill gaps

• Integrating and validating the set of models

• Integration with human-in-the-loop simulation and validation

• Using appropriate evaluation methods

• Defining gate-to-gate and door-to-door measurable metrics

• Supporting and defining appropriate scenarios (utilization)

• Identifying Enterprise goal-achieving concepts

• Comprehensive modeling and analysis of concepts and

supporting technologies

• Seamless integration of concept elements

• Knowledge management

• Technology/concept assessments

• Information flow

*I;AT

,,,,, Ilo

o

m

/_'8

4

124
Today's System Evaluation V_

Methods and Techniques

B747-400 Simulator at NASA Ames

Real-Time Link

Air-Ground Integration Experiment (2000)

Analysis &

Data Recommendations

• Timing variables

• Closest Point of Approach

• AJrcrnn maHeuvers

• Workload data

• Communication timing

• Cockpit display data

• Alerting logic data

William J. Hughes Technical Center Lab

_,AT

Current Evaluation & Assessment Gaps

• High resolution data

• Reflects limited segment of the NAS

System Evaluation and Assessment _S

General Tasks and Goals

• Develop scenarios and metrics for evaluation of the

SLIC concepts

• Conduct an initial validation assessment of the VAST

real-time tools

• Conduct an initial assessment of the selected concepts

• Conduct an assessment of the integrated concepts

• Conduct the final evaluation of the selected concept(s)

using the VAST tools

125
Scenario/Metric Requirements

• Scenarios and Metrics will be used to help evaluate

the concepts from VAMS/System Level Integrated

Concepts

-Initial evaluation of concepts will be self-evaluation

-The scenarios/metrics for self-evaluation can be

used to assist the SEA scenario/metric development

•There can be many scenarios and metrics, but

ultimately they must be applicable for broad

evaluations

-Concepts addressing multiple airspace domain and

concepts addressing more specific domains

-Concepts addressing multiple parts of the triad

(AOC/ATC/FD)

Scenario Topics and Issues

• Scenarios are necessary for the evaluation of the

"capacity-increasing" concepts

• Scenarios must test the concepts' ability to increase

capacity and maintain (or increase) safety

• Scenarios must cover all domains (e.g., surface, terminal,

enroute)

• Scenarios

• Scenarios

• Scenarios

flight deck

• Scenarios must be able to test both single-domain

concepts and more broad concepts

• SEA is writing requirements for the scenarios, not the

scenarios themselves.

must consider normal and non-normal events

must cover real-time and fast-time testing

must test all parts of the NAS triad: AOC, ATC,

AT

126
concepts

1 Scope:

.tssues

• NAS Domain

• challenges

.assurnpt_or_

2 Top LeVel

Delcdp_ons:

,core _deas

.functions

3. Detaged Descripttons:

.pedormance

•r_es r es_*onsibdihes

•@ h_mans & machine

• human factors

•user _n_edaces

t_hnotogy impacts:

• transilJon planning

,a_hJtecture

•techr_Ology requirements

Framework for Scenario

and Metrics Development*

Stakeholder Viewpoints

(questions robe answered)

• operational

scenarios

$cettario Elements

• NAS Domain

• NAS Perturbal*ons

leg Wx Securityinc_ems)

• O_gir_Desl_nalJon Demand

• Assumed Technolog*es

• HumardMach_ne Performance

-Oehned ATM Pr_edures

-Assumed Equqpage

• F_eet Mrx

-Etc

--P- NAS Model --

Simulations

Empiric Analysis

(ie experl opinions)

Stakeholder Viewpoints

(questions to be answrred )

..°'=ion -I_ output ___

metrics metrics

-Number of traffic events °Average aircraft fl_ht lime

(takeoffs se_or cross_ngs per al_ rccJte"

landrngs elc _ .Average mrcraft payload

• Number of commurNcadon per flight mile

events (requests .Operat_nal cost per

_earances, d_rechves etc) passenger mile

• thro_ghpul ttrafflC volumel -Average taxr time from

pushback to wheels up

-Delay dunng peak traffic per)otis

-Safe_y thcldencs (proximity per specdic awports _ taxi

to minimum sepazat©n, paths w_thin airp_ls

inoJrsiens encroachments .Average voice channel

etc ) occupancy time per

-Elapsed flPght ¢imes departure from pushback to

-Fuel Ib,ur n Lake off

•Capital investments .Average A,r pod arriva_

-Personnel workloads rate during peak periods

-Etc -Rate of amvals I_er

controller hou_ per tarpon

•AlreraR lot engine or

othe_ compor_nl)

ma_ntenar_ce costs per

fligt_l m_e

"Et¢

• a define_ city pa_r air

route

'V_ewgraph from Jack Perkins Volpe Center

System Evaluation and Assessment _lk_S

Team Members

• San Jose State University

• Volpe Transportation Systems Center

• Seagull Technology, Inc

• Monterey Technologies, Inc

• Researchers within NASA

I0

127
Briefing to

NASA TIM

Air Traffic Management Concepts of

Operations and Their Impact on the

National Airspace System (NAS)

Presented by:

Wayne MacKenzie

Deputy Air Traffic Planning Division (ATP-401), FAA

And Member Nominated by the U.S. on the ICAO Air Traffic Management

Operational Concept Panel (ATMCP)

May 2002

Outline

• CONOPS Introduction

• NAS Modernization Process

• ICAO ATMCP Work Program

- ICAO Operational Concept Document

- Invariant Processes

- Key Conceptual Changes

• RTCA NAS Concept of Operations

• Where Do We Go From Here & Summary

128
CONOPS Introduction

Vision/Operational

Capabilities

Architecture/

Development

OPERATIONAL m

CONCEPT

Infrastructure Current _ ATMDesign System

I Implementation I I ATMTransition Implementation/ Plans I

Investment/

Acquisition

Strategies

Concepts of

Use

CONOPS Introduction

REGIONAL PLANNING

(ICAO)

[Bottom-up] J

GLOBAL PLANNING (_ Operational Concept I .......

, l i

Regional Air Operational

Navigation Plans Concepts

T +

ATM Implementation/

Operational Evolution Investment

NATIONAL PLANNING Plans Plans

(STATES)

Architectures

I Strate_lic Plans I

129
NAS Modernization Process

"AVV_N COMMUNITY"

/ _ K_ _ _ OMB

_xist,ng I / Future 1_kr FAA I I Airport I |

"L Services J i L CONOPs ,)IL Plans J L Imp Plan J 5-Y'ear

S_in _ _ ) en_le A_rt ProjeFtio n

_CaJO_tie_/ ,mp_nts ,repents /

/ Near Term Mid Term Long Term

5-yr Projection 10-yr Projection Beyond 10 yrs I "

• Architecture Impact Acquisition As_ Management "Investment System Analysis

•Mistkm Need Analysis •Joint Resoure(mCounoil4:lmmur_e_ Councils

,. National Airspace Syste

Increasing Capabilities from R&D Efforts b

ICAO ATMCP Work Program

+Develop and Describe, in Sufficient Clarity and Detail, a Gate-to-Gate

ATM Operational Concept That Will Facilitate the Evolutionary

Implementation of a Seamless, Global ATM System.

+The ATM Operational Concept Should:

be visionary in scope;

+ not be limited by the present

level of technology;

_- lead to realization of all the

benefits expected from

CNS/ATM systems;

_F provide the basis for costbenefit analyses associated

with the introduction of ATM

systems.

130
ICAO Operational ConceptInvariant Processes

i ii!_ __i__i _i_i _iii!! _ __i_ °-_

The Operational Concept

Document lays out the foundation

for the concept components and

provides a general picture of the

future performance of air traffic

management based on the

operational concept.

\

• Airspace Organisation

& Management

• Aerodrome Operations

• Demand & Capacity.

Balancing

•Traffic Synchronisation

• Airspace User

Operations

• Conflict Management

• ATM Service Delivery

Management

Key Conceptual Changes

AIRSPACE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

• All airspace will be the concern of ATM;

• Dynamic and flexible airspace management; and

• Any airspace restrictions are transitory.

AERODROME OPERATIONS

• Runway occupancy time reduced;

• Safe maneuvering in all weather conditions;

• Precise surface guidance; and,

• Position and intent of all vehicles and aircraft will be known.

DEMAND & CAPACITY BALANCING

• Assets optimised to maximise throughput;

• Adjustments made to mitigate imbalance; and,

• Dynamic adjustments to the organization of airspace

131
Key Conceptual Changes

. _o_ _ 2_!!_!i,_iliiii!!!!Xr__ _

TRAFFIC SYNCHRONIZATION

• Dynamic 4-D trajectory control and negotiated conflict-free

trajectories;

• Chokepoints eliminated; and,

• Optimization of traffic sequencing.

AIRSPACE USER OPERATIONS

• Accommodation of mixed capabilities and worldwide implementation

needs;

• ATM data available as needed;

• Relevant airspace information available;

• Dynamically-optimized 4-D trajectory planning;

• Impacts on ATM taken into timely account; and,

• Aircraft designed with ATM system optimization a key consideration.

Key Conceptual Changes

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

• Strategic conflict management reduces separation provision;

• The pre-determined separator is the airspace user;

• The role of separator may be delegated;

• Separation provision intervention capability;

• Conflict horizon extended; and,

• Collision avoidance systems part of safety management.

ATM SERVICE DELIVERY MANAGEMENT

• Services delivered on an as-required basis;

• ATM design determined by CDM, safety, business cases;

• Services balance and optimize user-requested trajectories; and,

• Management by trajectory.

INFORMATION SERVICES

• Information Management, Meteorological Information Service and

Other Essential Services

132
RTCA NAS CONOPS

Is NAS-specific (At the National Planning Level)

Incorporates the Needs and Requirements of NAS Users and Service

Providers.

Based on Free Flight concept - thus, further development and validation

of Free Flight will Impact RTCA Concept

Operational Concept:

• Safety is First Priority

• Environmental Considerations are Taken Into Account

• Implementation of Any New Technologies Must Improve the Safety

and Efficiency of the Operational Environment

• Human-in-the-Loop

• Quality of Data, Information Exchange and CDM

• Separation Assurance Remains the Responsibility of the Service

Provider (Authority Can be Delegated to Flight Crews for Specific

Operations)

RTCA NAS CONOPS

• NAS Operational Concept:

• Divided into Near-term (2005), Mid-term (2005-2010) and Far-term

(2010-2015) -Global Operational Concept based on 2025

• Mentions Specific Systems (e.g., ILS, MLS, GPS, EGPWS, CDTI,

etc.). Mentions Specific Facilities (e.g., ATCSCC, AOC, FOC, etc.).

Mentions Specific Procedures (DPs, etc.). Mentions Specific

Solutions (e.g., Pre-Departure Clearances, ATIS-type messages, etc.)

- Global Operational Concept is technology-independent - no system

acronyms!

• Is written with Civil Users, DoD Users and Space Transportation

Users as the only community impacting or depending upon use of the

NAS. - Global Operational Concept Defines "ATM Community" as

Including the Airport Operators, the Support Industry, Regulatory

Authorities, etc.

133
Where Do We Go From Here?

, : ....

• Draft ICAO Operational Concept

Document to be Released for Comment

in June/July to all Member States

• ATMCP Next Step: Preparing Operational

Capabilities/Needs/Requirements Based

on OCD

• RTCA Currently Working on Next Version

of NAS CONOPS.

Summary

, i: l:;,:_i',;i,_;._,_*_{;'_;_t_ "

CONOPS are crucial to understanding

future direction of the NAS

CONOPS should be the basis for

Research & Development and

Requirements Development to ensure

focus on operational needs not

necessarily technical capabilities.

Continued Industry and Aviation Community

Involvement is Vital to Success

134
BACKUP SLIDES

Working Definitions

=====,_= , ==,_====== _ _;;_,_, ,_

"OPERATIONAL CONCEPT"

• A High Level Description of the Set of ATM Processes

and Services Necessary to Accommodate Traffic at a

Given Time Horizon.

• A Description of the Anticipated Level of Performance

Required From, and the Interactions Between, the ATM

Processes and Services, as Well as the Objects They

Affect.

• A Description of the Information to be Provided to Agents

in the ATM System.

more

135
cont.

Working Definitions

"OPERATIONAL CONCEPT" UNIQUENESS

The ATM Operational Concept Differs From "Architecture"

and "Concepts of Use"

Architecture Includes the Infrastructure and a Technical

System Description Including the Specific Technologies and

the Functions of Personnel.

A "Concept of Use" is a More Detailed Description of HOW a

Particular Functionality or Technology Could Be Used.

136
System Level Capacity Increasing

Concept

Briefers: Bob Schwab and AI Sipe, Boeing

Operational Concepts Team

Date: 21 May 02

Lead: Bob Schwab

Phone: 425.373.2522

Email: robert.w.schwab @ boeing.com

L ,W_7,dFIAV'O

Development Process

_St rategicW'_r°bje ctives_

WTT - Working Together Team MOE - Measures of Effectiveness

MOM - Measures of Mission MOP - Measures of Performance

137
Measures of Effectiveness

Safety MOEs

Affordability MOEs

-- Used to Evaluate Benefits

I !

Capacity MOEs

Security MOEs

tm.a 

Interoperabllity MOEs

Focus IS .....

Services

r ...................... ,

VFRServicesFlight i

' ........... r .......... '

/

............ ..........

Auxiliary ATM i

Services '

.......................

IFR Flight and Core ATM

IFRServices Flight i

Support

Services

........... [-*-Homeland Security

/ • National Defense

• Law Enforcement

l Core ServicesATM 1

• Air-Ground Communications • Manage Airspace

• Navigation • Manage Congestion/Flow

• Landing Guidance • Manage Traffic

• Surveillance • Manage Separation

• Weather • Manage Information

• Facilities Status

• Inter-facilities Communications

• Airport Operations

• Search & Rescue

138
;epara' anag

Concept

High

Density

PLANNING HORIZON

TRAFFIC

DENSITY

Low

Density Medium-Term

Stratsg ic

Long-Term

* Free Flight:

1. The ability to operate without a flight plan, except where flow restrictions may be imposed

2, The ability to operate without constraints, given suitable traffic densities

3, The Provision of Airplane-Based Separation Assurance

ncreas,ng :oncept mpact on

Enroute

Volume VMC

Medium Impact Minor Impact

-Weather effects not already captured _11 ._l

(e.g • ' snow removal after . storms) /_thu e r

-Air Traffic Control equipment problems_'_ MVMC

-Airline operation problems ,_Medium Im_p_ _ Large Impact

-Propagation effects of weather delay V /_ IMC

J Medium Impact

Convective

Weather

Minor Impact

VMC -Visual Meteorological Conditions

MVMC - Marginal Visual Meteorological Conditions

IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions

139
ATM Operational Concept Functions

Manage : Monitor, Assess, Plan, and Execute

Current ATM Roles

I

• Regulatory

• Defining airspace boundanes

• Technical perlormar'ce

requirememts

140
anage

& Benefits

• Trajectory based

conflict prediction

on the ground

provides 60 minute

look-ahead

assur

J

Conformance

,n 2020 -- Sub Functions

• Improved information (aircraft

state and intent) and technology

allows aircraft separation

distances to be closer to

established _?_ds

"Separation

responsibility in the A/C

for IMC approaches

under certain

,RPP

/

• Controller workload

complexity managed through

automated conformance

monitoring

Aircraft posit_o_ and velocdy estimate

//'Collision avoidance

responsibility resides

in the aircraft

Interoperability: Strategic and Tactical Domains

" oeer,.,_L, 1,.e

to Decision Conflict

Using decision spaces and stability analysis we identify the

goal driven interactions that define system communications

141
' _ 8,1_'_e:'JACG

Trade Study Examples

• Planning Time Vs Predictability

• Looks at how far into the future the plan can be expected to be

stable

• Impacts how far into the future trajectories are computed, how

often the plan is recomputed, etc.

•Ground vs Air

• Looks at what subfunctions are allocated to the agent in the air vs

the agent on the ground

•Impacts workload and cost of airborne and ground agents

•Human vs Machine

• Looks at workload and performance variables to decide which

subfunctions are better done with humans vs added automation

_129_ Tt_zhalcal I ..... hllnge Meetlngs ITIMs) " IF====:::=_

1_ VAM,_ 1 IM(M|UOIIs)

_293 JIM #2 |1¢ I_lt_ Period

12_ Monthly. Reports on Technical progress

31 r Development/Reporting

1t 1_ I_vetep Plla fa¢ Air I rllt=l_l'llCl_t Captdl) lacrets_lg C_ct'l_

13_9 Project Phmnlng

13_ ('encep¢ g_l Deflnh_

1_29 c_p* AMl)ds

1333 Final _ t_¢ _ntlaea

133_ I)_ll_er_/A_plan_ of Reports

133e bc_artm for Air Transportation ( aptdt? _lacre_tng (:_¢¢pl

133e Air ] rxmoort_m Capach)-Incvemlng CIIcepl

1341 Ilttesqm Pl ItNRIR t%_111

ill:liB

Imjlm

II_IIF=====:==_I_

,im _ lTg41

Air Trallic Management

142
NRA

TIM #1 METRON AVIATION

Technologies Ena bli ng AI IWeather +Maximum Capacity by

2020

Jimmy Krozel, Ph.D.

Presented at NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA

May 21-23, 2002

Agenda:

• Need for All-Weather Capabilities

• Who is the Metron Aviation Team?

• Core Ideas

• Enabling Technologies

• Roadmaps for New Technologies, Roles & Responsibilities

.... Metrics of Goodness

Motivation for Gettil _re

May 21-23.2(1{]2 NRA TIM #1

143
Problem: NAS is not Robust to Weather Disturbances

vP,A oPwM'r _

,it

Jl

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Weather related delays are currently increasing, especially

during summer convective weather season.

May 21-23 2002 NRA TIM #1

Me r_o_ AWATJO_

Problem: Weather Reduces Capacity

• Flyable Airspace is reduced

• Stretched Paths occur as

flights avoid weather

• Airspace Complexity

Increases

• Workload Increases for

Pilots and Controllers

• Capacity Decreases

May 21-23, 2002 NRA 77M _1

144
Metron Aviation Team Topical Experts:

Jimmy Krozel, Ph D

M etron A viation

Decision Support Tools

Weatl_er Avoidance

Algorrthms

ib_lTTROPd AVIATION

Terry Thompson, Ph D Mike Wambsganss KevJn Kollman

Metron Aviation Metron Aviation Metron Aviation

Airspace Design Collaborative DecBion Making Airhne Dispatch,

Noise Abatement Traffic Flow Management Meteorology

Route Optimization Considerabons

OHIO STONY

',SIAIE

Tony A;_d_e PI'! D Prof PhF SmP, h PI_f Joe Mit!;t_efl

Interface Analysis InsL of Ergonomics State Univ. of NY

Human Factors HUIT_:_I_ FacIors ComDLltatlO_l;31 @eolT'etr/

Human-Computer Roles. Responslbiliues & ','_eatner Avoidance

Interlaces _:'roced u res Algol ilhlTiS Topology

May 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM # I

Approach:

• Systems Level Approach:

,- Distributed System

Competing Goals and Prioritkm

Geographically Dispersed Raemurces

• Data Driven - based on real NAS,data to understand problems

• Human Centered Design Philosophy -anarchitecture that

balances cognitive complexity constraints of human decision

makers with the support of automation in_erms of required

Decision Support Tools (DSTs)

• Theoretically Founded and demonstrated Algorithms

• Capacity Driven:

_- Increasing Total Capacity

Identify Lost Capacity & Make Best use of the Available Capacity

May. 1-._ .00_ NRA TIM #1

145
The Triad:

_1_ Flight Deck (FD)

Airline Operational Control (AOC) Air Traffic Service Provider (ATSP)

Ma_, 21-23, 2(X)2 ,_vT_A TIM #1

Core Idea 3 (a): Optimal Weather Avoidance

!

