See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323244123

Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operations: A Review

Technical Report · March 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 1,627

2 authors:

Liling Ren Mauricio Castillo-Effen

United Technologies Corporation East Hartford CT GE Global Research
62 PUBLICATIONS   555 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   328 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Small Unmanned Aircraft Trajectory Modeling View project

Flight Efficiency Services View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liling Ren on 20 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GE Global Research
______________________________________________________________
Air Traffic Management (ATM)
Operations: A Review

Liling Ren and Mauricio Castillo-Effen

2017GRC0222, March 2017

Public (Class 1)

Technical Information Series

 Revision History

Version Date Description By

V1.00 03/02/2017 First release. L. Ren
 Table of Contents
1 Overview of Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operations ................................................. 5
1.1 Entities Involved in ATM Operations .............................................................................. 6
1.1.1 Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) ............................................................ 6
1.1.2 Aircraft Operator’s Flight Operations Center (FOC) ........................................... 6
1.1.3 Aircraft ................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Airspace Facilities ............................................................................................................ 7
1.2.1 Airports ................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.2 ATS Routes and Procedures ................................................................................. 9
1.2.3 Airspace Classification ....................................................................................... 10
1.2.4 Special Activity Airspace (SAA) and Special Use Airspace (SUA) .................. 11
1.3 Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance .............................................................. 12
1.3.1 Communication .................................................................................................. 12
1.3.2 Navigation .......................................................................................................... 12
1.3.3 Surveillance ........................................................................................................ 14
1.4 Phase of Flight ................................................................................................................ 15
1.5 Software Safety Assurance Levels in Airborne and Ground Systems ........................... 17
2 ATM Operations at ANSP ................................................................................................... 19
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Airspace Planning and Design........................................................................................ 21
2.3 Instrument Flight Procedure Design ............................................................................... 23
2.4 Technology Test and Evaluation .................................................................................... 24
2.5 ATC Facility Training .................................................................................................... 25
2.6 Industry Training ............................................................................................................ 26
2.7 Aeronautical Information Management (AIM) .............................................................. 27
2.8 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) .................................................................. 28
2.9 Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) ......................................... 28
2.10 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) .......................................................................................... 29
2.11 GPS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) ............................................ 30
2.12 Dynamic Airspace Management Services (DAMS)....................................................... 30
2.13 Geographic Information Management Services (GIS) ................................................... 30
2.14 Slot Control and Management ........................................................................................ 31
2.15 Weather Products and Weather Processing Systems...................................................... 32
2.16 Preflight Weather Services ............................................................................................. 37
2.17 Inflight Weather Services ............................................................................................... 38
2.18 Flight Planning ............................................................................................................... 39
2.19 Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) ................................................................... 40
2.20 Ground Stops (GS) ......................................................................................................... 41
2.21 Ground Delay Programs (GDP) ..................................................................................... 42
2.22 Airspace Flow Programs (AFP) ..................................................................................... 44
2.23 Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) ...................................................... 45
2.24 Airborne Reroute (ABRR) ............................................................................................. 46
2.25 Field Facility Traffic Management Initiatives ................................................................ 46
2.26 Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) ......................................................................... 47
 2.27 Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) ....................................................................... 49
2.28 Oceanic Automation System .......................................................................................... 50
2.29 En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) ............................................................. 51
2.30 ERAM Surveillance Data Processing (SDP) .................................................................. 52
2.31 ERAM Flight Data Processing (FDP) ............................................................................ 53
2.32 ERAM Weather Data Processing (WDP)....................................................................... 53
2.33 ERAM Conflict Probe Tool (CPT)................................................................................. 54
2.34 Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) ................................... 54
2.35 Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM) ........................................................................ 55
2.36 Surface Management System (SMS).............................................................................. 57
2.37 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) ....................................... 58
2.38 Operations and System Performance Systems (OSPS) .................................................. 59
2.39 Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) .............................................................. 61
3 ATM Operations at FOC ..................................................................................................... 62
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 62
3.2 Slot Management ............................................................................................................ 63
3.3 Flight Planning ............................................................................................................... 64
3.4 Departure Planning ......................................................................................................... 64
3.5 Flight Following ............................................................................................................. 65
3.6 En Route Trajectory Management.................................................................................. 66
3.7 Surface Tracking and Surface Management System ...................................................... 67
3.8 Weather Data and Weather Systems .............................................................................. 68
3.9 Weather Information Uplink .......................................................................................... 68
3.10 Flight Data Monitoring and Analysis ............................................................................. 69
4 ATM Operations at Aircraft ................................................................................................ 71
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 71
4.2 Navigation Data Base (NDB) ......................................................................................... 72
4.3 Flight Planning ............................................................................................................... 73
4.4 Performance Computation and Optimization ................................................................. 73
4.5 Trajectory Prediction ...................................................................................................... 74
4.6 Navigation ...................................................................................................................... 75
4.7 Guidance ......................................................................................................................... 75
4.8 Trajectory Control Functions ......................................................................................... 76
4.9 Surveillance .................................................................................................................... 76
4.10 Airborne Spacing and Conflict Resolution..................................................................... 77
4.11 Airborne Weather Information ....................................................................................... 77
5 Existing NAS Architecture, Issues, and Opportunities ..................................................... 79
5.1 Existing NAS Architecture ............................................................................................. 79
5.2 Maintenance and Operating Cost of ATM Systems ....................................................... 82
5.3 Lengthy and Costly Avionics Adoption Process ............................................................ 82
5.4 Operational Inefficiencies .............................................................................................. 84
5.5 System Transformation Opportunities ........................................................................... 84
References .................................................................................................................................... 88
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ 98
 List of Figures
Figure 1: Boston Logan International Airport Diagram (from [7]). ............................................... 8
Figure 2: Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport Aircraft Parking Chart (from [8]). ............ 8
Figure 3: FAA Airspace Classification (from [10]). ..................................................................... 10
Figure 4: FAA’s ATC Facilities Involved during a Flight (after [28]). ........................................ 19
Figure 5: AFP Flow Constrained Area FCAA01 and NESP Flow Rate Guidelines (from [93]). 44
Figure 6: ERAM Release 3 Physical Architecture (from [106]). ................................................. 52
Figure 7: ATM Function Dependency Map.................................................................................. 81

