1 / 41

AT Briefing DRVSM Overview

AT Briefing DRVSM Overview. Steve Creamer AT DRVSM Program Manager, ATP-6. Briefing Overview. Outcomes for the Week Review DRVSM Program Objectives, Content and Priority Facility-Specific Issues and Implementation Plan. Outcomes for the Week.

ciara
Download Presentation

AT Briefing DRVSM Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AT BriefingDRVSM Overview Steve Creamer AT DRVSM Program Manager, ATP-6

  2. Briefing Overview • Outcomes for the Week • Review DRVSM Program Objectives, Content and Priority • Facility-Specific Issues and Implementation Plan

  3. Outcomes for the Week • Establish tailored facility action plans for each ATM • Create communications structure for program management and implementation • Resource needs • Reporting progress • Issue identification and resolution

  4. RVSM AirspaceNon-RVSM Airspace FL410 FL 410 FL 400 FL 400 FL 390 FL 390 FL380 FL 380 FL 370 FL 370 FL 360 FL 360 FL 350 FL 350 FL 340 FL 340 FL 330 FL 330 FL 310 FL 300 FL 320 FL 320 FL 310 FL 300 FL 290 FL 290 RVSM Altitudes

  5. DRVSM Program Objectives • Implement DRVSM from FL290-FL410 in the airspace of the United States, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides air traffic services and the San Juan FIR. • DRVSM is proposed to be implemented on January 20, 2005 0901UTC. • Six new altitudes available immediately upon implementation – new “capacity” for solving separation problems via new “capacity” for traffic growth.

  6. Operator Costs 2002 - 2016 • Operator Costs for Aircraft Approval: • Large Transport Aircraft: $206 million • Small Commercial/GA: $530 million • Downtime if work not accomplished during scheduled Mx $74 million • TCAS II, Version 7.0 upgrade $46 million • Monitoring $4 million • Major operators started RVSM work in 2002

  7. Benefits 2004 - 2018 • Fuel Savings and Operating Efficiency Benefits 2005 – 2019: • $5 billion • 6/1 benefit/cost ratio • $393 m. first year savings---2.0% annual increase • Benefits to air traffic operations: • ATC Flexibility • Mitigate conflict points • Enhance sector throughput (not “capacity”) • Reduce controller workload…e.g., reduce vectoring

  8. NAS Operational Evolution Plan • DRVSM is para ER-4 in NAS OEP • Principle Office of Delivery (POD): • Director, Flight Standards Service AFS-1 • www.faa.gov/programs/oep

  9. Joint Implementation with Mexico, Canada and Others • Preparedness of Mexico, Canada, and the United States for a simultaneous implementation of RVSM. • Procedural development for bordering ATC facilities. • Consistency of training for RVSM among our three countries.

  10. RVSM Implemented & PlannedAs of April 2003 Canada North 4/02 Canada South 1/05 Europe 1/02 Domestic US 1/05 NAT 3/97 Mid East 11/03 Pacific 2/00 Pacific 2/00 EUR/SAM Corridor 1/02 WATRS 11/01 **Western Pacific South China Sea 2/02 Asia/Europe South of Himalayas 11/ 03 CAR/SAM 2005 Australia 11/01 ** Western Pacific/South China Sea February 2002 Implementation Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Phnom Penh, Sanya, Singapore, Taipei October 2002 Implementation Hanoi, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Ujung Pandang, Vientiane Implemented Planned V. 6.8 5-23-02

  11. DRVSM Environment • Airspace will be exclusionary for DRVSM approved aircraft with the exception of accommodating DoD, Lifeguard and aircraft flown by manufacturers for certification and development • OtherNon-RVSM approved aircraft may climb or descend in transition through RVSM airspace. • ALL Non-RVSM approved operations are conducted based upon workload conditions.

  12. Memorandum of UnderstandingFAA and DoD • Memorandum of Understanding signed between FAA and DoD in December 2001. • Agreement governs the use of DRVSM Airspace by DoD aircraft. • Policy: The FAA will accommodate non-compliant DoD aircraft operation within DRVSM airspace. Note: Large DoD transport and tanker fleets are already RVSM compliant

  13. Third (and Final) DRVSM Simulation • The third simulation was completed in June 2003 and focused on: • Assessing and evaluation DRAFT procedures and phraseology for RVSM implementation. • Assessing impact of tactical use of RVSM prior to full implementation. • Gaining insight for development of training plans. • Results: • Tactical use prior to full implementation not practical. • Training requirement quantified. • Validated procedures. • Note: Requiring non-RVSM approved aircraft to advise “negative RVSM” on frequency check in very helpful.

