ATCA Journal - Q2 - 2016

Summer 2016 | VOLUME 58, NO. 2

DRONES ARE COMING – Is the NAS Prepared?

Plus • One Year of Time-Based Separation at Heathrow • The Effect of Sun and Solar Winds on Modern Aviation

KVM FROM G&D

LEADING THE WAY IN DIGITAL KVM

www.gdsys.de

SEE US AT ATCA TECH SYMPOSIUM

IT control that towers above the rest

From the ANSP to the controller to the technician, everyone’s better off with KVM. For the service provider, KVM adds flexibility to IT infrastructure. It enables emergency workarounds, improves workflows, adds reliability to redundancy concepts and provides continuous, uninterrupted IT availability.

ATCOs enjoy a computer-free environment.

Moving the computers to a central location creates less noise, less heat and more space to create better working conditions in the control room. And the system’s more reliable too!

With KVM, technicians can access several systems from a range of locations - not just their workplace. Administration is made easier and maintenance too: the computers are stored centrally so no more crawling under desks. There’s also more time for maintenance because ATCOs can be simply switched to a back-up system whenever it’s required.

For optimum IT system control, improved working conditions and increased system safety, there’s only one all-round answer – KVM from G&D.

Summer 2016 | Vol. 58, No. 2

Contents

ATCA members and subscribers have access to the online edition of The Journal of Air Traffic Control. Visit www.lesterfiles.com/pubs/ATCA Password: ATCAPubs (case sensitive).

Published for:

Policas / Shutterstock.com

Air Traffic Control Association 1101 King Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-299-2430 Fax: 703-299-2437 info@atca.org www.atca.org

Published by:

140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Toll-free phone: 866-953-2189 Toll-free fax: 877-565-8557 www.lesterpublications.com President & Publisher, Jeff Lester

Articles 8

EDITORIAL Editorial Director, Jill Harris Editorial Assistant, Andrew Harris

DESIGN & LAYOUT Art Director, Myles O’Reilly Senior Graphic Designer, John Lyttle Graphic Designer, Crystal Carrette Graphic Designer, Gayl Punzalan

ADVERTISING Sales Manager, Sharon Komoski Quinn Bogusky | 888-953-2198 Louise Peterson | 866-953-2183

DISTRIBUTION Nikki Manalo | 866-953-2189

© 2016 Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of ATCA.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors of the editorial articles contained in this publication are those of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of ATCA. Printed in Canada. Please recycle where facilities exist.

On the Road to NextGen

By Ed Stevens

13 Mind the Gap

One Year of Time-Based Separation at Heathrow

By Andy Shand

17 Aviation and Space Weather

The Effect of the Sun and Solar Winds on Modern Aviation

By Michael Wiltberger

24 The Drones are Coming

Is the National Airspace System Prepared?

By Frederick Wieland

32 Meeting the Future Need for ATC Professionals Youth Programs and Competency-Based Education

By Dr. Suzanne Kearns

37 Across the Pond

NAV CANADA and NATS Take Transatlantic Collaboration to a New Level

By NATS and NAV CANADA

40 What Explains The Wright Brothers?

Review of David McCullough’s The Wright Brothers

By David Hughes

Departments 3 7 43

From the President From the Editor’s Desk Directory of Member Organizations

Cover image: Gualtiero Boffi / Shutterstock.com

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

1

DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE? WE DO! Telephonics’ Passive Detection & Reporting System (PDRS) offers a receive-only IFF system that enhances situational awareness for civil and military air traffic controllers, effectively eliminating radio frequency interrogation transmissions in the airspace.

To learn more, visit www.telephonics.com Š Telephonics I www.telephonics.com

FROM THE PRESIDENT

By Peter F. Dumont, President & CEO, ATCA

Celebrating History that this year marks my 10th anniversary as ATCA’s president and CEO. When I came to ATCA, I thought I could make a difference in a few years. Well, a few years have suddenly turned into a decade. Working with the dedicated Board and staff, we have turned ATCA into an international organization known for successful events, conferences, papers, publications, and partnerships that have moved our industry forward. Once I realized that it was my 10-year anniversary, I couldn’t help but notice several other aviation anniversaries.

Did you know that this year is the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Transportation? DOT has sponsored several celebratory events, including a panel discussion between several of the former secretaries of Transportation. DOT also created a web page with historical documents pertaining to its creation. This website includes a letter to President Lyndon Johnson from Administrator Najeeb Halaby (a Glen A. Gilbert Award winner) of the Federal Aviation Agency as it was known at the

time, who proposed pulling the transportation-related agencies from the Department of Commerce and elsewhere to establish a transportation department with cabinet ranking. As we discuss and consider altering the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) structure, it is valuable to look back at the reasons DOT was originally created.

The 1966 document “Creation of the 12th Cabinet Post” states, “The U.S. today lacks a coordinated transportation system that permits travelers and goods to move conveniently and efficiently from one means of transportation to another, using the best characteristics of each.”

As our nation needs change, so do our institutions, and this was certainly the case at DOT. The removal of the Coast Guard and the newly created Transportation Security Administration from DOT to the Department of Homeland Security was probably one of the biggest changes in DOT’s history. It’s had a profound effect on US aviation security in a post-9/11 world.

Another significant anniversary is The

Ensuper / Shutterstock.com

A

t the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie, Confucius once said, “Study the past if you would define the future.”

Nowhere is history more alive and more indebted to and reliant upon innovation than in the world of aviation. It’s amazing to think about the strides our industry has made in the last century. A hundred years ago, our industry barely existed when the Wright Brothers demonstrated their marvelous invention in Paris in 1908, and now, new, groundbreaking technologies in aviation are being developed and implemented every single day. This issue of the Journal celebrates both the founding and the future of our industry; it includes, among many other topics, a comprehensive review of David McCullough’s award-winning book The Wright Brothers and examines our industry’s readiness for unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

Reading about the Wright Brothers in this issue got me thinking about my own milestones as well. It’s rather extraordinary

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

3

FROM THE PRESIDENT Boeing Company’s 100th year anniversary.

Not surprisingly, Boeing has launched several large projects to commemorate its company’s history and to celebrate its extraordinary footprint in aerospace. Boeing sponsored an interactive aerospace museum exhibit, entitled Above and Beyond, which debuted at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and will travel to various museums around the country. Boeing also engaged a documentary film team to develop a short film history of Boeing; however, after the film team looked at all the pictures, footage, and history, their project morphed into an epic five-part history series called the “Age of Aerospace,” which aired on the Science Channel and the Discovery Channel, and is now available online. This series is excellent and should be shared with everyone who has even an inkling of interest in aviation history. In fact, the documentary shows the important contributions aviation has made to our country’s history and rivals any recent documentary series. With the investment of The Boeing Company, the “Age of Aerospace” will live on as a comprehensive 100th anniversary celebration for years.

The last anniversary I want to high-

Our country and our industry are full of fascinating stories that shape our daily lives. light today is the 75th anniversary of the historic airport terminal at the Ronald Regan Washington National Airport, which opened on June 16, 1941, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in attendance. After drawing straws, American Airlines received the honor of the first commercial f light landing at the airport, followed by Eastern Airlines. The airport, which is run by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, has gone through many changes and controversies, including whether its location is in the District of Columbia or Virginia (Congress clarified it is in Virginia). The airport will celebrate its anniversary with special events such as a luncheon sponsored by Aero Club of Washington on June 16.

I know there must be other aviation anniversaries this year that we should rec-

ognize and celebrate. If you have some important aviation milestones, please send them to us and we will highlight them in future publications.

Our country and our industry are full of fascinating stories that shape our daily lives. These stories help inspire astonishing innovations, like two American brothers who birthed an extraordinary dream and became great aviation pioneers a little more than a century ago. Thanks to them, and many others, each of us found our place in what I see as the greatest industry in the world. And for those who agree with me, I’ll leave you with this parting thought.

Confucius also said, “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” I fully agree. I am honored to have spent the last 10 years at ATCA and look forward to many more.

Platinum and gold Tech Symposium sponsors!

PLATINUM SPONSOR:

GOLD SPONSORS:

The 2016 ATCA Tech Symposium was a great success. These sponsors and many others help make ATCA events possible.

THE INTEGRATED TOWER SOLUTION THAT CHANGES AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Our NAVCANatm fully integrated suite of air traffic management tools is designed to innovate and simplify controller workstations by delivering mission critical air traffic control information safely and efficiently. Scalable and customizable, this advanced technology offers a complete automation platform to support airport, tower and terminal ATC functions.

NAVCANsuite tower automation products provide controllers with an integrated platform for surface management, electronic flight data exchange, departure sequencing and scheduling, surveillance data integration, and enhanced data exchange with external stakeholders. Platform-independent and developed on an open architecture, this system is highly adaptable to any working environment.

Experience a solution that is proven worldwide and that controllers and airport operators trust. A system that changes air traffic management. navcanatm.ca

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

By Steve Carver Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Summer 2016 | Vol. 58, No. 2 Air Traffic Control Association 1101 King Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-299-2430 Fax: 703-299-2437 info@atca.org www.atca.org Formed in 1956 as a non-profit, professional membership association, ATCA represents the interests of all professionals in the air traffic control industry. Dedicated to the advancement of professionalism and technology of air traffic control, ATCA has grown to represent several thousand individuals and organizations managing and providing ATC services and equipment around the world.

Editor-in-Chief: Steve Carver Publisher: Lester Publications, LLC

Officers and Board of Directors Chairman, Neil Planzer Chairman-Elect, Charles Keegan President & CEO, Peter F. Dumont Treasurer, Rachel Jackson East Area Director, Susan Chodakewitz Pacific Area, Asia, Australia Director, Peter Fiegehen South Central Area Director, William Cotton Northeast Area Director, Mike Ball Southeast Area Director, Jack McAuley North Central Area Director, Bill Ellis West Area Director and Secretary, Chip Meserole Canada, Caribbean, Central and South America, Mexico Area Director, Rudy Kellar Europe, Africa, Middle East Area Director, Jonathan Astill Director at Large, Rick Day Director at Large, Vinny Cappezzuto Director at Large, Michael Headley

Looking to the Future

D

o you ever wonder what the aviation landscape will look like in 60 years? In my decades of service to the industry, it’s a thought I have a lot. The possibilities are endless, which is both thrilling and terrifying. We’ve only just begun to define the challenges that lay ahead for our industry’s future. For one, aircraft will separate themselves using extreme efficiency of data exchange, and ground-based systems as we know them will be a thing of the past. Moving to this new world of aviation will require a central, virtual, neural data exchange and a cyber security architecture built on a constant reconstitution of data.

How long will it take for the first step of this new phase of aviation to take place? This may be a surprise but it has already started.

The Journal explores both the future and the current state of our industry.

To improve efficiency of air traffic, air navigation service providers (ANSPs) are beginning to share data with other ANSPs and private industry with the intent of moving towards a collaborative and increasingly holistic approach to aviation efficiency. The FAA NextGen Terminal Flow Data Manager (TFDM) system is primed to receive data

from airport authorities and aviation operations to create more efficient airport tarmac.

The sharing of data will also promote big data and deep analysis, focusing ideas and concepts that will help mold a more collaborative industry. For those who work in the world of dig data, the need to add non-structured data into the deep dives will be necessary to new knowledge. Whatever the process may be, the world of private industry and academia will be the heroes to make my 60-year vision a reality.

I have faith.

Aviation security has also been on the forefront of my – and everyone’s – mind. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed by the senseless act perpetrated on the innocent at the airport and subway in Brussels, Belgium, on March 22, 2016.

Aviation has lost people through errors of all kinds since flight began, but when zealots terrorize innocent people, it shakes me to my core.

So, on that note, let me end by extending to you an invitation to provide an article for the Journal. ATCA’s publication committee is committed to the readers of the Journal to provide the best articles in aviation. We appreciate your help in continuing to make this a great publication.

Staff Marion Brophy , Communications Specialist Abigail Glenn-Chase, Director, Communications Ken Carlisle, Director, Meetings and Expositions Theresa Clair, Associate Director, Meetings and Expositions Ashley Haskins, Office Manager Kristen Knott, Writer and Editor Christine Oster, Chief Financial Officer Paul Planzer, Manager, ATC Programs Rugger Smith, International Development Liason Sandra Strickland, Events and Exhibits Coordinator Ashley Swearingen, Press and Marketing Manager Tim Wagner, Membership Manager

The Journal of Air Traffic Control (ISSN 0021-8650) is published quarterly by the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. Periodical postage paid at Alexandria, VA and additional entries.

EDITORIAL, SUBSCRIPTION & ADVERTISING OFFICES at ATCA Headquarters: 1101 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Telephone: (703) 299-2430, Fax: (703) 299-2437, Email: info@atca.org, Website: www.atca.org.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Journal of Air Traffic Control, 1101 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. © Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., 2016 Membership in the Air Traffic Control Association including subscriptions to the Journal and ATCA Bulletin: Professional, $130 a year; Professional Military Senior Enlisted (E6–E9) Officer, $130 a year; Professional Military Junior Enlisted (E1–E5), $26 a year; Retired fee $60 a year applies to those who are ATCA Members at the time of retirement; Corporate Member, $500–5,000 a year, depending on category. Journal subscription rates to non-members: U.S., its territories, and possessions—$78 a year; other countries, including Canada and Mexico—$88 a year (via air mail). Back issue single copy $10, other countries, including Canada and Mexico, $15 (via air mail).

