# r

Exhibi t 30 0 Attachmen t

2 Busines s Cas e Analysi s Repor t

fo r Futur e Surveillanc e JR C Phas e 2a %



### MN S #326 , Enhanced

Surveillance MN S #50 , Application of

Satellite Navigation Capability for Civil Aviation MN S #323 , Airport

Surface Movement

Enhancement

and Runway Incursion Prevention [N S #42 , Aeronautical

Data Link

System (ADLS)

ApprovedBy : Vic e Presiden

t formication s Planning , FA A Ai r Traffi c Organizatio n 

## Date : ~g^ W

U
. S
. Departmen

t of Transportation Federa l Aviation Administration 800 Independenc e Avenue Washington , D.C
. 2059 1 

# p i

# r H

Exhibi t 30 0 Attachmen t

2 Busines s Cas e Analysi s Repor t

fo r Futur e Surveillanc e JR C Phas e 2 a MN S #326 , Enhanced

Surveillance MN S #50 , Application of Satellite Navigation Capability forCivil Aviation MN S #323 , Airport

Surface Movement

Enhancement

and Runway Incursion Prevention MN S #42 , Aeronautical

Data Link System (ADLS)
Approve dBy : Date : Vic e Presiden t

for Operation s Planning } FA A Ai r Traffi c Organizatio n Vic e Presiden t

for Operation s Planning ? FA A Ai r Traffi c Organizatio n / j Approve dBy : ^Vjg^c^y ^ Date : l/^l 0

- * ^•Senioj^Vic e Presiden t

for Finance , FA^Ai r

Traffi c Organizatio n 

# I U
. S
. Departmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e Washington , D.C
. 20 5Tabl e o f Content s INTRODUCTIO N 4 BACKGROUN D 4 2. 1 Alternativ e 1 : ADS- B 4 2. 2 Alternativ e 2 : Rada r Replacemen t

5 2. 3 Alternativ e 3 : Multilateratio n 5 MISSIO N NEE D AN D REQUIREMEN T 6 3. 1 Requirement s 6 3.1. 1 Enhance dSurveillanc e Informatio n for AT C 6 3.1. 2 Enhance dSituatio n Awarenes s 7 3. 2 Missio n Nee dan dShortfal l 7 3. 3 Assumptions , Constraints , an dCondition s 8 ALTERNATIVE S ANALYZE D 9 4. 1 Alternativ e 1 : ADS- B 9 4.1. 1 Ke y Alternativ e Activitie s 9 4. 2 Alternativ e 2 : Rada r Replacemen t

9 4.2. 1 Ke y Alternativ e Activitie s 1 0 4. 3 Alternativ e 3 : Multilateratio n 1 0 4.3. 1 Ke y Alternativ e Activitie s 1 0 EVALUATIO N CRITERI A 1 0 BUSINES S CAS E ANALYSI S 1 1 6. 1 Schedul e Analysi s 1 1 6.1. 1 Alternativ e 1 : ADS- B 1 1 6.1.1. 1 ADS- B Hig hLeve l Milestone s 1 1 6.1.1. 2 Avionic s Implementatio n 1 2 6.1.1. 3 Groun dInfrastructur e Implementatio n 1 2 6.1.1. 4 Automatio n Implementatio n 1 2 6.1.1. 5 Dat aProduct s Implementatio n 1 3 6.1. 2 ADS- B Segmen t 1 (F Y 200 7 throug h2012 ) 1 3 6.1.2. 1 Elemen t

1 : E n Rout e /

Oceani c Airspac e 1 3 6.1.2. 2 Elemen t

2 : Termina l /

Surfac e Airspac e 1 4 6.1.2. 3 Elemen t

3 : Broadcas t

Service s 1 4 6.1.2. 4 Elemen t

4 : Enablin g Technolog y 1 4 6.1. 3 Alternativ e 2 : Rada r Replacemen t

1 4 6.1. 4 Alternativ e 3 : Multilateratio n 1 5 6. 2 Lif

e Cycl e Cos t

Analysi s Summary 1 5 6.2. 1 Cos t

Tea mCompositio n 1 6 6.2. 2 Groun dRule s an dAssumption s 1 7 6.2. 3 Scop e o f

th e Estimat e 1 8 6.2. 4 Cos t

- Ris k Adjustmen t

1 9 6. 3 Benefit s Analysi s 2 0 6. 4 Economi c Analysi s 2 6 6. 5 Ris k

Analysi s 2 66.5. 1 Ris k Analysi s Groun dRule s 2 7 6.5. 2 Ris k

Tea mCompositio n 2 7 6.5. 3 Approac h2 8 6.5. 4 Result s 2 9 6.5.4. 1 Referenc e Cas e 2 9 6.5.4. 2 Alternativ e 1 - ADS- B 3 0 6.5.4. 3 Alternativ e 2 - Rada r Replacemen t

3 0 6.5.4. 4 Alternativ e 3 -Multilateratio n 3 1 6.5.4. 5 Qualitativ e Compariso n 3 2 6.5.4. 6 Quantitativ e Compariso n 3 4 6.5. 5 Summary 3 4 6. 6 Architectur e Assessmen t 3 4 6. 7 Othe r

ADS- B Relate dAssessment s 3 8 6.7. 1 Human Factor s Assessmen t 3 8 6.7. 2 Informatio n Securit y Assessmen t 4 5 6.7. 3 Safet

y Assessmen t

4 7 6.7. 4 Affordability Assessmen t 4 8 6.7.4. 1 F& E an dOP S Fundin g 4 8 6.7.4. 2 F& E Affordability 4 8 7 ALTERNATIV E SELECTE D 4 8 7.1. 1 Criteri a1 : Cor e Surveillanc e 4 8 7.1. 2 Criteri a2 : Cockpi t Base d"Thir dDimension " 4 9 7.1. 3 Criteri a3 : Busines s Cas e 5 0 8 RECOMMENDATION S 5 0 9 PROGRA M FUNDIN G 5 1 Appendix A: References 52 AppendixB: ADS-B Risk Table (Consolidated) 531 INTRODUCTIO N

I n th e earl y 1980's , civi l aviatio n recognize dth e increasin g limitation s o f th e presen t communications , navigation , surveillanc e (CNS ) an dai r traffi c managemen t

(ATM ) systems , th e nee dt o mak e improvement s t o overcom e presen t limitations , an dth e requiremen t t o mee t future needs
. T o fulfill it s visio n an dcommitment s t o th e global ai r traffi c contro l system , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) mus t evaluat e it s presen t

ai r traffi c managemen t

(ATM ) syste m an dpla n for

futur e capabilities
. Whil e curren t

surveillanc e i s generall y adequat e for today' s environment , i t

wil l no t support th e anticipate dgrowthi n aviatio n withou t los s o f efficienc y withi n th e NAS
. A s th e reques t fo r additiona l services—including traffi c demand—increase , syste minefficiencie s wil l increas e i n th e for mo f delay s an drestriction s acros s th e Nationa l Airspac e Syste m(NAS ) thereb y increasin g cos t

an dreducin g airspac e users ' ability t o mee t custome r

demands
. Ther e i s anee dt o improv e th e FAA' s surveillanc e capabilitie s i n th e surface , terminal , e n rout e an doceani c airspac e domain s whil e sustainin g o r enhancin g th e curren t

level s o f

safety , capacity , an d efficiency
. Surveillanc e method s use di n today' s environmen t wil l no t

suppor t continue d aviatio n growth
. Additionally , th e curren t surveillanc e system s d o no t tak e advantag e o f

ne w technologie s i n navigation , communicatio n an dflight management . Expansio n o f surveillanc e coverag e i s essential t o suppor t ai r traffi c contro l modernizatio n efforts
. Th e purpos e o f th e Futur e Surveillanc e Capacit y Missio n Nee dStatemen t (MNS ) wa s t o exploi t

atechnologica l opportunit y that

increases th e FAA' s surveillanc e capabilitie s i n al l domain s andt o contribut e t o th e promotio n o f

global airspac e interoperabilit y an dcommerce . 2 BACKGROUN D Thre e alternativ e solution s wer e examine dfor thei r abilit y t o suppor t

futur e AT C "cor e surveillance " and"cockpit-based " capabilitie s tha t coul dmee t

th e need s o f

th e FA A an d Nationa l Airspac e Syste musers . Th e followin g provide s abrie f backgroun ddescriptio n o f th e thre e propose dsolutions
. 2. 1 Alternativ e 1 : ADS- B Ther e ha s bee n alarg e bod y o f marke t surve y activity tha t

ha s occurre di n th e effor t t o understand , develo p an dcos t thi s technology
. ADS- B i s atechnolog y tha t wa s initiall y conceive dbac k

i n th e lat e 1980s
. I n th e earl y 1990 s th e FA A i n partnershi p withRTC A bega n a searc hfor

alo w cos t

alternativ e formo f

surveillance
. Severa l technologie s wer e considere d includin g nex t

generatio n radars , multilateratio n an dADS-B
. I n 1995 , th e FA A initiate da progra mcalle dHalaska , t o implemen t alow-cos t

surveillanc e capabilit y i n Hawai i an dAlask a wher e ther e i s littl e t o n o rada r coverag e du e t o terrai n constraints
. A t approximatel y th e sam e time , th e RTC A Special Committe e (SC ) 18 6 wa s forme dt o defin e requirement s for th e nex t generatio n surveillance
. SC-18 6 determine dtha t th e syste mshoul dhav e th e capability o f hig h update s rates , provid e atwo-wa y data-lin k an dshoul dprovid e accurat e positio n data
. SC-18 6 ha s bee n responsibl e for

muc ho f th e standard s developmen t fo r ADS-B
. Th e Halask aprogra m receive dsignificant

Congressiona l support

sinc e it s inception
. Howeve r du e t o programmati c issues , th e Halask aprogra mwen t throug hseveral iteration s whe n i t finally ende dup becomin gth e Saf

e Fligh t 2 1 Program , whic hinclude dth e Alask aCapston e Offic e andth e Ohi o Rive r Valle y Office
. Whe n th e Saf e Fligh t 2 1 ProgramOffic e (SF-21 ) wa s formed , senio r managemen t

o f th e FA A directe dSF-2 1 t o develo p ADS- B a s apotentia l futur e alternativ e t o radar
. Thi s directio n cam e a s aresul t o f alette r sent t o th e FA A i n 199 8 fromth e RTC A Fre e Fligh t Selec t Committe e recommendin g tha t th e FA A explor e th e us e o f ADS-B
. BothSF-2 1 sub-office s (Capston e an dOhi o Rive r Valley ) bega n t o establis htest-bed s fo r th e technology
. Capstone , wit hstron g Congressiona l support , develope dan ddeploye dan ADS- B prototyp e infrastructur e i n th e Yukon-Kuskokwi mDelt aregio n i n Bethe l Alaska
. Th e Ohi o Rive r Valle y Office , i n partnershi p wit hth e Carg o Airline s Associatio n (CAA) , th e Aircraf t Owner s an d Pilot' s Associatio n (AOPA ) an danumbe r o f avionic s an dgroun dstatio n vendors , develope dan d deploye dADS- B infrastructure s i n severa l location s withi n th e confine s o f th e lower 4 8 CONU S an dth e Gul f

o f Mexico
. CONU S site s includ e Wilmington , OH , Louisville , KY , Memphis , TN , Frederick , MD , WilliamJ
. Hughe s Technica l Cente r an dth e Gul f

o f Mexic o (domesti c offshor e region)
. I n addition , ates t o f ADS- B wa s execute da

t th e Olympic s i n Atlanta , GA i n 199 6 an d ther e i s a n ongoin g evaluatio n t o investigat e th e utility o f ADS- B i n th e Nationa l Capital Regio n t o enhanc e surveillanc e belo w existin g rada r coverage . Capston e wa s successfu l i n deployin g an ddemonstratin g th e prototyp e infrastructur e i n Alask aan di s currentl y deployin g asecon dsit e i n S EAlaska
. Th e Ohi o Rive r Valle y offic e wa s successfu l i n th e deploymen t anddemonstratio n o f th e befor e mentione dsites
. I n addition , SF-2 1 Ohi o Rive r Valle y offic e ha s le dth e wa y i n a numbe r o f effort s that

fol dint o th e overal l developmen t o f ADS- B groun dinfrastructure , automatio n interface s an davionics
. Th e followin g highlight s afe w o f thes e efforts :

• Standard s Developmen t (partnere dwit hRTC A an dICAO )
• Avionic s Developmen t (partnere dwit hvendor s an dAVS )
• Automatio n Interfac e Developmen t (Commo n ARTS , STARS )
• ADS- B Lin

k Decisio n (provide dessentia l dat at o justif y lin k decision )
• Coordinatio n fo

r Permanen t

Lin k Frequenc y Establishmen t A s aresul t

o f activitie s performe db y bot hsub-offices , contract s ar e currentl y i n plac e for th e procuremen t

o f ADS- B Universa l Acces s Transceive r (UAT ) Groun dBroadcas t Transceiver s (GBT) , avionics , ancillary hardware , softwar e andservices
. 2. 2 Alternativ e 2 : Rada rReplacemen t Rada r i s th e technolog y currentl y bein g use db y th e FAA
. Rada r ha s bee n i n existenc e sinc e Worl dWa r

II
. Th e FA A ha s severa l classe s o f rada r whic hdefin e functionality : AS R1 throug h 1 1 (termina l radars) , ARS R1 throug h4 (e n rout e radar) , ASD E1 throug h3 X (surfac e radar) , B I 1 throug h6 (beaco n radar ) an dMod e S an dIntegrate dMonopuls e rada r (beaco n radar)
. Rada r ha s gon e throug hanumbe r o f evolutionar y change s althoug hth e cor e technolog y ha s no t change dsinc e it s inception
. Becaus e rada r i s th e current

technology , n o robus t

marke t surve y ha s bee n conducted
. Actual cost s fromcurren t acquisition s hav e bee n use dfor cos t comparison
. 2. 3 Alternativ e 3 : Multilateratio n Multilateratio n wa s on e o f th e origina l technologie s tha t th e FA A ha dlooke da

t whe n tryin g t o identif y alternativ e surveillanc e source s i n th e earl y 1990s
. Th e FA A establishe dseveral test
-bed s for

multilateration : Atlant aAirpor t (1996) ; Milwauke e Airpor t (1998) , Dallas-Ft

Wort h Airport (200 0 - Ai r

Targe t Identificatio n Syste m(ATIDS))
. Th e incrementa l developmen t o f multilateratio n culminatin g withth e ATID S eventuall y le dt o th e certificatio n an ddeploymen t o f ASDE- X an d3 X syste mfor surfac e surveillance
. Extensiv e testin g an ddevelopmen t o f multilateratio n wa s als o conducte db y th e SF-2 1 Ohi o Rive r Valle y an dNASA
. SF-2 1 set-u p a test-be di n Memphi s andLouisville , whic hinclude dmultilateratio n utilizatio n for trackin g airborn e aircraf

t i n th e termina l area . Sinc e th e are awa s s o larg e i n scop e (40-6 0 mil e airpor t radiu s aroun da

n airport) , th e nam e wide-are amultilateratio n (WAM ) wa s adopted
. SF-2 1 Ohi o Rive r Valle y partnere dwithNAS A t o evaluat e an ddevelo p bot hmultilateratio n an dADS- B a s a low-cos t surveillanc e technolog y for th e Gul f o f Mexico
. Thi s wor k

wa s funde dpartiall y b y th e FA A an dmostl y b y tw o Congressiona l earmark s give n t o NAS A i n 2001
. Th e FAA' s mos t advance dairborn e WAM developmen t too k plac e i n thi s test-bed
. Durin g th e developmen t perio dfo r

multilateratio n an dWAM , muc hwa s learned
. W e kno w no w tha t a n aircraf t mus t hav e at leas t 4 groun dstation s receivin g it s transponde r information
. Th e numbe r o f groun d station s require dvarie s withth e topograph y an dother factors
. Multilateratio n ha s show n promis e a s an alternativ e surveillanc e technology ; however , ther e ar e stil l unresolve dissue s that mus t b e worke dfo r

multilateratio n t o b e deploye dfor extensiv e airborn e surveillance
. 3 MISSIO N NEE D AN D REQUIREMEN T 3. 1 Requirement s FA A Offic e o f

Aviatio n Policy an dPlan s (APO ) workloa dan daviatio n activity forecast s for F Y 9 8 - 0 9 sho w asubstantial ai r traffi c increas e i n th e continenta l U.S
. Th e AT S Concep t o f Operation s (CONOPS ) define s th e nee dfor increase dAi r

Traffi c Managemen t

(ATM ) service s becaus e o f

tha t traffi c growth
. Th e impetu s fo r th e FA A need s i s based , i n part , o n th e increasin g deman d(traffic ) an dth e benefit s t o b e derive db y transitio n o f th e NA S towar dFre e Flight
. Anothe r

drivin g facto r

i s th e safety objective s i n a n increasingl y crowde dairspace
. FA A Missio n Nee dStatemen t 32 6 identifie dth e followin g broa dcategorie s o f enhance d surveillanc e capabilitie s for th e NAS :

• Enhance dsurveillanc e informatio n for AT C
• Enhance dsituationa l awarenes s 3.1. 1 Enhance d Surveillanc e Informatio n fo rAT C Accordin g t o th e Joint

Government/Industry Roadmap for Surveillance Modernization th e Ai r Traffi c environmen t

o f th e future wil l b e increasingl y dependen t o n mor e accurat e an dtimel y informatio n bein g availabl e t o Ai r Traffi c (AT ) servic e provider s an daircraf t operators . Informatio n pertainin g t o avariet y o f airspac e condition s an daccurat e positio n data , includin g aircraf t intent , wil l b e necessary . Thi s dat awil l nee dt o b e share dbetwee n servic e provider s an d user s efficiently
. Surveillanc e dat awil l b e ake y ingredien t i n thi s paradig mo f

informatio n sharing
. Improve ddecisio n tool s wil l b e abl e t o take advantag e o f aircraf t intent informatio n t o provid e mor e accurat e situatio n awareness . This , alon g wit himprove daccuracy , wil l allo w fo r mor e accurat e trajector

y modelin g for

us e i n conflic t

predictio n an dresolution , meterin gapplications , an dspacin g tools
. I n addition , sharin g th e surveillanc e informatio n wit hth e

cockpi t wil l increas e th e pilot' s situatio n awareness , reducin g th e nee dfor request s fo r information , an dwil l enabl e th e us e o f cockpit-base dprocedure s tha t safel y suppor

t efficienc y an dcapacit y goals
.

• Th e FAA' s AT C personne l nee dt o hav e reliable , accurate , timel y an dcos t efficient surveillanc e informatio n o f aircraft , flyin g objects , an dvehicle s operatin g i n th e airspac e fromth e surfac e up , i n al l type s o f terrain , i n curren t

non-surveillanc e airspac e areas , an d oceani c contro l areas , withou t blin dspot s o r

area s o f n o coverag e wit ha

n accurac y sufficien t t o safely increas e existin g airspac e capacity
. A reliabl e surveillanc e syste mi s imperativ e fo

r ensurin g separatio n assurance .

• AT C personne l nee dreliable , accurate , timel y an dcos t efficien t surveillanc e informatio n fo r al l aircraf

t an dvehicle s operatin g o n th e airport surfac e movemen t

are ai n al l weathe r conditions
.

• I n orde r

t o dynamicall y adjus t

traffi c flows , reliable , accurate , an dtimel y informatio n i s essential
.

• Wit hth e advent

o f spac e operations , AT C personne l nee dsurveillanc e informatio n o n flying object s abov e curren t AT C surveillanc e system s capabilities
. 3.1. 2 Enhance d Situatio n Awarenes s

• Th e user s o f

th e airspac e rel y primaril y o n a"se e an db e seen " concep t an dAT C service s t o gai n asituational awarenes s o f th e othe r user s aroun do r

nea r them
. Airspac e user s nee dan accurate , timely , an defficien t means t o receiv e advisor y informatio n t o increas e thei r situationa l knowledg e o f th e othe r user s aroun do r

nea r the ms o tha t

the y ca n operat e efficientl y an dincreas e safety t o flight
.

• A t th e airport , pilot s an dvehicl e operator s rel y o n a"se e an db e seen " concep t an dAT C service s for

movin g abou t

th e airpor t

movemen t

are aan dt o gai n asituationa l awarenes s o f th e othe r aircraf t an dvehicle s aroun do r

near them
. Pilot s an dvehicl e operator s nee d an accurate , timely , efficien t mean s t o increas e thei r

situationa l knowledg e o f th e othe r user s aroun do r

near the ms o tha t

the y ca n operat e efficientl y an dincreas e safet y i n th e airpor t movemen t

area . 3. 2 Missio n Nee d an d Shortfal l Th e followin g Missio n Nee dan dShortfall s hav e bee n identifie di n th e FAA' s NA S Requirement s Specificatio n (SR-1000) , an dMissio n Nee dStatement for Enhance dSurveillanc e Capabilit y (MN S 326) :

• Common/Share dSituationa l Awarenes s t o improv e operationa l efficiencie s an d enhance doperational safety ,• Collaboratio n an dTimel y Communication s o f Airspac e Informatio n (e.g. , aircraf t location , NA S congestion , weather , an dairspac e informatio n (NOTAMS , SUA , etc. ) betwee n servic e provider s an dairspac e operators) , • Collaboratio n an dTimel y Communication s o f Aeronautica l Informatio n (e.g. , aircraf t location , NA S congestion , weather , an dairspac e informatio n (NOTAMS , SUA , etc.) ) betwee n servic e provider s an dFligh t dec k crews , • Th e opportunit y t o further enhanc e th e efficienc y o f servic e providers , • Cost-effectiv e syste mt o preven t Controlle dFligh t

Int o Terrai n (CFIT) , • Cost-effectiv e syste mt o enhanc e se e an davoid , • A cost-effectiv e syste mt o improv e Termina l Operation s i n Low/Poo r Visibility , • A cost-effectiv e syste mt o improv e airport surfac e navigatio n for

th e pilot , • A cost-effectiv e syste mt o improv e airport surfac e surveillanc e for

controllers , an d

• A cost-effectiv e syste mt o improv e surveillanc e i n Non-Rada r airspac e 3. 3 Assumptions , Constraints , an d Condition s Th e followin g assumptions , constraint s an dcondition s hav e majo r impact s o n th e analyse s describe di n thi s documen t an dthei r conclusions :

• Th e lif

e cycl e o f FAA' s curren t

ground-base dsurveillanc e system s i s assume dt o b e 2 0 year s fro mthei r

initia l service
. • Legac y system s suc ha s Mod e S , ASD Eradar an dPR M wil l nee dt o b e replace dsoone r tha n thos e system s i n th e curren t acquisitio n cycl e suc ha s ASDE-X , ATCBI- 6 an d ASR-11
. • A selecte dnumbe r

o f termina l secondary (beacon ) radar s ar e assume dt o b e replacedb y ADS- B after

thes e radar s reac hthei r

lif e cycles
. • PR M initiall y wil l b e replace db y multilateration
. Multilateratio n PR M an dth e multilateratio n portio n o f ADSE-X/ASDE-3 X ar e assume dt o b e replace db y ADS- B at th e en do f

thei r lif e cycles
. • Th e initia l require doperatin g dat e for th e propose dinvestmen t o f NA S wid e implementatio n o f

ADS- B i s assume dt o b e i n th e 5-yea r segmen t wit hSegmen t

1 occurrin g from200 7 t o 2012
. • Avionic s mandat e for "ADS- B out " i n Clas s A , B , C , D , an dEi s assume dt o b e approve db y th e FA A an dth e externa l aviatio n users . • ADS- B avionic s cos t (ADS- B ou t

an dCDTI ) i s assume dt o b e sufficientl y economica l t o encourag e timel y equipage
. • Al l thre e alternatives , ADS-B , rada r replacement , an dmultilateratio n can provid e air-to

groun dsurveillanc e capabilit y for AT C i n al l domains , a s wel l a s th e monitorin g o f independen t

approache s t o closel y space dparalle l runways . However , onl y th e ADS- B alternativ e can support

air-to-ai r surveillanc e application s t o improv e safety an d efficienc y o f

flight operation s an dAT C procedures
.4 ALTERNATIVE S ANALYZE D

A s mentione dpreviously , thre e alternativ e solution s wer e examine dfor thei r abilit y t o support future AT C "cor e surveillance " an d"cockpit-based " capabilitie s tha t coul dmee t

th e need s o f

th e FA A an dNationa l Airspac e Syste musers . Th e thre e alternative s consis t of : 1
. Implementin g a

n ADS- B infrastructur e i n lie u o f secondary surveillanc e rada r (SSR ) 2
. Continuin g wit hacombine dSS Ran dprimar y surveillanc e rada r (PSR ) system , an d 3
. Implementin g multilateratio n system s i n lie u o f SS R 4. 1 Alternativ e 1 : ADS- B Th e ADS- B alternativ e include s installin g groun dstation s t o receiv e ADS- B transmission s a t numerou s location s throughou t th e US
. ADS- B transmitter s woul db e mandate dt o achiev e nearl y universa l aircraf

t equipag e tha t

allow s th e continuatio n o f ground-base dseparatio n service s i n additio n t o ne w cockpit-base drole s an dresponsibilities
. Cor e Surveillance : ADS- B provide s arobus t highl y accurate , timel y (onc e pe r second) , four

dimensiona l (th e thre e spatia l dimension s an dtime ) surveillanc e dat alink , base do n th e downlin k o f th e aircraft' s Globa l Positionin g Syste m(GPS ) parameters . ADS- B messag e conten t provide s distinc t aircraf t o r vehicle-specifi c identification , an doperationa l dat ai n th e air-to-air , air-to

ground , ground-to-air , an dground-to-groun doperations , supportin g al l NA S domain s (Terminal , Surface , E n Rout e and/o r Oceanic)
. Cockpit-Base dCapabilities : Th e two-wa y dat alin k portio n o f

ADS-B , als o enable s arang e o f cockpi t base dapplications
. Application s supporte dinclude : uplin k o f graphica l weathe r

an d flight informatio n data , traffi c informatio n (radar o r othe r automate dsurveillanc e information) , runwa y incursio n map display s (i.e. , surfac e movin g maps) , an defficienc y application s - allowin g for

bette r sequencin g an dseparatio n o f aircraft
. 4.1. 1 Ke y Alternativ e Activitie s Assume s airspac e MANDATE , for "ADS- B out " (Squi t

only) , for

al l aircraf

t i n Clas s A , B , C , D an dE
. Retain s al l primar y radar , divest s beacon , PR M an dASDE-clas s radar s i n 2018 , after mandat e i n effect
. Support s "Core " Surveillance , Cockpi t "Advisory " applications , an dCockpi t "Critical " applications
.