  14. Separation Applied Between Non-RVSM and RVSM Aircraft Within RVSM Airspace RVSM approved aircraft FL 390 X FL 380 Non-RVSM approved DoD aircraft FL 370 X FL 360 RVSM approved aircraft FL 350 RVSM approved aircraft FL 340 RVSM approved aircraft FL 330

  15. Major Milestones • Publish Final Rule Soon • Safety Assessment July 2004 • Operational Readiness September 2004 Assessment (Go/Delay) • RVSM Implementation January 2005

  16. Full Data Block – Non-RVSM • HOST, DARCand DSR modifications in progress to support the visual cue for the controller display to enable a ready distinction between RVSM approved and non-RVSM approved aircraft. Note: The visual cue will be applied to non-RVSM aircraft because it is anticipated that they will comprise less than 5-10% of the flights operating at RVSM altitudes. N4215Y 350 347 056 380

  17. Other NAS Automation Modifications HOST modifications to the Operational Error Detection Patch, (Conflict Alert) to accommodate DRVSM. URET Software change to display RVSM status and to support differences in trajectory modeling ETMS – CDM proposing filter to sort on non-approved aircraft.

  18. ATC Procedures Workgroup • Certified Professional Controllers participated in an ATC procedures workgroup March 4-6, 2003. • Validated Procedures in Third Simulation. • Coordination with industry of proposed new/revised procedures will be through the DCP process.

  19. ATC Procedural Issues Routine RVSM procedures to manage RVSM airspace. Process to climb/descend non-RVSM aircraft through RVSM airspace. Accommodation of DoD, State and Lifeguard aircraft. Coordination responsibilities, i.e. point outs between sector strata’s.

  20. Turbulence Mitigation Operating Concept:Operations within Greater than Moderate (Severe) turbulence should not be supported for routine operations.

  21. Severe Turbulence • Conditions can be forecast, but advance action is not planned in tactical (RADAR) environment. If controllers are receiving reports of severe turbulence they should be routing aircraft around the area as they do today. • Aircraft encounters with severe turbulence will cause ATC action to move aircraft out of the phenomenon. While experiencing severe turbulence, pilots can expect ATC initiated vectors to avoid merging targets at 1,000 ft. vertical separation. • Separation standards do not change in RADAR environment.

  22. Light, Moderate and Wake Turbulence • Pilot reports of turbulence less than severe will trigger higher level priority for controllers to issue traffic advisories when 1,000 ft. separation is applied. Pilots may request vectors to avoid merging targets. • Wake turbulence can be mitigated with request for offset or other action by ATC.

  23. Mountain Wave Activity • Response is just like turbulence, except that the severity of mountain wave is not defined in terms that are easily described. • Forecast MWA will not trigger suspension of RVSM • Pilots must assess impact of activity on altitude hold capability and request vectors to avoid merging targets. Pilots will report clear when no longer desiring vectoring.

  24. AT Lessons LearnedFrom human-in-the-loop simulations and RVSM experiences • Avoid making any unnecessary airspace changes concurrent with DRVSM • Workload: • Controllers initially assume RVSM increases workload due to additional altitudes • Actual experience indicates it reduces workload for high altitude sectors • More altitudes, but no more aircraft • Fewer conflictions, less vectoring, and less verbal communications

  25. AT Lessons Learned (cont.) • Need to assess sectors with altitudes below FL290 • There may be some compression due to the pushdown effect of non-approved aircraft • To be addressed in airspace analysis and flow plan • 18 controllers from 3 sites have indicated DRVSM is win-win

  26. Lessons Learned (cont.) • Non-approved aircraft in RVSM airspace must be managed • EUROCONTROL experience: more than 1 or 2 in a sector is unviable • Add to controller’s cognitive workload • Misunderstanding of exclusionary airspace: applies during slow traffic periods including when workload is light • Controllers tend to want to clear non-approved aircraft into RVSM airspace if their sector can accommodate • Could be problematic for upstream sectors

  27. Lessons Learned (cont.) • Importance of APREQs for non-approved aircraft in RVSM airspace must be stressed • Apply to all non-approved, not just military and lifeguard • SOPs and LOAs key to training • Approximately 3 – 4 hours of simulation time appears adequate for most controllers, but some may need more or less

  28. Implementation Date Factors • 4,800 aircraft (32% of operations) already approved • New airframes now delivered RVSM ready • Project 90% of flights to be conducted by RVSM approved aircraft by January 2005 timeframe • $393 m. first year fuel savings and ATM benefits at stake • Aircraft Engineering Packages available for most aircraft • Non-group/unique airframe process available