Contributors express their personal points of view and opinions that are not necessarily those of their employers or the Air Traffic Control Association. Therefore The Journal of Air Traffic Control does not assume responsibility for statements made and opinions expressed. It does accept responsibility for giving contributors an opportunity to express such views and opinions. Articles may be edited as necessary without changing their meaning.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

7

On the Road to

NextGen

By Ed Stevens

N

oriontrail / Shutterstock.com

extGen has been transforming the National Airspace System (NAS), making it less reliant on radar surveillance, groundbased navigation systems, and voice communications. It’s modernizing the air transportation system through improvements to air traffic management (ATM) technologies and procedures and airport infrastructure, and includes environmental, safety, and securityrelated enhancements. The FAA’s focus is on the future with NextGen, but what about the present? Moving forward, it’s important to assess the industry’s lessons learned over the past 17 years–or where we’ve been and where we’re going, so to speak.

The road to full implementation of NextGen has been a long one. Although many parents might debate this, it appears that air traffic control (ATC) systems take even longer to mature than children; an ATC generation is approximately 25 to 30 years in duration. For example, the Host

8

Summer 2016

system installation was completed in 1988, and En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) completed installation in 2015, 27 years later. The initial Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) contract was signed in 1996, and the final site is scheduled for completion in 2020.

The FAA’s development of NextGen is well underway with a mandated completion date of 2025, but when did this generation actually start?

Although the FAA identifies the Vision 100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003 as its start, perhaps the FAA’s Free Flight Initiative in 1998 should actually be considered as the start of NextGen, as Free Flight initially prototyped many of the capabilities that have been or are being incorporated into the NextGen baseline.

Since the start of the Free Flight Initiative, the NAS has already undergone a major transformation. Although many NextGen challenges remain, the

FAA has accomplished an extensive set of NextGen enabling systems and enhancements, including: • Replacing the FAA automation system baselines with ERAM and Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR)/STARS • Introducing a new generation of radars and Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B) for surveillance, along with Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X) • Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), and performance based navigation (PBN) • Numerous controller decision support tools • Starting the transition to a new generation of communication systems (voice and data) and updating the NAS voice switches (NVS) • More extensive controller training.

• Added Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) to the Air Traffic Command

ON THE ROAD TO NEXTGEN

System Command Center (ATCSCC), along with a range of weather products Given the wide range of improvements that the FAA has already implemented, the obvious questions are what high-level system benefits have already been realized in the NAS, and how has the progress of the past 17 years improved the system’s capacity, safety, efficiency, and cost?

Description of System Changes A majority of the changes implemented through NextGen provide the necessary infrastructure and advanced capabilities. We have outlined them here, in descending order of impact: Weather In 1998, a new generation of weather radars and sensors offered a range of innovative weather products. However, the coverage they provided was incomplete, and the focus was still primarily on what was happening

in the very near term. Since then the FAA, working with the National Weather Service and supported by several federal research centers, has added a wide range of new sensors and tools to integrate, present, and distribute the information and future forecasts in a user-friendlier manner.

For example, there is now a shortterm (zero- to eight-hour) national forecast of convective weather (Consolidated Storm Prediction for Aviation) that is automated, high-resolution, rapidly updated, and accurate. This new forecast is being implemented as part of the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) weather processor. This technology has encouraged and improved CDM processes between the FAA and the operators, and begins hours before weather impacts are anticipated. This timely flow of information results in well-planned and orchestrated flows of traffic into and out of the areas affected by the convection, with minimal airborne holding and vectoring.

These changes have had a significant impact on reducing the number of delays caused by weather events.

Traffic Flow Management Traffic Flow Management started in the late 1960s but gained real momentum after the controllers’ strike in the early 1980s resulted in a vastly decreased workforce and necessitated limiting “rush hour” traffic at key airports. Until 1998 it was a FAA-centric approach that made heavy use of Ground Delay Programs (GDPs) and the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) developed by the Department of Transportation’s Volpe Transportation Center. Since that time, moving to CDM has helped actively engage all users. The FAA has worked closely with industry and invested heavily in the development of a wide range of tools, including traffic management advisor (TMA), airspace flow programs (AFP), integrated collaborative rerouting (ICR), and severe weather

The road to full implementation of NextGen has been a long one.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

9

ON THE ROAD TO NEXTGEN

Percent of Total Delay Minutes 45

Aircraft Arriving Late

40 35

Air Carrier Delay

30 National Aviation System Delay

25 20 15 10 5 0

Extreme Weather Security Delay 2003 2004 (Jun-Dec)

2005

2006

2007 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Figure 1. Delay Sources. Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

avoidance plan (SWAP), to name a few.

Surveillance Surveillance used to be limited to a suite of radars with weather channels introduced in the 1970s (legacy long range radars such as ARSR-4, ASR-7, ARR-8). ASR-9 radars with Weather Capabilities (WSP) were introduced in the 1980s and remain in use at over 135 airports, including most major hubs.

Although many of these radars were enhanced and are still being used, a new suite of radars (ASR- 11) has been introduced for many other sites without radar coverage or as replacements for ASR-7s and some ASR-8s. These changes–along with the introduction of ADS-B, ASDE-X, and multi-lateration surveillance systems–provide more accurate aircraft positioning, better weather reports, fill in gaps in coverage, and enable faster update rates.

ATM In 1998, like today, automation systems platforms were split between en route and terminal facilities. The en route system was based on the Host Flight Data Publications Service (FDPS) system and was very hard to update and maintain. Almost all new features that should have been incorporated into the FDPS were added as ancillary systems, which made maintaining the system 10

Summer 2016

interfaces even more challenging. The terminal systems were a multitude of customized Automated Radar Terminal Systems (ARTSs) based on the size of the facility.

Therefore, changes had to be made to each ARTS baseline in order to add a new feature.

In both the en route and terminal facilities, the controller toolset was limited.

With the introduction of STARS in 1999 and ERAM in 2009, the FAA has moved to open architectures with a wide range of new capabilities and tools. TAMR/ STARS, when the FAA completes replacement of all the ARTS systems in 2020, will provide a single terminal platform that will simplify the addition of new controller tools.

Both TAMR/STARS and ERAM have an embedded training capability, integrate multiple surveillance data sources, and use the same advanced multi-sensor fusion tracker.

These automation platforms will form the basis for NextGen controller tools.

Navigation Navigation, which had primarily relied on ground-based VHF omni-directional range route structures and Instrument Landing System navigational aids with some limited use of US Area Navigation in 1998, has moved quickly towards satellite based navigation (augmented by WAAS) and Required

Navigation Performance (RNP). As of October 2015, the FAA has published over 7,000 PBN procedures.

Communications In 1998, six different owned and leased networks provided ground-to-ground communications, while air-to-ground (A/G) communications relied upon standard VHF radios. The A/G communications were switched through as many as 17 different voice switches owned and maintained by the FAA. The key communication developments since then have been the consolidation of the ground networks into the FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) program, which is managed and operated by the Harris Corporation. In addition, the FAA awarded two major projects to Harris in 2012: (1) NVS to replace the legacy voice switches with IP-based voice communication network and (2) Data Communications Integrated Services (DCIS) to implement A/G data communications.

Benefits Metrics: Improvements in Capacity, Safety, Efficiency, and Cost Capacity Although improved system capacity is one of the original NextGen goals and the number

ON THE ROAD TO NEXTGEN of passengers has grown by 21 percent since 2002, it’s surprising that the total number of operations has dropped by 10 percent since then. Therefore, overall system capacity has not been a significant factor in NextGen benefits up to this point.

Because of outside economic influences on the air carriers since 2001 (primarily the 2008 recession and the volatility of fuel prices), the airlines were forced to handle the additional passenger growth by consolidating flights, adding more seats to existing aircraft, and increasing load factors by over 50 percent. It is interesting to note that while the numbers of aircraft and domestic flights have dropped, the number of international flights has grown steadily. In addition, the total number of movements at the nation’s busiest airport, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, has consistently dropped since 2004. However, it is doubtful that the existing capacity will support the passenger demand that is predicted to grow 33 percent by 2030. NextGen’s goal of additional system capacity will be critical in the future.

Additionally, many capacity improvements resulting from NextGen initiatives are helping to safely increase short-term peak capacity. Short-term peak capacity may be masked by high-level capacity metrics, so metrics such as number of movements per hour for large complex airports need to be developed. It is not clear whether the operational and performance metrics that the FAA is currently collecting will be adequate.

Safety NextGen continues to build upon the outstanding safety record of the NAS, and several safety metrics are worthy of notice.

Since air carrier accidents in the NAS are such rare events, the number of their fatalities is not a useful measure of safety.

However, general aviation (GA) accidents occur more frequently and for a number of reasons. As reported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the GA fatal accident rate remained around 1.3 fatal accidents per 100,000 f light hours; however, starting in 2011, the rate dropped 15 percent to the 1.1 level (and to 1.03 in 2015).

Since the FAA started collecting this data, its metric for high-risk loss of separation, System Risk Event Rate (SRER), has indicated that the rate of incident has decreased markedly over the past three

Table 1. Cost per Operation as reported by the FAA.

Year

Cost per Operation

2010

$86.21

2011

$87.85

2012

$86.28

2013

$86.48

2014

$87.16

2015 (Oct to Jun)

$88.72

years. SRER is defined as the rate of highrisk loss of standard separation incidents per thousand events of loss of standard separation. Although this time period is very short, an approximate 50 percent reduction is remarkable.

These are only a subset of safety metrics, but it’s encouraging that the FAA’s NextGen investments are indeed improving safety in the NAS. Efficiency Measurement of total system delays may be a better metric of predictability than efficiency, but it certainly resonates with anyone trying to catch a connecting flight. Unfortunately, as reported by the major air carriers to the DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the percentage of on-time flights remains around 79 percent since 2003 (except for 2007 and 2008, which were both below 76 percent).

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics uses the following categories to characterize the cause of an identified delay: Air Carrier, NAS, Weather, Late-Arriving Aircraft, and Security. NAS delays are those attributed to a broad set of conditions, such as non-extreme weather conditions, airport operations, heavy traffic volume, and ATC. Extreme weather delays are those attributed to significant meteorological conditions (actual or forecasted) that, in the judgment of the carrier, delays or prevents the f light operation. Examples of these conditions could include tornados, blizzards, and hurricanes.

As illustrated in Figure 1, delays attributed to the NAS and related to extreme weather have been reduced by over 30 percent since 2003, but unfortunately have been offset by air carrier delay and late arriving aircraft. The increase in air carrier delay is primarily due to the very high load factors combined with the increase in passenger capacity per aircraft. With the higher aircraft

capacity levels, there are more passengers who could potentially cause a delay. The late arrival of an inbound aircraft will always occur if there is any other cause of delay; this increase is most likely due to shorter turnaround times.

Although delays remain a system-wide problem, the reduction in NAS and weatherrelated delays are positive NextGen indicators.

Cost Table 1 shows the cost per operation since 2010 as reported by the FAA. These costs include all operating costs assignable to the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) under the FAA’s Cost Accounting System (CAS), including overhead costs. Operation counts include both instrument and visual flight conditions for federal and contract facilities.

This metric is part of the Reauthorization Bill, Section 214, Performance Metrics Requirements.

At face value, these costs have steadily increased since 2010; however, it is not clear if they have been adjusted for inflation (8.7 percent since 2010). In addition, the number of operations has decreased by 2.35 percent since 2010, so if the total costs (which probably are not affected by small changes in the capacity) remained constant, we would expect the costs per operation to have increased proportionally. If both of these adjustments are factored in, the expected cost per operation would be $97.85, 10 percent higher than reported.

Conclusion While further analysis is required to verify these results, these macro-level metrics reinforce the positive impact of the FAA’s investment in NextGen. The results captured in these very summary level measurements do indicate that the FAA and NextGen are on the right path. Look for a follow-up article in a future issue of The Journal of Air Traffic Control.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

11

ISO 9001:2008 Certified

A LEADER IN GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE Data distribution systems Technical Services

Sunhillo Corporation Sunhillo handles all lifecycle aspects of surveillance data distribution systems for the Federal Aviation Administration, US Military, civil aviation authorities, and national defense organizations across the globe. Products include: Longport ADS-B Receiver, Surveillance Monitoring System (SMS), MPS1000, RICI 5000 and Protocol Software Suite

www.Sunhillo.com

Sunhillo Technical Services (STS) Award-winning company providing highly qualified, competent and customer focused talent to the FAA WJHTC and partners throughout the industry. STS has the following capabilities: Software Engineering, Test & Evaluation, 2nd Level Engineering Support, Hardware & Systems Integration and Project & Program Management

www.SunhilloTS.com

sunhillo.com | 1-856-767-7676 | sales@sunhillo.com

TIME-BASED SEPARATION

Mind the Gap One Year of Time-Based Separation at Heathrow

By Andy Shand, NATS

L

ondon’s Heathrow airport is the busiest two-runway airport in the world, handling over 470,000 flights a year.

It is also scheduled to nearly 99 percent of its capacity, meaning anything that impedes the number of aircraft that land per hour can result in delays and an increased chance of cancellations. When the landing rate is constrained by weather, Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) regulations have to be applied to meter the f low of arrivals, resulting in delays to inbound shorthaul f lights. Typically, weather results in about 400,000 minutes of ATFM delay at Heathrow every year, with the biggest cause being the effect of headwinds on approach, which account for around 160 to 180,000 minutes per annum. NATS, the UK’s principal ANSP, is responsible for providing ATC services for Heathrow.

NATS implemented a solution at Heathrow, which offers substantial benefits to aircraft operators and passengers. This “Intelligent Approach” solution changes Heathrow’s final approach operations from conventional distance-based separation to Time-Based Separation (TBS).

