nextgen long term tradespace analysis strategy
Post on 03-Feb-2016
36 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
NextGen Long Term Tradespace Analysis Strategy
Joint Planning Development Office
Interagency Portfolio & Systems Analysis Division
January 27, 2010
GMU Innovations in NAS-Wide Simulation Workshop
Key Points
1.NextGen Stakeholder Key Decisions Roadmap
2.Commitment & Alignment Issues
3.Key Decisions
4.Tradespace Exploration
5. Alternative Modeling Abstraction Issues
NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond
High Fidelity ConOps
1
Portfolio Results2
Partnership Commitments1
3
Risk Management Coordination
3a
Budgets3e
Policy Strategies3b
R&D Development5
Standards Development
6
Partnership Plans Baselined
3d
Theoretical Feasibility Established
7
Performance Established
11
Safety, Security, V&V
8
Demos9
Iterative Org. / Reality Test
20
Standards Approved
10
Development, Mfg, Implementation
12
StakeholderProcurements
16
Testing13
Infrastructure, Training, Facilities
14
V&V Certification17
Deployment18
Operations19
Policy Approved15
GOALGOAL
ArchitectureBaselined
3c
1 Includes manufacturers & airports
Business Cases & Commitments
Policy Development
4
Conduct R&D Validation Implementation Deployment & Operations
NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond
Business Cases & Commitments/Alig
nment
High Fidelity ConOps
1
Portfolio Results2
Partnership Commitments1
3
Risk Management Coordination
3a
Budgets3e
Policy Strategies3b
Partnership Plans Baselined
3d
Iterative Org. / Reality Test
20
ArchitectureBaselined
3c
Where we are today:Vision, Con-Ops, IWP, RTT’s, Primary & Secondary Owners, Initial Portfolio ResultsIssues:
Integrated Work Plan is a menu of possible NextGen long term implementations. Not sufficient specificity to focus partnership R&D.
Initial portfolio results for the long term have significant challenges in environmental costs and potentially high-end GA equipage costs.
Research Technology Transfer teams require more customer specifications and long term industry alignment.
NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond
Business Cases & Commitments
High Fidelity ConOps
1
Portfolio Results2
Partnership Commitments1
3
Risk Management Coordination
3a
Budgets3e
Policy Strategies3b
Partnership Plans Baselined
3d
Iterative Org. / Reality Test
20
ArchitectureBaselined
3c
ALIGNMENT
RESEARCH
POLICIES
INFRASTRUCTURE
PROCECURES
MANUFACTURING
NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond
Business Cases & Commitments
High Fidelity ConOps
1
Portfolio Results2
Partnership Commitments1
3
Risk Management Coordination
3a
Budgets3e
Policy Strategies3b
Partnership Plans Baselined
3d
Iterative Org. / Reality Test
20
ArchitectureBaselined
3c
ALIGNMENT
1. Air/Ground Division of Responsibility.
2. Level of Automation
3. Equipage Requirements and Timing.
4. Mandated Environmental Targets..
5. Airports Strategies.
6. Facilities Consolidation. 7. Information Sharing
Architecture.
CRITICAL DECISIONS
Critical Long Term NextGen Decisions
The capabilities, performance, costs, schedule and risk associated with the development, implementation and operation of the NextGen system will be determined by decisions made in resolving seven key design issues. These decisions involve explicit trade-offs. Objective and transparent resolution of these decisions by the FAA, multi-agency and stakeholder community ensures the management of consistent expectations and the timely achievement of NextGen. Therefore, policy-level plans and milestones to arrive at informed resolution of these key decisions are essential
1. Air/Ground Division of Responsibility. The division of responsibility between the flight deck and ground controllers for trajectory management and aircraft separation determines the amount of capability required in aircraft flight management systems and the associated costs.
2. Level of Automation. Higher levels of automation for trajectory management and aircraft separation enable higher NAS performance. However, validation and verification of a software intensive system can be a major cost driver. System resilience to off-nominal operations and failures must be assured, including human capacity to manage degraded system conditions.