• Procur e 41 9 groun dstations , • Develo p 6 automatio n interfaces , • Deplo y 3 Broadcas t

Service Contro l Facilities
. 4. 2 Alternativ e 2 : Rada rReplacemen t Cor e Surveillance : Thi s alternativ e provide s for th e nex t generationa l replacemen t o f radar infrastructure , i n accordanc e wit hlifecycle s o f existin g radar

systems . Thi s alternativ e woul d continu e t o maintai n th e varyin g classe s o f rada r supportin g existin g missio n area s o f Surface ,Termina l an dE n Rout e domains
. It recognize s th e potentia l for future growthi n overal l number s o f system s t o mee t

increasin g capacity demand s i n al l domains , a s wel l as , support surveillanc e requirement s for

offshor e domesti c airspac e (i.e. , th e Gul f o f Mexic o an dCaribbean ) may b e required
. Cockpit-Base dCapabilities : Withi n th e NA S today , ther e ar e severa l system s capabl e o f deliverin g cockpit-base dapplications , whic hoperat e outsid e o f NA S parameter s a s acommercial service
. Chie f

amongs t thes e are th e satellit e weathe r providers , whic hdelive r afe e for servic e product , t o speciall y equippe daircraft
. I n addition , th e FA A provide s Traffi c Informatio n Service s (TIS ) fromexistin g Mode- S radars , whic hals o require s specialize dequipment
. 4.2. 1 Ke y Alternativ e Activitie s Assume s replacemen t

o f al l classe s o f

rada r i n accordanc e t o norma l 2 0 yea r lif e cycl e an dfull procuremen t

quantities
. Provide s equipag e cost s for delivery o f

TI S an dcommercia l FIS , includin g upgrad e o f

11 2 ASR-ll s t o suppor t TIS
. Support s "Core " Surveillanc e an dCockpi t "Advisory " Services
. 4. 3 Alternativ e 3 : Multilateratio n Cor e Surveillance : Thi s alternativ e i s base dupo n th e us e o f Multilateration , whic hi s abeacon

base dcooperativ e surveillanc e system . I t ca n functio n withbot hexistin g an dfuture transponder s (i.e
. Mode s A/C , Mod e S short an dfutur

e extende dsquitte r

transponders). Multilateratio n function s b y triangulatin g aircraf t positio n basedo n tim e differenc e o f arrival o f signal s t o multipl e groun dstations
. Multilateratio n i s currentl y i n us e a s asurfac e surveillanc e too l throug hth e ASDE- X program , an dha s bee n teste dfor us e i n supportin g th e Terminal an d E n Rout e airspac e domains
. Cockpit-Base dCapabilities : Withi n th e NA S today , ther e ar e severa l system s capabl e o f deliverin g cockpit-base dapplications , whic hoperat e outsid e o f NA S parameter s a s acommercial service
. Chie f

amongs t thes e ar e th e satellit e weathe r providers , whic hdelive r afe e for servic e product , t o speciall y equippe daircraft
. I n addition , th e FA A provide s Traffi c Informatio n Service s (TIS ) fromexistin g Mode- S radars , whic hals o require s specialize dequipment
. 4.3. 1 Ke y Alternativ e Activitie s Develo p an dprocur e 123 0 Multilateratio n groun dstations , develo p 5 automatio n interfaces
. Provide s equipag e cos t for deliver y o f

TI S an dcommercial FIS , includin g upgrad e o f Multilateratio n t o support TIS
. Retain s al l primary , divest s Beaco n an dPRM
. Support s "Core " Surveillanc e an dCockpi t "Advisory " Services
. 5 EVALUATIO N CRITERI A Th e aforementione dthre e alternatives , ADS-B , Radar Replacement , an dMultilateratio n hav e bee n evaluate dwit hrespec t t o th e followin g criteria :

1 0• "Cor e surveillance " functio n for detection , trackin g an dseparatio n o f aircraf t i n CONUS , Gul f

o f Mexic o an dCaribbean
. • Cockpi t

"Advisory " Service s t o delive r arang e o f

traffic , weathe r

an ddatabas e product s whic hwil l increas e pilo t

"situatio n awareness " an ddecision-makin g ability
. • Cockpi t

"Critical " Service s t o provid e arang e o f envisione dcockpi t

display application s enablin g transfe r o f spacing/separatio n responsibilitie s fromAT C t o th e pilot
. • Th e Economi c Analysi s / Busines s Cas e Analysi s consider s FA A lif e cycl e cost s an d use r safety an defficienc y benefit s i n estimatin g th e ne t presen t valu e (NPV ) an d benefit/cos t

(B/C ) ratio
. Th e NP V i s th e differenc e betwee n th e presen t valu e (PV ) o f benefit s an dth e presen t valu e o f costs . Th e benefit/cos t

(B/C ) rati o i s calculate db y dividin g th e PV o f

benefit s b y th e P V o f

costs . 6 BUSINES S CAS E ANALYSI S 6. 1 Schedul e Analysi s Th e schedul e analysi s wa s highl y dependan t upo n assumption s surroundin g currentl y deploye d an dfutur e propose drada r systems . A s amean s t o minimiz e an y risk s associate dwit h assumption s concernin g thes e rada r systems , representative s fro mATO-T , ATO-E , an dATO- P / Enterpris e Architecture , were aske dt o an ddi dparticipat e i n thei r development
. I n orde r t o accoun t

for aful l replacemen t

cycl e o f surveillance , alif

e cycl e tha t

extende dt o 203 5 wa s groun drule di n for

al l alternatives
. 6.1. 1 Alternativ e 1 : ADS- B Th e ADS- B progra mconsist s o f thre e segments , eac happroximatel y fiv e year s i n duration
. Th e lif e cycl e for

th e entir e program(includin g stead y stat e operations ) start s i n FY200 7 an dend s i n FY2035
. I n thi s alternative , phas e ou t o f rada r (i.e. , SSR , ASDE-3 , PRM ) begin s i n 2018
. 6.1.1. 1 ADS- B Hig h Leve l Milestone s ADS- B implementatio n i s amulti-domai n progra mtha t require s integratio n o f fou r majo r components : 1 ) groun dinfrastructure , 2 ) automation , 3 ) dat aan d4 ) avionics
. Se e Figur e 1
.

1 10 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24-3 5 I h

_

, h

C B « B - Include s Mod e d Vai l

Clas s C , D , 8, ETfarl^RFImhl ]
Awarenes s Activitie s 2 Sourc e Da yI

In t Interfac e Dei Ad d B S , Conten t Oev- Ne wAp n - A {NA S lir a Mergin g S Spacin g

— - A A NA S Im p CEF H NA S Im p AC M
.___A A

RF G Pach a w2S 3

IPiodudio n 109 0 Radi o lUA TRadi o Instal l I

Commissio n (J1 0 GBT s 6 26 1 Sites) I Radi o Insla l /Commissio n (41 0 GBT s g 20 1 Sites)
M Contro l Facilitylinp l (3 )

. ^__HadioTech_Rerresh

_ PitKfldur e De v GalfotMa«ico|5GBTa ) Ca_riiEmari(4GBTs )

Figur e 1 : ADS- B Hig hLevel Milestone s 6.1.1. 2 Avionic s Implementatio n Thi s activit y consist s o f th e developmen t

an dth e issuin g o f

th e airspac e mandate s for ADS- B avionics
. Th e affecte dairspac e include s clas s A , B , C , D an dE
. Thi s tas k als o include s completio n o f

th e standard s development , procedures , guidance , trainin g materia l an d complianc e monitoring
. Al l o f thes e task s wil l b e execute dthroug hServic e Leve l Agreement s withth e appropriat e FA A organizations ; the y i n tur n wil l us e thei r curren t existin g suppor

t contrac t t o execut e th e work
. A tiger-tea mlea db y AV S i s bein g considere dt o accomplis hth e abov e activities
. Ke y member s includ e Fligh t Standards , Aircraf

t Certification , Rul e Makin g an d th e ADS- B Progra mOffice
. Othe r member s wil l b e adde da s needed , whic hcoul dinclud e industr y avionic s vendors
. 6.1.1. 3 Groun d Infrastructur e Implementatio n Th e ADS- B groun dinfrastructure i s divide dint o tw o areas : Groun dBase dTransceiver s (GBTs ) an dContro l Facilities
. I n accordanc e wit hth e FA A link polic y decision , tw o link s wil l b e employe dwithi n th e GB T for us e withi n thi s country . Th e tw o link s selecte dar e UA T (97 8 MHz ) an d109 0 MH z Extende dSquitte r (ES) , resultin g i n tw o radio s fo r eac hGBT
. Th e end

stat e for Segmen t 1 deploymen t

o f GBT s i s 28 1 location s withi n th e CONU S an dHawaii , an d thre e contro l facilitie s that integrat e ADS-B , radar an dweathe r

dat afor

processin g an d dissemination
. 6.1.1. 4 Automatio n Implementatio n

1 2ADS- B NAS-wid e implementatio n require s integratio n int o multipl e FA A AT C automatio n

platforms
. Eac hplatformi s currentl y i n th e FA A inventor y and/o r unde r curren t development
. ADS- B integratio n wil l b e achieve dthroug hServic e Leve l Agreemen t (SLA ) wit heac h appropriat e progra moffice , whic hi n turn , wil l pla n fo r developmen t

wit hth e prim e vendor s fo r th e system . I t

i s anticipate dtha t

FF Pcontract s wil l b e use dfo r integration , sinc e requirement s for ADS- B report aar e wel l define di n existin g standard s (MOP S / MASPS)
. Ris k

reductio n o n th e compute r huma n interfac e (CHI ) wil l b e don e usin g th e FAA' s Human Factor s Laborator y with controlle r participation
. Thi s wil l resul t i n th e developmen t

o f firmspecifications , enablin g th e us e o f FF Pcontracts . Integratio n wil l b e don e o n th e followin g AT C platforms :

• ERA M (Lockheed-Marti n / Prime )
• STAR S (Raytheo n /

Prime )
• CART S (Lockheed-Marti n / Prime )
• ATO P(Lockheed-Marti n / Prime )
• ASDE- X (Sensi s /

Prime )
• MicroEART S (Lockheed-Martin/Prime ) (Integratio n accomplishe di n th e A K Capston e effort )
• ETM S 6.1.1. 5 Dat aProduct s Implementatio n Dat aproduct s tha t

wil l b e utilize di n th e ADS- B progra minclud e Surfac e Movin g Ma p dat afo r th e to p 20 0 busies t

airports (Segmen t

3) , weathe r

product s (METAR , TA Fan dgraphical weather ) an dtemporar y flight restrictio n (TFR ) /

NO T A M data
. It

i s possibl e tha t

al l o f thes e dat aproduct s ma y b e procure dthroug hexistin g governmen t contracts . However , i f thos e product s ar e no t

suitabl e o r

availabl e the n the y wil l b e procure dthroug hFF Pcontract s withfull an dope n competition
. 6.1. 2 ADS- B Segmen t1 (F Y 200 7 throug h 2012 ) Wit hapositiv e investmen t

decisio n o n Septembe r 9 , 2005 , th e firs t

segmen t (OM B Useful Segmen t 1 ) i s planne dt o begi n i n 200 7 an den di n 2012
. Th e first segmen t i s subdivide dint o fou r strategi c element s whic har e describe dbelo w an dru n concurrently
. 6.1.2. 1 Elemen t1 : E n Rout e / Oceani cAirspac e Thi s elemen t

i s focuse do n th e "cor e surveillance " e n rout e airspac e environmen t i n th e U.S. , whic htypicall y control s ai r traffi c traversin g th e countr y a t altitude s abov e 18,00 0 feet
. I n addition , e n rout e ai r

traffi c controller s delive r limite dservice s t o smalle r airport s no t

serve db y termina l ai r

traffi c contro l (approac hcontrol)
. Thi s elemen t wil l provid e installatio n o f 18 3 GB T site s acros s th e Continenta l U.S
. (CONUS ) a s wel l a s integratio n o f ADS- B dat aint o th e E n Rout e Automatio n Modernizatio n (ERAM ) an dAdvance dTechnologie s & Oceani c Procedure s (ATOP ) AT C automatio n systems . Th e goa l i s t o provid e continuou s coverag e o f al l CONU S e n rout e airspac e 600 0 feet

an dabove , mimickin g coverag e availabl e toda y wit hradar
. Becaus e o f th e unique , multifunctiona l capabilitie s o f th e GBT , i t

i s expecte dtha t

mos t wil l b e installe da

t Termina l airport s site di n amanne r t o support

al l thre e domain s (surface , terminal , e n route)
.
1 3Thi s elemen t als o include s th e releas e o f an ADS- B avionic s mandat e for al l aircraf

t operatin g i n th e followin g airspac e classes : A , B , C , D , an dE
. (Elemen t Duration : FY07-FY12)
. 6.1.2. 2 Elemen t2 : Termina l / Surfac e Airspac e Thi s Elemen t

i s focuse do n th e "core surveillance " Termina l andSurfac e airspac e environment s i n th e U.S. , whic htypicall y contro l traffi c fromth e surfac e t o withi n 6 0 mile s o f an airport
. Elemen t 2 leverage s th e airspac e mandat e fo r avionic s equipag e implemente di n Elemen t 1
. Thi s element wil l provid e integratio n o f ADS- B dat aint o several termina l automatio n systems ; Commo n ARTS , STARS , an dAirport Surfac e Detectio n Equipment
. Thi s wil l suppor t continue dservic e deliver y t o thos e airports , currentl y controllin g termina l traffic
. Ultimately , Elemen t 2 i s expecte dt o resul t

i n th e FAA' s abilit y t o dives t itsel f o f existin g beacon , precisio n runway monitoring , an dsurfac e detectio n radars
. Ful l benefi t accrual for

thi s divestitur e i s no t expecte dunti l 2016/18 , whe n airspac e mandate s com e int o ful l effect
. (Elemen t

Duration : FY07

- FY12)
. 6.1.2. 3 Elemen t3 : Broadcas tService s Thi s Elemen t

i s focuse do n delivery o f cockpit-base d"thir ddimensional " capabilities , aime da t significantl y improvin g th e FAA' s abilit y t o reduc e Controlle dFligh t Int o Terrai n (CFIT) , weathe r an dmid-ai r

collisio n relate daccident s - especiall y withi n th e genera l aviatio n community wher e a n installe dbas e o f 50,000 + cockpi t

MFD' s alread y exists
. Thi s i s t o b e accomplishe dthroug hth e delivery o f uplin k broadcas t

services , whic hinclude s Traffi c Informatio n Service-Broadcas t (TIS-B ) an dFligh t

Informatio n Services-Broadcas t (FIS-B ) delivere do n th e 97 8 MH z UA T link
. Deliver y o f thi s servic e require s th e establishmen t o f thre e Broadcas t Service s Contro l Facilitie s (CF's) , whic hwil l b e locate di n existin g e n rout e center s i n th e East , Central , an dWes t part s o f th e country . Establishmen t o f th e CF' s als o create s th e FAA' s first

full y networke dsurveillanc e dat aarchitecture , hostin g radar , ADS-B , an dweathe r dat asimultaneously
. Thi s capability wil l b e use dt o support additional surveillanc e applications , suc ha s Traffi c Flo w Management , Surfac e Management , an dFligh t Monitorin g capability withi n Segmen t

2 o f th e program . (Elemen t

Duration : FY07-FY12)
. 6.1.2. 4 Elemen t4 : Enablin g Technolog y Thi s Elemen t

focuse s o n applie dresearc han ddevelopmen t that include s th e continue d developmen t

o f applications , capabilities , standards , an dprocedure s neede di n Segment s 2 an d3
. (Elemen t Duration : FY07-FY12)
. 6.1. 3 Alternativ e 2 : Rada rReplacemen t Implementatio n schedule s associate dwit hth e Rada r Replacemen t

Alternativ e wer e base do n th e assumption s outline di n Tabl e 1 an dorigina l / curren t radar syste mdat aoutline di n Tabl e 2
.

Tabl e 1 : Rada r

Replacemen t

Schedul e Assumption s (pe r rada r system )

1 4rii'»r.ii n

ARSR- 2 FP S ARSR- 3 ARSR- 4 ASR- 7 ASR- 8 ASR- 9 ASR-1 1 BI- 4 BI- 5 Mode- S BI- 6 PR M ASDE- 3 AMAS S ASDE-X/3 X PRM- A ASR-11(7 1 Systems ) ASR- 7 (7 1 Systems ) ASR- 8 (7 1 Systems ) BI- 4 (7 1 Systems ) BI- 5 (7 1 Systems ) . Activity :

Economi c Servic e Lif

e (Years ) SLE PLifecycl e ( Y sars ) " :* ~ ~ Replacemen t

Duratio n Increas e t o SLE P Tabl e 2 : Rada r :": Svslrm t \ i i ;•!>< . 1 8 2 2 1 2 4 1 3 1 6 4 13 5 11 2 6 4 15 5 14 4 12 2 7 4 0 4 0 3 8 1
7 1 3 1 6 4 6 4 15 5 i t li t

hi-.inl l 196 8 198 2 198 1 199 8 197 1 197 5 198 8 200 2 197 1 197 6 199 2 200 2 199 6 199 4 200 1 200 2 200 6
200 2 197 1 197 5 197 1 197 6 - (Years ) Duratio n

2 0 1 5 6 Replacemen tSchedul e / Cos tMode l Input s

l.il M lii'lul l s 196 8 198 2 198 1 199 8 197 1 197 5 200 0 201 3 197 1 197 6 199 2 200 8 200 6 200 4 200 4 201 0 200 6
200 8 197 1 197 5 197 1 197 6 M I T

:i i 1 IJJU

200 6 200 6 200 8 201 8 1000 0 1000 0 200 6 202 2 1000 0 1000 0 201 2 202 2 201 6 201 4 202 1 202 2 202 6
202 2 1000 0 200 8 1000 0 1000 0 M h V

|)ili:ilini i • 5 5 5 5 1000 0 1000 0 5 1 2 1000 0 1000 0 8 7 1 1 1 1 4 9 2
7 1000 0 4 1000 0 1000 0 ( Mlsllll-MTIII V

\i:i r 202 6 202 6 202 8 203 8 1000 0 1000 0 202 6 204 9 1000 0 1000 0 203 5 204 4 204 2 204 0 204 0 204 6 204 3
204 4 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 lti-]>l:iu-M:ir l

D.il i 201 8 201 8 201 8 201 8 1000 0 1000 0 202 5 202 7 1000 0 1000 0 201 7 202 5 202 1 201 9 202 3 202 6 203 1
202 2 1000 0 202 5 1000 0 1000 0 Ki-pluri

1 > I I m l in n 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1000 0 1000 0 1 1 1 8 1000 0 1000 0 1 4 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 4
1 3 1000 0 1 0 1000 0 1000 0 6.1. 4 Alternativ e 3 : Multilateratio n Th e schedul e fo r

Multilateratio n implementatio n mimicke dADS-B' s excep t tha t th e phas e ou t

o f rada r coul dbegi n i n 2009
. 6. 2 Lif

e Cycl e Cos tAnalysi s Summar y Th e Futur e Surveillanc e lif e cycl e cost s fromF Y 200 7 throug hF Y 203 5 for th e thre e alternative s are summarize dbelow : Tabl e 2 : Alternative Cost

Analysi s Summar

y (i n $M ) Elemen t (Cor e Surveillanc e ADS- B $3,805.2 1 Rada r Replacemen t

$6,932. 9 ~ Multilateratio n

$3,370.8 4 F& E $1,008.0 0 £662.11 : $4,117. 8 .1 - $1,816.4 1

II^5^43 K
1 5§$2 | Service s - AdviCcfr^Seitfiiei i F& E *11

_. _ $157.2 1 rlJS|33©i 6

$38. 5 il l

" $168. 0 O& M Use rCos t $863.3 1 j $922^9 " 1 $26. 3

"$6,271. 8 $141. 4

$67271.8 ~ Gul f o f Mexic o iO& M Caribbea n P&E ^ IDT I Enhance d Application s - Critica l Servic e =& E fp& M [Use rCost s rot a I Cost s j $59.7 5 F$2938 " $122. 5

~$57l" " $30.3 7 $65 H $35.8 2 I $17.8 5 i
" i $17.9 7 r r"$284^1~~ r

" _$16

j $10 ! $6.0 ? $0 , $o i $104.9 2 "$1^035. 7 $7^269.7 3 $0 1

;$13 , $84.7 3

t$7§i95: r $2i.BJ f *S!$W" mi

> 4 08^72 3 6.2. 1 Cos tTea m Compositio n Th e Cos t Estimat e wa s develope db y atea mwit hrepresentative s fromvariou s FA A organization s an dcontrac t suppor t organizations
. Tabl e 3 list s th e cos t teammember s an dthei r responsibilities
.

Ji mBair d Marc Bunti n Nastaran Colema n Lesli e Cran e Kir k Curran Kevi n Delane y Uaco b Dorse y Pau l Fontain e Bil l Fromm e Davi dFrostbutte r Larr y Green e Tabl e 3 : Cos t Tea mMember s ATO-P/NA S Architectur e JS F21 " " " iE n Route/Oceanic , jprojec t SafeGuard ATO-P/Benefit s TMTTR E (SF-2 1 Suppor

t jATO-F/QuanTec h (202)385-720 5

1(202 ) 493-499 0 IJames. B aird@faa
. go v .Charle s .Buntin@faa
. go v (202)385-731 1 jNastaran.Coleman@faa.go v (703 ) 983-724 3 (202)493-468 5 (202 ) 570-019 1 ATO- T iSF-2 1 jSF-21/Calibre T SF-21,JHU/AP L Lescrane@mitre
. or g JKirk
. Curran@faa.go v jKdeIancy@quantechserv.co m (202 ) 493-454 9 Jacob.Dorsey@faa.go v (202 ) 267-346 8 [Paul.Fontaine@faa.go v (703 ) 797-850 0 EX T 891 1 bfromme@calibresys.co m 1(202 ) 528-353 7 JDavid.Frostbutter@jhuapl.edu
Mike Geye r Katrin aHal l Jonathan Hamme r LAVS / Safety / Support JVOLP E (202)646-583 1
ATO- FCos t MITR E Larry.Greene@baesystems.co m

(617)494-274 9 (202 ) 385-728 2 1(703 ) 983-520 9 Michael.Geyer@volpe.dot.go v jKatrina.Hall@faa.go v phammer@mitr e .co m Michel e Heine y SF-2 1 [(202 ) 409-848 6 MHeiney@subsystem.co m Kent Hollinge r Dan Howel l [Ro n Jone s MITR E Avionic s 3VICR I IATO-P/NAS " jArchitecture 1(703 ) 983-557 3

1(703)416-950 0 EX T 27 2 (202 ) 385-713 3 jKenth@mitre
. or g bHowell@MCRI.co m Ronnie
. Jone s @faa
. go v
1 6{Phi

l Leman Georg e Lloy d |Joh n McCarro n [Jame s McDanie l Joh n McGra w INav
. Service s JNATC A ATO-Oceani c !;SF-2 1 AFS-40 0 (202 ) 385-754 6

(202 ) 493:507 9 Phillip.Leman@FAA.Go v George.A.Lloyd@FAA.Go v {(202 ) 385-844 1 |(202 ) 493-470 7 1(202 ) 385-458 9 |John.McCarron@faa.go v

JamesMcDaniel@faa.go v jJohn.McGraw@faa.go v Ro n Mac e John Marksteine r Alle n K
. Mear s [NAS Op s Concep t pe v & Validatio n iSF-2 1 TAV S 7 Safety/ ' iSuppor t (202 ) 267-808 2

(202 ) 493-464 7 1(202 ) 646-585 4 Ronaldxt r ,Mace@ FA A
. Go v

Jef f Mittelma n John C
. Mood y Hua n Nguye n Rober t (Bobby ) Nichol s Ji mNicku m Avan i Pandy a MITRE/CAAS D [MITR E IIOT&E ISF-2 1 Mitr e Avionic s (703 ) 983-760 3

(703 ) 983-550 6 (202)^67-849 £ (202)267-991 2 (703)983-696 1 JJohn.Marksteiner@faa.go v amears@cssiinc.co m imitt@mitre.org !CMoody@mitr

e .co m Huan.Nguyen@faa
. go v Robert.Nichols@faa
. g o v |Jdnickum@mitre
. or g ;OMB / Support 1(410 ) 379-013 0 Apandya@mcri
. co m Rober t (Bob ) Pangion e GaryPaul l To mPrevos t Jame s (Jim ) Reaga n MCR(Cost ) |(781 ) 687-900 0 EX T 23 9 Rpangion@mcri.co m Benefi t / Support SF-2 1 pVIITR E |(703 ) 416-950 0 EX T 22 3

(202 ) 493-497 7 1(703 ) 983-5840" "
. GPaull@mcri
. co m Tom.Prevost@faa.go v Jreagan@mitre .co m JeffReede r iATO-F/QuanTec hj(202 ) 370-018 1 Jreeder@quantechserv
. co m William(Bill ) Russel l Thoma s Rya n Heywoo dShirer Lesli e Smit

h ATO- FSupport 1(202 ) 548-557 9 ATO- P/ Tec hDe v 1(202) 267-908 6

"""*"" " ~^2"^38S4583 ~ William.e.russel@baesystem s .co m Thomas.e.ryan@faa.go v Heywood
. O
. Shirer@faa
. go v Fre dSap p Ton i Stac k 

### J A FS-410
_ jAFS-15 0 JSF-2 1 [(202)493-512 8

|(202 ) 267-792 0 Neal Such y Shahan Stepanian Ronal dL
. Stroup jSF-2 1 Support 1(202)329-230 6

WilliamWaldro n We s Wrigh t Jac k Wojciec h jCos t Support jSyste mSafet

y 1ATO- E 1ATO- F JSF-2 1 Suppor

t 1(781)687-900 0 EX T 24 5 1(202)385-718 6 Leslie
. Smith@ FA A
. Go v Fred
. S app@fa a.go v Toni.Stack@faa.go v Neal.ctr.Suchy@faa.go v
(202)385-845 2 (202)385-727 1 (202 ) 863-268 0 EX T 21 2 Gen e Won g jSF-2 1 Support Jyot i Vasudev a Yen-KhanhV u ;SF-2 1 ttOT&E S Stepani@mcri
. co m Ronal dLStroup/AWA/FAA , William.Waldron@FAA.Go v Westley
. Wright@faa
. go v Jwo j ciech@jil.co m (202 ) 267-533 9 (202 ) 493-440 5 (609)485-803 1 Gene.ctr.wong@faa.go v Jyoti.ctr.Vasudeva@faa.go v Yen-khanh.vu@faa.go v 6.2. 2 Groun d Rule s an d Assumption s General groun drule s an dassumption s for cos t estimate s ar e a s follows :

• Life-cycl e throug h203 5 - T o accoun t fo r full replacemen t

cycl e o f surveillanc e
• Primar y rada r

assume dt o b e retaine di n al l alternatives , therefor e cos t exclude d

1 7- Excep t for ASR- 1 l/8 s whic htrade-of f i n varyin g alternative s A s pe r Mr
. Che w directio n fro

mIARR , includ e TIS/FI S cos t i n Radar/Multilateratio n alternatives , for

equa l compariso n t o ADS- B Broadcas t Service s Tabl e 4 : Radar : Groun dRule s an dAssumption s * Primar y radar exclude dfromanalysi s excep t wher e system s ar e integrate dwithsecondar y surveillanc e o r

surfac e movemen t Kcfrrviiu.'('us e ••

• \ 1)^-1 ! k:nl. n Mullil.ili-r.ili'H i Retaine dSurveillanc e Systems * ASR- 8 ASR-1 1 BI- 4 BI- 5 Mode- S
I t 1-0
PR M
PRM- A (WAM ) ASDE- 3 (SMR ) AMAS S

ASDE-X/3 X Replace db y ASR-1 1 progra m Procur e al l 11 2 system s Replace db y ASR-1 1 progra m Replace db y ASR-1 1 progra m Sustai n (Tec hRefresh , SLEP )
Continu e planne dacquisitio n
Continu e planne dacquisitio n

Continu e planne dacquisitio n
Sustai n (Tec hRefresh , SLEP ) Sustai n base do n curren t ASDE

X/3 X Continu e planne dacquisitio n Sustai n planne dinventor y Procur e 7 1 system s Replace db y ADS- B Replace db y ADS- B Sustai n unti l replace db y ADS- B
Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y ADS- B Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y ADS- B
Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y ADS- B Sustai n unti l replace db y ADS- B Sustai n unti l replace db y ADS- B
Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l Surfac e Movemen t

Rada r (SMR ) portio n i s replace db y ADS- B Replace db y ASR-1 1 Procur e al l 11 2 system s Replace dASR-1 1 progra m Replace dASR-1 1 progra m Replac e an dSustai n Replac e an dsustai n
Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y PRM- A afte r initia l economi c servic e lif

e Replac e an dsustai n
Continu e planne dacquisitio n Continu e planne dacquisitio n
Continu e planne dacquisitio n wit h Surfac e Movemen t

Rada r (SMR ) portio n Sustai n planne dinventor y Procur e 7 1 system s Replace db y Multila t Replace db y Multila t Sustai n unti l replace db y Multila t
Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y Multila t Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y Multila t
Continu e planne dacquisitio n unti l replace db y Multila t Continu e planne dacquisitio n Continu e planne dacquisitio n
Continu e planne dacquisitio n wit h Surfac e Movemen t

Rada r (SMR ) portio n 6.2. 3 Scop e o f

th e Estimat e Thi s estimat e addresse s th e acquisition , implementation , an doperation s an dmaintenanc e cost s for th e thre e Futur e Surveillanc e alternatives
. Thi s estimat e provide s th e acquisitio n an dsupport cost s for th e timefram e FY0 7 throug hFY35
. Cost s ar e presente di n TY dollar s wit hris k i n million s an db y appropriation , WB S element , an dphase db y year . Busines s justification s for ADS-B , Radar

Replacemen t

an dMultilateratio n ar e give n b y Table s 5 , 6 , an d7 respectively
. Specifi c detail s concernin g thes e result s can b e foun di n eac ho f th e alternative' s correspondin g Basi s o f Estimat e (BOE ) document s reference di n Appendi x A
.

