A I R T R A F F I C O R G A N I Z A T I O N



# ATO En Route Services

Surveillance and Broadcast Services
Benefits Basis of Estimate August 2007

This document describes the analyses used to estimate benefits for the Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) program. Th e primary goal of the program is to use Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) as a surveillance source and to broadcast aeronautical information. The National Airspace System (NAS) deployment of this system will support numer ous operational applications. Benefits estimates for the program were derived di rectly from these applications. The results from these analyses were used in the business justification presented to the Joint Resources Council (JRC) on August 27, 2007 for a final investment decision on the program.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N • A I R T R A F F I C O R G A N I Z A T I O NEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The SBS program will provide a number of FAA and user benefits. This document describes the analyses for each benefit element submitted as part of the business justification at the August 2007 investment decision of the SBS program. The following two tables present a summary of the total be nefits and the benefits organized by location, application, and desired outcome for the curr ent total program. The remainder of the document details the analyses that produced these results.

Summary benefits for the SBS program

Segment Benefits 2007-2035 (BY 07 M$) Benefits 2007-2035 (Risk-Adjusted PV M$) SBS Program $18,498.1 M $5,043.2 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
iiSBS program benefits by location, application, and desired outcome

Location Application Outcome Benefit (BY7 $M) Benefit (PV $M)

CONUS, Hawaii, and Caribbean Surveillance Radar Airspace ATC Surveillance Surveillance cost avoidance $1,263.2 $371.1

More efficient en route conflict resolution $3,258.1 $801.8

More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix $1,746.6 $417.0

Increased safety on the surface by controllers $11.6 $3.2

More efficient ATC management of surface movement $92.1 $26.9

Reduction in FAA subscription charges due to value added services $232.0 $80.6

CONUS, Hawaii, and Caribbean Broadcast Services Enhanced Visual Acquisition and Conflict Detection Fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts $719.8 $203.6

Weather and NAS Status

Situational Awareness Fewer encounters with hazardous weather $792.3 $232.5
More efficient routes in adverse weather $18.4 $4.9
Reduction in user costs to obtain weather info $88.9 $26.1 Fewer controlled flights into terrain $1,015.6 $284.3

CONUS, Hawaii, and Caribbean

Aircraft Applications Enhanced Visual Approach - Initial Application More efficient spacing on approach in VMC $1,247.8 $300.4

Enhanced Visual Approach - CAVS Continuation of Visual Approaches in marginal conditions $803.7 $196.4

Enhanced Visual Approach - Merging and Spacing Increased ability to allow continuous descent approaches $2,876.7 $796.0

ADS-B ATC Automation Integration Airport Surface Situational Awareness Increased safety on the surface by pilots $299.5 $70.5
Final Approach and Runway Occupancy Awareness

Gulf of Mexico

Surveillance Non-radar Airspace ATC Surveillance (includes weather and comm as needed) High Altitude - Increased Capacity $2,064.7 $459.3 High Altitude - Optimal Routing $256.5 $86.5 Low Altitude - Increased Capacity $238.3 $84.2

Fewer encounters with hazardous weatherlow altitude Gulf $13.1 $5.0

Alaska Surveillance and Broadcast Services Weather and NAS Status Situational Awareness and Enhanced Visual Acquisition and Conflict Detection Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska $760.2 $300.1

Non-Radar Airspace ATC Surveillance Access to lower altitude routes in Alaska $53.1 $19.5 Increased IFR capacity (JNU) $3.0 $1.1 Fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts (JNU) $0.0 $0.0 Improved search and rescue services in Alaska $15.8 $7.0

Alaska Airport IFR Upgrade

Services Weather Automation upgrade and IFR Approach Development Increased access to remote villages in Alaska $215.3 $90.0

Increased Medevac acce ss to remote villages in Alaska $411.8 $175.4

Total $18,498.1 $5,043.2

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
iiiTable of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 SBS Services ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2 SBS Applications ................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Benefits Estimates Segmentation ........................................................................ 5 2 Operational Benefits ................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Benefit Identification .......................................................................................... 7 2.2 General Benefits Estimation Methodology ....................................................... 13 2.3 Economic Values: Safety and Efficiency ........................................................ 14 2.4 Equipage and Infrastructure assumptions ......................................................... 15 2.4.1 Voluntary and Mandatory Equipage ......................................................... 15 2.4.2 Mixed Equipage Considerations ............................................................... 16 2.4.3 Infrastructure phasing ............................................................................... 18 2.5 Flight Safety Benefits ....................................................................................... 19 2.5.1 Fewer-aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts ............................................................ 19 2.5.2 Fewer encounters with hazardous weather ............................................... 21 2.5.3 More efficient weather deviations ............................................................ 23 2.5.4 Fewer controlled flights into terrain (CFIT) ............................................. 24 2.5.5 Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska ........................................................... 26 2.6 Surface Benefits ................................................................................................ 32 2.6.1 Increased safety on the surface by ATC ................................................... 32 2.6.2 More efficient ATC management of surface movement .......................... 33 2.6.3 Increased safety on the surface by pilots .................................................. 35 2.7 Terminal and En Route Benefits ....................................................................... 37 2.7.1 Continuing visual approaches in marginal conditions .............................. 37 2.7.2 More efficient spacing during visual approaches ..................................... 39 2.7.3 Increased ability to allow Continuous Descent Approaches ..................... 42 2.7.4 More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix ................................... 45 2.7.5 More efficient en route conflict resolution ............................................... 47 2.8 Non-radar Benefits ............................................................................................ 50 2.8.1 More efficient separation en route (non-radar) ......................................... 50 2.8.2 Optimal routing ......................................................................................... 60 2.8.3 Increased ability to fly Part 135 operations .............................................. 63 2.8.4 Fewer encounters with hazardous weather ............................................... 66 2.8.5 More efficient separation on approach ..................................................... 67 2.8.6 Increased access to lower altitude routes .................................................. 68 2.8.7 Improved search and rescue services ........................................................ 72 2.8.8 Increased access to remote villages .......................................................... 75 2.8.9 Increased Medevac access to remote villages ........................................... 78 3 Cost Avoidance Benefits ........................................................................................... 81 3.1 Surveillance Cost Avoidance ............................................................................ 81 3.2 Reduction in FAA subscription charges due to value added services .............. 81 3.3 Reduction in costs to obtain weather info ......................................................... 82 4 Summary of Program Benefits .................................................................................. 83

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
iv5 References ................................................................................................................. 85 6 Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 88 7 Appendix A: Equipage .............................................................................................. 91

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

vTable of Figures

Figure 2-1. ADS-B Flight Safety Benefits Flow ................................................................ 9 Figure 2-2. ADS-B Surface Benefits Flow ....................................................................... 10 Figure 2-3. ADS-B Terminal and En Route Benefits Flow .............................................. 11 Figure 2-4. ADS-B Non-radar Benefits Flow ................................................................... 12 Figure 2-5. ADS-B Out and In Equipage for Air Carrier & Commuter Operators .......... 15 Figure 2-6. Dependent Equipage Curves – Example Air Carrier .................................... 17 Figure 2-7. CDA regimes as a function of the ratio between demand and capacity ........ 44 Figure 2-8. Hourly demand profile for different demand bins ......................................... 53 Figure 2-9. Hourly demand profile for low estimate ........................................................ 54 Figure 2-10. Airspace and rout es in the Gulf of Mexico .................................................. 61 Figure 2-11. IFR En Route Grid System in low-altitude Gulf of Mexico ........................ 64 Figure 2-12. Trimodal distri bution of casulty death[22] .................................................. 79

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
viTable of Tables

Table 2-1. Safety Benefits – Economic Values (BY07 $) ............................................... 14 Table 2-2. Efficiency Benefits – Econo mic Values for TAF user groups (BY07 $) ....... 14 Table 2-3. Efficiency Benefits – Econo mic Values for SBS user groups (BY07 $) ....... 14 Table 2-3. Fewer aircraft-t o-aircraft conflict benefits ..................................................... 20 Table 2-4: Fewer encounters wi th hazardous weather benefits ........................................ 22 Table 2-5. More efficient rout es in adverse weather benefits .......................................... 23 Table 2-6. Fewer controlled f lights into terrain benefits ................................................. 25 Table 2-7. Capstone risk descriptions .............................................................................. 27 Table 2-8. Capstone risk frequencies ............................................................................... 28 Table 2-9. Capstone risk mitigation descriptions ............................................................ 28 Table 2-10. Capstone risk mitigations by phase of flight and user type in GBT coverage

............................................................................................................................... ............ 29 Table 2-11. Capstone risk mitigations inside and outside GBT coverage for Part 91 en route flights ....................................................................................................................... 29 Table 2-12. Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska benefits ................................................ 31 Table 2-13. Increased safety on the surface by ATC benefits ......................................... 33 Table 2-14. More efficient ATC mana gement of surface movement benefits ................ 35 Table 2-15. Increased safety on the surface by pilots benefits ........................................ 36 Table 2-16. Continuation of Visual Appr oaches in marginal conditions benefits ........... 38 Table 2-17. More efficient spacing during visual appr oaches benefit ............................. 40 Table 2-18. More efficient merg ing and spacing en route benefits ................................. 45 Table 2-19. Meter Fix Uncertainty from NASA study ..................................................... 46 Table 2-20. Meter Fix Uncertainty with increased accuracy ............................................ 46 Table 2-21. More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix benefits ......................... 47 Table 2-22. More efficient en route conflict resolution benefits ..................................... 49 Table 2-23. More efficient en ro ute separation (n on-radar) benefits ................................ 51 Table 2-24. Capacity estimates for Gulf of Mexico before and after Surveillance .......... 51 Table 2-25. Unconstrained Gulf of Mexico flight demand in daily bins .......................... 52 Table 2-26. Average queuing delay results pe r aircraft for different demand bins .......... 55 Table 2-27. Gulf of Mexico flight demand in daily bins constrained by delay cap ......... 56 Table 2-28. Example of annual delay calculation for 2025 (most likely case) ................. 56 Table 2-29. Average queuing delay results per aircraft using constrained demand ......... 57 Table 2-30. Annual delay resu lts for all three methods .................................................... 58 Table 2-31. Additional flights accommodated by surveillance capacity (most likely case)

............................................................................................................................... ............ 59 Table 2-32. Optimal routing benefits ................................................................................ 60 Table 2-33. Optimal route savings between selected city pairs ........................................ 62 Table 2-34. Increased ability to fly Part 135 operations benefits ..................................... 65 Table 2-35. Capacity and service time by scenario .......................................................... 65 Table 2-36. Fewer encounters wi th hazardous weather benefits ...................................... 66 Table 2-37. More efficient spacing on a pproach (non-radar) benefits by segment .......... 67 Table 2-38. Proposed FIXES for Lowering MEAs .......................................................... 69 Table 2-39. Alaska cancellation costs ............................................................................... 70 Table 2-40. Increased access to lower altitude routes benefits ......................................... 72

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
viiF E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
viii Table 2-41. Improved search a nd rescue services benefits ............................................... 73 Table 2-42. Search and Rescue Time Savings by Stage ................................................... 74 Table 2-43. Remote airport incr eased access and operations counts ................................ 77 Table 2-44. Increased commercial ac cess to remote villages benefits ............................. 78 Table 2-45. Assumptions used in medical access benefit ................................................. 80 Table 2-46. Increased Medevac access to remote villages benefits .................................. 81 Table 3-1. Surveillance co st avoidance benefits ............................................................... 81 Table 3-2. Reduction in FAA subscription charge s due to value added services benefits

............................................................................................................................... ............ 82 Table 3-3. Reduction in costs to obtain weather info benefits .......................................... 82 Table 4-1. Summary benefits for the SBS program .......................................................... 83 Table 4-2. SBS program benefits by loca tion, application, an d desired outcome ............ 84 Table 7-1. ADS-B broadcast out equipage in CONUS ..................................................... 91 Table 7-2. ADS-B In equipage in CONUS ....................................................................... 92 Table 7-3. Additional CFIT eligible equipage in CONUS ............................................... 93 Table 7-4. Gulf of Mexico equipage assumptions ............................................................ 94 Table 7-5. UPS CDTI equipage ........................................................................................ 95 Table 7-6. Alaska Capsto ne avionics equipage ................................................................ 96 Table 7-7. Alaska Capstone addi tional CFIT eligible equipage ....................................... 971 INTRODUCTION

The Surveillance and Broadcast Services (S BS) program offers the FAA an opportunity to upgrade surveillance capabi lities and services through cu rrently available satelliteenabled technology. The primary tool for th ese improvements is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). The SBS program also offers a bundling of supporting technologies directed at lowering agency, operator and the NAS user operating costs, while enhancing safety, capacity, productivit y, and efficiency. ADS-B technology, in conjunction with the Global Positioning Sy stem (GPS), provides a highly accurate, timely (once per second), all weather, NAS -wide system of broadcasting geographical position, altitude and thrust vector from properly equippe d aircraft and/or surface vehicles. Aviation applications employ ADS-B data-link technology to provide distinct aircraft or vehicle-specific identification, and operational da ta in the air-to-air, air-toground, ground-to-air, and/or ground-to-ground mode in a ll NAS domains (Terminal, Surface, En Route and Oceanic). These dig ital ADS-B position reports can be received by and used throughout the aviation commun ity to enhance NAS operations, while reducing overall operating costs. With ADS-B as the “cornerstone,” enabling technologies such as Traffic Informati on Service-Broadcast (TIS-B) and Flight Information Service-Broadcast (FIS-B) will be bundled to enhance air traffic procedures to provide significant improvements to the NAS.

Aircraft Operations : Using an ADS-B data link radio, equipped aircraft broadcast their own GPS-derived position once per second. This information is received by other ADSB equipped aircraft within reception range and presented on a multi-function display in the aircraft (also known as Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI)). To augment this air-to-air traffic display, ADS-B ground stations broadcast radar-derived aircraft position information of aircraft not broadcasting ADS-B data. These non-equipped aircraft are also displayed on the CDTI. To further supplement pilot situational awareness, text and graphical weather produc ts (observations and forecasts) and digital NAS status information (Temporary Flight Re strictions (TFRs), Sp ecial Use Airspace (SUA), etc.), are broadcast on the same data link frequency and provided to pilots on the cockpit display.

Aircraft Equipage : Many aircraft currently have the ability to broadcast ADS-B messages or have onboard equipment (i.e. GPS) that can be easily modified to broadcast ADS-B (latent-broadcast). All aircraft currently in production by both Boeing and Airbus have ADS-B latent-broadcas t or broadcast cap abilities.

A key assumption of the program is that equipage of a broadcast (squit-only) capability will be mandated for all aircraft flying in certain classes of airspace.

Air Traffic Control and Airspace Operational Management : ADS-B broadcast positional information will be combined with radar-derived surveillance positions and displayed for air traffic control, airline operations centers (AOCs), Regional Airport Authorities (RAA’s,) etc. for common/sha red situational awar eness and airspace management. Additionally, this ADS-B positional data will provide enhancements to

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
1automated airspace flow prediction, airport su rface operations, shared conflict awareness, and warning while offering a lower-cost alternative for radar-like coverage to areas not currently within radar surveillance.

The SBS program office also concentrated on the opportunity to reduce FAA costs by eliminating legacy surveilla nce systems that provide re dundant capabilities. The following analyses span the timeframe of 2007 through 2035 to allow for the completion of the on-going surveillance replacement programs as well as a complete cycle of next generation radar replacements in the future. Removal of legacy surveillance occurs in later years of the program and depe nds on ADS-B broadcast mandates.

1 .1 SBS Services The Surveillance and Broadcast Services pr ogram provides four fundamental services: ADS-B, ADS-R, TIS-B, and FIS-B. These services currently support seven initial program applications.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) - ADS-B equipped aircraft and vehicles periodically broa dcast their state vector (hor izontal and vertical position, horizontal and vertical veloci ty) and other information over either a 978 Universal Access Transponder (UAT) or a 1090 Extended Squitter (ES) data link. The ADS-B message broadcasts are received by other aircra ft in the vicinity and by the SBS Data Link Processor . These ADS-B Messages are processed and formatted into ADS-B Reports. The Data Link Processor provides these reports to the Broadcast Server and ATC Automation system for use by ATC in providing sepa ration assurance and other services. ADS-B is automatic because no external stimulus is required; it is dependent because it relies on an on-board navigation source to broadcast the inform ation to other users. The aircraft or vehicle origina ting the broadcast may or may not have knowledge of which users are receiving its broadcas t; any user, either aircraft or ground-based, within range of this broadcast, may choose to receive and process the ADS-B surveillance information. ADS-B has the potential to provide surveillanc e data at a higher update rate and with improved accuracy over today’s NAS radar systems. All four ADS-B functions, Aircraft/Vehicle

, Data Link Processor

, Broadcast Server , and ATC Automation are necessary to provide th e ADS-B Service.

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Rebroadcast (ADS-R) - Equipped aircraft receive broadcast ADS-B Messages directly from other aircraft equipp ed with the same data link technology. An aircraft equipped with a pa rticular data link w ill have surveillance information only on like-equipped aircraft. As aircraft equip with either 978 UAT or 1090 ES data link technologies, ADS-R pr ovides a service to rebroadcast ADS-B messages received down one link and back up the other link. In this way, ADS-R service provides traffic information for interope rability between both data links. The Aircraft/Vehicle and Data Link Processor are necessary to provide the ADS-R Service.

Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B) - During NAS-wide deployment of ADS-B, aircraft will begin equipping with ADS -B avionics. During this transition, ADSB-equipped aircraft will lack surveillance information on aircraft that are not ADS-B

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
2equipped. The Surveillance and Broadcast Services ground infrastructure will support air-to-air operations by broadcasting TI S-B Messages on both the 978 UAT and 1090 ES data links for targets detected and reported by radar or other surveilla nce systems. This, in conjunction with the ADS-R service, will provide equipped aircraft the information needed for a more complete picture of th e traffic situation. TIS-B service will be decommissioned in the end state when all aircraft are ADS-B-equipped. The Aircraft/Vehicle

, Data Link Processor , and Broadcast Server are necessary to provide the TIS-B service.

Flight Information Service-Broadcast (FIS-B) - FIS-B provides the broadcast of weather and non-control advisory informati on providing users aeronautical information supporting safe and efficient ope rations. FIS-B products in clude, but are not limited to, graphical and textual weather reports a nd forecasts, Next Generation of Radar (NEXRAD) precipitation information, Special Use Airspace (SUA) information, Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs), electronic pilot reports (E-PIREPS), and other similar meteorological and aeronautical information. FIS-B products will be uplinked using the 978 UAT from the Data Link Processor and will not be available on the 1090 ES link. There are many potential future FIS-B products that may be provided as their concepts mature. Therefore, the FIS-B service and da ta link capacity should allow for growth to accommodate additional products. The up linked products will come from both government and commercial sources. The Aircraft/ Vehicle

, Data Link Processor , and Broadcast Server are necessary to provide the FIS-B service.

1.2 SBS Applications The following are the abbreviated descriptions of the seven initial SBS applications selected for near-term NAS implementation. These seven applications were chosen based on their maturity, cost and operationa l benefits, and an understanding of the performance requirements necessary for implementation.

ATC Surveillance - The goal of this application is to use ADS-B information as a qualified surveillance source to provide ATC services throughout the NAS. The ADS-B surveillance information will also be used to enhance the quality of existing radar-based surveillance information for ATC automation system functions. The improved accuracy of ADS-B information will be used in advanced automation tools to allow more accurate spacing in the terminal area and for advanced procedures such as Continuous Descent Approach. The targeted implementation areas include surface, terminal, en route, offshore, and oceanic domains. ADS-B surveillance will allow ATC to apply separation between ADS-B-to-ADS-B and ADS -B-to-radar based targets. Within this document, this application is divided into Non-radar Airspace ATC Surveillance and Radar Airspace ATC Surveillance

. - To support the continued development of increased surveilla nce services in nonradar airspace, the SBS program is also assisting with upgrading IFR infrastructure including some airport upgrades in Alaska. In the tables and charts, this activity is referred to under the application Weather Automation Upgrade and IFR Approach Development

.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
3Airport Surface Situational Awareness - The objective of this application is to reduce the potential for deviations, e rrors, and collisions through an increase in flight crew situational awareness while operating an airc raft on the airport movement area. Flight crews will use a cockpit display to increase awareness of other traffic positions on the airport movement area. Additionally, the display may be used to determine the position of ground vehicles, e.g., snow plows, emergenc y vehicles, tugs, follow-me vehicles, and airport maintenance vehicles.

Final Approach Runway Occupancy Awareness - The objective of this application is to reduce the likelihood of flight crew errors associated with runway occupancy and to improve the capability of the flight crew to detect ATC errors. The application involves the use of a cockpit display th at depicts the runway environment and displays traffic from the surface up to approximately 1,000 feet a bove ground level on final approach and will be used by the flight crew to help determine runway occupancy.

Enhanced Visual Acquisition - The objective of this applica tion is to provide the flight crew enhanced traffic situational aw areness in controlled and uncontrolled airspace/airports. The applic ation uses a cockpit display to enhance out-of-the-window visual acquisition of air tra ffic. Flight crews will re fer to the display during the instrument scan to supplement visual observa tions. The display can be used to either initially detect an aircraft or to receive further information on an aircraft that has been reported by ATC. The application provides the flight crew with the relative range, altitude, and bearing of other aircraft.

Enhanced Visual Approach - This application is intended to enhance successive approaches for aircraft cleared to maintain visual separation from a nother aircraft on the approach. The goal is to maintain visual a pproach procedure operation arrival rates even during periods of reduced visibility or obstruc tions to vision (haze, f og, sunlight, etc). To achieve this objective, flight crews will be supported by a cockp it display of nearby traffic. This will provide continually update d identity and position information to assist the flight crew with achieving and maintaini ng visual contact with relevant traffic. Additional information such as range and speed will be provided to assist flight crews in monitoring their distance from the preceding aircraft. Enhanced Visual Approach has three sub-applications:

- VMC situational awareness (Initial EVA) – application to assist with more efficient spacing for Visual approaches during Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)

- CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS) – application to allow continuation of Visual Approaches during re duced meteorological conditions

- Merging and Spacing (M&S) – application to allow optimization of approach trajectory while still in en route airspace. This application assisted by controller automation should allow multiple aircraft in high demand periods the ability to plan and perform advanced approach pr ocedures, such as Continuous Descent Approach.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
4Conflict Detection - The objective of this application is to provide alerting and relevant traffic information to help the flight crew identify conflicts with other aircraft based on current flight states and inte ntions. Aircraft equipped with a cockpit display have the capability to display aircraft location and intent . More than simply displaying traffic, the application will alert pilots of developing conflicts. Al so, the long surveillance range afforded by ADS-B will enable alerts to be issued in time to solve the conflict with minimum disruption to the flight path. NOTE: The Conflict Detection application is an ADS-B-enabled capability for properly equipped ai rcraft and is not intended as a Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) replacement.

