Integrated Arrival/Departure Control Service (Big Airspace) Concept Validation Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization Operations Planning Research & Technology Development Office Air Traffic System Concept Development, AJP-66 September 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background..................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Program........................................................................................................................1-3 1.3 Scope............................................................................................................................1-3 2 BIG AIRSPACE OPERATIONAL CONCEPT................................................................2-1 2.1 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Concept Description.....................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Assumptions.................................................................................................................2-2 2.4 Benefits........................................................................................................................2-3 2.5 Integrated Air Traffic Environment.............................................................................2-5 2.6 ATC Facility Factors....................................................................................................2-8 2.7 Concept Evolution.....................................................................................................2-11 3 CONCEPT VALIDATION................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Pre-Validation Activities.............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Simulation and Modeling Analysis..............................................................................3-1 3.3 Concept Feasibility Analysis.......................................................................................3-2 4 PRE-VALIDATION ACTIVITIES...................................................................................4-1 4.1 Cognitive Walkthrough Exercise.................................................................................4-1 4.2 Traffic Demand Forecasts............................................................................................4-2 4.3 NAS Architecture Definition.......................................................................................4-4 4.4 Operational Characteristics Site Survey......................................................................4-5 4.5 Generic Airspace Development...................................................................................4-8 4.6 Procedures Development...........................................................................................4-10 4.7 Big Airspace Components Addressed by Each Simulation Technique.....................4-11 5 FAST-TIME SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SIMULATION..............................................5-1 5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Models and Tools.........................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Fast-Time Simulation Input Characteristics................................................................5-2 5.4 Assumptions and Limitations....................................................................................5-11 5.5 Procedure...................................................................................................................5-12 5.6 Results........................................................................................................................5-13 5.7 Summary: Fast-Time System Performance Model Results.......................................5-17 6 FAST-TIME HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODELING..................................................6-1 6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Method.........................................................................................................................6-2 6.3 Scenarios......................................................................................................................6-5 6.4 Assumptions and Limitations......................................................................................6-9 6.5 Experimental Design....................................................................................................6-9 6.6 Results........................................................................................................................6-11 6.7 Summary: Human Performance Model Results.......................................................6-21 7 REAL-TIME HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP SIMULATION..................................................7-2 7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................7-2 7.2 Method.........................................................................................................................7-2 i i 7.3 Results........................................................................................................................7-15 7.4 Summary: HITL Simulation Results.........................................................................7-40 8 SIMULATION RESULTS COMPARISON.....................................................................8-1 9 FACILITY CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS...................................................................9-1 10 COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS.........................................................................................10-1 10.1 Cost Analysis.............................