Problems with Distance-Based Separation Traditionally, aircraft are distance-separated on final approach based on either radar or wake-separation minima. For example, using wake-separation rules on final approach, a Boeing 777 (classified as a heavy wake category aircraft) followed by an Airbus A320 (medium wake category aircraft) requires a five nautical-mile (nm) gap. Similarly, a heavy followed by a heavy requires a four nm gap; medium wake category aircraft can be separated by three nm or as little as 2.5 nm under certain conditions.

As the aircraft are separated by a fixed distance, when there is a headwind on the final approach path, the groundspeed of the aircraft is reduced and the landing rate therefore decreases; it’s a bit like walking the wrong way up a moving walkway. As aircraft typically join final approach at between 10 to 14 nm from the runway, it’s the winds along the approach path at 3,000 ft. that are the issue, not just at the surface. For example, on October 11, 2013, the headwind on final

approach at 3,000 ft. was just over 40 knots. On that day, f low regulations resulted in nearly 13,000 minutes of primary ATFM delay.

Given that short-haul aircraft operate a number of rotations each day, picking up a delay on the first tends to cause residual delays for the rest of the day. Hence, the total delay is often even greater than the primary ATFM delay figure might suggest.

Equivalent Distance and Time Spacing in Light Headwind In light headwind conditions of about five to seven knots and with a final approach speed of 160 knots at four miles from touchdown, the equivalent time interval for the required four-mile separation between heavy aircraft is 90 seconds. Similarly, five miles takes about 113 seconds. As the headwind at 3,000 ft. increases, so does the time interval. For example, with a 30 to 35 knot headwind at 1,500 ft., the time taken to cover four miles increases from 90 to 107 seconds, effectively a loss of capacity of 17 seconds (or 19 percent). Given Heathrow’s schedule, those delays add up over the course of a day and very soon mount up to sizable delays and, eventually, cancellations.

To recover this loss of capacity, NATS wants to be able to keep the time interval the same in varying wind conditions. Heathrow was due to implement TBS in 2018, but because of the potentially huge benefits it would bring airline customers, NATS decided to fasttrack the project for a Spring 2015 introduction. However, to prove that it would be safe to do that, NATS needed to have significant data showing how wake vortices behave in varying wind conditions.

Over a period for nearly five years, NATS worked with EUROCONTROL using a Lockheed Martin Wind Tracer LIDAR system to collect over 150,000 samples of wake vortex data under varying wind conditions. The LIDAR system allows measurements to be taken for transport and decay of the wake vortex in a wide range of weather conditions and covers all aircraft types operating at Heathrow. The LIDAR was installed at two locations with distinct purposes: one measured the wake vortex at The Journal of Air Traffic Control

13

TIME-BASED SEPARATION

Figure 1: Time-based separation controller display

overcome the issues of uncertainty in meteorological predictions.

The “Intelligent Approach” tool filters the data such that errors in individual aircraft downlinked parameters are catered for and results in an exceedingly narrow error rate (0.006 percent of samples have errors of >10 knots). NATS is confident that the separations are based on accurate wind data. The TBS tool automatically captures the aircraft arrival sequence and wake turbulence category as well, which will also be verified by ATC procedures before final approach (Figure 1).

Heathrow air traffic control tower

an altitude of about 300 ft. where the wake vortex tends to interact with the ground, so it is in ground effect, and the other was an outof-ground effect for aircraft at an altitude of about 1,000 ft.

Analysis of wake behaviors provided NATS with an evidence base to then develop revised separation rules. In essence, the data showed that a wake vortex decays faster in stronger headwind conditions. This wasn’t a surprise, but having such a large sample of data and supporting modeling allowed NATS to build a very robust safety analysis. The data showed that NATS could safely reduce separations in headwind conditions in a way that kept the time interval effectively the same as it is in a headwind of five to seven knots.

Developing Time-Based Separation Tools and Procedures One of the challenges with moving from a fixed distance to a timebased separation standard is the need for new visualization tools for the controller. As part of the SESAR program, NATS took part in initial simulations of controller tools. NATS has since further developed the Human Machine Interface for controllers to provide dynamic separation indicators that change in line with the prevailing wind conditions.

Uniquely, the NATS TBS tool uses downlinked Mode S radar transponder-equipped aircraft data to develop a highly accurate model of the actual wind conditions. This is the first time that this data has been used operationally in this way and helps researchers 14

Summer 2016

Benefits It’s now been a year since TBS entered operational service at Heathrow, and it’s been a huge success. It’s even earned two international industry awards in that short time.

In November 2015 alone, NATS estimates that TBS prevented 25,000 minutes of delay, despite winds of up to 60 knots on final approach. For example, on November 10, despite a 40-knot headwind, no ATFM regulations were in place at all. Compared to the earlier example of 13,000 minutes on a similar day in 2013, the improvement is clear. On average, TBS allows NATS to land 2.9 additional aircraft an hour on strong wind days and cut ATFM delays caused by headwinds by up to 60 percent. Even on the windiest days, NATS has seen gains in capacity of up to four or five landings an hour when compared to distance-based spacing. This has all been achieved without any increase in reported wake vortex encounters or go-arounds.

Many airlines have been directly involved with the project and have been very supportive. Equally, the UK Civil Aviation Authority has worked closely with NATS throughout. Tobin Miller, manager for international air traffic systems at American Airlines, which worked with NATS on the implementation, described the introduction of TBS as “a glimpse into the future,” while Gary Edwards, Delta’s European supervisor for f light control operations, said TBS has been “proven to add resilience with no additional cost to the users.”

What’s Next?

In order to comply with the SESAR Pilot Common Projects implementing rule, January 1, 2024, is the required deadline for the introduction of TBS into many of Europe’s busiest airports.

Also, together with TBS partners at Lockheed Martin, NATS is

TIME-BASED SEPARATION

Heathrow Airport tower operations

speaking to interested airports and ANSPs from around the world – including in the United States – all keen to understand if the TBS tool’s “Intelligent Approach” concept can benefit their own operation.

At the moment, NATS typically groups aircraft into six wake vortex categories (other countries group into as few as three or four categories), which is the most combinations controllers can be reasonably expected to remember. With a tool in place that dynamically calculates the correct separation between individual pairs of aircraft, there is theoretically no limit to the level of granularity NATS can reach, potentially going down to individual aircraft models and variants. This is a time-based application of a concept known as “pairwise” and has the potential to safely reduce the separation between many wake vortex pairs.

NATS has just completed SESAR simulations, which could add one to two extra movements or more an hour, even at the most capacity-constrained airports.

There are also potential benefits for mixed-mode (arrival and departure off one runway) operations. The space between arrivals could be optimized based on the expected runway occupancy at the time of departure, also potentially delivering one or two additional movements per hour. It might also be possible to use Intelligent Approach to tailor the arrival spacing in low visibility, taking into account the preceding aircraft’s effect on the localizer and thereby recovering some of the capacity lost due to fog.

Photos provided by author

AIR TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS

Service Disabled Veteran 8(a) Certified Woman Owned Small Business

YouTube / The JMASolutions

600 Maryland Ave. SW, Suite 400 E Washington, D.C. 20024 Phone: 202-465-8205 www.jma-solutions.com

Twitter/JMA_Solutions

LinkedIn / jma-solutions

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

15

FAA’S NEWEST ATC RADIOS ARE NOW IN SERVICE NAS Certified – Networkable Be part of the enhanced NAS with the CM-300/350 (V2) VHF/UHF Software Defined Radios.

What you get:

What you won’t get:

•

Radios that will meet the global ATM VoIP standard

•

Proprietary interfaces

•

IP and legacy connectivity

•

Lengthy certification cycle time

•

Long term supportability and reliability

•

Long procurement times

•

FAA NAS Certification

gdmissionsystems.com/atc

©2016 General Dynamics. All rights reserved.

SPACE WEATHER

Aviation and Space Weather The Effect of the Sun and Solar Winds on Modern Aviation

By Michael Wiltberger, National Center for Atmospheric Research

T

The lesser-known fourth state of matter, plasma, is so hot that the charged particles have become separated and form a quasineutral gas. In addition to emitting light, the sun is constantly emitting this plasma in the form of a solar wind. The conditions within the solar wind are highly variable, depending in part on the solar cycle, but the typical velocity is around 400 km/s, meaning that this plasma will arrive to Earth a little more than four days after it leaves the sun, significantly longer than the eight minutes it takes light to travel from the sun to the Earth. Since the plasma in the solar wind involves charged particles, it also pulls the solar magnetic field along with it out into interplanetary space.

Figure 1 (p. 18) shows the beautiful yet complex interaction of Space Weather Just as the sun is a major driver of terrestrial weather, it is also the sun’s magnetic field and plasma. The plasma suspended above the source of all space weather. While the intensity of the light the surface of the sun is held up by twists and turns of the compliemitted by the sun is relatively constant over time, our star is cated solar magnetic field. Motions of the plasma on the sun may actually a very active body. As Galileo observed when he pointed twist and shear the magnetic field past a breaking point, resulting his telescope at the sun, the surface is not smooth; it is dotted in an abrupt release of energy. The light and highly-charged partiwith dark spots, which we now call sunspots. These sunspots cles this process creates can f low out and reach the Earth in minare related to the emergence of magnetic fields from within the utes to hours. This process is commonly referred to as a solar f lare. interior of the sun. The number and location of these sunspots go Often related to the solar f lare is a release of the plasma trapped through a periodic cycle, with a period approximately equal to 11 by the magnetic field. This blob of plasma, often called a coronal years. In fact, we have just passed the most recent solar sunspot mass ejection (CME), can also f low through interplanetary space maximum. This periodic variation is commonly referred to as and reach Earth. These CMEs have higher velocities than the solar the solar cycle and underlies the variation driving space weather wind, typically reaching Earth in a few days and usually carrying with them much stronger magnetic fields. toward the Earth.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Skylines / Shutterstock.com

he aviation community is well aware of the challenges weather presents within the enterprise. Space weather, however, presents a relatively new challenge to aviation operations. The impacts of space weather on our lives and technology are driven by events occurring on the sun that propagate through interplanetary space and arrive at earth.

The most significant risks posed by space weather are related to its impacts on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS).

Space weather can also degrade high-frequency (HF) radio communication and increase radiation exposure.

17

SPACE WEATHER

Figure 1. Multispectral image of the sun showing a solar prominence Image credit: NASA/SDO

Figure 2. WAAS vertical protection level during the Hallowen 2003 geomagnetic storm Image credit: FAA

When the solar wind plasma arrives at Earth, it encounters the Earth’s magnetic field, which provides some protection against the entry of plasma into the near-Earth space environment. We refer to this region of space as the magnetosphere. The solar wind velocity is, in fact, supersonic, and its interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field forms a shock wave, called the bow shock, upstream of the Earth. Behind this shock, the solar wind plasma and magnetic field interact with the Earth’s field. If the solar wind field is traveling in the opposite direction to the Earth’s field, the same process of magnetic field breaking that released CMEs from the sun can happen, allowing mass, momentum, and energy to f low into the magnetosphere.

As previously mentioned, CMEs typically have higher speeds and stronger magnetic fields than the ambient solar wind, resulting in a compressed magnetosphere and, if the CME’s magnetic field is opposite to the Earth’s field, deposition of a significant amount of energy into the magnetosphere. This energy typically drives a phenomenon known as a geomagnetic storm, resulting in visible aurora and enhancements to the Van Allen radiation belts.

The last piece of the system involved in space weather is called the ionosphere. At high altitudes, above 80 km, the ultraviolet light from the sun partially ionizes the atmosphere, resulting in a mix of neutral gas and plasma. Electrical currents driven by the solar wind interacting with magnetosphere complete their circuits through this ionized gas. During geomagnetic storms these currents are enhanced, which can result in the aurora borealis, the most beautiful space weather phenomena.

The aurora is more than a dynamic light show. The electrons carrying the enhanced currents from the magnetosphere are energized and excite light from atoms, in the same fashion as a cathode-ray tube in an old TV. These electrons can also drive significant changes to the structure and composition of the ionosphere.

communication systems, as well as enhanced exposure to radiation.

Effects on Aviation As the recently released National Space Weather Action Plan outlines, space weather poses risks to a broad range of technologies that contribute to the nation’s security and economic vitality.[1] Perhaps the most significant are the potential for currents driven in the magnetosphere and through the ionosphere to disrupt the electric power grid over a wide geographic area. For the aviation community, changes in the ionosphere can cause risks to navigation and 18

Summer 2016

Effects on GNSS Global navigation satellite systems, such as the global positioning system (GPS) operated by the United States, have become an essential part of aviation, and the FAA’s NextGen modernization plan calls for even more utilization of this technology. In a simplified fashion, this technology uses triangulation to determine the location of the receiver by calculating the location of multiple satellites and how long it has taken the signal to reach the receiver. One of the potential sources of error in the location calculation is delay in the signal caused by the ionosphere. Modern GPS systems include an ionospheric model to account for seasonal and solar cycle variations of the ionosphere.

One potential way to address errors introduced by the ionosphere is through the use of ground reference stations, such as the WAAS set up by the FAA. The idea here is to use a series of known locations on the ground to provide a corrective term to WAAS-enabled GPS receivers to use in their location calculations.

Unfortunately, during strong geomagnetic storms, the ionosphere can develop small-scale features that create errors beyond the ability of WAAS to correct.