List of Tables
Table 1: FAA Designation of En Route Flight Altitudes. .............................................................. 9
Table 2: Software Assurance Levels............................................................................................. 18
Table 3: U.S. ANSP Performance Metrics in 2010. ..................................................................... 82
Table 4: Timeline of ADS-B Out Avionics. ................................................................................. 83
Table 5: Financial Data of U.S. Carriers with Annual Operating Revenues of $20M or More. .. 85
1 Overview of Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operations
ATM is the dynamic, integrated management of air traffic and airspace—safely, economically,
efficiently, and environmentally responsibly—through the cost-effective provision of facilities
and seamless services performed in collaboration with all parties (slightly modified from
definition in [1]). Air traffic refers to aircraft actively engaged in flight operations regardless of
whether an aircraft remains stationary or is traversing through the airspace. Airspace refers to
three-dimensional (3D) space, including the movement area of the airport surface, within which
the flight operations are to be executed. To meet the diverse needs of various aircraft operations, to
accommodate a broader range of aircraft performance characteristics, and to ensure safety, a
complex system of airspace, navigation, communication, air traffic control, and flight information
service infrastructure has been developed. Built on top of this system are various procedures that
have been adopted over the years. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Aeronautical
Information Manual (AIM) [2] provides a comprehensive reference on this in current ATM
operations in the United States.
As it is laid out in Joint Planning and Development Office’s (JPDO’s) NextGen Concept of
Operations (ConOps) [1], the goal of the NextGen ATM is to evolve into an agile, robust, and
responsive set of operations that can keep pace with the growing needs of an increasingly complex
and diverse mix of air transportation system users. Specifically:
Meet the diverse operational objectives of all airspace users and accommodate a broader
range of aircraft performance characteristics.
Meet the needs of flight operators and other stakeholders for access, efficiency, and
predictability in executing their operations and missions.
Be fundamentally safe, secure, environmentally acceptable, affordable, and of sufficient
capacity for both flight operators and service providers.
The development of ATM operations has largely been driven by two fundamental forces: 1)
ever increasing expectations on safety, and, 2) continued growth of traffic demand due to domestic
economic growth and increased international connectivity. This has determined that the ATM
system as of today is more of an evolved system, than a system by design. Technological and
procedural measures have been incorporated from time to time to address specific issues that have
surfaced or specific needs that have emerged. Many of these issues and needs depend on local
environment such as terrain, weather, traffic demand, defense, public activities, and community
interests, resulting in many localized tools and procedures. When innovative technologies are
introduced, sufficient respect must be given to existing systems and procedures, at a very
minimum, to preserve the level of safety that have already been in place, and to not disrupt
continued operations of legacy systems that have extended lift cycle and are expensive to replace.
Significant barriers exist to realizing the full benefit of new technologies and designs. Many
advanced systems thus have been operated in a very inefficient way. There thus exist a large
number of duplicate but disparate systems and procedures in current ATM operations, among
different entities and different geographic locations. A thorough understanding of the situation and
issues in current ATM operations is thus critical to transitioning the NextGen goal to reality.
1.1 Entities Involved in ATM Operations
Key stakeholders in ATM operations include the ANSP, aircraft operators, the flight crew,
airport operators and regional authorities, security providers, the aeronautics industry, the end
customer, public communities, regulatory authorities, the military, and government organizations.
Depending on the scope of a particular analysis, emphasis could be given to some stakeholders, as
illustrated by differences in stakeholders identified by various groups [1], [3], [4].

