Requirements Elicitation Through Storyboarding NextGen Operational Improvements

Dr. Travis L. Gaydos and Elida C. Smith, The Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA

Abstract
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has defined several operational improvements, based upon emerging technologies and aircraft equipage, which largely comprise air traffic operations expected at the end of the mid-term time frame, 2018. These operational improvements are intended to not only enable user and system-wide benefits, but also serve as the foundation for transforming the National Airspace System (NAS) into the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). To plan for and better understand operational improvement implementation issues, the MITRE Corporations Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) has been formulating scenarios, derived from identified sets of related operational improvements, that provide a snapshot of future operations and detail key aspects. Development of the scenarios was largely based on the utilization of a visually motivated technique referred to as storyboarding. The nature of storyboarding allows for new concepts to take a shape that can be commonly understood. This affords consensus building and promotes feedback acquisition in the early stages of the design phase, both which were prominent goals of this effort. These goals are accomplished because the scenarios developed provide a vehicle for conceptualizing interactions between the operational improvements described in the NextGen Implementation Plan on a more tangible level while also communicating their impact to various aviation and industry stakeholders. Scenarios can also facilitate crossFAA and industry-FAA discussions for the purpose of identifying implementation gaps and, in turn, stimulate collaborative solutions which will serve to define implementation requirements. The compilation of these scenarios will help clarify the impact of operational improvements and their utilization. More importantly, the collaboration among key stakeholders as the by-product of this process will serve as the basis for successful

partnerships in the FAAs progress towards NextGen.

Introduction
To meet the challenges of efficiency, capacity, and productivity given expected future air traffic growth, the FAA has made a decision to transform the operations of the NAS to achieve a future Air Traffic Management (ATM) state referred to as NextGen [1]. This transformation is facilitated by an established vision of operations at the end of the mid-term time frame, defined as 2018, that is presented in the FAAs NextGen Implementation Plan [2]. This vision entails several high level descriptions of individual aspects of air traffic operations, referred to as operational improvements, which are organized within seven solution sets. Operational improvement descriptions are based upon emerging technologies and expected aircraft equipage levels. While the operational improvements are described at some level, they are not fully defined. Furthermore, it is neither clear how operational improvements will manifest in the implementation state nor how operational improvements will be integrated within the greater construct of air traffic operations. A key component to achieving NAS transformation lies in a comprehensive understanding of the operational improvements and their impact on other aspects of air traffic operations so that implementation planning can be appropriately pursued. Successful implementation will rest not only upon an understanding of individual operational improvements, but also the cohesion of operational improvements within ATM. To facilitate this understanding, the MITRE Corporations CAASD in collaboration with the FAAs Air Traffic Operations Planning (ATO-P) Business Unit, has used the technique of storyboarding to develop a snapshot of key ATM vignettes (e.g., managing peak arrival operations, managing peak surface operations). Storyboarding 1

978-1-4244-4734-3/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

is a visualization technique, involving a series of illustrations or images, to demonstrate functionality or present a process for design and planning purposes. It is accomplished by organizing information and actions into related sets. Storyboarding is very effective for acquiring feedback in the early stages of the design phase to refine a concept or specific design. The ATM vignettes selected reflect identified operational improvement relationships and are used to provide details about the nature of air traffic operations at the end of the midterm. The result of detailing these key ATM vignettes is referred as a scenario. Scenarios reflect related, but often cross-solution set, operational improvements. The scenarios are intended to help clarify the operational story and the utilization of operational improvements by establishing their interactions. The level of detail provided through storyboarding produces an operational story that can be used to help achieve consensus among stakeholders and facilitate the identification of discontinuities within the operation itself. These identified gaps will drive new solutions and ultimately operational requirements elicitation. Finally, by depicting the operational improvements at a less abstract level than they currently exist, benefits enabled by the improvements become more apparent. CAASD has developed 18 scenarios to account for the various ATM vignettes of interest, which reflect operational improvements contained within five solution sets. The five solutions sets covered are: 1) Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations, 2) Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports, 3) Increase Flexibility in the Terminal Environment, 4) Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management, and 5) Reduce Weather Impact. Many scenarios reflect a cross-domain operational and systems perspective which was achieved through coordination with several different subject matter experts. Scenarios were designed so that the operational improvements could be viewed as a group driving a change in operations rather than individually or independently maintained operational improvements. Scenarios will be used to facilitate discussions about operations expected at the end of the mid-term among the FAA, industry, and other aviation stakeholders.