As shown in Figure 2, a series of CMEs on the sun resulted in a major geomagnetic storm on October 30, 2003. As illustrated by the graphic taken from the beginning of the geomagnetic storm, the vertical protection level, i.e., the region assured to contain the indicated vertical position, is exceeding the limit of 50 m allowed for precision approaches over most of the continental US and Canada.[2] It is important to note that the system is behaving correctly; it detects the extreme disturbance of the ionosphere and indicates that it should not be used for precision approaches. In fact, for a 15-hour period on October 29 and an 11-hour period on October 30, commercial aircraft were unable to use WAAS for precision approaches. During the most recent solar cycle, which has been weaker than the previous one, several storms have disrupted WAAS, including those on February 27, 2014, and March 17, 2015. It’s also worth pointing out that major geomagnetic storms can occur at any point in the solar cycle; major ones occur more frequently during the declining phase of the solar cycle.

Current forecasts of major geomagnetic storms with the potential to disrupt WAAS are based upon detection of an

SPACE WEATHER

Figure 3. Graphic illustrating regions and frequencies affected by March 8, 2011, solar flare Image credit: NOAA/SWPC

Figure 4. Radiation alert regions issued by the FAA during the 2003 Halloween storm Image credit: FAA

earthward-directed CME by NASA research satellites. Forecasters use this information to predict arrival times, within six hours, about two to three days in advance. Unfortunately, the magnetic field direction within the CME controls the size of the resulting geomagnetic storm, and that is not detected until the CME passes solar wind monitors about 45 minutes upstream of the earth.

Support is needed for research required to predict the magnetic field direction within the CME.

Figure 3 shows the impact of a solar flare event on March 8, 2011. The degraded frequencies over Australia are a result of the radiation. The peak of this region is centered on the part of the Earth currently facing the sun. The solar energetic particles (SEPs) emitted by the flare are affected by the Earth’s magnetic field, so the region affected by these particles is located near the magnetic poles.

The duration typically lasts between one to 10 hours and requires utilization of frequency shifts or alternate communication methods. This can be challenging for polar routes since communication with geosynchronous satellites may not be possible over the entire route of f light due to line-of-sight issues between the aircraft and satellite.

It is also important to point out that currently we do not have good tools for forecasting solar f lares; communication systems are already affected by the time of detection, typically by the GOES X-ray sensor. Predicting the exact time of a solar f lare is beyond our current physical understanding of the sun. Research is ongoing to improve probabilistic forecasts for solar f lares in order to provide a higher quantification of the risks during an operating interval.

Effects on HF Communications High frequency (three to 30 MHz) radio communications are commonly used in aviation, especially for communications with air traffic control when over the oceans or poles, where short-range VHF communication is not possible.

The energetic particles and radiation released during solar f lares travel at or near the speed of light and arrive at the earth eight minutes after the event occurs on the sun. Solar f lares typically last from minutes to hours and can create additional ionization of the upper atmosphere, limiting which frequencies can be used effectively for radio communications.

Core Services

E N G I N E E R I N G Integrity in Innovation The Future of Aviation is Now Veracity Engineering is an industry leader in aviation engineering and management consulting, applying proven principles and innovative approaches to solve tomorrow’s problems today. For over 15 years, Veracity’s staff of experienced, passionate, and creative professionals has provided our government and commercial clients with innovative solutions to modernize air traffic systems and advance global initiatives in safety, efficiency, and capacity.

Systems Engineering

Software Engineering

ATC Communication

Operations Management

Information Security

Surface Surveillance

Systems Integration

Program Management

System Maintenance

Risk Management

RTIFIED CE

 

C

O M ANY P

veracity engineering | 425 3rd street sw | suite 600 | washington dc 20024 | 202.488.0975 | www.veracity-eng.com

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

19

SPACE WEATHER

Triff / Shutterstock.com

Radiation Exposure The upper atmosphere is affected by galactic cosmic, solar, and magnetospheric radiation. The galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) is omni-directional in nature and originates from supernovae throughout the galaxy. The SEPs are created by solar f lares and the shocks driven by CMEs. The magnetospheric radiation, a.k.a. the Van Allen radiation belt, is often enhanced during geomagnetic storms.

The intensity of this radiation increases with latitude and altitude. The increase of radiation in higher altitudes is due to the reduced absorption of ionizing radiation by the small amount of atmosphere. The increase with latitude results from the shielding effects of the Earth’s dipolar magnetic field. The FAA has estimated that aircrew exposures range from 0.2 to 9.1 mSv per year, which is potentially larger than the 0.5 mSv per year exposure of the average nuclear power worker. The exposure level, however, is less than the internationally accepted annual dose limit of 20 mSv. The maximum radiation exposure from the GCR occurs at solar minimum, the period in the 11-year solar cycle when solar f lare and sunspots are at their lowest frequency. This is because the “smoother” magnetic field structure of the sun and solar wind at solar minimum presents fewer structures that can scatter the incoming cosmic radiation and results in more radiation reaching the Earth. Note: this variation is why NASA currently plans for a manned mission to Mars to occur around a solar maximum to reduce the overall radiation risks to the “colonists.”

During major geomagnetic storms, distortions of the Earth’s magnetic field caused by the enhanced velocities and magnetic fields present inside the CME allow SEPs and Van Allen Radiation belt particles greater access to lower latitudes. During the 2003 Halloween storm, the FAA issued a radiation alert shown in Figure 4. During a lesser storm event, the alert regions would be located near the geomagnetic poles; however, the magnetic field distortions’ magnitudes in this event pushed the regions where energetic particles could reach aviation altitudes as far south as Miami. The alert text noted that avoiding excessive radiation exposure is particularly important during pregnancy and that lowering f light altitude can reduce the radiation dose rate.

Just like the GNSS impacts, the region at risk of higher radiation exposure is largely determined by the direction of the magnetic field within the CME. It is possible to improve upon the FAA’s

20

Summer 2016

relatively coarse alert regions by utilizing magnetic field modeling.

Additional data, especially from high latitude f lights, will be useful in quantifying the exposure level on these f lights.

Conclusions Space weather presents the aviation community with an array of challenges. The changes to the ionosphere driven by solar f lares and the geomagnetic storms following CMEs can affect radio propagation. These impacts can degrade the accuracy of GPS systems and render certain HF bands ineffective for communications.

CMEs can drive short-term increases in the radiation exposure at aviation altitudes. The increased exposure risk is greatest for high latitude f lights, especially those f lying over the poles. The scientific community is working to develop tools to improve the forecast accuracy and lead time of space weather impacts.

Anyone interested in knowing the current space weather conditions and forecast can find that information on the Space Weather Enthusiasts page provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.[3] Those interested in taking a deeper dive into the physics behind space weather are encouraged to complete the Physics of the Aurora COMET MetEd training module.[4] The National Science Foundation supports the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the funding agencies. The thoughtful comments provided by Bruce Carmichael, Sarah Gibson, Robert Rutledge, and Matthias Steiner during the preparation of this article are greatly appreciated.

Dr. Michael Wiltberger is a scientist in the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. His professional interests are in space physics with an emphasis on developing space weather forecast models. Email: wiltbemj@ucar.edu References

[1.] National Science and Technology Council, 2015, National Space Weather Action Plan, Washington, DC. [2.] http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/terms.html [3.] http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weather-enthusiasts [4.] https://www.meted.ucar.edu/training_module.php?id=161

Get perfect pixel imaging and zero latency operations with centralized KVM switching access to servers, regardless of brand, operating system, or video resolution IHSE USA:s reputation for excellence and quality reflect the safety and reliability standards for German engineering. Our

products are built to suit all environments of air traffic environments - from regional to international airports- and can work

independently or as an integrated part of the overall airport computer management system. All IHSE USA systems give the customer the flexibility to add modules when needed for future expansion. High levels of integration and ease of sharing

information between present and future systems is also an important part of the IHSE USA product offerings.

LARGE SCALE KVM MATRIX SWITCH

IHSEGmbH

Maybachstrasse 11 88094 Oberteuringen Germany Tel: +49 7546 9248-0 Fax: +49 7546 9248-48

www.ihse.de

info@ihse.de

COMPACT SIZED KVM MATRIX SWITCH

IHSEGmbH

IHSE USA, LLC

info@ihseapac.com

Cranbury, NJ 08512 Tel: +1 732 738 8780 Fax: +1 732 631 0121

Asia Pacific Pte Ltd 158 Kallang Way, #07-13A Singapore 349245

EXTENDERS FOR A FULL RANGE OF VIDEO FORMATS

1 Corporate Drive, Suite F

www.ihseusa.com info@ihseusa.com

www.ihseusa.com I info@ihseusa.com ----

•

TRAFFIC JAM AHEAD. PLAN ACCORDINGLY.

Transforming the air traffic management (ATM) system is essential for improving safety, efficiency and the environment around the globe.

Boeing is fully committed and uniquely qualified to help make ATM transformation a reality. It’s the right time and Boeing is the right partner.

24

Summer 2016

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

Is the National Airspace System Prepared?

By Frederick Wieland, Ph.D., Intelligent Automation, Inc.

Dmitry Kalinovsky; Alexey Yuzhakov/Shutterstock.com

T

here is no doubt that the future evolution of the NAS must take Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) seriously. The aerospace community is preparing for such a future.

The RTCA’s Special Committee 228 is addressing UAS integration in the NAS. NASA’s UAS Traffic Management (UTM) program is experimenting with rules for small UAS at low altitudes. The FAA has issued its small UAS rule and is working toward larger scale integration. Various UAS test sites are running experiments, and industry is busy developing detect-and-avoid and other technologies required for integration. All of these simultaneous preparations beg a couple important questions: how many civilian UAS flights will the NAS have to ultimately handle? And what will be the implications for the NAS when UAS are fully integrated?

To address this question, NASA funded a two-year research study led by Intelligent Automation, Inc. (IAI), with participation from Virginia Polytechnic University. The study forecasted future UAS flight volume at 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and higher[1]. The study also estimated future UAS f light volume, airport and airspace usage, flight routes, and aircraft types by interviewing over 50 subject matter experts (SMEs) representing over 29 civil/ government and industrial organizations that already use or are planning to use UAS technology. In addition, IAI scanned published articles on planned UAS missions

and estimated demand for transportationrelated UAS missions (such as UAS cargo delivery and air taxi) through socioeconomic modeling. Finally, IAI investigated what impact these flights would have on the existing NAS architecture. In order to forecast demand, researchers must investigate the history of UAS demand forecasting, a field which has a surprising past. The earliest study found is a 1976 report by Lockheed Missiles and Space Command for NASA’s Ames Research Laboratory[2]. Back

then, UAS were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). That study interviewed 60 potential civilian users of UAS, and identified 35 applications of the technology.

Instead of estimating UAS flights, these and other early studies concentrated on the total demand for UAVs. The Lockheed study estimated a demand that translates to manufacturing 2,000 – 11,000 total UAVs, with full adoption of the technology by 1985. They noted that the environmental problems were minimal, and that safety The Journal of Air Traffic Control

25

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS Table 1. Partial list of UAS missions analyzed

UAS Mission

Flts / day

Cruise speed (ktas)

Flight duration

Air Quality Monitoring

1,044

4,000 to 6,000 ft. AGL

74 to 89

1 to 4 hrs.

Strategic Wildfire Monitoring

324

31,000 ft. MSL

209

~20 hrs.

Tactical Wildfire--Maximum

10,432

3,000 ft. AGL

72 to 75

1 to 1.5 hrs.

Tactical Wildfire--Median

2,496

3,000 ft. AGL

72 to 75

1 to 1.5 hrs.

Tactical Wildfire--Minimum

640

3,000 ft. AGL

72 to 75

1 to 1.5 hrs.

Flood Inundation Mapping

127

4,000 ft AGL

46 to 51

1 to 4 hrs.

Law Enforcement

300

3,000 ft. AGL

44 to 51

3 to 8 hrs.

Wildlife Monitoring

308

3,000 ft AGL

44 to 51

~40 mins.

Aerial Imaging and Mapping

295

3,000 ft. AGL

44 to 51

~40 mins.

Airborne Pathogen Tracking

1,308

3,000 to 10,000 ft. AGL

72 to 97

1 to 4 hrs.

Maritime Patrol

1,512

5,000 to 35,000 ft. AGL

151 to 343

4.5 to 14 hrs.

Border Patrol

867

5,000 to 15,000 ft. AGL

129 to 173

2 to 7 hrs.

Weather Data Collection

2,401

5,000 to 35,000 ft. AGL

151 to 343

1.5 to 13 hrs.

News Gathering

875

1,500 to 3,000 ft. AGL

45 to 51

15 mins. to 2 hrs.

3,000 ft. AGL

72 to 80

40 to 300 mins.

Point Source Emission Monitoring 432 was not an issue other than the need for effective collision avoidance systems. Three years later, a study by NASA Wallops Flight Center identified several UAS aircraft designs that could accommodate most of the missions envisioned at that time[3].

Between 1974 and 2000, there were about 19 UAS public reports sponsored by NASA. Between 2000 and 2015, there were over 90 studies involving UAS, with over a quarter of them published since 2013. This only covers studies funded by NASA. In a precursor to the present study, IAI started with the RTCA’s DO-320 document, produced by RTCA’s earlier SC-203 Committee involved in UAS integration in the NAS[4]. That document echoed Lockheed’s earlier study but was significantly more detailed. In addition to estimating the number of vehicles required to satisfy the UAS mission demand, it provided UAS vehicle projections for specific markets (defense, civil/government, and commercial) and also specified how to fly particular missions. Using that study, IAI quantified the vehicle production numbers into flights.