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Benefits Analysis.......................................................................................................10-7 11 SAFETY AND RISK ANALYSIS..................................................................................11-1 11.1 Disclaimers, Assumptions, and Caveats....................................................................11-1 11.2 Safety Objectives.......................................................................................................11-2 11.3 Assessment of Safety Objectives.............................................................................11-11 11.4 Allocated Safety Objectives and Requirements.......................................................11-12 11.5 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................11-12 12 REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS......................................................................................12-1 12.1 Operational Requirements.........................................................................................12-1 12.2 Technical Requirements.............................................................................................12-3 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................13-1 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................R-1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..............................................................................ACR-1 ii i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Table Table 4-1. Selected Facilities for Operational Characteristics Survey.......................................4-5 Table 4-2. Operational Characteristics Summary Matrix...........................................................4-8 Table 4-3. Summary of BA Components by Simulation Technique........................................4-11 Table 5-1. Traffic Volume by Airport........................................................................................5-4 Table 5-2. Number of Aircraft per Scenario by Aircraft Type...................................................5-5 Table 5-3. Number of Aircraft per Scenario by Airport.............................................................5-6 Table 5-4. Airspace Characteristics............................................................................................5-9 Table 5-5. Scenarios..................................................................................................................5-13 Table 5-6. Flight Time Savings................................................................................................5-14 Table 5-7. Maximum Hourly Time Savings.............................................................................5-14 Table 5-8. Air Delay Savings....................................................................................................5-15 Table 5-9. Ground Delay Savings.............................................................................................5-16 Table 5-10. Distance Flown Savings........................................................................................5-16 Table 5-11. Conflict Counts......................................................................................................5-17 Table 6-1. Experimental Matrix................................................................................................6-11 Table 6-2. Cognitive Workload Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental Conditions..6- 12 Table 6-3. ANOVA: Main Effects and Interactions for Cognitive Workload..........................6-13 Table 6-4. Estimated Coefficients for the Regression Model...................................................6-17 Table 7-1. Means and Standard Deviations (SD) for Background Questionnaire Items............7-2 Table 7-2. Counterbalancing Order of Test Conditions............................................................7-10 Table 7-3. Daily Event Schedule..............................................................................................7-12 Table 7-4. Sample Sequence of Counterbalancing Order of Practice Conditions....................7-14 Table 7-5. Mean Number and Standard Deviation of Hold Commands Issued.......................7-23 Table 8-1. Summary of Simulation Results................................................................................8-2 Table 10-1. BA Cost Estimate Summary in Millions of Constant Base Year 2007 Dollars....10-7 Table 10-2. BA Cost Estimate Summary in Millions of Then-Year Dollars............................10-7 Table 10-3. Flight-Time Savings (No Weather).......................................................................10-9 Table 10-4. Flight-Time Savings (No Weather), Risk Adjusted..............................................10-9 Table 10-5. Flight-Time Savings (Weather).............................................................................10-9 Table 10-6. Delay Adjustment due to Convective Weather...................................................10-10 Table 10-7. Fleet Mix and Total Traffic Data.........................................................................10-11 Table 10-8. Aircraft Operating Cost.......................................................................................10-12 Table 10-9. Utilization............................................................................................................10-12 Table 10-10. Passenger Value of Time...................................................................................10-12 Table 10-11. Total Program Cost-Benefits Analysis (10-year OPS), Base-Year $M, Risk Adjusted...................................................................................................................................10-14 Table 10-12. Total Program Cost-Benefits Analysis (10-year OPS), Base-Year $M, Risk Adjusted (ADOC only)............................................................................................................10-15 Table 10-13. Total Program Cost-Benefits Analysis (10-year OPS), Then-Year $M, Risk Adjusted...................................................................................................................................10-15 iv Table 10-14. Total Program Cost-Benefits Analysis (10-year OPS), Then-Year $M, Risk Adjusted (ADOC only)............................................................................................................10-16 Table 10-15. Cost-Benefits Summary (10-year OPS, ADOC+PVT).....................................10-17 Table 10-16. Cost-Benefits Summary (10-year OPS, ADOC only).......................................10-17 Table 11-1. BA Safety Objectives............................................................................................11-2 Table 11-2 – Operational and Infrastructure Changes to Current NAS in Support of Big Airspace (BA) Concept..................................................................................................................................3 Table 11-3 – Big Airspace (BA) OHA Hazards Worksheets....................................................11-5 Table 11-4. Operational Safety Assessment References........................................................11-12 Table 12-1. Requirements Summary........................................................................................12-8 Figure Figure 4-1. TRACON operations (historical and FAA forecast)................................................4-3 Figure 4-2. Simulated airspace within existing ZJX and ZMA airspace....................................4-9 Figure 5-1. Baseline airspace sectors..........................................................................................5-3 Figure 5-2. BA sectors................................................................................................................5-3 Figure 5-3. BL RNAV routes......................................................................................................5-7 Figure 5-4. BA RNAV routes.....................................................................................................5-8 Figure 5-5. Weather depiction at 1100Z...................................................................................5-10 Figure 5-6. Weather depiction at 1630Z...................................................................................5-10 Figure 5-7. Weather depiction at 1900Z...................................................................................5-11 Figure 6-1. Air MIDAS component organization and information flow....................................6-2 Figure 6-2. Software architecture...............................................................................................6-5 Figure 6-3. Simulation airspace: Baseline airspace....................................................................6-7 Figure 6-4. Simulation airspace: Big airspace............................................................................6-8 Figure 6-6. Tasks begun versus tasks completed.......................................................................6-15 Figure 6-8. Workload associated with BA and BL procedures across conditions of weather and traffic..........................................................................................................................................6-19 Figure 6-9. Workload: Data link versus radio communication.................................................6-20 Figure 7-1. Depiction of the en route and terminal workstation console configuration.............7-3 Figure 7-2. Depiction of the airspace for the BL condition........................................................7-7 Figure 7-3. Depiction of the airspace for the BA conditions......................................................7-8 Figure 7-4. Average time in airspace by Sector and Condition................................................7-16 Figure 7-5. Mean number of altitude clearances issued by Condition and Interval.................7-18 Figure 7-6. Mean number of altitude clearances issued by Sector and Interval.......................7-19 Figure 7-7. Mean number of heading clearances issued by Condition and Interval.................7-20 Figure 7-8. Mean number of heading clearances issued by Sector and Interval......................7-20 Figure 7-9. Mean number of heading clearances issued by ghost controller by Condition and Interval.......................................................................................................................................7-21 Figure 7-10. Mean speed clearances issued by Sector and Condition......................................7-21 Figure 7-11. Mean number of speed clearances by Sector and Interval...................................7-22 Figure 7-12. Mean number of speed clearances issued by ghost controller by Condition and Interval.......................................................................................................................................7-23 v Figure 7-13. Mean number of en route ground-ground transmissions by Sector and Condition. 7- 24 Figure 7-14. Mean number of en route ground-ground transmissions by Condition and Interval. ....................................................................................................................................................7-25 Figure 7-15. Mean number of en route ground-air transmissions by Sector and Condition....7-26 Figure 7-16. Mean number of en route ground-air transmissions by Condition and Interval..7-26 Figure 7-17. Mean number of en route ground-air transmissions by Sector and Interval........7-27 Figure 7-18. Mean number of terminal ground-ground transmissions by Sector and Condition.7- 28 Figure 7-19. Mean number of terminal ground-air transmissions by Sector and Condition....7-28 Figure 7-20. Mean en route participant WAK ratings by Condition and Interval....................7-31 Figure 7-21. Mean en route participant WAK ratings by Sector and Interval..........................7-32 Figure 7-22. Mean terminal participant WAK ratings by Condition and Interval....................7-32 Figure 7-23. Mean terminal participant WAK ratings by Sector and Interval.........................7-33 Figure 7-24. D-side participant ratings of ATC performance...................................................7-34 Figure 7-25. R-side participant ratings for situation awareness for projected aircraft locations..7- 35 Figure 7-26. Situation awareness for potential loss of separation for R-side (left) and D-side (right) participants by Condition................................................................................................7-35 Figure 7-27. Overall workload ratings for R-side (left) and D-side (right) participants by Condition....................................................................................................................................7-36 Figure 10-1. Percentage of total cost by WBS..........................................................................10-6 Figure 10-2. Total program payback......................................................................................10-16 Figure 11-1. Safety objective assessment matrix....................................................................11-11 Appendixes Appendix A - Informed Consent Statement Appendix B - Biographical Questionnaire Appendix C - Post-Scenario Questionnaire - 1 Appendix D - Post-Scenario Questionnaire - 2 Appendix E - Post-Experiment Questionnaire Appendix F - Communication Score Sheet Appendix G - Observer Rating Form Appendix H - Instructions for Participants Appendix I - Comments on the Repeated Measures Experimental Design Appendix J - Detailed Basis of Estimate v i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Increasing air traffic demand has severely strained the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). This strain is especially apparent in the arrival and departure airspace surrounding major metropolitan