This paper presents two scenarios developed by CAASD. They are titled, Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration and Managing Arrivals During Peak Banks. A description of the storyboarding process and scenario components employed for this effort are first described. A description of the scenarios and the requirements that were derived through this process are then discussed.

Scenario Components
A scenario template was developed to achieve consistency among the various scenarios produced. The template structure loosely aligns with some Operational View (OV)1 framework products defined by the Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DoDAF). The DoDAF was established as a guide for the development of architectures. Where there is alignment, it will be noted. This section describes the major components of the scenario template used. Components, which reflect scenario-specific information, were established to help build a comprehensive understanding of the ATM vignette being highlighted. This was achieved within each scenario by describing the context for the operation, presenting a contrast of future operations with todays, performing a decomposition of the operation into task segments or steps, establishing relationships between people, systems, and information via a sequence diagram, and summarizing the gaps and issues (or challenges yet to be overcome) that were identified as part of the storyboarding process.

Context-Setting and Contrast of Current and Future Operations

This scenario component serves as both context-setting material and foreshadowing of the improvements that will be highlighted. Contextsetting is achieved with a description of key assumptions and the operational improvements that comprise the scenario as well as the expected implementation timeframe indicated in the NextGen Implementation Plan. A contrast of current
1

The OV captures the operational nodes, the tasks or activities performed, and the information that must be exchanged to accomplish DoD missions. [4]

operations to future operations (and benefits enabled) is then presented, using illustrations and text to convey both current and future operation states, to provide a basis upon which to consider the improvements emphasized by the scenario. The depiction of both current and future states is consistent with the OV-1 High-Level Operational Concept Graphic product per the DoDAF definition [4]. This serves as an effective way of highlighting the limitations that exist within current operations and enables specific mapping of operational improvements to address those limitations.

Trace Description product per the DoDAF definition [4]. It also utilizes a Unified Modeling Language (UML) to identify the actors and systems. The sequence diagram is used to define the source of information and inter- (and/or intra-) ATC facility exchange (or communication) of information among different actors and systems. These interactions are organized according to each scenario step. Actors and systems involved within the scenario are identified across the top of the sequence diagram. The sequence diagram format helps convey how information is used for decisionmaking and/or to trigger events within automation. Much about the operation can be derived by plotting the sequence diagram. The sequence diagram provides a mechanism to reveal inconsistencies within the operation by establishing ownership of information, ownership of tasks, and decisions required among both people and systems. It can also be used to determine viable opportunities for enhancing aspects of the operations (e.g., decision-making, actor/system task performance) so that greater benefits can be enabled. Another use of the sequence diagram is for helping to identify potential failure areas regarding coordination and other information updates. The sequence diagram can also provide an indication of where actorspecific workload issues may emerge (e.g., as a result of data management) given the task loads that are introduced by the defined steps. This insight to resource bottlenecks may drive discussion of changes in actor and system responsibilities/tasking early on in the implementation process. Two example sequence diagrams are provided later in the paper (see Figures 5 and 10) to help clarify the structure of a sequence diagram and its benefits.

Scenario Steps
The next component in each scenario involves a functional decomposition of the ATM vignette achieved by identifying detailed steps required for the operation highlighted by the scenario to occur. The steps are formulated at a level that enables actors (e.g., pilot, controller), systems (i.e., automation systems and tools), and tasks to be defined. It should be noted that systems are defined more generically to reflect capability as opposed to a specific system type. This decomposition often produces steps that involve processes or tasks that exist within a particular domain but, more importantly, perhaps, it can reveal steps that involve interactions across air traffic domains. The effect of documenting these cross-domain relationships reveals interactions and dependencies between operational improvements that may not be as obvious but are essential to system design and implementation planning. Overlooking these relationships may impact the level of benefits expected by the set of operational improvements described. A summary of scenario steps is first presented, to establish a complete view of the operation, followed thereafter with a detailed description of each step.