This type of translation is a difficult task and involves assumptions regarding the percent of time each vehicle is used, the number of vehicles required per mission, mission duration, and flight path. By estimating these quantities, IAI computed that, above 2,000 feet, there would be around 30,000 to 35,000 UAS flights per day in the NAS. This volume seemed very high, and hence, IAI embarked on the present study, a more 26

Cruise altitude

Summer 2016

detailed mission-by-mission look into the compiled all of this information in a database of likely UAS flights in the NAS at or above actual flights required.

2,000 feet AGL. The surprises continued. Many misWhat Kind of Missions Were sions had subcomponents which were previConsidered In the present study, IAI started with the list ously undocumented. For example, consider of UAS missions that were identified in the the National Forest Service’s proposed forRTCA DO-320 document[4]. IAI purposely est fire fighting missions. When a wildfire excluded missions below 2,000 feet AGL of sufficient magnitude breaks out with and instead focused on those UAS missions the potential to affect population centers, that would potentially interact with commer- efforts begin to fight the fire. The SMEs cial aviation. The popular package delivery identified two scenarios to employ UAS in and so-called “taco delivery” flights that firefighting. In the first, the UAS weaves in have been highly publicized in the media, and out of the fire zone, not only collecting along with the quadcopter drones that are information but also fighting the fire itself. available today in every electronics outlet, In a second, more constrained scenario, the were purposely excluded from the present UAS flies on the boundary of the fire to study because their potential interaction with avoid interference with piloted flights and piloted flights is minimal. For the remaining firefighters on the ground. In this second missions, IAI surveyed potential users for scenario, helicopters dropping fire-retardsome missions and used socioeconomic mod- ing borate and fixed-wing vehicles dropping eling for those remaining missions that were water fly in and out of the affected locations.

In addition, there may also be news helicoptransportation-related.

The first surprise was that all civil/gov- ters hovering around shooting video. Even ernment agencies that IAI contacted actually though it is a busy little airspace, the area already had a group to work out all the logis- could be managed through the issuing of a tics of using UAS technology for their par- Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) so that ticular missions. Through interviews with commercial and GA aircraft avoid the area. the SMEs, IAI was able to compile a data- So at first glance, it appears that firefighting base of UAS missions, UAS aircraft type, will interact with NAS traffic minimally, payloads, mission altitude, mission duration, only through TFRs. But the story does not end there. In flight path, departure and arrival airports, and the approximate local time when the addition to tactical wildfire monitoring, stramission would take place. The SMEs point- tegic monitoring is of great interest, whereby ed out that some missions would involve sev- UAS can pinpoint the location of wildfires in eral flights over the span of several days. IAI their incipient stage. As there are more than Continued on page 28

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

Figure 1. Differences in performance between a B737 aircraft and several UAS aircraft

50,000 wildfires per year in the continental United States (CONUS), these missions are critical. The National Forest Service plans to fly orbiting, long-endurance UAS with the appropriate sensors at high altitudes 28

Summer 2016

(more than 27,000 above feet mean sea level [MSL]) that collectively cover the entire CONUS during peak fire season. These flights are continuous – when one aircraft is low on fuel, another aircraft is launched and

takes its place. Their orbit places them in the altitude band of cruising commercial traffic.

Yet another intriguing mission is weather data collection. Currently, there are some commercial organizations with weather

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

Figure 2. Projected UAS flight density, in flights per 10 x 10 statute mile (nm) grid, at ZNY by local time of day

sensors installed on commercial aircraft. The data is highly valuable to weather researchers and helps improve the quality of weather forecasts. However, commercial aircraft have very low density in some areas such as the upper Midwest, and in any event, they sample the atmosphere only in discrete locations determined by existing airways, at discrete times determined by flight schedules, and at altitudes only along their climb, cruise, and descent profiles. To create a data-rich environment, forecasters envision UAS will fill in the gaps. One mission design calls for flights that porpoise or fly up and down through multiple altitude bands, through the atmosphere, flying up and down to sample atmospheric states from 5,000 to 35,000 feet AGL. These flights operate continuously, with one aircraft replacing another that is low on fuel. Other missions that include porpoising flights are maritime monitoring, border patrol, and air quality monitoring.

Those who monitor air quality will also find value in UAS. Air quality today is measured with an array of technologies, including sensors on the ground and on tops of buildings, weather balloons, satellites, mobile ground sensors, and mandatory industry reporting of noxious emissions.

These sources vary in their cost, accuracy, and airspace coverage; UAS technology will help fill in the gaps (and perhaps replace these sources entirely). However, the areas that require the most extensive monitoring – such as Southern California – are also areas of dense arrival/departure traffic to busy airports. UAS flights monitoring air quality in those areas would have to remain well clear of commercial flights while also providing the high-resolution, data-rich information

needed by atmospheric scientists. Outfitting aircraft with air quality sensors for the arrival/departure corridors will help accomplish this goal, augmented with UAS aircraft to sample outside these corridors. Based on the SME survey, IAI computed that over 1,000 additional air quality sampling flights per day are needed across CONUS, assuming that the commercial flights continue to monitor air quality.

IAI also discovered new UAS missions that had been largely absent in previous studies. The FAA is required to inspect each ground navigation aid periodically by flying an aircraft to sample the signal strength around the navigational aid. Currently, this procedure is done with small, piloted aircraft but could be completed more cost-effectively in the future using UAS aircraft.

Airborne pathogen tracking is a mission where UAS aircraft search the atmosphere for pathogens, which can travel across geographical areas on atmospheric particulates and water vapor. Tracking such pathogens will allow the medical community to study the spread of disease. The unanswered question is, if IAI found two new missions during this brief study, and UAS technology has yet to be applied on a large scale, how many new (currently unknown) missions might ultimately benefit from UAS technology?

Translating the SME and socioeconomic data for each of the 19 missions into daily flight counts resulted in an estimate of 26,312 flights per day in the NAS. This result is a bit lower than the earlier estimate using the RTCA DO-320 data, but IAI has more confidence in the current estimate. A partial list of the missions – 13 of the 19 analyzed – is shown in Table 1 (page 26).

Implications of UAS on the NAS Architecture and Controllers There are approximately 45,000 controlled flights per day in the NAS, roughly 34,000 commercial flights and 11,000 GA flights.

These numbers have generally increased slowly with time and vary by day of week and time of year. They also fluctuate, as they are affected by macroeconomic trends.

Adding an estimated 25,000 UAS flights into the NAS will increase this nominal flight count by 55 percent – a significant increase in workload. Even under the best circumstances, these additional UAS flights will ramp up from near zero to the estimated maximum over a period of many years, so there will be time for the NAS to adjust. But can the current NAS architecture handle this additional volume of UAS flights, or are changes needed?

The short answer is that there will be significant problems at this higher volume level. For starters, the current Traffic Flow Management (TFM) system relies on Monitor Alert Parameter (MAP) values to estimate the maximum number of simultaneous flights that may be in a controller’s sector at any time. The MAP numbers are based on averages of flight times through controlled sectors. But some UAS missions orbit an area over an extended period of time, and thus will permanently occupy a sector slot, reducing sector capacity and denying some commercial aircraft entry into the sector.

A second problem is that some proposed missions, as mentioned earlier, have f lights that porpoise while also maintaining a permanent presence in the system. Weather data collection porpoising occurs from 5,000 to 35,000 feet MSL The Journal of Air Traffic Control

29

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS in order to fully sample the atmospheric state. Flying vertically through multiple flight levels will cause additional controller cognitive complexity that will further reduce en route capacity.

A third problem is that the UAS aircraft add performance variability that controllers must manage. Figure 1 shows the difference in climb and cruise performance between a standard Boeing 737 (B737) and two large 737-type UAS aircraft (one similar to a Global Hawk and another similar to a Predator). The UAS aircraft performance was derived from an earlier IAI study by to quantify UAS performance, with the help of UAS manufacturers, for fast-time modeling [5]. The charts reveal that the climb and cruise performance of a B737 is much different (and superior) to that of large UAS aircraft. The cruise speeds, in particular, of UAS aircraft are between 25 to 50 percent slower than the B737.

Obviously, the complexity of a controller’s job increases substantially with the introduction of UAS missions. Sector capacity is compromised when orbiting UAS are present. Controller cognitive understanding of the situation becomes increasingly complex with porpoising flights and UAS aircraft that fly significantly slower than their commercial counterparts. UAS flights will also add at least 50 percent more volume to the NAS than currently experienced.

To quantify some of these concerns, IAI ran some system-wide studies using the data. Figure 2 shows the projected UAS flight density at New York Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZNY) by local time of day.

The counts were computed by overlaying 10 by 10 nm grids on ZNY’s airspace and counting the maximum number of UAS flights in each grid per hour. The maximum densities across all grids were then averaged to produce the chart. The data suggests that one to three UAS flights per 10 by 10-mile grid can be expected during the course of a day at ZNY. Other centers show similar results. This calculation suggests that UAS flights will significantly reduce sector capacity. These capacity reductions are present in every center in the NAS, as the projected UAS flights are ubiquitous.

One easy solution might be to segregate UAS aircraft into different air corridors that can be separately controlled. While this solution may work well for low altitude missions (below 500 feet AGL, for example), it is problematic for higher altitude UAS

30

Summer 2016

flights. Quoting from Lockheed Martin’s 1976 report on UAS flights (called RPVs in the report): One way to minimize the danger of collision between RPVs and other aircraft is to assign restricted airspace to RPVs and try to keep other aircraft out. Except in limited and specialized situations, this is not a desirable approach. Most of the missions for which RPVs appear promising do not lend themselves to this approach. (reference, page 14). [2] Based on interviews with SMEs, IAI agrees with this viewpoint. Another possibility for handling UAS is to give priority access to the commercial flights and delay, or deny, access to conflicting UAS missions. While it may be tempting to delay or postpone a weather monitoring mission, for example, so that a sequence of commercial flights can pass through the airspace unimpeded, the counterargument is also very powerful – although delaying an airline’s flights in favor of UAS flights will increase airlines’ costs and create passenger delay, there may be (at most) a few thousand passengers and a dozen or so airlines immediately affected. In contrast, the UAS mission provides data-rich weather information for the 300-plus million people who are not flying that day. From an overall benefit-to-society argument, the UAS missions may be more important than the commercial flights.

From a transportation viewpoint, the commercial missions may be much more important.

These conflicting perspectives may create a tugof-war as UAS flight volume grows.

The Main Problem with the Current NAS Architecture The main impediment to UAS flights in the NAS today is rooted in the transportation model that motivated the current design.

The airspace is viewed as a mode of transportation for people and goods, and therefore the airports, sectors, terminal radar approach control facilities (TRACONs), and airspace rules are all oriented towards efficiently processing transiting aircraft in an assembly-line fashion. With the introduction of UAS, the airspace has a broad array of entirely new uses unrelated to transportation. These new uses conflict with the traditional design of the airspace, requiring a re-thinking of the NAS architecture in order to efficiently accommodate both uses. The problem is well beyond detect-and-avoid, communication frequency congestion, or UAS security.

All of these other problems are important

issues that must be solved before UAS can be effectively integrated in the NAS. However, even if these other problems are solved soon, the NAS architecture remains an impediment for handling the projected UAS flight volume, and will itself constrain the growth of the UAS industry and its potential commercial applications.

Finally, the validity of these data should be assessed. How confident are we that these f light counts are valid? Since IAI consulted with SMEs currently planning UAS missions – many of whom are already conducting such missions under FAAissued Certificates of Authorization – IAI is fairly confident that these numbers are representative of what may happen. If there is any error, IAI believes the error is on the downside, that IAI estimated too few UAS f lights, because there are some missions excluded due to the study’s scoping constraints and the fact that new missions are proposed periodically. But even if IAI is too high by a factor of two – that only 12,500 f lights per day will occur in the airspace – that will nevertheless add 25 percent more f lights to the NAS; therefore, all the issues mentioned earlier would still be in play. In IAI’s opinion, the current NAS architecture is unprepared for the introduction of UAS f lights and the accompanying variability and uncertainty that they create.

For more information on the projected UAS flights, visit www.i-a-i.com/?product/ uas-max.

References

[1.] S. Ayyalasomayajula, R. Sharma, F. Wieland, A. Trani, N. Hinze and T. Spencer, “UAS Demand Generation Using Subject Matter Expert Interviews and Socio-economic Analysis,” AIAA Aviation 2015, Dallas Ft. Worth, Texas, June 2015.

[2.] J. R. Aderhold, G. Gordon and G. W. Scott, “Civil Users of Remoted Piloted Aircraft Summary Report,” Lockheed Missiles & Space Company Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, July 1976.

[3.] M. B. Kuhner and J. R. McDowell, “User Definition and Mission requirements for Unmanned Airborne Platforms,” NASA Wallops Flight Center, December, 1979.

[4.] Radio Technical Committee for Aviation (RTCA), “Operational Services and Environmental Definition (OSED) for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS),” RTCA, Washington, DC, June 10, 2010.

[5.] F. Wieland, S. Ayyalasomayajula, R. Mooney, D. DeLaurentis, V. Vinay, J. Goppert, J. Choi and G. Kubat, “Modeling and Simulation for UAS in the NAS,” NASA Technical Report CR-2012-NND11AQ74C, Washington, DC, September 2012.

Advance your career: Connect with fellow leaders from FAA,

DoD, NASA, and the international aviation community.

Engage with industry: Participate in the world's most influential aviation events and meetings.

Enhance your knowledge: Hear expert opinions in the ATM

world. Join one of our executive committees. Read our renowned magazine, e-newsletters, and white papers.