:|

®

Mily 21-23. 2002 NRA TIM ¢_I

146
Core Idea 3 (b): Robust Weather Avoidance

Hazardous

A robust route planning algorithm identifies sets of viable

routes with the same topology, given uncertainties in aircraft

and weather position information.

May 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM #1

A ,At

147
Core Idea 11" Accommodate Maximum Information

Availability for CDM

80

70

60

_-- 5O

&

i4O _U'_:T_& ,..,......

_ 3o

2O

10

0

CDM has been shown to increase predictability through

information exchange, increasing NAS on-time performance.

May 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM #1

Enabling Technology 1: Weather Sensing and Prediction

Weather Sensing/Prediction will completely mosaic the NAS

by the year 2010.

May'21-23_2))2 NRA TIM#1 _, ., _v, f

148
Enabling Technology 4(a): New Displays for ATSP

ATM Magazine, Jan./Feb., 2000 Image Courtesy of Ron Azuma.

HRL Laboratories

New displays for ATSP will enable capacity benefits by

allowing aircraft to land safely in adverse weather conditions.

May 21-23.2002 NRA TIM #1

Enabling Technology 4(b): New Displays for the FD

T-NASA Images Courtesy of NASA

New displays for the FD will enable capacity benefits by allowing

aircraft to land safely and taxi in adverse weather conditions.

May. I-,3. ,(_'0_ NR..t TIM# 1

149
Enabling Technology 4(b): New Displays for the FD

Image

Courtesy of

Stanford GPS

Lab

New displays for the FD will enable capacity benefits by allowing

aircraft to accurately follow weather avoidance routes.

May 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM #1

r_E rRoes AV_Ar_O_

Enabling Technology 5: Efficient Surface Automation

New surface automation concepts will enable faster turn-around

even in adverse weather conditions.

lVla_ . 1-.3, _(X)_ NRA TIM #1

150
Metrics of Goodness:

_let Hc Care( iory Descri )tion

Capacity

Flexlbllny

Efficiency

Predictability

Safety

Environment

Delay

Airport Capacity

En Route Sector

Capacity

User Preference

Direct Operating Cost

(DOC)

Airport Time of Arrival

(Departure) Prediction

Sector Demand

Prediction

Weather Exposure

Conflict Alerts

Workload

Noise

Pollution

Average Delay

Average Block Time

Maximum number of operations, departures, and

arrivals per hour (assuming steady-state)

Maximum number of aircra_ within a given sector per

hour, subject to workload constraints (pilot for DAG-TM

concept; controller for ATSP concept)

Accommodation of user preferences measured in terms

of trajectory interruptions due to aircra_ conflicts or

weather deviations

A metric determined by a combination of time and fuel

Error in wheels on time (off time) as a function of

prediction horizon time

Error in sector count as a function of prediction horizon

time

Dwell time in hazardous weather

Trajectory deviations due to Conflict Detection

Dynamic Density Complexity Metrics

Average annual noise exposure

Annual emissions of fuel-bum products

Average difference between planned arrival time and

actual arrival time

Average time for gate departure to gate arrival

Ma_ 21-23, 2(X)2 NRA TIM #1

ant _otu v A so

Technology Roadmaps:

z

NA._ _mzJmen _ ; ! !

......... _ ............... T + +_ ................. "_ ........... T "'"'"7 .-+' _" "+"'; "+"T .................. "T ............

Navigation I VO_. VORTAC, lrAcAN. IriS, _.¢ .... ll_m C++_4_I_

i; -+_ .... )

:;...... WAAS (GP$}

.-5 7 . .......................

um_t- cat, :== ...... . ....

Landing } ...................................................

1 _s_e- eat m ..................

+

+ + I +:.......

I_E oS L

tran+pom+_ + _.............L_.:.Sz_c:.::: __, ..... ; *,os-.

[- ........... _ -A/¢

Collision

Avoidamee TCA,S

_F Vo_ Ra_Jo

Voace Comm _ '

_llo(J VHF RICO flEXC:Gi _

il

Data Comm

Cockpit

DisPlay

ACARS BEXCOM _i

l_ilm Lista _ _ "+" --: ---

c.,m,_._, _ _ c.¢=,__v _>_ _ ............

. , ¢_ +. ........ o L_k " .

May 21-23, 2(X)2 NRA TIM # 1

151
Other

& Responslblaties:

• h14omlatlon Requirements

• Human I Automation Boundaries

- Plans

May 21-23 2002 NRA TIM#I

....

- NIRS

-ADEPT + +

- Scenad_d

. IteraUve improvement on

Capacity Improving Concepts

Ma3+ - I--., _00_ NRA TIM # I

_ 7 H ()N AVIATION"

152
Example Analysis with POET

• _ ; I _ i + I

•az=.... :,= ::' :_ ,..! Interface to DBMS

_! Plots "

L

Getting There

• The Talent is in this room

• The Domain Knowledge is already learned

• The Collab

• New Ideas _e_en proposed

• The Demons ill follow

May 21-23, 2002 NR.4 TIM*41

153
Massive Point-to-Point and OnDemand Air Transportation

@stem Investigation

Concept PTP Overview

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation (VAMS)

Project

Technical Interchange Meeting 1

21 May 2002

John Sorensen

Seagull Technology, Inc.

Tel: (408) 364-8200, jsorensen@seagull.com

Outline

• Concept PTP Team

• NAS Issues and Assumptions Background

• Concept PTP Drivers

• Key Technical Challenges

• Core Ideas Overview

• Planned Early Steps

154
Concept PTP Team

.A,'po,tmlmlmctmsub-conce_

•Fightore+hummfammaeal_

•Symem+m._ sub<returnsandam_

I

I

..... _UNITED

i ....

I" _r+_ _t o_,._ I

/ ._o_ _ _wr_

L._r_

l

Industries

. CNS _m+stru_+ure su_<x.m_s

. I_lS i_msUtmlum moral slmafmmmns

• _sl/TFU mlm_ce

. _ mmmm_pmmmO

Some of the Issues with the Future NAS

Approaching Hub Airport Gridlock

- Building more runways at hubs politically and economically difficult

• Hub Delays and Hassle

- Hub-spoke system use increasingly time inefficient and unpleasant

- Business travel moving to smaller jets for direct flights

• Underutilized Public Airports

- 5400 airports are a valuable but underutilized national asset

• Wave of new, smaller jet aircraft needing IFR services

• Static Sector Overload

Sectors were designed to accommodate moderate traffic following

static air routes

> Not consistent with "free flight"

> Problem exacerbated on storm days

> En route density, will grow significantly with small jet PTP travel

• Flight Security is a Relatively New National Concern

155
Concept PTP Core Idea

Enhance National Airspace System (NAS) Capacity

- Facilitate and Incorporate Massive Use of Point-to-Point (PTP)

and On-Demand Air Transportation from Smaller Airports

• Augment NAS Components to Implement the Concept

- Air Traffic Management Systems

- Fleet Operations Infrastructure Systems

- Aircraft Fleet Mix and Number

- Commercial Aircraft Operations Management Processes

Commercial air carriers (travel and shipping)

Business jet operators

Fractional jet ownership organizations

Other aircraft operators (e.g., UAV, rotorcraft)

• Concept PTP Adds Overall Transportation Capacity

and Relieves Hub-and-Spoke Gridiock

Key Assumptions That Drive the Concept

• Demand for smaller aircraft serving more airports and

other facilities (e.g., heliports, UAV operations) will grow

- Continued urban sprawl and road congestion increase door-to-largeairport travel time

- Use of small airport resources can shorten door-to-door travel time

• Demand for point-to-point routing and "on demand"

services will grow

- Business flyer dissatisfaction with large air carrier hub-and-spoke

services

- Willingness of corporate America to pay more to save time, avoid

airport hassle, and provide personal security

• These demands will produce a market force to create and

use enabling technologies and enhanced NAS facilities

- New types of smaller, more economical aircraft (that will demand

increased IFR services)

- Better utilization of vast small airport resources

156
-"-=_ Key Concept Benefits

• Harness 5400 public airports to increase overall NAS

CAPACITY

System model and subsequent benefits analysis will estimate

potential overall capacity gain

- Greater small airport use will also unload larger hub-spoke

airports

• By-product is increase in overall transportation system

EFFICIENCY

Concept PTP model will include a door-to-door multi-modal

perspective

Benefits analysis will measure a reduction in total travel time

--'_ Concept Poses Key Technical Challenges

• Need for an integrating, unifying fleet and flow

management infrastructure

Operators must provide flight crews and aircraft at airports to

service travel and shipping demands

Traffic Flow Management service provider must coordinate

interactions of up to ten-fold increase in flight plans

• Need for a more distributed, flexible ATM system that

simultaneously serves 5400 airports and up to 50,000

jet and other aircraft in all weather conditions

• System requires more capable, uniform avionics in

most aircraft to function well

157
Utilize Related SATS Program Findings

Mobility

Enable people to travel

faster and farther,

anywhere, anytime

• 93% of population within 30

minutes of SATS-type

airport

• 41% within 30 minutes of

any commercial airport

• 22%within 30 minutes of

major/hub airport

Performance

Less travel time

at an affordable price

Accessibility

Safe reliable access to

more locations, when &

where you need it

Cost Time Availability Safety

User cost Doorstep to Convenient,

System cost destination, with on-demand, with Proven safer

Provider cost Intermodal penalties mission reliability Perceived safer

(u_rles_ ;,f NANA NATN Prn)_-_

Example SATS Demographics Model

"Reduce Inter_|ty travel time by half in ten years.,."

With SATS

158
Concept PTP Core Ideas

• 1. Provide Non-Towered Airports with ATM

Automation

• 2. Utilize Terminal Area Time-Based ATM

• 3. Integrate Strategic En Route ATM and Flight

Management

• 4. Integrate PTP Fleet Ground Operations (Dispatch)

• 5. Accommodate Broader Aircraft Spectrum with

Advanced Avionics

• 6. Provide Integrated CNS and Weather Information

Infrastructure

_/ Core Idea 1 - Provide Non-Towered

Airports with ATM Automation

Provide same traffic advisory, sequencing, weather and

airport information as towered airport

• Provide LAAS and smart airport lighting for precision

approach/departure

• Enable same capacity during IFR as in VFR

• Provide mechanism for the Greater NAS to monitor and

incorporate small airport operations into emerging ATM

decision support tools

• Increase small airport safety and perceived safety as well

as capacity and travel efficiency

• Provide mechanism to monitor small airport operations -

key element of system security

Ma> I0 2_2

159
Core Idea 1 - Non-Towered Airport ATM Automation

Increase Uncontrolled Airfield Safety, Capacity and Efficiency

Autonomous

Airfield

information,

sequencing and

traffic advisories

VHF,

ATM Automation Hub l

Core Idea 2 - Utilize Terminal Area Time- Based ATM

Broaden TRACON regions to encompass small

surrounding airports

Replace region corner-post feeder fixes by airport

anchor waypoints

Expand Traffic Management Advisor (a la Multi-Center

TMA) use to set non-conflicting required time-of-arrival

(RTA) at anchor points and intermediate waypoints

Use aircraft 4D FMS and CDTI to follow assigned

transition to/from en route, approach/departure paths

and RTAs (non-conflicting cells move along precise

paths)

160
--_ Core Idea 2 - Terminal Area Time-Based ATM

,iiI ii'i

- FM_ATC Trajectory Negotiation

• _ntegrated SmallAirpocl-Hub

Departures

• VDL-3 Da_ and Vobce Ul_i_k Cour[esyofNASA

Leverage CTAS

TMA and FAST

DST technology,

FMS RTA and

CDT! capability,

and air-ground data

link for DST-FMS

integration.

._.1_ Core Idea 3 - Integrate Strategic En Route ATM

and Flight Management

• Fleet operators create optimal flight plans connecting

origin/destination city pairs

Central and regional Traffic Flow Management adjusts

plan paths and timing to lower statistical potential of

conflict and to even spatial density

Aircraft self separate (a la DAG TM CE-5 and CE-6) with

ADS-B and 4D trajectory intent/guidance - if properly

equipped

- Airspace segregated into sectorless altitude bands for equipped

aircraft

- Sectored altitude bands used by non-equipped managed aircraft

ATM continues to provide tactical separation assurance

backup, for self-separating aircraft

161
Core Idea 4 - Integrate PTP Fleet Operations

(Dispatch)

• Aircraft trips based on both scheduled and on-demand

(taxi) bases

• Fleet operator/dispatcher optimizes individual

aircraft/crew schedules to meet demand

• Auxiliary automotive services provide reserved ground

transportation coinciding with aircraft arrivals and

departures - complete door-to-door transportation

• Aircraft flight plans optimized but with timing and

path constraints or adjustments (from regional TFM)

• Pre-trip security screening facilitates rapid multimodal transitions

Core Idea 5 - Accommodate Broader Aircraft

Spectrum with Advanced Avionics

• Economic benefits promote use of highly equipped aircraft

Precise 4D guidance to follow timed flight plans

- Required navigation performance (RNP) for precise lateral /

vertical path control

- Strategic conflict detection and collaborative spacing (CD&R)

- Flight re-planning ability to adapt to changing winds/weather,

traffic and arrival/departure RTAs

- Highway-in-the-sky CDTI/PFD for situational awareness

Precision approach and departure guidance

Low visibility takeoff and landing

- ADS-B for total airspace surveillance, CD&R, and flight plan

monitoring

Full data link capability

> ATM/Dispatch information exchange with aircraft

Collaborative flight/traffic management

- Fleet size and types optimally fill the transportation demand

162
-_ Core Idea 5 - Wider Aircraft Type Spectrum

Eclipse Jet

Ta_e.off & Land dlstadtce Z.06O ft.

A_'VaIIC_I all glass cockpll

_trtff_Bd Iol smg_-p_lot INght

5-se.lt ¢onflgulmlon slmd,ld

Selni<lub d.4 ltx.le_l

¢onfl_ula=lons apltonad

Amomedve-s_tlo appolnlmenl_

• 41,000 fl ceiling

• 0.56 c/mi operating colt

- FilSl F itJhl + Siintmel Z002

• Type Celtific atioll - Decmhbel 2003

• Firsl Cqmlomer D eliven/- J anuary 2004

M_} L_ 2_Kp2

Sonic

Cruiser

Civil and Commercial UAV Applications

___ Core Idea 6 - Provide Integrated CNS and Weather Information Infrastructure

Communications - Data links, wireless, and land lines tie all

nodes of system together at all times

NAS Wide Information System (NASWIS) realized

• Navigation - GNSS enhanced with redundant ground system

All aircraft guided and monitored to be within flight plan envelopes

for security and increased airspace capacity

• Surveillance - All aircraft either ADS-B or radar transponder

equipped

All aircraft under continuous surveillance

Linked ground stations provide seamless aircraft state and intent data

• Winds/weather/atmosphere- Integrated meteorological

sensor system provides common weather data to all nodes

Collaborative flight planning, re-planning, trajectory timing, weather

avoidance based upon common data set

163
-._ Underutilized Airports and Airspace Provide ...

... an Opportunity for Increasing System Capacity

Expanded Accessibility ,.

to several more f.... _. ., '

destinations J .

}._ Airpol_s today with "near all _<-"

_. / weather '' availability

w q LI_ F_

Near all-weather accessibility to

5,400 public-use i_rports.

' - _, ,. __ Improved Performance saving

_,\ \ _ t __.-, _ travelers & shippers more time

Of 5,400 public-use airports, only 715 (13%) _ by going directly to more

have precision instrument approaches (ILS) airports

( _,UIIL_ Cd NASA _AT5 Pr _cc

First Steps in Describing Concept PTP

Build traffic demand model for 2020

- Select regions under-served or capacity constrained

- Estimate types and numbers of aircraft involved

- Develop city-pair flight plans within region

Trajectories

Arrival timing

- Use to quantify ATM and fleet management challenges

- Input as part of Concept PTP scenarios

Build functional model to implement Concept PTP

- Emphasize components needed to complement hub-spoke

developments; leverage on-going technology development

efforts where we can

- Define roles of humans and automation

164
_._ ConceptOn-Demand PTP: Massive Air Point-to-Point and Transportation

r_

En Route

Static sectors replaced

by sectorless and flexible

sector paradigms

!I"

.K:_- / _ :-'-" _ j/ / Facllttam£mclentUseof:

. _ , =mmmd T,_,,

Terminal

4D approach and departure

trajectory contracts to/from

airports

SAA_Y ,

Non-towered airport _.,":i:--.,, ,._,.._ ._o_,o. ,:,--

A TM automation and __ _-,_ _ ,_i_/;

guidance i --- ,,,_

Hig_fldell_ trej_t_-bas_ flight planning end

G_t_ TFM

o 21}()2

D_Jst/nat, a_1_ •

Result:

Potential Order of Magnitude

Increase in NAS Capacity /

j_

__lt Tec_y

replanning coordination between aircraft

operator and A TSP from pre-fll_lht to _ate-ln

1I_O_ Team PTP I_ U N I T | D

_T_N / _'ITT Jndu_,t r_s

165
Ames Research Center

Optimization in the

National Airspace System

Dr. Banavar Sridhar

NASA Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA 94035

bsridhar @mail.arc.nasa.gov

VAMS Technical Interchange Meeting

May 21, 2002

Ames Research Center

Outline

• Problem description

• Research plan

• Examples

166
Arnes Research Center

raffle Flow Management (TFM) Problem

• Capacity

- Theoretical maximum flow rate supported by the separation

standard

• Throughput

- Rate of flow realized in operation

• Efficiency

- How close is throughput to capacity?

• Objective

- Maximize flow rate to meet traffic demand

_ Ames Research Center

Characteristics of TFM

• Hierarchical command and control structure

- 20 centers and 830 high and low altitude sectors

• Time scales

- 1 to 6 hours (National and Center flow planning)

• Large number of aircraft (-10,000)

• Inter-center boundary connectivity

• Sector congestion

• Aggregation and decomposition

167
Ames;es;rch Center

n er-center boundary connectivity

AmesResearch Center

Research plan

• Develop algorithms and optimization software to maximize

flow rate to meet traffic demand

- Current System

>) Spatio-temporal decomposition

)) Use Playbook or other re-routing schemes

)) Optimize aircraft transit times to minimize delay and meet

congestion constraints

)) Automate the process of formulating the optimization problem for

different levels of aggregation and decomposition

- Future Systems

)) Optimal sn route ATC concept

• Develop a scenario database

• Co-ordination with other VAMS concept development efforts

• Evaluate the results using FACET

168
Ames Research Center

Future ATM Concepts Evaluation Tool (FACET)

Simulation tool for exploring advanced ATM concepts

Flexible environment for rapid prototyping of new ATM concepts

Interface with Host and ETMS data

Can be integrated with other tools of varying complexity and fidelity

Balance between fidelity and flexibility

Model airspace operations at U.S. national level (-10,000 aircraft)

- Modular architecture for flexibility

- Software written in "C" and "Java" programming languages

>) Easily adaptable to different computer platforms

>) Runs on Sun, SGI, PC and Macintosh computers

- Can be used for both off-line analysis and real-time applications

Ames Research Center

169
Ames Research Center

Impact of Rerouting and Departure Delays on ZNY

Nominal Sector Counts NO_WESTGATES

Rerouting

NO_WESTGATES +

EWR and LGA Departure

Delays

Ames Research Center

EWR and LGA Delay Contours

,%

z_

...........

.ffi

lo0o_

170
Ames Research Center

Example: Future system

Optimal en route air traffic control

• Sequentialtrajectory planning

• Wind-optimal routing

• Full-trajectory conflict resolution

• Periodically re-compute to mitigate disturbances

• Incorporate stochastic disturbances (Weather, SUA)

Ames Research Center

Wind-optimal route

171
Ames Research Center iii

Optimal routes

Ames Research Center

Optimal ATC video

172
Questions, Comments, Issues v Mm

rAT

• Develop Integrated Concept sooner, i.e., don't just

develop separate operational concept then try to

"staple integrate" too late in the project.