Weather and NAS Status Situational Awareness - The primary objective of this application is to provide the flight crew with improved access to weather information and aeronautical data. Many types of informa tion are not suitable for conveyance by voice, such as graphical weather products. In the transfer of this information by voice, considerable detail is lost and the time and attention devoted to conveying the information is lengthy and diverts the pilot fr om primary flight duties. The application will improve access to textual and graphical weather and other aeronautical information (i.e., Aviation Routine Weather Reports (M ETARs), Terminal Area Forecasts (TAFs), Significant Meteorological Advisory (SIG METs), PIREPs, NOTAMs, NEXRAD, SUA status, etc) by use of a cockpit-based display.

1.3 Benefits Estimates Segmentation

This document has two major sections: Operational Benefits and Cost Avoidance Benefits . The SBS program will provide the app lications described in Section 1.2 to FAA and aviation users; these be nefits are detailed in the Operational Benefits section. The SBS program will also provide currently available air traffic surveillance and communication services at lower cost to the FAA; these are outlined in the Cost Avoidance section.

The benefits are further subdivided by locati on and application outcome. Some benefits are limited to specific areas of deployme nt in early years and represent further deployment areas and include NAS-wide depl oyment. The areas of early deployment were chosen to demonstrate early benefits in the program. The early years of the SBS program will:

1. P rovide ADS-B surveillance for flights in the Gulf of Mexico high-altitude (above FL240) non-radar region

2. Provide ADS-B surveillance, upgraded communications, and additional weather reporting stations in the low-altitude Gulf of Mexico non-radar region

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
53. Integrate current ADS-B infrastructure with a Multilateration system in the Juneau, Alaska area to provide surveillance for th e en route center and Juneau air traffic control tower (ATCT).

4. Expand FIS-B/TIS-B services from curre nt legacy deployment along the East Coast to cover an area that includes appr oximately 60 percent of General Aviation flights NAS-wide, and

5. Implement the Enhanced Visual Approach and safety applications for CDTIequipped aircraft owned by United Parcel Service (UPS) and operated at three major hubs: Louisville International Air port (SDF), Philadel phia International Airport (PHL), and Ontari o International Airport (ONT). By 2004, UPS had equipped 107 of their aircraft for ADS-B CDTI operations. They have been instrumental in the development of many CDTI applications and will continue to provide a test bed for advanced air-to-a ir and air-to-ground applications. These applications (and the associated benef its) should expand to other airlines and locations NAS-wide in Segment 2.

The summary tables in the executive summa ry and Section 4 isolate the benefits by location, application, and bene fit outcome in both Base Year 2007 and risk-adjusted Present Value dollars.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
62 O PERATIONAL BENEFITS

2 .1 Benefit Identification

The initial step of the ADS-B operational benefits analysis was to develop a complete list of safety and efficiency benefits and the a ssociated metrics. The benefit outcome metrics defined as part of the Phase I Safe Flight 21 cost benefit analysis [1 ] were used to draft the initial list. This list was then augmented based on inputs from the SBS program.

While measuring a change in a particular me tric is simple, interpreting the results is sometimes difficult. The most complex part of benefits analysis is attributing a change to the use of an application. We attempt to better understand the activity changes by outlining the mechanisms for benefit in a sp ecific format, which we call a “benefits flow.”

The benefits flow process begins with a meeting of potential users for the new application. Operators explain the direct impact of each appl ication-driven capability and discuss the changes in airport or airspace operations that arise from these impacts. Subsequently, we develop concise descriptions of each operational change. The benefits flow is a diagram that serves as an outline for this narrative framework. It has four columns: application

, direct impact

, outcome , and benefit . For clarity, we define these words below for our context:

Application – new or improved capability pr ovided to the users (see Section 1.2)

Direct Impact – how the new or improve d capability enhances user operations

Outcome – the result of the direct impacts on airport/airspace operations

Benefit – how the outcomes improve airport/ai rspace operations in terms of quantifiable

measures

Because the SBS effort is considering different types of applications for different users, we divided the potential benefits into four separate categorie s. The Flight Safety flow involves benefits from the SBS program target ed at general aviation pilots. The Surface flow concerns applications av ailable to pilots, air traffic controllers, and airlines on the airport surface. The Terminal and En Rout e flow involves ADS-B airborne efficiency applications for both pilots and controllers. Finally, the Non-radar flow focuses on ADSB applications specific to non -radar regions such as the Gu lf of Mexico and Alaska.

Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 present diagrams of the be nefits flows that trace applications to benefits for each of the four categories that we examine in this effort. The benefit details section is organized by the Outcomes seen in each flow. The major SBS Outcomes are listed on the next page organized by category.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
7F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
8 Flight Safety (see Figure 2-1 )

• Fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts • Fewer encounters with hazardous weather • More efficient weather deviations • Fewer controlled flights into terrain (CFIT)

Surface (see Figure 2-2)

• Increased safety on surface by ATC • More efficient ATC management of surface movement • Better communication between pilots , airlines, and ATC on surface • Increased safety on the surface by pilots • More efficient movement on airport surface by pilots

Terminal and En Route (see Figure 2-3)

• Continuation of visual appro aches in marginal conditions • More efficient spacing dur ing visual approaches • More efficient merging and spacing en route • More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix • More efficient release from en route circular holding • Increased ability to allow Continuous Descent Approaches • More efficient en route conflict resolution • Better communication between pilots and ATC

Non-radar (see Figure 2-4)

• More efficient separati on on approach (non-radar) • More efficient separati on en route (non-radar) • Optimal routing • Increased access to lower altitude routes • Increased ability to fly Part 135 operations • Fewer encounters with hazardous weather • Improved search and rescue services • Increased commercial access to remote villages in Alaska • Increased Medevac access to remote villages in Alaska

In addition to the operational benefits ther e are some FAA cost avoidance benefits outlined in Section 3. The summary charts (Section 4) also mention many of these benefits.Figure 2-1. ADS-B Flight Safety Benefits FlowApplicationDirect ImpactOutcomeBenefitTechnologyMid-air collisionrateImproved traffic situationalawarenessImproved terrain situationalawarenessImproved weather situationalawarenessWeather relatedaccident rateFewer encounters withhazardous weatherCFIT accident rateFewer controlled flights intoterrainFewer aircraft-to-aircraftconflictsMore efficient deviationsAirborne delaybecause of en routeweatherMulti-FunctionDisplay for pilotsincluding access toCDTI, TIS-B, FIS-B,Terrain Map forpilots)Enhanced VisualAcquisition,Conflict Detectionand Weather and NASStatus SituationalAwarenessFlight InformationService - Broadcast(FIS-B)Traffic InformationService – Broadcast(TIS-B)F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N9F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N10Figure 2-2. ADS-B Surface Benefits FlowMore efficient movement onairport surface by pilotsRadar Airspace ATCSurveillancefor ATC TowerSurface accident rateController productivityTaxi timesIncreased safety on the surfaceby pilotsMore efficient ATCmanagement of surfaceCommon situationalawareness ofaircraft/vehicle positionsbetween ATC, Airlines,and pilotsIncreased ability toanticipate ETA and orderof arrivalsBetter communication betweenairline, pilots, and ATCAirport SurfaceSituationalAwarenessandFinal Approach andRunway OccupancyAwarenessIncreased ability to monitorrunway queuesDeparture ratesIncreased pilot airportsurface and trafficsituational awarenessIncreased safety on the surfaceby ATCApplicationDirect ImpactOutcomeTechnologyBenefit MetricASDE-X upgradeto remainingASDE-3 only sitesMultifunctionDisplay for pilotsSurface MovingMap DatabaseF E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N11Figure 2-3. ADS-B Terminal and En Route Benefits FlowEnhanced VisualAcquisitionandEnhanced VisualApproach(for pilots)Increased pilot ability toidentify, visually acquire,and maintain ADS-B trafficIncreased pilot awarenessof overall traffic flowsImproved ability tomaintain efficient spacingwith lead aircraftIncreased ability to allowContinuous DescentApproachesBetter communicationbetween ATC andpilotContinuation of visualapproaches in marginalconditionsInterarrival spacing,Peak airport arrivalthroughput,andFlight times fromextended terminal areato runwayController ProductivityandEn route sector capacityMore efficient merging andspacingen routeRadar AirspaceATC SurveillanceCommon situationalawareness of aircraft/vehiclepositions between ATC,Airlines, and pilotsMore efficient spacing duringvisual approachesIncreased automationspacing accuracy andupdate rateMore efficient release fromen route circular holdingMore efficient en routeconflict resolutionDelay for aircraft incircular holdingBenefit MetricOutcomeDirect ImpactApplicationTechnologyMulti-FunctionDisplay for pilotsincluding access toCDTI, TIS-B forpilots)Traffic InformationService – Broadcast(TIS-B)More efficient en routemetering to arrival fixNumber of CDAsProjected conflict rateADS-B ATCAutomationIntegrationF E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N12Figure 2-4. ADS-B Non-radar Benefits FlowAbility to use reducedseparation standardsImproved weather situationalawareness for ATCIncreased number ofavailable routesOptimal routingWeather-relatedaccident rateImproved search and rescueservicesSearch and rescue timeEn route sectorthroughputMore efficient separation enroute (non-radar)Fewer encounters withHazardous weatherIncreased ability to fly Part135 IFR operationsNon-Radar AirspaceATC Surveillance(for ATC)Improved traffic situationalawareness for ATCAutomatedWeatherObservationsImprovedCommunicationsServicesMore efficient separation onapproach (non-radar)Peak airport arrivalthroughput andArrivals delayscaused by terminalcongestionIncreased commercialaccess to remote villagesEn route sectorflight timeIncreased Medevac accessto remote villagesIFR Route andApproachDevelopmentAbility to perform IFRairport approachesIncreased access to loweraltitude routesMedical access timeCancellation rateApplicationDirect ImpactOutcomeTechnologyBenefit MetricADS-B ATCAutomationIntegrationUpgrade IFRInfrastructure2.2 General Benefits Estimation Methodology

The SBS operational benefits were estimated relative to the existing ATC system, with established procedures currently in effect. Historical data were combined with traffic projections to describe the baseline from which benefits could be measured. This reference point was modified, prior to estima ting benefits, to reflect any approved future improvements to the baseline that are schedul ed during the analysis time period. System effectiveness measures, the percent reduction in either accident rates or typical delay times, were applied to the estimated baseline level in order to derive expected benefits. Effectiveness was defined in terms of the im provement expected given the technology is adopted. The system effectiveness, the percent of the population equipped, and the percent of infrastructure installed are key drivers in all the benefit estimates. These factors combine to represent the level of be nefits that are expected in the future.

Benefits were estimated in terms of both safety and efficiency gains. Safety benefits are derived from the estimated reductions in accident rates and the potential economic savings in terms of avoided loss of life, inju ries and aircraft dama ges. The efficiency benefits quantified refer to delay and fuel sa vings. The delay saving s are valued in terms aircraft direct operating costs and passenger valu e of time.

The historical baselines for the safety benefits were based on a careful review of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) aviation accident reports, a 16-year period 1989 through 2004 was used. Appropriate database search methodologies were developed for each accident type for which reductions are exp ected. The sets of accidents identified for each category were compared to ensure that specific incidents were not counted more than once towards the potential benefits. The total historical number of accidents for each accident type was tabulated by region and compared with regional traffic counts over the same time period to estimate accident rates.

Both the safety and efficiency historical ba selines are functions of traffic density. The baselines are combined with traffic projec tions from the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) to develop forecasts of potential benefi ts each year. In addition, the timeframe for which each benefit starts to accrue is based on when the specific application is to be operationally certified as well as on user equipage and the commissioning of the necessary ground equipment.

The effectiveness percentages attributed to SBS applications and the percent of the population anticipated to equi p are multiplied by the potentia l benefits each year to develop annual benefit estimates. The e ffectiveness assumptions are based on a combination of subject matter expert assessments and the results from previous studies. The equipage percentages by user group and location were combined to reflect the likelihood of the benefits being realized de pending on whether one or two aircraft are involved in the scenario and whether or not ADS-B equipped aircraft can view transponder-equipped aircraft th rough the availabili ty of TIS-B functionality. Equipage and infrastructure issues are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
132.3 Economic Values: Safety and Efficiency

Safety benefits are measured in terms of a voided accidents while efficiency benefits are valued as flight hours saved. Avoided accident s are translated into economic values by applying the unit costs associated with fata lities, injuries both serious and minor, and aircraft damages both destroye d and substantially damaged. Th e safety related values are provided in the Economic Values for Evaluation of Federal Aviation Administration Investment and Regulatory Programs [2] published by the FAA’s Office of Policy and Plans (APO) and are shown in Table 2-1. Th e economic value associated with flight hours saved is based on the aircraft direct operating costs (ADOC) of fuel, crew, and maintenance. The Passenger Value of Time (PVT) per aircraft type is based on average number of seats and load factor. Table 2-2 presents ADOC and PVT values for each user group in the TAF while Table 2-3 provides the same values for the primary user groups used in the SBS study. The SBS user groups are somewhat different than the TAF user groups because of different equipage a ssumptions (UAT and 1090) and the related difference in benefits. It is expected that all the air carrier and co mmuter airline fleets will use the 1090 link and mostly take advantage of the air-to-air efficiency applications. The air taxi and general aviation fleets will most likely equip with the UAT link and mainly take advantage of the FIS-B and TIS-B applications.

Table 2-1. Safety Benefits – Economic Values (BY07 $)

Injury Type Value Fatalities $3,000,000 Serious Inj $580,700 Minor Inj $42,900

AC-Type GA Air Taxi A ir Carrier & Commuter Aircraft Destroyed $390,000 $390,000 $12,370,000 Aircraft Substantial Damage $40,000 $40,000 $3,990,000

Table 2-2. Efficiency Benefits – Econom ic Values for TAF user groups (BY07 $)
Flight Phase Air Carrier Commuter & Air Taxi General Aviation Airborne $3902 $1038 $526 Ground $1957 $521 $526 Block $3608 $944 $526 PVT (per aircraft) $2702 $596.5 $78.42

Table 2-3. Efficiency Benefits – Econom ic Values for SBS user groups (BY07 $)

Flight Phase Air Carrier & Commuter Air Taxi General Aviation

Airborne $2814 $1038 $526 Ground $1411 $521 $526 Block $2596 $944 $526 PVT (per aircraft) $1966 $120.6 $78.42

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
142.4 Equipage and Infrastructure assumptions

Equipage rates are defined as the percentage of the active population that will equip and are estimated for each user group. These percentages are used to estimate the magnitude to which SBS benefits are to be realized.

2.4 .1 Voluntary and Mandatory Equipage

The SBS program has different equipage assump tions for different benefits. The current SBS program plan calls for the FAA to ma ndate of ADS-B broadcast out (ADS-B out) equipage for all users who use Class A, B, or C airspace by 2020. There are no current plans for a CDTI (ADS-B In) mandate so e quipage will be voluntary; however, CDTI equipage will be influenced by the ADS-B out mandate because the different capabilities may be packaged together. Figure 2-5 disp lays the projected ADS-B Out and ADS-B In equipage curves for air carrier and commute r operators. Appendix A contains all the relevant equipage tables assumed within the model.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 YearPercent Equipped(Air Carrier & Commuter)

ADS-B Out
ADS-B In

Figure 2-5. ADS-B Out and In Equipage for Air Carrier & Commuter Operators

Many of the applications depend on early ADS-B broadcast-out or even CDTI equipage. In these instances, the service or capabi lity will only be availa ble to the equipped population. For example, broadcast weather info rmation and the associ ated benefits will only be available to pilots equipped with a UAT ADS-B transceiver and a multi-function display. As another example, in the Gu lf of Mexico, ADS-B will provide enhanced surveillance services for ADS-B broadcast- out equipped aircraft. The introduction of radar-like separation will increase sector capacity. Initial separation by surveillance will be limited to selected optimal altitudes wher e only equipped flights may operate. These

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
15two examples show that there will be specific advantages to equipping with ADS-B. It is hoped these advantages will encourage early equipage.

Some of the early commercial airline benef its are limited to CDTI-equipped aircraft owned by United Parcel Service (UPS) and operated at two major hubs: Louisville International Airport (SDF) and Philadelphi a International Airport (PHL). By 2004, UPS had equipped 107 of their aircraft for ADS-B CDTI operations. They have been instrumental in the development of many CDTI applications and will continue to provide a test bed for advanced air-to-air and air-to -ground applications. These applications (and the associated benefits) are assumed to expand to other airlines and locations in later
years

2.4 .2 Mixed Equipage Considerations

As the NAS transitions into an ADS-B environment, we must consider the effects of mixed equipage on the CDTI-enabled benefits . We defined the following four equipage scenarios:

• Inde pendent equipage

• Depe ndent ADS-B equipage

• Order Specific Dependent Mixed equipage

• Non-Order Specific Depe ndent Mixed equipage.

Independent equipage applies to situations where only on e aircraft must be CDTIequipped in order to realize benefits. For benefit elements such as reducing the number of weather related accidents, the likelihood of any given aircraft achieving improvements is independent of whether another aircraft is equipped. Therefore, the equipage rates for CDTI can be applied directly or line arly to determine expected benefits.

However, for benefit elements that involve two aircraft, such as reducing the number of midair collisions, the lik elihood of realizing benefits is de pendent on both aircraft. This benefit requires not only that an aircraft have the capability to see other aircraft (CDTI) but that the conflicting aircraft is equipped with the avionics necessary to be seen (either ADS-B out or a Transponder). The dependent CDTI equipage scenario is estimated by multiplying the independent CDTI equipage rate for a given user group by the rate for all other user groups including itself to create a matrix of values that de fine the probabilities for the possible pairi ngs of aircraft.

The dependent mixed equipage scenarios in corporate all ADS-B out aircraft and the availability of TIS-B functi onality. TIS-B provides CDTI equipped aircraft with the ability to recognize transponder equipped airc raft operating without ADS-B. The order specific dependent mixed equipage scenario is used to model conditions where the order of CDTI equipped aircraft must be specified to achieve the benefits. For applications such as approach spacing, the following aircraft in the pair must be CDTI equipped since

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
16this aircraft needs to see the preceding ai rcraft in order to achieve improvements. However, given TIS-B functionality, the pre ceding aircraft can be either ADS-B out equipped or transponder equipped since it is only required that the preceding aircraft be seen by the following aircraft for this ap plication. The non-orde r specific equipage scenario is reserved for cases where the benefit is realized as long as one of the aircraft can see the other regardless of which aircraft that may be. As in the benefit addressing a reduction in mid-air collisions, it was determined that if either of the aircraft involved in the conflict is made aware of the impending situation, then there is a potential for avoiding the accident.

Figure 2-6 displays the relati onship between the dependent e quipage scenarios when both aircraft involved are operati ng as air carrier. Figure 2- 6 is based on the independent equipage assumptions for the national equipage estimate.

Figure 2-6. Dependent Equipage Curves – Example Air Carrier



### 0 20 40 60 80 100 120200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034



### YearPercentage Non-order specific mixed Order-specific mixed CDTI Dependent

The order specific dependent mixed equipage scenario is estimated by multiplying the probability that the first aircraft is CDTI equipped by the probability that the second aircraft is either ADS-B out or transponder equipped. Since some aircraft will be both ADS-B out and transponder equipped, the probab ility that an aircraft is equipped with either CDTI or ADS-B out or a transponder is equivalent to the probability of being equipped with CDTI plus the probability of being equipped with ADS-B out or a transponder minus the probability of being equipped with both.

The non-order specific dependent mixed equi page scenario includes conditions where either the first or second aircraft is CDTI equipped with the other aircraft being either ADS-B out or transponder equi pped as well as cases wher e both aircraft are CDTI equipped. The order specific calculation desc ribed accounts for cases where the first aircraft is CDTI equipped and the second ai rcraft is either transponder or ADS-B out equipped which allows for the possibility of both aircraft being CDTI equipped.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
17Therefore, the non-order specific scenario is estimated as two times the order specific dependent mixed equipage estimate minus the dependent CDTI equipage estimate.

2 .4.3 Infrastructure phasing

Many of the ADS-B benefits also depend on an underlying infrastructure that provides broadcast information services or surveilla nce services. The international community decided to receive and transmit ADS-B info rmation using two data links UAT 987 and 1090 ES). In the end-state, all services will be provided usi ng a dual UAT/1090 data link. The schedule for services to these two links differs by year and location. The analyses take these different service schedul es into account when estimating benefits. The benefits presented within the document depend heavily on the planned service schedules. Some of the benefits are exclusiv e to one of the data links. We mention the link dependence within th e benefit analysis descriptions to follow.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
182 .5 Flight Safety Benefits

The Flight Safety benefits (see Figure 2-1) are derived from the following outcomes:

• Fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts • Fewer encounters with hazardous weather • More efficient weather deviations • Fewer controlled flights into terrain (CFIT).

The SBS program also includes related flight sa fety benefits in Alaska. While the benefit mechanisms are quite similar to those in the other parts of the NAS, a different analytical method was performed by the previous program office to estimate these benefits. The SBS program decided to incorporate the analys is from the previous program office into the benefits case, as opposed to performing a new analysis. The Alaska Capstone Phase III flight safety benefits are presented as a separate section called:

• Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska.

2.5.1 Fewer-aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts

The principle of "see-and-avoi d" (whereby the pilo t visually searches out the window for other aircraft, and alters flight path to avoid them if nece ssary) is well established in regulation, procedure, and prac tice. However, there are practical limitations associated with the see-and-avoid principle due to the diffi culty for the pilot to visually acquire other traffic in a consistent and re liable manner and the limitations.

Through a CDTI, the SBS program will improve the pilot's ability to visually acquire (Enhanced Visual Acquisition) other traffic so that the see-and-avoid principle can be more effectively applied. Based on informati on gained from the CDTI, the pilot can then better focus his/her visual search for the ot her ADS-B aircraft, as well as better monitor its movements once acquired. This will result in greater pilot situational awareness, greater scan effectiveness, a nd the ability to plan for avoi dance earlier in an encounter scenario (Conflict Detection).

The SBS program will provide the data ne cessary to enhance s ee-and-avoid by two methods. CDTI-equipped aircraft will always see other ADS-B equipped aircraft within the line of sight of the ADS-B receiver. A dditionally, CDTI-equipped aircraft will also be able to see local transponder-equipped aircraft positions broadcast where TIS-B service is available. Currently available CDTI avionics also includes a traffic warning for conflict detection.

TIS-B service will be available above 6000 feet NAS-wide and even lower in the vicinity of the service broadcast point s. As ADS-B equipage leve ls increase, the proportion of

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
19additional aircraft broadcast us ing the TIS-B service will decr ease. It is expected that TIS-B service will discontinue after full equipage.

It should be noted that a majority of airc raft used in passenger revenue operations are currently equipped with the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). TCAS-II is required on all aircraft with mo re than 30 seats and includes both traffic advisory and conflict resolution capabilities. TCAS-II utilizes input data that is sparse and has accuracy limitations and, therefore, it is expected that the ADS-B will provide improvements. In addition, TCAS-I is require d on small 10 to 30 seat commuter aircraft and provides conflict detection.