Recognize greatness: ATCA grants scholarships and industry

awards, and provides mentorship for young aviation professionals.

ENJOY REDUCED RATES AT THE WORLD’S PREMIER ATM EVENTS: • ATCA Annual Conference & Exposition • World ATM Congress • Technical Symposium • ATCA presents Aviation Cyber Security • FAA Budget Briefing

Become a Member of the Air Traffic Control Association

www.atca.org

Meeting the Future Need for ATC Professionals Youth Programs and Competency-Based Education

By Dr. Suzanne Kearns, University of Waterloo

T

he international aviation industry is experiencing a period of rapid growth and the current global training capacity of controllers, pilots, and maintenance professionals is projected to fall far short of the need in coming years.[1] Within the United States, recent reports suggest that the air traffic controller shortage is of particular concern.

Although traffic is increasing, the number of certified controllers is at the lowest level in the last 27 years.[2] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) estimated that between 2005 and 2015, 73 percent of US air traffic controllers were eligible for retirement.[3] Domestic and international aviation agencies have recognized that traditional training methods and facilities lack the capacity to meet this demand. To produce enough professional controllers, industry groups are adopting a two-pronged initiative: attract more professionals into the aviation industry and increase 32

Summer 2016

training efficiency through competency-based The Air Traffic Control Association education (CBE).

(ATCA) has launched a similar initiative called Young Aviation Professionals (YAP), which focuses on developing the newest Attracting and Supporting Young leaders in the industry. Empowering young Professionals people with the knowledge, exposure, and relaYouth Programs The projected shortage has led aviation agen- tionships to tackle critical aviation challenges cies to create programs to attract young pro- throughout their careers accomplishes this. fessionals to the aviation industry. For example, ICAO launched a program called the How Does the Next Generation Next Generation of Aviation Professionals Approach Learning?

(NGAP) with the goal of encouraging peo- The initiatives aimed at attracting young ple to choose a career in aviation and ensure professionals are valuable and important, “sufficient competent human resources to yet they raise questions about how the next support a safe, secure, and sustainable air generation approaches learning. Growing up transportation system”.[4, p. 1] This is to be with technology, today’s youth are considaccomplished through the development ered “digital natives,” where as those in older of tools, best practices, and strategies to age brackets are considered “digital immifacilitate information sharing throughout grants,” meaning that they have had to adapt the global aviation community in order to and learn to use technology as an adult.[5] attract, educate, and retain the next genera- Being raised with technology has reshaped tion of aviation professionals. how young people approach learning. This

FUTURE ATC PROFESSIONALS

into our industry. Yet, we cannot expect an established training industry to completely reform effective practices to cater to its youth. Thankfully, although young learners prefer technology and use it frequently, they also conform to the approach used by their instructor.[7] Clearly, we must strike a balance between attracting and supporting learners and respecting established traditions in the field. One methodology with the potential to improve training efficiency is CBE. Competency-Based Education Historical Air Traffic Control Training

Although ICAO produced standards for ATC licenses and associated ratings in the 1950s, regional differences existed around the world. A controller who experienced a 1960s era curriculum recalls: You would do your training in the acaThe importance of accommodating difdemic environment, and your first day ferent learning styles is important as we on the job somebody was bound to say to seek to attract the millennial generation

you, know everything you learnt at college? You can now forget it because now I’m going to teach you how to really do the job. – ATC Training Expert, Africa and Europe This quote clearly articulates the problem with traditional training approaches.

They teach and assess a classroom curriculum that is often poorly aligned to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required in real world operations. However, ATC training evolved in the late 1990s when task-based training was introduced. Task-based training is based upon an instructional designer’s identification of the job elements that compose the work of a controller, which inform the creation of training syllabi specific to those elements. This shift to align training with real-world competencies was the first introduction of CBE within ATC training.

Since the 1990s, the creation of advanced The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Olivier Le Moal/Shutterstock.com

can be a challenge, as most instructors are digital immigrants, and assume that learners are the same as they always have been. The reality may be that teaching methods that worked for older generations may not be as effective with the next generation. Today’s learners are different.[5] For example, these are a few characteristics of how digital natives learn: • They are inherently tech-savvy.

• They naturally collaborate and multi-task.

• They are team-oriented and socially connected.

• They embrace simulation, interaction, and gaming.

• They expect immediate gratification.

• They demand continual access to knowledge and facts in the Information Age.[6]

33

FUTURE ATC PROFESSIONALS

ATC Officer Competency Framework Competency Situation Awareness: Comprehend the current operational situation and anticipate future events.

Units and Traffic and Capacity Management: Ensure a safe, orderly, and efficient traffic flow, and provide Definition essential information on environment and potentially hazardous situations.

Separation and Conflict Resolution: Manage potential traffic conflicts and maintain separation.

Communication: Communicate effectively in all operational situations.

Coordination: Manage coordination between personnel in operational positions and with other affected stakeholders.

Management of Non-Routine Situations: Detect and respond to emergency and unusual situations related to aircraft operations and manage degraded modes of ATS (air traffic service) operation.

Problem Solving and Decision Making: Find and implement solutions for identified hazards and associated risks.

Self-Management and Continuous Development: Demonstrate personal attributes that improve performance, and maintain an active involvement in self-learning and self-development.

Workload Management: Use available resources to prioritize and perform tasks in an efficient and timely manner.

Teamwork: Operate as a team member.

Source: [8] [10]

simulation devices has ushered in a new era of CBE through the combination of practical and theoretical instruction through scenariobased instruction.

What is Competency-Based Education?

Generally, CBE can be understood as instruction that focuses on what learners need to know so that they will be successful on the job. Competency-based methods typically utilize technology and scenario-based approaches to situate learning within a realworld context. In addition, learner progress is linked to individual achievement of competence, allowing quick learners to progress rapidly and slower learners to receive additional support.

CBE Definition To assist in understanding CBE, it is helpful to consider a three-part definition. The first definition, refers to the actual knowledge, skill, and attitude utilized by professional controllers on the job. The second consists of written statements (usually created by a group of industry experts) that describe competence. The distinction between competence and competencies is important, as there will naturally be a gap between what experts identify as competencies and the complex and sometimes difficult to articulate competence applied on the job. The third definition refers to a training system that uses the written competencies as the criteria for successful instruction.

34

Summer 2016

CBE in ATC As previously mentioned, early CBE began within ATC in the 1990s when researchers from The University of Queensland in Australia were engaged in remodeling performance assessment reports of Australian controllers.[8] However, the approach took a leap forward in 2006 when researchers in the Netherlands identified a set of competencies and then ranked them in terms of job relevance: • Situation awareness • Decisiveness • Dealing with unexpected situations • Workload management • Conflict solving • Multitasking • Prioritizing • Coordination and communication • Flexible planning • Leadership • Teamwork ability • Perseverance[9]

processing held a dominant role in the work of controllers. The final phase was an assessment system to determine when competence had been achieved. This required the writing of performance criteria. For example, the criteria for the workload management competency included: • Adapts his/her work tempo to traffic load.

• Minimized his/her own workload as much as possible.

• Stays calm, also during hectic moments.[9]

In November 2016, CBE in ATC will further evolve as ICAO’s global competency framework for air traffic controllers comes into effect. The goal of this work was to build upon existing competency models to establish a global competency framework. The intent was to create a regulatory structure that (1) allows the profession to incorporate modern training and learning technologies; (2) defines competencies for all aviation activities that affect safety, in order to allow the free flow of professionals around the For example, for the “flexibility plan- globe through agreed upon standards and ning” competency, the first few behavioral assessment practices; and (3) supports the demand for new air traffic management promarkers are: cedures for those who work with increasingly • Makes a plan, executes the plan, and adapts complex technologies.[10] (See table above). the plan to (changed) circumstances.

• Reverts to standard procedures if necessary.

• Adapts his/her own plan to requirements Assessment within CBE and wishes of others.[9, p. 304] Although CBE within ATC training is advancing rapidly, assessment remains a sigThis list evolved into a performance nificant challenge. How can trainers assess model that incorporated processes and out- when learners have achieved competence? comes. It became clear that information This is the difficulty of competency-based

methods, as customized and flexible training tends to be much more difficult to assess.

Although a focus on the length of training is an older approach, a major benefit is that it is inherently easier to regulate and understand. Within CBE, training time is “seen as a resource, rather than as an organizing framework for instruction”.[8,p.6] Competencybased methods can lead to reduced training duration, and better learner motivation and skill development, but it also carries a heavier administrative burden as it is inherently subjective (as opposed to traditional check-thebox training).

Assessment of competence can be challenging. Generally, it is accomplished by gathering evidence of learner progress and comparing to criteria from competency statements (called “criterion-referenced” assessment).

Although this is a logical approach, it is far from simple. Some training experts, including a training manager in Southeast Asia, explain

that, even with an assessment program with 50 pages of competencies, they still rely on their intuition and anecdotal evidence because the competency model can be too complex and burdensome.

ATC instructors in Australia implemented an interesting method to allow instructors to assess competence, which they call a “prompting hierarchy”. This approach defines four levels of prompting that an instructor would deliver to a student during a training exercise: 1. Questioning: “Is there something you need to do?” If this does not trigger the correct response from a trainee, the instructor moves to the next level.

2. Suggesting: “I would be looking in the northeastern corner for something to do up there.” If this still does not lead to a correct action from the trainee, the instructor moves to the next level.

3. Directing: “What are you doing about

those two aircraft, there? You need to do something, now.”

4. Intervening: The instructor takes over for the trainee.

The prompting hierarchy is used to quantitatively measure how a trainee is progressing toward competence. If level 3 (directing) or level 4 (intervening) occurs during the final weeks of training, the trainee is not likely to be recommended for their proficiency check.

We would be expecting a controller, as they got to the end of their training, to be able to work the airspace, do all the required tasks, achieve separation, etc., with minimal input from the on-the-job training instructor. So we’d expect there to be no questioning or suggesting ... That prompting hierarchy is purely a quantitative measure at the end of training to say “okay, yes, we believe that this controller has progressed towards autonomy and they can do the job by themselves.” (ATC3) The Journal of Air Traffic Control

ImageFlow/Shutterstock.com

FUTURE ATC PROFESSIONALS

35

FUTURE ATC PROFESSIONALS

Within the United States, recent reports suggest that the air traffic controller shortage is of particular concern. Although traffic is increasing, the number of certified controllers is at the lowest level in the last 27 years.

Jaromir Chalabala/Shutterstock.com

Although interesting work is occurring in these areas, the standards and practice of competency-based assessment are likely to evolve in the future as more and more training is conducted under this approach.

36

Conclusion It is undeniable that the industry is growing and that recruitment and training practices must evolve to meet this need.

Several initiatives are underway to attract young professionals into our field, such as ICAO’s NGAP and ATCA’s YAP programs. In addition, global training methodologies are shifting away from traditional approaches towards competency-based methods in an effort to improve training capacity and efficiency. However, future success is dependent upon fully understanding and incorporating more youth in training practices and on the benefits and limitations of CBE.

Summer 2016

Note: The CBE section of this arti- [5.] M. Prensky, “Digital natives, digital immigrants,” On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6, 2001. cle is based upon work featured in the book [6.] E. E. Smith, “The digital native debate in Competency-Based Education in Aviation: higher education: A comparative analysis of recent Exploring Alternate Training Pathways, 2016 literature,” Canadian Journal of Learning and

by Kearns, Mavin, and Hodge. The professional Technology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1-18, 2012. interviews highlighted in this article are included [7.] A. Margaryan, A. Littlejohn and G. Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or a reality? University in more detail within the book.

References

[1.] ICAO, “ICAO study reveals strong demand for qualified aviation personnel up to 2030,” International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, QC, 2011.

[2.] J. Lowy, “Union: Chronic shortage of air traffic controllers a crisis,” 13 October 2015. [Online].

Available: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/union-chronic-shortage-of-air-traffic-controllers-a-crisis/. [Accessed 29 February 2016].

[3.] International Civil Aviation Organization, “Origin of NGAP,” n.d.. [Online]. Available: http:// www.icao.int/safety/ngap/Pages/NGAPInitiatives2. aspx. [Accessed 23 March 2016].

[4.] International Civil Aviation Organization, “NGAP Background,” [Online]. Available: http://www.icao.int/safety/ngap/Pages/NGAPProgramme.aspx. [Accessed 23 March 2016].

students’ use of digital technologies,” Computers & Education, vol. 56, pp. 429-440, 2011.

[8.] S. K. Kearns, T. J. Mavin and S. Hodge, Competency-Based Education in Aviation: Exploring Alternate Training Pathways, Surrey: Ashgate, 2016.

[9.] E. Oprins, E. Burggraaf and H. van Weerdenburg, “Design of a competence-based assessment system for air traffic control training,” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297-320, 2006.

[10.] International Civil Aviation Organization, “Air Navigation Commission: Approval of Amendment 4 to the Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Training (PANS-TRG, Doc 9868),” ICAO, Montreal, QC, n.d..

[11.] Air Traffic Control Association, “ATCA’s Young Professionals,” n.d.. [Online]. Available: http:// www.atca.org/youngprofessionals. [Accessed 23 March 2016].