1.1.1 Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)

On the day of operations, entities directly involved in ATM operations are the ANSP, aircraft
operators, aircraft, and airports. ANSP is a concept to represent the entity that provides
communications, navigation, surveillance, and Air Traffic Control (ATC) services for the safe and
efficient operations of individual flights and the system as a whole (see details in Section 2). An
ANSP may be a government organization, as is the FAA in the United States, or it may be a
commercial entity contracted or delegated by the government, as is NATS in the United Kingdom
[5]. Airports are often operated by entities different from the ANSP serving traffic to and from the
airport. Operations at airports are referred to as airside, which describes operations of the aircraft
and operations directly related to the aircraft; landside, which describe operations in the complex
of terminals and supporting buildings, and operations of ground access facilities and non-aviation
related facilities within the airport [6]. Airport operators are normally only responsible for the
landside operations, but there are cases where the airport operators are also responsible for part or
all of airside operations. Even in those cases, the airside responsibility of airport operators still falls
under the general category of air navigation services. For the sake of simplicity, the airside
responsibility of airport operators is viewed as if it’s part of the ANSP, even if they are
organizationally from separate entities.

1.1.2 Aircraft Operator’s Flight Operations Center (FOC)

The aircraft operator is the entity responsible for the daily operations of an aircraft or a fleet of
aircraft. Operations may include the execution of flights, aircraft movement between ground
facilities such as between parking pads and maintenance facilities, and servicing and maintaining
aircraft in preparation for future flights. The aircraft operator is not necessarily the owner or user of
the aircraft. For example, an aircraft may be owned by a corporation (the owner role) to serve its
own needs (the user role), but the aircraft may be operated by a separate entity that holds the
required credentials to operate aircraft. In some cases, operations of an aircraft are carried out by
several different entities. Again, for the sake of simplicity, they are viewed as the same entity and
simply referred to as the aircraft operator. Also, the flight crew and the aircraft being operated are
viewed as a separate entity that the aircraft operator is acting upon; thus when the aircraft operator
is mentioned, it does not include the responsibilities of the flight crew and the functions on board
the aircraft. Aircraft operators include scheduled air carriers or airlines, which include both
passenger carriers and cargo carriers; on-demand air carriers, which in some cases are also
schedule operators; general aviation operators, which include all other civilian operators; and
military operators, which may require priority access to airspace resources to complete a specific
mission. Spacecraft operators are not explicitly discussed, because their flights are much less
frequent than flights conducted by aircraft, and space flights are normally scheduled in sufficient
advance so that they can be treated separately. Responsibilities of an aircraft operator in ATM
operations are carried out by its Flight Operations Center (FOC), no matter if it is named such (see
details in Section 3.1). For this reason, FOC is used to represent the aircraft operator, wherever
applicable. When ATM operations are discussed from an aircraft operator’s perspective, emphases
are given to the FOC of large air carriers, but attention is given to all operators that execute flights
in civilian airspace.