The ADS-B benefits associated with the incremental improvements to TCAS-II and TCAS-I were not included in the estimate and, therefore, all aircraft with 10 or more seats were excluded from the analysis. Howe ver, of 136 mid-air collisions recorded in the NTSB database between 1989 and 1998, only 3 involved an aircraft with 10 or more
seats.

The mid-air collision reduction benefits were estimated by multiplying the forecasted future accident costs, the assumed effectiv eness percentage, the dependent equipage rates, and the TIS-B service schedule. The benefits were assumed to begin in 2007 for both ADS-B only and ADS-B with TIS-B. Table 2-3 summarize s the benefits from fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflict s in both base year and risk-adjusted (RA) present value dollars.

Table 2-3. Fewer aircraft-to-a ircraft conflict benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Fewer aircraft-to-aircra ft conflicts $719.8 M $203.6 M

The mid-air collision historical accident rate was calculated as the number of collisions between 1989 and 2004 divided by the sum of the total number of annual operations squared over the 16-year period. The denominat or incorporates the square of operations rather than applying a linear relationship to re flect an exponential increase in the risk of collisions as a function of traffic growth. Based on the ASDE-X Investment Analysis [3] and other studies, accidents invo lving two aircraft are estimated to increase more rapidly than traffic whereas single aircraft accidents, such as weather encounters or CFIT, are expected to increase at the same rate as traffic growth.

Also, for benefits that involve two aircraft, the likelihood of realizing the benefits is dependent on both aircraft be ing equipped as desc ribed in Section 2.4.2. The reduction in mid-air collisions requires not only that an aircraft have the capability to see other aircraft, but that the conflicting aircraft is equipped with the avionics to be seen. For ADS-B only, the dependent ADS-B equipage cu rves are applied to estimate benefits beginning in 2007. From 2007 to 2025, the difference between the non-order specific dependent mixed equipage curve and the depende nt ADS-B curve is used to reflect that

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
20TIS-B increases the proportion of aircraft that can be displayed to ADS-B equipped aircraft in areas where there is TIS-B coverage.

The overall effectiveness in reducing future mid-air collisions was estimated using the results from a two-day workshop held July 13-14, 2005 to determine ADS-B effectiveness rates. Five to six subject ma tter experts rated the effectiveness of an ADSB display on a sample of accidents using a score of 0 to 5, with 5 being the highest value. The mean effectiveness for mid-air collisi on prevention was 4.25. To adjust for risk we used a triangular distribution of (3.67, 4.25, 4.50) based on the distribution of responses. We assigned evenly-spaced percentage values to the scores to find effectiveness percentages. The maximum safety effectiveness for a score of 5 was agreed to be 85 percent with a distribution of (.75, .85, .95). Therefore, a 4.25 translates to an effectiveness percentage of 72.3 percent.

2.5 .2 Fewer encounters with hazardous weather

The primary objective of Flight Information Service-Broadcast (FIS-B) is to provide pilots with improved access to weather information and aeronautical data. The data will be provided directly to the cockpit, in flight , to enhance pilot situational awareness. The focus in the FIS application is on improved acce ss to standard text weather products (i.e., METARs, TAFs, SIGMETs, and PIREPs), as we ll as standard graphical products (i.e., NEXRAD weather radar depictions). FIS-B be nefit will only be available to UAT data link equipped GA and Air Taxi ai rcraft (see Section 2.4.3). La rger 1090 data link aircraft generally have weather radar and assistance from airline dispatchers, and are not considered in the analysis.

While the SBS program is focused on providing elementary weather products in the near future, it is envisioned that the program will evolve to provide pilots with enhanced weather and aeronautical data in the out years. As a result, pilots will have better information on such hazards as ic ing, turbulence and volcanic ash.

The user community will recognize benefits from having better access to standard weather products as well as access to information previously unavailable. Based on this information, pilots will have the ability to ma ke better in-flight decisions, including better strategies for avoidance of areas of hazar dous weather and, thereby, reduce the frequency of weather-related accidents.

The weather accident reduction benefits were estimated by multiplying the forecast future accident costs, effectiveness measures, modifi ed independent equipage rates, and the FISB service schedule. Table 2-4 summarizes the benefits from fewer encounters with hazardous weather in base year and risk-adjusted present value dollars.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
21Table 2-4: Fewer encounters with hazardous weather benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Fewer encounters with hazardous weather $792.3 M $232.5 M

The historical baseline for weather accidents was based on NTSB accident records from 1989 through 2004. The NTSB database was first queried to identify all accident reports for Part 91, Part 135, and Part 121 operations th at cite weather conditions as contributing to the event. The search criterion was th e inclusion of code 20000 – Weather Conditions in the sequence of events section of the accide nt report. Weather accidents in phases of flight from climb to landing were include d. While FIS-B information may not be available during the landing and approach pha ses at smaller airports, a recent survey conducted by the FAA Capstone office found that weather information is mainly used in the cruise phase (or before) to plan route cha nges or approaches at airports. The weather information is rarely used real-time during an approach because other duties occupy the pilot’s attention.

Accidents involving both adverse weather conditions and a Contro lled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) were accounted for in the CFIT anal ysis (Section 2.5.4). Ac cidents that involved mid-air collisions were removed from the data set to avoid overstating benefits.

The historical accident rate was estimated fo r each user group by dividing the number of accidents by the number of operations over the baseline period. In addition, the numbers of fatalities, injuries, and aircraft damages were evaluated to estimate the average accident cost for each weather and user group. The accident rate combined with the projected traffic levels and the average acci dent cost provided the potential weather accident benefits by weather and user group.

The overall effectiveness in reducing future weather-related accidents was estimated using the results from a two-day workshop held July 13-14, 2005 to determine ADS-B effectiveness rates. Five to six subject matte r experts rated the effectiveness of an FIS-B display on a sample of accidents using a score of 0 to 5, with 5 being the highest value. The mean effectiveness fo r weather-related accident co llision prevention was 1.58. To adjust for risk we used a triangular di stribution of (1.31, 1.58, 1.75) based on the distribution of responses. We assigned evenly-s paced percentage values to the scores to find effectiveness percentages. The maximum safety effectiveness for a score of 5 was agreed to be 85 percent with a distribution of (.75, .85, .95). Therefore, a 1.58 translates to an effectiveness percentage of 26.4 percent.

An estimated 23 percent of GA flights alread y receive cockpit weat her information using a commercial FIS. We assumed that the SBS FIS-B benefit woul d not apply to these aircraft and modified the independent eq uipage rate accordingly. However, the commercially-equipped flights would receive a cost avoidance benefit because they would no longer need to pay for this service. This cost a voidance benefit can be found in section 3.3.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
22A further reduction of 10 percent was applied to the weather-related accident benefits to account for the Aeronautical Information Ma nagement (AIM) program planned by the FAA in the near future.

2.5.3 More efficient weather deviations

In addition to safety considerations, the e fficiency of flight operations can also be increased with improved access to weather info rmation. The primary objective of Flight Information Service-Broadcast (FIS-B) is to provide the pilot with improved access to weather information and aeronautical data. The focus is on improved access to standard text weather products (i.e. METARs, TAFs , SIGMETs, and PIREPs.), as well as a standard graphical product (i.e., NEXRAD weather radar depictions).

NEXRAD weather radar graphics will offer the opportunity to make earlier decisions for deviations around some convective weather haza rds, and provide a better characterization of all convective weather hazards. There are some organized weather events that are so wide-spread that little can be done to avoid la rge flight deviations. The deviation benefit is limited to weather events th at are more dispersed, or unorga nized. We assume that this benefit will be available to UAT data link equipped GA and Air Taxi aircraft (see Section 2.4.3). Larger 1090 data link aircraft generall y have weather radar and assistance from airline dispatchers, and are not cons idered in the analysis.

The more efficient routes in adverse weathe r benefits were estimated by multiplying the frequency of unorganized weather, the averag e flight time reduction per flight, projected traffic counts, modified inde pendent equipage rates, estim ated FIS-B service schedule, and airborne aircraft direct operating costs and passenger value of time. Estimates were developed separately for each user group. Ta ble 2-5 summarizes the benefits by segment and location in both base year and present value dollars.

Table 2-5. More efficient routes in adverse weather benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient routes in adverse weather $18.4 M $4.9 M

The average flight time reduction per flight wa s based on an analysis of airborne flight times for good and bad weather days perfor med by ATO-P Operations Research. They compared the flight time difference for comme rcial flights and GA flights separately. They assumed commercial flights had we ather radar or othe r access to weather information through airline operations centers, while GA flights had li ttle to no access to these products or services. The study estimat ed an average reduction of 7 seconds in flight time for flights with weather products. A triangular distribution based on the error in the average was used to adjust for risk (5 sec, 7 sec, 9 sec.)

The Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIW S) investment analysis [4] estimated that unorganized adverse weather affe cts 4.7 percent of all flight s. To adjust for risk we

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
23multiplied a triangular distri bution of (.5, 1, 2) to the adverse weather occurrence percentage. The high number re flects uncertainty in the duration of adverse weather and somewhat higher results from a previous NASA study [5].

An estimated 23 percent of GA flights alread y receive cockpit weat her information using a commercial FIS. We assumed that the ADS -B FIS-B benefit would not apply to these aircraft and modified the independent eq uipage rate accordingly. However, the commercially-equipped flights would receive a cost avoidance benefit because they would no longer need to pay for this service. This cost avoidance benefit is described in section 3.3.

A further reduction of 10 percent was applied to the weather-related efficiency benefits to account for the Aeronautical Information Ma nagement (AIM) program planned by the FAA in the near future.

2.5.4 Fewer controlled flights into terrain (CFIT)

Controlled-Flight-Into-Terrain (CFIT) accident s are defined as those in which the pilot inadvertently allows the aircraft to strike terrain, a water surface or an obstacle, even though the aircraft is under his/her full contro l. In almost all cases, these accidents are attributable, to some extent, to the pilot's lack of awareness of aircraft altitude relative to proximate terrain and obstacles. CFIT accidents usually occur during flight conditions in which the pilot cannot visually ascertain terrain/obstacle cl earance (e.g., visual obscuration from fog, clouds, or precipitation; nighttime with unlighted terrain features; and poor contrast in the landscape due to snow, glassy water surfaces, etc.).

Since the mid-1970s, most U.S.-registered transp ort-category aircraft have been required to have Ground Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS). More recently, a mandate to include the Terrain Awareness and Warning Syst em (TAWS) on a wider range of aircraft was issued. These systems are intended to warn pilots that the aircraft may be coming dangerously close to terrain while in the cruise configuration or that it may not be in the proper configuration for a normal landing.

The TAWS mandate states that any aircraft with 6 or more passenger seats must be equipped with TAWS. Over 90% of aircraft in CONUS have fe wer than 6 passenger
seats.

A basic objective of the SBS program is to pr ovide pilots who are operating aircraft not included under the TAWS mandate with a safe and cost-effective means to be aware of the aircraft’s altitude with respect to the surrounding terrain. The focus is on the display of the navigation situation and terrain information. The equipment also provides additionally an alerting function that monitors terrain clea rance and issues an appropriate warning to the pilot if inadequate terrain clearance is anticipated. The latter is an enhancement over TAWS that provides incremen tal benefits for airc raft already equipped TAWS. However, we did not consider the incremental TAWS benefit in the analysis.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
24The CFIT accident reduction benefits were estimated by multiplying the forecast future accident costs, the assumed effectiveness percentages, modified independent equipage rates, and the FIS-B/TIS-B se rvice schedule. While FIS-B/ TIS-B service is not needed for the CFIT benefit, it was assumed that GA terrain map equipage associated with an ADS-B multifunction display would most lik ely occur only where the FIS-B/TIS-B service existed. Estimates were develope d separately for each user group. Table 2-6 summarizes the benefits in base year and risk-adjus ted present value dollars.

Table 2-6. Fewer controlled flights into terrain benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Fewer controlled flights into terrain $1,015.6 M $284.3 M

The historical baseline for CFIT accidents was based on NTSB accident records from 1989 to 2004. The NTSB does not explicitly categoriz e events as CFIT. However, in conversations with the NTSB, it was indicated that they do have a “mechanical means of selecting accidents that involve collisions w ith terrain or objects and which don't involve loss of control or power and which don't occu r during some phases of flight (such as takeoff, landing or maneuvering).” The NT SB methodology identifi es accidents that include occurrence code 220 In Flight Collision with Obj ect or code 230 In Flight Collision With Terrain/Water. Events involving a loss of control or power are excluded as are events occurring during specified flight phases. The NTSB methodology was utilized to identify the set of applicable accidents for Part 91, Part 135 and Part 121 operations. Furthermore, accidents involving both adverse weather conditions in-flight that were also categorized as a Controlled Flight Into Terrain (C FIT) event were only counted as CFIT accidents.

The final list of CFIT accidents was segmente d to reflect whether or not the aircraft involved would now be mandated to equip w ith TAWS. The TAWS mandate includes all turbine-powered airplanes with six or more passenger seats operating under Part 91 and Part 135 and all turbine-powered airplanes operat ing under Part 121.

The effectiveness in reducing future CFIT collisions was estimated using the results from a two-day workshop held July 13-14, 2005 to de termine ADS-B effectiveness rates. Five to six subject matter experts rated the effec tiveness of an ADS-B display on a sample of accidents using a score of 0 to 5, with 5 being the high highest value. After examining the data, we found that CFIT accidents could be separated in two distinct sets based on the occurrence of adverse weathe r. The mean effectiveness for CFIT accident prevention when adverse weather was a factor was 3.15. To adjust for risk we used a triangular distribution of (2.91, 3.15, 3.31) based on the distribution of responses. For CFIT accident prevention without adverse weather we used a triangular distribution of (0.98, 1.04, 1.09). We assigned evenly-spaced percen tage values to the scores to find effectiveness percentages. The maximum safety effectiveness for a score of 5 was agreed to be 85 percent with a dist ribution of (.75, .85, .95). Ther efore, the mean values 3.15 and 1.04 translate to effectiveness percen tages of 53.2 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
25An estimated 50 percent of GA flights alr eady receive some terrain awareness through GPS equipage. We assumed that the ADS-B CFIT benefit would not apply to these aircraft and modified the independe nt equipage rate accordingly.

2.5.5 Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska

The first large-scale implementation of ADS-B and FIS-B became operational in southwest Alaska starting in 2000. Alaska was a good test bed for these technologies because of limited radar surveillance, a somewh at small population of aircraft that needed to be equipped, and an accident rate that was relatively high compared to the CONUS. This early implementation (called the Alas ka Capstone Program) provided a valuable proving ground for ADS-B and FIS-B data th at the SBS used in supporting the NASwide business case. In 2007, the FAA decide d it was time to reincorporate the continuing effort of the Alaska Capstone program into the NAS-wide SBS program. SBS plans to use the same service provider cost model fo r Alaska as in the other parts of the NAS.

The Alaska Capstone Program consisted of three phases:

• Phas e I-provide avionics and surveillance and broadcast services to Part 135 users in the Y-K Delta region of Alaska

• Phas e II-provide avionics and surveill ance and broadcast services to Part 135 users in Southeast region of Alaska

• Phase III-expand surveillance and broadcas t services to the remainder of the state and expand services to all aircraft types (Part 91, Part 121, Part 135) in each of the regions

Capstone also included a number of airport infrastructure upgrades (such as automated weather stations, communications, and route a nd approach procedure development) that either supported providing better informati on to pilots and/or expanded use of IFR services available in addition to surveillance.

By the time of incorporation into the SBS pr ogram, Alaska Capstone Phases I and II had been completed. The August 2007 business case included a rebaseline of the Capstone program to include costs and benefits for all phases.

The historical accident rate was estimated for each region and user group combination by dividing the number of accidents by the numbe r of operations over a fourteen-year period (1990-2004). The accidents were gathered from the NTSB and operations from the TAF. In addition, the numbers of fatalities, injuries , and aircraft damages were evaluated to estimate the average accident cost for each re gion and user group. The accident rate combined with the projected traffic levels and the average accident cost provided the potential accident benefits pool by region and user group.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
26The method for determining effectiveness wa s somewhat different for the Capstone Program than for the other parts of the NAS. Instead of isolating CFIT, Weather-related, and Mid-Air accidents, the program considered all Alaskan aviation accidents. Each of the 2045 historical Alaskan accidents was assign ed a combination of 23 risks. Table 2-7 presents descriptions of the risks and Tabl e 2-8 presents the frequency of these risks across the accidents. Table 2-9 presents a number of identified mitigations provided by the program. The mitigations also indi cate when they depend on Ground-Based Transceiver (GBT) coverage.

Table 2-7. Capstone risk descriptions

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures

Failed to heed warnings about known hazards, grossly over weighted aircraft, etc. Intentional Disregard Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a decision to inadvertently fly into IMC, box canyon, etc. En Route Tactical Decision Making
Pilot loss of situational awareness leading to a poorly executed approach, etc. Terminal Tactical Decision Making

Time Schedule - Monetary Pressure - Company Reputation Pressure Failed to access weather or NOTAM information before or during flight Access WX Aircraft Inspection - Fuel Contamination - Planning of Route and Weight Balance Preflight Other airport Personnel - Directing aircraft during taxi - improperly installed cargo (leaking fuel drum) - Airport Markings, Plowing, Construction Ground Procedures Flight Standards - Decision Making - Planning - Pilot violated FARs or didn't complete checklists while in-flight (Fuel Starvation/didn't switch tanks) Flt Procedures Low Airspeed - Stick and Rudder - Loss of control - Short term control execution and memorized EM procedures (Autorotation, Forced Landing) Skills Crew Ratings - Training - Experience - Physical Condition - Toxicology Crew

Crew - Skill, Vigilance,

and Decision Making Fuel Quantity - Did not have enough fuel on board aircraft Fuel Exhaustion Miss-installed Parts - Neglected inspections or repairs Maintenance Aircraft Type - Equipage - Mechanical - Condition of Aircraft - Catastrophic failure of parts - No apparent cause Mechanical Aircraft Related Failures Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

Traffic congestion Traffic Vertical Extent of Surrounding Terrain - Route of Flight - Charted Obstacles Terrain Obstacle or Terrain near Runway Departure or Arrival ends or Terrain Unsuitable for Forced Landing Approach Departure Hazard Surface Condition - Off Airport Locations - Runway Length Surface Condition External Conditions Obstacles,

Terrain, Traffic Dissemination of WX or NOTAM Information - Someone aware of info, failed to disseminate - No PIREP written - Construction No NOTAM Dissemination Information Available WX and NOTAM Information Local Weather Trend Information - Information did not exist - No Nearby WX station - No NOTAM Available Information Pressure Altitude during Takeoff/Landing - Due to high temperature or high elevation Pressure Altitude Ceiling/Cloud Base/Tops - Precipitation - Visibility - Obscuration - Flat/Diffused Light - Contrast Terrain/Sky - Time of Day Visibility Temperature - Dew Point - Icing Conditions Icing Turbulence - Cross/Gusty/Tail Wind Wind

Weather and Information

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
27Table 2-8. Capstone risk frequencies

Part 135 Part 91 Risk Takeoff En Route Landing Takeoff En Route Landing Wind 49 10 59 142 31 177 Icing 4 1 V isibility 15 69 34 11 64 48 Pressure Altitude 0 0 0 Available Airport Info 0 2 0 Dissemination 00 4 1 0 2 Surface Condition 59 48 139 216 App Dep Hazard 25 23 115 83 Terrain 1 57 10 3 71 16 Traffic 58 3 7 1 3 2 Mechanical 17 40 45 51 53 83 Maintenance 7 18 17 22 16 28 Fuel Exhaustion 0 1 5 2 20 20 Crew Experience 3 10 10 34 17 93 Skills 55 13 72 186 44 419 Flight Deck Procedures 15 8 32 48 26 55 En Route Tactical Decision Making 63 67 Terminal Tactical Decision Making 38 49 117 137 Intentional Disregard 32 71 6 5 1 0 Ground Procedures 21 2 3 17 0 6 Preflight 80 17 13 195 27 32 Access 02 0 1 3 2 Pressure 47 6 3 4 4 0 4

Table 2-9. Capstone risk mitigation descriptions

Terrain and Obstacles Presented Relative to Ownship and Terrain/Obstacle Alerting Terrain GPS Navigation and Moving Map, More Efficient Direct Routing, Preloading Standard Routes, Grid Based Search Patterns for Rescue and Wildlife Counts Moving Map

Facilitate Transition to Part 121 Operations Transition to 121 More Weather Stations Reporting Data More Weather Stations Improved Overall Safety Culture Safety Culture
System Wide Improvement Operators Purchasing More Capable IFR Aircraft (GBT Dependent) More Capable Aircraft Enhanced Air Traffic Services: Increased Flight Following, IFR Operations, Monitoring, Availability of RNP RNAV Routes (GBT Dependent) ATC Monitoring Increased Availability of IFR Procedures (GBT Dependent) IFR Procedures

Induced Changes to Operations Data Collection to Support Safety Analyses and Da ta to Improve Accident Analysis Investigations (GBT Dependent) Data Analysis Enhanced Company Operational Control, Increased In-Flight Monitoring, Directing Search and Rescue (GBT Dependent) Company Monitoring Information Provided to

Support Personnel Fuel Totalizer Reduces Fuel Exhaustion, Glide Distance Display Reduces Severity of Forced Landings Additional Features Reduced Navigation Workload Allows Pilots to Allocate Resources to Other Tasks, Increases Pilot Confidence, and Reduces Anxiety (Duress Leads to Mistakes) Workload Reduction Pilot-to-Pilot Condition Reports and Inferring Conditions by Observing Aircraft Behaviors, Monitoring and Notifying Other Pilots of Potential Safety Concerns Pilot-to-Pilot PIREP Textual Weather (including published NOTAMs and PIREPS) and Graphic Weather Indication of Current Experienced Wind Conditions (GBT Dependent) and Weather Traffic Presented Relative to Ownship and Traffic Alerting Traffic

Direct Pilot

Benefits Terrain and Obstacles Presented Relative to Ownship and Terrain/Obstacle Alerting Terrain GPS Navigation and Moving Map, More Efficient Direct Routing, Preloading Standard Routes, Grid Based Search Patterns for Rescue and Wildlife Counts Moving Map

Facilitate Transition to Part 121 Operations Transition to 121 More Weather Stations Reporting Data More Weather Stations Improved Overall Safety Culture Safety Culture
System Wide Improvement Operators Purchasing More Capable IFR Aircraft (GBT Dependent) More Capable Aircraft Enhanced Air Traffic Services: Increased Flight Following, IFR Operations, Monitoring, Availability of RNP RNAV Routes (GBT Dependent) ATC Monitoring Increased Availability of IFR Procedures (GBT Dependent) IFR Procedures

Induced Changes to Operations Data Collection to Support Safety Analyses and Da ta to Improve Accident Analysis Investigations (GBT Dependent) Data Analysis Enhanced Company Operational Control, Increased In-Flight Monitoring, Directing Search and Rescue (GBT Dependent) Company Monitoring Information Provided to

Support Personnel Fuel Totalizer Reduces Fuel Exhaustion, Glide Distance Display Reduces Severity of Forced Landings Additional Features Reduced Navigation Workload Allows Pilots to Allocate Resources to Other Tasks, Increases Pilot Confidence, and Reduces Anxiety (Duress Leads to Mistakes) Workload Reduction Pilot-to-Pilot Condition Reports and Inferring Conditions by Observing Aircraft Behaviors, Monitoring and Notifying Other Pilots of Potential Safety Concerns Pilot-to-Pilot PIREP Textual Weather (including published NOTAMs and PIREPS) and Graphic Weather Indication of Current Experienced Wind Conditions (GBT Dependent) and Weather Traffic Traffic Presented Relative to Ownship and Traffic Alerting

Direct Pilot

Benefits

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
28A focus group (held in the spring of 2006) c onsisting of 20 Alaskan pilots estimated the overall Capstone mitigation for each risk by Phase of Flight, GBT coverage, and user type (Part 91 or Part 135). Table 2-10 displays the mitigations by phase of flight and user type inside GBT coverage. Table 2-11 gives an example of the mitigations inside and outside of coverage area for Part 91 operato rs during the en route phase of flight. The mitigations inside and outside of GBT cove rage allowed us to differentiate between GBT-related benefits and avionics-related benefits.