TRANSATLANTIC COLLABORATION

ACROSS THE POND NAV CANADA and NATS Take Transatlantic Collaboration to a New Level

By NATS and NAV CANADA

T

Collaboration on Oceanic Airspace Systems and Tools (COAST) Since the 1990s, NAV CANADA and NATS have been co-developing ATM tools for separate ATM systems within each of their oceanic ATM operations. This has proven to be a successful way to develop effective systems and tools using a “build-once, use-twice” approach, and broadened across a range of products deployed in towers and area control centers across the UK. Building on that foundation, NAV CANADA and NATS developed a collaborative change program called COAST in 2013. Under COAST, the companies are committed to broadening the scope of their collaboration and have commenced work in five designated areas: • Safety Leadership, Management, Assurance, and Improvement, which includes a coordinated prioritization of safety enhancements in oceanic operations, and a joint approach to influencing national and international safety regulators.

• Day-to-Day Operations, Performance, and Procedures, in which NAV CANADA and NATS will maintain and build upon the level of teamwork between Gander and Shanwick

“Our history of collaboration has clearly demonstrated how successfully ANSPs can work together when seeking mutual benefits for our customer and our own operations.”

– Rob Thurgur, vice president, operations, NAV CANADA

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

MO_SES Premium/Shutterstock.com

he North Atlantic is the busiest oceanic airspace with over 400,000 flights per year transiting between Europe and North America.

NAV CANADA and NATS have taken transatlantic collaboration to an unprecedented level, with the harmonization of the two air navigation service providers’ (ANSP) oceanic air traffic management (ATM) systems. Not only has this collaboration resulted in immediate benefits in safety, efficiency, and cost, but it also enables better and quicker coordination of further improvements in the North Atlantic airspace shared by the two ANSPs.

37

TRANSATLANTIC COLLABORATION

(GAATS+) at the NATS Oceanic Control Centre in Prestwick, Scotland, on November 24, 2014.

Developed jointly by NATS and NAV CANADA, the GAATS+ system features increased automation of data exchange with other air traffic facilities and integrates a series of safety net tools, such as conf lict prediction and conf lict alert. It also provides controllers with a snapshot of current and planned traffic as well as available route profiles, allowing a controller to easily identify an aircraft’s preferred route and provide a conf lict-free clearance.

The system is also future-proofed to work with ground-based ADS-B, serving as the basis for the satellite-based ADS-B services offered by Aireon in 2018.

The ATM system, including ancillary and support systems, was delivered in an innovative way, involving operational and engineering teams from both NATS and NAV CANADA working together within an accelerated timeframe of only 15 months.

“The use of GAATS+ at the NATS Control Centre in Prestwick greatly enhances the oceanic operation and enables essential efficiencies for our airline customers,” said Alastair Muir, NATS director, Prestwick Centre. “This is important not only for “Our history of collaboration has clearly demonstrated how the immediate benefits, but also for future technologies that the successfully ANSPs can work together when seeking mutual benefits system will enable. It is a further step towards a more harmonized for our customer and our own operations,” said Rob Thurgur, vice operational and technical approach between all of the countries that manage aircraft over the North Atlantic.” president, operations, NAV CANADA.

Sunny studio/Shutterstock.com

Oceanic Area Control Centers (OACCs), work together toward a seamless operational service to users across the North Atlantic, and share operational metrics. Of note, the harmonization of ATM systems gives both organizations the same operational performance metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of new ATM initiatives that are introduced in oceanic airspace, which will also lead to improved decision-making, planning, and execution.

• Oceanic ATM System Solutions, in which NAV CANADA and NATS agree on systems and tools to collaborate on in order to reduce costs and shorten delivery schedules for changes. The agreement is to share costs only where the benefits are mutual.

• Oceanic Strategies and Solutions, in which both organizations ensure that changes to the services or operating environment across the North Atlantic are managed in a coordinated manner.

• Commercial and Contractual, in which NAV CANADA and NATS ensure that the definition of collaboration areas are clearly understood by both parties, and that areas not identified as part of the collaboration can be subject to competitive pressures. Once work is agreed to and defined, it will be contracted between the parties.

38

GAATS+ Implemented in Prestwick The first example of COAST was the implementation of NAV CANADA’s Gander Automated Air Traffic Control System Summer 2016

Immediate and Near-Term Benefits With controllers on both sides of the Atlantic now operating on the same ATM platform, they can exchange messages with advanced

TRANSATLANTIC COLLABORATION automation and improved inter-unit coordination. This commonality provides the following immediate and near-term benefits to the safety and efficiency of North Atlantic air routes.

• North Atlantic Common Coordination (NATCC) allows controllers of adjacent oceanic flight information regions to complete the coordination of flights electronically, as opposed to by voice. This extends to controllers the ability to respond more quickly to an aircraft’s requests and eliminates the risk of hearback/read-back errors that can occur with voice communications.

• Advanced controller tools such as Gander Oceanic Flight Level Initiative automate the detection of climb opportunities and accelerate the delivery of these options to the airlines through the use of Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) or HF radio transmissions. If a pilot’s requested altitude cannot be provided due to traffic, the system continues to check if the

“It is a further step towards a more harmonized operational and technical approach between all of the countries that manage aircraft over the North Atlantic.”

• The highly-advanced integration of ADS-B surveillance features already built into GAATS+ will serve as an entry point for the deployment of space-based ADS-B service, which Aireon expects to offer in North Atlantic airspace in 2018. It’s estimated that customers in the North Atlantic alone will save approximately 125 million liters of fuel per year with Aireon’s additional surveillance.

Jane’s Service Provision Award The successful implementation of GAATS+ across the North Atlantic has garnered NAV CANADA and NATS international recognition. In March 2015, the two ANSPs were co-recipients of the IHS Jane’s ATC Award in the category of Service Provision. Presented by IHS Jane’s Airport Review, the Service Provision Award recognizes a contribution to safe and efficient airspace management.

The award noted that the deployment of GAATS+ also provided a foundation for NATS and NAV CANADA to broaden the scope of collaboration for the COAST program.

“The COAST initiative will build on the strong collaborative foundation that has already been established in the North Atlantic, enhancing service and efficiency,” said Muir. “This award recognizes the success of our partnership approach to delivering innovative projects that offer our customers real and tangible benefits.”

“Both our customers and our controllers will benefit from increased functionality and greater commonality at both oceanic centers,” said Thurgur. “This includes the seamless integration of ground-based ADS-B surveillance features in GAATS+, which will serve as the basis for the satellite-based ADS-B services offered

by Aireon in 2018.”

– Alastair Muir, NATS director, Prestwick Centre desired altitude becomes available and automatically prompts the controller should there be an opening.

• Phase 1 of Reduced Lateral Separation Minima (RLatSM) became available to customers for the oceanic portion of their flights in December 2015. RLatSM is an ICAO initiative that reduces lateral separation between aircraft operating on the oceanic tracks to a half degree of latitude from a full degree (approximately 60 nautical miles down to 30 nautical miles), providing more aircraft the ability to access preferred routes with regard to the jet stream. In the first phase, one additional track was introduced, creating three half-degree separated routes. Phase 2 of the initiative is scheduled for implementation in February 2017 and will expand the reduced separation to all oceanic tracks.

RLatSM is available for FL350-390 only.

• Enhanced route conformance by GAATS+ is in the trial phase (as this article goes to press), and its full implementation is scheduled for the near future. Just after an aircraft crosses the oceanic boundary, a CPDLC message will be sent to the aircraft requesting “Confirm Assigned Route.” Once the route is received, GAATS+ will then do a conformance check to ensure there is no deviation from the routing recorded in the flight data processor.

If the route differs, the controller will be presented with the conformance. As separation is reduced over the ocean, and until such time that space-based ADS-B is implemented, CPDLC route clearances provide an additional safety layer to mitigate any potential human input error.

“Soaring Above The Rest” JDS Management Services, Inc. is a Small Business, which is woman and minority owned. JDS is certified through the Small Business Administration (SBA) with 8(a) certification (August 2005), including an emphasis in Project & Safety Management, Technical Support and Engineering Services.

We have...

• Over 30 years of operational and system acquisition experience in military tower and terminal facilities • JDS officers who have over 30 years of management experience working with various Government Agencies and Private Companies • Extensive experience and the ability to provide excellent service to our customer, the FAA & has done so since 2004 • Approximately 25 years of experience in the financial industry

Linwood Professional Plaza 12B 2021 New Road • Linwood, NJ 08221 info@jdsinc.us • www.jdsinc.us Phone: 609-788-8652 • Fax: 609-788-8753

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

39

40

Summer 2016

BOOK REVIEW

What Explains The Wright Brothers?

Review of David McCullough’s The Wright Brothers

By David Hughes

McCullough relates the personal story of how the two brothers supported each other along with the help of their sister, Katharine.

It was when Orville was struck with typhoid fever in 1896 and spent six weeks in bed that his older brother started reading aloud to him on a subject that had just captured his interest. It was about an early pioneer of flight, Otto Lilienthal, a German mining engineer. Lilienthal came up with the design for his gliders by studying the flight of birds. After a series of glider flights, the noteworthy pioneer was killed in a crash.

The story planted a seed in the minds of the two brothers. Intellectual curiosity would propel them on a seven-year journey and a series of discoveries. Heroic patience and perseverance along with open minds would help them overcome problems along the way never before solved by anyone.

Lilienthal was not alone; other engineers and scientists were working on the problem of flight without success. Some familiar with the challenges involved believed man would never fly.

McCullough writes, “In no way did any of this discourage or deter Wilbur and Orville Wright, any more than the fact that they had had no college education, no formal technical training, no experience working with anyone other than themselves, no friends in high places, no financial backers, no government subsidies, and little money of their own. Or the entirely real possibility that at some point, like Otto Lilienthal, they could be killed.”

The crux of the problem was achieving controlled flight. Some had been able to glide for short distances, but controlling an aircraft in flight in three axes was the conundrum that stumped everyone.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Images courtesy of the author

I

t is an unlikely tale, though true, which makes it all too easy to overlook the key question. How did two brothers in Dayton, Ohio, without college educations or financial backing, manage to invent the first controllable airplane while working part time? After all, they succeeded where wealthy adventurers and top inventors with university degrees failed.

David McCullough, an author who loves to research and write about great moments in American history, brings this early 1900s drama to life in his book The Wright Brothers. He is a born non-fiction storyteller, like a good novelist, who makes you feel like you are sitting across the table from Wilbur and Orville Wright.

McCullough relates that it is probably a good thing Wilbur didn’t go to Yale, or any other college for that matter, but rather stayed home to start a bicycle shop with his younger brother Orville, a talented mechanic. Wilbur excelled as a student and had wide interests. He seemed headed for Yale when an unfortunate injury had a profound effect on his life.

While playing hockey, Wilbur was smashed in the face with a hockey stick and lost his upper front teeth. The player responsible was the neighborhood bully who in just a few years turned to a life of crime and was ultimately executed for murder. For years after the injury, Wilbur became a recluse.

Fortunately, Wilbur’s father and itinerant preacher, Bishop Milton Wright, encouraged intellectual curiosity in his sons and daughter, and had a considerable library of books in the modest house at 7 Hawthorn Street. Wilbur was by now an avid reader.

41

BOOK REVIEW On May 30, 1899, Wilbur wrote a letter to the Smithsonian Institution asking for whatever publications on aeronautics they could provide. He said he had some pet theories of his own, but he was an enthusiast, not a crank. By return post he received four pamphlets on aerial navigation and a bibliography from biologist Richard Rathbun, assistant secretary of the Smithsonian.

The Smithsonian reply spurred their interest in designing a glider. To test their first glider, the Wright brothers needed a place with wind. When a US weather observer at Kitty Hawk, N.C., said there was plenty of wind blowing over the beach, they picked it as a test site.

Kitty Hawk was a desolate and remote place in the early 1900s, and McCullough paints a vivid picture of what it was like there. With frequent storms and choking

four dollars’ worth of wood to get airborne.

A friend of theirs at Kitty Hawk, who had never before used a camera, snapped a photo of the takeoff that became one of the most indelible images of the 20th century.

McCullough does a superb job of telling the story of what happened next, though without much help at first from public sources and media. Most newspaper stories on the first flight were inaccurate. The natural secrecy of a remote site like Kitty Hawk helped the Wrights protect their design until they could obtain a patent. But convincing the world they had been the first to fly under control would prove much harder to do.

The Wrights stopped traveling to Kitty Hawk and started conducting test flights at a farmer’s field, far enough outside Dayton to avoid attracting attention. It became clear that gaining acceptance as the first to fly

The crux of the problem was achieving controlled flight. Some had been able to glide for short distances, but controlling an aircraft in flight in three axes was the conundrum that stumped everyone. clouds of mosquitoes in some years, the location nevertheless provided almost perfect flying conditions on the good days.

It finally dawned on the Wrights, after they experienced problems controlling a glider in flight, that the performance data from Lilienthal and other early pioneers of flight were wrong. They overcame this problem by constructing a rudimentary six-foot by 16-inch wind tunnel back at the bicycle shop in Dayton. The Wrights came up with their own data to improve the glider design for the next flying season.

After f lying under control in three dimensions was solved with wing warping and rudders, the next thing the brothers needed was a motor. Automotive engines were too heavy, so the Wrights turned to Charlie Taylor, a brilliant mechanic who worked in their bicycle shop, for design and construction of a lightweight motor.

When the first powered and controlled flight took place on December 17, 1903, McCullough notes that the Wrights had spent $1,000 of their own money from profits at the bicycle shop on the effort. The Wright flyer rode down a rail made out of 42

Summer 2016

would come down to who would buy an airplane from the Wrights and what sort of proof they would need, in the form of flight demonstrations, to sign a check.