1.1.3 Aircraft
For conventional manned aircraft, the flight crew takes ultimate control of the aircraft from on
board the aircraft. For Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the flight crew is not on board the
aircraft to be operated, and in some cases is located at the FOC or even on board another aircraft.
Whatever the case, the responsibilities of the flight crew or the equivalent in case of UAS, and the
aircraft itself, are collectively referred to as aircraft except where the flight crew has to be
explicitly referred to for clarity (see details in Section 4). Aircraft can be categorized as 1) lighter
than air, which includes balloons and powered airships; and 2) heavier than air, which includes
fixed-wing powered airplanes, unpowered gliders, vertical lift aircraft such as helicopters and jet
Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft, powered autogyro and unpowered gyro-gliders,
and parachutes. In terms of landing surface, these can be land-based, water-based, or ship-based.
For ATM operations, what matters is the aircraft performance in standard terms of speed, altitude,
flight path angle, and rate of turn, and avionics equipment installed on board the aircraft. Aircraft
performance determines the four-dimensional (4D) trajectory of the flight performed by the
aircraft. The avionics equipment determines the ability of the aircraft to navigate through the
airspace, and to interact with and to respond to the ANSP and the FOC on ground. For this reason,
the term aircraft is used without referring to its type, unless it’s absolute necessary for clarity.
Similar to the case of FOC, emphases are given to transportation airplanes, but attention is given to
all aircraft types that operate in civilian airspace.

1.2 Airspace Facilities

The 3D airspace within which ATM operations are conducted consists of a system of airspace
facilities. These facilities include airports, Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes, arrival and departure
procedures, and the volume of airspace. The volume of airspace is classified into different
categories to separate different types of operations to manage risk while providing maximum
flexibility.

1.2.1 Airports
An airport is an area on land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and
takeoff of the aircraft. In addition to runways or landing pads, the airside airport facilities include
loading stands (gates) connected to passenger or cargo terminal buildings, detached loading
stands, remote parking pads, maintenance pads or hangars, and taxi ways connecting these
facilities. The airport surface areas intended to accommodate aircraft for purposes of loading and
unloading, servicing, parking, and maintenance is collectively referred to as aprons. The Air
Traffic Control Tower (ATCT, Tower, or TWR), often the symbolic structure of an airport, houses
the ANSP unit local to the airport. A military airport is often referred to as an airbase or air station.
An airport diagram is shown in Figure 1, where runways and airport buildings are shown in solid
black, and aprons and taxiways are shown in light gray. An airport apron diagram is shown in
Figure 2, where both gates and detached loading stands are shown, with gates connected to
terminal buildings in solid black, and detached loading stands located along the edge of the apron.

Figure 1: Boston Logan International Airport Diagram (from [7]).

Figure 2: Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport Aircraft Parking Chart (from [8]).
1.2.2 ATS Routes and Procedures
In aviation, altitudes are specified in feet up to but not including 18,000 ft above mean sea level
(MSL). ATCs use thousands and hundreds when communicating altitude to the pilot. At and above
18,000 ft MSL, Flight Level (FL) is used. A Flight Level is specified by the corresponding pressure
altitude in hundreds of feet. For example, 27,500 ft corresponds to FL 275. During cruise, different
altitudes and Flight Levels are designated to traffic at different magnet courses (ground track), as
summarized in Table 1 [2],[9]. The Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) program
enables vertical separation between FL 290 and FL 410 (inclusive) to be reduced from the original
2,000 ft to 1,000 ft. The transition to RVSM was completed by November 17, 2011, and most
states implemented RVSM prior to that date.
Table 1: FAA Designation of En Route Flight Altitudes.

Altitude Magnet Course 0º to 179º Magnet Course 180º to 359º

More than 3,000 ft above Odd thousands MSL (3,000; 5,000; Even thousands MSL (4,000;
the surface but below 7,000, etc.). VFR flights use odd 6,000; 8,000, etc.). VFR flights use
18,000 ft MSL thousands, plus 500 ft (3,500; 5,500; even thousands, plus 500 ft (4,500;
7,500, etc.). 6,500; 8,500, etc.)