areas where the close proximity of multiple major and satellite airports, their competing traffic flows, and the impact of other major airports within the region greatly increase complexity and the resulting inefficiencies. The complexity of the airspace and the amount of coordination required with adjacent facilities increase controller workload and interfacility coordination. As many major metro areas serve as air carrier hubs, inefficiencies and delays experienced at these locations have ripple effects throughout the NAS. The overall impact is increased airline and passenger costs and high FAA costs to provide air traffic control service. In no area of the country is the arrival and departure airspace more complex or the traffic demand greater than in the New York metropolitan area. This airspace system is further complicated by the intersection of multiple facility boundaries in the center of the metropolitan area, creating small complex sectors of airspace and interdependent traffic flows between closely spaced airports and facilities. Over the last decade, a New York Integrated Control Complex (NYICC) concept has been proposed as a way to improve operational efficiency in the area by integrating terminal and en route airspace to expand the use of 3-mile separation procedures and improve communication and coordination. In December 2004, the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization Executive Council tasked the Operations Planning Service to conduct a research study to determine whether the NYICC concept would lead to operational improvements and benefits in other major metropolitan areas. The study was tasked to evaluate the concept for eight major metropolitan areas: Atlanta; Baltimore/Washington, DC; central Florida; Chicago; New York City; northern California; Philadelphia; and southern California. The Integrated Arrival/Departure Control Service, or “Big Airspace” (BA), study was undertaken to develop and validate the operational concept. The concept calls for improving operational efficiencies in major metropolitan areas through expanded use of 3-mile separation standards and current minima for diverging courses in all arrival and departure airspace, as well as the use of visual separation standards above 18,000 feet, dynamic airspace reconfiguration of bi-directional arrival/departure routes, and improved traffic flow management. These operational changes would enable creation of additional area navigation arrival and departure routes. The concept also calls for integrating arrival and departure airspace systems into one control service as well as one facility. This concept is a step toward the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) concept for Super Density Operations and a step toward General Service Delivery Points. To test the operational feasibility of the BA concept, a series of simulation studies employing different techniques was conducted. The studies included fast-time system performance simulation, fast-time human performance simulation, and real-time human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. Each technique had its own unique strengths, thus enabling a comprehensive evaluation of the BA concept regarding its impacts on efficiency, capacity, safety, and human 1 performance. The studies also helped drive requirements for further development of the concept and its components. The simulation methods did not allow for validating the need for either the use of visual separation procedures above 18,000 feet or the benefits of integrated traffic flow management as contained in the operational concept. Using generic airspace as a platform for analysis, the simulation evaluations all showed support for the BA concept by demonstrating service provider improvements and operational efficiencies. Service provider impacts were evaluated in terms of workload, task performance, safety, and controller acceptance. Overall workload ratings were lower in BA than in the baseline (BL) case. They were significantly lower in the arrival feeder and airport departure sectors, which were geographically smaller in the BA case. Workload ratings increased with traffic and the beginning of a weather event in transition sectors in both the BA and BL cases, but workload decreased in the BA condition after dynamic resectorization occurred, indicating the importance of the dynamic resectorization component of the BA concept. The simulations also showed that there was improved efficiency in adjacent high altitude sectors outside BA as indicated by less holding and fewer clearances issued in those sectors (modeled as ghost sectors). The human performance modeling found that by using BA control methods alone, controllers could handle up to 50 percent more traffic in total with about the same workload levels as in baseline traffic conditions. If data communications were used for clearances and transfer of control tasks under the BA concept, the model suggested that controllers could handle about 100 percent more traffic, and up to 150 percent before the workload started to degrade performance. This model also found that BA procedures enabled controllers to successfully complete tasks without interruption, which provides another indication of lower workload in the BA condition. The HITL simulations generally showed a slight improvement in task performance in the BA case. Although the number of aircraft handled in the BA scenario increased slightly, this increase was not statistically significant. This finding may have been due to the short duration of the simulations, and a longer duration might have shown a statistically significant increase. Ground-to-ground communications decreased in BA for arrivals and remained unchanged from the baseline case for departures. Air-to-ground communications decreased in the BA case in all sectors except the arrival transition sector, which was geographically larger. While the HITL simulations found that the BA concept is operationally sound with no significant change in the number of operational errors, the larger scale fast-time system performance analysis showed a significant decrease in the number of conflicts in the BA case with a 32 percent reduction at 2012 traffic levels and 13 percent reduction at higher traffic levels. Lastly, controller participant feedback from the HITL simulations was that the concept had a positive effect on control strategies over the baseline. Most controllers indicated that dynamic resectorization was operationally feasible and had a positive effect for the sector that received