Table 2-10. Capstone risk mitigations by phase of flight and user type in GBT
coverage

Part 135 Part 91 Risk Takeoff En Route Landing Takeoff En Route Landing Wind 9.5% 15.9% 30.0% 9.3% 19.7% 32.0% Icing 29.1% 27.7% Visibility 29.5% 59.4% 51.8% 27.7% 56.8% 50.5% Pressure Altitude 4.6% 12.5% 4.1% 12.3% Available Airport Info 19.1% 32.3% 19.5% 31.4% Dissemination 11.4% 35.5% 30.0% 10.9% 36.4% 26.8% Surface Condition 0.5% 8.2% 0.5% 9.1% App Dep Hazard 10.9% 18.2% 10.9% 18.2% Terrain 84.0% 84.0% 84.0% 81.7% 81.7% 81.7% Traffic 58.6% 75.7% 70.5% 55.9% 71.8% 66.4% Mechanical 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Maintenance 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% Fuel Exhaustion 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Crew Experience 4.5% 39.1% 18.6% 4.1% 35.0% 15.5% Skills 3.2% 13.2% 1.8% 1.8% 11.4% 1.4% Flight Deck Procedures 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% En Route Tactical Decision Making 68.6% 65.5% Terminal Tactical Decision Making 40.5% 54.5% 38.6% 51.8% Intentional Disregard 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Ground Procedures 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Preflight 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% Access 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Pressure 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1%

Table 2-11. Capstone risk mitigations in side and outside GBT coverage for Part 91 en route flights

Part 91 En Route Miti g ations Risk in GBT area outside GBT area GBT-Related Non-GBT Related Wind 20% 10% FIS-B PIREPS/Terrain Map Icing 28% 8% FIS-B PIREPS/Terrain Map V isibility 57% 45% FIS-B PIREPS/Terrain Map Dissemination 36% 13% FIS-B/TIS-B Flight Monitoring PIREPS/Terrain Map/Safety Culture Terrain 82% 82% N/A Moving Map/Terrain Map Traffic 72% 70% TIS-B/Surveillance ADS-B to ADS-B Mechanical 2% 2% N/A Safety Culture Maintenance 2% 2% N/A Safety Culture Fuel Exhaustion 10% 10% N/A Fuel Exhaustion Warning/Moving Map Crew Experience 35% 28% FIS-B/Flight Monitoring/Surveillance Reduced Workload/Safety Culture Skills 11% 11% N/A Reduced Workload/Safety Culture Flt. Deck Procedures 17% 17% N/A Safety Culture En Route Tactical Decision M 65% 50% FIS-B/Flight Monitoring/Surveillance PIREPS/ADS-B to ADS-B Intentional Disregard 5% 1% Flight Monitoring/Surveillance Safety Culture Preflight 5% 2% FIS-B Safety Culture Access 20% 11% FIS-B PIREPS/Safety Culture Pressure 9% 8% Flight Monitoring/Surveillance Safety Culture Coverage Mitigation Mechanisms

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
29Lastly, the risks and mitigations were comb ined for each accident to estimate a total accident risk reduction.

The model was validated by a careful compar ison of risk model results and Part 135 accident trends in Southwest Alaska (Phase I) compared to the rest of the state.

The average accident risk reductions were co mpiled for each region and user type and applied to the potential future accident pool. The difference between mitigations inside and outside of GBT coverage was used to deve lop a factor to allocate potential benefits as GBT-related or avionics-related. The potential avionics-related benefits were multiplied by the avionics equipage curve onl y, while the potential GBT-related benefits depended on the GBT implementation schedule, the total GBT coverage percentage per region, and the avionics equipage.

The total GBT coverage percentage was determ ined using a radar coverage model of the state that took elevat ion into account. The percentage consists of the number of operations in each region that will be in GBT coverage divided by the total number of operations in the region. For the current im plementation scheme the coverage averaged across the regions and user types is between 80 and 90 percent.

Three additional factors were also considered when calcula ting the final aviation safety benefit. The first involves CFIT accidents. An estimated 38 percent of Part 91 and Part 135 flights already receive some terrain aw areness through GPS equipage. Much like subsection 2.5.4, we assumed that the avionics-r elated Capstone benefits would not apply to these aircraft and modified the equipa ge curve accordingly. This calculation also involved isolating the CFIT accidents from th e total pool of accident s. CFIT accidents were separated in the same way as described in subsection 2.5.4.

The second factor involves out-of-state aircraft . The Alaska equipage rate is separate from the assumed equipage rate in the rest of the NAS. An MOA with a coalition of Alaska aviation companies and associations ha s agreed to fund early avionics equipage for all Alaska users; however, this enhan ced equipage would not apply to out-of-state aircraft. Historically, out-of -state aircraft accounted for 3.8 percent of the accidents, so this same percentage was subtract ed from the final benefit.

The last factor considered was sharing of benefits with another FAA program, Alaska Weather Cameras. The historical accident s that may have been affected by weather cameras were determined. The weather camer a related accidents were a subset of the Capstone accidents. The focus group exercise held in 2006 also examined the mitigation from weather cameras, and the combined mitigations of Capstone and weather cameras. The total mitigation for weather camera accidents was then shared between Capstone and the weather camera program. The Capstone av iation safety benefit model consequently decreased the total benef it to account for sharing w ith weather cameras.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
30As mentioned before, the current business ca se incorporates all three phases of the Capstone program. Table 2-12 presents the fewer aviation accidents in Alaska benefits in base year 2007 and risk adjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-12. Fewer aviation acci dents in Alaska benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska $760.2 M $300.1 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
312 .6 Surface Benefits

The Surface benefits (see Figure 2-2) ar e derived from the following outcomes:

• Increased safety on surface by ATC • More efficient ATC management of surface movement • Increased safety on the surface by pilots

Figure 2-2 lists additional outcomes that were not quantified in th is study; however, in future investment decisions benefits from these additional outcomes may be examined.

2 .6.1 Increased safety on the surface by ATC

To support the infrastructure requirements of ADS-B, the SBS program is upgrading ASDE-3 to ASDE-X at the 9 CONUS airports where this was not previously funded by Terminal Services. These airports are:

Andrews Air Force Base (ADW) Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (CLE) Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) Kansas City International Airport (MCI) Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY) Portland International Airport (PDX) Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) San Francisco Internat ional Airport (SFO).

Reducing the risk of runway collisions is a top priority of both the NTSB and the FAA. As traffic density increases at our nation’s ai rports, the potential for accidents on or near the runway surface also increases.

The ASDE-X Investment Analysis Report [3] documents the methodology developed to estimate the total costs associated with futu re runway collisions. Additional details can be found in the Air Traffic Cont rol Quarterly journal article Fatal US Runway Collisions Over the Next Two Decades [6]. A key distinction in the analysis is that estimates about the likelihood of future accidents at towered US airports are based solely on recent data from such airports. However, estimates of the consequences of future US runway accidents are based on worldwide data. Theref ore, in making US forecasts, an overseas event like the Tenerife collision, which killed almost 600 people, should be used for some but not all purposes.

The ASDE-X Investment Analysis team iden tified 5 runway collisions at US towered airports between 1989 and 1998. This histori cal number of events was combined with the square of operations for each towered airpor t as well as an airport visibility risk

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
32multiplier to develop a forecast of future collisions. The expected accident cost per airport was based on the average number of pe ople per operation at th at location as well as assumptions as to the percentage of fatalitie s, injuries and aircraft damages. A fatality rate of 32.5% was assumed based on a su rvey of worldwide runway collisions.

The ASDE-X Investment Analysis assumes approximately 73 percen t effectiveness for surface surveillance with conflict alerting capabili ty in avoiding future runway collisions. The SBS business case relies on the same assu mptions and models used for ASDE-X to determine benefits. For more details on the model and assumptions see [3].

Table 2-13 presents the increased safety on the surface by ATC benefits in base year 2007 and risk-adjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-13. Increased safety on the surface by ATC benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Increased safety on the surface by ATC $11.6 M $3.2 M

2.6 .2 More efficient ATC manageme nt of surface movement

Upgrading the 9 remaining ASDE-3 airports to ASDE-X also increases some surface efficiency benefits. The ASDE-X rebaselin e report [3] describes efficiency benefits grouped into the following four general categories:

1) Improved Identification of Aircraft Within a Queue 2) Improved Ability to Perf orm Conformance Monitoring 3) Improved Surface Surveillan ce During Heavy Precipitation 4) Improved ATC Confidence in Surface Surveillance Data Descriptions of these categories follow. For more information on the individual scenarios within each category see [3].

Improved Identification of Aircraft within a Queue In today’s environment, controll ers rely on paper flight strips to determine the order of aircraft within a queu e. At times, these logs can beco me out of order either through the rearrangement of the paper re cords or, more frequently, th rough the dynamics of traffic movements. When air traffic controllers issue instructions to aircraft that are erroneously thought to be at the front of the queue, confus ion arises and additiona l time is needed to communicate with aircraft to so rt out the correct order of th e traffic. This communication time can be generally brief but, nonetheless, disrupts the flow of traffic on the airport surface.

Through the incorporation of multilateration, ASDE-X pr ovides data tags for all transponder equipped targets. As a result, controllers will now be able to view the ASDE-X display to determine the correct orde r of aircraft within a queue. Although

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
33flight strips will continue to be maintain ed, controllers can now glance at the ASDE-X display to ensure accuracy or to ra pidly resolve confusion when it arises. The individual benefit scenarios for this improvement category are based on the various locations where queues can form on the airp ort surface and the associated air traffic clearance instructions as follows:

• Taxi Into Position and Hold • Taxi Across a Runway • Hand-Offs to the Taxi Movement Area • Departure Clearances During Severe W eather Avoidance Procedures (SWAPs).

Improved Ability to Perfor m Conformance Monitoring To ensure both safety and efficiency, contro llers are responsible for monitoring whether aircraft follow their prescribed taxi routes. Additionally, once aircraft become airborne, controllers must validate that the proper beacon identification code is associated with the radar target for each aircraft. When aircraft deviate from their taxi routes or provide incorrect or missing identification information, controllers may slow down traffic as they address the situation.

ASDE-X data tags enhance situational awarenes s and, therefore, the ability of controllers to perform conformance monitoring. By beco ming aware of issues sooner, controllers are better equipped to respond in an efficient manner. The individual benefit scenarios for improving conformance monitoring are: • Taxi Routes • Beacon Codes.

Improved Surface Surveillance During Heavy Precipitation Heavy precipitation can cause the ASDE-3 to be unusab le during these periods. The radar reflectivity generated by the storm results in a “whi te-out” or “wash-out” of the targets. Therefore, controllers are unable to distinguish the aircraft on the ASDE-3 display and cannot use the system to effectively monitor traffic. During poor visibility conditions, either nightti me or weather relate d, controllers rely on the ASDE-3 information to monitor aircraft movements and to determine when to issue the appropriate clearances. These clearances include issuing taxi into position and hold instructions, take-off clearances, and cleara nce to taxi across an active runway. Without the ASDE-3, controllers must wait fo r pilot reports indicat ing their location and when they are clear of th e runway, which has a major impact on the efficiency of operations. Controllers are una ble to issue taxi into position and hold clearances to departures operating on runway s servicing both arrivals a nd departures. Therefore, increased miles-in-trail is required between arrivals in order to have the necessary time for departures to access the runway. The increased aircraft spacing will reduce the capacity by up to 50 percent for runways s upporting both arrivals and departures. Additionally, controllers must wait an addi tional 25 to 30 seconds prior to issuing a departure clearance when controlling traffic on intersecting runway s. Finally, it is estimated that approximately an additional 10 se conds may be needed prior to clearing an

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
34aircraft to taxi across an activ e runway. All of these delays combine to significantly slow down air traffic at a given airport.

Improved ATC Confidence in Surface Surveillance Data The ability of ASDE-X to pr ocess inputs from multiple sens ors, such as both radar and multilateration ground stations, improves the over all quality of the surface surveillance information. ASDE-X performance will include better track continuity, fewer false targets, and an increased probability of de tection as compared to the ASDE-3. These improvements in conjunction with target da ta tags will increase common situational awareness leading to improvements in surface traffic management.

The SBS business case relies on the same assu mptions and models used in the ASDE-X business case. For more details on the model and assumptions see [3].

Table 2-14 presents the more efficient ATC ma nagement of surface movement benefits in base year 2007 and risk-adjus ted present value dollars.

Table 2-14. More efficient ATC manageme nt of surface movement benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient ATC management of surface movement $92.1 M $26.9 M

2.6.3 Increased safety on the surface by pilots

Besides upgrading ASDE-3 to ASDE-X, the SB S program has a tool by which they hope to improve system safety: CDTI. The use of CDTI on the surface is reflected in two applications: Airport Surface Situational Awareness and Final Approach Runway Occupancy Awareness (FAROA).

Using a CDTI on the surface is much like usi ng it in the air (see Section 2.5.1). The CDTI will allow pilots to see other equipped aircraft on the surface and in the immediate terminal area (on approach). This extra in formation should aid the pilot in the see-andavoid procedure.

The surface accident reduction benefits were based on the forecasted future accident costs by towered airport, which were estimated by applying the methodology developed as part of the ASDE-X Investment Analysis [3]. In addition, dependent equipage rates were applied to reflect the involvement of two aircra ft in the accidents as discussed in Section 2.4.2. Benefit estimates were developed separa tely for each of the top 200 airports. Effectiveness of ADS-B capabilities differe d at ASDE and non- ASDE airports.

Early benefits accrue only for CDTI-equipped UPS aircraft at SDF and PHL. Benefits from all CDTI-equipped flight s at the top 200 airports acc rue starting in 2014. Table 2-

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
3515 summarizes the surface accident reduction benefits in base year 2007 and riskadjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-15. Increased safety on the surface by pilots benefits Segment Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Increased safety on the surface by pilots $299.5 M $70.5 M

In a previous subsection (2.6.1), we described the safety bene fits of ASDE-X. SBS hopes to provide additional safety benefits at bot h ASDE-X and non-ASDE-X sites. Therefore, the additional functionality prov ided by ADS-B capabilities mu st be viewed in terms of its incremental improvement at ASDE-X s ites. Additionally, the Runway Safety Program Office is actively pursuing initiatives in the areas of training and education, procedures, and airport improvements, which wi ll also reduce the risk of future runway collisions. It was assumed that the cumulativ e effect of these activities would be a 95 percent reduction in runway collision accidents at the ASDE-X airports

Given that a 73 percent reduction has previo usly been assigned to systems providing surface surveillance and conflict alert capabi lity, the incremental benefits are to be allocated amongst the various re maining programs. To determ ine the proper allocation of runway collision benefits a two-day workshop was held April 12-13, 2006. Three to four subject matter experts rated the effectiveness of ADS-B applications on a sample of severe runway incursions and runway accidents using a score of 0 to 5, with 5 being the highest value. The group considered the eff ectiveness of ADS-B applications on runway collisions at airports without ASDE-X, a nd the incremental effectiveness on runway collisions at airports with ASDE-X. C oncurrently, the group examined the runway collision prevention effectiveness of another program (Runway Status Lights) at airports with ASDE-X. Additionally, th e experts rated the effectiveness of ADS-B on preventing off-runway accidents that occur during taxi or in the ramp area.

The mean effectiveness for ADS-B runway accident prevention at non-ASDE airports was 3.2. To adjust for risk we used a tria ngular distribution of (2.5, 3.2, 3.9) based on the distribution of responses. Evenly-spaced percen tage values were applied to the scores resulting in a mean effec tiveness of 55 percent at non- ASDE airports. The mean effectiveness for ADS-B runway accident prevention at ASDE-X airports was approximately 5 percent. For ADS-B off-runway accident prevention we used a triangular distribution (1.9, 2.3, 2.6), which translates into a mean effectiveness of 32.5 percent.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
362.7 Te rminal and En Route Benefits

The Terminal and En Route benefits (see Fi gure 2-3) are derived from the following
outcomes:

• Continuation of visual appro aches in marginal conditions • More efficient spacing dur ing visual approaches • Increased ability to allow Continuous Descent Approaches • More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix • More efficient en route conflict resolution

Figure 2-3 lists additional outcomes that were not quantified in th is study; however, in future investment decisions benefits from these additional outcomes may be examined.

2.7.1 Continuing visual approaches in marginal conditions

A visual approach clearance is an air traffic control authorization for an aircraft on an instrument flight rule flight plan to proceed visually to the airport. Prior to issuing a visual approach clearance, the controller mu st ascertain that the pilot has the airport and/or pertinent traffic in sight, and will issue advisories to help the pilot find the airport or traffic. When the pilot confirms that the re quired entity (airport/runway or traffic) is in sight, the controller can issue the visual approach clearance.

Through the use of a CDTI in an applicati on called CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS), the pilot should be able to correlate th e target aircraft and trajectory information to the actual traffic as seen out-the-window, so that the controller may clear the aircraft for a visual approach. The number of aircra ft for which call signs can be provided is expanded through TIS-B.

Most airports have established weather mini ma below which visual approaches cannot be conducted - primarily due to the difficulty for th e pilot to visually acquire the runway or traffic in such weather. With CDTI and ADS-B, pilots will be able to more reliably acquire relevant traffic in less-than-optimum meteorological conditions. As a result, this would increase the range of weather conditions in which visual approaches can be used. The SBS program refers to the times when CD TI could increase visual approaches in marginal visual meteorological conditions (MVMC) as “windows of opportunity.”

The yearly benefits pool was estimated by an equilibrium queuing model developed by ATO-F Operations Research. The purpose of the model was to monetize the benefit of increasing the arrival capacity during MVMC to the same rate as during VMC. The model considered projected traffic counts, future capac ities, frequency of MVMC conditions, and aircraft dir ect operating costs and passenger value of time. The continuation of visual approaches in margin al conditions benefits were estimated by multiplying the yearly delay savings from the queuing model, order-dependent mixed equipage rates, and a CAVS effectiveness estim ate. Estimates were developed separately

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
37for the 100 busiest airports. The benefits were assumed to begin NAS-wide in 2014 (and 2009 for UPS airports) and only apply to air carrier and commuter aircraft.

Early benefits accrue only for CDTI-equipped UPS aircraft at SDF and PHL. Benefits from all commercial air carrier and commu ter CDTI-equipped flights at the top 100 airports accrue starting in 2014. Table 2-16 summarizes the benefits in base year 2007 and risk-adjusted pr esent value dollars.

Table 2-16. Continuation of Visual Appr oaches in marginal conditions benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Continuation of Vi sual Approaches in marginal conditions $803.7 M $196.4 M

The equilibrium queuing model developed by ATO-F Operations Research allows the user to enter projected arrival and depa rture capacities for diffe rent meteorological conditions (i.e. VMC, MVMC, IMC) at each of the top 100 airports. The model was updated to accept inputs from the recent Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) report. A second input is the projecte d change in inter-arrival/dep arture variance for the new procedure or technology. A third input is th e aircraft equipage pe rcentage that can be entered if the projected capac ities or variances depend on equipage. The output is a monetization of the differen ce in delay between the adde d capacity scenario and a baseline scenario. The baseline arrival and departure capacities consider future runway construction through 2020. The queuing dela y measurement is applied to historical arrival and departure delays at each airport to estimate a result.

The model uses average hourly arrival and de parture demand derive d from ETMS yearly statistics. The growth in hourly demand is based on the TAF. Because the model is an equilibrium model it cannot create an estimate if the demand is greater than or equal to the baseline capacity. To handle this issue, the hourly demand is constrained to 95 percent of the capacity. The truncation of demand is performed for each weather condition because there are different cap acities for each weather condition. The historical frequency of meteorological condit ion per hour comes from a 30-year average of National Weather Service data at each airport. We be lieve the truncation of demand in the model produces a very conservative estimate for the benefits pool. A dynamic queuing model approach may be attempted for later segment investment decisions.

The ATO-F Operations Research queuing m odel was modified somewhat to account for equipage. The original model uses the equi page to change the inter-arrival/departure variances and to scale the final answer. We did not change the affect on variance, but removed the influence on the final scaling be cause the equipage in the queuing model did not consider order-dependence. An order- dependent mixed equipa ge curve was used outside the queuing model to scal e the result for equipage.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
38The result from the queuing model is a mone tization of delay savings after increasing capacity at an airport. For the queuing mode l, we assumed that the capacity for MVMC would be the same as for VMC for properly e quipped dependent commer cial aircraft.

ATO-F considered the assumption of atta ining the full VMC capacity to be too aggressive a change because it did not accoun t for pilots that might not accept a visual approach during MVMC even after CDTI information. To account for this concern an additional CAVS effectiveness factor was de veloped using a triangu lar distribution of (0.7, 0.8, 0.9).

Approaches at some large airports are also affected by en route metering automation. In section 2.7.4, we estimate the benefit of in creasing the accuracy of metering automation at 18 large airports. Since en route meteri ng would occur prior to the CAVS procedure during a flight, we considered the CAVS bene fit incremental to the en route metering benefit for the 18 airports in the estimate. However, the airlines can take advantage of the CAVS benefit relatively early (as s oon as equipped and after procedure approval assumed 2014) compared to the metering benefit which may take some automation adjustments (assumed 2020).

2.7 .2 More efficient spacing during visual approaches

The previous section described the benefit of extending the use of visual approaches (VAs) to lower weather conditions. In th is section, we focus on improving flight efficiency during visual approaches.