-- Nothing stops this desire.

• Do we have an acronym list?

-- Yes, it is available at the registration desk.

• CNS tools are integrated late, i.e., Build 3 (VAST)

deliver/integrate sooner.

-- Eve_ build will have limited CNS

capabilities as a fimction of the scenarios

required.

Questions, Comments, Issues

• Need to release VAMS framework requirements

sooner.

• We need a common WWW-site location where

information can be distributed on concepts,

models, and overviews.

• Will the VAST architecture support concept

models?

-- Yes.

173
Questions, Comments, Issues

• Who codes?

- Options."

Concept developers working the FOM

and the API definitions.

VAST Team if generalizable, definable

and within scope?

- Options to beflushed out by next TIM

I!AT

Questions, Comments, Issues

• Availability of CD from presentations?

-- We are targeting next Wednesday to mail to

each presenter andor organization that is

working on VAMS.

174
NRA

TIM #1 IVfETRON AVIATION

Capacity Imp_vembnts Through

Automated Surface Traffic Control

Brian Capozzi,

Presented

Moffett Field,

May 21-23, 2002

Agenda:

• Need for Automation of Surface Control

• Meet the Metron Aviation Team

• Concept Overview and Core Ideas

• Enabling Technologies

• Roadmaps for New Technologies

• • Metrics of Goodness and Costs/Benefits

• Summaryand Motivation for Getting

May' 21-23, 2002 NRA 17,,_.t # 1

2

175
The Need for Surface Surface Constrains NAS Throughput

Automation... _ _

1977 Tenerife .... Visibility Problems

• Situation Awareness

May _1 -_., _00_ NRA TIM #1

3 _TRot_ AWAr_ON

Metron Aviation Team of Topical Experts

Brian Capozzi, Ph.D.

Mewon Aviation

Path Optimization

Autonomous Systems

Algorithm Dcsign

Chris Brinton

M_ A vietion

Surface Automation

Decision Support Tools

Software Development

Bruce Was/

Metron AeiLMen

OpsE_-rti_

Statistical Analysis

ATSP Experience

May _ t --3, 2002 NRA TIM # I

4

Prof. Phil Smith

Cognitive Systems

t luman Factors

Roles. Responsibilities, &

Procedures

176
Concept Overview

Pilots :

Automation of

Surface Traffic

Control

Human-Centered besign Philosophy

Tower Controllers

Ma_ 21-23, 2002

|1

i t

i

It

II

I cockpit displays I ue.4 rIM_!_

Roles and Responsibilities

Automation safety monitoredgoals,byperformance human and

GPS

Positioning

Clearance Delivery

staffed by human

Automation conveys updated

flight strip info to terminal and

en-route automation.

May _ I-~3. _00_

Pilot tee.elves taxi instructions

via surface lighting

NRA HM#I

6

177
Technical Aspects

goals/constraints_ eot!flict alerts

demand ........................ -;/'-'--- ............. _<_.................................

resources 4 Adaptive_anning _ Conformance I

--- | Deconfliction ] ] Monitor ]

coordinated 1 t behavior/traeMng

motion _

_'learance ____

Time-Varying Costs ] instructions

_, _Fast-Time Discrete Event

,.._%_. -- I_" _____ Merged Optimal Path Maps I w am

May 21-23 2002 NRA TIM#/

7 _ t,_ON AvtAr_ON

Constraints on Solution

] motion eon_straints passenger

demand arrival i'_ [_ gate i1_ unload

_Y gate j

_.___ overhead _ [main(

stre .am ramp

J :................ ',

_l mergmg congesnon congestion passenger

load \

[ Timely lnformati_Red;]_Uncertainty [ de-icing TFM

Initiatives

May 21-23, 2002 ,r_,"R,4 TIM _1 fi

178
Example Operational Concepts

[ Normal Operation 1

, ),e i

t Normal operation Failure Detected

ii!i

-[ Fail Safe Operation

Blunder Detected J Resolved

Separate Safety Logic

[ Stop Condition

NRA TIM # I

GPS, ADS-B, ASDE-X

position, veloci_, inten t

and uncertainty data used

Enabling Technologies

Taxiway Light Control System ]

Assignment of

colors to updated

all applicable

zs • ;hts

=e•

3g_

Weather and User Response Prediction

Microburst prediction

Storm Location & Motion

Terminal Winds

May 21-23, 2002 NRA TIAf # !

10

Weather Sensing and

Prediction will mosaic the

NAS by 2010

179
Roadmaps for New Technologies: Evolution

Existing NAS 0hi

NAS of

Tomorrow

rolesresponsibilities of A TSP/pilots shift.

I I r I I I' r

2002 2030

Surface

Automation

Ma__21-23, 2002 NRA TIM #1

II

sma_ed

_ l@Fge,-towered

_ rmom Avt_ r_oN

Roadmap for Surface Automation: Evolution

Ground/Ramp controller role shift, Pilot role sh/ft

Ma) . I-.., _00_ l_R,.l TIM #l

12

180
Use of Advances in Display Technology

creation of virtual "tunnels" ]

i

CDTI moving maps augmented reality displays

Ma_, 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM # I

Metrics of Goodness

/letric Category Descri )tion

Capacity Airport

Arrival Rate

Airport

Departure

Rate

End-to-End

Throughput

PredictabUlty Airport Time

of Arrival

(Departure)

Prediction

Efficiency Direct

Operating

Cost (DOG)

Taxi-in time

Taxi-out time

Average

Queuing

Time

Maximum number of arrivals (typically per hour) as

measured by wheels "on" time upon landing

Maximum number of departures per hour as measured

by wheels "off' time

Maximum number of arrival -to-departure events per

hour (including gate turn time)

Error in wheels ontl (off time) as a function of

prediction horizon time

A metric determined by a combination of time and fuel

Measured from touchdown to brakes applied at gate

Measured from brake releas e to either wheels "off'

time or radar target recognition (ACARS message)

Average amount of time spent in queues from

pushback to start of departure roll

Ma) 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM #1

181
Metrics of Goodness

/letric Category Descri )tion

_ment Noise

Pollution

Safety Conflict

Alerts

Runway

Incursions

Blunder

recognition

time

Flexibility User

Preference

Slot

Equity

Average annual noise exposure (DNL)

Annual emissions of fuel-burn

Trajectory deviations due to Conflict Detection

Incidents on the airport surface due to oontroller error

or lack of pilot situational awareness

The time required for the controller to become aware of

pilot errors in following clearances

Accommodation of use_ _nces measured in

terms of surface _ I_ons due to aircraft

conflicts

Total number of slots exchanged in surface path plans

Block: Exchange occurring _ _ or blocks of time

Swapping (0-15min, 15-30rain, etc.)

Delay Measure of Delay Deviation amongst Users and User

Deviation Categories

May 21-23, 20(12 NR.4 TIM #1

• Tools

-POET

- FACET ....... _;_

- Simulation-Based

- Cognh_ughs

• Analysls

- Historical, 2000,2010, 2015, 2020

- Scenario-Based

- Iterative Improvement on

Capacity Improving Concepts

user

preferm,aces

May _ 1-___. _00_ NRA TIM #1

16

wuiO,

.. awa_

_,_e r_o_ av_Ar,o_

182
Summary and Motivation

r

• Surface Automation is a Logical Flint Step to ATC Automation

• A Shift in Roles and Respon___lffsP_i=D is needed

• Our Conce_ w equipment in the cockpit

A with an evolutio_._ementation

follow

May' 21-23, 2002 NRA TIM #1 _..._Z

17 _4_ r**o_ _JAI,oe_

183
Surface Operation Automation Research

SOAR --

TIM 5/2002

Dr. Victor H. L. Cheng

Optimal Synthesis Inc.

Los Altos, California

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation (VAMS)

Air Transportation System Capacity-Increasing Research

Technical Interchange Meeting

May 21-23, 2002

Outline

• Background

• SOAR Concept

• Ground-Control Automation

• Flight-Deck Automation

• Operational Integration of Automation Systems

• Remarks on Evaluation Metrics

TIM 512002

184
Background

Capacity problem identified in National Airspace System

(NAS) Operational Evolution Plan (OEP):

Traffic is concentrated at key airports

- Two-thirds of scheduled traffic moves through hub airports

- Approximately 90% of delay is experienced at these airports

- Demand will grow by 200 million passengers at these airports

over the coming decade

Spatial constraints on NAS

- ARTCC -- 3D Space =_ Free Flight

- TRACON -- 2D Space and Patterns

- Approach and Landing m ID

- Surface Operation -- 2D Network _ Orderly Traffic

TIM 5_2002 3

Critical Factors Affecting Capacity

• Two factors of capacity

Capacity -- Space x Density

- Space enhancement: increase in runways and taxiways

- Density enhancement: reduction in separation

° NAS OEP Solutions

Near-term (2001)

- New runways at Detroit and Phoenix

Mid-term (2002-2004)

- New runways or extensions at six of the top 31 airports:

Houston, Minneapolis, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Denver

Far-term (2005-2010)

- New runways at another six of the top 31 airports: Atlanta,

Cincinnati, Dallas Ft. Worth, Dulles, St. Louis, and Seattle

• Increasing number of runways may be necessary, but often

t sufficient

• M 5]2002 4

185
Airport Expansion Example -- DFW

i

Difficulties Associated with Airport Expansion

• Resulting increase in surface traffic complexity may

experience diminishing returns

• Inside runways block traffic between outer runways and

ramp area

• Increased throughput on outer runways increases need for

runway crossing

• Increased throughput on inner runways reduced

opportunity for runway crossing

• Controllers have to contend with

- More flights

- More intersections

- More runway crossings

- Less opportunity for runway crossing

TIM S/2002

186
Example of Taxi Delay at DFW

Arrivals on 18R

• exit at E3, E5, and E6

• often have to queue up on WL, WM, and B, three deep, prior

to crossing 18L N_ ',

iiiill

• • =Con,o T....

2w ql=

1

8 I I

WL; wM; B;

1 _s _" I'_ ,_

Landi__j___ Traffic - _ E3 E5 E0

\,t/ Exits

TIM 5/2002 7

NAS OEP Solutions for Enhancing Efficiency

• Mid-term (2002-2004)

- More efficient use of parallel and crossing runways (as well as

more arrival runways in general) increases airport

arrival/departure capacity

- Coordinated management of surface movement at a larger

number of airports increases efficiency of movement on

airport surface in all weather

- Improved runway configuration coordination between facilities

and carriers reduces flow disruptions in the transition

• Far-term (2005-2010)

- Surface navigation using cockpit display to augment visual

data and provide common situational awareness improves

robustness and efficiency

- Enhanced surface management coordination increases

efficiency of movement on airport surface in all weather

Improved runway configuration coordination between facilities

and carriers across adjacent airports reduces flow disruptions

in the transition

TIM 512002 8

187
SOAR Concept

• Advanced automation in Centralized Decision-making,

Distributed Control (CDDC) paradigm

• Centralized Decision-Making: Automation for Ground

Control

- Bases decisions on surveillance data, flight plans, and AOC

requirements

- Generates time-based taxi routes for optimum traffic efficiency

- Existing prototype system: Ground-Operation Situation

Awareness and Flow Efficiency (GO-SAFE)

• Distributed Control: Automation for Flight Deck

- Executes time-controlled taxi routes

- Provides auto-taxi capabilities or automation aids for pilots

- Automation concept: Flight-deck Automation for Reliable

Ground Operation (FARGO)

• Integrated operation of both systems

TIM 5/2002 9

Desired Functions for Ground-Control Automation

• User interface, including situational display for monitoring

surface traffic, and alert of impending problems

• Taxi-route generation and editing

• Conflict detection and resolution

• Decision support tool for planning and adjusting taxi routes

for delivering efficient and safe traffic

• Clearance manager for generating and processing

advisories and clearances, and for monitoring the resulting

progress

• Information exchange with relevant systems in the NAS

infrastructure and other automation systems

TIM 5/2002 10

188
Overview of GO-SAFE GUI

Node-Traffic Load Graphs

Conflict

Information

Node-Traffic

Time Lines Plan-View

Display

TIM 512002

Clearance/Status

Example of Route Editing by Changing Destination

12

189
Route Resulting from Dragging Destination Node

Example of Spatial Editing of Taxi Route

TIM 5/2002

190
Example of Temporal Adjustment of Taxi Route

TIM5/2002

Predicted Location

15

Dragging Predicted Location to New Location

I

TIM 5/2002

191
Conflict Detection and Resolution

• Requirements for conflicts on airport surface not as serious

as for IFR flights: in current operations, cockpit crew

responsible for separation while taxiing

• Three general types of conflicts:

- Node/intersection crossing

- Overtaking

- Head-on

• Node-crossing and overtaking conflicts appear only in GOSAFE internal route computations, but are automatically

resolved by crews in current operations.

• Head-on conflicts may lead to dead lock.

• Auto-taxi or high-workload taxi will require conflict-free

clearances.

TIM 5/2002 17

Decision Support System

• Core component for achieving efficient surface operations

• Schedule Manager

- Calculates runway usage schedules for landing, takeoff and

crossing traffic

- Enables efficient active-runway crossing

- Landing traffic has priority

- Allows simultaneous runway occupancy under special

conditions

• Challenge: Other decision.support functions to optimize

efficiency of traffic over whole surface traffic

TIM 5/2002

192
Clearance Manager

• Manages and issues advisories/clearances

• Encodes clearances according to route definition, including

crossing time restrictions

• Monitors clearances and flight clearance status:

- clearance ready

- acknowledgment pending

- acknowledged

- rejected

• Challenge: Requires research in proper user interface

TIM 5/2002

Information Exchange

° Communications with flights

• Flight data from Host Computer, AOC, etc.

• Surveillance data from ADS-B, ASDE, AMASS, ATIDS,

ARTS, etc.

• Information exchange with other tools

TIM 512002

sin,,{.. EDP '4-.

\

FAST _ ", TMA :

/

/ \

",GO-SAFE Z

_, RIRP ;: : CAP ":,

20

193
Desired Functions for Flight-Deck Automation

• Auto-taxi function for precisely controlling the aircraft taxi

to accomplish the taxi clearance with tight control margins

• Pilot interface to allow the pilots to perform precision-taxi

- Far-term: fully automatic taxi

- Near-term: control signals generated by the auto-taxi function

to direct manual control

• Previous research established potential of high-precision

aircraft taxi control for improving traffic efficiency:

- High-precision taxi operations are achievable with advanced

guidance and control.

- Potential benefits of automation can be sustained under

manual control with effective pilot interfaces.

V. H. L. Cheng, V. Sharma, and D. C. Foyle, "A Study of Aircraft Taxi

Performance for Enhancing Airport Surface Traffic Control," IEEE

Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.

39-54, June 2001.

TIM 5/2002

Pilot Interface Considerations

I

• Landing, roll out, and turn off require deceleration followed

by continuous taxi

• Traditional flight director concept

- Speed bug unsuitable for deceleration control during roll out

• Other options

- Braking cue + Throttle/Speed cue

- RTA at key locations, e.g. holding lines

• Issues

- Mode awareness problems: switching from deceleration to

constant-speed taxi

- Discrete adjustments of brakes and throttle

• Challenge: Future research particularly important for

developing automation-assisted system for manual control

TIM 5/2002

]94
Operational Integration of Automation Systems

• Complex taxi routes with time constraints necessitate datalink clearances.

• Challenges:

- Controllers cannot expect immediate acknowledgement.

- Cockpit crew may be distracted from flight control

• Reading clearances

• Understanding details

• Responding via console input

- Near-term application of the technologies required different

approaches.

• Route information can be more easily entered into FMS.

TIM5/2002 23

SOAR Top-Level Model Relative to GFI Model

Flight Fight

Fhgllt Flight

Plans Plans

Clear ances/Advisones

D

Surveillance Data

Flight Plans &

-- Amendments

=.

Approved

E Flight

3 Plans

E

E Clear ance s/Advisories o

U

Navigation Data

Other-Aircraft Data

Surveillance Data

TIM 5/2002

195
Remarks on Evaluation Metrics

• Capacity: Number of flights serviced in given time period

• Efficiency: Taxi time, delay

• Workload: Controller, Cockpit Crew

• Safety: Probability of incidents, not necessarily based on

overly conservative separation requirements

Imprecise control with large mean separation

TIM SI2002

/

_6_ ,PB

A B

Precise control with small mean separation

25

j

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TIM 5/2002

c 1996-20_12 Victor Cheng

26

196
Centralized Terminal

Operation Control (CTOC)

Concept

Capacity Increasing Concept TIM

NASA Ames Research Center

May 21-23, 2002

_F ......Geneva Aerospace

Overview

• Operating Domains

• Current Terminal Issues

• CTOC Concept

• CTOC Core Ideas

• CTOC Benefits/Metrics

• CTOC Challenges

• Summary

Geneva Aerospace

197
Operating Domains

(Definitions from NASA NRA Solicitation, Appendix G)

Eo Route

Concepts dealing with planning and

implementation of aircraft paths between

takeoffand landing, This includes creating

more tlexible aircraft paths, conflict

detection and resolution, communication of

environment and traffic data to aircraft and

ground, traffic monitoring, more accurate

navigation methods, and prediction of //

traffic conditions.

Surface

Terminal

Concepts dealing with planning and

implementation of departures and arrivals.

This includes predicting and implementing

runway allocations for takeoffand landing.

dissemination of environmental data to ease

planning, and methods to increase navigation

accuracy fi)r better flow management,

NOR'?NROP _f.B, JMN

S

En Route

System Level

Concepts dealing with all aspects

of operations and management ot

the NAS.