Tabl e 5 : Busines s Justificatio n fo r ADS- BRis k Adjuste d Cost s (Then-Yea r

$M ) F A A F& E j O&U Tota l USB I Total
_ Benefit ; (Then-Yea r $M ) _]
_ F A A Avoide dCost s _ Othe r Avoide dCost s (DH S feUsetJ^ Safet y Efficienc y (ADO C & PVT )
_ Total

__ _1 Ne t Cas hFlo w (The n Yea r $M ) | Economi c Analysi s 1 NP V ($M ) '' » C Raii o 1 IR R Paybac k FY0 7
$I28~ 7 $ 0 0 $12 8 7 $12 2 l_ j J23 0 8 !

—— Z<?isj L $ 0 0 ' $ 0 0 $ 0 0 ;

_<J1S) [ i | $1,03 4 1 1 3 ! 10 % i 2 3 year s 1 FY0 8

$13 8 7 $ 0 0 $13 8 7 $40 6 2 $544 9

—• + $6 0 3 $ 1 0 $ 8 0 ! S O 6 j $69 9 (347 1 P) j
J 1 FY0 9
$127 9 $4 1 $13 2 0 $41 2 3 $5443 ,
$874 , _$2 4 $24 8 Si s $11 6 4 (S 4 7< ^ 1

i FYI O
$256 7 $ 3 8 $26 0 5 $41 8 5 $67 8 9 j
$71 0 $ 4 1 $6 1 l l $ 3 7 $13 9 9* (WT )

- 1 FY1 1

$124 6 $3 6 3 $16 0 9 $331 4 $49 2 3
$23 2 $ 4 6 $9 7 2

_** V _$12 9 7
_ i% e>6) t FY1 2 1

$3 6 4 $4 5 2 $816 , $33 6 3 $41 7 8

— $24 4 $ 5 0 $13 5 8 $ 5 8 $171 0 ] FY1 3 ,

$37. 6 ~ ~ $44. 5 $82 1 $341 7 $42 3 8
$2 4 6

_$ 5 3 ^ $17 6 4 ) $ 6 9 $213. 5 (%2101) i I FY1 4

$25 3 $51 4 $7 6 8 $25 0 8 $32 7 5 i $3 1 1 1 ~ $ 5 9 $21 8 r $81 , $263 3 ($64 i)\ i t , TY1 5 FY1 6 FT3 5
$21 9 $54 4 $7 6 4 $28 4 a^ $36 1 1 L

- 5 $3 5 6 $ 6 2 $26 8 3 $94 , $319 J tel6)l
1 I $599 J $143 9 0 $ 2 038_ 5 $ 1 18 9 7 $ 3 22 8 2

—~" ' $ 1 08 3 6 $157 2 $8,43 5 0 $12,830- 9 $22,50 6 7 ] $1927 8 5 j

i Tota l
$ 1 49 7 4 $167 8 7 $ 3 17 6 0 $ 4 09 3 7

_$ 7 26 9 7

— $ 1 43 9 3 $19 2 1 $9,424 3 $1 2 871 5 $23,92 8 0 $1 6 658 3

Tabl e 6 : Busines s Justificatio n fo r Rada r Replacemen t

Ris k Adjuste d Cost s (Then-Yea r

$M ) Tota l FA A Cost s F& E O S M Tota l Tota l Cost s F A A Use i Tota l
_ Benefit s (The n Yea r $M ) F A A Avoide dCost s ^

_FY0 7 I 1

' $17 3 3

' $6 3 8 $24 2 1 $242 1 ~ ~ $13 9 2~ ^ ^

__$381 3

__i

_— $20 4 3 Othe r Avoide dCost s (DH S & User ) j $ 0 0 Safet y Efficienc y (ADO C & P VT ) Tota l I « 1 $0. 8 J21 0 2 FY0 6

$222 5 $7 0 1 $29 2 6 $29 2 6 $30 6 0 $59 8 J L

— - $24 7 2 $ 0 0 $14 1 $ 1 7 $26 3 J ] FY0 9

$19 2 2 $7 3 3 $265 6 $26 5 6 $321 6 $53 7 1
$24 2 5 $ 0 0 $2 6 6 $2. 6 $271 7 FY1 0

$14 3 9 $77 7 $221 5 $221 J $337 ? $55 9 4
_ $202 1 $ 0 0 $51 3 $3. 6 $25 7 j 5 FY1 1 1

$7 2 5 $3 0 9 $15 3 4 $15 3 4 $266 0 $419 4
$13 7 8 $ 0 0 $84 4 $ 4 7 $226 3 FY1 2

$45 3 $S3 5 $12 3 9 $12 8 9 $28 2 2 $411 1
$121 2 $ 0 0 $11 3 9 $ 5 7 $245 9 FY1 3

$32 7 $8 5 4 $13 8 2 $13 8 2 $299 1 $437 3

L $115 7 $ 0 0 $15 5 0 $ 6 9 $27 7 6 FY1 4

$41 6 $84 0 $12 5 6 $12 5 6 $30 1 1 $42 6 7
$12 3 9 $00

_ $19 1 £ $8. 0 $32 3 8 FY1 5 F

$18 3 $8 7 0 $1053 ^ $10 5 3 ~ $31 9 1 $424 4
$U9 4 $ 0 0 $23 6 5 $ 9 3 $36 5 2 T 1 6 FY3 S
_

$3,262. 2 $2,20 1 6 $5,46 3 8 T5463 8 $ 3 699. 6 $ 9 16 3 4
$3/23 3 $ 0 0 $ 7 323 2 $ 5 095 2 $1 6 041 S ^Total
_

$4,224 6 $ 2 91 2 4 $ 7 13 7 0 $ 7 13 7 0 $6271 8 $1 3 40 8 3
$ 5 13 7 5 $ 0 0 $820 7 6 $ 5 13 3 5 $1 3 483 6 Ne tCashflo w (Th e nYearSM ) Ficonenu c Analysi s NFV($M ) B/ C Rati o _ IR R Paybac k {J17 1 I) ' $33_>LT ) _$~IJ j§ 0 1 ! y ($1926 i (tlo j J t ($1396 ^
_(3IC

U $1 6 0 1 0 7 % 3 0 y e ai s _j$30_2 )
_$ 6 87 S 4 $ 5 074 8

Tabl e 7 : Busines s Justificatio n fo r Multilateratio n

Ris k Adjaste d Cost s (The n Yea r

$M ) F A A F& E O& M Tota l 1 Use t Tota l Benefit s (The n Yea r $M ) F A A Avoide dCost s Othe r AvoidedCost s (DH S & Usei ) Safet y Efficienc y (ADO C & PVT ) Tota l Ne t Cas hFlo w (Then-Yea r $M ) Economi c Analysi s NPV($M ) B/ C Ren o IR R Paybac k FY0 7
~~$1517 ~ $ 0 0 $151 7 $13 9 2 $291 0

- $ 0 6 $ 0 0 $ 5 1 $ 0 8 $ 6 5 t$2S 4 5 )

1174 3 7 ) O S 3 % N / A FY0 8 |



### J $16 8 5 S09\ $16 9 5 $30 6 0 $475. 5
$6 2 7 $ 0 0 j $1 3 9 $17 ; $78 2 $39 7 2? ,

• FY0 9 1 $8 8 1 $ 2 2 $9 0 3 $321 6 $411 8 | $93 5 $oo ' $2 6 1 $ 2 6 $12 2 5 ($^ S 1) J FYI O
$41 0 3 $ 1 6 $411 9 $33 7 9 $74 9 8
$34 9 $0 0 $51 0 $ 3 6 $13 9 5 (J b 0 4i a FY1 1

$44 8 4 $72 1 $45 5 6 $26 6 0 $72 1 6

_$4 3 7 $ 0 0 $82 9 $4. 6 ( $131 2 ($5° 0 f ; FY1 2

~ $80 1 $1 5 1 $9 5 1 $23 2 2 $37 7 4
$7 0 4 $ 0 0 $11 6 7 $56 $192 8 tl£16 ) FY1 3

$2 3 5 $22 4 $4 5 9 $299 1 $34 5 0
$71 6 $ 0 0 $15 2 2 $ 6 8 $23 0 6 1>il4-*f
_

___ FY1 4
$ 8 4 $62 2 $7 0 6 $30 1 1 $371 7
$78 9 $ 0 0 $18 8 4~ $7. 9 $27 5 2

" ($96 5)

— FY1 3 FY16-FY3 3

$ 8 3 $64 9 $7 3 2 $31 9 1 $39 2 3

— $74 7 $0X 1 $232 3 $ 9 1 $31 6 0 (T6J &

—

t $49 6 3

$146 7 5 $1963 8 $3,69 9 6 $ 5 66 3 4

— $351 8 $ 0 0 $ 7 19 1 8 $3,00 3 7 $12,54 7 3 _ $ 6 88 3 9_

_

———

Tota l
$ 1 383 6 $1644 0 $ 3 52 7 J $6,271 3 $ 9 79 9 3

— $933 2 $ 0 0 $ 8 060 2 $5,046 3 $14,03 9 7

_$4,240 4

6.2. 4 Cos t

- Ris kAdjustmen t

1 9Ris k

analysi s wa s performe dt o asses s th e impac t o f change s t o variou s cos t

assumption s t o th e overal l cos t

o f th e program . Th e poin t estimat e wa s revise dt o reflec t thes e uncertainties
. Probability distribution s wer e define dfor certai n WB S element s t o determin e th e possibl e range s o f results
. A Mont e Carl o simulatio n wa s the n ru n o n thes e distribution s t o determin e expecte d result s witha

n 80 % confidenc e level
. Th e increase dcost s associate dwithth e Ris k analysi s wer e the n redistribute dacros s th e poin t estimat e yieldin g th e 'Ris k adjustment'
. 6. 3 Benefit s Analysi s Th e ADS- B an dalternativ e benefit s wer e estimate drelativ e t o th e existin g AT C system , wit h establishe dprocedure s currentl y i n effect
. Historica l dat awer e combine dwithtraffi c projection s t o describ e th e baselin e fro mwhic hbenefit s coul db e measured
. Thi s referenc e poin t wa s modified , prior

t o estimatin g benefits , t o reflec t an y approve dfuture improvement s t o th e baselin e tha t

are schedule ddurin g th e analysi s tim e period
. A n exampl e i s mandator y equipag e withTerrai n Awarenes s Warnin g System s (TAWS)
. Syste meffectivenes s measures , th e percen t reductio n i n eithe r

acciden t rate s o r typica l delay times , wer e applie dt o th e estimate dbaselin e leve l i n orde r

t o deriv e expecte dbenefits
. Effectivenes s wa s define di n term s o f th e improvemen t

expecte dgive n th e technolog y i s adopted
. Th e syste meffectiveness , th e percen t o f th e populatio n equipped , an dth e percen t o f infrastructur e installe dare ke y driver s i n al l th e benefi t estimates
. Thes e factor s combin e t o represen t th e leve l o f

benefit s that

ar e expecte di n th e future
. Benefit s wer e estimate di n term s o f bot hsafet

y an defficienc y gains
. Safet y benefit s ar e derive d fromth e estimate dreduction s i n acciden t rate s an dth e potentia l economi c saving s i n term s o f avoide dlos s o f

life , injurie s an daircraf t damages
. Th e efficienc y benefit s quantifie dprimaril y refe r t o cos t avoidanc e an ddelay
. Th e delay saving s ar e value di n term s aircraf t direc t operatin g cost s an dpassenge r

valu e o f time
. Th e historica l baseline s for th e safety benefit s wer e base do n acarefu l revie w o f Nationa l Transportatio n Safety Boar d(NTSB ) aviatio n acciden t reports , a16-yea

r perio d198 9 throug h 200 4 wa s used
. Appropriat e databas e searc hmethodologie s wer e develope dfor eac hacciden t typ e fo r whic hreduction s ar e expected
. Th e set o f accident s identifie dfor

eac hcategor y wer e compare dt o ensur e tha t

specifi c incident s wer e no t counte dmor e tha n onc e toward s th e potentia l benefits
. Specifically , i n orde r t o avoi doverestimatin g benefits , accident s involvin g advers e weathe r condition s in-fligh t

tha t wer e als o categorize da s aControlle dFligh t Int o Terrai n (CFIT ) events wer e spli t

evenl y betwee n historica l advers e weathe r an dCFI T accidents
. Th e tota l historica l numbe r

o f accident s for

eac hacciden t

typ e wa s tabulate db y category o f operation s o r acciden t composition , an dregio n an dcompare dwit htraffi c count s ove r th e sam e tim e perio dt o estimat e acciden t

rates . Th e mandat e suc ha s includin g Terrai n Awarenes s Warnin g System s (TAWS ) i n particular

aircraf t classe s wa s accounte dfo r prio r t o estimatin g th e effectivenes s o f ADS- B capabilities
. Th e efficienc y baselin e i s primaril y define di n term s o f tota l flight

hour s an dtota l dela y hours
. Fligh t an ddelay time s wer e estimate dfo r eac huse r

grou p an db y locatio n i n orde r t o reflec t

th e baseline s associate dwit heac hbenefi t element
. Fligh t

an dschedul e dat afromth e Enhance d Traffi c Managemen t

Syste m(ETMS) , Airlin e Service Qualit y Performanc e (ASQP) , an dth e

2 0Officia

l Airlin e Guid e (OAG ) wer e combine dwit hweathe r observation s fromth e Nationa l Climati c Dat aCente r

(NCDC ) t o generat e baseline s unde r differin g operatin g conditions
. Th e FA A Aviatio n Syste mPerformanc e Metric s (ASPM ) databas e integrate s this informatio n an d wa s accesse dt o generat e th e baselin e metric s neede dt o accuratel y portra y th e potentia l efficienc y benefits
. Bothth e safet

y an defficienc y historica l baseline s ar e afunctio n o f traffi c density
. Th e baseline s ar e combine dwithtraffi c projection s fromth e FA A Termina l Are aForecast s (TAF ) t o develo p forecast s o f

potential benefit s eac hyear . I n addition , th e timefram e for whic heac hbenefi t

start s t o accru e i s basedo n whe n th e specifi c applicatio n i s t o b e operationall y certifie dt o provid e th e desire doutcome s a s wel l a s o n use r equipag e an dth e commissionin g o f th e necessar y groun d equipment
. Th e tea mdevelope dth e outcom e phasin g schedul e base do n it s coordinatio n wit hth e ADS- B programoffice
. Th e progra mi s divide dint o thre e segment s basedo n th e timin g o f provide dequipmen t

o r services , assume dequipage , an dassume dapplicatio n certification
. Th e year tha t eac hdesire doutcom e i s assume dt o start providin g benefit s i s liste di n Tabl e 8 below
. Table 8 : Outcom

e Phasin g Schedul e Segmen t %, p

. Outcom e Star t Yea r ° Servic e
Segmen t 1

Segmen t 2

Segmen t 3 Cor e Surveillanc e
Broadcas t Service s Gul f o f Mexic o Surveillanc e Caribbea n Surveillanc e Surfac e Movin g Ma p CDT I Enhance d Application s Cos t

Avoidanc e Improve dsearc han drescu e service s Reductio n i n numbe r

o f aircraf t intercept s Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s wit hhazardou s weathe r Mor e efficient

weathe r deviation s Cos t avoidanc e - weathe r

subscription s Increase dnon-radar

e n rout e secto r

capacity Increase dacces s t o optima l route s Increase dacces s t o optima l altitude s Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflicts Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s wit hhazardou s weathe r Increase dsafet

y o n th e surfac e Mor e efficient

us e o f airpor t surfac e b y pilot s Continuin g visua l approache s i n margina l condition s Mor e efficient

spacin g o n approache s 200 7 201 0 200 7 200 7 200 7 200 7 200 7 200 7 201 6 201 6 201 6 201 6 201 6 201 6 202 0 202 0 202 0 202 0 Th e effectivenes s percentage s attribute dt o ADS- B equipment/service s an dth e percen t o f th e populatio n anticipate dt o equi p ar e multiplie dwit hth e potentia l benefit s eac hyea r t o develo p annua l benefi t

estimates
. Th e effectivenes s assumption s ar e basedo n acombinatio n o f subjec t matte r exper t assessment s an dth e result s frompreviou s studies
. Th e equipag e percentage s b y use r group an dlocatio n wer e combine dt o reflec t th e likelihoo do f

th e benefit s bein g realize d dependin g o n whethe r

on e o r tw o aircraf

t ar e involve di n th e scenari o andwhethe r o r no t ADS- B
2 1equippe daircraf t ca n vie w transponde r

equippe daircraf

t throug hth e availability o f TIS- B functionality
. T o adequatel y represen t th e impac t

o f TIS-B , th e interactio n o f th e tw o aircraf

t mus t b e define dt o determin e whic ho f th e paire daircraf

t i s equippe dwit hADS- B avionics
. Thes e relationship s ar e considere di n th e estimates
. Th e followin g fou

r equipag e scenario s wer e define dt o estimat e ADS- B benefits :

• Independen t

equipag e

• Dependen t

ADS- B equipag e

• Order Specifi c Dependen t

Mixe dequipag e

• Non-Orde r

Specifi c Dependen t

Mixe dequipag e Independen t

equipag e applie s t o situation s wher e onl y on e aircraf t mus t b e equippe di n orde r

t o realiz e benefits
. Fo r

benefi t element s suc ha s reducin g th e numbe r o f weathe r relate daccidents , th e likelihoo do f

an y give n aircraf

t achievin g improvement s i s independen t o f whethe r anothe r aircraf t i s equipped
. Therefore , th e equipag e rate s ca n b e applie ddirectl y o r linearl y t o determin e expecte dbenefits
. However , fo

r benefi t element s tha t

involv e tw o aircraft , suc ha s reducin g th e numbe r o f midai r collisions , th e likelihoo do f realizin g benefit s i s dependen t o n bot haircraf

t bein g equipped
. Thi s benefi t require s no t

onl y tha t

a n aircraf t hav e th e capabilit y t o se e othe r aircraf t bu t tha t th e conflictin g aircraf

t i s equippe dwit hth e avionic s t o b e seen . Prio r t o th e availabilit y o f

TIS- B functionality , thes e benefit s woul db e estimate dusin g th e dependen t ADS- B equipag e scenario
. Th e probability tha t

an y tw o aircraf

t ar e equippe di s define da s th e produc t o f th e probabilit y o f th e first aircraf t bein g equippe dan dth e probabilit y o f th e secon daircraf

t bein g equipped
. Thi s approximatio n assume s tha t th e likelihoo dfor

eac haircraf

t t o b e equippe di s no t

dependen t

o n whethe r o r no t th e othe r

aircraf t i s equipped
. Th e dependen t ADS- B equipag e scenari o i s estimate db y multiplyin g th e independent equipag e rat e for

agive n use r

grou p b y th e rat e for

al l othe r use r group s includin g itsel f

t o creat e amatri x o f

value s tha t

defin e th e probabilitie s for th e possibl e pairing s o f

aircraft
. Th e dependen t

mixe dequipag e scenario s incorporat e th e availability o f TIS- B functionality
. TIS- B provide s ADS- B equippe daircraf t wit hth e abilit y t o recogniz e transponde r equippe d aircraf t operatin g withou t

ADS-B
. Th e orde r

specifi c dependen t

mixe dequipag e scenari o i s use dt o mode l condition s wher e th e ADS- B equippe daircraf t mus t b e specifie dt o achiev e th e benefits
. Fo r

application s suc ha s approac hspacing , th e followin g aircraf t i n th e pai r

mus t b e ADS- B equippe dsinc e thi s aircraf t need s t o se e th e precedin g aircraf t i n orde r

t o achiev e improvements
. However , give n TIS- B functionality , th e precedin g aircraf t can b e eithe r

ADS- B equippe do r

transponde r

equippe dsinc e it

i s onl y require dtha t

th e precedin g aircraf

t b e see n b y th e followin g aircraf

t for thi s application
. Th e non-orde r specifi c equipag e scenari o i s reserve d for case s wher e th e benefi t

i s realize da s lon g a s on e o f th e aircraf

t can se e th e othe r

regardles s o f whic haircraf

t tha t ma y be
. A s i n th e benefi t addressin g areductio n i n mid-ai r collisions , i t

wa s determine dthat

i f eithe r o f th e aircraf

t involve di n th e conflic t

i s mad e aware o f

th e impendin g situation , the n ther e i s apotentia l for avoidin g th e accident
.

2 2Figur e 2 display s th e relationshi p betwee n th e dependen t equipag e scenario s whe n bot haircraf t involve dare operatin g a s genera l aviation
. Figur e 2 i s base do n th e independen t equipag e assumption s for

th e nationa l equipag e estimate
.

Figur e 2 : Dependen

t Equipage Curve s - Exampl e Dependen t Equipag e Curve s

" Non-Orde rSpecifi cMixe i
" Orde rSpecifi cMixe d 'ADS- B

• a t M • aa• !

•f #^ ^ ? -F

4 ? -F -f 4 > -^ - P< p < £* * * * * -fc r ###^ - p Th e orde r

specifi c dependen t

mixe dequipag e scenari o i s estimate db y multiplyin g th e probabilit y tha t

th e firs t aircraf t i s ADS- B equippe db y th e probabilit y tha t th e secon daircraf

t i s eithe r ADS- B o r

transponde r

equipped
. Sinc e som e aircraf t wil l b e bot hADS- B an dtransponde r equipped , th e probabilit y tha t a n aircraf t i s equippe dwit heithe r ADS- B o r

atransponde r

i s equivalen t

t o th e probabilit y o f

bein g equippe dwit hADS- B plu s th e probability o f bein g equippe dwithatransponde r minu s th e probabilit y o f

bein g equippe dwit hboth
. Th e non-orde r

specifi c dependen t

mixe dequipag e scenari o include s condition s wher e eithe r th e first o r secon daircraf

t i s ADS- B equippe dwit hth e othe r aircraf t bein g transponde r

equippe da s wel l a s case s wher e bot haircraf t ar e ADS- B equipped
. Th e orde r specifi c calculatio n describe d account s for

case s wher e th e first

aircraf t i s ADS- B equippe dan dth e secon daircraf t i s eithe r transponde r

o r ADS- B equippe dwhic hallow s fo r th e possibilit y o f

bot haircraf

t bein g ADS- B equipped
. Therefore , th e non-orde r specifi c scenari o i s estimate da s tw o time s th e orde r specifi c dependen t

mixe dequipag e estimat e minu s th e dependen t ADS- B equipag e estimate
. Fo r eac hbenefi t

element , Tabl e 9 list s th e equipag e scenari o use di n th e estimate
.

Tabl e 9 : Outcom

e Equipage Scenario s c . Equipment /

„ . Equipag e curv e Segmen t A , r

. Outcom e i r & Servic e Segmen t 1 Cor e Surveillanc e Cost

Avoidanc e Improve dsearc han drescu e service s Reductio n i n numbe r

o f aircraf t intercept s Independen t Independen t Independent

2 3Segmen t 2

Segmen t 3 Broadcas t Service s

Gul f o f Mexic o Surveillanc e
Caribbea n Surveillanc e

Surfac e Movin g Ma p CDT I Enhance d Application s Fewe r

aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s withhazardou s weathe r Mor e efficient

weathe r deviation s Cost avoidanc e - weathe r subscription s Increase dnon-rada

r e n rout e secto r capacit y Increase dacces s t o optima l route s Increase dacces s t o optima l altitude s Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s wit

hhazardou s weathe r Increase dsafet

y o n th e surfac e Mor e efficient

us e o f airpor t surfac e b y pilot s Continuin g visual approache s i n margina l condition s Mor e efficient

spacin g o n approache s Dependent/Non-orde r specifi c dependen t

mixe d Independen t Independen t Independen t Independen t Dependen t Dependen t Dependen t Dependent/Non-orde r specifi c dependen t

mixe d Independen t Independen t Dependent/Non-orde r specifi c dependen t

mixe d Independen t Dependent/Orde r

specifi c dependen t mixe d Dependent/Orde r

specifi c dependen t

mixe d Th e ADS- B an dalternative s benefit s analysi s include dth e quantificatio n o f benefit s for

th e tim e perio d200 7 t o 2035
. A s indicate di n Tabl e 10 , th e tota l ADS- B benefit s wer e estimate da s $16.2 5 billio n i n constan t yea r dollar s an d$4.4 2 billio n i n presen t valu e dollars
. Fo r

Rada r Replacement , th e estimat e totale d$13.1 8 billio n an d$4.3 0 billio n i n constan t yea r dollar s an d presen t valu e dollar s respectively
. Fo r Multilateration , th e estimat e totale d$10.1 0 billio n an d $4.3 0 billio n i n constan t

yea r dollar s an dpresen t

valu e dollar s respectively
. Table 10 : Summar

y Benefit s fo r ADS- B an dAlternative s 4I , . . Tota l Benefit s _^
. „ ~ 4 ._,_ . Alternativ e (BY200 5 B$ ) Benefit s (PV ) ADS- B Radar Replacemen t Multilateratio n $16.2 5 $13.1 8 $10.1 0 $4.4 2 $3.1 1 $4.3 0 I n Tabl e 11 , th e ADS- B benefit s ar e segregate db y segment , equipmen t o r servic e provided , outcome , typ e (safety o r

efficiency) , an dcustomer . Subtotal s ar e presente dfo r eac hsegmen t

an d equipmen t

o r servic e provided
. I n Tabl e 12 , th e ADS- B alternativ e benefit s ar e segregate db y th e sam e element s notin g wher e th e alternativ e doe s no t provid e applicabl e equipmen t o r services
. Tabl e 11 : ADS- B Benefit s b y outcom e 24Segmen t\ ^ . Outcom e Typ e Custome r,„,,„ - *„.
. & Servic e J v(BY0 5 $B )

Segmen t 1

Segmen t 2

Segmen t 3

Al l Cor e

Surveillanc e

Broadcas t Service s Cos t

Avoidanc e Improve dsearc han drescu e service s Reductio n i n numbe r

o f aircraf t intercept s Efficienc y

Safety Efficienc y FA A

User DH S Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s withhazardou s weathe r Mor e efficien t

weathe r deviation s Cos t avoidanc e - weather

subscription s Safety

Safety Safety Efficienc y Efficienc y User

User User User Use r
Gul f o f Mexic o Surveillanc e Caribbean Broadcas t Service s Increase dnon-rada r e n route secto r

capacit y Increase dacces s t o optima l route s Increase dacces s t o optima l altitude s Efficienc y

Efficienc y Efficienc y User

Use r Use r Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflights int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s withhazardou s weathe r Safety Safety Safety User

User Use r Surfac e Movin g Map CDT I Enhance d Application s increase dsafety o n th e surfac e