One of the primary goals of th e SBS program is to increase the precision and consistency of inter-arrival spacing of aircraft on visual and instrument approaches. The goal is not to define the optimum spacing, nor to explor e the boundaries of minimum spacing. Rather, the objective is simply to exploit the potentia l of ADS-B and CDTI to allow the pilot to more precisely manage spacing on the aircraft ahead during approach.

Managing the spacing betw een sequential aircraft on arrival paths in the terminal area can be challenging for both pilots and controllers, and the co nsequences for operating on either side of "optimum" spacing are significant. If the following aircraft is too close to the one ahead, a go-around may be necessary. On the other hand, runway capacity is wasted when the gap between sequential aircra ft is excessively large. Consistently achieving inter-arrival spacing th at is closer to the optimum is an important step in reducing terminal area congestion.

Consistently working toward the optimum inter-arrival spacing is problematic for both pilots and controllers. For the pilot on a visual approach cl earance behind another aircraft, visually estimating the distance and closure rate on the preceding aircraft is difficult and imprecise, especially in demanding visual fields such as looking into the sun, or at night.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
39A pilot can use the CDTI to achieve and maintain the desired in-trail spacing behind another specific aircraft during a visual approa ch. It is assumed that the proper context for a visual approach has been established. See Section 2.7.1 with regard to expanding the number of conditions during which a VA is possible. With reference to speed and other data on the CDTI, the pilot should be better able to make real-time speed adjustments in response to lead aircraft acti ons and projections. In the estimate below, we only consider improving spacing during vi sual approach. An expansion of this concept will include instrument meteorologi cal conditions (IMC) in the context of an instrument approach procedure, where the "o ut-the-window" visual component is gone. Using the CDTI for all approaches should reduc e the uncertainties asso ciated with current methods, thereby reducing the ex cess spacing buffers that must be maintained in current operations. As a result, terminal area ine fficiencies would be reduced through more efficient approaches.

The more efficient spacing during approaches benefit was estimated by multiplying the average flight time savings per flight, airc raft direct operating co sts and passenger value of time, projected traffic count s, the percentage of time visu al approaches exist in the current system, a ratio of de mand to capacity where benefit is applicable, and CDTI order-dependent mixed equipage rates. Estim ates were developed separately for the 100 busiest airports. The benef its were assumed to begin NAS -wide in 2014 and only apply to air carrier and commuter aircraft.

Because UPS has been using CDTI for more e fficient approaches in visual conditions since 2004, much of the early benefit was captu red in the baseline for the SBS program and is not included in the estimate. Benefits from all CDTI-equipped flights at the top 100 airports accrue starting in 2014 Table 2- 17 summarizes the benefits in both base year 2007 and risk-adjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-17. More efficient spacing during visual approaches benefit

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient spacing during visual approaches $1,247.8 M $300.4 M

There are many NASA and Eurocontrol studies th at examine increases in efficiency due to self-spacing using cockpit tools [8-13] . A recent large scale human-in-the-loop simulation claimed that inter-arrival spacing error decreased by half when comparing pilot cockpit tools to controller automation tools [8]. These results imply a large capacityincrease for airports where the majority of flights are self-spaced with the aid of cockpitbased tools such as CDTI. To be consevat ive, we only use observational data from an operational test of ADS-B and CDTI at Louisv ille International Airport (SDF) as a basis for the benefit estimate.

United Parcel Service (UPS) equipped 107 of their aircraft with an ADS-B enabled Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDT I) by the spring of 2004. UPS pilots used

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
40the CDTI for increased situational awareness in the terminal area. Two separate analyses (outlined below) examined the benefits for CDTI-equipped aircraft in the terminal area.

It should be noted that the operational meas urements at SDF may not represent the full potential of CDTI for spacing during visual approaches. The benefit requires that both the leading and following aircraft are equi pped with ADS-B. During the post-analysis period (2004) only 66 percent of the aircraft were equipped resulting in a 44 percent likelihood that a following aircraft had a view of the leading aircraft on a CDTI.

2.7.2 .1 Flight Distance Analysis

The first analysis examined flight distance from a 40 nautical mile (nmi) ring to the runway for UPS arrivals, comparing one ye ar of post-implementation data to two separate baseline periods, each a year l ong. [14] Baseline data came from an FAA archive of Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) track points and post-implementation data came from a data gathering exercise performed by the FAA ATO Technology Development Office. The analysis showed si gnificant decreases in flight distances (from 3.3 to 6 nmi less) during preferred airpor t configuration opera tions at SDF after implementation of ADS-B/CDTI. These change s were more dramatic when times with the highest percentage of equipped aircra ft were examined. The results showed significant early benefits of using ADS-B/CDTI during terminal operations.

The average decrease in terminal area fli ght distance for UPS ai rcraft was 3.3 nmi; however, non-UPS aircraft achieved a decreas e of 1.7 nmi during the same time period. The overall decrease of 1.7 nmi may be due to the fact that mixed e quipage is positively affecting non-equipped aircraft, or simply th at other factors led to this decrease. Subtracting the overall decrea se result from the UPS result leaves a decrease of 1.6 nmi during the preferred flow. Changing the distan ce into a time using the typical terminal area approach speed (250 knots), we found an estimated decrease in flight time of 23 seconds (plus or minus 4.0 seconds) per arriva l during the preferred airport configuration (North Flow).

2.7.2 .2 Flight Time Analysis

The second analysis was performed to confir m the results seen in the initial distance analysis after some concerns were expres sed about the data source. The analysis examined flight time from a 40 nautical mile (nmi) ring to the runway for UPS arrivals at SDF for the time period with the highest levels of equipage. This analysis compared one year of post-implementation data (calendar year 2004) to one year of baseline data (calendar year 2003). Crossing times at the 40 nmi ring were gath ered from Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) archived track data and landing times from the ASPM individual flight Out-Off-On-In (OOOI) data. The analysis showed a significant decrease in flight time of 22 seconds (plu s or minus 4.5 seconds) per aircraft during preferred airport configuration at SDF after implementation of ADS-B/CDTI. This result

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
41was almost identical to the result found us ing the distance measurement based on the previous data sources. We used the flight time results in the benefit estimate.

2.7.2.3 Applying analysis resu lts to form a benefit

The average flight time savings seen at SDF were applied to all VA condition arrivals at the top 100 airports. The results at SDF only occurred during the preferred airport configuration. To apply this fact at other airports, we assu med that the preferred flow at an airport occurrs at least half of the time. (At SDF, UPS arrivals land in the preferred flow over 60 percent of the time.) The result is an average delay savings of 11 seconds (plus or minus 4.5 seconds) for each equipped arrival during visual approaches.

One might also expect that this benefit will only occur at larger ai rports that currently have some inefficiencies in the terminal area due to traffic congestion. To account for this fact, we only quantify benefits for the 100 busiest airports (many of which are larger and more congested than SDF). We also ap plied a ratio that repr esents the percent of flights at each airport that arrive during times when the ratio of arrival demand to arrival capacity is greater than 50 percent. The ratio was found using the ATO-F equilibrium queuing model described in previous subsectio ns (2.7.1). This factor ensures that there will be sufficient traffic to warrant examining the CDTI during arrival. The ratio

While more efficient spacing assisted by a CDTI can increase airport throughput, the individual pilot will noti ce little benefit. For this reason, we assume that only air carrier and commuter airlines traffic will have suffi cient economic incentive to increase airport capacity. Allowing significant changes in spacing will also require full integration of ADS-B onto air traffic control automation and certification of procedures. Because of these factors, we assume that NAS-wide bene fits do not start accruing until 2014.

Note that the current benefit estimate only assumes more efficient spacing during visual approach conditions. Further CDTI applicatio ns should be able to extend VAs to lower weather conditions, allowing the ability to pr ovide more efficient spacing during those conditions.

2.7.3 In creased ability to allow Cont inuous Descent Approaches

The previous two sections focused on the SBS program benefits in the immediate terminal area. The following three applicat ions examine the benef its of more accurate spacing in the en route environment.

In the Merging and Spacing (M&S) application [17], precise speed instructions are sent from the ground (either from an airline opera tions center or an FAA facility) to en route aircraft to properly sequence aircraft appro aching the terminal area. These exact speed instructions should allow aircraft to arrive at extended te rminal area merge points at times

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
42that are much more precise than currently feasible. After entering the terminal area, spacing instructions are processed by co ckpit-based CDTI to optimize spacing.

There are many possible benefits of M&S. One potential mechanism involves the shared responsibility of speed and sp acing instructions allowing in creased productivity for the controller and increasing sector capacity. La rge scale NASA [8-10] and Eurocontrol [11- 13] studies support an increased capacity benef it because of cockpit-based spacing paired with controller merging tools.

Another potential benefit focuses particular atte ntion on controller mergi ng tools. As part of the Merging and Spacing appl ication, the SBS program is deve loping a tool that can be used to optimize aircraft spacing to enable a fuel-saving procedure called continuous descent approach (CDA) during increased levels of demand than currently feasible. The prototype tool will be used by UPS in their Airline Operations Center, where UPS will be allowed to adjust aircraft speeds into SDF at night when they constitute most of the demand. This tool will be incorporated into FAA automation to allow FAA controllers to space aircraft from multiple carriers into an ai rport using future surveillance data (ADS-B out). A follow-on tool coul d use an expanded set of data from ADS-B out (aloft winds, pressure, aircraft specific characteristics) to allow CDAs at somewhat higher demands.

CDAs are Area Navigation (RNAV) / Required Navigation Performance (RNP) terminal arrival procedures specifically designed to keep an aircraft at idle or near idle power during the entire arrival until the Final Approach Fix (FAF). These procedures result in savings in time and fuel and reduce noise and emissions. The CDA eliminates step-down altitudes and the associated power increases. It is critical for the success of CDAs that there is little or no vector ing during the procedure to maintain the arrival stream. To accomplish this requires the aircraft to be spaced and sequenced prior to descent.

The fuel savings from CDAs are well-docum ented and have been tested at SDF. Theoretical savings of 400-500 pounds of fu el per approach are claimed; however, current experiments [18] using the procedur e have shown fuel savings between 181 and 364 pounds per approach. A triangular di stribution of (181, 273, 364) pounds was used in the estimate. A FY2006 Bureau of Trans portation Statistics estimate of 29.9 cents per pound for scheduled and non-scheduled ai rcraft was used for fuel cost.

The most important factor preventing many ai rlines from attempting more fuel-saving CDAs is interference from other aircraft in the terminal area. For multiple CDAs to occur over a relatively short time period, the aircraft must be sequenced and spaced accurately to avoid vectoring. Below a cer tain demand, CDAs can (and are) performed using current onboard equipment and proce dures (RNP). As demand increases it becomes progressively more difficult for controllers to allow CDAs because of interference with other traffic in the pa ttern. As demand approaches capacity, the tradeoff between total airport throughput and individual flight prof ile efficiency (CDAs) would most likely prohibit CDAs fo r very high traffic situations.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
43Figure 2-7 displays different regimes of CD A as a function of the ratio between demand and capacity. At low values of the ratio, C DAs are currently feasible. A spacing tool would expand the use of CDAs to higher valu es of the ratio. A follow-on spacing tool needing expanded information (available from ADS-B aircraft) could further expand the regime of CDAs. As the demand to capacity ratio approaches one , CDAs are prohibited because airport throughput would be of greater concern than individual flight efficiency.

Expanded data needed CDAs prohibited Spacing tool needed to perform CDA s

1 0 CDAs currently feasible with RNP only

Demand/Capacity

Figure 2-7. CDA regimes as a function of the ratio between demand and capacity

The regimes of CDA in relation to demand and capacity are not well-defined in the literature and require further st udy. To estimate a benefit, we calculated a regime of applicability using the following assumptions:

• CDAs ca n currently be accommodated at a runway if there is no more than one arrival every 5 minutes (12/hour). At SAN (one runway) the maximum arrival capacity is 30 aircraft/hour. The ratio of demand/capacity is then 0.4. We used this ratio as the boundary between the re gime of currently feasible CDAs and CDAs with spacing tool necessary.

• Many airports start to exhibit significant delays when demand reaches 70 percent of capacity. The SBS spacing tool woul d enable CDAs from demand/capacity 0.4 to 0.7; expanded ADS-B information into the spacing tool might allow CDAs from demand/capacity 0.7 to 0.9.

• Because of the tradeoff between airport throughput and flight efficiency, CDAs would be prohibited when demand/capaci ty greater than or equal to 0.9.

Using the ATO-F equilibrium queuing model de scribed in previous subsections (2.7.1 and 2.7.3) we found the percent of flights that ar rive at each of the top 100 airports during periods when demand is between 40 and 70 perc ent of VMC capacity. As with the other advanced aircraft applications, we assume th at only air carrier and commuter airlines will have sufficient economic incentive to apply CDAs on a day-to-day basis.

A new spacing tool will also require full in tegration of ADS-B ont o air traffic control automation and certification of procedures. B ecause of these factors, we assume that NAS-wide benefits do not start accruing until 2014. A number of factors allow UPS to take advantage of this benefit early (2009): early equipage, the time of night they plan to

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
44use the application, and a speci ally allowed FAA permission to issue speed instructions from the Airline Operations Center (AOC) instead of from an FAA facility.

The increased ability to allow Continuous Desc ent Approach benefits were estimated by multiplying the average fuel savings per CDA arri val to the percent of flights that arrive at each of the top 100 airpor ts during periods when demand is between 40 and 70 percent of VMC capacity. The benefit was only ta ken during VMC (good weather) because reduced weather conditions in the extende d terminal area may hinder CDAs. Estimates were developed separately for the 100 busiest airports. Th e benefits were assumed to begin NAS-wide in 2014 (and 2009 for UPS air ports) and only apply to air carrier and commuter aircraft. Additionally, we further de graded the benefit by attributing much of the savings for CDAs during the spacing tool regime to other necessary elements like RNAV/RNP. To take account of the addi tional necessary elements, the SBS program only claimed one half of the final spacing tool regime CD A benefit. Table 2-18 summarizes the benefits in base year 2007 and risk-adjus ted present value dollars.

Table 2-18. More efficient merging and spacing en route benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient merging and spacing en route benefits $2,876.7 $796.0 M

2 .7.4 More efficient en route mete ring to the arrival fix

The improved accuracy and update rate of ADS-B position and speed information (over current information supplied by radar) will impact the capabilities of controller automation. One aspect of current automation is a metering capability called the Traffic Management Advisor (TMA). TMA is a deci sion support tool for en route controllers that optimizes arrival flows into busy airp orts. The controller display provides exact times for each aircraft to reach the arrival fi x so that runway throughput is optimized. Because predictions of runway throughput and metering times are based on surveillance inputs, the increased accuracy and update rate of ADS-B (o ver radar) should allow better predictions, leading to an increm ental increase in runway throughput.

TMA was developed by NASA as part of the Center TRACON Automation System (CTAS). Many NASA studies have examined th e uncertainty in factors such as initial position, aircraft speed, aircraft weight, and winds, and how th ese factors intr oduce errors into the CTAS calculations of meter fix arrival times. The study, “CTAS Error Sensitivity, Fuel Efficiency, and Throughput Benefits” (NASA 1996), compared the meter fix uncertainty of the current sy stem, TMA (with the addition of weather information from the Integrated Terminal Weather System - ITWS) and a planned upgrade to TMA called the En route Descen t Advisor (EDA). Table 2-19 presents a summary of the meter fix uncertainty inform ation from the NASA paper. A further study comparing EDA and TMA, “EDA July 2004 Simulation Overview,” (NASA 2004) presented similar results.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
45Table 2-19. Meter Fix Uncertainty from NASA study

ADS-B surveillance information should furthe r reduce the uncertainty in initial position and speed allowing more accurate meter fix delivery. The “En route Descent Advisor Performance Analysis Final Report” (NASA, 2004) examin ed the CTAS input factors (e.g. position, speed, wind , weight, etc.) closel y to determine the c ontribution of each to the meter fix uncertainty. They found that speed and initial positi on uncertainty account for approximately 40 percent of the remaining error. Table 2-20 repeats the information given in Table 2-19, but also applies the additional 40 percent reduction that would occur with no initial position and speed variance. Table 2-20 implies that if all position and speed error could be eliminated the remaini ng variance would be 13 seconds. If only half the variance could be eliminated the remaini ng would be 17 seconds. It is assumed in this estimate that the accuracy and update rate of ADS-B in the en route airspace will be at least twice as accurate as current en route radar requirements. The ADS-B signal will also downlink speed information directly in to the automation, as opposed to the current method of estimating speed from multiple radar hits over time.

Table 2-20. Meter Fix Uncertainty with increased accuracy

Table 2-20 also lists the meter fi x uncertainty as a percentage of the uncertainty in current operations. TMA reduces the meter fix uncer tainty by 66 percent (44 percent of the original); the addition of EDA should bring the total uncertainty reduction to 83 percent (17 percent of original). If the speed and position accuracy from surveillance information were twice as certain as current informati on, the final reduction would amount to an 86 percent decrease in meter fix uncertainty (14 percent of original).

To translate the analysis described above in to an economic benefit for the SBS program, we first examined the benefit of different arrival variance changes on airport delay using an equilibrium queuing model. The inputs fo r the model include cu rrent Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) airport capacities, current demand profiles at each airport, and

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
46future projected operations (TAF). The model allows changes in the arrival variance that should reflect the changes in uncertainty desc ribed in Tables 2-19 and 2-20. The benefits of TMA, TMA plus EDA, and TMA plus ED A plus ADS-B increased accuracy were tabulated. The ratio of the incremental ADS -B increased accuracy benefits to the TMA benefits equaled approximately 0.05. This leads us to believe that the increased accuracy of ADS-B information should at least result in a 5 percen t increase in benefits beyond current TMA projections. In reality this estimate is conservative, because it already assumes that the introduction of ADS-B info rmation will be incremental to EDA, a program that is still in the pl anning stages but will most likel y come to fruition before full ADS-B equipage.

The TMA Program Office completed a future benefits analysis in February of 2007 that was submitted and approved within the FAA. The report presented ye arly benefit results for 18 TMA airports through 2020. We leveraged these TMA results to estimate the additional benefit due to ADS-B. We first sc aled the TMA results to reflect the current approved ADOC and PVT values. The ratio desc ribed in the previous paragraph was then applied to the TMA results in 2020 to estimat e the additional benefi ts due to increased surveillance information. To add risk, we ap plied the ratio as a triangular distribution (0.03, 0.05, 0.07). The SBS benefits were assumed to begin by 2020 and continue through the SBS lifecycle. The 2020 benefi t was extrapolated through 2035 using a linear scaling based on the growth in yearly ope rations at each relevant airport from the TAF. Table 2-21 summarizes the benefits in both base year 2007 and risk-adjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-21. More efficient en route me tering to the arrival fix benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix $1,746.6 M $417.0 M

2 .7.5 More efficient en route conflict resolution As mentioned the previous section, the improved accuracy and update rate of ADS-B position and speed information (over current information supplied by radar) will impact the capabilities of controll er automation. Another aspe ct of current and future automation is a conflict detection capability . More accurate surveillance information (position and speed) through ADS-B should a llow the controller to predict potential conflicts better either manually because of a faster update rate and more accurate information on the display, or through conflic t detection automation. Because of the difficulty in judging controller actions using fu ture display capabilitie s, we focus on the effects of increased accuracy on cu rrent conflict dete ction automation.

A current automated conflict detection capa bility resides within the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET). The URET automati on forecasts flight paths up to 20 minutes into the future. One of the URET applications then determines potential separation issues in en route airspace. If a potential separa tion violation is predicted, the system provides

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
47the strategic D-side controller with a conf lict warning. The D-side controller monitors the potential conflict and informs the tactical R-side controller if necessary. The current tool is advisory in nature and is not currently on the tactical controller display. Future FAA plans call for incorporating the conflict detection algorithms onto the tactical display and modifying it to provide appropriate information to the tactical controller. The algorithms in the conflict detection progr am depend on uncertainties in the current surveillance information. The uncertainties result in additional buffers applied when calculating potential conflicts. An increase in position and speed accuracy from ADS-B will reduce the necessary buffer size leading to a reduction in the number of predicted conflicts and the maneuver size necessary to avoid a potential conflict. More specific details concerning the current and future surveillance capabilities and URET algorithms can be found in “ADS-B Benefits enable d from Improved En Route Conflict Probe Performance,” a 2007 report from the SBS Program Office.

Each en route controller operation (acceptance or handoff of an aircraft in a sector) is recorded within the en route centers. The number of operations is directly proportional to the amount of traffic. Based on a physical ar gument, one would expect an increase in the probability of potential conflicts proportional to the square of the traffic. The simulated number of URET severe conflict warnings in 2006 was compared to the square of the number of IFR handles in 2006 to produce a ratio of severe conflict warnings to squared IFR handles for the current (radar) and the future (ADS-B) surveillance environments. The simulation used the URET potential conflic t algorithm for the current system and a modified version for the future. More speci fic details concerning the simulations can be found in the report mentioned previously. The ratios were used to estimate the future conflict warnings with and w ithout ADS-B in each year us ing FAA projections of IFR handles in future years.

The future warning information was used to estimate the reduction in the number of potential conflict warnings and the rema ining number of conflicts after ADS-B incorporation into the conflict probe. The ADS-B benefit estimates the impact of a decrease in potential conflict warnings (less needed maneuvers) and the impact of being able to make somewhat smaller maneuvers for the remaining conflicts.

The benefit from prevented conflict warnings was calculated as a product of the number of prevented warnings, the percent of warni ngs that are acted upon, and the average cost of a prevented vector maneuver.

The benefit of reduced maneuver size for remaining maneuvers was calculated as a product of the number of remaining conflict wa rnings, the percent of warnings that are acted upon, the per cent of maneuvers that are vector maneuvers, the aver age baseline cost of a remaining vector maneuver, and the re duction in maneuver cost because of reduced maneuver distance.

Subject matter experts determined that appr oximately 45 percent of severe URET alerts are acted upon in today’s system. A triangu lar risk distribution of (0.3, 0.45, 0.6) was applied for this variable within the estimate. The experts also considered of the impact of

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
48incorporating conflict detection on the tactic al controller display in the future. They estimated the impact to be an increase in cont roller action by approxi mately 40 percent. In the estimate we used a triangular risk di stribution of (1.33, 1.4, 1.50) for this variable. The two variables described above result in an average of 63 pe rcent of future alerts that are acted upon by the controller.

When maneuvering to prevent a conflict the controller can choose to change altitude, speed, or lateral position depending on which is most appropriate. Potential savings from increasing maneuver efficiency primarily acc rue during lateral maneuvers (i.e. vector maneuvers). The program office study mentioned earlier used flight data to estimate that nearly all the prevented ma neuvers would be vector maneuvers and 65 percent of remaining maneuvers would be vector maneuvers.