Surface

Surface

Concepts dealing with planning and

implementation ol"airport surface

traffic. This includes planning and

monitoring ofairporl traffic, intra

airport environmental data and aircraf!

state data as perlalns 1o airport traffic•

J" Geneva Aerospace

L.Y •

 !E]MISCurrent Terminal Issues (1 of 2)

• Underutilization of the Terminal airspace

•:o Variability in threshold separations above legal minimum

separations

o:. Variability in pilots reaction to controller directives

•:. Transfer of control introduces additional space and variability

• Additional spacing required for Instrument approaches

o:. When conditions prohibit visual approaches (fog, low clouds,

sunset, etc.) extra spacing is required for aircraft on final

approach

• Inefficient communications between controllers and pilots

•:. Communication errors cause extra spacing or in some cases,

safety hazards

•:- Problem exacerbated for pilots whose native language is not

English

o:- Variability in the delay between the issuance of a command and

the response to the command

mw

(_ Geneva Aerospace

198
Y'- Current Terminal Issues (2 of 2)

• Controllers are able to identify but not prevent unauthorized

use of airspace

o:. As witnessed recently, controllers are able to recognize when an

aircraft is not responding to control directives, but they are

unable to affect control of the aircraft

• Special procedures are necessary for varying aircraft

performances

o:o Aircraft may not be available or capable of mixing into a stream

of other aircraft

o:o Special handling of these aircraft impacts efficiency of controller

and the operations of other aircraft in the area

NORTNROP I

f Geneva Aerospace

CTOC Concept

The Centralized Terminal Operation Control (CTOC) concept is

analogous to the Maritime Industry's Harbor Pilot

CTOC provides remote control of aircraft in the Terminal domain

CTOC merges the role of the controller and flight crews

• CTOC will interface to DSTs and/or enhanced ATM systems in

the Enroute, Terminal, and Surface environments to ensure

predictable, consistent, conflict-free trajectories

CTOC depends on aircraft technologies (i.e. datalink and FMS)

for response to Flight Control Commands and Trajectories from

the Remote Controller

199
, ezells CTOC Concept

W _IUt_I_AW

Modified GF! Top-Level Model of ATM Functions

I

CTOC Core Ideas

• Remote control of one or multiple aircraft from a single terminal

specialist supported by a ground-based computer system

• Remote control will extend existing automation in the terminal

domain and reduce variability in separation

• Flight control commands based on deconflicted trajectories will

be sent from CTOC to the aircraft FMS

• Remote control of terminal aircraft may be adjusted based on

Air Traffic Management flow constraints

• Terminal specialists will have the capability to take control of

aircraft to prevent unauthorized use

• Pilots will have the ability to override CTOC commands for

safety reasons only

NOR77dle_e _UlNIq&a_/

_" ? Get,eva Aerospace

2OO
CTOC Benefits/Metrics

Benefit Mechanism Candidate Metric(s)

Increased Capacily Control to predictable and cons_tenl traiectones inTerminal area

Flow Rates, Arnval Delay, Departure Delay,

Overall Delay Time/Distance Flown

Reduce runway occupancy Runway Occupancy Time

FlOw Rates Arrrval Delay, Departure Delay,

Amvais and departures make better use of Terminal airspace Overall De_ay, Time/Distance Flown Tracks

Reduce vanabdily n separabon aircraft-to- for adrcraftoto-aircra ft,

obstruction, and aitctalt-to-lerspace

Ehmirtate messed approaches due to verba) COn'lmunicatJonerrors

Separat_n D_stances, ConfiCta

M_SSedApprc_c.h Count

Increased Eff¢lermy Control to iDmdictabfe and consistent trajectones in Terminal area Tracks, Workload

Improve situational awareness between Terrmnal ATC and airline users

Eliminate missed approaches due to verbat communicabon errors

Workload

Missed Apt)roach Count

Collalx)rabve amvalJdepadam rnanagemenl with airlines Workload

Increased Safety

Reduce workload for Terminal area ATC and f_ight crows

Prov_fe comrnuntcabon between CTOC and FM5 through data I_nk

Im_ove s_tuatlonal awareness palween Term=hal ATC and airline users

Prowde cor'nmunicatv_n between CTOC and FMS though data hnk

Workload

Comm Load, WorklOad

Safety Incident Count

Comm Load

Provide Ira)edon/conformance monitoring Separation Distances Conflicts, Workload

Provlde flight deck ovemde to CTOC Safely Incident Count

Provide ATC overr_de for case of unauthonzed use of Te rminal atrsl)ace LJnauthonzed Use of turspace Cc,Jnl

Reduced Costs Tem_nal area operating cosls Oparatlng Costs, Staffing Levels

_,_,_t,_,_,_ _"-7 Geneva Aerospace

9

CTOC Challenges

• Acceptance

•:. ATC, Flight Crews, and Public

• Human Factors

• Legal impact of change in roles and responsibilities

• Procedures for transfer of control

• Overrides

• Presence of Mixed Equipage

10

i_/_ '_ Geneva ..... Aerospace

201
Summary

• CTOC is analogous to the role of a harbor pilot

• CTOC introduces multi-vehicle remote control by a

single specialist in the Terminal domain

• CTOC increases Terminal domain capacity

t CTOC improves Terminal domain safety and efficiency

• CTOC reduces pilot-controller workload

W GRblNIVAN

= [ _ Geneva AerosPace

_,._J

2O2
mmlmmam

C31 1 C3S

GreBe i i lnim

TACEC

Terminal Area Capacity Enhancement Concept

Advanced ATM Concept for 2020

prepared for

VAMS Technical Interchange Meeting #1

NASA Ames Research Center

21-23 May 2002

Terminal Area

Operating Domain C31 ! C3S

mnmimmmmmmm

The Terminal Area is defined as airspace surrounding an airport or

airport group (similar to today's TRACON) as well as the airport

surface (runway, taxiway and ramp). In addition the Terminal Area

includes gate and street side operations.

For comparison purposes the Terminal Area is similar to the

environment addressed in the FAA's Operational Evolution Plan

for Arrival and Departure Rate

203
Problem c311 c3s

_BBBB null NNBBBI n m _ _ i iN IB i

Dramatically increase operational capacity

Today's NAS is operating at or near capacity

FAA OEP predicts a 24% total growth in air traffic by 2010

VAMS predicts a 4.5% growth per year through 2020

Benchmark Airport Operations

i

I

120000

I00000 , _ ;

.__ 80000 i _i__ .... --OEP

60000

• VAMS

40000

O

20000

0

Year

L

2010 2022

OEP 54,000

VAMS 59,000 96.000

Q

jl.__ Challenges c3nI c3s

_ NIBB liBmBm_ m i _ n iB II II

Increase capacity using new technology and operations

• Majority of FAA's OEP envisioned capacity growth comes from

building new runways.

• Continued construction beyond 2010 is not envisioned

• Assuming similar regional operations in the future the 13 busiest

airports today will see the majority of growth in 2020.

OPS per HR

AIRPORT TODAY OEP/2010 VAMSI2020

ATL 185 237 426

ORD 200 236 46G

DFW 261 316 606

LAX 148 185 340

DTW 143 187 329

R-IX 101 132 232

MSP 115 152 265

LAS 84 109 193

MIA 124 153 285

DEN 204 251 46g

CVG 123 172 283

BOS 118 125 271

STL 104 135 239

2O4
Increased capacity and

operational requirements c311c3s

mmmm mmm mm m mm m m m m mm e

Doubling OPS/Hr means twice as many aircraft in the airspace, on the

runway, and at the gates ....

• Separation requirements between aircraft within the terminal airspace

must be reduced by up to a factor of 2.

• Final approach and departures must be conducted at twice the rate

achieved by any OEP improvements envisioned.

• Surface traffic must be increased by a factor of two and runway

occupancy time reduced.

• Gate operations must double, either by increasing their number or

halving their occupancy.

TACEC is an Evolutionary mm_lmmm

Approach c311cas

mm mmmm m m mmm m mm m n mlmm

Technology exists today to significantly reduce separation

- Train, demonstrate, validate and instill confidence necessary over the

next 20 years

>_ Integrate "intent" with current position to reduce uncertainty

>) Distribute the separation responsibility between air and ground

Operational algorithms using today's computational power can

plan, schedule, and communicate ATC operations today

- Over the next 20 years more sophisticated algorithms and "super"

processors can deal with the large number of ATC OPS factors

required ........... but confidence in these results must be developed.

_ Establish proper parameters via research

• Wake Vortex

• Weather

• Runway Occupancy Time

• etc

>_ Optimize the human elements role and responsibility

_> Provide NAS wide fault monitoring of all system elements

205
But the evolution will be difficult c3il c3s

mmmmmmmm m mmmm

• Issues to deal with

- Aircraft equipage

- Ground side constraints

road access

noJlle

)_ emissions

parking

secu f_

- Human factors

- Confidence in technology

- Safety

- Culture/folklore

• Stakeholder Issues

- National Policy (DOT, FAA, Government)

- Funding authority

- Airlines, aircraft owners

- Aircraft manufacturers

- DODIUSAF

- Pilots & controllers

- Operations and Maintenance

- Gate/Ramp management

- Airport management

Terminal Area Capacity

Enhancement Concept C_lI css

mmmmmmmm mmml

Increasing capacity in the Terminal Area relies on following key

elements:

• Accurate 4D Trajectory Calculation

• Aircraft execution of required trajectories

• Highly reliable and secure data link

• Reduced separation standards

• Improved surveillance

- WAAS enhanced GPS

- Multi-sensor surface surveillance fusion

- Mode S MSSR

• Airborne self separation

• Complex finals - curvilinear, multi-aircraft formations landings

• Optimized taxi routing

• Integrated Terminal Area information network (all stakeholders)

206
TACEC Overview C3l/ c3s

m m mn n minim m m NBU m

_'_ Maximize Terminal Area Throughput

jllfl_ Separation Assurance

Components c311c3s

nm nmnmBnmm

Uncertainty

Buffer

Surveillance Performance

Performance

PiloUAircraff

Performance

207
Human-Centered Systems (HCS)

amlmmlm

C311C3S

iilliB i i nil

The most effective solutions will come from the proper blend of

automation and human decision making.

Human involvement is critical because:

- Humans are better than automation at higher-ordertasks such as

complex pattern recognition, avoiding false alarms, generating

imaginative solutions to difficult problems, and handling

unique/exceptional situations

- Humans must ensure proper response to non-normal situations

Automation will augment human abilities

- Automation can compensate for human limitations of attention and

memory capacity (e.g., humans can only monitor and interact with a

very limited number of aircraft simultaneously)

- Cognitive-based visualizations can enhance situation awareness and

management in a fusion with automation and what-if tools.

Human Centered Operations

me

mmlmmmm

C311C3S

i i ml _11 in i II

Re-define the role of the Human in the system

- Identify proper roles for all human activities in TACEC

- Identify tools required to support and conduct role

Primary objective of system solution is to maintain controller and

flight crew situational awareness and responsiveness, in an

automation environment.

Establish pilot/controller commitment to the "situation"

established by the 4D Trajectory calculation.

First principle includes shared separation responsibility,

appropriately between ground manager and flight crew.

208
Re-defined Roles

Control vs Management c311c3s

m m m m nllnnl iilBI i_1 u limb

Today's Division

 Lscc

TM ATC _.._

_,_ontroller _H_' :_ "

[] Management [] Control [] Information

TACEC Division

_L_ S_

TM 0

_-_ Algo

C _........... "

.._,

[] Management [] Control [] Information

jllfM"l Improving Situational Awareness (SA) c31/ c3s

mmNinOllilli

Rapid reacquisition of situational awareness will be a key problem in future

ATM. While automation frees up humans to perform multiple tasks, there is a

cost of switching between tasks.

Situational awareness is disrupted by many factors (e.g., relying on

automation or task switching) and takes too much time to_h.

• Cognitive-based visualizations will allow humans to.._

rapidly acquire SA when: _ \

_>wJt_h _etur_ to

- Maximizing TRACON throughput :_t: ..... _ Recur k _

- Responding to unexpected situations '_a_k_,'._.er1*_l_ _ "'_ /

- P .... tying safety during ...... rma, events _1 /

Situational ' \ i _ ."

Awareness '_ I_ ""

R_ucc_d I_ Nofn_al

Vigilance ! Dec_y Awareness I _(ecover y

Time _,,_,__._

209
.A_I[._._ One Example of a Specific

Visualization Concept for SA c3t / c3s

I / i i mill i IIIIIII I II II a

Enhanced visual displays for sequencing approach (or departure) aircraft

t

Sequencing Schematic

for approach sequencing

A sequencing Each dng

ring is assigned maintains safe

to each aircraft separation &

max

""_ e' to_pl% ugehput

Rings contract " •

over time o_.

sequence _'_,. _ ,-_

i:danes for "_- _ .,,-,,,_-.---,,--v iilanding _ _ Planes can

Colors denote I_nter from

many fixes

nng status •

F-.

A side view

Concept Display

for 50 incoming planes

Regions ca_._wn view

sca,o,,oom 4 mCZ d

;r

A linear repi'esentation of the

same display

Benofits

Planes can be sequenced from

mltff, e fixes, allowing for

more thrm_hput

Allows managers to

collecthmly monitor more

planes; they track spatial

patterns instead of each plane

Increases tha long-range Info

about time & =pace, so

manager does not have to

control individual aircraft

bnportant areas can be

uShill

scaisbislzoomable displays

Similar displays can also be

de_ IS a _ticII display

for pilots

A 3D representation of the same rings

(looking up at it)

#L_ A Second Example of a

- -- Visualization Concept for SA c31/ c_s

mammal I I III

A visualization concept that using visual metaphors to manage flight

schedules in time-space

Future weather system evolving in time-space

Flight

all safe

T o +[ +2 •_

Present:

Schedules

Optimal

(all lines

horizontal

& vertical)

+4

Future: Potential

conflict

Off-Schedule

Bermfl_

Provides quick debction

of deviations from normal

operation

Flow abnormalities "popout" as crooked lines

• Makes obvkx_ a

potentially dangerous

schedule (crossing lines

are visually salient)

Allow operators to see and

manage complex evolving

situations and explore

what-if solutions.

210
GFI Top Level Architecture

Modified for TACEC

mm mmm=m

C31 I C3S

TACEC and the GFI Model c3t / c3s

mmmmmmm mmum

ATM Function (From

the GFI Top Level

Model)

+ I

,,,,<_,,

Function per Concept Description

Participate in optimized flight planning using situational awareness and

assessment tools. Specialized focus provided by =drill down" capability

within automation

Share in situational awareness via linked displays.

Terminal & Ground controllers provide primarily monitoring activities utilizing

i new Situational Awareness tools. Concur on Trajectroy updates, participate

in real time awareness activities to insure rapid response to abnormal

conditions.

Now 4-D Trajectories - Automated for optimal routing, updates in real time,

datalinked to atc.

) Now 4-D Trajectories - Automated for optimal routing, collaborative process

with all parties

i Integral with 4+D Trajectory determination utilizing high accuracy

surveillance and onboard (FMS)intent capability.

211
TACEC and the GFI Model

BBimmsm

C31 1 C3S

m mmmmm mmmmm m m mmm

ATM Function (Front

the GFI Top Level

Model)

m

[=iI

Function per Concept Description

FMS driven auto-flight, all phases of operation within the terminal area

Accommodate operational realities, flight path control meets required intent

precision.

Revised designs focus on current and future airspace situation. Embedded

training provides minimal response time to abnormal situations .both

Ground and Cockpit capabilities.

ADS-B using WAAS corrected position reporbng primary surveillance tool.

Mode S SSR is back-up source Surface surveillance uses Muflisensor

Fusion (ASDE, ADS-B, et at)

Collaborative Deosion Making framework. Interchange of situation data

based on a =need to know" cnteria. Specific authonzabons required when

flight planning changes are issued, priorities communicated, and

emergency procedures addressed.

Integrated via Terminal Area Operations network with Operational

algorithms and inter-facility linkage.

Safety C31 1 C3S

m_l m INN abram

Failsafe Operational capabilities

- All major elements of the TACEC solution must be redundant

_ Dual data link

>1 Dual Surveillance systems

, Dual Automation systems

- Dual, independent trajectory calculations

, Approach, departure, landing and taxi trajectories use both current position

and future intent data.

Independent truth data (sensors), processors, and algorithms.

Robust Separation Assurance

- WAASlLAAS accuracy, integrity, and reliability insures current and

future position knowledge

- Reaction times can be reduced based on improved intent information,

automated control loops (aircraft/ground) and optimized information

flow

212
Benefits Assessment

mmlmmmm

C31 I C3S

B_Bl_B B B B_BBIII B _1 IIBIBI B lIB IB |

Primary benefits derived from increased Terminal Area capacity

- Increased revenues

- Safer operation

- Passenger comfort

Secondary benefits include;

- reduced operations costs

- increased schedule reliability

- enhanced ATM system reliability

- excess capacity to absorb uncontrollable disruptions

213
NASA Langley Research Center Wake

Vortex Research Supporting VAMS

22 May 2002

David Ruttshauser

Crew Systems and CIpera_ons Bt'anch

NASA Langley Reselrch Center MS 156A

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

(7s7) 8a4-M_s

d.k. m_lhaul_r_rc.naa.90v

Background: NASA Aircraft VOrtex Spacing

System (AVOSS)

Goal:

- Demonstrate an integration of technologies to provide weatherdependent, dynamic aircraft spacing for wake avoidance

- Operate real-time in a relevant environment

System demonstrated at Dallas Fort-Worth Airport in

July 2000; Represented the culmination of six years of

field testing, data collection, and development

214
The Wake Vortex Issue

25 miles 6 miles

No

Wake Hazard Gap due to wake vortex

uncertainties

Following Lead Aircraft

Aircraft Gap, (nm) Small Large B757 Heavy

Small 2.5 4 5 6

Large 2.5 2.5 4 5

Heav,/ 2.5 2.5 4 4

US Minimum spacing when operating under IFR (Gap in nm)

757 special case as a lead aircraft

Small <= 41,000 Ibs, 41,000 Ibs < Large <= 255,000 Ibs,

Heavy > 255,000 Ibs

AVOSS Corridor

Separate aircraft from wake vortex encounters:

- Define a corridor of protected airspace

- Windows co-locate predictions and sensor

measurements o _'o ,_ .0

- Predict wake motion and decay at all windows for all

aircraft _,,

- Provide safe separation criteria for the entire approach _--'°'._-.,'.?_

- Monitor safety with wake vortex sensor __,.

/

>-?36

410 IC t2_

'rune (_

BOAR: B-767

IJo

t

i

llb

370

i" ----

_-74 ,

....t<: ,0

flbJ_K _oD c _"_  ̧ Rlgm w*k_

Wake no I_r a _clor ill gray ilflDo

215
AVOSS DFW Research Results

Calculated maximum IFR throughput increase

- Averaged 6%

- Rangedfrom 0% to 16%

- Maximumtheoreticalgain -16%

• 50 second Runway Occupancy Time (ROT)

From 2301 wake comparisons:

- 61% of all wakesexitedcorridorin lessthanthe ROT

• Transported away by crosswind

• Sank below the corridor

• Dissipated (circulation below 90 M2/sec)

- 31% Separationreducedwithno measurementsexceeding

predictions

- 8% the wake observationsexceededthe predictionbounds

• Caused by variances either in weather estimation, wake prediction, or

wake sensing, not necessarily a safety concern

• 7% of the 8% determined to not be operationally significant

Products of the AVOSS Program

• AVOSS effort represented the most comprehensive

wake and weather data collection effort to date

- Over 10,000 wakes measured with relevant ambient weather

parameters captured

- Measurements collected at three locations over the course of

six years

• AVOSS provided platform for subsystem development

& integration

- Major progress made in wake modeling and sensing

- Weather subsystems were integrated in new ways and data

fusing algorithms were developed

• Demonstration of concept for system integration

- Example guides future operational concept development

216
AVOSS Weather Subsystems

i,;i!  ̧ ̧ ̧ _ 4 ̧i: ̧: ̧

Tower

Radar Profiler w/Radio

Acoustic Sounding System

odar

Integrated

Terminal

Weather

System

Products

! 000 I

aoo_-

i

4o0

2O0

June, 112000

0800 Z

3-2 0 2 4 6 8

Mean Cross Wlnd (m/_)

Wake Sensors Evaluated

- Pulsed Lidar

Coherent Technologies, Inc. WindTracer Lidar

217
Wake Sensors Evaluated

-Continuous Wave Lidar

MIT/Lincoln Lab Lidar

Wake Sensors Evaluated

- Windline

Volpe Anemometer Array

218
AVOSS Technologies Applicable to all Terminal

O

Inline Approaches Departures

Parallel Runway Approaches Intersecting Runways

AVOSS Follow-on Work Requirements Support

VAMS Vision

• Much work needs to be done in defining operational

concepts that apply AVOSS products to the wake

problem

• Concepts must be analyzed for costs, benefits, and

impacts

• Analysis requires high-fidelity technology models and

concept simulation capability

• Concept development method must be conducive to

defining a roadmap to implementation

219
NASA LaRC VAMS Plans

• VAMS work executed by two LaRC organizations, the

Airborne Systems Competency (AirSC) and the

Aerospace Systems Concepts and Analysis

Competency (ASCAC)

• Work focus is on Wake Vortex Avoidance System

(WakeVAS) concept development and the modeling

that supports the development

• Technology models designed to be compatible with

FAA's terminal procedure simulator, providing a clear

roadmap to operation

• Technology models developed at LaRC could be

used in larger NAS simulations developed at ARC

FY2002 VAMS Tasks

• AirSC provides WakeVAS technology and concept

models and parameters to ASAC for integration into

an airspace simulation

- Develop an in-house technology simulation capability that

parallels the FAA Airspace Simulation and Analysis for

TERPS tool

- Continue evaluation of existing data for WakeVAS

subsystem characterization and evaluation

- Continue enhancements to wake behavior models

• Improvements to analytical models

• Development of wake probabilistic models

• Operational Concept development (in-house and

solicited)

22O
FY2003 and Beyond

• Continue technology model development, targeting

larger, more comprehensive NAS simulations as they

are developed

• Continue Operational Concept Development

• Refine technology models and concept designs with

the results of ongoing research

• Keep potential paths to concept and/or technology

implementation open by maintaining consistency and

synergy with FANNASA Wake Vortex Research Plan

WakeVAS Concept Models

221
Advanced Airspace Concept

Presented at VAMS TIM

By

Heinz Erzberger

Senior Scientist, Ames Research Center

Overview

• Limitations of the existing system

• The Advanced Airspace Concept

• Candidate architecture for the AAC

• Separation assurance and conflict avoidance

system (TSAFE)

• Ground-Air Interactions

222
Limitations of the Current Paradigm

• Controller workload limits growth in sector capacity and

throughput.