Mor e efficien t

us e o f airpor t surfac e b y pilot s Safety

Efficienc y User

Use r Continuin g visua l approache s i n margina l condition s Mor e efficien t

spacin g o n approache s Efficienc y Efficienc y Use r

User 7.9 2

1.5 6 1.1 1 0.3 7 0.0 7 6.3 6 1.2 8 3.2 8 1.5 1 0.2 3 0.0 6 3.2 2 3.2 0 3.0 6 0.1 3 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 5.1 0 0.2 7 0.1 2 0.1 5 4.8 3 3.4 7 1.3 6 16.2 5

.. , , . Equipment / Alternativ

e \ r

. Servic e Tabl e 12 : ADS-B Alternative s Benefit s Outcom e Typ e Cust o Benefi t me r (BY0 5 SB) Radar Replacemen t Core Surveillanc e

Broadcas t Service s

Gul f o f Mexic o Surveillanc e

Caribbea n Broadcas t Service s Cost Avoidanc e Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s withhazardou s weathe r Mor e efficien

t weathe r deviation s Increase dnon-rada

r e n rout e secto r capacit y Increase dacces s t o optima l route s Increase dacces s t o optima l altitude s Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s withhazardou s weathe r Efficienc y Safety Safet y Safety Efficienc y Efficienc y Efficienc y Efficienc y Safety Safety Safet y FA A Use r Use r Use r Use r Use r Use r Use r Use r Use r Use r 13.1 8

3.9 6 0.9 6 3.2 8 1.5 2 0.2 3 3.0 6 0.1 3 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0

2 5Surfac e Movin g Ma p CDT I Enhance d Application s N/ A N/ A

Multilateratio n Core Surveillanc e

Broadcas t Service s

Gul f o f Mexic o Surveillanc e

Caribbean Broadcas t Service s Surfac e Movin g Ma p CDT I Enhance d Application s Cos t Avoidanc e Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflights int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s withhazardou s weathe r Mor e efficient

weathe r deviation s Increase dnon-rada

r e n rout e secto r capacity Increase dacces s t o optima l route s Increase dacces s t o optima l altitude s Fewe r aircraft-to-aircraf

t conflict s Fewe r controlle dflight s int o terrai n (CFIT ) Fewe r encounter s wit

hhazardou s weathe r Efficienc y Safety Safety Safety Efficienc y Efficienc y Efficienc y Efficienc y Safety Safety Safety FA A

User User Use r Use r User User Use r Use r User Use r 10.1 0

0.8 8 0.9 6 3.2 8 1.5 2 0.2 3 3.0 6 0.1 3 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 N/ A N/ A 6. 4 Economi cAnalysi s Usin g th e result s o f

th e benefit s analysi s an dth e complete dcos t estimate , programmati c metric s (i.e. , benefit/cos t

(B/C ) ratio , an dth e Ne t Presen t Valu e (NPV ) wer e calculate dt o determin e th e financial benefit s o f

ADS- B an dth e alternatives
. Th e estimate s wer e als o adjuste dfor risk. Tabl e 1 3 present s th e risk-adjustedresults
. Tabl e 13 : ADS- B an d Alternative s Economi c Result s Metri c ADS- B Rada r Replacemen t Multilateratio n NP V (PV $M ) B/ C Rati o interna l Rat e o f

Retur n (IRR ) Paybac k $1.03 B 1. 3 10 % 2 3 year s $.02 B

1. 0 7 % 3 0 year s ($.74B ) 0. 8 3 % N/A Th e ADS- B programha s th e potentia l t o b e economicall y beneficia l sinc e th e B/ C ratio i s greate r tha n one . Th e NP V an dB/ C rati o fo r ADS- B ar

e greate r tha n bot hth e alternatives
.
6. 5 Ris kAnalysi s

2 6Forma l risk managemen t

for th e ADS- B progra mbega n i n Augus t 200 1 an dha s continue d throughou t

th e lif e o f th e effort
. ADS- B risk

managemen t

conform s t o th e proces s containe di n th e Offic e o f

Technolog y Developmen t Ris k Managemen t

Proces s Descriptio n (lates t update - Ju l 2003 ) an di s exercise di n accordanc e wit hth e Technolog y Developmen t Ris k Managemen t Pla n (Ap r

2004)
. Th e exercis e o f risk managemen t

withi n th e Offic e o f

Technolog y Developmen t

wa s audite dan dassesse da t FA A Integrate dCapabilit y Maturit y Mode l (iCMM ) Leve l 3 (Defined , whic hinclude s lowe r level s o f 1 - Performe dan d2 - Managed , Planne dan d Tracked ) i n Augus t

2003
. 6.5. 1 Ris kAnalysi s Groun d Rule s Th e followin g item s highligh t som e importan t

assumption s an dgroun drule s that forme dth e basi s for thi s assessmen t

an dth e input s containe dwithi n this section :

• Assessmen t

result s shoul db e use dalon g wit hothe r evaluatio n factor s (i.e. , lif e cycl e costs , benefits , schedule , an dperformance ) t o narro w th e se t o f alternative s t o th e mos t viabl e candidat e solution(s ) for further analysis
. • "Risk " i s define da s afuture event or condition wit ha likelihood o r probabilit y o f occurrenc e strictl y greate r tha n 0 % bu t

strictl y les s tha n 100% , an dan unfavorable consequence wit hrespec t t o th e ability t o achiev e projec t objective s i f

th e even t

o r conditio n doe s occur . • Ris k assessment s an drating s ar e guide dan dexpresse dusin g th e 5x 5 Ris k Matri x outline db y th e NAS

Systems Engineering Manual, 30September 2004.
• Assessment s o f

likelihood , consequenc e an dexposur e rating s wer e develope dthroug h consensus o f

th e risk team' s subjec t

matte r expert s an dthroug hcompariso n withlik e program s wher e possibl e (i.e. , ASR-9/Mode- S an dASDE- X programs)
. • Risk s outline dwithi n Appendi x B shoul db e viewe da s evolvin g an dnee dt o b e monitore dan dupdate droutinel y t o remai n relevan t t o th e contex t

an dnatur e o f

th e progra man dit s curren t

lif e cycl e phase
. • Fo r thos e risks assesse da s Mediu mo r High , risk

mitigatio n plan s are develope dt o reduc e th e risk

t o aLo w ratin g i f

possible
. Lo w risks ar e tracke dan dmonitore dfor potentia l change s i n likelihoo dand/o r consequenc e tha t

ma y chang e th e exposur e ratin g t o Mediu mo r

High
. • Th e majo r

risks an dmitigatio n strategie s identifie dfor th e preferre dalternativ e wil l b e examine di n greate r

detai l durin g th e JR C 2b I A for final investmen t

decision , t o develo p progra mbaselin e tha t

shoul dremai n stabl e throughou t th e Solutio n Implementatio n phas e o f th e program . 6.5. 2 Ris kTea m Compositio n Th e ADS- B Ris k

Teaminclude dsubjec t

matte r expert s t o evaluat e potentia l risks i n th e area s of:

• Schedule ;
• Supportability ; • Cos t an dbenefit s estimation ; • Funding ;
2 7Operability ; Producibility ; Technical ; Stakeholder ; Architecture ; Infosec ; Huma n factors ; an d Safety
. In addition , th e followin g categorie s o f potentia l risk

are specifie db y OM B Circular A- l 1 for specia l attention : Initia l costs ; Life-cycl e costs ; Technica l obsolescence ; Feasibility ; Reliabilit y o f

systems ; Dependencie s an dinteroperabilit y betwee n thi s investmen t an dothers ; Surety (asse t

protection ) considerations ; Ris k o f creatin g amonopol y for

future procurements ; Capability o f

th e tea mt o manag e th e investment ; an d Overal l risk

o f investmen t

failure
. Th e ADS- B tea mexamine deac hare ao f potentia l risk , usin g th e existin g risk informatio n tha t wa s availabl e fromth e on-goin g progra mrisk managemen t

effort , a s wel l a s ris k

informatio n frompreviousl y assesse danalogous program s (i.e. , ASR-9/Mode-S , ASDE-X)
. An y update s t o th e existin g informatio n o r addition s t o th e existin g informatio n wer e capture dwithi n th e risk tabl e i n Appendi x B
. 6.5. 3 Approac h Thi s risk assessmen t

wa s conducte da

t amacr o leve l t o b e consisten t wit hth e leve l o f

analysi s warrante dfor

an initia l investmen t

decision , a s outline di n th e Guidelines for the Investment Analysis Team's Alternatives Risk Assessment, October

2002. It wa s amulti-stag e proces s tha t consiste dof

: 1 ) Th e identificatio n o f

variou s risks an drisk

source s associate dwit heac hprogra m alternativ e (an iterate dsequenc e o f step s whic hinclude s revie w o f th e curren t

stat e o f th e progra man dan examinatio n o f future progra mtask s t o identif y events and/o r condition s whic hmigh t

adversel y affec t

achievemen t

o f progra mobjectives) ; 2 ) Th e scorin g o f

eac hris k (likelihoo dan dconsequence) , a s outline db y th e National Airspace System (NAS) Systems Engineering Manual, November 2002, resultin g i n a ris k ratin g o f Low , Mediu mo r

Hig hfor eac hrisk; 3 ) Th e mappin g an dcharacterizatio n (i.e. , impact ) o f individua l risks int o applicabl e baselin e elemen t

area s (i.e. , cost , benefits , schedule , o r technical) ;

2 84 ) Th e developmen t o f mitigatio n strategie s for

eac hrisk ; 5 ) Th e characterizatio n an dcompariso n o f assessmen t

result s betwee n eac halternativ e an dacros s al l risk

face t areas ; an d 6 ) Th e reporting/categorizatio n o f risk a s specifie db y OM B Circular A- l 1
. 6.5. 4 Result s Risk s associate dwitheac ho f four busines s cas e scenario s wer e assessed : 1 ) Referenc e Case , 2 ) ADS- B Alternative , 3 ) Radar Replacemen t

Alternative , an d4 ) Multilateratio n Alternative
. Se e Appendi x B fo r

complet e listin g o f

risks associate dwit hthi s busines s cas e an dal l propose d mitigations
. 6.5.4. 1 Referenc e Cas e Twelv e risk s wer e identifie dan dassesse dfor th e Referenc e Case
. Ther e wer e atotal o f 4 hig h risks, 4 mediu mrisks, an d4 lo w risks - summar y informatio n i s highlighte dbelow
. Referenc e Case : 1 2 tota l risk s

•a o o 0 ) k * Hig h

Mediu m

Lo w 2 3 4 5 Consequenc e Figur e 3 : Referenc e Cas e Ris k Matri x Tabl e 14 : Referenc e Cas e Overal l Weighte dRis k Score

„ . . _, + Ris k Ma i Ris k Face t

r — : . ^fm Fundin g Cos t Estimat e Huma n Factor s Safet y Benefi t Estimat e INFOSE C Operabilit y Stakeholde r Producibilit y Supportabilit y Schedul e Architectur e Managemen t 1

1

1 1 1 1 1

1 n x Overal l Face t
_, , _

, _

.„,.- . Weighte d s r aT

» x - Face t

Scor e Face t

Weigh t „ . c WMM Ratin g to Face t Scor e 1 3 -

C 3 D 4 C 3

- C 5

-

-

- D 4

- D 4

- 0

1. 5 2. 8 1. 5 0 2. 5 0 0 0 2. 8 0 2. 8 0 0.07 1

0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0

.1 1 .2 0 .1 1 0 .1 8 0 0 0

. 2 0

. 2 0
2 9Technica l 

# nm ii\ • 4
. 0 0.07 1 l.llf l 0

l.ni i 6.5.4. 2 Alternativ e 1 -ADS- B Thirty-seve n risks wer e identifie dan dassesse dfo r Alternativ e 1
. Ther e wer e atota l o f 2 hig h risks, 2 2 mediu mrisks, an d1 7 lo w risks.
Al t 1:4 1 tota l risk s

O O Hig h
Medium
Lo w Consequenc e Figur e 4 : Alternativ e 1 Ris k Matri x Tabl e 15 : Alternativ e 1 Overal l Weighte dRis k Score

„ . , « + Ris k

Ma i Ris k Face t

s «. - iMf i Fundin g Cos t Estimat e Huma n Factor s Safet y Benefi t Estimat e INFOSE C Operabilit y Stakeholde r Producibilit y Supportabiht y Schedul e Architectur e Managemen t Technica l t- iTotals : ii" ' 1

l 4 l 1 l 3 1 6 1 1 3 n x Overal l Face t „ . „ „ ,„ , . . , Weighte d

.. „ i Face t Scor e Face t

Weigh t
_ , * i % 1 Ratin g s Face t Scor e 1 2 3 5 1

2 1 2 -

C 4 C 4 B 4

- C 4 C 4 C 5 D 4 C 4 C 4 C 4

- C 3 0

2 2 1. 2 0 2 2 2. 5 2. 8 2 2 2 0 1.5 0.07 1

0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0

.1 4 .1 4 .08 5 0 .1 4 .1 4 .17 8

. 2 .1 4 .1 4 .1 4 0 .1 1 2 2 ; nj'. " • \ • tf'V : j , ; } ;i;o n \ \ 1.56
. -• "

6.5.4. 3 Alternativ e 2 - Rada r Replacemen t

3 0Eightee n risks wer e identifie dan dassesse dfo r Alternativ e 2
. Ther e wer e atota l o f 1 hig hrisk , 1 0 mediu mrisks, an d1 4 lo w risks.
Al t 2 : 2 5 tota l risk s

o o 0 ) E D C B A 

### r ?

X - 

# • v p 

# f f If! - : * f k *" : "' if 1

- • 

# M H i % I :
* 

## *f ; 1 i a Hig

h
Mediu m

* 1 4 • Lo w 1 Consequenc e Figur e 5 : Alternativ e 2 Ris k Matri x Tabl e 16 : Alternativ e 2 Overal l Weiehte dRis k Scor e

„ . , _. Ris k Ma i Ris k Face t •_H « Fundin g Cos t Estimat e Huma n Factor s Safet y Benefi t Estimat e INFOSE C Operabilit y Stakeholde r Producibilit y Supportabiht y Schedul e Architectur e Managemen t Technica l f 1"nlals : : •) 1

J r 3 1 1

1 4


# ll ° n x Overal l Face t „ , „ ^ , .. . . . . Weighte d1 K T J „ , . Face t Scor e Face t

Weigh t „ jv , lip i Ratin g " Face t Scor e 2 3 3 1 1 2

2

- ^ | -

C 4

- C 3

- C 4 B l

- C 4 C 4

- D 4

- B 3

' : : ' - ; j " • •'.- " 0 2 0 1. 5 0 2

. 3 0 2 2 0 2. 8 0

. 9 0.07 1

0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 -

.14 2

- .10 7

- .14 2 .02 1

- .14 2 .14 2

- .19 9

- .06 4 

### \j"'' - Lnu 

### ' i; 1 

### 1-^ y

6.5.4. 4 Alternativ e 3 - Multilateratio n

3 1Twenty-fiv e risks wer e identifie dan dassesse dfo r Alternativ e 3
. Ther e wer e atota l o f 3 hig h risks , 2 0 mediu mrisks , an d1 0 lo w risks.

Al t 3 : 3 3 tota l risk s

T3 O O : £ " 3 J * E D C B A K"j *

- i 

# it K A i

j 

# lt\ 

# m i. i

f * : 2 0

'j o Hig h
Mediu m
Lo w 2 3 4 5 Consequenc e

Ris k Face t Fundin g Figur e 6 : Alternativ e 3 Ris k Matri x Tabl e 17 : Alternativ e 3 Overal l Weighte dRis k Score Ris k Matri x Overal l Face t „ . __,„,..„ . Weighte d ? H „ , . Face t Scor e Face t

Weigh t „ r L Ratin g s Face t Scor e 0 0.07 1 Cos t Estimat e 1 D 3 2. 1 0.07 1 .149 Human Factor s C 4 0.07 1 .14 2 Safet y C 4 0.07 1 .14 2 Benefi t Estimat e 0.07 1 INFOSE C C 4 0.07 1 .142 Operabilit y C 4 0.07 1 .14 2 Stakeholde r 0.07 1 Producibilit y C 4 0.07 1 .14 2 Supportabiht y C4 0.07 1 .142 Schedul e C 4 0.07 1 .14 2 Architectur e E 5 4 5 0.07 1 .32 0 Managemen t 0.07 1 Technica l n- ; 2 U ?I0| ' \ I 0 M - | I .n o

6.5.4. 5 Qualitativ e Compariso n

3 2Th e followin g tabl e highhght s severa l distinctiv e risk s identifie dacros s eac ho f th e program' s alternatives
. Tabl e 18 : Notabl e Ris k Variation s betwee n Alternative s Face t Are aReferenc e Cas e Alternativ e 1 Alternativ e 2 Alternativ e 3 1 1 millin g lifllrli l ( n* l 1 ^ i IIII: I ti

l l i i Ell.ll l 1 ;li-|n| t Vili- H IMUNl l

^lal.ih'iliU i

l > i.i.|iuil>ilii >

^ilmhili- ,

\ivhiu-iiin v
Mjllil^rlllrll l

I'irliiiii.i l Increas e mMaintame r Workloa d Legacy syste

mlacking control s agains t

unauthorize

d acces s / misus e

-Lac k Skill s Resource s t

o Maintain Syste

m

-NAS incapable of

growt ht o 3 x traffi c Incomplet e CH I fo r AT C Separation

-Vulnerabilit

y t o GPSJamnHn

g

- Laeklpprawe d"

3 -roile

separaftojrstandard s (AT

) -Foreign~5irspac e Interoperabilit

y „ ^

- Opposition t o jStspae e — Mandat e " " ~

- LackAyiomel
. Certificatio n & Operation s Approva

l

- Avionic s Industria

l Base
. ability © p£0§pc<^-et

c "" " ~ ; -"Non-Coteplia S Avijjfuc s

- BimifeSProgra

mOffic e AAN I Resourc e Availabilit

y

- TelC o jnstaHationJDelay s

- Inadequale%upgor

t Infrastrjctufe

- -Integration offAutomatio

n SystemShp s

-Failur e t o Reac h"end-state " Architectur

e

- System interferenc e wit

h TCAS^r&SR s

- Insufficien

t Sprte m Perforrnalc e :DuaIXinkGB T Interopejabihj y

- Unreliableil T informatio

n due t o GP S Jamming s - Lac k Avionic s Certification ~& Operation s Approva

l

- Limite dANIResourc e Availabilit y

- Telco installation Delay s -Inadequat e Suppor t Infrastructur

e

-NA S incapable of

growt ht o 3 x traffic Incomplet e CH I fo r AT C Separation

-Lack:approved3-iml

e separation standard

s (AT )

- Lac k Avionic s Certificatio

n & Operation s Approva

l

-Rea l Estat e J&ase Approval s

- Limite d"Progra mOffic e / AN I Resource Availabilit

y

- Telc o mstallatiOtfTJelays _

- Ioadequaje^iippor

t Infrastructure

^ -Integration o

f Automatio n Systems Slip s

NAS incapabl

e of growt ht o 3 x traffic -JFailur e to TM Reac h"end-state " Architectur

e

- Lac k Necessary-Approval s t o Interrogat

e at~Requlre

& Rate s

- Insufficient-SafetyLogic Design

- Deficien t Syste mAccurac y

3 36.5.4. 6 Quantitativ e Compariso n

A n overal l weighte dns k score , generate db y summin g togethe r th e weighte dface t

score s for eac halternative , wa s use da s aquantitativ e facto r for comparin g th e alternatives
. Thes e result s are denote di n th e followin g table
. Tabl e 19 : Quantitativ e Risk

Compariso

n 1 2 Risk s 4 1 Risk

s 2

5 Risk s 3 3 Risk

s Ris k Facet s Referenc e

Cas e Alternativ e 1 Alternativ e 2 Alternativ e 3

M>\i-l;ill Wi-ii'lHril \llrlll.llhi

- ifisk Sum

- ' "

6.5. 5 Summar y Base do n th e qualitativ e an dquantitativ e ris k comparison s highlighte dabove , Alternativ e 2 pose s th e leas t

ris k t o th e FA A Th e results , however , containe dher e shoul db e use dwithth e othe r evaluatio n factor s (i.e. , lif e cycl e costs , benefits , schedule , an dperformance ) t o narro w th e se t o f alternative s t o th e mos t

preferre done(s ) t o presen t t o th e JRC
. Fo r eac hhig han dmediu mns k assessed , th e LA' s benefit s grou p adjuste dthei r model s t o reflec t th e potentia l impac t

o f th e risk s o n achievin g servic e delivery
. Th e cos t grou p als o adjuste dthei r model s t o reflec t

additiona l cost s tha t

woul dlikel y b e require dt o mitigat e nsk s for eac h alternativ e an dwher e appropriat e adde dcos t range s aroun ddifferen t element s o f

th e Work Breakdow n Structur e (WBS ) t o generat e cumulativ e distribution s o f tota l possibl e progra mcosts , allowin g for

accountabilit y i n area s identifie da s uncertain
. Bothth e cos t an dbenefit s model s considere dan y necessar y adjustment s t o schedule
. 6. 6 Architectur e Assessmen t

3 4Thi s Nationa l Airspac e Syste m(NAS ) Architectur e Impac t Assessmen t

(ALA ) addresse s th e impact s o f

th e propose dAutomati c Dependen t Surveillanc e - Broadcas t (ADS-B ) NA S Wid e implementatio n o n th e NA S baselin e architecture
. Thi s assessmen t wil l b e use da s inpu t

t o th e Busines s Cas e Analysi s Report a s wel l a s th e Initia l Investmen t Decisio n (JR C 2a ) for

ADS-B
. Th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n progra moffer s abundlin g o f supportin g technologie s whic har e al l directe da

t lowerin g th e agency's , it s operators ' an dth e NA S users ' operatin g cost , whil e enhancin g safety , capacity , an defficiency
. Th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n programi s organize dint o thre e developmen t segments , eac hdivide dint o ase t o f "elements " that describ e th e majo r

area s o f effor t durin g eac hsegment : Segmen t 1 i s directe da

t providing terminal airspac e surveillance , an dinitia l en-rout e airspac e surveillance , surfac e management , an dbroadcas t

service s capabilities ; Segmen t 2 wil l provid e expande den-rout e coverage , surfac e management , an dbroadcas t services ; Segmen t

3 focuse s on th e developmen t o f cockpit-base d terminal , e n rout e an doceani c applications
. Currently , ther e ar e severa l shortfall s tha t ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n woul daddress
. Thes e include : alac k

o f share dsituationa l awarenes s (traffic , terrain , weather) ; inability t o provid e surveillanc e coverag e a t reduce dcost ; inabilit y t o accuratel y predic t deman dan d capacity values ; lac k

o f surveillanc e coverag e withi n specifi c region s o f th e NAS ; insufficien t

e n rout e communication s i n th e Gul f o f Mexico ; an dinabilit y t o readil y acces s in-fligh t weathe r data
. Thre e alternative s tha t woul daddres s thes e shortfalls , a t leas t i n part , wer e assessed : (1 ) ADS-B : Thi s alternativ e concentrate s o n th e implementatio n o f ADS- B an dbroadcas t service s capabilitie s throughou t th e NAS
. Surveillanc e woul db e enhance dthroug hth e implementatio n o f

ADS- B vi abot hth e 109 0 Extende dSquitte r (ES ) th e Universa l Acces s Transceive r

(UAT ) dat alink s i n accordanc e withth e FAA' s ADS- B Lin k Decision
. Non e o f

th e secondary (beacon ) radar s o r Precisio n Runwa y Monito r (PRM ) system s i n th e NA S (ove r 30 0 locations ) woul dan y longe r b e necessary , thei r functionality bein g replace db y ADS-B
. I n th e aircraft , th e broadcas t o f aircraf t data , cockpi t displa y o f

traffi c an dothe r

application s woul db e achieve db y aircraf t equippe d wit hADS-B , GPS , movin g maps , an ddispla y avionics
. ADS- B transmit-onl y avionic s woul db e mandate dt o achiev e nearl y universa l aircraf t equipage
. Thi s propose d infrastructur e assume s tha t th e navigatio n sourc e use db y ADS- B (i.e. , GPS ) wil l hav e sufficien t availabilit y t o support

th e future NAS
. (2 ) Rada r Replacement : Thi s alternativ e consist s o f continue dlife-cycl e suppor t o f th e existin g secondar y (beacon ) systems , an dthei r replacemen t

a t th e en do f

thei r respectiv e life-cycles
. Thi s woul dappl y t o al l classe s o f secondary (beacon ) radar s a s the y exis t toda y (i.e. , terminal , e n route , PRM)
. (3 ) Multilateration : Thi s alternativ e concentrate s o n th e implementatio n o f multilateratio n groun dinfrastructur e a

t al l termina l rada r

locations , rathe r

tha n o n th e implementatio n o f a n ADS- B NAS-wid e surveillanc e infrastructure
. Thi s infrastructur e woul db e use da s a replacemen t

for secondary (beacon ) rada r an dPR M system s a

t al l termina l locations ; termina l primar y radar

an de n rout e secondar y (beacon ) radar system s woul db e retained
. It shoul db e note dtha t

Alternative 1 i s th e onl y viabl e alternativ e tha t full y addresse s al l o f

th e shortfall s identifie dfor

ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementation
.
3 5Th e operations , systems , an dprogrammati c aspects , o r "views, " o f

eac halternative' s propose d architectur e wer e assesse dt o determin e thei r consistenc y withth e existin g NA S EA , an dt o highligh t an y issue s and/o r

risk s that

ma y nee dt o b e addresse da s part o f ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementation :

• Alternativ e 1 (ADS-B) : o 2 7 operationa l improvement s (OIs ) referenc e ADS- B directl y i n th e NA S EA ; 4 additiona l OI s wil l nee dt o b e modifie dt o reflec t ADS- B a s th e primar y sourc e o f surveillance , rathe r

tha n radar
. o 7 system s (mechanisms ) identifie db y thi s alternativ e are define dan daccounte di n th e NA S EA ; 5 additional mechanism s i n th e NA S EA woul dn o longe r b e required ; all require dinterface s hav e bee n define dan ddocumented
. o 5 program/projec t

segment s supportin g thi s alternativ e are accounte dfo r i n th e NA S EA ; 7 additiona l program/projec t segment s i n th e NA S EA woul dn o longe r b e required ; smal l schedul e change s shoul dno t adversel y impac t

NA S modernization ; fund s fo r implementin g this alternativ e hav e no t ye t bee n appropriated ; al l progra m interdependencie s ( 5 segment s an duse r equipage ) are accounte dfo r i n th e NA S EA , excep t for GP S sustainmen t

an d3r dpart y weathe r

vendo r value-adde dproducts
.

• Alternativ e 2 (Radar

Replacement) : o 1 2 OI s referenc e rada r directl y i n th e NA S EA ; 1 2 OI s woul dn o longe r b e viabl e fo

r thi s alternative
. o 1 0 system s (mechanisms ) identifie db y thi s alternativ e are accounte dfo r i n th e NA S EA ; 7 additiona l mechanism s i n th e NA S E A woul dn o longe r b e required ; al l require dinterface s hav e bee n define dan ddocumented
. o 1 4 program/projec t

segment s supportin g thi s alternativ e are accounte dfo r i n th e NA S EA ; 5 additiona l program/projec t segment s i n th e NA S EA woul dn o longe r b e required ; fund s for

implementin g thi s alternativ e hav e no t ye t bee n appropriated ; ther e ar e n o progra minterdependencie s for thi s alternative
.