An analysis performed for the Controller P ilot Datalink Program (CPDLC) examined the vector (lateral) maneuver distance for a large set of potential conflicts. The average conflict maneuver was found to be 3.51 nm. One would expect the maneuvers prevented by increased accuracy to be smaller than th e average. The average distance of the maneuvers below the 15 th percentile (1.04 nm) was used fo r the mean distance of possible prevented maneuvers, while the average of the maneuvers greater than the 15 th percentile (4.01 nm) was assumed to be the remaining baseline maneuver size. The change in buffer size due to increased a ccuracy is approximately 1/8 th , so it was assumed that maneuvers for the remaining conflicts could be reduced by 1/8 th (0.13 nm).

The average cost associated with the prevented confli ct maneuver (1.04 nm) or the reduction in cost for remaining conflict maneuver (0.13 nm) was estimated using an average flight speed (356 nm/hour), the per centage of user type among IFR flights and the average ADOC and PVT per user type.

The lifecycle benefit also depends on the perc ent of IFR aircraft that are ADS-B out equipped and the date of conflict probe ADS-B information integration. ADS-B information will be integrated into NAS automation by 2014 and the conflict probe is planned to be available to the R-side controller by 2016. The conflict probe increased accuracy benefit was assumed to begin in 2017, two years before maximum equipage and continue through the lifecycle. Table 2-22 summarizes the be nefits in both base year 2007 and risk-adjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-22. More efficient en rout e conflict resolution benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient en route conflict resolution $3,258.1 M $801.8.0 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
492.8 No n-radar Benefits

The Non-radar benefits are derived from the outcomes outlined in Figure 2-4. Because of the variance in implementation at the differe nt non-radar locations, we isolated the outcomes and benefits by location. Below is a list of the outcomes by location from which the benefits are derived.

Gulf of Mexico High Altitude: • More efficient separati on en route (non-radar) • Optimal routing

Gulf of Mexico Low Altitude: • Increased ability to fly Part 135 operations • Fewer encounters with hazardous weather Juneau: • More efficient separati on on approach (non-radar) • Improved search and rescue services

Alaska Capstone: • Increased access to lower altitude routes • Improved search and rescue services • Increased commercial access to remote villages • Increased Medevac acce ss to remote villages

Gulf of Mexico High Altitude

2.8.1 More efficient separation en route (non-radar)

The SBS program will provide ATC with surveillance for non-radar regions in the Gulf of Mexico. Surveillance should allow rada r-like separation (~ 5 miles in trail), as opposed to current non-radar procedural separa tion (~ 50 miles in trail). The introduction of radar-like separation will increase sector capacity. Initial separation by surveillance will be limited to selected alt itudes, but widens to most altitudes above 24,000 feet after heightened ADS-B out equipage. Current non-radar separation in th e Gulf of Mexico constrains the number of flights that can operate in each of the Air Route Tra ffic Control Center (ARTCC) Gulf sectors (ZHU79 and ZHU72). ZHU controllers claim that many flights experience ground or air delay, because of this constrained airspace. Currently, delay only occurs during highly seasonal peak traffic days. We developed a dynamic queuing model to determine future delays from projected demand. The benefit de rives from an increase in sector capacity after surveillance. The more efficient separation en route (non-ra dar) benefits were estimated by multiplying the annual delay savings from the queuing model, ADS-B out independent equipage curves, aircraft direct operating costs and passenger value of time , and the Gulf of Mexico high-altitude surveillanc e service schedule. To acc ount for risk in the model,

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
50estimates were developed separately for thr ee scenarios (low benefit, high benefit, and most likely benefit) based on di fferences in demand profile. We assumed the benefits to begin in 2011 and ramp up to steady-state in 2020 after full equi page. Table 2-23 presents the more efficient en route separa tion (non-radar) benefits in both base year 2007 and risk-adjusted present value dollars.

Table 2-23. More efficient en route se paration (non-radar) benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV)More efficient en route separation (nonradar) $2,064.7 $459.3

The first step in the queuing analysis was es timating the increase in capacity that will arise from radar-like separation. The monito r alert parameter (MAP) value is generally considered the maximum instantaneous load a controller can manage over an extended period. Sector ZHU 79 has a MAP value of 18 and sector ZHU72 has a MAP value of 12. The average time an aircraft spends in the region (both sectors) is 32 minutes. Combining these gives an hourly capacity of 56 aircraft per hour. Representatives from ZHU estimated that the combined MAP valu e would rise to 40 after surveillance. Subsequently, the hourly capacity would be 75 aircraft per hour. The instantaneous capacity with true radar-like separation would be much higher than 40; however, the new capacity assumption takes Mexican border c onstraints and maintaining the current number of sectors into acc ount. Table 2-24 presents instan taneous and hourly capacities assumed in the analysis. Table 2-24. Capacity estimate s for Gulf of Mexico befo re and after Surveillance Configuration Instantaneous Capacity (MAP) Hourly Capacity
Baseline 30 or (18 + 12) 56 Baseline with Surveillance 40 75

Traffic levels in the Gulf are highly variable day-to-day. The peak traffic days can be three times busier than off-peak days. Current ly there are few days that exhibit peak demand; however, as Gulf traffic continues to grow, we expect an increase in the number of peak demand days. Using the 2004 demand 1 as a base, we used FAA APO projections for US to/from La tin America traffic to increas e yearly demand through 2017. After 2017 we assumed yearly growth of 4.0 percent (the minimum growth in the APO numbers from 2006 through 2017 was 4.2 percen t). We consider this estimate conservative because the average annual grow th in the Gulf of Mexico from 1990 to 2004 was 8 percent and the growth from 2003 to 2004 was 14 percent. Usually, for a queuing model analysis, the average daily demand or demand over a representative week is examined. Because of the large demand variability in the Gulf, it

1 2004 Gulf demand from Air Traffic Data Activity System (ATADS) Houston Oceanic operation counts, available on the FAA Office of Policy and Plan s (APO) website: http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
51was decided that using average data would not capture delay properly. Alternatively, we decided to examine delay in daily demand bi ns. To do this, we applied the projected growth rate to each day in 2004 separately. Table 2-25 presents the projected number of days per year that fall in the daily demand bi ns for selected years when the daily demand is unconstrained.

Table 2-25. Unconstrained Gulf of Mex ico flight demand in daily bins

Year 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Less Than 200 45 11 1 0 0 0 0 200 to 249 130 63 10 1 0 0 0 250 to 299 118 136 45 9 1 0 0 300 to 349 44 88 99 33 3 1 0 350 to 399 18 36 97 63 18 1 0 400 to 449 8 18 56 85 39 9 0 450 to 499 2 9 27 75 64 17 0 500 to 549 0 4 16 40 69 35 3 550 to 599 0 0 7 25 62 49 23 600 to 649 0 0 5 18 42 63 25 650 to 699 0 0 2 5 16 60 31 700 to 749 0 0 0 7 24 41 52 750 to 799 0 0 0 3 13 24 49 800 to 849 0 0 0 1 3 14 52 850 to 899 0 0 0 0 5 19 31 900 to 949 0 0 0 0 3 13 27 950 to 999 0 0 0 0 3 5 17 1000 to 1049 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 1050 to 1099 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 1100 to 1149 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1150 to 1199 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 1200 to 1249 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1250 to 1299 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1300 to 1349 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1349+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Daily Demand Bins

To run the queuing model with hourly capaci ties, we need an hourly demand profile. ZHU ARTCC provided the hourly demand profile based on the four peak days in 2004 where over 400 aircraft flew . We applied the demand growth to the hourly demand profile to forecast future hourly demand for days with the traffic levels presented in Table 2-25. The percentage of traffic in each hour is kept constant. Figure 2-8 shows the result of this unconstrained hourly profile. The thickest line in Figure 2-8 shows the current demand seen on peak days in the Gulf, and th e horizontal lines represent the current and future hourly capacities. No tice that many of the demand bin profiles include demands far above both the current a nd proposed capacities.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
520 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 

### Local HourHourly Flights

Figure 2-8. Hourly demand profil e for different demand bins

Because the unconstrained demand is so much la rger than the capacity, the results from a queuing model will become quite large unless some modifications are made to the demand. After consulting with FAA APO and FAA ATO-P Opera tions Research, we decided to modify the demand using three me thods. The methods represent a low, most likely, and high estimate of the benefits.

1. M ost Likely - Constrain daily demand when average queuing delay is 20 min or less for baseline capacity case. Repeat process for surveillance capacity case. Estimate delay savings and take note of newly accommodated flights.

2. Hig h - Constrain daily demand when averag e queuing delay using is 20 min or less for baseline capacity case. Es timate delay savings by applying the surveillance capacity to the ba seline constrained demand.

3. Extreme low - Spread yearly demand evenly over all days and develop a new hourly profile that spreads demand over hours. Figure 2-9 displays the average hourly demand profile for the low case.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
530 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 

### Local HourHourly Flights (Avg. Day)

Figure 2-9. Hourly demand pr ofile for low estimate

2. 8.1.1 Queuing delay results for high and most likely methods Using the unconstrained hourly demand prof iles, we ran a queuing model to estimate delay for the baseline and surveillance cases for the high and most likely methods. The queuing model included an exponential distributi on for the inter-arriva l time of flights into the region and a distribution of serv ice times based on data from an ATO-P Operations Research flight model of the re gion. Table 2-26 presents the average minutes of delay per aircraft for each daily dema nd bin using the unconstrained hourly demand profiles from Figure 2-8.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
54Table 2-26. Average queuing delay results per aircraft for different demand bins

Daily Demand Bins Baseline (minutes) Most Likely Surveillance

(minutes) High Surveillance

(minutes) Less Than 200 0 0 0 200 to 249 0 0 0 250 to 299 0 0 0 300 to 349 0 0 0 350 to 399 0 0 0 400 to 449 0 0 0 450 to 499 0.43 0 0 500 to 549 1.37 0 0 550 to 599 3.92 0.07 0.07 600 to 649 8.87 0.27 0.27 650 to 699 20.00 0.76 0.76 700 to 749 capped 1.91 capped 750 to 799 3.93 800 to 849 7.65 850 to 899 14.56 900 to 949 20.00 950 to 999 capped 1000 to 1049 1050 to 1099 1100 to 1149 1150 to 1199 1200 to 1249 1250 to 1299 1300 to 1349 1350+ Average Daily Delay per Aircraft

For estimate methods 1 and 2 the daily dema nd is capped when the average minutes of delay is greater than 20 minutes. For the ba seline case and the high surveillance case, the capping occurs for any day when the demand is greater than or equal to 650 aircraft; for the most likely surveillance case the capping occu rs when demand is greater than or equal to 950 aircraft. Table 2-27 presents the new flight demand in daily demand bins constrained by the average 20 minute delay cap seen in the queuing delay results (Table 2-26.)

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
55Table 2-27. Gulf of Mexico flight demand in daily bins constrained by delay cap

Baseline and High Surveillance Case Most Likely Surveillance Case

Daily Demand Bins 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Daily Demand Bins 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Less Than 200 45 11 1 Less Than 200 45 11 1 200 to 249 130 63 10 1 200 to 249 130 63 10 1 250 to 299 118 136 45 9 1 250 to 299 118 136 45 9 1 300 to 349 44 88 99 33 3 1 300 to 349 44 88 99 33 3 1 350 to 399 18 36 97 63 18 1 350 to 399 18 36 97 63 18 1 400 to 449 8 18 56 85 39 9 400 to 449 8 18 56 85 39 9 450 to 499 2 9 27 75 64 17 450 to 499 2 9 27 75 64 17 500 to 549 4 16 40 69 35 3 500 to 549 4 16 40 69 35 3 550 to 599 7 25 62 49 23 550 to 599 7 25 62 49 23 600 to 649 5 18 42 63 25 600 to 649 5 18 42 63 25 650 to 699 2 16 67 190 314 650 to 699 2 5 16 60 31 700 to 749 700 to 749 7 24 41 52 750 to 799 750 to 799 3 13 24 49 800 to 849 800 to 849 1 3 14 52 850 to 899 850 to 899 5 19 31 900 to 949 900 to 949 6 32 99 950 to 999 950 to 999 1000 to 1049 1000 to 1049 1050 to 1099 1050 to 1099 1100 to 1149 1100 to 1149 1150 to 1199 1150 to 1199 1200 to 1249 1200 to 1249 1250 to 1299 1250 to 1299 1300 to 1349 1300 to 1349 1350+ 1350+ The daily queuing delay results of Table 2-26 and the flight demand results of Table 2-27 are combined to create yearly delay estimates. Table 2-28 presents an example of an annual delay estimate for one year (2025). Ta ble 2-28 displays the delay calculation for both baseline and most likely surveillance case s, presents the difference, and notes the number of additional flights accommodated by the surveillance capacity.

Table 2-28. Example of annual delay ca lculation for 2025 (most likely case)

Daily Demand bins 2025 # Days per bin Delay per Aircraft Delay per bin (hrs) 2025 # Days per bin Delay per Aircraft Delay per bin (hrs.) Addition al Accomm Less Than 200 175 200 to 249 225 250 to 299 275 1 1 300 to 349 325 3 3 350 to 399 375 18 18 400 to 449 425 39 0.08 22 39 450 to 499 475 64 0.43 218 64 500 to 549 525 69 1.37 827 69 550 to 599 575 62 3.92 2329 62 0.07 42 600 to 649 625 42 8.87 3881 42 0.27 118 650 to 699 675 67 20.00 15075 16 0.76 137 700 to 749 725 capped 24 1.91 516* 1200 750 to 799 775 13 3.93 575* 1300 800 to 849 825 3 7.65 258* 450 850 to 899 875 5 14.56 819* 1000 900 to 949 925 6 20.00 1350* 1500 950 to 999 975 capped 1000 to 1049 1025 Total 22352 3814 5450

Delay Savings 2025 (hrs) 18538

*Surveillance Delay per bin only counted against flights in the baseline (max 675) Baseline Most Likely Surveillance Daily demand bin midpoint

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
562. 8.1.2 Queuing delay results for extreme low method For the extreme low method we developed the constrained hourly demand profiles (Figure 2-10) that ignore the variation in dail y demand seen in the Gulf and consider only the daily demand averaged over the entire ye ar. Using these profiles, we ran a queuing model to estimate delay for the baseline and surveillance cases for the extreme low method. The queuing model included an expone ntial distribution fo r the inter-arrival time of flights into the region and a distribution of service times based on data from an ATO-P. Table 2-29 presents the average queui ng delay per aircraft for each day in the year. Note that no delay accrues using this method until 2026.

Table 2-29. Average queuing delay results per aircraft using constrained demand
Average Delay Per Aircraft

Year Average Ops per Day Baseline (minutes) Surveillance (minutes) 2007 260 0 0 2008 273 0 0 2009 286 0 0 2010 299 0 0 2011 313 0 0 2012 328 0 0 2013 343 0 0 2014 358 0 0 2015 374 0 0 2016 390 0 0 2017 406 0 0 2018 423 0 0 2019 440 0 0 2020 457 0 0 2021 475 0 0 2022 494 0 0 2023 514 0 0 2024 535 0 0 2025 556 0 0 2026 578 0.19 0 2027 602 0.34 0 2028 626 0.58 0 2029 651 0.99 0 2030 677 1.63 0 2031 704 2.8 0.01 2032 732 6.63 0.04 2033 761 11.93 0.08 2034 792 19.41 0.15 2035 823 20 0.31

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
572.8.1.3 Combined results

Table 2-30 presents the annual delay savings in hours from all three methods. The range in lifecycle benefits is between 300k hours a nd 600k hours with a most likely value of 430k hours. APO and ATO-P Operations Resear ch suggested that most delay would be taken on the ground, so ground ADOC and PVT were used to value the delay. An additional factor of 1.31 was multiplied to the PVT delay to account for downstream PVT delay on US airlines arriving into US airpor ts. The 31 percent increase represents an assumed 80 percent downstream delay factor multiplied by the percentage of flights that are operated by US airlines (79 percent) and the percentage of t hose flights with US destinations (50 percent).

Table 2-30. Annual delay resul ts for all three methods

Year High Most Likely Extreme Low 2007 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 2011 15 15 0 2012 60 60 0 2013 144 144 0 2014 327 327 0 2015 727 727 0 2016 1275 1275 0 2017 2156 2137 0 2018 3266 3225 0 2019 5021 4866 0 2020 6781 6506 0 2021 9442 8912 0 2022 11380 10410 0 2023 15160 13770 0 2024 17680 15400 0 2025 21620 18540 0 2026 25730 21630 668 2027 30880 25300 1245 2028 36100 28970 2209 2029 42480 33200 3921 2030 49060 36710 6713 2031 54600 39470 11950 2032 59860 41540 29350 2033 64850 42240 54860 2034 67700 40390 92790 2035 71090 38400 98580 Total 597404 434164 302286 Annual Delay Savings (Hrs.)

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
58Because the daily demand cap in the baseline period is lower than the demand cap used in the surveillance period for the most likely case, there are additional flights accommodated in the most likely surveillance case. Table 2-31 displays the yearly number of additional flights accommodated by the additional capacity.

Unfortunately, the FAA does not have an ag reed upon method to va lue these additional flights; consequently, the valu e of the newly accommodated fli ghts was set to zero in the estimate.

Table 2-31. Additional flights accommoda ted by surveillance capacity (most likely case)

Year Additional Flights Accomodated 2007 0 2008 0 2009 0 2010 0 2011 0 2012 0 2013 0 2014 0 2015 0 2016 0 2017 100 2018 200 2019 550 2020 800 2021 1300 2022 1900 2023 2650 2024 3900 2025 5450 2026 6950 2027 9150 2028 11400 2029 14500 2030 18350 2031 22800 2032 27450 2033 33350 2034 39350 2035 46250

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
592.8.2 Op timal routing The SBS program will provide ATC surveilla nce above 24,000 feet for non-radar regions in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Surveillance should allow radar-like separation, as opposed to current non-radar pr ocedural separation. The introduction of radar-like separation will permit creation of additional routes and/or the granting of more direct requests. These cha nges will allow decreases in flight distance due to more efficient routes. Table 2-32 presents an esti mate of the Optimal ro uting benefits based on examination of current rout es in and around the Gulf. Table 2-32. Optimal routing benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Optimal routing $256.5 M $86.5 M

Currently, flights crossing the non-radar region of the Gulf of Mexico are constrained to 10 routes with set entry and exit fixes as seen in Figure 2-10. Flight s are also constrained by the large SUAs located in the Gulf (orange areas in Figure 2-10) . Because of spacing restrictions along the main routes, controllers sometimes treat routes as one-way corridors. The addition of surveillance acr oss the gulf would allow a variety of new entry/exit locations on the U.S. side of th e region. In the near term, however, these flights would be constrained to the same entry/exit fixes on the Mexican airspace border of the region. The ability to allow new en try/exit points on the U. S. side should allow controllers to grant more directs from U.S. locations to the fixes on the Mexican airspace border. Also, greater capacity along current routes should allow more flights to take optimum routes betw een city pairs.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
60SUA

SUA

Current Routes Non-radar Region

Figure 2-10. Airspace and routes in the Gulf of Mexico

We first examined routes between the top tw enty city pairs from the US to Mexico and South America whose direct paths crossed the non-radar region for April 2003. We chose to examine savings in terms of exce ss distance between current routes and more direct routes, where possible. The types of savings fell into two general categories. The first category involved flights that alrea dy pass through the non-ra dar region, but were not allowed to fly directly to the fix on the Mexican border that was closest to their destination. The flights were not allowed a more direct path because, either the more direct route was being used as a one-way corr idor in the opposite di rection, or no direct path on the current route structure existed be tween the entry and exit points. The other category involved flights that avoided the non-radar region. An attempt was made to determine if these circuitous routes around th e region were weather-related. If a route between city pairs was filed more than 20 per cent of the time, we assumed that it was not weather-related, but invo lved either capacity or equipage considerations. We removed routes filed less than 20 percent of the time from the analysis. Savings for this second category focused on allowing these flights to take the more optimal non-radar region
route. Table 2-33 displays the excess distance data fo r the top twenty city pairs. The savings are broken into columns for flights that took routes through the non-radar regions and those who avoided the non-radar region.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
61Table 2-33. Optimal route savings between selected city pairs

City 1 City2 Count Savings for flights that took non-radar routes (nmi) Savings for flightsthat avoided nonradar route (nmi) Total savings (nmi)

MIA MMMX 574 5344 8686 14,030 IAH MMUN 338 1922 1922
DFW MMUN 292 354 354
ATL MMMX 271 690 690

MSP MMUN 215 0

ATL MMUN 219 2968 2968

ORD MMUN 212 306 2716 3022

JFK MMMX 217 544 574
CLT MMUN 198 245 15,143 15,388

EWR MMUN 185 1867 4197 6064

IAH MZBZ 183 0

DTW MMUN 168 520 2798 3318

EWR MMMX 158 389 389

DEN MMUN 137 9464 9464
IAH MROC 126 0

STL MMUN 130 0

IAH MGGT 116 0
IAH MSLP 111 0

PHL MMUN 108 275 6173 6448

JFK MMUN 105 1071 2140 3211

TOTAL 4063 16,495 51,347 67,842

Using only these twenty city pa irs and the fact that April represents 9% of the yearly traffic load, we estimate savings of approxi mately 750,000 nmi a year from more optimal
routes. The optimal routing benefit dire ctly links to the capacity benefit. Optimal routing for flights that currently avoid the non-radar region while operati ng between the top twenty city pairs represents the potential for an 11 percent increase in total traffic. With surveillance, sufficient capaci ty to accommodate these flig hts without increasing delays occurs until the daily demand reaches 550 operati ons. Benefits for flights that currently avoid the non-radar region decrease once future dema nd exceeds capacity with surveillance. The benefits were assumed to begin in 2011 a nd increase with equipa ge. To adjust for risk, we applied a distribution to the distance savings using st andard deviations from the data.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
62Gulf of Mexico Low Altitude

2.8.3 In creased ability to fly Part 135 operations

There are approximately 4000 o il platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. A fleet of approximately 650 helicopters provide air tr ansportation to more than three million passengers, an average of 11,000 people on 4000 + flights per day to approximately 3000 offshore structures. The busiest times are during mid-week platform crew changes, which require 7000 to 9000 flights per day. During good weather, most flights use Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to meet the demand; however, during IMC the demand cannot be met because of constraints on the ability to in itiate Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights in the region. IFR fli ghts also involve inefficient r outes and restrictions due to lack of infrastructure.

There are three main cons traints on IFR flights:

1. Weather observations are requi red to fly Part 135 IFR opera tions. Due to the lack of automated weather information, operators must rely on manual observations to conduct flights during poor visibility conditions. When certified weather observers are not available, flights are un able to be executed.

2. Because of the lack of surveillance and limited communications during IMC, IFR operators must verbally acknowle dge that they are clear of th eir departure or arrival point prior to another aircraft being grante d access to the geographical area. With communications limited to 4,000 ft above the su rface or water, positional reports below this altitude will not be available until the ai rcraft lands and calls in to report landing or departs and calls in once it has climbed to 4,000 ft.