• Capacity gains through resectorization and sector size

reduction have reached the point of diminishing returns.

• Decision Support Tools provide some improvements but

can't circumvent basic controller workload limits.

• Manual monitoring and control of separations is subject to

human error ( FAA reports 50% jump in operational errors

in 2000).

Cloning Method for Estimating En Route Airspace

Capacity Potential

AAL966_1 W_ E

AAL966_4 ..........

AAL966_2

223
Results of Cloning Experiments

Number

Of Da_

Flightsjn

Sector

4O0O

3OO0

2OOO

1000

z_ooc_ _qprevb _0000,14 aO0_eZ_ aOoi I0_ _o0101_

Data Set

Advanced Airspace Concept has potential to more than

double base line capacity

Overview of Advanced Airspace Concept

• Ground-based system generates 4D trajectories and separation

assurance advisories for equipped aircraft

• Pilots, with the aid of Flight Management Systems, fly

trajectories and advisories, which are sent to aircraft via data

link.

• Ground and on-board systems help pilots maintain separation

and safe operation in the event of certain types of failures

• Advanced Airspace sectors consist of several conventional

sectors combined into super-sectors

• Voice communications between controller and pilots are

available to handle unequipped aircraft, special pilot request,

emergencies, loss of data link, etc.

224
Design Guidelines

• Utilize existing and planned infrastructure and

operational systems

- Mode S, ADS-B, GPS, Advanced FMS, Decision Support

Tools, Data Link

• Keep on-board equipage requirements to a minimum

- Data link and cockpit traffic display are essential

- FMS highly desirable

• Provide safety net for specified failures

• Allow for transition from current operations to

Advanced Airspace operations

Advanced Airspace Architecture

( Aircraft ) I

Advanced Airspace

Computer System

(,_cs)

Aircraft ]

l

Aircraft )

(Other Aircraft]

I

Tactical Separation

Assisted Flight

Environment

(TSAFE)

225
Why TSAFE is Needed

• AACS is designed to solve a defined set of problems;

however, its regions of solvable and unsolvable problems

are indeterminate.

• Complexity of AACS software makes it difficult to

establish its capabilities in providing tactical separation

assurance.

• A separate system, TSAFE, whose main purpose is to

provide tactical separation assurance, is less complex to

design and easier to validate

• TSAFE uses knowledge of intent to warn against loss of

separation

• The airborne collision avoidance system, TCAS, protects

against collisions without knowledge of intent

TSAFE Architecture

4D Trajectories

from AACS;

Surveillance

Conflict

Detection

Trajectory 4D Trajectories

------*Error Analysis from AACS;

Surveillance

Critical Maneuver and /

-- No-Transgression-Zon_

Detection |

/

Conflict |__ Data Link to

Avoidance _1 -Aircraft Advisories

J.

226
TSAFE Conflict Detection and Avoidance Strategy

• Short detection horizon (-3 min.)

- 3D velocity vector combined with near term flight plan

intent is used for trajectory prediction

• Critical maneuver and no-transgression-zone alerts

• Conflict alerts with -2 min. warning time to loss

of separation

• Avoidance maneuvers to provide a short period of

conflict-free flight (-3 rain.)

- Climb (or descend) to an assigned altitude level

- Turn right (or left) to an assigned heading

- AACS or controller follows up with strategic solution

TSAFE Critical Maneuver Detection

Failure of AC 1 to start planned

turn on time produces immediate

conflict with AC2

ACI start of _

planned turn

maneuver

(a) Critical horizontal

maneuver

ACI descending below assigned

altitude produces immediate

conflict with AC2

_m

AC 1 leveling out ]

point to capture AC2

assigned altitude

(b) Critical vertical

maneuver

227
TSAFE Development Approach

• Develop performance requirements by collecting and

categorizing operational error data from historical records

(in progress):

- Error / deviation reports

- Radar tracking data

- Most errors found to have occurred during climb or descent

• Incorporate TSAFE functions in CTAS for research and

evaluation (in progress)

• Evaluate TSAFE's alerting techniques by using recorded

and live tracking data (in progress).

• Prepare for controller and pilot-in-the-loop simulations

field evaluation

Example of TSAFE Critical Maneuver Alerting

(a) Ground Tracks

190

180

E

'- 170

o

160

150

140

' I ' I ' 1 ' I ' I ' 1 ' I /_//"

I.... Acll :_(/

I-- AC21 +o:oo0.... f _io.). ., -z_"

Conflict Alert: +0.02 3 00 /Z;/

/

(")_-------_._.._. arrivaldelayvector

-g:33 AC2 direct to meter fix /

/

/

, I , I , I _ I I /I _ 1 i I

380 390 400 410 420 430 440

X position, nmi

't

, I

450

228
Example of TSAFE Critical Maneuver Alerting

(b) Altitude Profiles

250

1501

' [ ' t ' I _ I ' i _ I ' ] ' I E 1 ' [

-6:30 AC1 descend to 17.000 ft

...... -5:31ACI cross meter fix at 11.000 fl (read back 10.009 ft [

200 "',

.... AC1 ] _'x -2:110:I'SA_'_"critical maneuver warning

AC2 ] "

_-\ -0:20 TSAFE alert

x

l x\ -0:02 Conflict Alert .--_ 1oo ..... r," H

F

, _ [ _ I , [ t [ , i _ I _ I , [ , [ ,

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 l 2 3

time relative to loss of separation, minutes

Ground-Air Interactions in Advanced Airspace

Aircraft Systems, Pilots

t

ql/P

_k

_T

Ground Systems, Controllers

229
Concluding Remarks

• Capacity of airspace is limited by controller workload

associated with separation assurance

• Airspace has potential for more than twice the capacity of

current system without changing current separation rules

• Advanced Airspace Concept has potential to increase

capacity substantially by reducing controller workload

associated with tactical separation monitoring and control

• Elements of Concept have been outlined:

- Ground-based system provides 4D trajectories to equipped aircraft

via data link

- TSAFE provides separation assurance advisories to pilots via data

link and protects against certain types of failui'es

- Controller performs strategic control tasks and handles unequipped

aircraft

• TSAFE has potential to reduce operational errors in current

system

230
A Suggested Approach for

Producing VAMS

Air Transportation System

Technology Roadmaps

Del Weathers

VAMS Project

May 23, 2002

AMES Research

Overview

VAMS Project Formulation Agreement Deliverable #3 requires the

production of technology roadmaps to guide research

- Producing this deliverable is the responsibility of the System Level

Integrated Concepts (SLIC) sub-element lead by Rob Fong

(rkfbng@mail. arc. nasa. gov)

Technical Approach

- Use concept work to produce their own examples of technology roadmaps

- Use system engineering work to produce an integrated catalogue of

technology roadmaps along with technical discussions

- The Top-level WBS steps are

• 3.1 Top-level Technology and Operational Needs

• 3.2 Top-level Technology Gaps

• 3.3 Approach to Obtaining Transition Technologies

• 3.4 Transitional Technologies - Round 2

• 3.5 Integrated Roadmap: Top-down and bottom-up

231
VAMS Project Policy

• Every concept that is nurtured within the VAMS Project will need to develop

an ATS Technology Roadmap for that concept

• Those concept specific roadmaps will be:

Updated annually

Discussed at all technical interchange meetings

Shared amongst all VAMS participants

Maintained by their producer

Available electronically in a widely used format (MAC and PC)

• Concepts should follow the format described herein, suggest modifications, or

independently develop an equally descriptive approach with examples

• As they are completed the ATS Technology Roadmaps will be:

Collected into a catalogue,

Integrated with each other into different topical sets

Linked to AvSTAR, the OEP and NASA's long term ATS strategy

Accompanied by technical discussions and research recommendations

An integration point for the University efforts (Dr. Zellweger team and others)

Technology Roadmap Framework

• Suggested Starting Framework (AATI"s Task Order 40 - SAIC)

ATM model

• Existing examples

1940 fin backup)

1950 (in backup)

19¢_)

1970

1980

[ 9911

19_9 lin backup)

• Need to be created

- 2tKI2 0oday_

2006 ( near-term )

2010 I FAA OEP Ht_nztm)

2015 ( Medium term Vision Honzon)

2020 (Longer term NASA Vision Horizon)

2025 (Longer teml Stakeholder Vision Horizon)

232
Technology Roadmap Characteristics

• Characteristics

Using the ATS model show a specific technologies time (from concept to market

availabili_)

Discuss the science understanding

Discuss the performance needs/requirements

Indicate if any alternative approaches exist

• Identify Technology pathways

• Identify. Gaps

• Tradeoffpathway groupings

Risks

• Technical

• Political

• Legal ('erlification

Critical challenges for which solutions are needed and must be accomplished

Costs (by PhaseJ

Scenarios to demonstrate features or aspects

- Supporting documentation

ATM ARCHITECTURE - 1940 (BASELINE)

If ]9391 - Tilt: CAA ¢omplctcd a I

i

$7M airwa?,_ m_Mernizafion I

and irnpro_,cmen! pr t,grail_ u_

Ma_ _ t_

I ( 1'_38_ - Bureau began I

widespread deployment tffZmark¢_, the fit_t VHF ]1_1}

NAVAH)

....... _. I

program Io develop VHF 4-

coupe range beacon

I Services Description [

233
ATM ARCHITECTURE - 1950

ending t_ Jim 30. the CAA Slalion ill lndianaptllis flight 11941 ) CAA'5 l'u'sl VHF radtl_

began tk_ clopmera work un tested a stall taming indh:al_lr range SyslClll availabk for

adapllng radar to ci¢fl aviation ill Sprint z I942 _heduled airline u_¢ on

at the Experimental S|Zllt)n. ('hlcago 1¢) N¢_ York _llE_il}

on Vlay I

AIRSPAC"E

USERS &

AVIONICS

NAVIGATION

S_$TEMS

CO._LMUNICATION

SYSTEMS (G/G)

[ _rvke_ U_c rtp, ti*_ I I .....h0...... ,,,,oII A,_hl .... '" II ,,,,-,.Tr.. I

ATM ARCHITECTURE - 1960

_l 1 ( 1960_ - FAA mandated I

traffic L-onllX_l radar beacon syslem Corptlration began aircraft had to be cquippad

into _pcratltm on Scp I{I m N¢_  ̧ rnanufaclalrmg Ihr flr_ with flight recorders by

york area ̧ By May Iqf_). 20 beacon trartsistonzad automatic pih_t Noverab_ I 1. W60,

systems had been pu_ tn operamm at tbr civdtan and mtltlary satrs

16 ,kRT('('s

I I first ASR.4 on Aug 25 an d I AVIONIC'S

/ [ I f _ 1" NA_TION I I (1q56)- 'Ill,: AIr (',_,rdlnatmg I

l_'C_l( _t; }/ _vsm_s/ I Committccappro,'cdonAug3,, I

9_ " _d_l/_i'_O ' • L J a r¢com/Dcnd;ltl[_n ttl ctTmbfflt"

I ...... d _ S_." I L w._cno_s 1_ N / / [ _oc 1

p._tnl use of3t nc_ FSS [cU_CT|ONS

high p_x_ hmg range SERVICES & { 1t_571 - ('AA begal_ I

I _'_ I/ FUNCTIONN [ _ Sy$'l'_l_(ll_) _ l installaliunoffil_t-nmov, I

L'ommum_ allons _anot_ ( I tl6lll -The Pilot

IATUSlandlnlernaliortal ['TO_,_J_PJ_ ATC] [EN I_,A.I'cl ['4[]_.TNiJ_ATC ] [

I RepoSing (PIREPI

I[AT(Ss_la'T('_'l_°uld /a'rcsm"nc_ I I starlet.s* l I stav_crs.-. I / mcts,_ / Is'_m_._,.,_,,_,_,,,

Program began ',_ilh e_tahli_hed tbr amving and had ax_ardcd a $9X_ toncra¢l liar

cparling aircraft ma a national 23 long range nldarx It+ he used

Richmond and Norfolk towers, USl_ for cn route A] t

Arcl_t_tture 1960

i ._'rvices DescriptiOn I I J,,_h, .... ,.o II A.,_I..... '_' II '_'-'-' ..... I

234
t _}61 p - Beacon ( 'ommmcc

recommended FAA u_" secondary

Surveillance radar t SSR) ha_

primary parl of air rra file

surveillance Also recommended

MODE-U bc iL_ f_lr aircraft height

I I9"b_ ) The FAA and D_)D

agreed on Feb I the joim use of M]_D/lcB(I

opcralnmal pnmt-m-poini SERVICI_ &

commtmicamms ncrwt_rks _m a FUNgTrlONS

_orkl_ ide basl_

_5. FAA had

Radal Ind_calnl 1 _,_cr

EqtnPmcnt ( BRITE - I } ai

Newark. Dallas I Lovcl. and

ATM ARCHITECTURE - 1970

¢ 19641 F'an Am I I _}63 } - FAA issued rule

annomiucd on Jul 2 t gtl Jul I requiring DME

ihal Inellial Navigall_ cqulpmenl _m all airline

_ystcms would bc nirboj ets and all other

insealled on mo_ of its civil a=rcraft flying IFR

aNwe 24.5 fK) _}fl in ihe

US

AllLqPACE

USERS &

AVIONICS

SU R%'E I LLA-_C E

SYSTEMS

NAVIGATION

SYSTEMS

FSS COMMUNICATION SERVICES & SYSTEMS (G/G)

FUNCTIONS

tERMINAL ATC ]

ATe SERVICES SERVICES & SERVICES &

& FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS

( 1964 t - f AA comnllssioned

first DML combined g IIh

Kcnm'dy

tnlcmalit,nal Airlx_rl in No_

1191_11 - FAA commIssIoned

the first I_lppler %OR :It

Marquette. Michigan on ]tin

29

I 11970_ - FAA established the

AT(" Systems Catnmand

('tmler l,n Ju129 to intcgralc

fimclions of (cnmd Fh_v.

AO_ _°nm'l Faclhly Aiqx,rt SERVICF_; & cse_'amm Office. Air Traffic

FUNCTIONS _c_.icc (i,nlinge_c3  ̧

i c ommand Post. and (em_l

Altitude Reselw,_mm Facllii_  ̧

i( ARFI

I 19671 - Pan Am jel

flying the Nol_h AtlanIlc

on Nov 21 used N ASA

ATS III _lellilc lot airgtound-atr radio _oi_c

SERVICES & rela3

F(_NCTIONS

ATM ARCHITECTURE - 1980

I

nc_ gcneratlnn air route rcqumng insiallatio_ nf (_ound Proxlmliy C'ommunicali_ms and

sn_cillancc radar ARgR-3. _ amine Syslcm ((}P_S) _m large t_b_iel Addressing and Reporllng

_enl int_ operallOn and turboprop alr_Ta fi g_tc_ IA( 'ARSt _chi_ cd

R_t a_ 155 ai_om

plan1_lTf'lon" nmi_lq Julgcac°n lAA12 etlected code alloeallnn a Ii ] _ AVIONICS F__ t_. _ _/ _ I {landingi_rM19721op_rational" syF_A...... c_,mmi_mncd ('ATDullc_ Ilia

/ _ _'_'_ _ \ '' ...... iona' A,rrorl on Jan 2 ]

[ Isum'etLLasc_lf ,,,,,', _1 NAVIGATION I _ | w._l.o.,_,l.

FP,A reduced

,Ia_ ....... ard ,,t [N,T t_,mpetin_.............c coniracls ddic [--,olt SERVICESFUNCTIONS

&

J s_,s=,_ \ Jk.Z.7.Jt I/__ _"=-Jr SEIV1CESAo_&_ ]1-' distanceSlmuRanc_s ....... Ibr"....... ILS

design ccmlputcr s]+slcm_ Ibr _n_a_ s

of Flighl Sc_icc ( envt_ SER'VICES _ll (197 :l}. FA A awarded a

I gKSsi _U._JU IONS contracl on Jan 6 for an

_y_.lem to fepl.ic¢ ,AR] {{'

communicauons and radio

I ATC] [1_ AT gANICATC I ....... land_igixaling

1197Sl F_,A'slLg_AS I I _ I SEIIIV]CES & I I SERVICES & / c_uirmcnialrc_'lcsiic_

"'-"'.......... I t _NCTIONS J t FUNCTIONS J

sewn airports in Sop

c_m_rll_Si_lncd llr,t ti_t ARTS-I[ began Au_ 2h _ilh ("l_+mne I { [)_R( }

ARTS Ill at ()'Hate opcnlllons al l'nledn commissioning nf tht- 21l_h _yslcms _rc dchx ered

TR A('ON on (kt 4 TRA( ON RDP system al Miami to lhc I AA Academ)

ART(._, a_.d NAFE(

Ar_eeture 19gli

I Services Delcripiion I

235
ATM ARCHITECTURE - 1990

" I 198q ) -( hi Jan I 0 F/L_

( 19881 - (ha Ju125 FAA ptthlishcd a pale requmng the

annouixed that it had a',_ arded _ TCAS 11 un all awiiner_ v.ith

¢ommisst(med 1'¢8qp On Ma_the 2 first FAA WesnnghcaJse contract for 34 a ARSR-4s $2716 milhon _ more o_..tatmgthan in30 I.LSpassenger ain.pacc seals

t_ratkmal ASR-9 awpurl

_l_'_lla_'¢ radar 3N IQ83 _ __

119qO; - On Max 6 FAA

i_ucd a Rile requlnng pnvul¢

a,rcraft Nying .......... f [___l _ _i__

cuun_" thr_mgh an All

D¢ fcltts¢ Idt'nhl]cition Znno

(ABEl to _: ¢qulp_d "m,'Ith

NAVIGATION

alltttld.'-repoMlng ( Mode" (')

translx,ndcrs b_ _.-_- 30 AOC

¢ommls._iortcd the first

flight*',atoll> serv,.¢gnmp stancns ,,ta ........ d gl_--_ CO_M_ MUNIcATIO_ N _"[ ' _'_ I

Cle_eland. O,fuu I>aylon,

(_ht,, and Bnd_tep_rt. C'onn

l lq'gg} - On Max 5 FAA's : (_]_,A_IC ATC ]

Nat.,nal Data Im_chang¢

Ner_ork IA [NADIN IA_ I ATE SERVICl[_ SglRWICgSl ] SERVICES & I _IgRVICES & [

..... f..>op_..... L _ _ twscnoss J Fuscnoss J

st_planfing SC',roral

mdc'pcndcTtl ctrmmunicatlons t1_88). InAu_. F.t.Ab_gana (lggl -TheNc_ I '#g?p-OnMav- x) IIgRI)-FAA

IXCt_ orks _lth a single. I_l and den_nstra item of tile York TKA(+ON FAA commlk_iomd comm!_i(mcd

cff¢_tl_ ¢ r_vzans _l Precision Run.a) Memltor be_lltl¢ opcraliorml the first of its Host first DI._cl Acce_

iratxsmlttmg ,x eather and {PRMIblIo_ed_at intheMa_MemphislqSqbyalrp°rt'a onHempstcad.Jan 10 at Long the(*omp_tersea nit Systemsaiz route at IuARradar-Chanr¢l(. A ( ) at the

flight plan data

_¢at-h,ng teSl at the Raleigh- Island flame con_o ¢'¢n er Sail Lake ( ity

• ARTCC on Feb 2

D_irham air,rift (ART('CI

I Ser, ices D_cripffe_ l

lqg_l - On Ma_ 23 the

first aircraft to i'lavtgal¢

across the Atlanlt_

entirely by use of the

(iPS landed al Paris

i 19881 - In D_c the

Federal Radio navigarum

Plan IFRP) _as issued a._

a r_lacemem and

uFdatc to the 19tl6 FRP

I _!987 - On Ma', r 17 FAA

_gan using the'Aircraft

Smsation D_lav (ASDI

at its Central Fh;_

I ('_mlzol Wa_mt_(m Facilib  ̧at

HL_ ua_

_19_3) - On Dec 3I

__e_tl_._l _ of  ̧an IBM

4341 computer began at

the ( emral Flow t ont_ol

Ilq_qi - On Dec 14FAA

authonzcd I_,e _,t the

_(X_n_: Dtspla_  ̧ and

_annlng Syst_n

IODAPSt at the Oakland

Air Route Traffic ( (m_-ol

Argot.,  ̧. 19_1

236
ATM ARCHITECTURE - 2010

AIRSPACE

USERS_,

AVIONICS

NAVIGATION MBO/FBO SYSTEMS AOC

,SERVICES & _ RV1CES &

FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS

I [ FSN COMMUNICATION SERVICES&

SERVICES & SYSTEMS (G/G)

FUNCTIONS FUNCTITONS

TEI_MINAL ATC [ OCEANIC ATC

ATC SERVICES SERVICES & [ SERVICES & SERVICES &

[

& FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS ,_ FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS

II II I

Art_efture 2010

237
University Concept

Draft Report

Team

Dres Zellweger

22 May, 2002

The Team

Paul Abramson

Kevin Corker

George Donohue

John Hansman

John Kern

Dennis Koehler

Ed Koenke

Jim Poage

Bill Wood

Dres Zellweger

tap academic creativity, balance

with ATM and flight ops expertise

238
The Charge

- Develop 2025 Concepts

- Identify Transition Paths

- Identify Research Agenda

- Identify University Research Areas

Conduct 5 2-day meetings

Deliver Final Report in July, 2002

Participate in Summer Workshop

Today's Brief- a work in progress

Our Approach

- Identify drivers

- Brainstorm concepts to accommodate drivers

- Identify research questions related to concepts

- Identify cross-cutting research questions

- Develop high level cut at possible transitions

- Update research questions based on transitions

239
Drivers

- Capacity/Demand/Security

- Cost (sustainability)

- Technology

- Markets/Economics

- Globalization vs "what's best for U.S."