the airspace without negatively impacting the sector that gave up the airspace. Controller participant ratings of performance, situation awareness, and the ability to move traffic through the sector were among the measures that were also higher in BA conditions. All analyses showed improved operational efficiency from the concept. The system performance simulation showed that BA provided savings in terms of flight time and distance flown. These findings were validated by similar findings in the HITL simulations. BA also fostered more efficient flow strategies, which was evidenced by the increased use of speed clearances issued 2 and a reduction in the number of altitude and heading clearances issued during the real-time simulations. The HITL simulation showed that both the combined and separate control room options for managing integrated arrival and departure airspace resulted in user and FAA benefits. However, controller activities and comments indicated potential additional benefits from the combined control facility. Post-experiment questionnaires revealed that controllers felt the combined environment enhanced communication. Additional benefits might also be observed once controllers have more experience with the integrated environment and develop improved coordination methods that it affords. In addition, traffic management experts suggest that the success of implementing key BA operational improvements, such as Dynamic Airspace Reconfiguration, may be dependent on an integrated Traffic Management Unit in order to expedite dynamic route changes. A Rough Order of Magnitude Cost-Benefit analysis was conducted to find out how likely it would be for the BA concept to be cost effective for multiple major metropolitan areas. Since this study is in the concept exploration phase, the cost analysis was based on general ground rules and assumptions developed for the concept itself, not on any detailed requirements or technical solutions. The benefits analysis was based on extrapolating results from the generic airspace fast-time simulations to other sites based on traffic forecasts and historical weather patterns at those sites, and not based on actual runway capacity, airport interactions, or current and potential BA airspace design for those locations. Implementation of the BA concept at seven BA facilities covering eight major metropolitan areas was found to be highly cost beneficial, with an estimated benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of 6.8, based on the total estimated present value aircraft operating cost and passenger time savings benefits of $2,680 million and costs of $396 million. If passenger value of time was excluded from the calculation, implementation of the BA concept was still estimated to be highly beneficial, with an estimated B/C ratio of 3.8, based on total estimated present value benefits of $1,485 million and costs of $396 million. All sites evaluated are expected to be cost beneficial, with B/C ratios ranging from 2.8 to 11.7. The estimated risk-adjusted BA cost in then-year dollars is $680 million. Concept validation identified many operational and technical requirements. Research is needed in many of these areas to develop Preliminary Program Requirements. In order to implement the BA concept as a midterm solution for high density terminal operations, many challenges will need to be met successfully. The operational requirement for expansion of 3-mile aircraft separation to all arrival and departure airspace will require the discovery of a technical solution to meet Required Surveillance Performance (RSP) standards. Expansion of diverging course procedures will require expansion of the current RSP standards, as well as a technical solution to meet the new standard. Closely spaced parallel routes will require a mandate for Performance Based Navigation in BA. BA airspace redesign will need to undergo environmental and noise assessments in consultation with local communities and constituencies. Integration of all arrival and departure airspace management will require facility and control room designs and a common automation toolset, including additional Traffic Management Advisor functionality, flight plan amendment capabilities, and a time-based departure route sequencing tool. 3 A review of current and future facilities plans was conducted to determine the impact that this integrated control facility concept could have on ongoing studies of future facilities. Existing large facilities in many major metropolitan areas consist of Air Traffic Control Centers that are reaching their end of life and need to be substantially refurbished or replaced and new large Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) buildings that have been built in the last 15 years and have room for additional operational positions. A rough estimate was made of the total number of operational positions (radar and assist/handoff) at each BA facility as well as the number of sectors that would remain at the adjacent centers. This analysis estimated the BA facilities would have an average of 96 total operational positions and that the number of en route sectors would be reduced by 17 percent to 35 percent (average 27 percent). Since new large TRACON buildings exist in most major metropolitan areas, it would be most economical to locate BA operations in these buildings, at least for an initial implementation of integrated arrival and departure airspace. Where new large TRACONs do not exist, new facilities are needed to house the integrated arrival/departure airspace. These facilities should be considered in the overall plan for General Service Delivery Points (GSDP), as described in the NextGen concept, that integrate operational domains (e.g., tower control, classic airspace, and trajectory based operations airspace). These GSDP facilities could also provide an economical solution for high altitude airspace restructuring that would be needed after implementing the BA concept. GSDP facility decisions should be made in consideration of moving toward this BA concept. The totality of the BA Concept Validation research found that an Integrated Arrival and Departure concept would be applicable and beneficial for any major metropolitan area where there are very large airports, particularly those where there are multiple airports whose arrival and departure flows interact. Detailed airspace design and analysis work will be needed to determine where this concept would be most beneficial and to gain information to complete requirements and associated business cases. 4