3. Equipage Requirements and Timing. The cost and timing of new equipage relative to the availability of modernized NAS infrastructure and procedures that provide user economic benefits is the largest variable in the users’ business case. Early decisions on equipage standards and timing maximize cost-beneficial forward-fit strategies but need to be accompanied by complimentary mandate and incentivization decisions for fleet retrofits.
4. Mandated Environmental Targets. The stringency of environmental constraints is the largest variable in determining NAS future performance – particularly capacity. Decisions will drive the priority of technology and operational requirements.
5. Airport Strategies. Future runway parallel separation standards will define the extent to which capacity at currently congested airports and metro-plexes can be increased or whether secondary airports are required for future demand.
6. Facilities Consolidation. A major factor in both capital and operating costs is the facilities plan for the NextGen NAS and the degree to which it eliminates, consolidates, and finds dual public uses for Federal aviation domain requirements.
7. Information Sharing Architecture. The NextGen architecture is premised on net-centric information sharing across system users and operators. Decisions on governance and information security standards will set the boundaries within which the NextGen system must operate
Portfolio Tradespace Analysis
Adv. Traffic Management
Systems
Equipage Strategies
Physical Infrastructure
(Facilities, Ports, Stations, Hubs,
Centers)
Procedures & Rules of the
Road
Automation vs. Human Implementations
Security & Safety Levels
Policies & Key Decisions
Timeframes
Portfolio Tradespace Analysis# Alternative Time
Technology Level (Ground Based and
Airborne)
Extent of Deployment
New RunwaysSecondary
AirportsUp-Gauging
Airframe/Engine Equipage
% AvionicsGeographic
Distribution of Airports
Airlines Manufactures
1 FAA RTCA TF5 2018 NGOps-3Commercial: 100%
GA: 50%As defined by TF5 As planned Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
2 Runway Solution 2025 NGOps-3 Mixed Fleet Where ApplicableAdditional runways with current rules
Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
3 Runway Plus Solution
2025 NGOps-4 Mixed Fleet Where ApplicableAdditional runways
with improved rules
Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
4 Secondary Airports Solution
2025 NGOps-4 EverywhereCommercial: 100%
GA: 50%Where Applicable As planned
Secondary arpts first; new hubs
when req'dBaseline Baseline Baseline
5 Aircraft Solution 2025 NGOps-5Commercial: 100%
GA: 50%Where Applicable
As planned plus new stub runways
Baseline Baseline Accelerated Accelerated
6 Super Dense NGOps-4
2025 NGOps-4 everywhereCommercial: 100%
GA: 50%Baseline As planned Baseline Baseline Accelerated Accelerated
7 Super Dense NGOps-5
2025
NGOps-5 @ Congested A/P,
NGOps-4 everywhere else
Mixed Fleet Baseline As planned Baseline Baseline Accelerated Accelerated
8 Full Aircraft Solution 2025
NGOps-5 @ Congested A/P,
NGOps-4 everywhere else
Mixed Fleet Baseline Only existing TAF BaselineNew A/C included at 10% per year
Baseline Baseline
9 Full Solution 2025 NGOps-5Commercial: 100%
GA: 50%Where Applicable
NextGen enabled runways