• Alternativ e 3 (Multilateration) : o 4 OI s referenc e multilateratio n directl y i n th e NA S EA ; 9 additiona l OI s wil l nee dt o b e modifie dt o reflec t

multilateratio n a s th e primary sourc e o f surveillance , rathe r tha n radar ; 1 2 OI s woul dn o longe r b e viable
. o 3 system s (mechanisms ) identifie db y thi s alternativ e i s accounte dfor i n th e NA S EA , bu t on e woul dnee dt o b e modifie dt o support termina l (rathe r

tha n surface-only ) surveillance ; 1 2 additional mechanism s i n th e NA S E A woul dn o longe r b e required ; al l require dinterface s hav e bee n define dan ddocumented
. o On e program/projec t

segmen t supportin g thi s alternativ e i s accounte dfo r i n th e NA S EA ; ane w program/projec t segmen t woul dals o nee dt o b e added ; 1 2 additiona l program/projec t

segment s i n th e NA S E A woul dn o longe r b e required ; fund s for
3 6implementin g thi s alternativ e hav e no t ye t bee n appropriated ; al l progra m interdependencie s ( 5 segments ) ar e accounte dfor i n th e NA S EA
. Base do n thes e assessments , th e followin g issue s wer e identified : Alternativ e 1 (ADS-B) : 1
. (Hig hRisk ) GP S operationa l availabilit y ma y no t b e sufficien

t t o suppor t

ADS- B a s th e primar y sourc e o f

surveillanc e i n critica l area s o f th e NAS ; a

n effectiv e backu p strateg y (to maintai n sufficien t

capacity ) ha s no t

ye t bee n identified
. Note: Addressed

concern within Prosram Office risk table. Program Office did not deem this as a high risk

item, but rather as a medium risk

alons with several

associated

mitigation activities. 2
. (Hig hRisk ) A n equipag e mandat e i s require dt o achiev e th e anticipate dbenefits , whic h ma y presen t

significan t

challenge s (economi c an dpolitical)
. 3
. (Mediu mRisk ) Ai r

Traffi c ha s no t

ye t agree dt o us e ADS- B a s aprimar y sourc e o f surveillanc e fo r

th e separatio n o f

aircraf t throughou t

th e NAS
. 4
. (Mediu mRisk ) Inconsistencie s wit hth e program' s safet y analyse s mak e i t

unclea r whethe r al l o f th e risk s hav e bee n properl y assessed
. 5
. (Lo w Risk ) Ther e i s n o guarante e tha t GP S service s wil l b e sustaine dthroughou t th e lifecycl e o f

thi s alternative
. 6
. (Lo w Risk ) Agenc y strategi c plan s wil l nee dt o b e modifie dt o reflec t ADS- B a s th e primar y sourc e o f

surveillanc e i n th e lon g term . Alternative 2 (Rada r

Replacement) : 1
. (Hig hRisk ) Thi s alternativ e doe s no t suppor t an y cockpi t

applications , thereb y seriousl y impactin g th e succes s o f

NA S modernizatio n a s envisione di n th e NA S EA
. 2
. (Hig hRisk ) Th e cost s o f continuin g th e us e o f

secondary (beacon ) rada r for termina l are a surveillanc e appear s t o b e significantl y highe r tha n tha t o f ADS-B
. Alternativ e 3 (Multilateration) : 1
. (Hig hRisk ) Thi s alternativ e doe s no t suppor t an y cockpi t

applications , thereb y seriousl y impactin g th e succes s o f

NA S modernizatio n a s envisione di n th e NA S EA
. 2
. (Hig hRisk ) Th e cost s o f implementin g multilateratio n fo r termina l are asurveillanc e appear s t o b e significantl y highe r tha n tha t o f ADS-B
. 3
. (Mediu mRisk ) Althoug hmultilateratio n for wid e are asurveillanc e ha s gon e throug h proo f o f concept , ther e may b e significan t technica l issue s withapplyin g thi s concep t t o al l condition s t o b e foundi n th e NAS
. 4
. (Mediu mRisk ) Ai r

Traffi c ha s no t

ye t agree dt o us e multilateratio n a s aprimar y sourc e o f surveillanc e for

th e separatio n o f

aircraf t throughou t

th e NAS
.

375
. (Lo w Risk ) Agenc y strategi c plan s wil l nee dt o b e modifie dt o reflec t multilateratio n a s th e primar y sourc e o f

surveillanc e i n th e lon g term . Withi n th e contex t

o f aJR C 2 adecision , th e issue s identifie dabov e d o no t presen t asignifican t enoug hrisk

t o th e succes s o f

th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n progra mt o warran t postponin g th e decisio n a t this time
. However , sinc e muc ho f th e availabl e dat ai s inconclusive , fromaNA S Architectur e perspectiv e i t i s recommende dthat

th e selectio n o f

aspecifi c alternativ e b e postpone dunti l suc htim e tha t th e abov e issue s ar e mor e full y addressed ; also , al l o f th e abov e issue s mus t b e fully resolve dan da n alternativ e selectio n approve dbefor e proceedin g wit hafinal investmen t analysis , leadin g t o aJR C 2 b decision
. NOTE: The ATO Executive Council provided guidance on what

program recommendations should be presented

to JRC members at

the September

09, 2005JRC

meeting. See Section 8.0 (Recommendations) for

actual recommendations. 6.7 Othe rADS- B Relate d Assessment s The followin g section s summariz e activitie s an dresult s o f th e Huma n Factor s Assessmen t (HFA) , Informatio n Securit y Assessment , an dSafet y Assessment
. 6.7. 1 Huma n Factor s Assessmen t A s define di n FA A Orde r 9550.8 , huma n factor s i s amultidisciplinary effor t t o generat e an d compil e informatio n abou t human capabilitie s an dlimitation s an dappl y tha t informatio n t o equipment , systems , facilities ; procedures , jobs , environments ; staffing ; training ; personne l an d organizationa l managemen t for safe , comfortable , an deffectiv e huma n performance
. Thi s huma n factor s assessmen t focuse s o n th e human-syste mperformanc e tha t affect s th e risks , costs , an dbenefit s associate dwithth e Automati c Dependen t Surveillanc e - Broadcas t (ADS-B ) National Airspac e Syste m(NAS ) Wid e Implementatio n objectives
. It als o support s progra mris k management . ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n provide s an improve dgroun dan dai r infrastructur e tha t woul dmee t

forecaste dcapacity demands , whil e enhancin g safety , efficienc y an dproductivity , andprovide s th e agency , it s operator s an duser s th e opportunity t o reduc e operationa l costs . ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n furnishe s pilot s wit hbette r informatio n abou t

th e locatio n an dseverity o f

hazardou s weathe r

an dtraffi c informatio n t o reduc e mid-ai r collisions
. ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n als o provide s improve dsurveillanc e informatio n t o controller s t o assis t i n mergin g an dspacing , sequencing , separation , in-trai l climb s an ddescents , an d maintainin g throughpu t

rate s i n IMC
. Th e importanc e o f th e user' s rol e an dperformanc e i n achievin g ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n objective s i s clear
. Th e human-syste minterface s play amajo r

rol e i n th e syste machievin g it s state dgoal s an dobjectives
. Also , becaus e th e programi s focuse do n safety an defficienc y gain s i n aviatio n b y acceleratin g th e implementatio n andus e o f

moder n technology , th e usabilit y consideration s requir e specia l scrutiny
. Typica l o f any program , th e thre e majo r user group s tha t

deserv e attentio n ar e th e Ai r Traffi c Controllers , th e Airwa y Facilitie s personnel , an dth e pilot s o r fligh t crews .
3 8An extensiv e bod y o f huma n factor s applie dresearc hha s bee n complete di n th e effor t t o develo p th e ADS- B huma n compute r interface s for

bot hai r traffi c controller s an dpilots
. Thes e includ e th e developmen t

o f a"Thinspecs " for

th e implementatio n o f

ADS- B o n t o th e Commo n ART S automatio n platform
. Earl y integratio n o f ADS- B o n t o th e STAR S automatio n platfor mha d bee n execute dbu t

Thinspec s wer e no t

generate dan dwil l nee dt o b e completed
. Th e previou s wor k accomplishe dwit htermina l automatio n platform s ca n b e adapte dt o th e nex t generatio n e n route an doceani c automatio n platforms
. Significant

huma n factor s applie dresearc hha s bee n complete dfor th e integratio n o f

ADS- B o n multifunctio n display s an delectroni c flight bag s for bot hcommercia l an dgenera l aviatio n fligh t decks
. Aspect s tha t

wer e researche dinclude dgenera l compute r huma n interfac e issue s (e.g. , symbology , color , clutte r aspects , knobology , etc.) , workload , head-dow n time , usability , acceptability an dsuitability
. Evaluation s wer e accomplishe di n bothsimulator s an daircraf t usin g alarg e poo l o f

professiona l an dgeneral aviatio n pilots
. Saf e Fligh t 2 1 huma n factor s specialist s worke dclosel y wit havionic s vendor s an dFA A Fligh t Standard s an dCertification
. Muc ho f th e wor k that wa s accomplishe ddurin g th e earl y developmen t ha s bee n utilize dt o establis hhuma n factor s certificatio n guideline s andbes t practices
. Informatio n wa s disseminate ddirectl y t o avionic s manufacturers
. On e vendo r ha s actuall y certifie dtw o o f thei r product s an dthe y ar e o n operational aircraf

t today
. N o human factor s researc hha s bee n don e t o loo k a t maintenanc e aspect s o f ADS- B groun d equipment
. I t

i s anticipate dtha t

very littl e wor k

need s t o b e accomplishe di n thi s area , however , thi s questio n wil l b e examine dshoul dthis progra mb e approved
. A summary o f

muc ho f th e human factor s wor k accomplishe db y Saf

e Fligh t 2 1 / Ohi o Rive r Valle y ca n b e foun di n th e OM B 30 0 documen t i n sectio n l.A.3
. I n additio n t o pas t

an don-goin g certificatio n an dacceptanc e o f equipmen t

essentia l t o th e solution , furthe r

opportunitie s t o achiev e th e maximu mpossibl e benefit s associate dwit hADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n technologie s an dapplication s may resul t fromhuma n factor s researc han dengineerin g activitie s neede dt o attai n optima l desig n an dimplementatio n affectin g AT C an dAirwa y Facilitie s a s wel l a s Fligh t Dec k efficiencie s an deffectiveness
. Effort s t o establis hhuman-syste mperformanc e requirements , conduc t human-syste mintegration , an d asses s use r

performanc e shouldb e integra l wit hth e continue dacquisitio n an dimplementatio n process . Accordingly , risk s an dcost s associate dwit hth e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n programma y b e decrease dan dbenefit s increase db y organizin g an dmanagin g ahuma n factor s researc han dengineerin g progra man dplan
. Tabl e 2 0 provide s risk rating s for

eac hhuma n factor s stud y are aidentifie di n th e FA A Huma n Factor s Acquisitio n Jo b Ai di n FAST
. I t provide s a

n identificatio n o f

area s for consideratio n o f

potentia l huma n factor s stud y associate d withan dbeneficia l t o th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n program . Ninetee n "medium " priority item s wer e identifie dwit hcomments . Tabl e 2 1 provide s alistin g o f huma n factor s researc htha t

need s t o b e completed
.

Table20 : Ris

k Rating s o f Huma n Factor s Stud

y Areas

3 9Stud y Area s

Allocatio n o f Functio n

Anthropometric s an dBiomechanic s

CH I (Computer

Huma n Interaction )

Communication s an dTeamwor k Genera l Descriptio n

Assignin g thos e roles/functions/task s for whic hth e huma n o r equipmen t

perform s bette r whil e enablin g th e huma n t o maintai n awarenes s o f

th e operationa l situation
. Accommodatin g th e physica l attribute s o f

it s use r populatio n (e.g. , fro m th e 1s t throug h99th percentil e levels)
. Employin g effectiv e an d consisten t

use r dialogues , interfaces , an dprocedure s acros s syste mfunctions
.

Applyin g syste mdesig n consideration s t o enhanc e require duse r communication s an d teamwork
. AT C L

L

M

M A F L

L

L

L Pilo t L

L

M

M Commen t

(Reference )

Automatio n thinspec s fo r STARS , ERAM , an dATO Pnee dt o b e generated
. Th e thinspec s for

CART S nee dt o b e validated
. Advance dCDT I application s wil l requir e CH I development
. Communicatio n requirement s amon g pilots , betwee n pilot s an doperators , an d betwee n fligh t

dec k an dAT C shoul db e analyze dan d documente di n variou s applicatio n environments
. Studie s hav e bee n performe dt o examin e th e suitabilit y an d acceptabl e o f

acal l sig n procedur e whic h allow s th e us e o f aircraf t cal l sig n b y AT C an dpilot s for aircraf t identification
. Th e result s ar e inconclusiv e an d further researc hi s

4 0Stud y Area s

Cultur e o f Personne l

Display s an d Control s

Documentatio n

Environmen t

Functiona l Desig n

Huma n Erro r Genera l Descriptio n

Addressin g th e organizationa l an d sociologica l environmen t int o whic hany change , includin g ne w technologie s an dprocedures , wil l b e introduced
. Designin g an danangin g display s an dcontrol s t o b e consisten t

withth e operator' s andmaintainer' s task s an dactions
.

Preparin g use r documentatio n an d technica l manual s i n a suitabl e forma

t o f informatio n presentation , a t th e appropriat e readin g level , an dwithth e require d degre e o f technica l sophisticatio n an dclarity
.

Accommodatin g environmenta l factor s (includin g extremes ) t o whic hth e syste mwil l b e subjecte dan dunderstandin g th e associate deffect s o n human-syste mperformance
. Applyin g human-centere d desig n for

usability an d compatibilit y with operationa l and maintenanc e concepts . Examinin g desig n an d AT C
L

M

L

L

L

M A F
L

L

L

L

L

L Pilo t
L

M

M

L

L

M Commen t

(Reference ) needed
.

A s state dpreviously , thinspec s nee dt o b e generate dfor

th e automatio n an d advance dCDT I application s wil l requir e additiona l applie dresearc ht o develo p appropriat e avionic s desig n guidance
. A concer n ha s bee n raise db y th e Fligh t Standard s communit y concernin g adequac y o f trainin g documentatio n from avionic s vendors
. Fligh t Standard s ma y hav e t o develo p guideline s a s t o th e conten t o f th e trainin g materials
.

Advance dCDT I
4 1Stud y Area s

Informatio n Presentatio n

Informatio n Requirement s

I/O Device s

KSA s

Operationa l Genera l Descriptio n

contextua l condition s (includin g supervisory an d organizationa l influences ) a s causa l factor s contributin g t o huma n error , an dconsideratio n o f objective s for

erro r tolerance , erro r

prevention , an derro r correction/recovery
.

Enhancin g operato r

an d maintaine r

performanc e throug hth e us e o f

effectiv e an dconsisten t

labels , symbols , colors , terms , acronyms , abbreviations , formats , an ddat afields. Ensurin g th e availability an dusabilit y o f

informatio n neede db y th e operato r

an d maintaine r

for aspecifi c tas k whe n i t i s needed , an d i n afor mtha t i s directl y usable
. Selectin g inpu t

an doutpu t (I/O ) method s anddevice s tha t allo w operator s o r maintainer s t o perfor

m tasks , especiall y critical tasks , quickl y an d accurately
. Measurin g th e knowledge , skills , an dabilitie s (KSAs ) require dt o perfor

mjob

relate dtasks , and determinin g appropriat e selectio n requirement s fo r users . Ensurin g tha t

th e syste m AT C

M

M

L

L

M A F

L

L

L

L

L Pilo t

M

M

L

L

M Commen t

(Reference ) application s wil l requir e mor e applie d researc ht o develo p suitabl e avionic s an d AT C displa y features , procedure s an d trainin g i n th e effor

t t o maximiz e th e effectivenes s o f

th e application s an dt o mak e th e procedur e safe
. (Implicatio n - minimiz e huma n error ) Refe r t o CH I commen t above
.

Mor e applie d researc hi s require d t o develo p acomplet e set o f informatio n requirement s neede d for advance d application s (AT C an dflight crew )

Se e CH I comment s
4 2Stud y Area s

Suitabilit y

Procedure s

Safety an dHealt h

Situationa l Awarenes s

Specia l Skill s an d Tool s

Staffin g

Trainin g

Visual/Auditor y Alert s Genera l Descriptio n

appropriatel y support s th e use r i n performin g intende d function s whil e maintainin g interoperabilit y and consistenc y withothe r syste melement s o r

support systems . Designin g operatio n an d maintenanc e procedure s for simplicity , consistency , an d eas e o f use . Preventing/reducin g operato r an dmaintaine r exposur e t o safet

y an d healt hhazards
. Enablin g operator s o r maintainer s t o perceiv e an d understan delement s o f

th e curren t situation , an d projec t the mt o futur

e operationa l situations
. Minimizin g th e nee dfo

r specia l o r uniqu e operato r o r maintaine r

skills , abilities , tools , or characteristics
. Accommodatin g constraint s an defficiencie s for

staffin g level s an dorganizational structures . Applyin g method s t o enhanc e operato r

o r maintaine r

acquisitio n o f th e knowledg e andskill s neede dt o interfac e withth e system , an ddesignin g tha t syste ms o tha t

thes e skill s ar e easil y learne dan d retained
. Designin g visua l and auditor y alert s (includin g erro r messages ) t o invok e AT C

M

L

L

L

L

M

L A F

L

L

L

L

L

L

L Pilo t

M

L

L

L

L

M

L Commen t (Reference ) abov e

Procedure s i n th e us e ofADS-Bhaveyett o b e developed
. Stakeholder s wil l b e involve di n thi s process .

Trainin g procedure s nee dt o b e develope d specificall y for

AT C an dai r crews .

4 3Stud y Area s

Workloa d

Wor k Spac e Genera l Descriptio n

th e necessar y operato r

an d maintaine r

response . Assessin g th e ne t

demand s o r impact s upo n th e physical , cognitive , an d decision-makin g resource s o f an operato r

o r maintaine r usin g objectiv e and subjectiv e performanc e measures . Designin g adequat e wor

k spac e for personne l an d thei r tool s o r equipment , an dprovidin g sufficient spac e for th e movement s an daction s tha t

personne l performdurin g operationa l an dmaintenanc e task s unde r normal , adverse , an d emergenc y conditions
. AT C

L

L A F

L

L Pilo t

L

L Commen t

(Reference )

Ris k Level s (H^High ; M^Medium ; L=Low ) Tabl e 21 : Huma n Factor s Wor kActivitie s Wor k Activitie s Generate Automatio n Thinspec s fo r STARS , ERAM , ATO P Validat e Thinspec s fo r

CART S Advance dMultifunctio n Displa y Applicatio n Developmen t Follow-o n Developmen t

o f Advance dCDT I Display s

Determin e trainin g need s fo r th e operatio n o f

automatio n an davionic s display s an dmaintenance
. Determin e healt han dsafety issues
. Progra mEvent s Establis hCH I requirement s (TBD ) Draf t Thinspec s (TBD ) Validat e Requirement s (TBD ) Validat e Requirement s (TBD ) Refin e ADS- B applicatio n description s (TBD ) Identif y an dmitigat e huma n interfac e issue s associate d wit hth e ai r

traffi c controller s an dth e flight crews . Wor k withFligh t

Certificatio n an dStandard s an d avionic s vendor s t o develo p display s t o perfor m advance dADS- B application s (e.g
. approac hspacing , entrai l climb an ddescents , oceani c CDT I applications , etc. ) (TBD ) Trainin g requirement s identifie ddurin g th e initia l deploymen t

- (TBD ) Develo p trainin g material s - (TBD ) Develope dIntegrate dSafet y Progra mPla n t o ensur e complianc e wit hFAA-G-2100 , FA A Orde r 3900.19 , an dOSH A requirement s 29-CFR-1910 , an dCFR-29

- 1926 , relatin g t o establishe dsafet y complianc e - (TBD )

4 46.7. 2 Informatio n Securit y Assessmen t

Thi s investmen t

i s currentl y undergoin g security certificatio n an dassessment . Th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n i s base do n th e Capston e Progra mwhic hha s undergon e th e Securit y Certificatio n an dAuthorizatio n Proces s (SCAP ) i n accordanc e withFA A Orde r 1370.82 , Informatio n System s Securit y Program
. Security Authorizatio n wa s grante dfor th e Alask a Region' s Capston e Automati c Dependen t Surveillanc e - Broadcas t (ADS-B ) an dBroadcas t Service s Syste mo n 1 5 Jul y 200 4 b y Vic e Presiden t for Technica l Operation s Service s ATO , th e Designate dApprovin g Authority
. Th e informatio n securit y issue s an darchitectur e for th e ADS

B NA S Wid e Implementatio n ar e ver y simila r t o thos e for

th e Capston e ADS- B an dBroadcas t Service s Syste man di t

i s expecte dthat

th e security certificatio n o f th e Capston e syste mwil l carry ove r

t o th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementation , whic hha s take n advantag e o f th e lesson s learne dfromth e certificatio n o f th e Capston e syste man dha s bee n designe dt o incorporat e informatio n security fromth e start , rathe r than addin g i t

o n later
. Th e SCAPfo

r th e initia l phas e o f

th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n coverin g th e Broadcas t Service s Syste mbase dat th e FA A Technica l Cente r an dsupportin g service s i n th e Eas t Coas t an dothe r pocket s o f

implementatio n i n th e CONU S i s unde r developmen t

an dexpecte dt o b e submitte db y Septembe r

2005
. Th e Ris k

Assessment , Ris k

Mitigatio n Plan , an dInformatio n Syste mSecurity Pla n hav e bee n develope dan dth e Securit y Tes t ha s bee n successfull y completed
. A third-part y testin g firmindependentl y ra n th e Security Test
. Th e C& A methodolog y bein g use dconform s t o th e "AR A Guideline s o n Informatio n Syste mSecurit y Certificatio n an dAuthorizatio n Packages, " prepare dfo r th e AR A ISSM , Augus t 2002
. Thi s proces s i s consisten t

wit hNationa l Institut e o f Standard s an dTechnolog y (NIST ) guideline s an d include da

n Informatio n Securit y Ris k Assessment
. Th e NIS T 800-2 6 Securit y Self-Assessmen t wil l b e complete deac hyea r t o evaluat e technica l an dnon-technica l syste msecurit y feature s an destablis hth e exten t t o whic hth e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n meet s th e securit y policies , objective s an dspecifi c security requirement s for us e i n it s intende denvironment
. I n accordanc e withFA A Orde r 1370.8 2 Informatio n System s Security Program , th e SCA Pwil l b e update dan drecertificatio n an dreauthorizatio n o f th e syste mwil l b e obtaine dever y 3 year s o r sooner , i f ther e i s amajo r

syste mo r

environmenta l chang e tha t impact s th e security postur e o f th e system , includin g ne w o r additiona l connectivit y t o othe r informatio n systems , majo r hardware/software changes , o r wheneve r

amajo r securit y breac hha s occurred
. Th e Broadcas t

Service s Syste mInformatio n Syste mSecurit y Pla n identifie s th e followin g Security Assignments :

45Tabl e 22 : ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementation Securit y Assignment s



### Nam e
Pau l Fontain e
Robert Nichol s Robert Nichol s Shirle y McGowan Stev e Carver Michae l Prai a Mark Schoenthal 

### Titl e

Progra mManage r Implementatio n Lead/Syste mOwne r Syste mISS O Certificatio n Tea mLea d ISS O (ATO-P ) ISS M (ATO-W ) Syste mCoordinato r Syste mAdministrato r 

### Locatio n FA A Saf e Fligh t 21/Th e Ai r Traffi c Organizatio n Operation s Plannin g Technolog y Development , FA A HQ , Washington , D C FA A HQ , Washingto n D.C
. FA A HQ , Washingto n D.C
. FA A HQ , Washingto n D.C
. FA A HQ , Washingto n D.C
. WJHTC , Atlanti c City , NJ WJHTC , Atlanti c City , N J 

### Phon e (202 ) 267-346 8
(202)267-991 2 (202)267-991 2 (202)385-723 9 (202)267-381 4 (609 ) 485-505 4 (609 ) 485-580 3

4 66.7. 3 Safety Assessmen t

Syste mSafet

y i s aspecialty withi n system s engineerin g tha t support s progra mrisk

management . It i s th e applicatio n o f

engineerin g an dmanagemen t principles , criteria , an dtechnique s t o optimiz e safety
. Th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n syste msafety programsatisfie s th e requirement s of

, an di n accordanc e with , th e FA A Syste mSafety Managemen t Progra m(SSMP) , FA A Syste mSafet

y Handbook , an dFA A Order 8040. 4 Safety Ris k

Management
. It

i s oversee n b y th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n Syste mSafety Workin g Grou p an dth e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n Progra mOffice
. Th e developmen t

o f ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n operation s follow s define dSyste m Safet y practice s i n orde r

t o facilitat e ris k

management . Th e task s an dactivitie s o f Syste mSafety managemen t

an dengineerin g bein g use db y ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n ar e define di n th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n Integrate dSafety Pla n (ISP)
. Th e specifi c element s o f th e ISPinclud e Scop e an dObjectives , Syste mSafet y Organization , ProgramSchedule , Syste m Safety Requirements , Hazar dAnalysis , Syste mSafety Dat aCollection , Safet y Verification , Syste mSafet

y Training , Inciden t

Reporting , an dSyste mSafety interfaces
. I n 2001 , a

n Operational Safety Assessmen t (OSA ) wa s performed
. Thi s included* asyste m descriptio n i n th e for

mo f an Operationa l Service s an dEnvironmen t Descriptio n (OSED)
. Th e OS A consiste do f

a n Operationa l Hazar dAssessmen t (OHA ) an dth e Allocatio n o f Safety Objective s andRequirement s (ASOR)
. Th e OS A wil l b e modifie dan dupdate dt o reflec t th e curren t stat e o f th e program . Followin g completio n o f aFunctiona l Analysis , aComparativ e Safety Assessmen t

(CSA ) wa s performe dan dapprove di n Septembe r 200 1 an dcompare dth e NA S Wit han dWithou t ADS-B
. Th e CS A i s currentl y bein g modifie dt o includ e athir d alternativ e fo

r providing surveillanc e usin g multilateratio n an dfocusin g on th e mos t relevan t ADS- B applications
. A Preliminar y Hazar dAnalysi s (PHA ) o f ADS- B wa s als o complete di n September , 200 1 an dwil l b e modifie daccordingly
. Th e IS Pan drevise dCS A wil l b e reviewe d b y th e NA S Modernizatio n Syste mSafety Workin g Grou p NA S Mo dSSW Gprior t o th e initia l investmen t

decision
. Th e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n i s asegmen t developmen t

program , whic hmean s tha t developmen t

i s initiated , tested , modified , adde dto , an dchange ddurin g th e developmen t cycle
. I t i s no t designe dt o b e alinear process . No t

al l hazard s associate dwithaspecifi c phas e o f progra mdevelopmen t

ma y b e close dou t

before ne w progra melement s o r capabilitie s ar e added , consequentl y Operationa l Ris k Managemen t

i s a n importan t

on-goin g effort
. An y safet y significan t

change s fro mth e ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementatio n baselin e may requir e additiona l analysis
. Tabl e 23 : Statu s o

f Safet y Product s M-J I #v £: s : ~ Dep'e^JKll : / Operationa l Safet

y Assessmen t

(OSA ) Comparativ e Safet

y Assessmen t

(CSA ) Preliminar y Hazar dAnalysi s (PHA ) 

### ii-

_ ^S^itl" * JP" ~

v Completed& Submitte d Completed& Submitte d Complete d& Submitte d £"'" 1 ""Status

- 1 " ? j * - Approve d9/0 1 Approve d9/0 1 Approve d8/0 1

4 7Comparativ e Safet y Assessmen t (CSA ) - Modifie d Revisio n Integrate dSafet y Pla n (ISP ) Submissio n 7/12/0 5 Submissio n 7/12/0 5 Revie w Planne dfo r 7/0 5 Revie w Planne dfo r

7/0 5 6.7. 4 Affordability Assessmen t Curren t fundin g i s show n a s lates t poin t estimat e withou t

risk calculation s a s provide db y th e progra moffice
. Ris k

calculation s coul dchang e th e final fundin g requirements
. 6.7.4. 1 F& E an d OP S Fundin g Tabl e 24 : Curren t

an dPropose dF& E an dOperation s Funding : T Y ($M ) - Non

- Ris k Adjuste d Projec t Nam e "" " ~ ; S I 0.03-0 1 F& EEstimat e Delt a Curren t OP S OP S Estimat e Delt a 20| 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0 2f0 7

