Surveillance and Broadcast Services

1. Surveillance and Broadcast Services ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Presented to the ASAS TN 2.5 Workshop November 2008 Kenneth M. Jones FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services Program Office

2. The Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) ARC encouraged SBS Program to examine how operational benefits of ADS-B could be optimized before compliance with a nationwide ADS-B mandate Objective Develop a globally accepted, airborne ADS-B application that provides operational benefits prior to required compliance with the ADS-B mandate Approach Conduct an operational evaluation of ADS-B ITP that delivers more efficient oceanic operations Anticipated Outcomes Insight into the operational aspects of airborne ADS-B Catalyst for change to regulatory process Validate economic benefits of ADS-B ITP Provide a growth path to future applications ADS-B In-Trail Procedures

3. ADS-B In-Trail Procedures ADS-B ITP separation standard relies on airborne ADS-B data evaluated by the flight crew which permits climb request Controller retains separation responsibility and approves clearance based on knowledge of complete traffic situation No airborne monitoring during climb required ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Following Climb Example • ADS-B In-Trail Procedures are airborne ADS-B enabled climbs and descents through otherwise blocked flight levels FL360 FL350 FL340 Standard Separation blue = ADS-B transceiver and onboard decision support system red = ADS-B out minimum required

4. In Trail Procedure (ITP) Standard Separation ADS-B In-Trail ProceduresStandard Climb vs ITP Climb Current Separation ALLOWED BLOCKED Desired Altitude FL360 FL350 FL340 blue = ADS-B transceiver and onboard decision support system red = ADS-B out minimum required white = no ADS-B requirements Sequence of Events Status Pilot requests following climb Unable ATC verifies std climb criteria Valid Pilot verifies ITP climb criteria Pilot requests ITP climb from ATC ATC verifies ITP climb criteria Valid Approved ATC grants ITP following climb

5. Concept and Standards Development RTCA/EUROCAE Requirements Focus Group (RFG) Airborne Traffic Situation Awareness ITP (ATSA-ITP) Safety, Performance and Interoperability Requirements (SPR) Document Interoperability requirements, Operational and Service Environment Description (OSED), Operational Safety Assessment (OSA), Operational Performance Assessment (OPA) ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Development Activities Approved Summer 2008!

6. ICAO Separation and Airspace Safety Panel (SASP) Adopted ADS-B ITP as part of their work package in November 2006 Developed ADS-B ITP collision risk analysis (approved by SASP October 2008) Longitudinal Separation subgroup has proposed an amendment to ICAO Doc. 4444 (PANS ATM) for ITP Still requires broader ICAO approval ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Concept and Standards Development Approved by SASP October 2008!

7. ADS-B applications require an appropriate crew interface Options for interface include primary field of view (e.g. PFD), forward field of view (e.g. EICAS) or other secondary fields of view (e.g. EFB) EFB chosen as a potentially lower cost retrofit option Display Development Initial display designs conceptualized Survey distributed to 1500 oceanic line pilots; design revised based on the 250 survey responses received ADS-B In-Trail ProceduresRetrofit Display Option

8. Research Objectives Assess the Validity of the ITP Assess Pilot Acceptability of the ITP Part-Task Human-In-The-Loop Experiment Conducted in ATOL September 2006 26 pilots over a 4 week period, 16 experiment scenarios flown Participants were 777 and/or 747-400 pilots with current oceanic experience ADS-B In-Trail ProceduresConcept Validation Study – Flight Crew Perspective • Results • Procedure was rated as both valid and acceptable • Workload similar to standard level changes (no significant increase) • Pilots found the increased situation awareness provided by display very useful • Results available as NASA TP 2008-215313

9. Research Objectives Assess whether ITP is valid from the perspective of an air traffic controller Assess whether ITP is acceptable to air traffic controllers Experiment conducted in Airservices Australia’s TAAATS simulation facility 12 controllers from two different procedural sectors Each controller dealt with multiple ITP scenarios in three 50 minute sessions Preliminary results Workload is no higher than current day operations Most controllers thought they would use it more than once per shift Recommendations for ITP phraseology were suggested Would prefer preformatted CPDLC messages to free text ITP could be acceptably applied using VHF voice ADS-B In-Trail ProceduresConcept Validation Study – Controller Perspective

10. ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Operational Evaluation/Trial • Goal of Operational Evaluation of ITP • Conduct ITP operations in an oceanic environment on revenue flights • Objectives of Operational Evaluation of ITP • Validate operational performance of ADS-B ITP • Assess economic benefits of ADS-B ITP • Establish framework for global ADS-B ITP implementation and follow-on airborne ADS-B applications • Initial operations in the SOPAC • Favorable business case • DO-260 signal issues appear manageable • Migrate to the PACOTS • Appears to be a significant, compelling benefit mechanism • Significant traffic interactions • Substantial fuel savings potential • Variety of aircraft types

11. Jan. 12, 2004 KLAX to YSSY YSSY to KLAX ADS-B In-Trail Procedures SOPAC Business Case • About 10% of flights remain within 60nmi and 4,000 ft from other traffic for longer than 1 hr • Traffic interactions are infrequent and very hard to predict • Consequently, variations in fuel burn can be significant • Flights board contingency fuel to avoid unplanned fuel stops January 2004 • Benefit mechanism assumptions • Flights operate MTOGW; reduction in contingency fuel replaced with additional cargo revenue • Airline policy decision to carry less contingency fuel • Statistical analysis has shown that in the SOPAC, an airline could choose to keep the same risk of unplanned fuel stops and board 300 lb less fuel with ITP • 300 lb contingency fuel reduction results in a benefit per equipped aircraft of approximately 202K/year; potentially more • Return on Investment for a carrier – one year!

12. ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Operational Evaluation/Trial – Technical Issues • Certification and verification of DO-260 signal • Current business case assumes a certified DO-260 signal • Need to verify the signal is coming from an approved system or to verify the integrity of the signal received • Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) • Assumed an EFB installation for retrofit aircraft • Guidance indicates Class III EFB is the best solution

13. Phase 1 –ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Flight level changes allowed based on cockpit derived data No delegation of separation authority to the flight deck Increased situation awareness Phase 2 – Limited, Delegated Oceanic Separation Procedures Enhanced ITP (ASEP-ITP) Limited delegation of separation authority to the cockpit during the maneuver Simplified procedure, reduced separation distance In-Trail Follow Procedures (ASEP-ITF) Reduce co-altitude separation distances Pair-wise separation using spacing techniques Potential for big payoff in the North Atlantic Phase 3 – Airborne Self-Separation Corridors (SSEP-ITP) Aircraft allowed to self-separate on approved corridors Potential for Significant Fuel Savings in Phases 2 and 3! Enhanced Oceanic OperationsPhased Approach Increased Delegation of Separation to the Flight Deck

14. ADS-B In-Trail Procedures Summary and Next Steps • Summary • ITP is cost beneficial to airlines in the Pacific • ITP using certified DO-260 signal produces an early payback in the SOPAC • An 747-400 with a certified ADS-B ITP system will receive immediate benefit in the SOPAC and be ready for use in other areas when authorized • Next Steps • ANSP and private sector partnership development