Secondary Airports selected for OEP-
35Baseline Accelerated Accelerated
10 2035 Target (2025 delay)
2035 NGOps-5 Baseline Where ApplicableNextGen enabled
runways
Secondary Airports selected for OEP-
35Baseline Accelerated Accelerated
11 Environment (N+2 accelerated)
2025 NGOps-4Commercial: 100%
GA: 50%Baseline Baseline
Secondary Airports selected for OEP-
35Baseline Accelerated Accelerated
12 Market Policy (Gov't limits demand)
2025No additional
improvements; NG-3Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
13 DoD Scenario 2025 NGOps-4 Everywhere 100% DoD equipped 100% DoD facilities Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Accelerated
Systematic Approach to Evaluate A Portfolio of Operational Improvements (Ois) for Costs, Risks and Benefits
Contributors: Marc Narkus-Kramer, Monica Alcabin and Bob Hemm
January 25, 2010
Objective Develop a way of translating the different portfolios of Operational Improvements (defined in
the IWP associated) with a NextGen Operational Level (NGOps-X) into costs, benefit and risks that can feed the Interagency Portfolio and System Analysis models and is consistent
11
Ois to NGOps Levels
12
ID Name
NGOps-1 NGOps-2 NGOps-3 NGOps-4 NGOps-5 NGOps-6
OI-0303 TMI with Flight-Specific Trajectories 1 OI-0305 Continuous Flight Day Evaluation 1 OI-0306 Provide Interactive Flight Planning from Anywhere
1 OI-0307 Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management
1 OI-0309 Use Optimized Profile Descent 1 OI-0311 Increased Capacity and Efficiency Using RNAV and
RNP 1
OI-0316 Enhanced Visual Separation for Successive Approaches 1 1
OI-0318 Arrival Time-Based Metering - Controller Advisories 1
OI-0319 Time-Based Metering into En Route Streams 1
OI-0320 Initial Surface Traffic Management 1
OI-0321 Enhanced Surface Traffic Operations 1
OI-0322 Low-Visibility Surface Operations 1
OI-0325 Time-Based Metering Using RNP and RNAV Route Assignments 1
OI-0326 Airborne Merging and Spacing - Single Runway 1 OI-0327 Surface Management - Arrivals/Winter Ops/Runway
Configuration 1
OI-0330 Time-Based and Metered Routes with OPD 1 1
COSTS
Translation from Ois to NGOps Level to Costs
14
4
Translating between IWP elements and Business Case drivers
OIEnabler
OIOI
OIOI
Enabler
Enabler
Enabler
Missing Critical
Enablers
Stakeholder Programs
Enabler
Future System
Future Activity
OIOI
Target Portfolio Benefits
Story
Alternative OIs to achieve benefits
OIOIOIs not in the
scope of the Target Portfolio
Future Activity
Future System
Logical grouping
Logical grouping
?
Target Portfolio Mapped to Operational Improvements
Key Enablers Allocated to Conceptual Architecture
Operational ImprovementsMapped to Key Enablers
Key Enablers Mapped To Functional Clusters
Functional Clusters Mapped to Cost Objects
OI # Stakeholder Enabler # Enabler IOC Description
0302 0306 0325 03300350 0352 0358 0360
ATO EN-1204 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Data Communications Management Services – En Route
2014 These enablers provide En Route air /ground data exchange for clearance and instructions services. EN-1209 Air - Ground Data Exchange –
Clearance and Instructions Services – En Route Group 1
2014
EN-1220 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Advisory Services – En Route Group 1