117. 0 117. 0 0. 0

0. 0 20o r

12 0 0 120. 0 0. 0

0. 0 200 9 =

112. 1 112. 1 0 0

4.2 7 201 0

210. 2 210. 2 0. 0

4. 5 Mil" '

100. 1 10 0 1 0. 0

35. 3 Tota l

659. 4 659. 4 0. 0

44.0 7
6.7.4. 2 F& E Affordability F& Elevel s fo

r FY0 7 an dbeyon dar e sustaine da t $2.7 B level s (FY0 7 OS T submissio n i s S2.712B)
. Offset s fromothe r program s woul dnee dt o b e foun di f OM B Passbac k

Target s ar e belo w $2.7 B for

FY07-11
. 7 ALTERNATIV E SELECTE D Base do n th e analyse s an dassessment s conducte do n th e thre e investmen t alternatives , th e selecte dalternativ e wa s Alternativ e 1 : ADS-B
. Alternativ e 1 (ADS-B ) wa s selecte dbecaus e i t provide s th e bes t

technical/cos t

solutio n t o "NA S Transformation" , supportin g th e nex t 6 0 year s o f

growt ha s th e natio n progresse s t o th e Nex t Generatio n Ai r

Traffi c System
. ADS- B i s als o i n concer t wit htrend s happenin g withi n th e internationa l community , a s nation s suc ha s Australi abegin s t o implemen t th e system , whil e ke y Europea n nation s ar e contemplatin g implementation
. Whe n comparin g agains t alternatives , ADS- B score dhighes t

i n th e followin g thre e areas : 7.1. 1 Criteri a1 : Cor e Surveillanc e ADS- B score dhighest , du e t o it s ability t o simultaneousl y support surveillanc e i n multipl e domai n area s (Surface , Terminal , E n Route) , wit hasingl e syste msinc e th e sourc e o f surveillanc e dat acomes fromth e aircraft
. B y comparison , rada r i s limite db y physics , i n tha t i t require s th e us e o f

multipl e classe s o f

radar type s t o perfor mspecifi c surveillanc e mission s 4 8withi n domai n areas . Multilateratio n a t aminimu mrequire s upward s o f (4 ) groun dstation s t o delive r th e same volum e o f

coverag e a s ADS-B , du e t o th e nee dt o "triangulate " th e aircraft' s position
. Fro masurveillanc e accurac y perspectiv e ADS- B i s superior : Curren t Secondary Surveillanc e Radar , ATCBI-6 , can mee t ahorizonta l accurac y o f 41 6 ft. Wid e Are aMultilateratio n (WAM) us e i n termina l an dE n Rout e airspac e ha s bee n demonstrate dt o mee t ahorizonta l positio n accurac y o f

approximatel y 15 0 ft, whil e aWAM applicatio n for Precisio n Runwa y Monitorin g ha s bee n demonstrate dt o mee t ahorizonta l positio n accurac y o f 2 7 ft. ASDE- X surfac e multilateratio n horizonta l accurac y i s specifie dt o mee t o r excee d2 0 ft

o n airport

movemen t areas . ADS- B derive s positio n fromGP S an dGP S horizonta l accurac y currentl y meet s o r exceed s 1 3 meter s (-4 3 ft) wit hselectiv e availability (SA ) of f an dca n improv e t o ahorizonta l accurac y o f

2- 3 meter s (~6.5f

t t o 9.8ft) withaWAA S differentia l correctio n provided
. Therefore , ADS- B horizonta l accurac y exceed s al l o f th e surveillanc e system s unde r consideratio n excep t

for surfac e multilateratio n an dWA M for Precisio n Runwa y Monitorin g unles s adifferential GP S sourc e i s provided
. Thi s ke y performanc e parameter , allow s th e potentia l for future reductio n o f

Separatio n Standard s t o improv e efficiency
. Th e "broadcast " natur e o f ADS- B surveillance , als o uniquel y support s th e simultaneou s transmissio n o f hig hupdate rat e /

performanc e dat ano t

onl y t o ATC , bu t als o betwee n aircraf

t pairs
. Thi s enable s ADS- B t o suppor t aful l rang e o f

"critical " Cockpi t Base dApplications , i n whic hoverla y o f surveillanc e dat awil l b e necessary . B y comparison , whil e i t ma y b e technicall y feasibl e t o "uplink " surveillanc e dat at o th e cockpit , derive dfrom Multilateratio n an dRadar , latenc y delays i n th e dat awoul donl y support "advisory " leve l services
. 7.1. 2 Criteri a2 : Cockpi tBase d "Thir d Dimension " ADS- B satisfie s th e greates t rang e o f th e FAA' s performanc e goal s i n term s o f improvin g safety an defficienc y performanc e i n th e NAS
. ADS- B function s a s atwo-wa y dat alink an di s capabl e o f supportin g awid e rang e o f "uplink " product s simultaneou s wit hit s cor e surveillanc e function
. B y comparison , radar

doe s suppor t

traffi c "uplink" , bu t

i t i s limite dt o onl y 120 location s acros s th e country , du e t o limite ddeploymen t o f Mode- S radars , whic hfee dth e system . Rada r doe s no t suppor t "Uplink " o f

weather/NA S statu s products , however , thes e service s ar e attainabl e commerciall y throug hsatellit e weathe r providers , bu t

require s monthl y subscriptio n fee s an d additiona l satellit e receiver s o n th e aircraft
. Multilateratio n doe s no t support traffi c "uplink" , an da s wit hth e radar

alternative , weathe r

product s ar e onl y availabl e commercially
. Th e hig h monthl y recurrin g cost s o f satellit e weather , ha s limite dmarke t penetratio n acros s th e NAS
. ADS- B i s als o th e onl y alternative , whic hi s uniquel y suite dt o support afull rang e o f

"critical " cockpi t basedapplications , du e t o th e hig hdat arat e o f th e broadcas t

(onc e pe r

second)
. "Critical " application s includ e thos e tha t requir e ahig hdegre e o f "Share dSituationa l Awareness" , wher e bot hth e pilo t an dAT C are viewin g acommo n pictur e simultaneousl y whil e interactin g wit

hth e data
. Prim e example s include ; 1 ) Surfac e Movin g Map (SMM) , wher e pilot s ca n no t

onl y determin e thei r

positio n o n th e airport

surface , bu t

ca n vie w th e movemen t

o f othe r aircraf t relativ e t o them
. 2 ) CDT I Enable dFligh t Rule s (CEFR) , whic hwil l enabl e pilot s

4 9t o continu e withvisua l throughpu t rate s i n instrumen t

conditions , thu s regainin g los t capacity whe n th e weathe r

turn s bad
. NGAT S wil l requir e cor e technologie s tha t ar e flexibl e /

scaleable , wit hadditiona l growt

hcapabilit y t o adap t

t o a n ever-changin g NAS
. ADS- B i s th e onl y alternativ e positione dt o suppor t thes e requirements
. 7.1. 3 Criteri a3 : Busines s Cas e ADS- B wa s chose n becaus e i t ha s th e highes t

Ne t Presen t Valu e (NPV ) an dth e highes t Benefit/Cos t

Ratio : Table 25 : Alternative Analysis Results

memi S iiI I ^=»i-Bf :- , iiw r c , Radi r

- NPV($B ) 1.0 3 .0 2 (0.74 ) B/ C Rati o 1. 3 1. 0 0. 8 8 RECOMMENDATION S Th e followin g recommendation s wer e provide db y th e AT O Executiv e Counci l o n Augus t 23 , 2005 :

• Gran t Initial "Futur e Surveillance " Acquisitio n JRC-2 aapprova l for ADS- B NAS-Wid e Implementatio n Alternativ e (preferre dalternative )

• Approv e establishmen t o f AT O leve l Surveillanc e an dBroadcas t Service s Offic e (t o includ e th e ADS- B Program ) o Establis hcharte r

an dreportin g authority for offic e withi n 3 0 day s

• Authoriz e completio n o f initia l Progra mMaste r

Pla n o Procee dwit hadvanc e airspac e rulemakin g o Complet e ADS- B backu p analysi s o Refin e busines s cas e • T o includ e cos t

alternative s a s necessar y for rulemakin g o Complet e refinemen t

o f safety cas e

5 09 PROGRA M FUNDIN G

Th e followin g table s outlin e Saf e Fligh t 21' s source s o f

fundin g a s o f

02/18/200 5 (i.e. , Ohi o Rive r Valley , ADS- B Standard s Developmen t an dSurfac e Movin g Maps)
. Tabl e 26 : Ohi o Rive r

Valle y OmfCCJNin.toHHr^ l o

r\ Fundin g a s o

f 02/18/200 5 F Y0 5 Appropriatio n (include s .00 8 adjustment ) FY9 9 5 5 FYO O 1 0 1 0 PYCtf l 22. 7 22. 7 FY0 2 12. 7 12. 7 ^FY03 16. 3 16. 3 FY04 * 4. 1 4. 1 FY0 5 3.97 1 3.97 1 FY0 6

8 8 FYOT 3. 4 3. 4 Tabl e 27 : Automati c Dependen t Surveillanc e -Broadcas t (ADS-B ) ADj^<|lPJnft|iiHor«iJ^.
. : FY02 = FY03 ? 

### FY0 4 FY0 £ EYQ 6 FY0 7 Fundin g a s o f 02/18/200 5 3. 5 1. 9 2. 6 2. 8 1. 5 1.98 4 F Y0 5 Appropriatio n (include s 00 8 adjustment ) 3. 5 1. 9 2. 6 2. 8 1. 5 1.98 4 Tabl e 28 : Surfac e Movin g Ma p (SMM )
Fundin g a s o

f 02/18/200 5 F Y0 5 Appropriatio n (include s 00 8 adjustment ) FYO O FY0 1 FY0 2 1. 3 1. 3 FY0 3 2. 2 2. 2 FY0 4 2. 8 2. 8 FY11 5 1.98 4 1.98 4 FY0 6

2 2 FY0 7 2 2 Tabl e 29 : Tota l SF2 1 Fundin g Fundin g i n Million s Fundin g a s o

f 02/18/200 5 FY99 * 8. 5 FYO O 11. 9 FJT0 1 25. 3 FY0 2 16. 8 FY0 3 2 0 FY04 i 8. 9 FY0 5 7.93 9 i ! FY06 ? 1 2 

### FYi m 7. 4 L

. ^

j

5 1Appendi x A : Reference s

1
. Preliminar y Progra mRequirement s for Automati c Dependen t

Surveillance-Broadcas t Service s Syste m(ADS-BSS) , Jul y 2005
. 2
. Implementatio n Strateg y & Plannin g Documen t (ISP) , 2005
. 3
. FA A Acquisitio n Managemen t Syste m(AMS ) Polic y an dGuidelines , Revise dNovembe r 2004
. 4
. MN S #326 , Enhance dSurveillance , Septembe r 2000
. 5
. MN S #50 , Applicatio n o f Satellit e Navigatio n Capability for Civi l Aviation , October 1992
. 6
. MN S #42 , Aeronautica l Dat aLin k Syste m(ADLS) , Ma y 1998
. 7
. MN S #323 , Airport

Surfac e Movemen t

Enhancemen t

an dRunwa y Incursio n Prevention , Ma y 1998
. 8
. Investmen t

Analysi s Ris k

Guideline s fo r

Fina l Investmen t

Decision , Apri l 2003
. 9
. Lif e Cycl e Cos t

Estimate s for

NA S ADS- B Implementation , September , 2005
. 10
. Lif e Cycl e Cos t

Estimate s for

NA S Rada r

Replacemen t

Implementation , September , 2005
. 11
. Lif e Cycl e Cos t

Estimate s for

NA S Multilateratio n Implementation , September , 2005
. 12
. Lif e Cycl e Cos t

Estimate s for

NA S ADS- B Avionic s Implementation , September , 2005
. 13
. OM B Exhibi t

300 , ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementation , September , 2005
. 14
. NA S Wid e ADS- B Benefit s Basi s o f Estimates , Augus t

2005
. 15
. Architectur e Assessmen t for ADS- B NA S Wid e Implementation , Augus t 17 , 2005
. 16
. Automati c Dependen t Surveillanc e - Broadcas t (ADS-B ) Nationa l Airspac e Syste m (NAS ) Wid e Implementatio n Integrate dSafet y Pla n (ISP) , Augus t

19 , 200 5 17
. Automati c Dependen t Surveillanc e - Broadcas t (ADS-B ) Desig n Analysi s Report : ADS

B Operationa l Safet

y Assessment , Augus t

19 , 200 5 18
. Ris k Analysi s for

Automati c Dependen t

Surveillanc e - Broadcas t (ADS-B ) Nationa l Airspac e Syste m(NAS ) Wid e Implementation , Augus t 2005
.

5 2

### Appendi x B : ADS- B Ris k Tabl e (Consolidated ) HWi*-""

- '•!••",,
. . " " • *: i Source' 1 " "--i.-,....
. Risk" 1 ---^

- "SoiirxfRiw i ('auM,i ..'j«f.

- Impai- h-*n , _.-.- . ('(insi-iiui-iici

- • '«

. ••<• ' . • : . •Mili!::itiiii]Opiiu n J t

Sli:iU-ji > lliisi-lin t

Imput l (WIlSSsj

Ref: N/A Altl:C5(H ) Alt 2 : N/A Alt 3 : N/A Avionic s

Stakeholde r To mPrevos t

/ SF-2 1 Workin g Grou p Ol d1,2 , 7 Activ e oppositio n

t o airspac e mandate s /

Lac k use r acceptanc e o f airspac e mandate s Al t 1 : Activ e oppositio n t o airspac e mandate s - airspac e user s / use r group s ma y oppos e airspac e mandate s - oppos e i f unfunde do r

lobb y for dat e extensions
. Al t 1 : Bothth e airlin e and general aviatio n industrie s are strugglin g financiall y an d coul doppos e th e mandate s / timeline s du e t o cos t

o f equipag e (affordability - avionic s costs)
. Al t 1 : Aviatio n group s ten d t o oppos e equipmen t mandate s that

requir e additiona l equipmen t

(e.g
. ne w and/o r

dual equipage ) t o continu e fly i n airspac e wher e thi s equipmen t

i s currentl y no t

require d Al t 1 : Politica l Acceptanc e - Rulemakin g proces s require s polic y decisio n Al t 1 : Implie drequiremen t o f TCA S a s "las t

resort " t o collisio n avoidanc e ma y make eliminatio n o f transponder s impossible
. Cos t Schedul e Benefit s Al t

1 : Delay i n Polic y & /

o r Rulemakin g Decisions , thu s impactin g curren t

busines s cas e justificatio n - RO I Al t 1 : Propose dcos t

/ benefi t model s andairspac e transitio n schedul e wil l not b e maintained
. I f

mandate s are successfull y defeated , th e progra mcoul dfail
. Contro l

Researc h &Kno w Al t

1 : Issu e a

n Advance d Notic e fo r Propose dRul e Makin g (ANPRM ) i

n FY06
. Al t 1 : Demonstrat e t o th e airline s - laten t

equipag e Al t 1 : Garne r

politica l backin g o f

mandate s - vi a polic y decisio n - followe d b y decisiv e rulemakin g Al t 1 : Th e Progra mOffic e ha s ongoin g dialogu e throug hDoD/FA A Polic y Boar dfor Federa l Aviatio n (PBFA) , wher e ADS- B implementatio n plan ha s bee n briefe d(includin g avionic s mandate)
. Al t 1 : Mak e avionic s mor e affordabl e withGov' t

R& D $' s t o develo p ADS- B / transponde r

replacemen t

m on e box , t o incorporat e future applications , an dt o stimulat e competitio n Al t 1 : I f mandat e doesn' t becom e polic y - obtai n fundin g fo

r avionic s subsidie s o r

se t u p bul k purchasin g agreement s t o reduc e cos t

t o user s

5 3Ui.s k

;• „ • Vl i & Ris k K»tiii!£ A " •Souret : KM . SiHim-RuM i (''aiiSL

- '•'-liniiiK'L ^ J- v i

- . ('(ni<iL-i]iu-iii v yiiti^atiui i 0|)ii(i n A SiniU-u t Bim-IJiK

llll|KU' l (\ \« s ss i

Ref : N/ A Altl:C3(M ) Al t 2 : B 3 (L ) Alt3:B3(L ) Avionic s

Producibilit y To mPrevos t Ol d#2, 5 Suivesllanc e Avionic s

"industria l base " i s unabl e t o produce , certify , andinstal l ADS- B equipmen t

t o suppor t airspac e surveillanc e transition s (Rol e o f Industrial Base

Manufacturer s an d Repai r Stations ) Al t

1 : ADS- B avionic s are relativel y ne w an dth e industria l bas e wil l requir e "ramp up " t o mee t productio n demands require d b y airspac e mandat e schedule
. Al t 1 : GBT s (UAT ) - Sensi s currentl y i s th e onl y activ e vendo r o f UA T "receive/transmit " GBT s becaus e the y wo n th e competitivel y awarde d Capston e contract . Alt 1 : GBT s (1090)-Sensis , Thale s an dRaytheo n / COSSA R"receiv e only " system s ar

e currentl y bein g evaluate do r

are i n operatio n Al t 1 : A T avionic s i s ther e (1090)-Rockwell , ACSS , Honeywel l are producin g DO26 0 compatibl e avionics
. Anticipat e DO260 A complianc e withi n FY0 6 (Rockwel l i s complian t today)
. Al t 2 , 3 : Avionic s i s mor e matur e - n o mandat e woul d b e issue d Cos t Schedul e Al t

1 : Propose dcos t

/ benefi t model s an dairspac e transitio n schedul e wil l not b e maintained
. Contro l Al t 1 : Stimulat e industria l bas e earl y i n th e implementatio n progra mb y strategicall y deliverin g benefit s t o th e maximu m numbe r o f user s a s soo n a s possible
. Al t 1 : Acquisitio n strategy identifie s th e nee dfo

r mandate , t o ensur e commo n startin g poin t

acros s th e use r community
. Al t 1 : Believ e that

DO260 A an dD0282 A MOP S wil l mee t avionic s requirement s fo r progra mSegment s 1 an d2
.

5 4RNk" . Al

l & Ris k
' Kal i HI ; Smiri T Risk 1 -.- ; So u m-Ruul.Caiii c liiip:icf ' ( UllSl'tllH'IK'l - Mitigatio n Opii«ii, £Miaii-y v liiiNtliiii I I I i pa t r t\\liSS» j

Ref: N/A Altl:D4(H ) Alt 2 : C 4 (M ) Al t 3 : 0 4 (M ) Avionic s

Producibilit y To mPrevos t Ol d# 3 Surveillanc e Avionic s

certificatio n an d operation s approva l proces s wil l b e unabl e t o certify , approv e an dprovid e guidanc e material s require dt o approv e sufficient ADS- B equipmen t t o support

airspac e surveillanc e transition s (Rol e o f Government ) Al t

1 : ADS- B avionic s are relativel y ne w technologie s an dth e certification , desig n approval, an doperation s approva l processe s ten dt o mov e cautiousl y i n approvin g ne w cockpi t technologie s Al t 2,3 : Althoug hn o mandat e woul db e issue d- thi s ne w servic e woul d requir e ne w avionic s component s installe do n th e aircraft
. Cos t Schedul e Al t

1 : Propose dcos t

/ benefi t model s an dairspac e transitio n schedul e wil l not b e maintained
. Contro l Al t 1 : Establis h"tige r teams " withAV S stakeholder s t o streamlin e an daccelerat e certifications , desig n approvals , operationa l approva l processes , an d guidanc e material s t o includ e AC' s an dcontinue d airworthiness
. Al t 1 : Continu e t o conduc t frequen t an dope n technical & programmati c review s s o al l intereste dpartie s (FA A an dothe r agencies ) ma y b e kep t informe do f

progra m statu s an ddecision s

55RN k - •M l &._Ris k Rillin g \uiirt T
. Ris k • „ •••i*- m jtfSiilim

- Ruu l ( au*i : ini[):icl > . 1 tlllM>t|Ut. , IH , L ' MitiiMlioi i <->|iii<>i i & Strait« \ liii^cliut

llllpiH' l ( WMS «ss t

Ref : N/ A Altl:C3(M ) Al t 2 : N/ A Al t 3 : N/A Avionic s

Supportabilit y To mP
. Ol d#6,1 4 Surveillanc e Unacceptabl e

Numbe r o f Non

Complian t Avionic s Al t

1 : Th e followin g situations ar e precursor s t o syste mnon-complianc e (Imprope r installation, legac y equipmen t

[e.g
. DO

260] , equipmen t

failure , imprope r operation , GP S failure [jamming , etc.])
. Technica l Cos t Schedul e Benefit s Al t

1 : Delay i n certificatio n o f o r possibl y unabl e t o certif y ASD- B fo

r intende d us e (radar replacement , reduce dseparation , etc. ) Contro l Al t 1 : Mandat e migratio n t o DO-260 A Al t 1 : Develo p an d implemen t

amulti-layere d conformanc e monitorin g capability t o detect , identify , an dnotif

y aircraf t / operator s withnon conformin g avionic s durin g installation, a

t periodi c intervals , o n th e ground , an di n flight
. Al t 1 : Maintai n minima l radar infrastructur e Alt 1 : Work withth e Aircraf t Certificatio n organizatio n t o develo p guidanc e materia l for

both installatio n an dcertificatio n o f ADS- B avionic s Al t 1 : Verify , durin g requirement s formulatio n process , syste m redundancy , diversity , monitorin g an ddiagnostic s wil l b e employe dt o ensur e dat aan dsyste mintegrity
.

Ref : N/ A Al t 1 : C 4 (M ) Al t 2 : C 4 (M ) Alt 3 : C 4 (M ) Avionic s

Cos t Estimat e Pau l F
. Overstate dGA

Avionics ' Cost : Assumption s - Standalon e En d State Nomenclatur e Al t

1 : Curren t

stat e G A avionic s nomenclatur e - separat e / standalon e squi t bo x - i n th e futur

e avionic s ma y b e combine d Cos t Benefi t Overstate dG A avionic s cost s withi n th e cos t estimat e Contro l Addris k range s aroun dG

A avionic s estimat e - plac e lower bound s aroun dcos t estimat e

5 6Ris k - ,

6 1
_ ^ \lt & Risk'
. U:itiii n •- :

Ref: N/A Al t 1 : B 2 (L ) Al t 2 : N/A Alt 3 : N/A Nuui'U ! .:• •

Avionic s

Joh n M
. Ol d#1 3 Non

Surveillanc e Ri'sl i •. s • '

Cockpi t base d application s no t brough t onlin e u :SiH

I I'lT
. Roo t

('.'lllsi

-

. ••* '-•!-•• •

Uncertainty associate dwit h effect s o f ADS- B cockpi t application s on pilot/cre w workload , cal l sig n and phraseolog y fo

r cockpi t basedADS- B applications , clearl y define dcockpi t procedure s fo

r ADS- B operations ; an dho w ADS- B base dcockpi t

applicatio n procedure s integrat e with standar dpractic e andpilo t / AT C role s IIII|I:K- K

Schedul e Benefit s <'(lllsi-llllUK'L

Al t 1 : Difficult

y i n resolvin g al l issue s with cockpi t base dADS- B application s (CEFR , Mergin g andSpacing , sel f separation , etc. ) coul dresul t i n delay o r

failure t o deplo y th e full spectru mo f

cockpi t base dADS- B applications
. Thi s woul dresul t

i n lower benefit s for

mADS- B and reduc e user/operato r incentiv e t o equip
. Mitii i

Researc h and Kno w Contro l jiion' f

>|>lio n & Str:ur^>.
.
Al t 1 : Ensur e tha

t avionic s an dprocedure s d o not creat e requiremen t

fo r mor e than two-perso n flight

cre w Al t 1 : Limi t initia l implementation s o f

ADS- B cockpi t base dapplications t o benig n environment s (lowe r density airspace ) o r les s demandin g environment s (VMC ) Alt 1 : Develo p trainin g requirement s for

eac h applicatio n Al t 1 : Refin e an dtes t durin g simulation s liUM-Nlll

lmp;u l iWliSSs. i

5 7. . . . •••*) - Al t& Ris k Ris kT » • • j . . . * ; . Ratiiii S - * • •!'.? * Sourc e ia*r: - i,

. i SuuriT.lli«i [ < aiisi

- " !" ' Imnat-i s • ^ i ; ?i..

. ...... . ('tillst-tiiit'llt't ' Mili^iiiii)ii.4)|)li(>i i \Sii:IIi y > j
. Kast'lini '
! \\\ \i> ss )

Ref : N/A Altl:A4(L ) Al t 2 : N/ A Al t 3 : N/A Infrastructur e

Technica l Los e ability t o

utiliz e GP S signal i n th e futur

e a s a navigatio n sourc e Al t

1 ADS- B syste mi s dependen t

upo n gettin g positio n informatio n froma n aircraf t navigatio n sourc e (i e , GP S Na v source ) Technica l Th e abilit y for ADS- B syste mt o provid e critical leve l A T service s woul db e diminishe d(limite dt o advisory leve l service s unti l anothe r navigatio n sourc e coul db y integrated ) Assum e DO D i s require db y law t o "maintai n aStandar dPositionin g Servic e (SPS ) (a s define di n th e Federa l Radi o navigatio n Pla n an d th e Standar dPositionin g Servic e Signal Specification ) that wil l b e availabl e on acontinuous , worldwid e basis " and , "develo p measure s t o preven t

hostil e us e o f GP S an dit s augmentation s withou t undul y disruptin g o r

degradin g civilia n use s " Thes e stric t

requirement s an d curren t augmentatio n system s shoul dactuall y make DO D us e o f th e syste mtransparen t

t o th e civi l user (Not e Ther e will , necessarily , b e localize dtestin g o f

th e syste m b y military an ddevelopmen t team s bu t th e testin g wil l fal l unde T stric t notificatio n guideline s o f safety-of

hf e user s suc ha s Coas t

Guar dan d FAA ) Th e Marc h199 6 Presidentia l Decisio n Directive , passe dint o la w b y Congres s i n 1998 , essentiall y transferre d"ownership " o f GP S fro mDO D t o th e Interagenc y GP S Executiv e Boar d(IGEB ) Th e IGE B i s co-chaire db y member s o f th e Department s o f

Transportatio n an dDefense , an dcomprise do f member s o f

th e Department s o f State , Agriculture , Commerce , Interior , an dJustic e a s wel l a s member s fro mNAS A an dth e Join t Chief s o f Staf f I t allow s fo

r both civi l an dmilitary interest s t o b e include do n al l decision s relate dt o th e managemen t

o f GP S

5 8*4*«* • v—^—mwr-m**..-* « • wj^^m .** 4*n-^^.ii-—-w^wiM|< e H}.| m m «i—ism l p.ii.i.iim»'n*^»jfl [ *wi.—i»• • —L-imi.MffHJin.wiw•«••*—•—.tw^-"-*—.*•—••—ii-wnmh.—-u^..—.,.••^W-WHWIIHIIW" ~ vmi- aH.-U . 1 , xitVL'Ris k

• - u " ' ./-••' • ' • - HJIMIHU

Risk " i*

- .,* • . * V Suurc t ' n Risk

• ' • sniin-L * Knot (
. HUM:
. • hntj.u-l s ( (iiisctiiit-iii T ' " Mitigatio n Omim i •K.-Sir.iu-i'v . Iniii.ic t -t.Katin s £ " ^ •;

_/ £ .--•

_..- • " . - ^{ ^

8

9 Ref : N/ A Al t 1 : B 2 (L ) Al t 2 : N/ A Al t 3 : N/A

Ref: D 4 (H ) Al t 1 : N/A Al t 2 : N/A Al t 3 : N/ A Infrastructur e

Huma n Factor s Bobb y N
. Ol d#1 9 Non

Surveillanc e
Huma n Factor s ASR- 9 Surveillanc e Pilo t

Confusio n a s aresul t o f ownshi p ghostin g

Increas e i n maintaine r workloa d(i.e. , maintenanc e time ) Al t 1 : Ownshi p ghosting : a s aresul t o f inaccuracie s i n avionic s provide d informatio n (e.g. , altitude ) preventin g accurat e correlatio n o f

inpu t senso r plot s

Ref : Legac y syste m- withou t modificatio n wil l continu e t o degrad e thu s increasin g th e amoun t

o f tim e neede dt o maintai n th e system . Technica l Benefi t

Technica l Cos t Al t

1 : Broadcas t

Service s - Ma y caus e confusio n for pilot s whe n usin g display s t o ai dsituationa l awarenes s

Syste mdow n tim e wil l increase
. Tim e t o fix problem s wil l continu e t o increase
. Syste mreliability wil l continu e t o decreas e Contro l

Contro l Al t

1 : Evolv e Contro l Facility SW( v 1.7- v 1.x ) Al t 1 : Pilo t trainin g - eventua l TIS- B phas e ou t

Ref: Replac e SS Rwit

h ne w syste m

5 9Risk " : /Cul tRi*k

• "• ' Ratin g Sourc e .•. | W Kdfi. » ':,• Ris k BlflMll'V*-!»••'• . * •» . ^•I'.uV i M Ur y ! • , . J!* !