Above 18,000 ft MSL to Odd Flight Levels (FL 190; FL 210;
FL 290 FL 230, etc.). VFR flights use odd
Flight Levels plus 500 ft (FL 195; FL
215; FL 235, etc.).
RVSM between FL 290 Odd Flight Levels (FL 290; FL 310;
and FL 410 (inclusive) FL 330, etc.).
Non-RVSM at and above Every fourth odd Flight Levels
FL 290 starting at FL 290 (FL 290; FL 330;
FL 370; FL 410; FL 450 etc.).
Even Flight Levels (FL 180; FL
200; FL 220, etc.). VFR flights use
Even Flight Levels plus 500 ft (FL
185; FL 205; FL 225, etc.).
Even Flight Levels (FL 300; FL
320; FL 340, etc.).
Every fourth odd Flight Levels
starting at FL 310 (FL 310; FL 350;
FL 390; FL 430 etc.).

Over the years, a route network structure has been established into the National Airspace
System (NAS) for use by en route traffic and These routes
are collectively referred to as ATS routes. Airways are route corridors based on radio navigation
aids (NAVAIDs); they are for aircraft operations below 18,000 ft MSL. Jet routes are designed to
serve aircraft operations above 18,000 ft MSL, up to and including FL 450, i.e., the pressure
altitude of 45,000 ft above MSL. Area Navigation (RNAV) routes are enabled by the aircraft
RNAV (see the next section) capability so that the routes are not limited to corridors defined by
radio NAVAIDs. RNAV routes allow for more flexible and precise definition of the route
structure.
Departure and arrival operations can be connected to the route network by departure, arrival
and approach procedures. An Instrument Departure Procedure (DP) is a predefined Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) departure procedure that provides obstruction clearance from the terminal area
to the appropriate en route structure. A Standard Instrument Departure (SID) is a DP that provides
transition paths from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. A SID consists of a
lateral path and altitude and speed constraints at various points. A Standard Terminal Arrival
(STAR) is an instrument procedure that provides transition paths from the en route structure to
entry fix to the terminal area or an instrument approach fix or arrival waypoint in the terminal area.
An Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) is a series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly
transfer of an aircraft under IFR from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point
from which a landing may be made visually.

1.2.3 Airspace Classification

The 3D airspace volume falls into four general categories: controlled, uncontrolled, special
use, and other airspace. A controlled airspace is of defined dimensions within which ATC service
is provided to IFR flights and to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flights. Within the controlled airspace,
ATC service is provided according to the specific airspace classification, i.e., Class A, B, C, D, and
E, as described later.

Figure 3: FAA Airspace Classification (from [10]).

The categories and types of airspace are dictated by: 1) The complexity or density of aircraft
movements, 2) The nature of the operations conducted within the airspace, 3) The level of safety
required, and 4.) The national and public interest. Specific airspace classes shown in Figure 3 are
described as follows [10]:
Class A. This is the airspace from 18,000 ft MSL up to and including FL600. Unless
otherwise authorized, all aircraft must operate under IFR.
Class B. Generally, airspace from the surface to 10,000 ft MSL surrounding the busiest
airports. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is individually tailored, often
resembling an upside-down wedding cake of a 20 nmi radius, and is designed to
contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace
boundary. An ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area.
Class C. Generally, airspace from the surface to 4,000 ft above the airport elevation
surrounding towered airports that are serviced by radar approach control, and have a
certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of
each Class C area is also individually tailored, and usually has an outer circle of 10 nmi
radius. Each aircraft must establish with the ANSP prior to entering ther airspace, and
thereafter maintain two-way radio communications while therein.
 Class D. Generally, airspace from the surface to 2,500 ft above the airport elevation
surrounding towered airports. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is
individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will
normally be designed to contain the procedures. Unless otherwise authorized, each
aircraft must establish communications with the ANSP prior to entering the airspace
and thereafter maintain two-way radio communications while therein.
Class E. Generally, the remainder of controlled airspace that is outside Class A, B, C,
and D airspace. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated
altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface
area, the airspace is configured to contain all instrument procedures. Also in this class
are federal airways, airspace beginning at either 700 or 1,200 ft above ground level
(AGL) used to transition to and from the terminal or en route environment, and en route
domestic and offshore airspace areas designated below 18,000 ft MSL. Unless
designated at a lower altitude as described earlier, Class E airspace begins at 14,500 ft
MSL, including that airspace overlying the waters within 12 nmi of the coast of the 48
Contiguous States (CONUS) and Alaska, up to but not including 18,000 ft MSL, and
the airspace above FL 600.
Class G. Airspace not designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is
essentially uncontrolled airspace except when associated with a temporary control
tower.