Future must be driven by policy for public benefit,

not vested interests of special interest groups

Enablers

- Change has traditionally been the result of

"enablers"

- Research should be phased to match predicted

timing of future "enablers"

-Transition problems have been an inhibitor

- Our team thinks it's important to learn from the past

and understand what is required for successful

transition to a new concept

- Benefits driven transition not likely to work!

240
Timing

Our team predicts major opportunity in 5-7 years

- workforce (retirement; contract re-negotiation)

- slot controls end

- AIR21 reauthorization

- serious capacity problems

(major hubs, RJ fleet, air taxis)

Strong political leadership is necessary

Must engage the public

CONCEPTS

- The Bifurcated System

- High Density Network

- "Low Density" System

- Autonomous IMC Operations

- Other Concepts

- Airport Capacity

241
Bifurcated System

High Density Network - Highly Structured - Efficient Flow

Low Density Space - Weakly Structured

- We envision a split of the NAS into 2 separate networks.

- The high density network connects the high demand and

congestion nodes and will grow over time as demand rises.

- Hub and spoke may be less dominant, but will stay

because of its inherent efficiency

- External and perhaps intertwined with the highly

congested hub network will be low density regions. There

would be transition points between the 2 networks.

- By splitting the networks it should be possible to better

optimize for each operating group.

High Density Network

- Different elements of system have to be

"impedance matched"

- Has to include airport terminal and landside

- Robustness of total system is important

- Must be based on complete system analysis

and design

l0

242
Key Airport System Flows

Entry

:Ix

Arrivals

Departures

Airside

The Tube Concept

• Between High Congestion Airports

• Highly Structured Routing for Efficiency, limited

flexibility similar to TRACON flows but extend

throughout network

• Maximum utilization of key resources

• Inner Loop Control goes to aircraft (RTA, InTrail

Separation, Pair wise Maneuvering) to increase

predictability and capacity

• Ground controls sequence, scheduling and structure

Power of tube is to create an abstraction that

allows the controller to deal with many aircraft

12

243
The Tube Concept (cont'd)

• Highway metaphor (std routes, on-off ramps,

breakdown lane, standard detours around

obstructions such as weather)

• Congestion limits and perhaps congestion pricing

justifies stringent equipment and operating

constraints

• Redesign airspace and procedures around network

• Best chance for early capacity and predictability

increase

• But - does not address need for increased

throughput at airports

13

Tube Concept- Transition

• Establish Leadership

• Get political and public support

• Get Workforce Buy-in Early

• Identify Issues, Opportunities, Inhibitors/Opposition

• Demonstrate in Experimental Corridors in High Value Target

Markets

- ORD-NYC

- LA-SFO

- Washington-New York-Boston

• Limited corridors, simple on/off ramps, break-down lanes

• Pair wise self separation (station keeping) for closer spacing

• Keep technology and procedures simple

• Give preference to demo participants

244
Tube Concept - Research

• Select experimental corridors

• Model and design of tubes and procedures

- Entry, exit, merge, passing etc

- Role of controllers

• Develop pair-wise self separation protocols

• Develop non-normal procedures

• Understand interaction with flow management

• Develop interface with rest of system

• Redesign airspace

• Identify equipment requirements

• Prove interoperability with other tools

• Prepare for demo (real time sim, NASA flight demo,

industry demo)

15

Highly Interactive Dynamic Planner

- Long term goal to achieve optimum use of capacity constrained

system

- Dynamic air-ground negotiation of trajectories

- Aircraft would fly 4D routes, as a minimum in terminal regions

- Aircraft responsible for separation

- Could evolve from tube concept

Man), research issues

-role of people

- dealing with major

anomalies

- achieving system stability

- tight 4D planning may overconstrain the problem

- making system safe

- transition

-public acceptance etc etc

16,

245
Market Based System

-Major Hub Airports will Allocate Slots by Public Auctions:

-Strategic, near term and spot auctions

-May price runway occupancy

-Peak runway loading will be reduced to government

established safety and capacity optimized schedules

-Aircraft size will be driven by a combination of airline

profits and maximum enplanement opportunities

-Policy will determine how "national resource" will be used

-System will change behavior and find a new equilibrium

The Regional Airport System

Objective - increase capacity of high demand urban regions,

especially where primary airport expansion is limited

- In near term, use of"alternate" airports will grow to

accommodate regional airlines, air taxi, fractionals, etc.

- In longer term, these airports could be managed as a single

asset

- With appropriate multi-modal connectivity, some

percentage of traffic could be dynamically assigned to

different airports

- Terminal area ATM will have to be designed for best use

246
Autonomous IMC Operations

Class Q- below 17,000 ft

By 2025, no longer "low density" - we predict too many planes for

ATC as we know it today

- Separation responsibility goes to aircraft

- Traffic management limited to density control

- Sequencing and interaction done by procedure and rules of road

- A ground monitoring function

i - Requires an increase in safety over today's VFR system

] (GA VFR safety is an order of magnitude lower than commercial)

- All planes must be equipped

- Restricted zones that a/c can't fly into (avionics protection)

- Segregate from high density airspace (class A)

- Capable of dealing with wx problems - can't fly over weather! _9

Class Q- Transition

- Having a clear Transition Path will be critical

(Capstone and Safe Flight 21 models not adequate)

- Potential for controller delegation to part of fleet

- Potential for small, but typical "trial" regions

- Mandate equipment to accelerate transition

- Bifurcated System Vision

- we expect Class Q airspace to grow to higher

altitudes (i.e. lower density airspace surrounding the

high density system)

20

247
Class Q - Research

- What are airspace density limits?

- for safety?

- for communications?

- What else is needed to make system stable?

-What are failure modes and how do you handle them?

- What is ground/satellite infrastructure?

- What kind of ground "ATM" function is needed?

- for security monitoring

- infrastructure monitoring

- for search and rescue

- what else?

- How do you co-exist with rest of ATC system?

- How do you use ASAS? Wx?

- etc etc

21

Autonomous "SATS" Airports

"Higher IMC rates at non-towered airports"

Research Issues

- Feasibility?

- Hourly rate ( 10-15)?

- Avionics requirement?

- Ground based infrastructure?

-How do take advantage of WAAS?

- Need for ground-based system for control?

- Unequipped aircraft?

- Interface to ATC system (does ATC deliver

aircraft to a "metering fix"?

- Pilot qualifications and training?

22

248
Continue Current ATM Paradigm

"muddling along"

- Can't afford cost of doing same old things

(will lead to a a system that can't get close to meeting demand.)

- Economy will adapt!

- But won't get economic benefits of aviation (steak and

lobster will be hard to get in Kansas City)

- Non-part 121 will slowly be driven out of transportation

business.

- More ATM by dispatchers is likely

- Demand management

23

"muddling along" (cont'd)

-Research Focus:

- WAAS enhancements (new TERPs etc.)

- better information flow

- common situational awareness

- moving CDM to tactical level

- separation stds given knowledge of intent

- best use of ADS-B use in existing environment

- self sep in IMC approaches

- redesign of high volume terminal airspace

(maybe on big terminal area in east coast)

-mixed equipage constraints

- rethinking first come first serve

- on-going OR to adapt to changes

24

249
Airports - work still in progress

25

Crosscutting Research

(very preliminary list)

- What are elements of a successful transition?

- Understanding system behavior/dynamics

- Human factors

(roles/responsibilities; situational awareness, etc.)

- Controller selection and training

- Separation standards

- Ways to reduce capacity variability

(ex - security, wake vortex, Wx, airport arrival rate)

- How do you deal with major anomalies - when there's a

change to a lot of flight paths? What are conditions required to

keep system stable?

- CDTI uses - people and equipment

26

250
Thank You!

Tube Concept

Interleaved Structured and Unstructured Airspace

2_

251
Tube Concept

On-Ramp Off-Ramp

2q

Tube Concept

On-Ramp Off-Ramp

3O

252
Tube Concept

Interleaved Structured and Unstructured Airspace

Aircraft Exits Tube into

Unstructured Airspace

(Breakdown Lane) and Diverts

to Backup Airport

3J

Strategy

The problem: How to build an evolutionara, system that can meet

the needs of afi_z2yfuture.

Step I - create a VISION

Step 2 - develop a robust set of concepts

"'if you don't know where you're going,

any road will get you there"

Step 3 - perform "concept research'"

Step 4 - develop high level architecture for

the concept(s) - (zoning laws and building

codes)

Step 5 - develop a roadmap (transition

path) for evolution to this future system

Step 6 - define operational and

technology requirements and user

consensus for initial waypoints

Step 7 - over time, update vision,

concepts, and roadmap and repeat step 6

for next waypoints

In parallel - develop CNS/A TM technologies to fully

develop the concepts and details of the "waypoints"

- A ROBUST concept accommodates range of most likely future worlds

- Committing to ROADMAP a step at a time keeps options open

- Implementing steps along a well defined road overcomes "'treatment of

symptom" syndrome

253
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #1

Technology Roadmaps

Group 1

Joseph Del Balzo, Facilitator

May 22, 2002

(_ Purpose of Technology Roadmap

v ID the technologies needed and a way to achieve

them to support the development (implementation?)

of a specific concept

0 Tech Roadmap will starts as functional statement and then

iterates to specific technology

-- Roadmap goes hand in hand with the Concept Development

v ID technologies that support more than one concept

v ID (when needed) key decision milestones for

technology choices

254
(_ What should Technology

Roadma_ contain .9

v Timelines and activities needed for technology

development

v Performance goals of technology (not of the future

ATM system)

v Enabling technologies identified

v Dynamically adapt to changing projections

v (Probable cost for required R & D & Implementation -

does not belong here .... in cost section of Concept

Doc)

v (not the socio-economic/political assumptions ... is in

the Concept Document)

(_ Tech. Roadmaps changing per phase of the project

v Should the format of the Technology Roadmaps

change to include include different emphasis for each

phase of the project -- No

v Should the content of the Technology Roadmaps

change to include include different emphasis for each

phase of the project -- YES

255
Where do the Transition

Plans fit?

V

v

Technology Transition Plan is needed

Is it part of the Technology Roadmap?...don't know

Recommendations

Technology Roadmap should be limited to the

technology development required for each of the

Concepts (and include milestones?)

Other items in Del's "Tech Roadmap Characteristics"

to be put into some supporting document

256
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #1

Technology Roadmaps

Group 2

Kevin Corker, Facilitator

May 22, 2002

(_ What is purpose of Technology Roadmap Tool for decision-makers? Why do we need it?

Technology Roadmap may not be the right term

Capability & Function Map

Roadmap include Political and Policy

Roadmap include Roles and Responsibilities

Roadmap distinguished from Program Plan

257
Road Map Should Contain?

Why should it contain What ? Gets to purpose

-- Affect/guide policy

-- Iteratively be updated and form changed by Phase

-- Contain Critical Decision Points

° NASA and Contractor Teams

• Investment strategy

-- Consider Blending Process

-- Consider risk/fall back process in complex and non linear systems

-- Contain costs (in the aggregate)

-- Insertion, Extraction and Transition process

-- Technology Level of Capability not new development

-- Basic Research issues

-- Be different than the program plan

Road Map to Program Map

Program

yr3

yr2

yrl

17-25

10-17

5-7

Blending and

Harmonization

Real time

Feasibility

Non-Real time

feasiblity

Demand case

258
Basic Research Issues AS

critical desi,,qn points

v Acoustic

v Socio-political (demand and need drivers)

v Environmental

v Vortex- penetration, avoidance

v Human Factors

v Weather (Hazardous condition identification,

prediction)

v Large scale chaotic systems

v Human Factors

V._I/IS

(_ Issues

v Issues with Roadmap

v Timing - now is too early

v RM is different than concept program plan

v What is linkage to SEA to guide roadmaps

v What is proprietary status of RM - share the light,

v Multi-Modal

259
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #1

Technology Roadmaps

Group 3

Earl Van Landingham, Facilitator

May 22, 2002

Key points

v 1) Need "concept roadmap" of which one part is

technology, but includes socio-economic issues,

legal considerations, etc

v 2) Expect roadmaps to mature (evolve) based on

increasing fidelity of costs and benefits and other

facets of concept

v 3) Technology Element of Roadmap

-- Key technology to be organized by common functional

architecture and identified by time frame and performance

objectives.

v Summary

Need to address subject at next TIM

26O
Other ideas

1) Expect to have multiple path roadmap - Need

functional architecture of what we are trying to

achieve

2) Are we talking about new technology or better

ways of piecing together technology? Want

successful implementation of technology. Roadmap

are requirements driven (Functional needs and

performance needs)

3) Do we need to know how much capacity gained

by a particular concept before generating detailed

roadmap?

261
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

;VAM$_

Advanced Air Transportation

Technologies (AATT) Project:

Distributed Air-Ground Traffic

Management

Richard Mogford, Steve Green, Mark Ballin

AATT Project

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM May22,2002

AATT Project Focus Areas

Develop en route and terminal decision support tools

(DSTs) for FAA Free Flight Phases I and 2

- Enhance capabilities of present air traffic system

- Deliver decision support tools to the FAA

Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM)

Research

- Free Flight concept exploration

- Evaluate feasibility of making major changes to

current system and procedures

- Deliver tested concepts to the FAA

262
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS May22, 2002

DAG-TM Definition

• DAG-TM is the Free Flight part of AATT

• In DAG-TM flight crews, air traffic service providers, and

aeronautical operational control dispatchers use

distributed decision making to:

- Enable user preferences/flexibility

- Increase system capacity

- Meet air traffic management requirements

• NASA is investigating the feasibility of DAG-TM concepts

during the next four years

- Using NASA Ames and Langley resources

- Contractor support

• Will deliver tested concepts to the FAA

@

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM @

The DAG-TM Philosophy

Better Air Traffic Management through Distributed:

Information - Decision Making - Responsibility

263
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAkmTB May¢J,200a

DAG-TM is a Gate-to-Gate Concept

• A matrix of gate.to-gate problems were defined by Ames,

Langley, and Glenn researchers

• One or two DAG-TM-based concept element (CE) solutions

were formulated to solve each problem

Te_'mln_ Arrlvo_

Concept elements are

possible modes of

operation within the

scope of the RTCA

Task Force 3 concept

The DAG-TM concept

is comprised of 15

Concept Elements...

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

Concept Elements

[ Over-arching] [ Preflight J -_

I Gate-to-Gate: • CE-O Data Exchange ] [

•

Pre-flight CE-1 User Planning: optimization for Constraints J

[ Flight Operations 1

I Surface Departure: 11 En route / Terminal: (local-TFM) • CE-2 Intelligent rraxl] routing • CE-8 Collaboration for Arrival Metering

r Terminal Arrival: "_

Terminal Departure: _ |. CE-9 Free Maneuvering Around Weather /

/" CE-3 Free Maneuvering for Separation / _'" CE-10 Trajectory Up link [to avoid] Weather )

L" CE-4 Trajectory Negotiation for Separation ,,) _Terminal Arrival:

/- -_ |. CE-11 Self Spacing for Accurate Merge

En route (Separation and local TFM Conformance) / : " )l L" CE-12 Trajectory Exchange for Accurate Merge,

I" CE-5 (a/b) Free Maneuvering I • Term,nal Approach

L" CE-6 (a/b) Trajectory Negotiation JI

J _,• CE-13 Closely Spaced Approaches

En• CE-7route: Collaboration (IocaI-TFM) ] I Surface Arrival: for SUAJWx/Complexity • CE-14 Intelligent [Taxi] Routing

-t

264
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

VAMS 11M Mary 22,,2(102

CE-5:

Free Maneuvering for User-Preferred Separation Assurance

and Local Traffic Flow Management (TFM) Conformance

Problem:

• Air Traffic Service Provider (ATSP) cannot accommodate

trajectory change requests due to workload

• ATSP-issued clearances often cause excessive deviations

from user preferred trajectories (UPTs) for separation

assurance or are otherwise not optimal for users

Solution:

• Air: Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI)-equipped

aircraft maneuver freely for separation assurance

• Ground: ATSP monitors separation (with ground-based

DSTs) and provides separation assurance for non-equipped

aircraft

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

VAI_ TIM MRy 22, L_02

Today's System

265
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VMIS 11M

CE-5 Concept

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES V

v,_BW __ l

CE-6: En Route (&Transition) Trajectory Negotiation

for User-preferred Separation and LocaI-TFM Conformance

Problem:

• ATSP workload limits throughput and accommodation of UPTs

• ATSP-issued clearances often cause excessive deviations for

separation assurance or are otherwise not preferred by users

Solution:

• User and ATSP negotiate for user-preferred trajectory

changes:

- User formulates UPT (based on constraints) and transmits

to the ATSP

- ATSP evaluates UPT for approval and amends constraints

as needed

• CTAS-datalink.flight deck integration to facilitate:

- Reduced datalinldCTAS input workload

- Calibration of Flight Management System and CTAS

- Trajectory-based clearances and improved flight

conformance

266
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

CE-6 Concept

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS_ : ..... May22,20¢Z

CE-11:

Self-Spacing for Merging and In-Trail Separation

Problem:

• Excessive spacing buffers on final approach reduce arrival

throughput and airport capacity

• Reduced visibility may limit airport acceptance rate

Solution:

• CDTI-equipped aircraft are cleared to maintain separation

relative to a leading aircraft:

- Flight has deck displays and guidance for:

• Maneuvering

• Self-merging and spacing

° Fine tuning of fixed-time spacing

- ATSP has displays and procedures for shared

separation responsibility

267
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

VAM$ TIM

Today's System

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

VAMSTIM __

i

CE-11 Concept

268
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM

DAG-TM Benefits

M_/22, 2002

• CE-5

- Self-management supports scalability of system

• CE-5 & 6

- Increased user flexibility / efficiency within the presence

of conflicting traffic and dynamic en route constraints

- Shift/reduction in ATSP workload

- Reduced excess separation buffers

- Reduced voice communications

• CE-11

- Reduced voice communications

- Reduced controller workload for maintaining traffic

separation

- Increased arrival throughput

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM

NASA DAG Research

May 22, 2002

• NASA Ames, Langley, and Glenn collaborating on DAG

work

- Ames focusing on air traffic control (ATC) or ground

DST and procedures development

- Langley responsible for flight deck DST and procedures

research

- Glenn researching communications infrastructure

• Initially pursuing parallel research

• Leading to air/ground integration studies to assess the

feasibility of each concept

• Benefits data will also be collected in controlled

experiments

269
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

; YAMS11U

i Current NASA Ames Research

• Focusing on ATC component of DAG-TM CEs-5, 6, and 11

• Goal is to demonstrate initial feasibility of CEs

• Basing research on Concept Descriptions

• Filling out and evolving the concepts as research

progresses

• Continuously involving operational people and

stakeholders

• Incrementally building laboratory capabilities to address

CEs

• Adding to complexity each year

• Following details are in process and subject to change

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VNU 1111

Ames Research Concept

• The following scenarios are being used to test CEs-5, 6,

and 11

• The Basic Scenario is being augmented this year with

additional traffic, complexity, weather, and procedures

• Demonstrations held in September 2001 and January 2002

• Next demonstration in June 2002

• Two week experiment in September 2002 to initiate

evaluation of benefits and performance

• Goal is to complete the research by the end of 2004

270
ADVANCED

VAMS

AIR

TIM

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

May 22, 2002 @

Pilots use CDTI trajectory tools to resolve

traffic conflicts and plan RTA compliant Controllers use CTAS

descent _ tools to monitor en route -

CD&R and arrival aircraft and _ -- - - - -

"--._, | ' issue RTAs ......