2014
Missing Aeronautical Telecommunication Network
2014 Provides inter-domain routing between the ATO and aircraft.
Commercial Service
EN-1033 Fixed Radio - Data Communications Level 1
2010 Ground-based VHF Digital Link - Mode 2 (VDL-2) radio is fielded for operational use as a commercial service.
Aircraft Operator
EN-1062 Mobile Data Communications Management Applications - Level 1
2012 These enablers provide initial air /ground data exchange for clearance and instructions services. EN-1209 Air - Ground Data Exchange –
Clearance and Instructions Services – En Route Group 1
2014
EN-1220 Air - Ground Data Exchange – Advisory Services – En Route Group 1
2014
Stakeholder Enabler Group Performance Cluster Functional Cluster
ATO ATC Data Link Communications
Initial Data Link Applications
Initial En Route ATM applications
Initial TRACON ATM applications
Intermediate En Route ATM applications
Advanced Data Link Applications and Infrastructure
Advanced En Route ATM applications
Advanced TRACON ATM applications
Advanced Tower ATM applications
ATS-Specific Subnetwork
Enabler Group Functional Cluster Type of Cost Object Cost Object
En route ATM
Initial En route ATM applications
Software intensive5.1.1 Initial En Route ATM Applications
Intermediate En route ATM applications
Software intensive5.1.2 Intermediate En Route ATM Applications
Advanced En route ATM applications
Software intensive5.1.3 Advanced En Route ATM Applications
Advanced En route ATM applications used for separation by automation
Software intensive
5.1.4 Advanced En Route ATM Applications Used for Separation
Giles et al., PRELIMINARY TRADE SPACE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE LEVELS OF NEXTGEN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE, MITRE/CAASD MP090272, January 2010
Example of Translating Functional Descriptions into Costs
ESLOC (k) Capability Functionality Description Estimate Source
14 Ride reports provided to ATC automation via data link, and processed by ATC automation ER-RRPT-ACDR in P-ATM
15 More complex clearances
FAA Data Comm Initial Investment Analysis
112 Updates to CPDLC and context management applications in ERAM; introduction of ADS-C application to ERAM
FAA Data Comm Initial Investment Analysis
20 Automated clearance delivery for TFM route and altitude change, TOD maneuvers, and pilot requests received via data linkER-ACLR-TRC, ER-ACLR-RPR, ER-ACLR-
TODC in P-ATM
15 State and intent information provided to ATC automation via data link, and processed by ATC automation ER-TRAJ-TMED in P-ATM
15 Routine information disseminated via data commAnalogy
11 Pilot requests received via data comm and notified to controller Analogy
10 Clearances in Response to Pilot Requests ER-ACLR-RPR in P-ATM
20 Clearances (including those for TFM route and altitude change) delivered via data comm
Analogy
4 Problem resolutions generated for TFM changes and pilot requests received via data comm
Analogy
15 Transfer of comm automatic (or manually initiated) for aircraft capable of data comm Analogy
10 Automatic Sector Transfer ER-AST-AST in P-ATM
171 Redevelopment of ERAM R1 to meet DO-278 AL4Analogy
[1]
Cost Results
Approp. WBS WBS Element
(2009 $ millions)
Min Cost Mode Cost Max Cost
F&E 1.0 Mission Analysis Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
F&E 2.0 Investment Analysis Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
F&E 3.0 Solution Development Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
F&E 4.0 Implementation Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
F&E 5.0 In-Service Management Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
F&E Total Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
O&M 5.0 In-Service Management Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
O&M 6.0 Disposition Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
O&M Total Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
Grand Total Pre-decisional Pre-decisional Pre-decisional
BENEFITS
Translation from Ois to NGOps to Benefits
18
OIs
NGOps
Benefit Mechanisms
Model parameters
Key addition to explain translation
From NGops to model parameters
Benefit MechanismsMaximize Individual Runway Capacity
19
ADS-BMerging And Spacing
RPI
ImprovedC-ATM/TFM
IntegratingWx into Decision Support Tools
Increased Controller productivity
Reduced intersectingRoutes and reduced route width
Integrated Arrival and Departure(big airspace)
RNAV/RNP
Single runwayMIT/ wind-basedSeparationreduction
RNAVDivergentdepartures
Reduced Separation to 3 nmi
IFR and MVFRCAVS
Wind-dependentWake arrivalsMIT
Point in spacemetering
TMA and McTMA
Tailored arrivals
3D PAM
Precision 4-DT
Time-based Metering with RNAV/RNP
Improved regular flows through system removes gaps, improved sequencing, reduce
controller
workload constraints
Improved precision delivery to meter fix
Merging and spacing in the terminal area - to reduce vectoring and deliver aircraft to the final approach fix
Tighten precision spacing to the threshold Deconflict departures,
increase departure gates,
Fully utilize departure runways
Approachfix