1.2.4 Special Activity Airspace (SAA) and Special Use Airspace (SUA)
Special Activity Airspace is defined as any airspace with defined dimensions within the NAS
wherein limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations. SAA may be restricted areas,
prohibited areas, military operations areas, ATC assigned airspace, and any other designated
airspace areas. Special Use Airspace (SUA) is the designation for airspace in which certain
activities must be confined or where limitations may be imposed on aircraft operations that are not
part of those activities. In addition to defined boundary and altitude, an SUA could also be defined
by effective time or other conditions of operations. A prohibited area is airspace of defined
dimensions within which the flight operation is prohibited, normally established for security
reasons. A restricted area is where operations are hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft, thus
flight operation is subject to restrictions, although not completely prohibited. If the restricted area
is not active and has been released, then aircraft may resume operations within the airspace.
National Security Areas (NSAs) consist of airspace of defined dimensions at locations where there
is a requirement for increased security and safety of ground facilities. Other SUAs includes
warning areas extending from 12 nmi outward from the coast of the United States, Military
Operations Areas (MOAs), Military Training Routes (MTRs), and alert areas that may contain a
high volume of pilot training or an unusual type of aerial activity. Temporary Flight Restrictions
(TFRs) are put into effect when traffic in the airspace would endanger or hamper air or ground
activities in the designated area, such as in the case of a forest fire, chemical accident, flood, or
disaster-relief effort. In general, SUAs impose constraints on ordinary aircraft operations, but their
efficient management is important to air transportation, especially during high demand periods,
e.g., Thanksgiving holiday, or within high density regions.
1.3 Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance
Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) are the basic infrastructure and services
to support ATM operations. This includes ground- or satellite-based infrastructure operated by the
ANSP and third parties, airborne equipment and capabilities, capabilities in aircraft operators’
FOC, and associated operational procedures.

1.3.1 Communication
In current ATM operations, the primary means of air-ground communications between aircraft
and the ANSP is voice over very high frequency (VHF) channels. Outside the VHF coverage area,
high frequency (HF) is required by the United States for operations in controlled airspace. Satellite
phone may also be very useful for remote areas or oceanic operations but it is not required. Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a character-oriented digital data
link system via VHF (domestic), HF (oceanic), or satellite (oceanic). It was first used by airlines
for communications and data transmission between FOC and aircraft. Current Controller-Pilot
Data Link Communication (CPDLC) and oceanic Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Contract
(ADS-C) are also implemented over the ACARS network. Due to lack of a required
communication performance, current CPDLC and ADS-C are mostly used for oceanic operations.
The Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) Mode S provides air-ground and air-air data link
capability for applications such as Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and weather
information uplink and downlink. On the consumer market side, inflight broadband Internet has
gained popularity among passengers in recent years and becomes available on an increasing
number of flights.
The Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) is a global digital air-ground and
ground-ground communications network architecture developed by International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO). As it was originally developed, ATN uses International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) communication standards for Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)
[11],[12]. Based on positive results from feasibility studies, ICAO concluded that Internet Protocol
Suite (IPS) or Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) could be used by
both ground-ground and air-ground data links. The ultimate goal then became to achieve an ATN
solely based on IPS connections that support TCP and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) on the
transport layer and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) on the network layer [13],[14]. Strategies for
interoperability are being developed to preserve existing investments in regional ATN/OSI
sub-network or ATN/IPS Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) implementations, although IPv6 will
be the only protocol to be used in air-ground networks in order to facilitate interoperability
between the ground networks and the aircraft on a global basis. Voice over IP (VoIP) is also
considered for future ground-ground and air-ground communications using the ATN. Actually,
FAA has awarded Harris Corporation a contract to provide NAS Voice System (NVS), a unified
ground-ground and air-ground secure VoIP network, for the NextGen [15].