'Siiiirci'.'Koo i CiniM. 1 linjiaci s -i
. < 'iiusi-(|iiuiu

- Miiiuu(ii)ii:()plio n & Mrufry v •-*'-Bns.trliti e • • .Impac t (\ \\i> "*s |

1 0 Ref : N/A Alt 1 : C 4 (M ) Alt 2 : N/A Alt 3 : C 4 (M ) Automatio n

Huma n Factor s Incomplet e CH I

fo r AT C separatio n an dadvance d cockpi t applications Alt

1 Undetermine do r incomplet e operational requirement s an dprocedure s fo r ADS- B integratio n int o terminal , Enrout e an d oceani c automatio n systems , particularl y on targe t

display , t o support AT C separatio n provisio n andadvance d cockpi t application s i n mixe dequipag e environmen t Al t 1, 3 Operationa l requiremen t

(fuse dtrack , equipag e display ) andCH I fo r displayin g target s fo

r separatio n provisio n ha s not bee n developed , bu t

i t i s neede da s abasi s fo

r evaluatin g separatio n standard s i n terminal are a Schedul e Benefit s Cos t Automatio n integratio n

delaye d- no t

abl e t o support critical A T service s

- thu s decommissionin g o f SS Rwoul db e delayed , increasin g FA A operation s cos t (maintai n radars ) Contro l Al t 1 Initia l CH I requirements fo r CART S have bee n develope dmconjunctio

n wit h the ATEA M Al t 1 Giv e hig hpriorit y t o developing operationa

l requirements , procedure s an d CH I Al t I Initia l syste mtest fo i CART S has bee n conducte da t the Tec hCente r an dinitia l fligh t tests hav e bee n conducte da t Louisvill e Al t 1 Develo p Service Leve

l Agreement s wit hFA A stakeholders (ATO-T & ATO

E , etc ) o n tasks , resources , schedul e et c Al t 1 MOA s have bee n establishe dwit hth e Commo n ARTs (CARTS ) an

dSTAR S programs t o integrat e ADS- B int o thes e automatio

n platforms

1 1 Ref: N/A AItl:C3(M ) Al t 2 : N/A Al t 3 : N/A Infrastructur e

Technica l Joh n M Ol d#2 0 Suiveillanc e Spectru m

Syste m interferenc e with TCA S o r SSR s Al t

1 Limitation s on Spectru moccupanc y for 1090e s are no t

know n Alt 1 Transmi t

dut y cycl e limit s o n 1090e s are not know n - withou t

analysi s t o determine , ther e i s ns k

th e spe c woul dresul t

i n system s tha t interfere wit

hTCA S o r SSR s Cos t Al t 1 Limitation s may requir e throttlin g 1090e s transmission s o r

us e o f sectorize dantenna s Contro l Al t 1 Fun dVOLP E complet e spectru manalysi s (~$75 k unfunde deffort) Al t 1 D o not

includ e 109 0 TIS- B uplin k

minitial spe c fo r B/C 1 airport s

6 0" V 'l ! iffj 1 ^ " M ^^ 4{i5f| MI | ! r

K:iliiil i

1 2

1 3 Ref

: N/A Al t1 : N/A Al t 2 : N/A Al t3 : D 4 (H )

Ref : N/ A Altl:C3(M ) Al t 2 : C 2 (M ) Alt3:D3(M ) & . t -"•" • • . . . .. . • - *:••* '• '•'' .. .. —...v--* ' '

, • ••"•I- -
Infrastructur e Technica l Todd K Survei l lance
.

Infrastructur e Cos tEstimat e Bobb y N
. Ol d#2 1 Surveillanc e Lac k

necessary approval s t o interrogat e a

t th e require drate s

Underestimatio n o f Site Pre p Cost s Al t

3 : Spectru mOccupanc y Issu e wit hASR-MLA T require s mor e interrogations fo r ATCRB S target s

Al t 1 : Lesson s learned : ASDE- X - significan t underestimatio n o f

sit e surve y cost s betwee n 2 a& 2 b (hidde n /

unexpecte dsite costs ) Al t 2 : Undocumente dlocal change s t o syste msite s - different sit e configuration s i n th e fieldma y impac t implementatio n (sit e specifi c interfac e an dlogisti c obstacles)
. Alt 2 : Infrastructure varie s a t eac hsite - agin g infrastructure s wit

hdivers e problems

Alt 3 : Greenfiel dunknown s

- Environnemental Audit s Alt 3 : Unidentifie dtermina l RU placemen t

(unknowns : tower , power , & com ) . - • • ••• • ,„ . ' • • .. . -,,„, . . lf;is.l-lillt > .

Technica l

Cos t Canno t

operat e syste ma

t th e require dsettings
. Therefor e syste mwil l not mee t performanc e requirement s

Increase dprogra m implementatio n cost s Contro l

Contro l Obtai n necessar y spectru m

approva l Convert ATCRB S transponder s t o Mod e S transponder s vi amandate
.

Al t 1 : Conduc t

detaile dsite survey s prio r

t o JR C 2 b Al t 1,2,3 : Appl y ris k

range s aroun dsite cost s

6 1• • •

\l l & Ris k

1 4 Ref

: A 2 (L ) Altl:A4(L ) Al t2 : A 2 (L ) Al t3 : A 4 (L ) "

;.:o«--S w|irc

. , r:^;:_ i ;

Infrastructur e Cos t Estimat e Bobb y N
. ...;:;:*.ni<'hi\-.-.- c : ;: ; .

Underestimatio n o f Telc o Leas e Cost s

- Leas e Cost s Increas e Over Tim e • • *
.

• • Th e FAA Telecommunication s Infrastructur e (FTI ) contrac t provide s system s withth e necessary communicatio n line s t o operate . Program s d o not

manag e thi s contract , but

rathe r i t i s a separat e contrac t

int o whic h program s pa y identifie d leas e costs . .^Impaclv Cos t Benefit s 1 .:.:i'.^iJ.j* n «' ( i lH,1,i:i " - „ TM

Cos t avoidanc e benefit s ma y not b e realize d !.r.' l ...*MU'yi ,, ' |lu -*->|iii'»j i & ^K'.l'.E'i*
. •. . •

• • • - : '""""'" " " "

Assum e Loc k

i n lo w leasin g cost s earl y i n th e leas e term liilM-MllL ' Impac t (\\»N"SS" ; "

6 2M

i & Ris k '.* • '•'i^jiS^tosi-ifs s ^..iia.a-ii.-fiBi*"-'.-w

. «W(i--Ri'>k : • • ff& ii , ias&. | i o jtf.r :,,i! ' L ' ! " : - linpiict s ('misTiiu^-uci-'-- '
^' taJ * lW!ailttr,J ' ! |^y^irnij^UtjltJllHMi..i . i i i Mitigatio n Optio n A. Slralmiy ... . Impact liilSi-lilU linpiii i

1 5 Ref

: N/A Altl:C3(M ) Al t2 : B 3 (L ) Al t3 : D 3 (M ) Infrastructur e

Technica l Todd K &Kir k C Ol d#2 3 Surveillanc e Creepin g Syste m Requirement

s Al t I Specificatio

n developmen

t not wel l coordinate

ddu e t o a lac k o f accepte doveral l detaile d architectur e Immatur

e "system " top-dow n requirements flo

w (airplane-GS -CF-automation , etc ) Al t 1 GP S accuracie s are currentl y assume di n th e pP R Al t 2 Syste mdeploye dan d technolog y a t amor e mature d stat e Al t 3 Technolog

y applie di n a manne r tha t varie s fromtoda

y - 6 0 mil e coverag e required- additiona l researc hi s required her e Al t 3 WA M - Tim e signa l fro m GP S mayb e require dfo r ophma l syste mperformance Al t 3 Multilateratio

n consists o

f replacin g man y secondar y radars wit hane w technolog

y tha t measure s time-differenc

e o f arriva l o f transponde

r replie s a t differen t groun dstation s Al t 3 Unclea r requirements fo

r secto r interrogato

r monitorin g Generall y immatur e concep t tha t needs t o b e develope d(Rea l Tim e Qualit y Control) Cos t

Schedul e Al t

1 Syste mwil l not

wor k togethe r efficientl y a s intende d(interoperability ) Al t 1 Increase dcos t

o f developin g groun dstatio n an dContro l Facility du e t o constantl y changin g requirement s Al t 1 Inability o f

avionic s an dinfrastructure t o stay synchronize dagains t commo n requirement s Al t 3 Woul dhav e th e same vulnerabilitie s t o GP S outag e an dsurveillanc e back-u p requirement s a s th e ADS- B alternativ e Contro l Al t 1 Reconstitutio n o f

a n architectur e team Al t 1 Develo p detaile d overal l architectur e Al t 1 I n th e fPRaccurac y requirement s wil l b e develope d"b y domain " / "b y application " Alt 1 Developmen t

o f functional requirement s segregatio n int o physical unit s t o complet e specification s Al t 3 Conduc t

additional researc han dformulat e a teamt o determin e syste m requirement s an dspec s Al t 3 Mitigatio n o f

th e GP S tim e signal requiremen t

woul drequir e al l multilateratio n station s i n aspecifi c cluste r

(aroun d a n airport , o r

i n a n en rout e cluster ) t o hav e signal lme

of-sigh t (i e , th e statio n woul dlikel y hav e t o b e mounte don atower ) i

n orde r t o self-tim e



### 6 3'''•'"" • ' --Al l & Ris k Ris k•;. . -•-Riiliiij i

. . .n.>t#l i -•".. , ..-- ^

1 6

1 7 Ref : N/A Alt 1 : C 3 (M ) Al t 2 : N/ A Al t 3 : N/A

Ref : NA Altl:B4(M ) Al t 2 : N A Alt3:N A - Soiny c

•Ls...r.Ji.-.. ,, ' i 7" !l l~.- .

Infrastructur e Technica l Bobb y N
.

Infrastructur e Operabilit y Le s Cran e Surveillanc e .-ll-nj . i

" " Risk

- . .. . _

.

Non-Interoperabl e GB T - Dua l Lin k

Unreliabl e A T informatio n du e t o GP S jammin g vulnerability • • • * j-
. • .... . • So u ice-Roo t(< i ;iiisi- r . . linp:ictV "

Al t 1 : Dual Link

GB T - require s interoperability betwee n 1090MH z an dUA T radi o Al t 1 : Transmi t

duty cycl e limit s o n 1090e s ar e no t

know n - withou t analysi s t o determine , ther e i s ris k

th e spe c woul d resul t i n system s that

interfere withTCA S o r

SSR s Alt 1 : Functional partitionin g betwee n GBT s an dContro l Facility ha s no t

bee n determine d

Intentiona l jammin g (withou t aplanne dbacku p o r

othe r contro l t o mitigate , th e likelihoo dclassificatio n woul db e C o r

D ) (comment : spoofin g GP S positio n coul db e considere d aseparat e ris k

- A 5 lo w —

o r possibl y n o risk

IMHO ) Cos t

Schedul e Technica l Benefit s

Technica l Cos t •"••''•:. /"iiiiwiiiifii w

Alt 1 : Syste mwil l no t

wor k togethe r efficientl y a s intende d(interoperability)
. Alt 1 : Ma y no t

reac h performanc e requirement s fo r critica l leve l A T service s

Al t 1 : Jammin g o f

GP S transmission s result s i n th e inability t o us e th e syste m i n support o f AT C o r othe r applications du e t o th e lac k o f reliabl e positio n information , als o thi s perceive dvulnerability may resul t i n reduce d stakeholde r

suppor t fo r syste m Al t 1 : Los s o f

sol e positio n dat asourc e fo

r ADS-B ; (als o affect s primary means o f navigatio n wher e backu p pla n i s DME-DM E navigatio n andVORwit

h radar vector s whe n needed ) Milit t

Contro l

Contro l

Researc h & Kno w iiifiii..<)pji(i n \ Slr;ilt-j: >

Alt 1 : Reconstitutio n o f

an architectur e team . Al t 1 : pP Rdocumen t complete d- Develo p fP

R documen t Al t 1 : Develo p detaile d overal l architecture
. Alt I : Developmen t

o f functional requirement s segregatio n int o physical unit s t o complet e specifications
. Al t 1 : Maintai n alimite d se t o f radar s t o serv e a s a backu p sourc e o f surveillanc e informatio n fo r AT C (stud y require dt o determin e locatio n and numbe r o f radar s required) , Al t 1 : Develo p CONOPS/procedure s that wil l recogniz e presenc e o f jammin g an dsupport gracefu l degradatio n o f syste moperation s Al t 1 : Develo p alternativ e (backup ) navigatio n source s for ADS- B (e.g. , RNA V an deLORAN ) Bust-lim

lnip:u i ( W H S v\si

6 4Ujsk r

i

1 8

1 9

2 0 \l t

& Ris k • ! Rutin " I-

-

Ref: N/A Al t 1 : C 3 (M ) Al t 2 : B3(L ) Al t 3 : D 3 (M )

Ref : C 3 (M ) Altl:C3(M ) Al t 2 : C 3 (M ) Alt3:C3(M )

Ref: N A AItl:C4(M ) Al t 2 : C 4 (M ) Al t 3 : 0 4 (M ) . . Sfinrc c

• • # 5 "

Infrastructur e Cos t Estimat e Tod dK
. Ol d#2 3 Surveillanc e

Cos t Estimat e Le s Cran e Surveillanc e

Infrastructur e INFOSE C Ol d#28 a - . ..KM *

Imprope r segregatio n o f requirement s

Erroneou s cos t model fo r radar SLE Pand/o r

full replacemen t

Exploitatio n o f ADS- B / TIS- B transmission s '*•'Suitriv.Rou t ('ausi 1 '' ' •

Al t 1 : Specificatio n developmen t

not wel l coordinate ddu e t o alac k

o f accepte doveral l detaile d architecture
. Al t 1,3 : Immatur e "system " top-dow n requirement s flo w (airplane-GS-CF

automation , etc)
.

Mode l derive dfromnon competitiv e marke t Inadequat e historica l dat a an dunderstandin g o f

futur e need s (includin g schedul e t o replac e component s o r systems ) andfuture market ; Relianc e o n onl y U S producer s marke t

ADS-B/TIS- B transmissions , whic hma y includ e both identificatio n an dpositio n information , are unencrypte d du e t o th e broadcas t

natur e o f th e syste m hnp:ici s

Cos t

Cos t

Technica l Cos t ' " '-'C'<inst-t|lk-lict :

Alt 1 , 3 : Component s an d teleco mover-specifie d resultin g i n highe r equipmen t

cost s and monthl y recurrin g cost s

SLE P cost s ar

e over - o r under-estimate db y mor e than 10 % fo

r compariso n wit hothe r alternative s

Al t 1 : Ability t o us e ADS

B/TIS- B transmission s t o identif y an dpotentiall y targe t aircraf t coul dresul t

i n lo w equipag e rate s fo

r certai n type s o f

aircraft , thi s result s i n reduce dbenefit s fo r syste man dimpede s ability t o bas e AT C o n ADS- B Mili u

Contro l

Contro l

Know & Researc h

Contro l Min

n Opiu mi i Slrau-»' > Al t 1 : Reconstitutio n o f

a n architectur e team . Al t 1 : In th e fP

Raccurac y requirement s wil l b e develope d"b y domain " / "b y application"
. Al t 1,3 : Develo p detaile d overal l architecture
. Alt 1,3 : Developmen t

o f functional requirement s segregatio n int o physica l unit s t o complet e specifications ,

Appl y cos t

range s aroun d SLE Pactivity withi n cos t mode l

Al t 1 : Researc hmethod s t o encryp t transmission s fo

r sensitiv e aircraft , Al t 1 : Researc hmethod s t o assig n protecte d identificatio n code s t o sensitive/al l aircraft , Al t 1 : Filte r identificatio n informatio n fo

r TIS- B transmission s ISascliii c linpnc i (WIISSs )

6 5Ris k :- • M l A

/ Ris k Rutin! ; Sourc e Ris k • " •SIIUIIT.ROIJ I r'aus f illipikl s f'(III^CLIIK-Ill'l-' ' Miii»:ilii)i i Optio n & Slniliu v Rast-liiit

llllpUi l (UH^s i

2 1 Ref : N/A Altl:A3(L ) Al t 2 : A 3 (L ) Al t 3 : A 3 (L ) Infrastructur e

INFOSE C Ol d#28 b Exploitatio n o f TI S / TIS- B surveillanc e informatio n Al t

2, 3 TI S surveillanc e informatio n ma y b e exploite dwhe n i t

i s provide d t o non-governmen t

entitie s Alt l ADS-B/TIS- B surveillanc e informatio n may b e exploite dwhe n i t

i s provide dt o non-governmen t entitie s Technica l Cos t Al t

1 Ability t o us e ADS

B/TIS- B surveillanc e informatio n t o identif

y an d potentiall y targe t

aircraf t result s i n i

t not bein g mad e availabl e t o non governmen t

entities , thi s result s i n reduce d stakeholde r

suppor t fo r syste m Contro l Al t 1 Al l surveillanc e dat a feed s t o b e subjec t

t o th e protectio n requirement s o f FA A Orde r

120 0 22C , Al t 1 Desig n groun d informatio n syste m infrastructur e t o hav e stron g boundar y protectio n agains t unauthorize dacces s

2 2 Ref : N/A Altl:A4(L ) Al t 2 : N/ A Alt 3 : N/ A Infrastructur e

INFOSE C Ol d#28 c Jammin g o r

Spoofin g o f

ADS

B dat alink s Al t

1 ADS- B dat alink s wer e not designe dt o b e imperviou s t o jammin g o r spoofin g Technica l Cos t Al t

1 Jammin g o r

spoofin g o f ADS-B/TIS- B transmission s result s i n th e inability t o us e th e syste m i n suppor t o f AT C o r othe r applications , als o thi s perceive dvulnerability may resul t i n reduce d stakeholde r

suppor t fo r syste m Contro l Al t 1 Maintai n alimite d se t o f radar s t o serv e a s a backu p sourc e o f surveillanc e informatio n fo r ATC , Alt 1 Develo p CONOP S / procedure s that

wil l recogniz e th e presenc e o f jammin g /

spoofin g an d support gracefu l degradatio n o f

syste m operation s

2 3 Ref : NA Al t 1 : A 4 (L ) Al t 2 : NA Al t 3 : NA Infrastructur e

INFOSE C Ol d#2 9 Jammin g o r

Spoofin g o f

GP S transmission s Al t

1 GP S dat alink

wa s no t designe dt o b e imperviou s t o jammin g o r

spoofin g Technica l

Cos t Al t

1 Jammin g o r

spoofin g o f GP S transmission s result s mth e inability t o us e th e syste mi n support

o f AT C o r othe r application s du e t o th e lac k

o f reliabl e positio n information , als o thi s perceive dvulnerability ma y resul t

i n reduce d stakeholde r

support fo r syste m Contro l Al t 1 Maintai n primary radar s t o serv e a s abacku p sourc e o f surveillanc e informatio n fo

r AT C Al t 1 Develo p CONOP S / procedure s that

wil l recogniz e presenc e o f jamming/spoofin g an d support gracefu l degradatio n o f

syste m operation s

6 6.. . . Al

t A Ris k - • ' • Ris k •• • • „••"•.• • Source
. .:•. •

. K:IIIII* > •;. -

2 4

2 5

2 6 Ref : B 4 (M ) Altl : A 3 (L ) Al t 2 : A 3 (L ) Al t 3 : A 3 (L )

Ref : C 5 (H ) Altl : A4(L ) Al t 2 : A 4 (L ) Al t 3 : A 4 (L )

Ref : N/A Al t 1 : B 4 (M ) Al t 2 : C 4 (M ) Alt 3 : C 4 (M ) INFOSE C

ASR- 9

INFOSE C ASR- 9

Supportabilit y ASDE- X Ris k

Insertio n o f maliciou s cod e

Thef t o r misus e o f anMD T

Lac k AN I Resourc e Availability ...j'.-.Siiiii'vt.

- Roo t fjiiisf.-*-

-

Ref : Syste macces s contro l - n o use r account s - single , virtuall y stati c syste m password
. Al t 1,2,3 : security control s buil t int o th e syste m

Ref: Externa l connectivit y / telecommunicatio n - intrusio n o r

unauthorize d acces s t o syste mresource s can compris e th e integrity an davailability o f

service
. Alt 1,2,3 : ADS- B syste mi s bein g designe d withgoo dcontrol s agains t unauthorize dacces s an d misus e o f syste m contro l command s fro ma remot e location
.
Al t 3 : Simultaneou s ASDE

X implementation s (construction ) occurrin g concurrentl y i n th e Southern Regio n Alt 1 : Doesn' t

requir e a s muc hAN I support

a s ASDE

X Impact s

Technica l

Technica l Cos t

Schedul e -riillsi-ijdi-MU :

Ref : Integrity an d availability o f

servic e ca

n b e compromised
.

Ref : Coul dallo w unauthorize dpersonne l t o issu e syste mcontro l command s that

woul d disrup t th e flo w o f

radar dat at o th e Towe r

/ TRACON
. Ref : unauthorize dacces s t o syste mwil l allo w unauthorize dpersonne l t o issu e syste mcontro l command s that

woul d disrup t th e flo w o f surveillanc e inf

o

Al t 3 : If Southern Regio n AN I resource s are not increased , the n constructio n an dinstallatio n activity ma y b e delaye dan dORD date s impacted
. Miii u

Contro l

Contro l

Contro l iiioii.Opfiu n it , Siralc^ >

Ref : Implemen t

stronge r physica l intrusio n detectio n suc ha s audibl e alarm s and close dcircui t

televisio n (CCTV ) a t radar facilitie s an da t th e developmen t

site
. Ref : Ensur e technician s an d enduser s receiv e genera l security awarenes s trainin g an dsystem-specifi c technica l security training
.

Ref: Ensur e technician s and en duser s receiv e genera l security awarenes s trainin g an dsystem-specifi c technica l security training
. Ref : Monito r th e statu s o f mitigatin g RMM S vulnerabilitie s that

affect th e security o f

ASR-9
.

AN I - Th e proble mi s not i n havin g enoug hpeopl e but rathe r knowin g th e scop e o f wor k an dschedul e wit

h tim e t o plan
. Develo p an d coordinat e plannin g schedule s wit

hAN I wel l i n advanc e BiiSL'lint' Impac t (UHSSsi '

67" " M l .V Ris k Risk

- Sourc e Ris k

2 7 i

Ref: B 4 (M ) Al t 1 : C 4 (M ) Alt 2 : B 4 (M ) Al t 3 : C 4 (M ) Supp o liabilit y

ASDE- X Lac k

Progra m Offic e / Workgrou p Resource s i • - . . "

. - Siiuici

- Rom( :iu w .. . Impact s • ( unse t |iiciict r • • - Miii^iiiu n Optio n & str:iii'!> %

. _ • • : •• '
. •* • Alt 1 : Larg e Comple x Acquisitio n - a

n effectiv e organizational structur e need s t o b e pu t

i n plac e fo r managemen t

o f across domai n NAS-wid e program . Alt 1,2 : Upo n acquisitio n decisio n - progra moffic e woul dnee dt o fill severa l propose dgovt . FT E position s Alt 3 : If Workgrou p resource s are not

availabl e fo r Map Plannin g Meeting s (MPMs) , Sit e Selectio n Survey s (SSS) , andSite Engineerin g Survey s (SER ) causin g delay s t o thes e activitie s start

dates , the n pre-construction/start

o f constructio n coul db e delaye da t affecte dsites
. Schedul e Alt 3 : Overall , site kickof

f activitie s may mis s planne d start dates
. Th e impac t trickle s dow n throug h TRIO S an dSensi s resource s tha t are stagnan t

whil e waitin g fo

r th e workgrou p staff
. Contro l / Assum e

Contro l Al t

1,2 : Progra mOffic e ha s incorporate dstaffin g requirement s withi n plannin g document s - wil l revie w staffin g plan upo n positiv e fina

l JR C decisio n Alt 1 : Th e ProgramOffic e ha s planne dfor

th e implementatio n o f

a n appropriat e organizationa l structur e t o efficientl y execut e th e progra man dt o coordinat e effectivel y wit h th e othe r FA A progra m
Al t 3 : Plan u p t o 3 month s Workgrou p member s ar e necessary IlilSL-lill C luipac i l\ \ U s Ss i

6 8Ot' t

Risl

- '"!'.. " • • • '""i'.'T" " • • "r"" 1 " " "....'• • • -"..' • .,. • • • . H" "Ifasfliii f Risk" ' "•••• ;;*•,
. * Swirc c Ris k "Suurct

- Roo t CiiuV f Impact s ' i-Ctinsvuuciicc " '
. Miri^itioi i Optio n j£Sirnlt» \[mimc l Kiltlll"

- --y "•»"'., •• i yvs. • -. A'
. . . • -.: / 1
. ' !
. ' •.-:• • .;:•• • (UHSv» i

2 8

2 9

3 0 Ref : N/A Al t 1 : B 4 (M ) Alt 2 : B 3 (L ) Al t 3 : C 4 (M )

Ref : N/A Altl:C2(M ) Al t 2 : C 2 (M ) Alt3:C2(M )

Ref: D 4 (H ) Al t 1 : A 3 (L ) Al t 2 : B 3 (L ) Alt 3 : A 3 (L ) Supp o rtabilit y

ASDE- X

Supportabilit y ASDE- X / ASR- 9

Supportabilit y ASR- 9 Lac k

Real Estat e Leas e approval s a

t Remot e Uni t

Site s

Delay i n Site Telc o Installatio n

Lac k skills/resource s t o maintai n syste m operability Al t

3 At ASDE- X site s ther e hav e bee n delays i n site pre p du e t o no t havin g real estat e lease s fo r th e remot e uni t site s Ideall y al l sit e pre p woul db e complete dprio r t o th e ASDE- X equipmen t delivery At

several site s wor k around s hadt o b e accomplishe dandi n som e case s equipmen t

installatio n an doptimizatio n ha s bee n delaye dTh e purpos e o f identifyin g thi s ris k

i s t o mitigat e i t

fo r future ASDE

X installation s Al t 2 Base dof

f o f ASDE- X lesson s learne d Alt 2 Require dinterfacin g communication s equipmen t willbeGF E Thi s ha s prove n t o b e asupport proble mon othe r

recen t COT S hardwar e FA A program s Al t 2 , 3 Lease d telecommunicatio n line s at Remot e Uni t

Site s Re f Th e legac y syste m require s highl y experience d maintenanc e staf

f t o repai r syste m- severa l curren t

staf f member s clos e t o retiremen t ag e (potentia l los s o f valuable corporat e knowledge) Schedul e Benefi t

Schedul e Benefi t

Cos t Benefit s Schedul e Technica l Al t

1 , 3 Delay s i

n obtainin g rea l estat e lease s a

t remot e uni t site s coul dhav e a

n advers e affec t

o n th e equipmen t

delivery dat e

Al t 2 , 3 Delay s i n installin g lease dtelc o line s a

t ASDE

X remot e uni t

site s coul d hav e a n advers e affec t

o n th e equipmen t

delivery dat e

Re f Potential outages , delay s - possibl e los s o f radar Re f Impac t O& M cos t Re f Introductio n o f

error s an dpotentia l safet

y hazard s Contro l

Contro l

Contro l Al t

3 Site implementatio n lead s t o trac k

legal description s on ASDE- X actio n ite mlis t Alt 3 Onc e legal description s are sen t

t o regiona l rea l estat e specialist , sit e lead s mvit e th e specialis t

t o participat e on sit e telecon s o r

t o provid e abi-weekl y statu s update t o ANI program s manage r vi aemai l Thi s wil l b e adde dt o th e implementatio n sit e lead proces s
Conduc t progra mweekl y statu s review s Wor k withsit e /

instal l team s t o jointl y develo p earl y implementatio n and ris k mitigatio n plan s Develo p adetaile dmaste r schedul e tha t

i s kep t update dwit

hplan change s Re f & Al t 2 Sustai n an d tramsufficient

staf f t o maintai n radar s Ref&Alt 2 Shif

t t o usin g onl y cooperativ e (SSR ) system s (easie r

t o maintain )


### 6 9"-"*••* . _. "-»I n *.•,.. . ••-••. —. . i..,,, ^ „ _•" "•*•• • 1—— . « ^ ..„.„,," " • " —*-*.-.. . •-"

—i - , , . - i" | . ••-*•!.» • . A Al l & Risk""- ! ••-* « - " ' •"" • •*•!-'-.. „ "•"• ! •"•tab - .. . „"""" " •"."••HP

I •!!•» . . . • : -.VS..!., . „ • i| . .. . Risk * "•". : . .. . . . Sourc e • . „ Risk' ! " Sourc e Rtio l I " aus e . ' Impact * •--.. - . ('OIIM-HUCIIC C
. . Mill a " • - • Runn y : - ». . ••••••.•«.. , _~-u.».. , . ^
_• . i... 1 : , • ...MIA..