  29. FAA HQ Deliverables (1) • International Agreements with Mexico, Canada and Caribbean States • National Procedures, Order Changes and Briefing Guides • NAS Automation Changes • Analysis support within Airspace Redesign for sectorization changes

  30. FAA HQ Deliverables (2) • ATFM Flow Plans for Initial Operations • Non-Approved Aircraft biggest liability • Flight Planning compression could overload sectors • Training Plan templates • National CADRE training instruction • Facilitation of local coordination to prepare for implementation (workshops, telecons, templates)

  31. FAA HQ Deliverables (3) • Labor I&I negotiation • Funding support for simultaneous national training effort • Any other assistance required to keep program on track!

  32. Regional & Facility Deliverables • Revisions to Virtually all En Route LOAs and SOPs • Local validation that all NAS automation changes thoroughly tested and properly implemented • Simultaneous DYSIM Training by CADRE of Instructors for over 9,000 controllers • Local labor I&I on issues not covered by national agreements • Local coordination with industry within established forums • Leadership to keep program on track!!

  33. Chronology of Key Work • 07/03 Mountain Wave Contingency Plan Development • 09/03 Final Report from Simulation 3 • 09/03 ATFM Work within CDM Workgroup – Amanda Stott developing strategy for Jack Kies • 09/03 Airspace Work Commences Within Auspices of NAR - SALT will be national focal for this

  34. Chronology of Key Work • 10/03 DCP with 7110.65 changes • Basic flight level assignment scheme • Application of 1,000 ft. separation between approved aircraft, 2,000 ft. if any are not. • Stratified sector base-ceiling point out and handoff procedures • Wake turbulence mitigation procedures (currently planning merging target)

  35. Chronology of Key Work • 10/03 DCP with 7210.3 changes • Policy provisions prohibiting non-approved operation without qualified exception: • DOD • Lifeguard • Certification or ferry flights • Climb-thru of non-approved to FL430. • National reporting and monitoring of ALL non-approved operations in airspace.

  36. Chronology of Key Work • 10/03 DCP with AIM changes • Includes flight plan filing • Standard ICAO filing is planned - need to support /Q combination for the remaining • Includes pilot procedures • Wake turbulence offsets with ATC approval • Severe turbulence handled as convective weather event in RADAR • Standard ICAO procedures for declaring RVSM status, except reviewing mandatory declaration of "Non-RVSM" on initial contact at each ATC frequency while at or cleared to FL290-410.

  37. Chronology of Key Work • 10/03 Proposing Formation of North American RVSM Planning Group (NARPG) • Task: Benchmarking process for equipage, safety assessment, operational readiness • Membership • U.S. (FAA), Canada (NAVCANADA) and Mexico (SENEAM) • Industry representation (ATA, NBAA, AOPA, etc) • Union participation through industry groups • At least 6 quarterly meetings commencing Jan ’04.

  38. Chronology of Key Work • Automation Test and Integration (WJHTC) (Oct. – Dec. 03) • Intrafacility airspace/procedures analysis – (Nov. – Dec.) • Interfacility airspace/procedures analysis – (Jan. – Feb.) • SME Training (Feb. 04) • Interfacility Procedures Workshops Begin (Mar. 04) • Modeling (SDAT level) as needed – (Apr. – Jun.) • Readiness Assessment (Sep. 04) • Publication of changed documents, NOTAMS, etc. (Nov. 04) • Finalize airspace assignments/changes – (Jul. – Sep. 04) • Final Training (Oct. – Dec. 04) • January 20, 2005 Implementation

  39. DRVSM Field Site Implementation Schedule

  40. Coordination Process Between HQ and the Field • Sites appoint DRVSM POCs • Serve as the facility’s interface to ATP and to local workforce • Agency and NATCA name POCs by 10/24 • Site-specific schedules: • Build upon schedule materials provided this week • Forward to ATP-6 • Serves as tracking vehicle • Monthly planning and status telecons • Beginning 11/03 • Scheduled and facilitated by DRVSM co-leads

  41. Conclusion • FAA committed to successful DRVSM implementation in the National Airspace System. • Flight Standards is OEP “Point of Delivery”, but responsibility and critical path tasks will all be AAT in last half of 2004 • Program involves everyone in AAT – Regions, ATP, ATX, ATA, ATT • Regional and Field Facility Commitment & Involvement Key to Successful Implementation

More Related