UNITED AIRLINES Flight Standards and Technology

1. UNITED AIRLINESFlight Standards and Technology FLIGHT DECK WEATHER - A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE

2. UNITED AIRLINES “AIRNET” PROGRAM • Class II EFB, Charts, Manuals, and WIC • Fully funded United program • In vendor selection now • Phase I – domestic fleets • Phase 2 – international • First fleet deployments flying mid-2007 • Totally business case driven approval

3. EFB / WIC BUSINESS CASE • EFB Business Case is difficult to make • Industry agrees it’s a good idea, but how do you prove it pays for itself? • Charts / manuals / paper replacement don’t come close to covering costs • Demonstrable increased operating efficiency is key to making the case • Quantifying “might-have-beens”

4. EFB-ENABLED OPERATING EFFICIENCIES • Weight & balance, takeoff performance • Weather-related benefits • Diversion distance/time reduction • Contingency fuel reduction • Turbulence-related incident reduction • Paper replacement • Printing, shipping and paper costs • Overall weight reduction

5. THE WIC BUSINESS CASE • United did detailed analysis of over 80,000 actual flights to quantify WIC benefits • WIC benefits are a major, compelling part of United’s AIRNET business case • Graphical and alphanumeric products • Broadcast delivery, NOT request/reply • ACARS cost reduction • Increased operating efficiencies

6. DOMESTIC versus INTERNATIONAL WIC BUSINESS CASES • United’s two-phased approach is based on significant differences in cost/benefit • International WIC is harder to cost-justify • Communications is harder, more expensive • Less weather information, granularity, & verification • Delivery must “buy itself on” aircraft for other reasons

7. EFB – CLASS 1, 2, or 3? • Class 1 cannot be used for true paper replacement in all phases of flight • Class 3 costs substantially more than Class 2, making payback extremely difficult to justify • Class 2 allows most payback per unit cost – BUT with some artificial limitations driven by ‘avionics thinking’

8. WIC on CLASS II EFBAvionics, or Not? • GA is essentially exempt from AC120-76A limitations • Single pilot typical operations • Limited if any other graphical avionics displays onboard typical GA aircraft • Definite potential for graphical EFB/WIC display to become “compelling” to pilot • No AC limitations on pilot “over-use” of non-certified graphical displays/information

9. WIC on CLASS II EFBAvionics, or Not? • Part 121 and 91/F operators are explicitly prohibited from Class II display of own-ship, or even “circle of uncertainty” displays • Background thinking based on traditional avionics certification methodology • Consider only the system being certified, not the operational context • No certification “credit” for other related aircraft/crew capabilities, equipage, training, etc. • Yet AC120-76A is an OPERATIONAL APPROVAL process by definition

10. WIC on CLASS II EFBAvionics, or Not? • Typical NBAA and airline aircraft today have multiple certified, center-field-of-vision, graphical Nav/MFD displays • In this environment it is extremely unlikely that pilots will find a side-mounted, limited function EFB to be “compelling” relative to PFD/ND/MFD • Crews are highly trained and performance/compliance monitored

11. WIC on CLASS II EFBAvionics, or Not? • The industry needs a more pragmatic approach to operational approval guidance for Class II EFBs, considering: • Other aircraft equipage • Relative locations of displays • Crew training and disciplinary standards • Merit versus gain [Example: reduced turbulence injuries]

12. FLIGHT DECK vs DISPATCH WEATHER • Optimized decision making requires collaboration and information pooling • Very different responsibilities and environment: • information acquisition • display, assimilation, and usage • capabilities and limitations • WIC must mitigate the problem of information “Haves” and “Have Nots”

13. FLIGHT DECK vs DISPATCH WEATHER • Dispatch: • strategic planning, flight following • High bandwidth, low cost comms • High resolution displays, low light/vibration environment • No access to real-time board radar or sensory inputs • Flight Crew: • Tactical planning, safety of flight, ride quality • Low bandwidth, high cost comms • Low resolution displays, poor viewing environment • Real-time sensory and radar data access

14. FLIGHT DECK vs DISPATCH WEATHER • United’s approach: • “Functionally equivalent” weather information • Emphasis on “commodity weather” data • NEXRAD, IR SAT, GTG, etc. • METARs, TAFs, D-ATIS • Different suppliers, but equivalent data • Dispatch must have ability to view the same data delivered to flight deck if/when needed

15. NGATS / WIC FACTORS to CONSIDER • Near-term operational benefits are key to technology adoption in today’s industry • Incremental approach is the only practical way to reach “brave new world” • Don’t price the solution out of the game • Demanding the perfect solution IS the greatest enemy of accomplishing something good

16. UNITED NGATS PERSPECTIVE • Monolithic “Hal 9000” or “Colossus” is NOT the answer • ALL viable contributing capabilities must be leveraged to succeed • “System of Systems” is a better analogy

17. UNITED NGATS PERSPECTIVE “The problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them” -Albert Einstein