Gaps and Issues

This last component summarizes the intended result of the storyboarding effort. While the content of previously described components were generally driven by the intended functions described in the NextGen Implementation Plan, this component identifies the challenges for achieving a particular scenario or the need for other capabilities/tools to enhance or sometimes even enable the intended operation (i.e., gaps). Results will drive pursuit of future research to mitigate obstacles for achieving the operations as described. 3

Sequence Diagram
The relationships and tasks performed by both actors and systems are more fully defined in this component by developing a sequence diagram (or operations use case). The sequence diagram is consistent with the OV-6c Operational Event-

Highlighted Scenarios
This section provides two example scenarios that were developed using the scenario template previously described. Both scenarios will be presented per each scenario component.

Improve Collaborative Air Traffic Management solution set. Figure 1 depicts a current operations state. Currently, if a weather event blocks a departure route, the airport will generally lose capacity and a sizable amount of coordination must occur between multiple facilities to adapt operations to the new constraint (i.e., weather). This adaptation is limited given the number of route options available today.

Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration

The Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration scenario describes steps that would take place in order for an integrated arrival/departure management environment, referred to as a Big Airspace (BA) environment, to switch arrival airspace into departure airspace due to a weather event blocking a departure route located within BA facility boundaries. Big Airspace (BA) is a specific concept developed by FAAs ATO-P to integrate Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) airspace with Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) transition airspace sectors to achieve a more integrated operation [3]. The concept consists of route/procedure design changes, airspace volume design changes, new availability of automation (i.e., conflict probe), and facility/operations changes to enable efficiency and capacity benefits in busy metropolitan areas. One prominent feature of this concept involves the use of bi-directional routing, or interchanging pre-defined airspace and Area Navigation (RNAV) procedure configurations, for more flexible adaptation of airspace per traffic demand. This feature is central to the operation described by the Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration scenario.

Figure 1. Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration Current Operations State In the future state, the bi-directional routing feature can be employed (see Figure 2) to adapt operations to the same weather event. Bi-directional routing, the expansion of BA airspace boundaries, the use of terminal separation standards and procedures in the expanded area of airspace, and an increased number of pre-defined RNAV procedure options can be used to more efficiently address the weather event while maintaining predictability of operations. In the future, the change in operation can be implemented and coordinated more easily, enabled by new tools and a common control service for this airspace, so that airspace capacity is not as disrupted (compared with today). The magnitude of communication and coordination required in the future to change the operation is also reduced.

Context-Setting and Contrast of Current and Future Operations.

This scenario involves operational improvements from three solutions sets and several domains. The operational improvement highlighted the most by the scenario is Integrated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management from the Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports solution set. Four other operational improvements discussed are the Increase Capacity and Efficiency using RNAV and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Flexible Airspace Management from the Initiate Trajectory-Based Operations solution set, as well as Trajectory Flight Data Management and Continuous Flight Day Evaluation from the

Figure 2. Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration Future Operations State Scenario Steps Listed below is an overview of the steps required to effectively swap operations when an airspace constraint (in this case, weather) presents itself. Step 0 is used to define the initial state of the operations environment. Further explanation of two key steps will be provided. Step 0: Airspace is configured according to the baseline plan for the flight day. Step 1: Traffic Flow Management (TFM) automation determines a status change for a portion of airspace and notifies the BA Traffic Management Coordinator (TMC). Step 2: The BA TMC evaluates pre-defined alternate RNAV Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) procedures and reconfigurations. The BA TMC collaborates with the BA Front Line Manager (FLM) to make a decision (See Figure 3). Due to the operational improvements the BA TMC has a greater number of options to choose from in order to reduce the impact that weather has upon operations. It should be noted that the BA TMC will have to manually evaluate each option (without support from automation) in order to decide a resolution.

Figure 3. Detailed View of Step 2 (Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration) Step 3: An Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)2 identifies which upstream arrival aircraft will be last to use arrival route before it is deactivated. Step 4: The selected RNAV SID and STAR procedures and reconfiguration are coordinated within the BA facility and with adjacent facilities. Step 5a: The ANSP2 manually deactivates the arrival route, activates the departure route, and performs the pre-defined reconfiguration (See Figure 4).