Their first thought was to approach the US government, which they did by writing to Secretary of War William Howard Taft. However, the War Department had just spent $50,000 on aeronautical pioneer Samuel P. Langley’s aircraft, which had crashed into the Potomac River. The standard reply to the Wrights said a flight demonstration would be needed and their machine didn’t seem ready for one.

McCullough notes things got more interesting when a delegation of French government and military officials visited Dayton. Conversations with the Wrights didn’t result in an aircraft order, but the talks got the ball rolling and led to Wilbur traveling to Paris.

McCullough illuminates the story of the Wright brothers in France based on his research on both sides of the Atlantic.

He builds on his experience of researching an earlier book about the experiences of Americans in Paris in the early 19th century.

This book, The Greater Journey, tells of soon-to-be famous Americans who were transformed by what they learned when visiting Paris in the early 1800s. Artist Samuel Morse, for example, decided to drop painting as a career after getting the idea in Paris for an invention that would become the telegraph.

Many French pioneers of f light doubted the Wrights’ claims. An editorial in the Paris Herald was even titled, “Fliers or Liars?”

After lengthy negotiations in Paris, they eventually planned a flight demonstration, and Wilbur selected Le Mans as the site.

Wilbur flew there before a large crowd on August 8, 1908, proving to Europeans and Americans that he and his brother had truly been the first to fly fully under control. It was the second most important flight in the new century after Kitty Hawk. Afterwards, the same aviators and publications that had rejected the Wrights now embraced them. One French pilot who witnessed the flight said, “We are children compared to the Wrights.”

The demonstration flights continued that summer, and the Wrights became overnight celebrities in Europe and America – even before Orville flew the first demonstration flight for the US Army at Fort Myer, Va., in early September.

McCullough writes that not since Ben Franklin had any American been as popular in France.

More flights would follow on both sides of the Atlantic, including some in southern France and Rome, all of which are detailed in the book. Orville was seriously injured in a crash at Fort Myer, but recovered, albeit slowly. He would go on to fly again at Fort Myer and secure a US Army order for the Wright Flyer.

The triumphs never inflated the brothers’ heads. There would be no boasting or preening, McCullough writes, despite receiving the Legion of Honor from France and gold medals from the fledgling aero clubs of France, Britain, and the United States. America was the last in line to present a gold medal.

Once they returned to Dayton, Wilbur focused on building a business and fighting to protect the Wright patents. He contracted typhoid fever and died in 1912 at the early age of 45. Orville sold the Wright Company, opened a research laboratory, and continued to fly for another decade. He lived to see the speed of sound broken and gained a net worth of a million dollars, though he didn’t care that much about the money.

MEMBER COMPANIES

Directory of Member Organizations Academic/Research Institutions

AIMS Community College Greeley, CO Arizona State University Mesa, AZ Daniel Webster College Nashua, NH Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach, FL Hampton University, Department of Aviation Hampton, VA Kent State University Kent, OH MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington, MA Stockton Aviation Research and Technology Park of New Jersey, Inc. Galloway, NJ The Community College of Baltimore County Baltimore, MD The MITRE Corporation/CAASD McLean, VA University of North Dakota/JDOSAS Grand Forks, ND University of Oklahoma Norman, OK Vaughn College of Aeronautics & Technology Flushing, NY VT UASTS Blacksburg, VA

Air Navigation Service Providers

AEROTHAI Bangkok, Thailand Airservices Australia Canberra, Australia ANS CZ 252 61 Jenec, Zech Rep Austro Control GmbH Vienna, Austria HungaroControl Zrt. Budapest, Hungary NATS Edinburgh, United Kingdom NAV CANADA Ottawa, Canada ROMATSA-Romanian ATS Administration Bucharest, Romania

Aviation Associations

AAAE-American Association of Airport Executives Alexandria, VA Airlines for America Washington, DC AOPA-Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Frederick, MD APROCTA Madrid, Spain CANSO Amsterdam, Netherlands FAA Managers Association, Inc. Chandler, AZ

NATCA Washington, DC National Safe Skies Alliance Alcoa, TN PASS-Professional Aviation Safety Specialists Washington, DC Professional Women Controllers, Inc. Washington, DC

Government & Military Orgs AFSBw Bundeswehr ATS Office Frankfurt am Main, Germany DOT/RITA/Volpe Center Cambridge, MA EUROCONTROL Brussels, Belgiun FAA Academy Oklahoma City, OK NASA Washington, DC NCAR - National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO US Army Air Traffic Services Command Fort Rucker, AL US Navy SSC LANT N. Charleston, SC USAF Flight Standards Agency Oklahoma City, OK USAF HQ Air Mobility Command/A3 Scott Air Force Base, IL William J. Hughes Technical Center Atlantic City, NJ

Industry – Products & Service Providers

A3 Technology, Inc. Egg Harbor City, NJ Adacel Systems, Inc Orlando, FL Addx Corporation Alexandria, VA Advanced Sciences & Technologies LLC Berlin, NJ Aerospace Engineering & Research Associates, Inc. Owings, MD AIRBUS Herndon, VA Aireon McLean, VA AirMap Santa Monica, CA Airtel ATN Glasthule, Ireland AirTOpsoft, SA Brussels, Belgium All Weather, Inc. Sacramento, CA Antenna Associates, Inc. Brockton, MA ARCON Corporation Waltham, MA AT&T Government Solutions Oakton, VA ATAC Corporation Santa Clara, CA ATECH - Negocios Em Technologias Sao Paulo, SP

Aurora Sciences Washington, DC AvMet Applications Inc. Reston, VA BCF Solutions, PMA Division Arlington, VA BCI-Basic Commerce & Industries, Inc Moorestown, NJ Beacon Management Group Mitchellville, MD BIAS Corporation Atlanta, GA Booz Allen Hamilton Washington, DC BPA Services LLC Washington, DC CACI Arlington, VA CGH Technologies, Inc. Washington, DC Çhangeis, Inc. Arlington, VA Chickasaw Nation Industries Norman, OK CI2 Aviation, Inc. Dunwoody, GA Clancy JG International Lancaster, LA CNA Corporation Alexandria, VA Cobec Consulting, Inc. Washington, DC Cogent Technologies Steilacoom, WA COMSOFT Karlsruhe, Germany Concept Solutions, LLC Reston, VA CPS Professional Services Fairfax, VA Crown Consulting, Inc Arlington, VA

CSRA Falls Church, VA CSSI, Inc. Washington, DC Diamond Antenna and Microwave Corporation Littleton, MA DIGITALiBiz, Inc. Rockville, MD DSI-Dynamic Science, Inc. Phoenix, AZ Easat Antennas Limited Staffordshire, UK ECS-EnRoute Computer Solutions Egg Harbor Township, NJ EMCOR Enclosures-Crenlo Rochester, MN

Engility Corporation Chantilly, VA Ernst & Young McLean, VA Esterline Duluth, GA

Evans Consoles Vienna, VA Flatirons Solutions Arlington, VA Foxhole Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, VA FreeFlight Systems Waco, TX FREQUENTIS Columbia, MD General Dynamics IT Needham, MA General Dynamics Mission Systems Fairfax, VA Global Business Analysis Gig Harbor, WA Global Engineering Management Services, Inc. Washington, DC Grant Thornton LLP Alexandria, VA

Guntermann & Drunck GmbH Wilnsdorf, Germany

Harris Corporation Melbourne, FL Hewlett Packard Enterprise Herndon, VA Hi-Tec Systems, Inc. Egg Harbor Township, NJ Human Solutions, Inc. Washington, DC I.S. Technologies, LLC. dba CSD LLC Oklahoma City, OK IBM Bethesda, MD ICF International Fairfax, VA Imtradex Hor-/Sprechsysteme GmbH Dreieich, Germany Indigo Arc LLC Rockville, MD Information Sciences Consulting, Inc. Manassas, VA Intelligent Automation, Inc. Rockville, MD Iron Bow Technologies Niceville, FL Jeppesen - A Boeing Company Englewood, CO JMA Solutions Washington, DC Joint Venture Solutions (JVS), LLC Washington, DC JTA Washington, DC Kearney & Company Alexandria, VA Kongsberg Gallium Ottawa, ON L-3 Communications Reston, VA Landrum & Brown, Inc. Cincinnati, OH Leidos San Diego, CA

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

43

MEMBER COMPANIES LMI - Logistics Management Institute McLean, VA

Lockheed Martin Rockville, MD LS Technologies, LLC Washington, DC MCR, LLC Bedford, MA MCR LLC Bedford, MA

Metron Aviation, Inc. Dulles, VA MicroSystems Automation Group Falls Church, VA Midwest ATC Services, Inc. Overland Park, KS Mosaic ATM, Inc. Leesburg, VA NEC Corporation Tokyo, Japan New Bedford Panoramex Corporation Claremont, CA Noblis Falls Church, VA Nokia Corporation Murray Hill, NJ

Northrop Grumman McLean, VA Orion Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA OST, Inc. McLean, VA Parsons Washington, DC Plastic-View ATC, Inc. Simi Valley, CA Pragmatics, Inc. Reston, VA

Raytheon Company Marlborough, MA Red Hat, Inc. Raleigh, NC Regulus Group, LLC Woodstock, VA Ricondo & Associates Chicago, IL Rigil Corporation Washington, DC Robinson Aviation (RVA) Inc Manassas, VA Rockwell Collins Cedar Rapids, IA Russ Bassett Corp.

Whittier, CA

Telephonics Corporation Farmingdale, NY Tetra Tech AMT Arlington, VA

Saab Sensis Corporation East Syracuse, NY SAIC-Science Applications International Corporation Washington, DC Searidge Technologies Ottawa, ON Serco Inc Reston, VA Sierra Nevada Corporation Sparks, NV SJ Innovations Oklahoma City, OK Skysoft-ATM Suwanee, GA Snowflake Software Hampshire, UK Spectrum Software Technology Egg Harbor Township, NJ STR - SpeechTech Ltd. Victoria, BC Subsystem Technologies, Inc. Arlington, VA Sunhillo Corporation West Berlin, NJ Systems Atlanta, Inc. Atlanta, GA Tech Source, Inc. Altamonte Springs, FL Telegenix Inc Rancocas, NJ

Thales Air Traffic Management U.S. Overland Park, KS

The Boeing Company Alexandria, VA Thinklogical Milford, CT TKO’s East Syracuse, NY Triumph Enterprises, Inc. Fairfax, VA UFA, Inc. Burlington, MA Vaisala Louisville, CO Veracity Engineering Washington, DC WCG-Washington Consulting Group, Inc. Bethesda, MD WIDE USA Corporation Anaheim, CA

In association with:

FLIGHT SAFETY SYMPOSIUM 2016 London Heathrow, 13th – 14th September 2016

THREE CONFERENCES IN ONE: THE DEFINITIVE SAFETY EVENT

COMMERCIAL FLIGHT SAFETY Silver Sponsor:

SAFETY IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL Exhibitors:

www.flightglobalevents.com/FSS16 44

Summer 2016

AIRLINE ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE SAFETY Get the full event details by scanning the QR code

AIR TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF UNPARALLELED SUPPORT JMA Solutions provides quality personnel who deliver Engineering, Financial, Air Traffic, Program Management, and Training Development & Delivery services to our government clients. JMA’s commitment to excellence has earned the organization a considerable range of customer praise, industry recognition, and success.

Service Disabled Veteran 8(a) Certified Woman Owned Small Business

www.jma-solutions.com

Knowledgeable Staff, Unparalleled Suppor t FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Budget Analysis & Planning Investment & Business Case Analysis Budget Formulations & Execution Earned Value Management

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT & PLANNING

Program Analysis & Requirements Gathering Project Planning & Management Risk Assessments & Mitigation Quality Assurance & Quality Control Schedule Management

Acquisition Management Administrative Support Roadmap Development

ENGINEERING SERVICES Systems Engineering Enterprise Architecture Human Factors Research & Development Software Engineering & Development Future Capabilities Analysis

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RADAR & COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT Voice/Radio Communications Installation Long Range Radar Install & Modification Ongoing Radar Maintenance

TRAINING DEVELOPMENT & DELIVERY Instructional Systems Design New Course Development Course Facilitation Instructor Facilitation Guides

IT Project Management Sharepoint Development & Support (KSN) Database Design & Development Multi-Regional Website Design & Development Web-based Document Management IT Training

CONFERENCE PLANNING Web-based Conference & Registration Coordination On-site Conference Logistics Conference Material Design & Production

SAFETY MANAGEMENT Safety Policy Support Safety Risk Management (SRM) Analyses & Documentation Safety Assurance Services Safety Promotion Training

AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT NextGen Decision Support Systems Unmanned Aircraft Systems Safety Management System Technical Training Development & Delivery

Jan Adams founded JMA in 2005 in Washington, D.C. As a 24-year veteran of the United States Air Force, she has built a reputation founded on providing trusted quality solutions to the Federal Government.

600 Maryland Ave. SW , Suite 400 E I Washington, D.C. 20024 I Phone: 202-465-8205 Twitter JMA_Solutions

LinkedIn jma-solutions

YouTube The JMASolutions

8(a) Certified

Service-Disabled Woman-Owned Veteran-Owned Business Small Business

Small Disadvantaged Business

QUALITY SERVICE FOR OVER 38 YEARS Founded in 1978, Midwest ATC supports a diverse customer base, including the US Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA International Office, the US Department of Defense, the North Atlantic Treaty organization, and the Canadian Department of Defense.

With our solid reputation and team of highly qualified aviation experts, Midwest ATC is dedicated to providing clients with an outstanding level of service and commitment to safety at a reasonable price.

1.913.782.7082 www.atctower.com