Presented by: Jim Arrighi ATO-R, System Operations RNAV/RNP Group June 11, 2008

1. Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) Demonstration Presented by: Jim Arrighi ATO-R, System Operations RNAV/RNP Group June 11, 2008

2. CDA Demonstration • Objectives: • Develop and refine tools, knowledge, and best practices relating to CDA technique integration into the NAS and usage during various traffic conditions. • Evaluate the operational feasibility and benefits of the Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) technique • Methodology to assess key metrics for the use of the CDA technique • Establish baseline/chart paths/model expected benefits • Perform post-demonstration operational evaluation to validate savings of emissions, fuel, time and noise

3. CDA Demonstration • Objectives (continued) • Establish data collection and analysis plan • On site evaluation • Data reduction • Analysis of ATC voice tapes • Currently conducting post-demonstration operational evaluation

4. CDA Demonstration • Sep 2007 – FAA/Industry AIRE CDA Kickoff Meeting - Completed • Oct 2007 – Establish ATL & MIA CDA working groups - Completed • Regular meetings commenced • Nov-Dec 2008 – Lateral and vertical path development - Completed • Feb 2008 – Finalized CDA procedure designs - Completed • May 2008 – Baseline Airspace Evaluation - Completed • May 2008 – Demonstration Flights – Completed • Jun 2008 – Begin Benefits Analysis • Jul-Aug 2008 – Human-in-the-Loop Simulations – TA Focus • Aug 2008 – Post-Demonstration Benefits Assessment Report

5. CDA Demo Pilot Information Packages • Miami RUTLG RNAV STAR • Challenges • Merging arrival flows • Crossing en route traffic • Conflicting departure flows

6. CDA Demonstration Evaluation Miami RUTLG Demonstration • 10 total flights: • Nine flights between May 5 and May 9, 2008. Eight were cleared from FL340 or higher (2 from FL400, 4 from FL380, 1 from FL360, 1 from FL 340) • One flight Mar 5, 2008 as a trial before the official demo • Two were cleared after crossing OSOGY at FL240 (one leveled off at FL240, the other performed a CDA from FL400 and crossed OSOGY at FL240) • Eight of the 10 flights had apparent modification to the procedure • Six of the 10 flights were vectored to 26R due to west operations • Five of the 10 flights appeared to have a restriction of 16,000 ft, 250 kts in the FMS for MILSY which was NOT part of the RUTLG procedure but is an expected altitude and speed on the HILEY procedure • RUTLG pilot training material said “As Charted” for speed and altitude at MILSY • HILEY is published with “Expect to cross at 16000 and 250 KIAS” for MILSY when landing East 6

7. RUTLGCompared ToHILEY HILEY downwind 7

8. Conventional & RUTLG Radar Tracks RUTLG Operations West Flow 6 Tracks RUTLG Operations East Flow 4 Tracks Baseline (Conventional) Operations 235 Tracks East Flow Operations fly entire RUTLG STAR West Flow Operations vectored after KAINS KAINS KAINS KAINS MIA MIA 8

9. CDA Demo Pilot Information Packages • Atlanta • Dirty RNAV STAR • Challenges • Merging arrival flows • Crossing en route traffic • Conflicting departure flows

10. CDA Demonstration Evaluation • Atlanta DIRTY demonstration • 11 total DIRTY flights • All 11 flights were descended to FL340 before being given the DIRTY descend-via clearance • Six of the 10 flights had TOD points at or around BEBAD • The DIRTY procedure contained a crossing restriction of 34,000 feet at BEBAD and this was inserted into the FMS causing at TOD at BEBAD • Profiles were lower and slower than predicted by the Delta simulator flight tests • Five of the 10 flights were level at FL340 at BEBAD, and had TOD points 22 to 38 NM after BEBAD • The 34,000 ft constraint at BEBAD was removed from FMS (since the flight was already level at FL340) • Removing the 34,000 ft constraint in the FMS at BEBAD allowed for a later TOD point and a more individualized descent profile between BEBAD and the next waypoint constraint • Deleting the BEBAD constraint made the demo flight profiles look more like the pre-demonstration Delta Airlines simulator profiles 10

11. DIRTY Compared To FLCON ATL 11

12. DIRTY Demonstration Radar Tracks DIRTY Operations West Flow 11 Tracks 12

13. Demo Observations/Next Steps • Demonstration was a cooperative effort among diverse organizations • FAA HQ LoB, lead operators, field facilities, partner organizations • Flight simulations were key to developing viable procedures • Identifying/briefing aircrew for the demo was challenging • Demo required extensive ATC briefings • Modifying a published procedure introduced some confusion to be worked through • Procedures must be recallable from the database • Expected challenges were present • Merging arrival flows • Crossing en route traffic • Demo procedures are not viable for 24/7 ops • Continued demo work • ATL arrival from the west; effort to develop a published procedure • MIA effort to focus on TA to CDA • Other NAS efforts under way: CHS, SDF, LAX, SAN, etc.