Figure 4. Detailed View of Step 5 (Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration) This step highlights one of the key operational improvements described in this scenario, pre2

This actor could be the TMC position, FLM position, or represent a collaboration of both.

defined bi-directional routes and configurations. Given the tactical nature of the scenario, the ability to manually perform the reconfiguration becomes questionable and is later addressed as a gap/issue. Step 5b: Upstream facilities issue reroute clearances to affected flights in en route airspace. Tower issues reroute clearances to affected surface traffic. Step 6: Controllers continue to maintain responsibility of aircraft separation and monitor

flight conformance to the constraints defined by the RNAV procedures Sequence Diagram The sequence diagram for this scenario is presented as Figure 5. Across the top are the actors and automation involved in the scenario and along the left hand margin are the scenario steps. The central part of the slide describes the relationship and tasks preformed by actors and systems.

Figure 5. Sequence Diagram (Terminal Airspace Reconfiguration)

Gaps and Issues For this scenario, two major gaps were identified. The first is that automation is needed to support the ability to reconfigure airspace (i.e., to evaluate options, coordinate resolutions, and execute the reconfiguration). The second gap involves the flight data management and amendment automation support available at positions within the BA facility. This automation may need to be improved; current plans only describe this capability available at radar associate consoles/positions. Several issues (i.e., areas for future research and analysis) were also identified within this scenario. One main area involves how aircraft are rerouted when the airspace is reconfigured. An example of some questions that arise, based on this scenario, will give a better indication of the issue. These questions are as follows: How dependent will effective rerouting be upon high levels of aircraft data communication equipage? Is data communication with FMS integration required to more efficiently reroute aircraft? What TMC initiates rerouting for aircraft outside BA facility airspace boundaries? Is the process of rerouting coordinated via automation between the BA TMC and other TMCs? Does the new routing configuration need to be coordinated person-to-person using voice communication or does the NextGen Implementation Plan specify automation that will assist in this process?

during a peak traffic period, to meet Meter Fix crossing Times (MFT) with greater accuracy so that more efficient terminal area operations can be produced. Context-Setting and Contrast of Current and Future Operations The scenario begins just inside the freeze horizon, or where the meter schedule time for a particular aircraft is no longer being updated. At this time, both collaborative traffic flow management and meter fix balancing have been performed. This scenario highlights operational improvements from the Initiate Trajectory Based Operations and Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports solution sets. The operational improvement highlighted the most by this scenario is Time-Based Metering Using RNAV and RNP Route Assignments from the Increase Arrivals/Departures at High Density Airports solution set. The Integerated Arrival/Departure Airspace Management operational improvement is also reflected in this scenario. Two other operational improvements are highlighted from the Initiate Trajectory Based Operations solution set; Increase Capacity and Efficiency Using RNAV and RNP and Initial Conflict Resolution Advisories. Current operations are illustrated in Figure 6. Although metering is used to compile an arrival schedule today, the delivery accuracy of aircraft at the meter fix produces inefficient terminal operations that require additional vectoring beyond the meter fix, or inside the TRACON airspace boundary, to merge and space traffic.

Another issue identified by this scenario is the adaptation of problem detection and resolution automation (i.e., conflict probe) to support terminal separation rules and procedures in newly integrated transition airspace. It is unclear to what extent the availability of this new automation will be used to facilitate the change of operations described and more generally, to manage operations.

Peak Arrivals
The second scenario that will be described focuses on the management of an arrival flow, 7

Step 0: Automation maintains a meter schedule for arriving aircraft. Step 1: Automation predicts that an aircraft will not meet its arrival MFT within tolerance and evaluates alternative trajectories (e.g., adjustments to path, speed, Top of Descent [ToD] point) to meet the meter schedule time. Step 2: Automation notifies the sector controlling the aircraft of the schedule constraint and alternatives for meeting the schedule time (see Figure 8).

Figure 6: Peak Arrivals Current Operations State Future operations described in this scenario (Figure 7) improve the delivery accuracy over the meter fixes. This is enabled by automation support to determine closed-loop maneuvers that refine MFT aircraft delivery accuracy. This can lead to more efficient terminal operations where merging and spacing inside the meter fix can be performed primarily with speed (i.e., a reduced amount of vectoring). Use of closed-loop maneuvers also enables nominally efficient vertical profiles because they can be planned in the FMS calculated descent.

