NextGen Long Term Tradespace Analysis Strategy

1. Joint Planning Development Office Interagency Portfolio & Systems Analysis Division NextGen Long Term Tradespace Analysis Strategy January 27, 2010 GMU Innovations in NAS-Wide Simulation Workshop

2. Key Points NextGen Stakeholder Key Decisions Roadmap Commitment & Alignment Issues Key Decisions Tradespace Exploration Alternative Modeling Abstraction Issues

3. NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond Implementation Deployment & Operations Validation Business Cases & Commitments Conduct R&D 16 15 Stakeholder Procurements Policy Approved 1 High Fidelity ConOps 10 9 Standards Approved Demos 3a Risk Management Coordination 13 Testing 2 Portfolio Results 7 17 V&V Certification Theoretical Feasibility Established 12 4 Development, Mfg, Implementation 3b Policy Development Policy Strategies 14 18 Infrastructure, Training, Facilities Deployment 11 5 Performance Established R&D Development 8 Safety, Security, V&V 3 19 Partnership Commitments1 Operations 6 Standards Development GOAL 3c Architecture Baselined 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e Budgets 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test 1 Includes manufacturers & airports

4. NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond Where we are today: Vision, Con-Ops, IWP, RTT’s, Primary & Secondary Owners, Initial Portfolio Results 1 High Fidelity ConOps 3a Risk Management Coordination 2 Portfolio Results 3b Policy Strategies 3 Partnership Commitments1 3c Architecture Baselined Issues: 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. 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e Budgets Business Cases & Commitments/Alignment 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test

5. NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond ALIGNMENT 1 High Fidelity ConOps 3a Risk Management Coordination RESEARCH 2 Portfolio Results 3b Policy Strategies POLICIES 3 Partnership Commitments1 3c Architecture Baselined INFRASTRUCTURE 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e Budgets PROCECURES Business Cases & Commitments 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test MANUFACTURING

6. NextGen Stakeholder DECISION ROADMAP – 2025 & Beyond ALIGNMENT CRITICAL DECISIONS 1 High Fidelity ConOps 3a Air/Ground Division of Responsibility. Level of Automation Equipage Requirements and Timing. Mandated Environmental Targets.. Airports Strategies. Facilities Consolidation. Information Sharing Architecture. Risk Management Coordination 2 Portfolio Results 3b Policy Strategies 3 Partnership Commitments1 3c Architecture Baselined 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e Budgets Business Cases & Commitments 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test

7. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

8. Automation vs. Human Implementations Timeframes Portfolio Tradespace Analysis Adv. Traffic Management Systems Policies & Key Decisions Security & Safety Levels Procedures & Rules of the Road Equipage Strategies Physical Infrastructure (Facilities, Ports, Stations, Hubs, Centers)

9. Portfolio Tradespace Analysis

10. 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

11. 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

12. Ois to NGOps Levels

13. COSTS

14. Translation from Ois to NGOps Level to Costs Giles et al., PRELIMINARY TRADE SPACE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE LEVELS OF NEXTGEN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE, MITRE/CAASD MP090272, January 2010

15. [1] Example of Translating Functional Descriptions into Costs

16. Cost Results

17. BENEFITS

18. Translation from Ois to NGOps to Benefits OIs NGOps Key addition to explain translation From NGops to model parameters Benefit Mechanisms Model parameters

19. Benefit MechanismsMaximize Individual Runway Capacity Time-based Metering with RNAV/RNP Wind-dependent Wake arrivals MIT Precision 4-DT TMA and McTMA Point in space metering IFR and MVFR CAVS Tailored arrivals 3D PAM Deconflict departures, increase departure gates, Fully utilize departure runways Threshold Approach fix Single runway MIT/ wind-based Separation reduction Meter fix Departure Improved flows ‘through en route system Tighten precision spacing to the threshold Improved precision delivery to meter fix Merging and spacing in the terminal area - to reduce vectoring and deliver aircraft to the final approach fix Improved regular flows through system removes gaps, improved sequencing, reduce controller workload constraints Runways RNAV Divergent departures Reduced Separation to 3 nmi Integrated Arrival and Departure (big airspace) RNAV/RNP RPI Improved C-ATM/TFM Increased Controller productivity Integrating Wx into Decision Support Tools ADS-B Merging And Spacing Reduced intersecting Routes and reduced route width

20. Maximize Multi-runway Capacity Runways Approach fix Meter fix departure Improved flows ‘through en route system Runway Access (parallel and converging runways) Arrivals Departures

21. 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)

22. RISK ASSESSMENT

23. Implementation Steps* Business Cases & Commitments Conduct R & D Validation implementation Deployment & Operations 15 16 1 Stakeholder Procurements Policy Approved High Fidelity ConOps 10 9 3a Standards Approved Demos 2 13 Risk Management Coordination 17 Testing 7 Portfolio Results 12 V&V Certification Theoretical Feasibility Established 4 3b Development, Mfg, Implementation Policy Development Policy Strategies 18 11 14 Infrastructure, Training, Facilities 5 Deployment Performance Established 8 R&D Development 3 Safety, Security, V&V 19 Partnership Commitments1 Operations 6 Standards Development GOAL 3c Architecture Baselined 3d Partnership Plans Baselined 3e Budgets • Being updated to be consistent • with other documents describing this process 20 Iterative Org. / Reality Test 1 Includes manufacturers & airports

24. Risks and Time Estimates: Interval Management/ Delegated Visual in IMC or MMC

25. Estimated Time Line for Implementation

26. 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