- "

3 1

3 2 Ref : N/ A Al t 1 : B 4 (M ) Al t 2 : C 4 (M ) Alt 3 : C 4 (M )

Ref : N/ A Altl : N/A Al t 2 : N/ A Alt3:C5(H ) Supportabilit y

ASDE- X

Technica l ASDE- X Inadequat e support

infrastructur e t o accommodat e deploymen t

( e g , Insufficient

Powe r a t Remot e Uni t Sites )

Insufficien t

Safet y Logi c Desig n Al t 1 , 2 Insufficien t

grounding , bondin g an dlightnin g protection (GB&L ) curren t

i n plac e at ASR- 9 site s Al t 1 , 2 Outdate delectrica l syste m- Uninterruptibl e Powe r Suppl y (UPS) , Engin e Generato r (E/G) , et c Al t I , 3 A t ASDE- X site s ther e hav e bee n delay s i n site pre p du e t o no t havin g commercia l powe r installe dat

th e remot e uni t

site s Ideall y al l sit e pre p woul db e complete dprio r

t o th e ASDE- X equipmen t

delivery A t

severa l site s wor k around s hadt o b e accomplishe dan di n som e case s equipmen t

installatio n an d optimtzanon ha s bee n delaye d Al t 3 Safet y logi c desig n an dassociate dperformanc e ma y not mee t operationa l expectation s a

t MC O Al t 3 Th e requirement s for th e ASDE- X safet

y logi c specificatio n wer e derive d fro mth e ASDE- X Requirement s documen t whic hspecifie dthat

ther e shal l b e n o mor e than 2 fals e alert s withi n a2 4 hou r perio dExperienc e with deployin g AMAS S nationall y ha s show n that thi s rat e o f

fals e alert s i s no t acceptabl e operationall y a t airport s Thi s ris k

addresse s step s t o g o frommeetin g spe c rqmt s t o operationa l expectation s Schedul e Cos t

Technica l Al t

3 Delay s mestablishing commercia l powe r

at ASDE- X remot e uni t

site s coul dhav e a

n advers e affec t o n th e equipmen t

delivery dat e Contro l

Contro l UioN'Optiu n &..SliMii'<! >

. • • * • • Alt l Conduc t

delaye dsite survey s an dcoordinate d withrequirement s wit

h prope r organization s Al t 3 Site implementatio n lead s t o trac k

utility statemen t o f wor k o n ASDE- X actio n ite mlis t Al t 3 Onc e th e statemen t o f wor k i s sen t t o regional utilitie s specialist , sit e lead s invit e utility specialist s t o participat e o n sit e telecon s o r t o provid e abi-weekl y statu s update t o AN I program s manage r

vi ae mai l
Al t 3 Defin e requirement s for operationa l expectation s an dconduc t

software cod e reviews , dat aanalyses , an d hands-o n use r

review s t o asses s syste mperformanc e Thes e activitie s are i n additio n t o th e standar d desig n review s an dsyste m enhancemen t

tes t activitie s require db y th e contrac t Al t 3 Direc t Sensi s t o desig n an dimplemen t

mor e tool s (trac k

confidenc e parameters , projectio n of f runways , etc ) withi n S Lt o reduc e nuisanc e an dfals e alert s beyon dth e origina l desig n propose dt o mee t spe c requirement s Itast'lin c

~ liupiic t (\\BS\ M

7 0Risk-

- :\Alt X Ris-k

Rii l iu » i.

.

-Sourc e '.-.HI

- Ris k i i * ' • ••••>•"'
. 4. „ 1 jiv..
. Sourcc

- Rou l ( aus c Impact s '" ,1 *:«.fonM-ipifncc' 1 .MUi^aLioiVOpiin n & Su-iilc-y , RiiscliiiL

Impac t tWIisSs i Ref , Al t 1 , 2 : System s deploye d an dtechnolog y at

amor e mature dstat e Al t 3 Technolog y applie di n a manne r that vane s fromtoday - 6 0 mil e coverag e require d- additiona l researc hi s require d here
. (E n Rout e environmen t no t thoroughl y flushe dout ) Al t 3
. ASDE- X Syste mi s experiencin g alarg e numbe r o f rando mR U faults
. Trackin g o f

ATCRB S taigets : Al t 3 1 Synchronou s garbl e become s aproble mi n hig h density ATCRB S environment s du e t o limitation s o f

whispe r shou t interrogano n method
. Al t 3 : Thi s i s wher e proximat e ATCRB S target s ar e unresolvabl e an dperhap s eve n undetectabl e du e t o thei r overlappin g replies
. Al t 3 : Decode r

limitation s wit

h th e generall y lowe r signal/interferenc e ATCRB S replie s i n hig hfruit

levels
. Ai t 3 : Coul db e ver y difficul t for MLA T processo r

t o properl y correlat e Mod e A an dMod e C replie s fromth e sam e targe t withou t auniqu e addres s t o link th e tw o replie s Al t 3
. Rang e limitatio n du e t o hig hinterferenc e environment : MLA T wil l impos e mor e interferenc e o n th e 103 0 and 109 0 channel s than SS Rdu e t o broader interrogatio n bea man d faster interrogatio n rat e neede d t o overcom e repl y losse s at individua l RO site s Al t 3 : Unclea

r requirement s fo

r secto r interrogato r

monitorin g Generall y immatur e concep t that need s t o b e develope d(Real 3 3 Ref : N/ A Altl : N/ A Al t 2 : N/ A Alt3:C3(M ) Technica l

ASDE-X , Ji m Rega n Deficien t Syste m Performanc e (accuracy ) Technica l



### 71 Al t

3 : Th e ASDE- X syste m ma y no t mee t performanc e requirement s (i.e. , accuracy ) and/o r servic e availabilit y requirement s a t

ST Lan d othe r sites
. Al t 3 : Poo r surveillanc e performanc e fo r

AT C fo r ATCRB S targets . Coul d lea dAT C t o thin k

ther e i s on e targe t

rathe r tha n tw o Al t 3 : Coul dcaus e momentar y los s o f ATCRB S target s i n hig h densit y ATCRB S environment s Al t 3 : Coul dresul t

i n eve n lowe r effectiv e rang e fo r ATCRB S tha n fo r

Mode- S txpdr s Al t 3 : Coul dcaus e unstabl e altitud e readout s i n hig h densit y ATCRB S environment s Al t 3 : Coul dcaus e rang e t o b e reduce dt o unacceptabl e valu e durin g hig htraffi c Al t 3 : Degrade dsyste m coverag e i n adynami c traffi c an dfrui t

environmen t Contro l Al t 3
. As k Sensi s t o provid e cos t estimat e fo

r the mt o gathe r failure data , categoriz e faults , performanalysis , an d determin e roo t

caus e o f R U failure s Trackin g o f

ATCRB S target s Al t 3 : Requir e all user s t o equi p wit hMod e S txpdr s Al t 3 : Mos t enhance ddecode r researc hfor

hig hfrui t environment s ha s focuse do n decodin g o f

extende dsquitter , no t ATCRB S replie s Al t 3 : Begi n researc hfo

r ATCRB S replie s ($ 3 M ) Al t 3 : Ad dadditiona l MLA T cluster s ( 1 more cluste r

at 15 % o f airport s equipped ) Al t 3 : Hav e user s shu t

dow n 1090E S sinc e that

compete s fo

r th e 109 0 channe l wit

hMLA T replie s i n orde r

t o limi t interferenc e-.'".'" :;:^.Mj:&RKk" ' - • ••• : ' : ''-\":... .•!•.•• . "'.'":• -Ui»k * J

- . « ::—*• • .....^Source- • .. ; .. . \ Ris k - .. . ••.-.. ••... , RllllllJJ"* !
. . . . 1
. , •

_---• • . . .

3 4

3 5 Ref : D4(H ) Altl : B2(L ) Alt2:D4(H ) Alt 3 : E 5 (H )

Ref : N/ A Altl:C4(M ) Al t 2 : N/ A Alt3:C4(M ) Architectur e

Le s Cran e

Architectur e NA S incapabl e o f

growt ht o 3 X traffi c (AT C Surveillance )

Failur e t o reac h End-Stat e Surveillanc e Architectur e •"!'?
. SouravRoot.C'iiiisi : • • • liiip;n,i\ ' •• • ( (msi-i|ut.-i]c c Miii^iiLio n Optio n & Slrak-i> ' " "

"-•
. ..."""7 " "*"

"*s*vn" * r" " ---•. . ii1- " " ••• • • •-•"" !

Ref , Al t 2 , 3 : AT C concep t o f operatio n limit s numbe r

o f aircraf t asingl e contro l secto r ca n accommodat e an d bus y sector s canno t

b e subdivide d Ref , Al t 2 , 3 : Abandon s th e potential futur

e t o enabl e th e benefi t o f advance dA- Gan d A- A applications

Alt l , 3 - Requir e th e removal o f SS Rradar s a s part

o f th e overal l progra mstrategy Benefit s

Benefit s Inadequat e Capacity

Ref , Alt 2 , 3 : NA S capacity limite dt o les s than futur

e 3 X requirement ; NA S capacity continue s with periodi c reduction s i n terminal are adurin g IM C an ddurin g convectiv e weathe r disruption s t o e n rout e flow s Ref , Al t 2 , 3 : N o surveillanc e enable dfutur e benefits
. Busines s a s usual for nex t 20-3 0 years . Ref , Al t 2 , 3 : N o reductio n i n controlle r

workload , les s pilo t situationa l awarenes s an doperational efficienc y

Altl : I f SS Ri s no t

full y removed , cos t

avoidanc e benefit s wil l b e greatl y decrease d Contro l

Contro l Develo p concept s fo r improve dcontrolle r productivity an d autonomou s traffi c operation s (airspac e operatin g withou t conventiona l ATC ) base d o n improve dcockpi t situationa l awarenes s Provid e thes e service s throug hADS- B o r commercia l vendor s (pric e o f Honeywel l FIS- B servic e plu s othe r los t benefits )

Mandat e avionic s i

n a n effor t t o achiev e equipag e level s require dt o justif

y th e dispositio n o f

curren t SSR
. A polic y agreemen t

need s t o b e reache do n bot

h Primary an dSecondary Radar
. Continu e discussion s throug hPBF A an dDHS
. Conduc t al l necessary safet y analysi s require dt o support th e removal o f curren t SSR
. • l>iisL-lin c li n pur l (WH S Ss i

7 2Ui*k > ' - M l \ Ris k

Ratii m " • Sourc e Ris k
. . ' ""••* * StiiiiYc'Ruo f V'UIISL 1

. . ' linpiicl s . ' " ""ConsvniiJiic c " • \liii^ii[i(ii ) Option] ^ Slraicti j Itast-liii c

Impac t (WKSSs i

3 6 Ref : N/ A Altl:C4(M ) Al t 2 : N/ A Alt3:C4(M ) Automatio n

Schedul e Gen e W
. Ol d#31 , 33 , 37 , 38,39,4 1 Integratio n o f

automatio n system/ s ma y sli p Al t 1 ETM S requirement s currentl y undefine dPlanne da s par t o f Segmen t 2 o f th e ADS- B program . Al t 1 : Undetermine do r incomplet e operationa l requirement s an dprocedure s fo r ADS- B integratio n int o terminal , Enrout e an doceani c automatio n systems, particularl y o n targe t display , t o support

AT C separatio n provisio n an d advance dcockpi t

application s i n mixe dequipag e environment
. Al t 1 • Incomplet e CH I fo

r AT C separatio n an dadvance dcockpi t applications
. Al t 1 : Dependenc y o n multipl e interna ] FAA organization s Al t 3 Undetermine do r incomplet e operationa l requirement s an dprocedure s for WA M integratio n int o terminal , Enrout e an doceani c automatio n systems, particularl y o n targe t display , t o support

AT C separatio n provision
. Al t 3 Lac k ofCH I for

AT C separatio n provisio n Al t 3 1 Dependenc y o n multipl e interna l FAA organization s Cos t Benefit s

7 3 Al t

1,3 : Progra mcos t increase s Contro l Al t 1 Develo p Service Leve l Agreement s withFAA stakeholder s (ATO- T & ATO

E , etc ) o n tasks , resources , schedul e et c Al t 1 : MOA s hav e bee n establishe dwit

hth e Commo n ART s (CARTS ) an dSTAR S program s t o integrat e ADS- B int o thes e automaho n platforms
. Al t 1
. Initial CH I requirement s fo r CART S hav e bee n develope di n conjunctio n wit h th e ATEA M Al t 1 • Initial syste mtes t

fo r CART S ha s bee n conducte da t th e Tec hCente r

an dinitial flight test s hav e bee n conducte da t

Louisville
. Al t 1 Giv e hig hpriorit y t o developin g operationa l requirements , procedure s an d CHI
. Al t 1
. Develo p equipag e mandate
. Al t 1 : Fo r ERAM , conside r Hos t emulatio n t o mak e ADS

B target s "radar-like " i n automatio n processin g an d display
. Al t 1 : Cos t estimat e fo r

ERAM integratio n "obtained " fro m progra moffice , include di n estimate
. Al t 3 : Develo p Servic e Leve l Agreement s wit h FA A stakeholder s (ATO- T & ATO-E , etc ) o n tasks , resources , schedul e etc . Al t 3 : Giv e hig h priorit y t o developin g operationa l requirements , procedure s an dCHI
...-.- . Al l & Ris k
. . . . . . - • .. . "'
. • • , " 1 •-•• • „ .. . •"•• • - • , , • .... . ... . Risk " ' •—••„• • . • Source
. • •• • • . Ri-> L
. Source.Roo t I an si

- - . Imp:icls

- , ... . C OIISI-IIIK-IIC<

- . . Miui l _-"--»i-.
. .K:iT!ii<

4 "" „,.. ! • • . •• * s •• • . . . , " •*••• • • • * • • • •••••-. • ....'._ , • • - ... . ^

3 7

3 8 Ref : N/A Al t 1 : C 4 (M ) Al t 2 : N/ A Al t 3 : C 4 (M )

Ref : N/A Al t 1 : C2(M ) Al t 2 : N/A Al t 3 : N/ A Automatio n

Operabilit y Gen e W
. Ol d#3 2

Automatio n Operabilit y Gen e W
. Ol d#3 5 Lac k

o f a n approve d3-mil e separatio n standard s i n termina l are a

Incompatibility betwee n ADS- B link avionic s and groun dinterfac e i

n foreig n airspac e preclude s AT C surveillanc e service s with ADS-B
. Alt

1,3 : Operationa l requiremen t

(fuse dtrack , equipag e display ) an dCH I fo r displayin g target s fo

r separatio n provisio n ha s not bee n developed , bu t

i t i s neede da s abasi s for evaluatin g separatio n standard s i

n termina l area . Al t 1,3 : Dependenc y o n several interna l FAA organization s

FA A announce dth e ADS- B dual-lin k decisio n (UA T an d 109 0 ES ) i n 2001 , but countrie s other

than Australi ahav e ye t

t o mak e a n ADS- B link

decision
. Selectin g a

n incompatibl e link decisio n b y Europ e an d othe r countrie s wil l pos e interoperability problem
. Cos t Benefit s Schedul e

Technica l Cos t Schedul e Al t

1,3 : Schedul e fo

r implementin g ADS- B o r WA M i n termina l automatio n fo

r separatio n provisio n may b e delayed
. Alt 1,3 : Benefit s ma y no t b e realize di f

3-mil e ADS- B o r WAM separatio n standard s (for

ADS- B o r WAM t o Radar) i s not approved
.

U S aircraf t flyin g oversea s ma y no t receiv e AT C service s andvic e versa . Contro l

Contro l • ::-u"h..
.

itionOptini i &. Strateg y
Al t 1 : AFS-40 0 approve d separatio n standard s analysi s plan
. Awaitin g concurrenc e fromATO-T
. Funde da n ADS- B safet

y analysi s t o b e performe db y AFS-440
. Al t 1,3 : Develo p Servic e Leve l Agreement s wit

h FA A organization s (AF S etc ) withmilestones , cos t an dschedul e for completin g separatio n standard s analysi s Al t 1,3 : Assig n hig h priority t o developin g operationa l requirement s andCH I fo

r ADS- B o r WA M integratio n int o termina l automatio n systems . US , Europe , an dICA O develo p ADS- B standard s jointl y suc ha s MOPS , Interoperability specification s b y RFG , an d ICA O SARPs
. .ICA O states/nation s adher e t o Air Navigatio n Conferenc e - 1 1 recommendatio n t o us e 109 0 E S a s near-term global link

o f interoperability Baselin e . Impac t (WH S Ss i

7 4—~~ "

' • • -li. i »: -

. 1 ,'.'; ! " ; •

• AI I &»Hhk

! *••*»•

- . , t . \" , " s " .
. ..... . •Ri.sk.'

- ....""' • •«• • . Simrttf • • Ris k •!'•-• ' Riltlll ^ ^ -• —.. . „ . ' ••"*- . •

3 9

4 0

4 1 Ref : N/ A Altl : N/ A Al t 2 : N/ A Alt3:C4(M )

Ref : N/ A Al t 1 : B2(L ) Al t 2 : B2(L ) Al t 3 : B2(L )

Ref : N/ A Altl:B l (L ) Alt2:B l (L ) Alt3:B l (L ) Automatio n

Technica l Gen e W
.

Automatio n Technica l Gen e W
. Ol d#3 6

Dat a Operabilit y JimM
. Ol d#4 7 Automatio n

system s (STAR S & CARTS ) ma y no t b e abl e t o provid e PR M functionality i n term s o f timel y alert s t o controllers
.

Failur e t o identif

y shiftin g avionic s an dGB T builds/version s fo

r automatio n interfac e

Liability exposur e relate dt o dat a produc t provisionin g ^-^

., . Source-Roo t

Caus e Impact s . ('oiist-iuiciict

-

" • 'jAl^^ . « • * . . ' - " J
Al t 3 : Lac k o f avalidate d end-to-en dlatenc y requiremen t

betwee n WAM an dAT C display o f

target s t o support PRM functionality
. Al t 3 : WAM/Automatio n integratio n ma y not

satisf y th e requiremen t

fromPR M syste mspe c fo

r 0. 5 secon d latenc y fro mbeginnin g o f targe t detectio n t o AT C display o n glass
.

Alt 1 : Progra mdoe s not

hav e apla n fo r integratin g future avionic s an dGB T builds/version s

Al t 1 : FA A i s responsibl e fo r th e accurac y o f

FIS- B product s Ref , Al t 2,3 : Surveillanc e alternative s onl y Technica l Cos t Schedul e

Cos t Schedul e Technica l

Cos t Alt

3 : Automatio n desig n may becom e mor e complex , drivin g up cos t

anddelayin g schedule
.

Alt 1 : Cos t an dschedul e ma y b e adversel y impacted
. Technica l complexitie s may als o increas e t o accommodat e different builds/version s

Al t 1 : FA A may b e subjec t t o litigatio n — llascliiu

Miii^iiiio n Optio n & Snalvjiy " Impac t •

..... . '"' "" '
. . (\\'HS.Ssi

Contro l

Contro l

Contro l Al t

3 : Develo p Servic e leve l agreemen t

withAF S t o conduc t

WAM risk/simulatio n analysi s i n definin g end-to-en dlatenc y requirements
. Perform syste mengineerin g analysi s t o allocat e latenc y betwee n WAM an dAutomation
. Al t 3 : Conside r

a standalon e automatio n processo r separat e from STARS/CARTS , o r

a dedicate dmodul e i n STARS/CARTS
. Al t 1 : Pla n fo

r Tec h Refres hwit

hbudget s o n periodi c basi s t o accommodat e evolvin g avionic s andgroun d infrastructure
. Al t 1 : Requirements / Architectur e tea mwil l addres s a s par t

o f JRC-2 b activitie s - formulat e fP

R documen t
Al t 1 : Emplo y appropriat e qualit y contro l procedures
. Al t 1 : Observ e certificatio n standards
.



### 7 5•••'•" • -. . Ris k «• • "•Ofc f .
'•' " -•••*"" ,

4 2

4 3

4 4 Al

t J t Ris k • Raiiiiji " •*'•• !

"

- • ' r . Ref : N/A Altl:B3(L ) Al t 2 : N/ A Al t 3 : N/ A

Ref : C 3 (M ) Altl : B2(L ) Al t 2 : C 3 (M ) Alt3:C3(M )

Ref : A l (L ) Al t 1 : A l (L ) Al t 2 : A l (L ) Al t 3 : A 1 (L ) 1 ^Sourc e . ,

Dat a Supportabilit y Jim M

Safety Le s Cran e

Safety A l Mear s Ol d#4 9 7"' J, :i".Ris k,.., .

• Hi.
. """""•• • '" i IJ
. Inability t o Maintai n Currenc y / Accurac y o f Surfac e Map Databas e

Lac k critical safet

y informatio n fo

r surfac e operation s

Failur e t o plan a Syste mSafet

y Program Smircc-Ruo i ( aiis t •"•-*•-.... . •••-•y-s . .

Al t 1 Strateg y include s th e developmen t

o f 20 0 surfac e map s

Ref , Al t 2, 3 Limite dsite s wher e surfac e surveillanc e equipmen t

i s deploye d

Al t 1 Th e progra mi s currentl y developin g a

n Integrate dSafet

y Pla n (ISP ) ' Inipaci s

Benefi t

Technica l

Technica l Cos t Schedul e " Voiist-jjucnc c

Surfac e map s wil l becom e obsolet e an dunusabl e for surfac e operation s thu s decreasin g overal l use r safet y benefit s

Continue dlikelihoo do f surfac e accident s and incident s

Alt l Managemen t

o f th e man y safet

y element s (suc h a s assessment s an dns k mitigation ) require do f

th e progra mma y b e inadequat e t o ensur e programmati c an d technica l safet

y Mili

-

. , .. .

Contro l

Assum e

Contro l iiiu n Optio n & Sii;m'j> \

Revert t o curren t

les s desirabl e /

les s efficient pape r base dproduc t Researc hth e viability o f thi s bein g a

n industry produc t
ASDE- 3 an dASDE- X system s mitigat e fo

r alternative s 2 an d3 a

t a limite dnumbe r

o f location s
Alt 1 Complet e an IS P for revie w b y th e AT O NA S Modernizatio n Syste m Safet y Workin g Grou p (AT O N M SSWG ) Alt l Upo n receip t

o f AT O NM SSW Gconcurrence , obtai n approval o f

th e IS P b y th e Directo r

o f Safet y Ris k Managemen t

(DSRM ) o r arepresentativ e liilMlillL llllpilC l (WHS'Ss j



### 7 6,;.- , . Ui&Ris k Risk * . , . -

Rutin s •••. . •«»., • mm

4 5

4 6 Ref : A l (L ) Al t 1 : B l (L ) Al t 2 : A 1 (L ) AH3:B 1 (L )

Ref : B 2 (L ) Al t 1 : B 4 (M ) Al t 2 : A l (L ) Alt3:C4(M ) •', • • . Baselin e

Sourc e • Risk:-.-
. 'iSunic c Ktiut ( aiis c liiipuct s . •"". ' ( oiist-tnii-uct

- •• = Mitij-iitidi i Optio n & Sii;tu» \Impar t •'...
. =- . -•'
. . j - -:!..
. '•:•*.
. ••• . • L• -•:. , , (WKS-ss )

Safet y A l Mear s Ol d#5 0

Safety Al Mear s Ol d#5 1 Failur e t o execut e

th e require d Busines s Cas e o r Investmen t Analysi s Safet

y Assessmen t

Failur e t o identif

y th e leve l o f

overal l syste msafet

y ris k fo r an y alternativ e Th e progra mi s require dt o

conformth e existin g Capston e Operationa l Safet y Assessmen t

(OSA ) for

us e an ddevelo p aComparativ e Safet y Assessmen t

(CSA ) o f th e alternative s fo

r th e initia l investmen t

decision , bu t

th e OS A an dCS A are not

yet completed , reviewe dan d approved
. Al t 1 : AFS-40 0 approve d separatio n standard s analysi s plan
. Al t 1 : Comparativ e Safet

y Assessmen t

(CSA ) complete d- Preliminary Hazar dAnalysi s (PHA ) wil l b e complete dfor

JR C 2 b

Alt 1 : Comparativ e Safet

y Assessmen t

(CSA ) complete db y Progra m Offic e - currentl y bein g reviewe db y th e SSWG
. Technica l Benefit s

Technica l Schedul e Th e targe t

leve l o f safet y that wil l b e identifie di n th e OS A ha s no t

bee n approved
. Th e relativ e risk o f th e alternative s hav e not bee n identifie di n aCSA , thu s th e investmen t

decisio n canno t b e properl y made
. No t completin g th e require d safet y assessment s ma y affec t technical performanc e an dalte r expecte dbenefit s i n safet y o r cost .

Th e progra mmigh t

b e delaye di f i t goe s t o th e initia l investmen t

decisio n withou t knowin g th e highes t leve l o f ris k for it s alternatives
. Failur e t o kno w th e risk s implie s insufficient

progra m managemen t

an doversight
. Contro l

Contro l Ensur e that

th e ADS- B progra moffic e complete s th e OS A an dth e CS A an d that eac hon e i s reviewe d b y th e AT O N M SSWG
. Complet e Preliminar y HazardAnalysi s (PHA ) fo r JR C 2 b

Complet e AT O N M SSW G revie w an dDSR M approva l o f th e CS A DAR , whic h wil l contai n th e identifie d hazard s an dthei r

leve l o f ris k fo r eac halternative
.

7 7