Figure 8: Detailed View of Step 2 (Peak Arrivals) The operational improvements during the midterm provide better support to the sector controller to monitor schedule constraints and determine resolutions for aircraft to meet the schedule. Step 3: The controller evaluates alternatives for operational acceptability and proposes new clearance to the pilot (see Figure 9). The controller manually evaluates the options for airspace conflicts and selects a preferred option to issue to the aircraft. The controller selects a preferred option based on several factors, such as balancing time constraints with other potential constraints or the ability to provide nominally efficient descent profiles.

Figure 7: Peak Arrivals Future Operations State

Scenario Steps
The steps which comprise the management of the arrival flow are listed in this seciton. Steps 2 and 3 will be expanded upon in more detail.

Step 4: The pilot evaluates and accepts clearance, enters clearance to meet arrival MFT constraint into FMS, and then executes clearance. If unable, pilot and controller renegotiate the clearance.

Step 5: Controller(s) continue to monitor aircraft conformance to the cleared RNAV procedure. Step 6: Merging and spacing of flights after the meter fix is performed primarily with speed adjustments, as necessary. Sequence Diagram Figure 9: Detailed View of Step 3 (Peak Arrivals) The sequence diagram for the peak arrivals scenario is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Sequence Diagram (Peak Arrivals) Gaps and Issues The peak arrivals scenario helped to identify several gaps. Two gaps in this operation are the 9 need for; 1) automation to support merging and spacing after the meter fix point and 2) automation to support monitoring of the flight conformance to

the RNAV procedure, especially when the path is modified. Another gap is that continuous monitoring of aircraft progress towards the time constraint, to generate additional corrective resolutions, is not available. Finally, there is no plan for integration of problem detection and resolution and Time-Based Metering (TBM) capability to assure resolutions are both conflict-free and meet MFT constraints. The peak arrivals scenario brought to light several issues for further research and analysis. One area of research is whether risk is added by TBM change of runway assignments. Another issue is that the interplay needed between TBM routing and conflict advisory is not fully understood. The roles of flight deck-based pair-wise spacing and Required Time of Arrival (RTA) capability in the operation described, particularly in a busy terminal environment, are also not fully understood.

2. FederalAviationAdministration,2008, FAAsNextGenImplementationPlan, Overview2008,Washington,DC. Available: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he adquarters_offices/ato/publications/next genplan/0608/overview/view/0608next genoverview.pdf(26July2008). 3. FederalAviationAdministration,August 2005,IntegratedArrival/Departure ControlService(BA)Conceptof Operations,Washington,D.C. 4. DepartmentofDefense,April2007,DoD ArchitectureFrameworkVersion1.5, Volume1:DefinitionsandGuidelines, Washington,D.C.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to recognize MITRE CAASD contributors Jeff Shepley, Simon Heitin, Kerry Levin, John Mayo, and Sally Stalnaker in the effort described by this paper.

Conclusion
The scenarios have successfully described and brought further understanding to the operational improvements described in the NextGen Implementation Plan. The scenarios have also provided an initial step to thinking about the operational improvements collectively rather than individually as they are currently presented in the NextGen Implementation Plan. By thinking of the operational improvements as a group, a better understanding of the interactions between operational improvements is achieved. This effort helps to determine additional requirements to support or enhance the operations described within the scenario. Additionally, this effort will enable discussions among relevant aviation stakeholders to iterate and refine operations so that operational consensus is achieved and solution requirements for the implementation state can be identified and pursued. CAASD will continue to facilitate these efforts as requested by the FAA.

Disclaimer
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Case Number: 09-1633. This work was produced for the U.S. Government under Contract DTFA01-01-C-00001 and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System Clause 3.5-13, Rights In Data-General, Alt. III and Alt. IV (Oct. 1996). The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors and The MITRE Corporation and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA or the DOT. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the Department of Transportation makes any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of these views.

References
1. JointPlanningandDevelopmentOffice, 2007,ConceptofOperationsfortheNext GenerationAirTransportationSystem, Version2.0.Available: http://jpdo.gov/library/NextGen_v2.0.pd f(30May2008). 10

2009 ICNS Conference 13-15 May 2009