F::

"i" Maneuvering ""--. ",.

-._.,,. Center

""""""L'.,::. /T RACON

Automatic Data Exchange: Transition ""-'.

• Downlink aircraft state A rs-ace "'-. J Pilots use CDTI &

• Uplink descent winds to P "_.._ guidance to selfsynchronize trajectory //_'-. _ space

computations y _

• Uplink TMA meter fix times (RTAs) I "'.aJ

and cruise speed advisories I _.. ,

• Oownlink FMS trajectory I "_,

whenever it changes ] TRACON controllers'can ....

Jclear pilots to ae,f-apac_'_ I III \

I_¢_|r, _P_n_r|n Jbehind a designated \J III \

,.,.w_._,,._._,.._,.._..,,_, ._.._..v Iaircraft " "

I

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM .... May22,_  ̧ ̧ ̧@

\

Free Managed ,,

\

Maneuvering _ '_',.............

,,_ ',, Center

""-. RTA to ",, /

"_ .-"" _"_l_. \', Merging

............... _)_----! ....... .-"'" Self.spacing "'¢_,,

Intermediate Scenario

271
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VJRMS TIM

Roles and Responsibilities: General Rules

Only One Entity is Responsible for Separation

- ATC has the sole authority to cancel self-separation

- Pilot can request the cancellation of free-flight

En Route Free Flight - Flight Crew Responsible

- Flight crew (upon acceptance) is responsible for separation assurance

- Flight crew can request ATC assistance for conflict resolution, flow control, and traffic

management considerations

Transition Phase - Flight Deck Responsible

- ATC will provide Required Time of Arrival (RTA) advisory for meter fix

- Flight crew is responsible for separation and meeting RTA

TRACON Boundary - ATC Responsible

- Controller is responsible for separation

- Flight crew can be cleared to maneuver, merge, and maintain in-trail spacing

- Controller can revoke clearance at any time

272
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

..... ii

Ames Research Facilities

• Flight simulator

• Airspace Operations Lab

• Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM .... May 22, 20(}2

Crew-Vehicle Simulation Research

Facility

Advanced Cab

273
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

VAMS_ xm,m__

Airspace Operations Lab (AOL): Air/ground Simulation

Capability for Human-System Research

Air-side [ Advanced Con(:_pll ] IMuel/Urcr_ J _ ITmmc l_play I

| SIm at ARC t [ Simulators I 7_L_---_ I Lib lit AI_C I

I Tr'_ktn,o sy,tm I J."*__IL

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

•

VAMS TIM

AOL Workstations

274
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

YAMS IW

AOL Controller Display

May32,2002 : i_  ̧ ̧

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM

CDTI

275
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMSTIM

NASA Langley DAG-TM Research

• Developlng flight deck tools and procedures for CE-5 and

CE-11

• Conducted two recent experiments:

- Airborne Use of Traffic Intent Information

(AUTRII), focusing on quality of intent information

- Advanced Terminal Area Approach

Spacing (ATAAS), terminal arrival self spacing study

• Contlnulng wlth alrborne DST development to support DAG

concept element feasibility research

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

Airborne Use of Traffic Intent Information (AUTRII)

- Evaluated pilot capability to perform airborne selfseparation in presence of flow constraints

- Investigated advisability of exchanging of Intent

information between autonomous airborne operators

- Evaluated utility of initial airborne decision support and

CDTI functions

- Evaluated pilot acceptance of role expansion to include

separation responsibility

276
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

VAMS TIM

Comparison of Two Operational Modes

Tactical Mode

- Based on exchange of state information only

- Near-term conflict detection (5 minutes)

- Maneuvers implemented manually through Flight Control

Panel

Strategic Mode

- Took advantage of Flight Management System (FMS)

guidance and performance database

- Incorporated state and intent information in conflict

detection

- Longer-term conflict detection (nominal 20+ min,)

- Maneuvers implemented manually or through FMS guidance

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM

CDTI developed for AUTRII

combines features from NASA

Ames, NLR, and NASA Langley:

Resolution advisories

Conflict alerting

symbology

• Conflict prevention "nogo" bands on heading,

speed, and vertical speed

scales

Required time of arrival

Predictors I flight plans

Autonomous vs. managed

aircraft

Tail tag altitude - absolute /

relative

• Altitude filter

Climb I descent symbology

Area hazard display

@

277
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

YAMS TIM

AUTRII Summary

• Initial Conclusions

leay 22,m

- Pilots met constraints in both strategic and tactical modes

- Operational complexity did not affect pilot performance

- Pilots preferred strategic mode (with state & intent

information)

- Display features were effective

• Additional Data Recorded for Analysis

- Complete trajectories as flown

- Pilot actions (maneuvers, display manipulations)

- Workload measures (objective, subjective)

• Plans for Continued Research

- Display evolution: vertical CD&R, weather conflicts, dark

screen design

- Descent CD&R with crossing restrictions

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

vain l'm .... ..... .....

ATAAS Simulation Study Objectives

• Pilot evaluation (acceptability) of:

- Approach spacing tasks (Including charts, procedures and

use of ATAAS system)

- ATAAS user Interface

• Pilot assessment of workload with different levels of

automation

• Evaluation of algorithm performance when implemented on

"real-world" equipment

278
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS TIM May22,=0e2_!

ATAAS DST

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES 0

YAMS TIM May 22, 2002

Summary of Preliminary ATASS Results

• Algorithm performance

- Spacing interval within one second of target when

ATAAS speed guidance coupled with FMS

- Spacing interval within 5 seconds when pilots followed

speed commands with manual throttles or MCP

- Standard deviation 1.3 to 1.7 seconds for the different

control modes

279
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

VAMS 11M

Preliminary Post-Run Subjective Ratings

• Pilots rated workload for ATAAS approach comparable to standard

approach procedures

(1=much lower, 4=the same, 7=much higher):

Physical Mental Overall

Mean 3.8 3.9 4.0

Std. Dev. 1.2 1.2 1.1

• Pilots rated head-down time acceptable

(1=not at all acceptable, 4=borderline, 7--'very acceptable):

Downwind Base Final

Mean 5.8 6.0 6.2

Std. Dev. 1.5 1.2 0.9

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

YAMS 1rim Ml_f 22, 2002

NASA Langley Research Facilities

• Air Traffic Operations Laboratory

• Flight Simulators

• B-757 Aircraft

280
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES 0

YAMS TIM May 22, 2Ga2

LaRC Flight Deck Simulators

Research Flight Deck Integration Flight Deck

281
ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O

Langley B757 Test Aircraft

ADVANCED AIR TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES O VAM8 I'IM . :

The End

282
Questions, Comments, Issues

• Please clarify the VAMS Program goals and

constraints regarding a common ground of

concepts and implementation.

•Since we have opened the door to changing

ATC procedures, when will we open the door

to discussing changes to the AOC procedures

(e.g., schedules)?

Questions, Comments, Issues v=3 m

• Comment: The maximum capacity (and throughput)

operational point is not necessarily the cost optimal

operating point in the system.

Comment: SEA and VAST need to understand

concept evaluation requirements sooner rather than

later.

• Comment: The VAMS TIM introduction mentioned

concepts without implementation, but several works

have already or plan field testing or implementation.

TIAT

283
Questions, Comments, Issues

• Can we get the demographics study data and

projections from SATS so we can better

understand demand in the future (also FAA)...

• What is the long-term plan to manage and

disseminate concept updates to the supporting

SEA and VAST teams?

I_AT

Questions, Comments, Issues

• Comment: Need multiple copies of handout

book electronically. (Hard to read book).

-- will take old version first; get new version later.

• Comment: Related to the printed slides --

please make them larger.

-- I don't need the notes space

-- margins could be much smaller

As is most slides are unreadable.

_LAT

284
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #2

Scenarios and Metrics

Group 1

Joseph Del Balzo, Facilitator

May 23, 2002

Breakout Group #1

1. What should we consider our baseline

scenarios and metrics?

2. What are the special considerations for realtime and non-real-time scenarios?

3. What are the special considerations for realtime and non-real-time metrics?

4. What mixes of aircraft capability need to be

represented in the scenarios?

5. What CNS capabilities need to be

represented in the scenarios?

285
1. What should we consider our baseline __ scenarios and metrics?

Same as baseline year for 2x and 3x goals (1997)

-- OEP 2010?

Kind of metrics (high level)

-- Cargo passengers and operations

-- Passenger miles per unit of time

-- Number of operations

-- Average delay

-- Economic value (more value in direct flight, quality)

-- Operational costs (Fuel burn 20% of costs)

-- Safety

-- Environment

• Noise print

• Pollution

-- Trip time

Gate-to-gate

Door-to-door

-- Activity metrics

_ 2. What are the special considerations for real-time and non-real.time scenarios? -lr._,_llB alwl_

v Depends on the question you are trying to answer

-- What are the set of questions VAMS needs to answer?

v Is there a difference in the scenarios?

-- Different scale

-- Different objectives

-- Different set of inputs

• Sometimes yes, sometimes no

-- Real-time - human performance

-- Non-real-time - overall performance

v Do we need different scenarios?

-- Fast.time can be more abstract

-- Different level of detail

-- Different fidelity

-- Different granularity

v When real-time when non-real-time?

v Real-time is not necessarily human-in-loop

-- Shadow mode testing

286
_ 3. What are the special considerations for real-time and non-real-time metrics?

v Why are the metrics different?

-- Two kinds of simulations measuring different quantities

-- Depends on question, objectives, level-of-detail and scope

-- Some can't be measured in both

-- Instruments used to make measurements are different

-- Cost and availability of resources (time)

-- Repeatability

v Examples of real-time metrics

-- Response time

-- Workload

-- User acceptance

-- Aircraft separation

v Examples of non-real-time metrics

-- Same as real-time except for what can not be measured

-- High level system parameters

-- Operational costs

-- Flow capacity

_ 4. What mixes of aircraft capability need to v MIS

be represented in the scenarios?

v Yes, all concepts need to address all aircraft relevant to that domain over a range

of capabilities

-- General and specific

v Aircraft capability

-- Performance

-- Aircraft characteristics

-- Equipage

-- 4D

v Equipage capability

-- TCAS

v Depends on the question and is defined by the scenario

-- Wake vortex

v Concepts cover all aircraft

-- Runway independent (Tilt rotor)

-- Large capacity aircraft (797)

-- UAV

v Emphasis on IFR

287
5. What CNS capabifities need to be represented in the scenarios ?

v Yes, all concepts need to address all CNS relevant to that domain over a

range of capabilities

v How you represent them depends on the question

v Concept specific

v NAS architecture expected by 2020

v Primary/backup

-- GPS failure

v Ground

-- Weather

v Air

-- Weather

-- Flight deck capabilities are a subset of the last question

v Space

v 4D intent?

(_ "Rwc,c,_Two Most Important Points

v Choice of scenarios and metrics depends on

the question

v Clearly define the questions for VAMS

(individual concepts)

m Needs to be done before development of scenario

and definition of metrics

-- Choice of simulation

-- Objectives

-- Scope

Fidelity

288
_S

VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #2

Scenarios and Metrics

Group 2

Kevin Corker, Facilitator

May 23, 2002

SEA Break Out Report Out." Mindful of a Distinction Between

Non-real and Real time Simulation Requirements

v Human Variability, NAS Scale response

-- Concept maturity, Equipment Specificity

v Q1 # of A/C in sim & Q2 # of A/C for Metrics

v Traffic Demand Model depends on OPCON's influence on business

case (FT, RT)

-- Simulation Scope

-- Airspace

-- NAS

-- Selectable

v Passenger seat miles

v Operations

through put Cargo, Business Jets, military, General Aviation

v Complexity factor (lx, 2x, 3x) to be considered

10

289
Q3: How long do the scenarios need to be to reflect

realism for our concepts

FT: One day ( 20 - 26 hours)

v Multiple days with different effects

v Day of the week

v Resolution of scenario data (milliseconds or minutes) - Depends

v Metrics by flight

v By some dependent or course time metric

RT: Scenario or OPCON dependent

v NAS wide vs Site Specific

v 10 minutes - 2 hours, 8 hours

v Fatigue studies

v Transition period

v Flight Deck

v ATM }

v AOC

v If local event, single concept - guideline is 10 minutes

v If Pulse evenl guideline is 2X bandwidth of pulse

v If NAS wide issues guideline is 4 o 8 hours

v (longer for fatigue and strain evaluations)

Differential event rate for each

Q4:How do we try to insure buy-in from the

stakeholders regarding the validity of our scenarios

and metrics

v Demand Models: Airlines

v Roles and Responsibilities: Practitioners

v Who are the stakeholders? Buy in by whom?

Stakeholder community

v Current (Small incremental)

NN_ Super users

Future users

v Product introduction

v Is it worth caring?

v CADREs

290
Q4:What are the "challenge" events that are

relevant for the scenarios

v Weather

v Failure Modes

v System Shutdown

v Military Operations

v Security

v Demand Load (holiday travel)

v Airspace Sectional Loss

v Information Infrastructure

v Data Integrity and Robustness

v Equipment dependent failures

v Collision Risk Models

v Formation Flying

v Tight Coupling

v When and how much challenge modes in OPCON test

v -> Validation Plan

13

Currcnl = 19q7 levels

Mc, dcralc = (2x currcnl_

High = (3x currcnll

Baseline

Mt_eratc Increase

tligh

NAS

SPECIFIC

NAS

SPECIFIC

NAS

SPECIFIC

Fst Time

Current

Current

Current or less

Current or less

14

291
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #2

Scenarios and Metrics

Group 3

Earl Van Landingham, Facilitator

May 23, 2002

15

Summary of Breakout 2,

Group 3 Session

v Difficulty starting in the "middle of the movie"

v We assumed we were addressing only capacity metrics in our

answers (we know there are others)

v A concerted effort was made to address all 5 (nos. 11 - 15 in

Sandy's list) questions put to them

v A "challenge event" was interpreted to be a perturbation that has

to be included in the scenarios in the execution of the simulation

of the concept

v In question 13, technical challenges were assumed to be

framework issues (not events) that need to be considered in the

development of the scenarios, vs, challenges

292
Summary, cont'd

v

Re: question 14, a number of specific

recommendations were provided that must be

considered in testing the concepts, however some

open issues were also identified (e.g., Incompatible

concept/system architecture issues)

The consensus of the group was that its necessary to

precisely define the entry and exit conditions of the

domains.

Agenda

v 11. What are the "challenge" events that are relevant for the these

metrics (e.g., choke points, weather)?

v 12. What are the measures that need to be addressed in the scenarios?

(These should consider economic, safety, security, environment, and

human performance factors)

v 13. What are the technical challenges in scenario development?

v 14. How do we insure the appropriate testing of the concepts that

include only one domain v. those that are gate-to-gate?

v 15. Since we will have multiple scenarios, how to we insure some

comparability between them so we can test some single domain v. gateto-gate concepts fairly?

293
Group 3, Number 11

3,P What are the "challenge" events that are relevant for the

capacity metrics (e.g., choke points, weather)?

Important capacity metric events:

-- Weather

• inaccurate forecasts

• deicing conditions

• convective

• changes to ceiling/visibility

• changing wind conditions, strong gusts

-- Schedules

• demand exceeding capacity

19

Group 3, Number 11, cont'd

-- Outages (scheduled and unscheduled)

• facility

• radars

• runways

-- Human error

-- Terrorist events

-- Resource loading

-- Noise/other environmental issues

-- Aircraft mix, unequipped aircraft

-- SUA or other airspace closures

-- Runways

-- Wake Vortices

-- Separation

-- Labor/unions

20

294
Group 3, Number 12

What are the measures that need to be addressed in the scenarios?

(These should consider economic, safety, security, environment, and

human performance factors)

Measures

-- Delay (ave, peak, etc.)

• airborne delay

• ground delay

• allocation of delay

• cancellations

-- Passenger throughput

-- Aircraft throughput

• Ave, peak

-- Cost and cost allocation

Group 3, Number 12, cont'd

-- Equity

-- Safety metrics

• conflict, conflict alert

• workload

• weather exposure

-- Access

-- Unused capacity

-- Cargo throughput

-- System stability

-- Predictability

• edict compliance

22

295
Group 3, Number 12, cont'd

-- Environment

• noise, pollution

-- Passenger satisfaction

-- Staffing

-- Efficiency

• workload

• comm loading

-- Political constraints, public mandates

-- Sector density

23

Group 3, Number 13

v What are the technical challenges in scenario development?

v Challenges for scenario development

-- schedules

-- demand

-- fleet mix

-- weather conditions

-- representative set

• consensus

• coverage

-- observability of phenomena

-- appropriate complexity/fidelity

24

296
Group 3, Number 13, cont'd

-- capture of variability in procedures

• changes in roles, responsibilities

-- relevance

-- accurate reflection of airline's business case

-- non normal operations

-- human factors representation

-- clear statement of scenario objective

25

Group 3, Number 14

v How do we insure the appropriate testing of the concepts that include

only one domain v, those that are gate-to-gate?

v Testing concepts

-- allow for variability

-- arrival of common domain definition, architecture, interface definition

-- appropriate integration of concepts

-- definition of boundary conditions and constraints

-- single domain impact on gate to gate scenario

-- concept invariant metrics for comparison of different architectural premises

v Open Issues

-- how to handle incompatible concept/system architectural issues?