ThresholdDeparture Meter fixImproved flows‘through en route system
Runways
Maximize Multi-runway Capacity
20
Runway Access
(parallel and
converging
runways)
DeparturesArrivals
CSPR simultaneous/ independent >=2500Dependent Class-based Wake Vortex CSPR - current order Small & Large >= 1200Dependent Wind-based Wake Vortex CSPR - all wt class >=1200Paired Wind-based >=750 ft
departure Meter fixApproachfix
Improved flows‘through en route system
CSPR displaced TH wind-basedDependent Wind-based Wake Vortex CSPR - all wt class >=1200Paired ADS-B assisted paired depared - wind dependent
Runways
How to Use Benefit Mechanisms Define the benefit mechanisms associated with the portfolio of Ois
Relate these Ois to “pseudo programs” so that the costing and benefits are consistent
Check to see that bottlenecks don’t move from one constrained resource to another (often not done)
Translate benefit mechanisms into model parameters (e.g. inter-arrival average times and the standard deviation at the meter fix)
21
RISK ASSESSMENT
Implementation Steps*
High Fidelity ConOps
1
Portfolio Results
2
Partnership Commitments1
3
Risk Management Coordination
3a
Budgets
3e
Policy Strategies
3b
R&D Development
5
Standards Development
6
Partnership Plans Baselined
3d
Theoretical Feasibility Established
7
Performance Established
11
Safety, Security, V&V
8
Demos
9
Iterative Org. / Reality Test
20
Standards Approved
10
Development, Mfg, Implementation
12
StakeholderProcurements
16
Testing
13
Infrastructure, Training, Facilities
14
V&V Certification
17
Deployment
18
Operations
19
Policy Approved
15
GOALGOAL
ArchitectureBaselined
3c
1 Includes manufacturers & airports
Category End State Performance Metrics
Throughput (flights / day)
Average Delay (min)
Climate (total fuel burn)
LAQ (fuel burn below 3000 ft)
Noise (size of affected population)
Business Cases & Commitments
Conduct R & D implementation Deployment & OperationsValidation
Policy Development
4
•Being updated to be consistent
with other documents describing this process
Risks and Time Estimates: Interval Management/ Delegated Visual in IMC or MMC
24
Step # Step Interval Management/ Delegated Visual in IMC or MMC
Time Risk Risk Assessment
1 High Fidelity ConOps(Concept of operations)
Exists done done none
2 Portfolio Results(benefits and constraints)
Exists but not for mixed equipage done done none
3 Partnership Commitments1 SBS office and UPS but seeking US Airways
1 year Concern that there won't be a partner airline Low
4 R&D Development(proof of concept)
Much of the development was for VMC CAVS and this needs to be extended to MMC and IMC conditions
2 years •Acceptance of wake mitigation tools;•EFB issues and location associated with regional jets;•Ability of the altitude data coming from ADS-B to accurately be displayed (after processing) as a glide slope deviation.
Medium
5 Standards Development(end-to-end performance and technical requirements; interoperability requirements)
Much of the standards were developed for the VMC UPS application
3 years Could be less if the UPS configuration meets the IMC and MMC requirements but if additions are needed then additional work is needed on standards. Possibly addressing wake and displays.
medium
6 Validate feasibility(operational procedures and human factors)
Initial feasibility has been established for aircraft in lab
with R and D More effort needed to address wake risk medium
7 Safety,Security, V&V (operational safety assessment)
No significant safety analysis has been done
along with stds development
Security is still a major issue and must be addressed; dealing with spoofing
medium
8 Live Demos(demonstration and validation)
US Airways Simultaneous with R and D
Still a risk that no major airline will sign up unless there are subsidies; planned as part of SBS program
medium
9 Standards Approved(certify equipment)
Result of standards effort part of 3 years Not serious risk if other issues are completed satisfactorily
low
10 Performance Established(no separate item)
Part of US Airway live demonstrations 1 additional year with larger trials
Not serious risk if other issues are completed satisfactorily
low
Estimated Time Line for Implementation
25
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025High Fidelity ConOps
Portfolio Results
Partnership Commitments1
R&D Development
Standards Development
Validate feasibility
Safety,Security, V&V
Live Demos
Standards Approved
Performance Established
Development, Mfg, Implementation
OTE Testing
Infrastructure, Training, Facilities
Final V&V Certification (ops approval)
Deployment
Operations
Policy Approved
Stakeholder Procurements
What Does the Analysis Indicate Not completed (detailed analysis not run yet)
Most complex operational improvement portfolio (NGOps-5 and 6) is potentially too risky to be achieved by 2025 and could be very expensive
The next level down (NGOps-4) is achievable but still risky; within reasonable costs as stated by the FAA for NextGen
This coupled with expansion of secondary airports could result in a reasonable 2025 solution
top related