3. The current IFR route structure is com posed of a Grid System (See Figure 2-11) defined by 300 offshore waypoints and IFR inst rument approach procedures such as Offshore Standard Approach Procedures (O SAPs), Helicopter En Route Descent Areas (HEDAs), and Airborne Radar Approaches (ARA s). Due to the lack of surveillance and limited communication, aircraft operating under IFR are required to fly from grid point to grid point limiting the route efficiency.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
63Figure 2-11. IFR En Route Grid System in low-altitude Gulf of Mexico The SBS program will upgrade communications stations and automated weather reporting stations as support for providing ATC surveillance in the Gulf of Mexico lowaltitude region. Improved w eather, communications, and su rveillance will increase the ability to provide Part 135 operations dur ing IMC, increase IFR capacity, and allow optimal routing within the region. We mode led these effects together and present the results below.

The yearly benefits pool was estimated by a dynamic queuing model. The purpose of the model was to quantify the delay savings of in creasing the arrival capacity and decreasing service time during IMC when demand is la rge on a crew change day. The model considered current IFR demand, baseline and fu ture capacities, duration of IMC weather on IMC days, and current and future IMC flight times. The increased ability to fly Part 135 operations benefits were estimated by mu ltiplying the daily IMC delay savings from the queuing model, the frequency of IMC weat her in the region, the percentage of days that are shift change days, independent equi page curves for IFR helicopters in the Gulf, aircraft direct operating costs and industry labor costs, and th e infrastructure schedule. Table 2-34 presents an estimate of the increase d ability to fly Part 135 operations benefits in both base year 2007 and present value dollars.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
64Table 2-34. Increased ability to fl y Part 135 operations benefits Segment Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Increased ability to fly

Part 135 operations $238.3 M $84.2 M

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, dema nd on crew change days is quite large (~7000-9000 flights.) The current number of IF R capable helicopters in the Gulf is 117. Even if the IMC capacity were unconstraine d, these few IFR helicopters could not meet the demand. Consequently, we limit the dema nd to the maximum number of flights per hour that can be serviced by the IFR capable fleet. We assume each IFR helicopter can make 8 flights a day and that there are 12 operating hours in a day, giving an hourly demand of 78 flights. The monitor alert parameter (MAP) value is generally considered the maximum instantaneous load (o r capacity) a controll er can manage over an extended period. The baseline and future estimated MAP values were obtained from ZHU. We separated the capacity from upgraded communications a nd weather and the capacity from added surveillance because the infrastructure sche dule for these services is different. The communications and weather upgrades begin ope ration in 2010 while surveillance begins in 2011. Also, the mean flight time (or serv ice time in the queuing model) is less after surveillance service begins becau se flights will not be constrained to the grid structure. Average service times are expected to decrease by approximately 10 minutes from this benefit. Combining the MAP and service time values allows an estimate of the hourly capacity. Table 2-35 displays the MAP value, the service time, and the hourly capacity for each of the scenarios (baseline, upgraded communications and weather, and surveillance.) The addition of surveillance would allow a much greater capacity than listed in Table 2-35; however, an increas e in the MAP value beyond 18 would involve airspace resectorization and addi tional controllers, neither of which were considered in the cost estimate.

Table 2-35. Capacity and service time by scenario

Scenario Baseline + Upgraded Communications and Weather + Surveillance

MAP value 7 15 18

Service Time 30 min 30 min 20 min

Hourly Capacity 13 30 54

The frequency of days with IMC between 6 am and 6 pm (operating hours) was assumed to be the same as that for George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). National Climatic

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
65Data Center data showed a distribution from 54 to 72 days of IMC weather with the median being 63 days. The duration of IMC weather was examined using hourly weather data from calendar year 2002. Over 85 percent of the time weather started at 6 am. We used the distribution of IMC hourly dur ation in the queuing analysis. The results of the queuing m odel indicated that the incr eased capacity from upgraded communications and weather would decrease baseline delay on IMC crew change days by 28 percent. The addition of surveillan ce would decrease baseline delays by 65 percent. The Helicopter Safety Advisory Conference (HSAC) and industry contacts provided the percent of days that are shift change days (3 out of 7), th e distribution of passengers per IFR capable helicopter (tri angular distribution 4,8,12 pa ssengers), and the average overtime industry labor cost for delay per passe nger ($52.50 an hour). The aircraft direct operating costs were assumed to be the same as for the NAS-wide Part 135 fleet. ADS-B out equipage of the IFR fleet was assumed to begin in 2011 and finish by 2014.

2.8.4 Fewer encounters with hazardous weather

Due to the lack of automated weather info rmation in the Gulf of Mexico, helicopter operators do not always have the most current weather information. Additionally, meteorologists do not have the quality of weather observations required to produce accurate forecasts of hazardous weather conditions such as convective weather, turbulence, and icing. Because of these issues, helicopter operators are more likely to encounter hazardous weather, increasing th e likelihood of weathe r-related accidents.

Automated weather provided by the SBS progr am should allow pilots to make moreinformed decisions regarding hazardous weather in the Gulf of Mexico.

Between 1991 and 2003 there were 6 weathe r-related accidents that involved 13 fatalities. These accidents exclude those th at involved heavy winds and a helicopter on or directly above a helipad.

We constructed a weather accid ent rate and subsequent futu re baseline weather-related accident costs. We assumed that the mean effectiveness of automated weather in preventing weather accidents to be approximate ly 1 out of 6 accidents (16 percent). To account for risk we used a tr iangular distribution for eff ectiveness (.12, .16, .20). The fewer encounters with hazardous weather be nefits were estimated by multiplying the future accident costs, the automated weather accident prevention effectiveness, and the service schedule for additional weather stations in the low- altitude Gulf of Mexico. Table 2-36 displays the benefits in ba se year and present value dollars.

Table 2-36. Fewer encounters with hazardous weather benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Fewer encounters with hazardous weather $13.1 M $5.0 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
66Juneau

The description of the improved search and re scue services benefit for Juneau has been combined with the search and rescue descri ption for the Alaska Ca pstone project in a subsequent subsection.

2.8.5 More efficient separation on approach

IFR operations at Juneau International Ai rport (JNU) average 30- 50 per day during the summer when the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is open. An additional 6 or more occur after the ATCT is closed. The IFR th roughput rate is about 2 to 3 per hour when mixed with departures. In the summer of 2004, there were 6-12 incidents per day of IFR ground or airborne delays due to ATC system limitations. The limited throughput of JNU is directly relate d to a lack of surveillance. Anchorage ARTCC radar coverage in Southeast Alaska is limited to 12,000 f eet Mean Sea Level (MSL) and above. Juneau Intern ational Airport is at sea leve l. Arriving IFR aircraft may be out of radar coverage 6-18 minutes before being visually sighted by Juneau ATCT. Departing aircraft may fly 20-30 miles before entering radar coverage. Because of this lack of surveillance, controllers must use procedural separation. Visual Approaches (VAs) gr eatly increase the capacity of an airport. Section 2.7.1 addresses the benefits of continuing visual approaches during ma rginal conditions at CONUS airports. At JNU, effective VAs ca nnot be performed because IFR arrivals are not permitted to cancel IFR services until below 3,700 feet MSL (generally within 9 miles of the airport) due to lack of surveillance flight following. The SBS program will provide surveillance servi ces in Southeast Alaska starting in 2010. The surveillance will consist of a combination of ADS-B out and wide-area multilateration inputs. Surveilla nce will allow Anchorage Cent er the ability to ensure separation between all IFR aircraft. Surveillance will also allow the Juneau ATCT the ability to allow flight following for VAs. Bo th of these capabilities should allow more efficient spacing on approach for arrivals into JNU. The more efficient spacing on approach (non-radar) benefits were estimated by multiplying the annual hours of IFR flight ar rival delay, the percent of delay caused by terminal volume, projected operations c ounts, passenger value of time, and the surveillance schedule for Anchorage Center and JNU tower. Table 2-37 displays the benefits in base year and present value dollars.

Table 2-37. More efficient spacing on appr oach (non-radar) benefits by segment

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) More efficient spacing on approach (non-radar) $3.0 M $1.1 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
67Examination of the FAA Operational Netw ork (OPSNET) database from 2000 through 2005 showed that 8.6 percent of arrival delays at JNU were caused by terminal volume. A study of ASPM gate arrival delay for IF R flights into JNU over the same period exhibits a mean delay of 712 hours a year (the standard deviation of 52 hours was used to create a distribution of annual hours of dela y in the estimate). Combining the means produces an estimated 61 hours of delay per year in the baseline case. Virtually all arrival delays into JNU are taken at the depart ure airport, so only passenger value of time was used to monetize the delay. The TAF was us ed to increase the benefits pool linearly based on future traffic. We assumed that surveillance would virtually eliminate the terminal volume delays for flights into JNU.

Alaska Capstone Phase III

2.8.6 Increased access to lower altitude routes

The increased access to lower routes benef it assumes that ATC ADS-B surveillance will allow creation of a lower IFR route structur e in mountainous areas of Alaska. In the current system, many aircraft have to can cel flights during IMC because reaching the required altitude in the current IFR struct ure increases the possibility of icing and requires supplemental oxygen for passengers. Ca pstone avionics will provide positive guidance in obstacle-rich terr ain while protecting from ic ing. Lowering the Minimum En route Altitude (MEA) for an airway should elimin ate most of the current cancellations.

As an initial step, Capstone proposed a representative RNAV IFR Navigation Infrastructure by lowering the MEA for parts of Victor routes listed in Table 2-38. The current benefit relies on this representative set of lowered routes, it is expected that a different set of routes will produce benefit results in th e same order of magnitude.

ATO-F designed a model to calculate the bene fit. We describe the methodology below, for more information see [19].

In order to quantify this benefit ATO-F estimated:

• The t raffic count for flights that currently fly over all lowered fixes listed in Table 2-38.

• The p ercentages of flight cancellations due to icing c onditions or the lack of necessary equipment to fl y at higher altitudes.

For traffic counts they used Di gital Aeronautical Chart Supple ment (DACS) data to build a network of existing victor and colored routes in Alaska. They iden tified airports in

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
68Table 2-38. Proposed FIXES for Lowering MEAs

Rt ID Fix Name FixID Current MEA MOC A Fix Type Proposed GPS MEA
A15 NICHOLS ICK 7000 5100 NDB 5000 B28 NICHOLS ICK 6900 6000 NDB 6000 G1 HORTH HORTH 8000 2500 REP-PT 5000 G1 MORDI MORDI 8000 5300 REP-PT 7000 G1 TESPE TESPE 8000 REP-PT 7000 G1 CHUNA CHUNA 8000 REP-PT 7000 G15 ANVIK ANV 9000 6000 NDB/DME 7000 G4 WOOD RIVER BTS 4500 3000 NDB 3000 G4 27551 27551 4500 AWY-INTXN 3000 G8 DUTCH HARBOR DUT 9000 5700 NDB/DME 6000 G8 MORDI MORDI 8000 5300 REP-PT 7000 G8 TESPE TESPE 8000 REP-PT 7000 G8 CHUNA CHUNA 8000 REP-PT 7000 G8 SALDO AK 6000 4900 NDB 5000 V308 FISHH FISHH 8000 6000 REP-PT 6000

V308 CERGU CERG U 8000 REP-PT 6000 V319 MALAS MALAS 10000 5000 REP-PT 9000 V319 KATAT KATAT 7000 5000 REP-PT 5000 V319 PEPPI PEPPI 10000 8000 REP-PT 8000 V319 WILER WILER 10000 7000 REP-PT 7000 V319 YONEK YONEK 12000 5000 REP-PT 5000 V319 TORTE TORTE 12000 10300 REP-PT 10000 V319 VEILL VEILL 12000 6000 REP-PT 6000 V319 ARSEN ARSEN 4000 2000 REP-PT 2000 V322 MALLT MALLT 9000 3000 REP-PT 3000 V385 EMMONAK ENM 3500 2800 VOR/DME 3000 V385 PICNI PICNI 3500 REP-PT 3000 V385 28516 28516 3500 AWY-INTXN 3000 V385 KEGEY KEGEY 3500 REP-PT 3000 V385 WARVI WARVI 3500 REP-PT 3000 V385 RIRIO RIRIO 3500 GPS 3000 V431 SISTERS ISLAND SSR 8000 5800 VORTAC 5800 V473 LEVEL ISLAND LVD 7000 6000 VOR/DME 6000 V507 PHOTO PHOTO 13000 6000 REP-PT 6000 V507 CIVED CIVED 13000 REP-PT 6000 V510 ANVIK ANV 10000 6200 NDB/DME 7000 V510 ABEAR ABEAR 10000 6200 REP-PT 7000 V510 MIGAN MIGAN 10000 8500 REP-PT 9000 V617 HOMER HOM 12000 8600 VOR/DME 9000 V617 27516 27516 12000 AWY-INTXN 9000 V617 27515 27515 12000 AWY-INTXN 9000

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
69Alaska and connected them to all fixes and NAVAIDS within a 40 nm radius. They used a linear programming method to calculate the sh ortest path using the existing network for all city pairs and counted the number of fli ghts that flew over all fixes in the region. They then used ETMS data to identify city pair demand in the area. Since ETMS captures IFR flights only, they used the TAF to adjust the demand by city pair to capture all demand reported in TAF. While the TAF provides overall demand for each airport, it does not provide demand by city pair.

The benefit is driven by cancellation costs. The cancellation cost per flight was calculated by ATO-F in terms of PVT. The wasted passenger times due to cancellations are assumed to be 3 hours for part 121 flights a nd 24 hours for part 135 and 91 flights. The PVT cancellation cost is then calculated by mu ltiplying time, load factor and PVT. The cancellation cost for an average GA flight wa s $1339 while the averag e cancellation cost for a Part 135 flight changed from $1 236 to $1394 between 2006 and 2035 based on an increasing prediction in load factor over ti me. Table 2-39 presents the assumed Alaska cancellation costs in constant dollars.

Table 2-39. Alaska cancellation costs

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
70Year Part 91 BY2007 $ Part 135 BY2007 $

2006 1339 1236 2007 1339 1245 2008 1339 1253 2009 1339 1260 2010 1339 1268 2011 1339 1276 2012 1339 1284 2013 1339 1291 2014 1339 1298 2015 1339 1304 2016 1339 1310 2017 1339 1317 2018 1339 1323 2019 1339 1330 2020 1339 1336 2021 1339 1342 2022 1339 1348 2023 1339 1348 2024 1339 1354 2025 1339 1359 2026 1339 1364 2027 1339 1369 2028 1339 1374 2029 1339 1373 2030 1339 1377 2031 1339 1381 2032 1339 1386 2033 1339 1389 2034 1339 1389 2035 1339 1394 To estimate the percentage of cancellation th ey adjusted the linear programming model (see [19]) to cancel the flight wh en there no route available (due to disconnected fixes) or when the cost of flying a longer route was more than canceling the flight.

They ran the model under 2 scenarios: 1

. Allowed all fixes to remain open assuming all 42 fixes listed in Table 2-38 have been lowered. 2

. Baseline scenario, with all 42 fixes listed in Table 2-38 closed due to icing and high MEAs.

The difference in costs between the two scenar ios was assumed to be the benefits for the lowered route structure for days where all aff ected flights are cancelled or forced to fly a longer route due to icy and cold weather conditions. In the ab sence of any historical data on the frequency of icing conditions for all fixes, ATO-F assumed that the number of days a year that all 42 fixes listed in Tabl e 2-38 would be closed and impassable follows a triangular distribution w ith parameters (15, 23, 40).

The total benefit is the produc t of user equipage, GBT implementation, the frequency of bad weather, cost savings from avoided cancellation and longer flight time. The

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
71projected route development costs were inco rporated into the benefit. Table 2-40 presents the increased access to lower altitu de routes benefit in base year 2007 and present value dollars.

Table 2-40. Increased access to lower altitude routes benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Increased access to lower altitude routes $53.1 M $19.5 M

2. 8.7 Improved search and rescue services

Not all US airspace is under radar surveillance coverage. Flights operating at lower altitudes or away from termin al areas will likely traverse non -radar airspace. Search and Rescue (SAR) activities can be better focuse d if radar data are av ailable for a flight presumed missing. One of the objectives of the SBS program is to make the techniques and services associated with radar survei llance also available in non-radar airspace through the use of ADS-B. Therefore, the ATC system will be able to offer more services to pilots including enhanced search and rescue. The current focus of this effort is in Alaska.

This service was put to test when a Capst one Program ADS-B equi pped Part 135 aircraft went down in southwest Alaska in October 2002. The wreckage was located and the pilot was rescued because of the Capstone equipment on the aircraft. According to the report, the aircraft did not emit an electronic locator transmission (ELT). The searchers used the plane’s last Capstone transm ission to locate the plane.

There are two components of the SBS search a nd rescue benefit. The first is the ADS-B only benefits of SAR in Alas ka. The second involves a transponder-based multilateration system that the SBS program is installing in the Juneau area as a test backup for ADS-B. The program is also supporting the au tomation integration of the ADS-B and multilateration data and displays in the Jun eau ATCT. Consequently, the ADS-B SAR benefits in Juneau represent the incremental increase in benefits from near-term surveillance using transponder multilateration. As ADS-B equipage increases, the benefit from multilateration decreases.

The improved search and rescue services out come allows more timely SAR. The benefit is an increased likelihood of survival for those involved in aviation accidents. The estimated reduction in future fatalities is ba sed on an analogy to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study [20] of the advantages of 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). The benefits were assumed to apply primarily to the general aviation populati on and, therefore, the independ ent equipage curve for this user class was applied to reflect the magnitude of the benefit. Table 2-41 summarizes the benefits in base year and present value dollars.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
72Early benefits only accrue in Juneau because of the early surveillan ce capability the SBS program will provide in that location (2010). The later benefits occur throughout Alaska after complete automation integration. Both SAR estimates include a risk distribution based on the likelihood of a new 406 MHz ELT ma ndate per year. We assumed that the ADS-B SAR benefit would go to zero after such a mandate.

Table 2-41. Improved search and rescue services benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Improved search and rescue services $15.8 M $7.0 M

In the 1970s, Congress mandated the inst allation of 121.5 and 243.0 MHz ELTs in the general aviation fleet to aid in locating missing aircraft. However, soon after the implementation, it was discovered that many dist resses were not detected since detection was based on over flying aircraft and fixed radio receivers. As a result, space-based instruments are now the primary sensors for id entifying distress signal s. The Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking (SARSAT) Syst em is part of an international satellite system for search and rescue. SARSAT provides for the location of old technology ELTs as well as the new 406 MHz ELTs.

The 406 MHz ELTs have several advantages, including incorporati ng digital technology, providing uniquely identified alerts, reducing the search ar ea to a negligible area, and having virtually no false alarms. As a result, converting the general aviation fleet to the 406 MHz ELTs is expected to save lives and re duce needless search efforts in response to inadvertent activation of the existing ELTs. Ho wever, while most aircraft operators are mandated to carry an ELT, they have th e option to choose between the 121.5 MHz ELT and the 406 MHz ELT.

The 406 MHz ELTs currently cost about $2,500, which is about $2,000 more than the cost of a 121.5 MHz ELT. There are ove r 170,000 121.5 ELTs in exis tence while only several hundred of the 406 MHz ELTs have been pur chased to date. It is unlikely that the general aviation population will equip with 406 MHz ELTs with the existing cost differential. However, if the general av iation population elects to equip with ADS-B, then many of the improvements associated with the 406 MHz ELTs can be achieved. As a result, the NOAA study of the benefits of 406 MHz ELTs was used as an analogy to determine the more timely search and rescue benefits attributable to ADS-B.

The NOAA study included safety benefits asso ciated with more e fficient search and rescue activities for cases in which the 121.5 MH z ELT activated as well as in situations where it did not issue an alert. Since ADS -B is not providing enhancements to the alerting function of the ELTs, only the benefits associated with more quickly locating downed aircraft that had transmitted an alert via the ELT are included. It should be noted that ADS-B can provide air traffic control with the ability to recognize that a tracked aircraft is in trouble re gardless of whether the ELT has act ivated, but this scenario has not been captured in the analysis.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
73The NOAA study identified the number of NT SB accident reports from 1983 to 1988 in which the ELT operated and a search was requi red. Rescue Coordina tion Center (RCC) records were used to supplement the NTSB data since search data is an optional entry in the accident investigation records. Using both data sources, it was determined that 85 accidents annually involved searches base d on ELT alerts. Sinc e the NOAA study, the accident rate has decreased due to other FAA sa fety initiatives. An examination of more recent accident data (from 1998 to 2003) shows that the accident ra te was 65 percent of what it was from 1983 to 1988. Using the mo re recent accident data to scale, we estimate 55.25 applicable events occur annu ally. NTSB records also indicate that, on average, 2.5 people were onboard th e aircraft during these events.

Based on the time savings associated with lo cating an aircraft e quipped with a 406 MHz ELT as compared to the 121.5 MHz ELT, the delta increase in the likelihood of survival was estimated to be 16 percent for the 406 MH z ELT. The time savings associated with the 406 MHz ELT are within the notification, pl anning/evaluation, and se arch stages of a search and rescue operation. The notification stage begins with th e aircraft crash and ends when either the RCC is notified or wh en the aircraft is reported overdue. As mentioned, ADS-B is not enhancing the al erting function of the ELTs and was not estimated to achieve savings in this stage. The planning/evaluation stage begins when the RCC is notified and ends when a mission is ope n and rescue forces are dispatched to the search area. The time savings associated with this stage is associated with resolving whether or not the alert represents an actua l crisis or a false alarm. The 406 MHz ELT drastically reduces the frequency of false alarms and, therefore, alleviates much of the time spent in resolving the ambiguity of the al ert. Again, since ADS-B is not defined to provide emergency alerting capabilit y, the savings associated with the planning/evaluation stage was not deemed to be entirely applicable. Instead, a fraction of the savings, 25 percent, was applied to repr esent that ADS-B tracks could be used by ATC to reduce this stage to a more limited extent. Finally, the search stage is defined as beginning when the resources arri ve in the search area and ends when the crash site is located or the search is terminated. It was determined that, once an ELT alert is received and then validated, ADS-B would provide equivalent accuracy to the 406 MHz ELT and achieve the time savings assessed for this stage. Table 2-42 shows the time savings attributed to the 406 MHz ELT by stage as well as the porti on assumed to be analogous for the ADS-B estimate. The numbers in parentheses in Table 2-42 represent the triangular distributions applied to adjust for risk in the model.

Table 2-42. Search and Rescue Time Savings by Stage Search and Rescue Stage 406 MHz ELT Time Savings (hrs) % Applicable ADS-B Time Savings (hrs) Notification 1.8 0% 0 Planning/Evaluation 3.2 25% (0,.25,.3) 0.8 Transit Search 1.7 100% (0.5,1,1) 1.7 Recovery Total 6.7 2.5

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
74The ratio between the time savings assumed for ADS-B to the time savings estimated for the 406 MHz ELTs was applied to the 406 MHz ELT survivability improvement to determine the increase associated with ADS-B . The increase likeli hood in survival was multiplied by the annual number of accidents and the number of people per accident to determine the potential number of lives sa ved each year. Finally, the infrastructure implementation curve and the independent equipage curve for the general aviation population in the CONUS and Hawaii were applied to determine the benefit.