-- how do we know we've tested enough

• how do we know we've tested the "right" things

26

297
Group 3, Number 15

Since we will have multiple scenarios, how do we insure some

comparability between them so we can test some single domain v. gateto-gate concepts fairly?

Scenario comparability issues

-- Metrics need a common framework to evaluate scenarios (and concepts)

• Configuration management

• Information necessary to verify scenarios is required

-- Assume following are true

• scenarios facilitate the blending process

• scenarios are for validation

• scenarios are for evaluation

27

298
Technical Interchange Meeting

Guidelines Breakout

Rob Fong

VAMS Project

May 22, 2002

Ames Research Center

Overview

• VAMS concept developers are required to

describe their concepts in a common framework

- Guidelines

- GFI Model of ATM Functions Model

- Operational Needs Statement Model

• Purpose of the guidelines:

- to aid in the discussion of the concepts

- to aid in the eventual blending of the concepts

- to facilitate the modeling and simulations of concepts

using VAST

299
Concept Guidelines and Criteria

Concepts include:

Problems

Challenges I

Operating domains I

Core Ideas I

Functions I "

Roles/Resp of Human/Mach[

Performance

User interfaces

Architecture

Controls philosophy ]

Error Recovery ideas

Metrics of goodness

Technology requirements

Costs/Benefits

Conceptual competitors

Evaluation Criteria address:

"" }

• Useful

• Effective

• Def'mabte

m

.Stable

• Robust

• Reliable

• Self-_

• Adal_blc

• Available

• Responsive

• Predictable

• Time/Effort Saver

• Maintainable

• Compatible

• Documented t

• Transition

• Consmlctible

• Producible

• Environmental

• Affordable

• Model-able

• Revolutionary

Functions

Performance

Feasibility

300
Questions to Consider

• Is the concept guideline necessary and sufficient

to achieve the project goals?

• Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions

of the guideline elements?

• Does the concept grading guidelines and

procedures provide the necessary feedback to the

concept development process? What clarifications

are necessary? What changes might provide better

feedback?

Questions to Consider

Can the GFI model of ATM functions be

improved to account for major paradigm shifts in

the operation of the ATM? Is it sufficient for the

current crop of concepts?

301
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #3

Guidelines

Group 1

Joseph Del Balzo, Facilitator

May 23, 2002

Ma.v 23. 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group t_ I I

Guidelines

Questions to Consider

,

.

Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions of

the guideline elements?

Are the concept guidelines sufficient and necessary

to meet project goals?

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group _1 2

302
1. Can we achieve greater clarity on the V llS

descriptions of the guideline elements ?

Yes, but we suggest a change in the order

-- Area 1

• Issues and operating domain (concept specific)

• Quantitative goals

-- Area 2

• Core ideas

• Assumptions

-- Area 3

• Functions

• Performance

• Human factors

- Roles and responsibilities of humans and machines

- User interfaces

System integrity and redundancy

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1

_ I I_ 1Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions of the guideline elements ? (Continued) "_- ""

Yes, but we suggest a change in the order (Continued)

-- Area 4

• Architecture

• Technology requirements

• Challenges

• Transition plan

- Roadmaps

-- Area 5- NAS Operational Risks

• Security

• Safety

-- Area 6

• Benefits/Metrics

• Cost/Metrics

• Cu._pLuui _;uli.p_t;tuf_,

May 23,201)2 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1

303
_ 2. Are the concept guidelines sufficient andT_w_l_¢ _

necessary to meet project goals ? __=_

v Project goals:

Develop a blended unified concept at end of phase

four

v Guidelines may be adequate

-- Not enough information to trade off parameters

-- Concepts address different aspects of NAS

-- Individual concepts may employ different

scenarios and/or metrics

-- Mapping concepts to GFI helps but will not ensure

blending

-- Difficult to fit concepts to GFI top level model

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 5

Concept Grading Guidelines and

Procedures

1.Does the concept grading

guidelines and procedures

provide the necessary

feedback to the concept

development process?

2.What clarifications are

necessary?

Ma) 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1

304
1. Does the concept grading guidelines and procedures provide the necessary feedback to the concept

development process ?

v Yes

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 7

_ 2. What clarifications are necessary?_

v Nothin'

M_ly 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakoul Group #1 8

305
GFI Model of A TM Functions

1. Can the GFI model of ATM

functions be improved to account

for major paradigm shifts in the

operation of the ATM?

2. Is the GFI model sufficient to

blend, model and analyze and

assess the current collection of

concepts? What more is needed?

May 23. 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1

1. Can the GFI model of A TM functions be

improved to account for major paradigm shifts

M the operation of the ATM?

V Cannot answer until after we know what the

paradigm shifts are going to occur

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group # I 10

306
Is the GFI model sufficient to blend, model and analyze

and assess the current collection of concepts? _r_

What more is needed?

v No

-- Not domain specific

-- Concepts do not always map cleanly/clearly into it

-- Need lower level models (May be more difficult to map)

-- Already busy

-- Does not describe the operational concepts behind concept

-- Does not help present/explain/describe concept

-- After the concept is developed, you could organize it this way

• Helps simulation but does not help define concept

-- Will not help blend

v More is needed

- After year one we will have a better idea how to schematically

communicate ideas in a common framework

May "_ _ Guidelines- Breakout Group #1 I I .3, .I)0_ - VAMS

Three Most Important Points V_S

v Better outline of operational guidelines

(reordered)

v Cannot determine if concept description

per guidelines is adequate for blending

until after year one

v After year one we will have a better idea

how to schematically communicate

ideas in a common framework

May 23, 2002- VAMS Guidelines- Breakout Group #1 12

307
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #3

Guidelines

Group 2

Kevin Corker, Facilitator

May 23, 2002

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 13

Can the GFI model of ATM functions be improved to account for major paradigm

shifts in the operation of the ATM?

LACKS:

v Airports as a dedicated aggregate

v Domains of transportation system

v Utility increase with intermodal considerations

(Transportation System -Air, ground, quantum)

v Passenger/Payload missing from model

v Higher Level of Abstraction for Information Function

v Allocation

v Quantification

v Demand Function

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 14

308
OPCON Compatibility by function

(high level)

A

B

C

D

A B C D

May 23. 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group # I 15

OPCON Compatibility by function

(Low level)

A

_F1F2

A

B F2, F3

C

D

B C D

Mas 23 2002- VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group # I 16

309
@Is the GFI model sufficient to blend, model and analyze

and assess the current collection of concepts?

What more is needed?

v Yes, but needs further decomposition

Matrix/Vector Compatibility within each function

Differentiate tools from OPCONs to support cross

OPCON evaluation

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 17

Doesnecessary the concept feedback gradingto guidelines the conceptanddevelopment procedures process? provide the m-_ m m_m What needs to be clarified?

V

V

-./

V

,,/

V

V

V

May 23, 2002 - VAMS

Set of standards for grading needed to level the playing field

v Combination of criteria to assessment

--WHAT IS THE PROCESS, WHAT FORM IS THE FUNCTION,

--Is there weighting ?

Needs clarification

Practical

Definable

Self- Diagnostic

Constructible

Documented

Revolutionary

Accurate

Compatible

Model-able

Guidelines - Breakout Group # I

310
Eval Criteria (cont.)

v Should not be on list as applicable to an OPCON

v Constructible

v Compatible (with what ???)

v Accuracy

May _3. _00. - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #I 19

Is the concept guideline necessary and

sufficient to achieve the project goals?

v Lacks explicitly defined compatibility link

v Goodness may subsume costs & benefits

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 2O

311
VAMS TIM #1

Breakout Session #3

Guidelines

Group 3

Earl Van Landingham, Facilitator

May 23, 2002

May 23. 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 21

Group 3 Agenda, 6 Questions in

3 Cate,qories

v Guidelines:

-- Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions of the guideline

elements

-- Are the concept guidelines sufficient and necessary to meet

project goals?

v Concept Grading Guidelines and Procedures:

-- Does the concept grading guidelines and procedures provide the

necessary feedback to the concept development process?

-- What clarifications are necessary?

v GFI Model of ATM Functions:

-- Can the GFI model of ATM functions be improved to account for

major paradigm shifts in the operation of the ATM?

-- Is the GFI model sufficient to blend, model and analyze and assess

the current collection of concepts? What more is needed?

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 22

312
Guidelines

Can we achieve greater clarity on the descriptions of the

guideline elements

-- Probably

-- Functions in element (area) 2 for the top-level description isn't

followed through in the detail area (element 3)

-- GFI functional model too constraining

-- Need better set of definitions (VAMS Terminology)

• Sector overload, capacity, throughput, demand, delay, etc.

• In element (area) 6, Conceptual Competitors is another term that

needs clarification

- is this like the price of fuel going so high or some

breakthrough in telecommuting lowing the demand for

flying?

- What is NASA's intent for the information on the

"conceptual competitors"?

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #l 23

Guidelines

V Are the concept guidelines sufficient and necessary

to meet project goals?

-- Yes, they're necessary. For now, they're sufficient, but this

needs to be reviewed as project evolves.

-- Need editing of guideline elements for priority

• Group feels that the importance of political, legal aspects

should be higher

• Area 3 "Human Factors" should be "Human

Performance"

• Area 4 "Architecture" should be lower

• Area 6 "Conceptual Competitors" should probably be

lower. Maybe this should be Area 1, "Issues"

• Prioritization should be a "living" attribute through life of

program

May 23, 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 24

313
Concept Grading Guidelines and Procedures

v Does the concept grading guidelines and procedures

provide the necessary feedback to the concept

development process?

-- Maybe, with the clarifications, below

v What clarifications are necessary?

-- We assume that these are the evaluation criteria on p3 of

handouts

• Need more explicit mapping of concept guidelines to the

evaluation criteria

• Need definition of criteria

May 23 2002 - VAMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 25

GFI Model of ATM Functions

v Can the GFI model of ATM functions be improved to account for major

paradigm shifts in the operation of the ATM?

-- Yes

-- Seems disconnected from VAST architecture

• Should we drive deeper in GFI model or VAST architecture?

• Need better understanding of VAST architecture

• Is there a plan for convergence?

-- Model needs to accommodate drawing of domain boundaries

v Is the GFI model sufficient to blend, model and analyze and assess the

current collection of concepts? What more is needed?

-- Need a hierarchically decomposed model with more details

-- Blending needs other things, too.

• Common scenario definitions

• Comparison of assumptions

• Analysis of incompatibilities, unions, intersections, and synergisms

Ma_, ~3._00. - _AMS Guidelines - Breakout Group #1 26

314
Airspace Systems Program

Socio-Economic

and Demand Forecasting

John A. Cavolowsky

Assistant Director

Airspace Systems Program

March 23, 2002

The NASA Aeronautics research program has increased

_S emphasis on ATM technologies in response to

heightened national needs. (VAMS)

NASA is considering programs to develop technologies

for_ advanced NAS.

However, it is necessary to have a solid understanding of

_ broader economic environment in which those

technologies will operate.

A more complete understanding of the potential

en_ronments in which NASA research will operate

enables solutions that are robust under a wide variety of

conditions.

315
_ii_ili_i:_!_iiii_,L__ _! _ _ i, _,

_itri-_er to develop a research program that will provide

_lT_nstrable benefits to taxpayers, travelers, and

r_lu_ry, the Airspace Systems (AS) program needs to

understand how national economic conditions,

d_raphic trends, and other factors affect the Nation's

needfor transportation, and air transportation in

.particular.

i This includes the traditional factors (such as price,

lation, GDP, and demographics - as well as new

_dty concerns) and how they will affect the need for

NASA sponsored research.

!

_:facus of this study will be to develop an understanding of the role

...._;transportation in general and air transportation in particular within

_the U_. economy, the major determinants of the demand for air

tran_rtation, and how an intermodal perspective may affect our

_-understanding of air travel demand.

_1,t31e_ncipal mechanism for developing this understanding will be the

i:_n of a set of operational-level scenarios that depict the

p0t_l future environment for the global air transportation system.

The_-scenarios will include economic conditions, security

;_rations, airport and airspace capacity, and the global political

environment.

_detailed descriptions of the impacts of these operational-level

mios will be developed, in terms of their effects on air travel

_d volume and its distribution.

4

316
GRA

=_ Volpe National Transpodation Systems Center

iilil iiii

Affiliated consultants and universities

Currently engaged in a 6-month effort

Develop Transportation Scenarios

The Future is Uncertain.

Technology lead times can be long.

Conditions are likely to change.

t Identify driving forces

Determine their potential variation

Create scenarios spanning the variables

4, Examine the resulting scenarios and select a subset for detailed

study

O Study system trends for the selected scenarios, evaluate costs, and

assess risk factors

Limited resources must be allocated to areas

that are most likely to achieve success in

scenarios with the greatest probabifity of

being realized.

317
_1,Focus on a limited number (4 to 6) of highly plausible

operational scenarios rather than attempt to address

every possible scenario.

• When selecting the scenarios for detailed study, care will be given

tOgenerate a variety of orthogonal scenario variables.

Forecasting the future becomes increasingly hard as the

timehorizon is extended.

• Consequently, we will focus on a 20 year forecast (i.e. 2022)

;._e the current state of knowledge on the relationship between

_rtation and the economy and how that affects the NASA

airspace systems research program.

• Review the previous scenarios to include those developed for NASA

by_ National Research Council ("Scenario-Based Strategic

_ng for NASA's Aeronautics Enterprise"), and revise, update,

_pand them as required to reflect current and future conditions.

_p a set of demand forecasts, incorporating both aggregate

:tm.vel,Volumes and its distribution among airport-pairs and air

_s, for each of the defined scenarios. Develop a schedule of

commercial and GA flights for each of the scenarios.

i

i

318
Activity One

¢, Conduct literature search of past studies:

• Generate insights into the interdependence of the broad economic

environment, the role of transportation, and NASA's airspace

systems research

Examine usage of air transportation by sectors of the

economy:

• Identify sectors that are largest users of passenger and cargo air

transportation

• Identify sectors that are particularly dependent on air

transportation in terms of input costs

Air Trahspo_ _dme Econom_

........ __'! '_::! !_' '_'"!!'i"!!_!?:!_:!_:!_ !!!i!!iii_il i!?ili'ii!'i 'i_!:__ii i_i_iiiii_ _i:i_! !i_iiiiiiiiii_i,_ii!i!i_ii!i i ̧ ̧ ̧: _:

Catalog and assess existing models:

• ASAC Air Carrier Investments Model (ACIM)

.... ASAC Air Carrier Cost-Benefit Model (CBM)

• National Aeronautics Cost-Benefit Analysis Model (NACBA)

• Population and employment demographic models

• Mode choice models

• Economic impact models

• others

Identify strengths and weaknesses of economic models

and their measures:

• Measures that appeal to technical audiences (e.g. CBO, GAO,

OMB, etc.)

• Measures for lay audiences

319
• Review external aviation forecasts

_ op market segments of interest

,4, Id_ demand drivers

_ify supply issues

4_ Align demand with scenarios

4, Input to Activity 3

,1i

What are the smart people saying?

4, _g

• Ai_Js

4,FAA

4, iATA

4, ICAO-FESG (Finance and Economic Sub-Group)

O_s

Forecasts ranging in scope from 10 to 50 years

i 12j

320
ii Regional

° Turbo Prop

• _

ii iiiiiiii

• Mainline

• 1110, 150, 200, 300, 400+ seat

• _nventional subsonic

• High speed subsonic

All _rgo

,other

,_o__, Oemand DriVers _

I _

, Economic growth

* Full price of travel:

• Access and travel times

• Access and travel costs

• Access and travel schedule availability

° Relative attractiveness of competing modes

321
_estion/delay

t Security/risk perceptions

Security time and money costs

Fuel costs

Airnavigation service/airport charges (high fixed cost)

15

Travel market segments:

• _estic/international

• Business/vacation/visit friends and relatives

• _rgo/passenger

• _eduled/on-demand

• others

_ _nario issues

'Passenger growth

• _go growth

• Environmental limits

_1 price shocks

'World tensions

• _rs

322
Axes of Interest

On-Demand

Modes

t

Hub and / High Volume

Spoke_f Air Travel

LOW Volume, e- "f I "_Point to

of Air Travel I point

Scheduled

Service

Parameter Definitions

• Volume of Air Travel is a

function of overall health of

economy, demographic trends.

security issues, and relative

attractiveness of competing

surface modes.

• Scheduled versus On-Demana

attri _ute measures the degree

to which scheduled air carriers

satisfy air travel demand versus

GA, SATS, etc.

Hub and Spoke versus Point to

Point attribute measures the

degree to which passengers

travel directly from their true

origin to their true destination.

17

• Commercial traffic:

• _me-of-day patterns for both airports and O&D markets and the

simulated airline operation strategies for schedule generation

• GA:

° Based on SATS modeling work

° Terminal operation forecast, distance profile, and the gravity

model for the O&D demand

Cargo

• TBD

18

323
i _ ii _ _ i

* A:_ of airport demand forecasts for each of the

i _arios defined under activity two:

flights by airport-pair

flights by airport-pair

go flights by airport-pair

i'ii! !!i i !iiiii !i !ii'!iiii !i i i!

4, Identify institutional factors and societal concerns

--affecting changes in the aviation system

Identify inhibitors to system improvements

201

324
VAMS Technical Interchange Meeting #2 _S

VAST

• Planning on August 27-29, 2002

• Technical Presentations and discussions on developing

VAST capabilities

• Airspace Concept Evaluation System

Build1 Requirements

• Real-Time Human-In-The-Loop System

- Preliminary Design

- Validation Experiment Description

• Human and Team Modeling

- Approach to Human Performance Modeling

• CNS Modeling

- Approachto CNS Modeling and Assessments

• Scenarios and Metrics

Common Scenario Set

I!!AT

325
This page intentionally left blank.

326
Thispageintentionallyleft blank.

327
t-otto Approvea REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

currentlyvalidOMB controlnumber.

: PLEASE DO NOT RETURNYOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 12. REPORT TYPE

31-07-2002 [Conference Publication

!

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation Project

First Technical Interchange Meeting

The public reporting burden forthiscollection of information is estimated toaverage 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searchingexisting

data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burdenestimate or

any other aspectof this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense. Washington HeadquartersServices,

Directorate for Information Operations and Reports(0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware

that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shallbe subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a

6. AUTHOR(S)

Prepared by Computer Science Corporation (Recording Secretaries: Robert

Beard, Richard Kersten, Robert Kille, Paul Rigterink, and Henry Sielski)

Edited by Melinda Gratteau, Raytheon ITSS

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

Ma 7 21-23, 2002

ha. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

WBS 4.0

he. TASK NUMBER

TIM-1

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

RTOP 727-04

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Ames Research Center, MS 210-8, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000;

Computer Science Corporation, 550 Weddell Drive, Suite 7, Sunnyvale, CA 94089;

Raytheon ITSS, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 210-8, Moffett Field, CA

94035-1000

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

A-0208373

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

REPORT NUMBER

NASA/CP--2002-211845

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified -- Unlimited

Subject Category 03 Distribution: Standard

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Points of Contact: Robert K. Fong, (650) 604-3779 or Harry N. Swenson, (650) 604-5469, Mail Stop and 210-8, Ames Research

Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

14. ABSTRACT

A three-day NASA Virtual Airspace and Modeling Project (VAMS) Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) was held at

the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA, on May 21 through May 23, 2002. The purpose of this

meeting was to share initial concept information sponsored by the VAMS Project. An overall goal of the VAMS Project

is to develop validated, blended, robust and transition-able air transportation system concepts over the next five years tha

will achieve NASA's long-term Enterprise Aviation Capacity goals. This document describes the presentations at the

TIM, their related questions and answers, and presents the TIM recommendations.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Air traffic management, Air traffic control, Capacity

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

17. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER!

OF

PAGES

19b. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

335