The Juneau SAR benefit represents the increm ental benefit available because of increased surveillance of transponder-equipped aircraft using the multilateration system. The additional ADS-B SAR benefits for Juneau ar e claimed in Segment 2 of the program.

Since the ADS-B SAR benefits depend on an analogy with the 406 MHz ELT, if a 406 MHz mandate were to occur, the ADS-B bene fits would go to zero. We assumed a 50 percent likelihood per year that a new ELT mandate would occur for the years 2009 through 2035.

2. 8.8 Increased access to remote villages

Alaska has a high dependency on aviation fo r both residents and visitors. There is limited highway access in Alaska and there have no new interurban highways built in Alaska since the opening of the Parks Highway to Fairbanks in the early 1970’s. The 2001 DOT Appropriations report, (House Report 106-940), directed the FAA Administrator to determine the extent of the problem of aviation access in remote locations in Alaska.

To solve some of the access issues to remote villages in Alaska and to support the new IFR services available with ADS-B surveilla nce, the SBS program will upgrade airports with IFR approaches where cost-beneficia l. The goal is to provide GPS or LPV approaches at new IFR airports and automate d local weather reporting at existing airports to obtain the lowest possible weather pla nning minimums thereby increasing access in IMC. One benefit of increased aviation acce ss to remote villages is fewer cancellations during IMC. Subject matter experts suggested that if weather pr evented a Part 135 or Part 91 flight to a remote village, the opera tor would most likely postpone the trip until the next day. The ATO-F calculated cancella tion costs (see Table 2-39) are the same as were used in the lower rout es benefit (subsection 2.8.6).

Hourly ceiling and visibility re adings from across the state fo r 2004 were used to estimate weather at the selected sites. The potentia l lowering of weather minimums was examined at each airport and this allowed the determin ation of an increased IFR access percentage for each airport. Weather variability in the percent of IMC and MVMC hours/year was introduced based on NCDC data at Anchorag e from 1976 to 2005 as compared to 2004. A triangular distribution of (.74, .94, 1.19) was multiplied to the result.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
75To take advantage of this increased access, aircraft need to be IFR equipped. Because IFR equipage increased with Capstone equipa ge in Southwest Alas ka [21], we assume that IFR equipage in the remainder of the stat e will do the same. We also use a factor of 63 percent to set a maximum amount of IFR equipage.

The benefit also depends on approach, AWS, and communication infrastructure implementation schedules as well as the Capst one avionics equipage curve. At airports cited in the FAA Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) business case, the benefit was shared using an algorithm designed by ATO-F with the WAAS program. Table 2-43 lists the selected airports, the increased access percentage, the yearly arrivals recorded in the TAF, and the WAAS sharing scheme. Ta ble 2-44 presents the increased access to remote village results in base year and present value dollars.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
76Table 2-43. Remote airport increased access and operations counts

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
77Table 2-44. Increased commercial access to remote villages benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Increased commercial access to remote villages $215.3 M $90.0 M

2.8.9 Increased Medevac access to remote villages

In addition to deriving an economic benefit from average flight cancellation costs, the FAA also examined the effect of increased medical care (through Medical Evacuation or Medevac) available because of increased access.

The FAA Alaskan Region prepared a study w ith the cooperation of the (17th District) USCG and the Alaska Indian Health Service (IH S) that focused on the role of aviation in access to medical facilities. The study found that 201 Alaskan communities have no road access to the nearest inpatient medical facil ity; however, only 53 were equipped for IFR services

As mentioned in the last subsection, a series of airport and procedure upgrades will allow increased IFR access to some remote villages during reduced weather. Increased access should lead to reduced time for medical evacua tion that will avoid fatalities. The benefit assumes that with prompt medical care, re mote village accidental death, acute illness fatality, and infant mortality rates will be si milar to city (Anchorage) average rates. An alternate access function was develope d to account for non-aviation means of transportation to medical care.

Most health statistics were taken from the Alaska Division of Pub lic Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics website. For Anchorage the accidental death rate is 34.5 per 100,000 people and the infant mortality rate is 8.1 pe r 100,000. The infant mortality per person is calculated by multiplying the infant mortality per birth by the number of births per population over a time period. Also, the CD C/NCHS National Vital Statistics System 2003 reports that the Alaska st atewide death rate from acute illness (e.g. Heart Disease, Flu, etc.) was 168.2 per 100,000. The similar rates for the villages are higher than for Anchorage. The ratio between the average acci dental death rate in the villages and the accidental death rate in Anchorage was used to scale the statewide death rate from acute illness resulting in an estimated rate of 67.1 acute illness deaths per 100,000 in Anchorage. The total mortality rate in Anc horage due to accidents, illness, and infant mortality was then assumed to be the addition of the rates or 109.7 per 100,000.

Similar accidental death rates are not availabl e for each of the remote villages, but are available for larger geographi c areas called boroughs. We a ssumed that the village rates were the same as the borough in which they re side. This is conservative because the villages are by definition “remote” and are most likely farther away from medical service than the bigger towns in the same borough. The infant mortality rate for each borough was not available; however, we had an averag e Alaska statewide in fant mortality rate (10.8 per 100,000) and an Anchorage infant mo rtality rate (8.1 per 100,000). We used the ratio between the average and the Anchorage rates to estimate a village rate of 14.4 per

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
78100,000. Finally, the ratio between the accident al death rate in each borough and the accidental death rate in Anchorage was used to scale the statewide acute illness rate to estimate the acute illness rate per village.

A final factor used in determining the medi cal access benefit was alternate access. The factor accounts for the delay to get a serious ly injured, ill person to the hospital by other means than air or to a nearby IFR airport. If no alternate acce ss would be available within 12 hours, the value of the function was 1.0, meaning th at the full benefit may be claimed by increased IFR access. If alternat e access could be provided in less than 12 hours the scaling followed a step function th at is based on the chance for mortality:

Alternate Access Function = 1.0 for >12 hours 0.5 for 6 to 12 hours 0.25 for 3 to 6 hours 0.12 for < 3 hours.

The function is based on the “Trimodal Distri bution of Casualty Death” as documented in [22] and shown in Figure 2-12. The function accounts for mortality rates from delays in critical care within the fi rst three hours, emergency surg ery with 6 hours [23-25], and receiving antibiotics and the ons et of infection within 12 hours. Times were estimated using maps of villages, accessible roads, hospital and nearby IFR airport locations.

Figure 2-12. Trimodal distri bution of casulty death[22]

Table 2-45 displays the village airports examined, the population of each village (US Census Bureau), the accident rate and infant mortality assumed at each village, and the alternate access function for each village.

Table 2-46 lists the increased Medevac access to remote villages benefit in base year and present value dollars. The difference between the remote location death rates and the Anchorage death rate is used to calculate potential fatalities to be avoided based on population. The potentially preventable de aths are multiplied by the increased access percentage (Table 2-43), the weather vari ability, the alternate access function, the IFR upgrade schedule, the Part 135 equipage perc entage, and fatality costs to estimate an economic benefit. Much lik e section 2.8.8 this benefit wa s also shared with WAAS.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
79Table 2-45. Assumptions used in medical access benefit

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
80Table 2-46. Increased Medevac access to remote villages benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Increased Medevac access to remote villages $411.8 M $175.4 M

3 COST AVOIDANCE BENEFITS

The cost avoidance benefits ar e derived from three sources:

• Surveillance cost avoidance • Reduction in FAA subscription char ges due to value added services • Reduction in costs to obtain weather info

3.1 Su rveillance Cost Avoidance

A primary reason for interest in ADS-B is the opportunity to increase surveillance accuracy while significantly reducing FAA costs. An ADS-B surveillance infrastructure is less costly to maintain than the exis ting radar infrastructure . A NAS-wide ADS-B implementation would also avoid any further acquisition costs for future radar once the transition is complete. A surveillance backup re port suggested that half of the current secondary surveillance radars along with primar y radar will provide the initial backup to ADS-B surveillance and continue to provide a security function for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The cost savings assume decommissioning of half of the current inventory of secondary surveillance radar starting in 2018. The accuracy of ADSB data should also allow decommissioning of current Surface Movement Radar (SMR) at Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE) site s. Table 3-1 presents the surveillance cost avoidance benefits in base year and present value dollars.

Table 3-1. Surveillance cost avoidance benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Surveillance cost avoidance $1,263.2 M $371.1 M

3 .2 Reduction in FAA subscription char ges due to value added services

The selected surveillance vendor intends to sell value added surveillance products to selected users (airlines, companies, private users, etc.) The vendor will provide the FAA with a certain percentage of the profit from these products thereby reducing the effective subscription charge. Since the reduction in effective subscription charges is dependent on user participation and therefore somewhat uncertain, the SBS program decided not to use this as a reduction in the program cost baseline, but as a potential FAA cost

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
81avoidance benefit. Table 3-2 lists the Re duction in FAA subscription charges benefit in base year and present value dollars.

Table 3-2. Reduction in FAA subscription charges due to value added services benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Reduction in FAA subscription charges $232.0 M $80.6 M

3.3 Reduction in costs to obtain weather info

Broadcast of NAS-wide FIS-B weather broadcasts may influence some current subscribers of commercial weat her services to switch to the free service. The commercial services may still retain some subscriber s due to value added products beyond what will be available in the FIS-B. The benefit assu mes half of current subscribers will move to the free service thereby reducing costs for thos e users. Table 3-3 lists the reduction in costs to obtain weather info benefits in base year and risk-adjuste d present value dollars.

Table 3-3. Reduction in costs to obtain weather info benefits

Outcome Benefits (BY 07) Benefits (RA PV) Reduction in costs to obtain weather info $88.9 M $26.1 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
824 SU MMARY OF PROGRAM BENEFITS

The following two tables present a summary of the total benefits (Table 4-1), and the benefits organized by location, applicati on, and desired outcome (Table 4-2).

Table 4-1. Summary benefits for the SBS program
Segment Benefits 2007-2035 (BY 07 M$) Benefits 2007-2035 (Risk-Adjusted PV M$) SBS Program $18,498.1 M $5,043.2 M

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
83Table 4-2. SBS program benefits by loca tion, application, and desired outcome

Location Application Outcome Benefit (BY7 $M) Benefit (PV $M)

CONUS, Hawaii, and Caribbean Surveillance Radar Airspace ATC Surveillance Surveillance cost avoidance $1,263.2 $371.1

More efficient en route conflict resolution $3,258.1 $801.8

More efficient en route metering to the arrival fix $1,746.6 $417.0

Increased safety on the surface by controllers $11.6 $3.2

More efficient ATC management of surface movement $92.1 $26.9

Reduction in FAA subscription charges due to value added services $232.0 $80.6

CONUS, Hawaii, and Caribbean Broadcast Services Enhanced Visual Acquisition and Conflict Detection Fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts $719.8 $203.6

Weather and NAS Status

Situational Awareness Fewer encounters with hazardous weather $792.3 $232.5
More efficient routes in adverse weather $18.4 $4.9
Reduction in user costs to obtain weather info $88.9 $26.1 Fewer controlled flights into terrain $1,015.6 $284.3

CONUS, Hawaii, and Caribbean

Aircraft Applications Enhanced Visual Approach - Initial Application More efficient spacing on approach in VMC $1,247.8 $300.4

Enhanced Visual Approach - CAVS Continuation of Visual Approaches in marginal conditions $803.7 $196.4

Enhanced Visual Approach - Merging and Spacing Increased ability to allow continuous descent approaches $2,876.7 $796.0

ADS-B ATC Automation Integration Airport Surface Situational Awareness Increased safety on the surface by pilots $299.5 $70.5
Final Approach and Runway Occupancy Awareness

Gulf of Mexico

Surveillance Non-radar Airspace ATC Surveillance (includes weather and comm as needed) High Altitude - Increased Capacity $2,064.7 $459.3 High Altitude - Optimal Routing $256.5 $86.5 Low Altitude - Increased Capacity $238.3 $84.2

Fewer encounters with hazardous weather – low altitude Gulf $13.1 $5.0

Alaska Surveillance and Broadcast Services Weather and NAS Status Situational Awareness and Enhanced Visual Acquisition and Conflict Detection Fewer aviation accidents in Alaska $760.2 $300.1

Non-Radar Airspace ATC Surveillance Access to lower altitude routes in Alaska $53.1 $19.5 Increased IFR capacity (JNU) $3.0 $1.1 Fewer aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts (JNU) $0.0 $0.0 Improved search and rescue services in Alaska $15.8 $7.0

Alaska Airport IFR Upgrade

Services Weather Automation upgrade and IFR Approach Development Increased access to remote villages in Alaska $215.3 $90.0

Increased Medevac acce ss to remote villages in Alaska $411.8 $175.4

Total $18,498.1 $5,043.2

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
845 RE FERENCES

1 FAA Safe Flight 21 Product Team, ”Safe F light 21 Pre-Investme nt Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis Phase II Re port”, May 1, 2001. Available URL: http://www.faa.gov/and/and500/DocMGR/anddoc.cfm

2 FAA Office of Policy and Plans, “Econo mic Values for Evaluation of Federal Aviation Administration Investme nt and Regulatory Programs,” 2005.

3 FAA Terminal Services. “Exhibit 300 A ttachment 2 Business Case Analysis Report for Airport Surface Detection E quipment, Model-X (ASDE-X),” August 2005.

4 FAA En Route Services. Corridor Integrat ed Weather System (CIWS) Benefits Assessment. March 2005.

5 Scanlon, C.H., “Cockpit Graphical Weat her Information Shown to Enhance Efficiency, Safety, and Situation Aware ness,” Proceedings of the 39th Annual Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar (CASS), St. Louis, MO, April 1994.

6 Barnett, A., G. Paull and J. Iaedeluca, “Fatal US Runway Collisions Over the Next Two Decades” Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 8, No. 4, 2000.

7 McCann, R.S., B.L. Hooey, B. Parke, D.C. Foyle, A.D. Andre, and B. Kanki, “An Evaluation of the Taxiway Navigatio n and Situation Awareness (T-NASA) system in High-Fidelity Simulation,” SA E Transactions: Journal of Aerospace, 107, 1612-1625, 1998.

8 Callantine, T.J., P.U. Lee, J. Mercer, T. Prevot, and E. Palmer, “Air and Ground Simulation of terminal-Area FMS Arrivals with Airborne Sp acing and Merging,” Proceedings of the 6 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Baltimore, MD June, 2005.

9 Lee, P.U., T. Prevot, J. Mercer, N. Smith, and E. Palmer, “Ground-side Perspective on Mixed Operations with Se lf-separating and Controller-managed Aircraft,” Proceedings of the 6 th USA/Europe Air Tra ffic Management R&D Seminar, Baltimore, MD June, 2005.

1 0 Barmore, B., T. Abbott, and K. Krishbamurthy, “Airborne-Managed Spacing in Multiple Arrival Streams,” Proceedings of 24 th International Congress of the Aeronautcal Sciences, Yokohama, Japan, 2004.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
851 1 Boursier, L., B. Favennec, E. Hoffman, L. Rognin, F. Vergne, and K. Zeghal, “Combining Sequencing Tool and Spaci ng Instructions to Enhance the Management of Arrival Flows of Aircraft,” Proceedings of the 5 th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Arlington, VA, September, 2005. AIAA-2005-7302.

12 Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, “C OSPACE 2003 Controller Model Based Study Assessment of Airborne Spaci ng Tasks in the Extended TMA,” EEC Report No. 392, May, 2004.

13 Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, “C OSPACE 2003 Controller Experiment Assessing the Impact of Sp acing Instructions in E-TMA and TMA,” EEC Report No. 386, December, 2003.

14 Howell, D., T. Spriesterbach, and J. Markst einer, “Efficiency Benefits of using a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information at SDF,” Proceedings of the 5 th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Oper ations Conference, Arlington, VA, September, 2005. AIAA-2005-7348

15 Jones, S.R., “ADS-B Surveillance Qual ity Indicators: Their Relationship to System Operational Capability and Airc raft Separation Standards,” Air Traffic Control Quarterly Vol 11(3) pp 225-250, August 2003.

16 Surveillance and Broadcast Services Sy stems Engineering Separation Standards Working Group, “Final Report on Operati onal Evaluation of 5 Nautical Mile ADS-B to Radar Separation Servi ces in Alaska,” November 2006.

17 FAA SafeFlight21 M&S Development Gr oup, “Flight-Deck Based Merging and Spacing (M&S) Initial Phase Applica tion Description,” December 2005.

18 Clarke, J.P.B., N.T. Ho, L. Ren, J.A. Br own, K.R. Elmer, K. Tong, and J.K. Wat, “Continuous Descent Approach: Design and Flight Test for Louisville International Airport,” Journal of Airc raft, Vol. 41, No. 5, September-October 2004.

19 FAA, “Capstone Statewide Business Case Analysis Report (BCAR),” outlines analyses used in Capstone Phase III JRC 2A decision, September 2005.

20 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration comparison of 406 MHz ELT and 121.5 MHz ELT.

21 University of Alaska Anchorage, MITRE CAASD, and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, “The Impact of Capstone Phase 1 Program Final Report,” September 2005.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
8622 Trunkey, DD. “Trauma.” Scientific American 249, no.2 (1983):20-7

23 Allied Joint Medical Support Doctrine, paragraph 0027

24 Wheeler, Bronwyn, “Military Trauma Management.” ADF Health, Defence Health Services Division, Australian Government Department of Defence

25 Taylor, JC., “Whither the Field Ambula nce?”, Canadian Forces College, Oct 2002.

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
876 A CRONYMS

ADIZ Air Defense Identification Zone ADOC Airline Direct Operating Costs ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surv eillance – Broadcast ADS-R Automatic Dependent Surveillance –Rebroadcast AIM Aeronautical Information Management AMASS Airport Movement Area Safety System AOC Airline Operations Center AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association APO FAA Office of Policy and Plans ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center ARTS Automated Radar Tracking System ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X ASPM Aviation System Performance Metrics ASR Airport Surveillance Radar ATA Air Transport Association ATC Air Traffic Control ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower ATO Air Traffic Organization B-757 Boeing 757 B-767 Boeing 767 BY Base Year CAVS CDTI Assisted Visual Separation CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CDA Continuous Descent Approach CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information CFIT Controlled Flight into Terrain CIWS Corridor Integrated Weather System CONUS Contiguous United States CTAS Center TRACON Automation System DHS Department of Homeland Security ELT Emergency Location Transmitter E-PIREP Electronic Pilot Report ES Extended Squitter ETMS Enhanced Traffic Management System EVA Enhanced Visual Approach FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAF Final Approach Fix FAROA Final Approach and Runway Awareness Occupancy FIS-B Flight Information Service-Broadcast FL Flight Level GA General Aviation GBT Ground-Based Transceiver GOMEX Gulf of Mexico GPS Global Positioning System

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
88GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System IA Instrument Approaches IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport IFR Instrument Flight Rules IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions JHUAPL Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory JRC Joint Resources Council M&S Merging and Spacing MAP Monitor Alert Parameter METAR Aviation Routine Weather Report - French MFD Multi-functional Display MLAT Multilateration MSL Mean Sea Level MVMC Marginal Visual Mete orological Conditions NAS National Airspace System NASDAC National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NATCA National Air Traffic Control Association NCDC National Climatic Data Center NCRCC National Capitol Regi on Command Center NEXRAD NEXt generation of RADar nmi Nautical mile(s) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command NTSB National Transportation Safety Board ONT Ontario International Airport OOOI Out Off On In OPSNET FAA Operational Network ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport PD Pilot Deviation PHL Philadelphia International Airport PIREP Pilot Report PRM Precision Runway Monitor PV Present Value PVT Passenger Value of Time RAA Regional Airport Authority RNAV Area Navigation RNP Required Navigational Performance SARSAT Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking SBS Surveillance and Broadcast Services SDF Louisville International Ai rport – Standiford Field SF-21 Safe Flight 21 SIGMET Significant Meteorological Advisory SMM Surface Moving Map SMR Surface Movement Radar SMS Surface Management System

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
89SUA Special Use Airspace TAF Terminal Area Forecast TAWS Terrain Awareness Warning System TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System TFR Temporary Flight Restriction TIS-B Traffic Information Service-Broadcast TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility UAT Universal Access Transceiver UPS United Parcel Service VA Visual Approaches VERN VHF Extended Range Network VFR Visual Flight Rules VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System ZHU Houston ARTCC

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
907 A PPENDIX A: EQUIPAGE

This appendix lists the equipage rates assumed for the cost a nd benefits model used in the February 2007 SBS JRC. In future analys es they may change as more information becomes available.

Table 7-1. ADS-B broadcast out equipage in CONUS

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
91Table 7-2. ADS-B In equipage in CONUS

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
92Table 7-3. Additional CFIT eligible equipage in CONUS

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
93Table 7-4. Gulf of Mexico equipage assumptions

Low-Altitude Gulf High Altitude Gulf Helicopter ADS-B out Broadcast equipage 2006 0% 2006 0% 2007 0% 2007 0% 2008 0% 2008 0% 2009 0% 2009 0% 2010 0% 2010 0% 2011 25% 2011 10% 2012 50% 2012 20% 2013 75% 2013 30% 2014 100% 2014 40% 2015 100% 2015 50% 2016 100% 2016 60% 2017 100% 2017 70% 2018 100% 2018 80% 2019 100% 2019 90% 2020 100% 2020 100% 2021 100% 2021 100% 2022 100% 2022 100% 2023 100% 2023 100% 2024 100% 2024 100% 2025 100% 2025 100% 2026 100% 2026 100% 2027 100% 2027 100% 2028 100% 2028 100% 2029 100% 2029 100% 2030 100% 2030 100% 2031 100% 2031 100% 2032 100% 2032 100% 2033 100% 2033 100% 2034 100% 2034 100% 2035 100% 2035 100%

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
94Table 7-5. UPS CDTI equipage
UPS CDTI equipage 2006.00 0.00 2007.00 0.00 2008.00 0.33 2009.00 0.66 2010.00 1.00 2011.00 1.00 2012.00 1.00 2013.00 1.00 2014.00 1.00 2015.00 1.00 2016.00 1.00 2017.00 1.00 2018.00 1.00 2019.00 1.00 2020.00 1.00 2021.00 1.00 2022.00 1.00 2023.00 1.00 2024.00 1.00 2025.00 1.00 2026.00 1.00 2027.00 1.00 2028.00 1.00 2029.00 1.00 2030.00 1.00 2031.00 1.00 2032.00 1.00 2033.00 1.00 2034.00 1.00 2035.00 1.00

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
95Table 7-6. Alaska Capstone avionics equipage

F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
96F E D E R A L A V I A T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
97 Table 7-7. Alaska Capstone additi onal CFIT eligible equipage