1.3.2 Navigation
Current navigation systems include three major categories: radio navigation, Inertial
Navigation System (INS), and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Radio navigation
relies on a network of ground-based NAVAIDs, including but not limited to Non-Directional
Beacons (NDB), VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR), Distance Measuring Equipment (DME),
Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) developed for military applications, collocated VOR/TACAN
(VORTAC), Instrument Landing System (ILS), and Long Range Navigation (LORAN) which
operates in low frequency (LF) band. Radio navigation receivers on board the aircraft can
determine relative direction, bearing, distance, or additionally altitude errors, as relative to the ILS
glide slope. By using signals from multiple NAVAIDs, an integrated navigation system is able to
determine the position of the aircraft, e.g., latitude and longitude, at any time. The major issue with
radio navigation systems is the cost to maintain a large network of such system. INS is a system
independent from outside navigation data sources. INS uses linear accelerometers and gyroscopes
to continuously calculate aircraft position, attitude, and velocity without the need for external
references. Modern airborne INSs are strapdown high performance ring laser gyros. One of the
issues with INS is the drift errors that tend to accumulate over time. INS is installed on board the
aircraft along with other navigation systems. A GNSS consists of a constellation of satellites
transmitting time signals that provides regional or global line-of-sight coverage. GNSS receivers
determine latitude, longitude, and altitude from satellites within the line-of-sight view of the
aircraft. The U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) is the most widely used GNSS today. GPS
provides global coverage with an accuracy of a few meters (the altitude accuracy is normally less
than position accuracy). In the U.S., Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS) have also been developed to enhance the GPS accuracy within
domestic airspace, or at the airport. With augmentation, GPS is able to support precision
approaches, outperforming the conventional ILS.
RNAV is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path
within the coverage of ground or satellite-based navigation aids or within the limits of the
capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these. RNAV is enabled by airborne
navigation capabilities to determine aircraft latitude and longitude in real time. With RNAV,
aircraft no longer have to fly routes defined by ground-based radio NAVAIDs. RNAV enables
more efficient use of airspace, and allows aircraft to fly more direct routes. The lateral path of
RNAV routes and instrument procedures is defined by waypoints, which are predefined
geographical positions, and legs, describing the path preceding, following, or between waypoints.
The adoption of RNAV routes and instrument procedures is greatly accelerated by GPS
navigation. Performance Based Navigation (PBN) is RNAV based on performance requirements
for aircraft operating along an ATS route, on an instrument approach procedure, or in a designated
airspace. PBN leverages emerging technologies and aircraft navigation capabilities to allow for
aircraft meeting specified navigation performance to operate more precise and more efficient
routes and instrument procedures, which collectively result in improved safety, access, capacity,
predictability, operational efficiency, and environment. Required Navigation Performance (RNP)
is the RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting capability against the
specified navigation performance. RNP specifies the total navigation system error that must not be
exceeded for 95% of the flight time on any part of any single flight. RNP is normally specified in
nautical, e.g., RNP 1.0, RNP 0.3, etc. Certain RNP operations also require approved training and
crew procedures.
However, the ever-increasing reliance on GNSS requires a sufficient backup capability, i.e.
Alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (APNT) to mitigate risks associated with GNSS
outage and radio frequency interference, and support safe and efficient operations when such
events occur. With both navigation and surveillance (see 1.3.3) derived from GNSS, an
opportunity for single-point failure is created. The current ground-based radio navigation systems
are not capable of providing as a backup the performance necessary to support NextGen. DME and
ILS will be considered as part of the APNT. The coverage of DME will be extended. A Minimum
Operating Network (MON) of VORs will also be used as a backup during the transition period
(before 2020) until APNT can be developed to mitigate the risk of GNSS outage and interference.
Another alternative is multilateration. An APNT will consist of both cost-effective ground-based
infrastructure and operational procedures to provide continuous service during the event of GNSS
outage and interference [16].

1.3.3 Surveillance
Radar is the primary means of surveillance in continental airspace. There are two types of
surveillance radar systems. Primary surveillance radar systems transmit radio waves into the air
and detect targets by receiving waves reflected by objects in the path of the beam. Range is
determined by measuring the time it takes (at the speed of light) for the radio wave to go out to the
object and then return to the receiving antenna. The direction of a detected object from a radar site
is determined by the position of the rotating antenna when the reflected portion of the radio wave is
received. Primary radar does not rely on equipment installed on the aircraft. However, it is subject
to clutter from the environment. Targets at a greater range may be masked out by strong reflections
from aircraft closer to the radar that are in the same direction. The identification of the target is a
very challenging and tedious task.
Secondary surveillance radar systems, referred to as Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System
(ATCRBS) in the United States, transmit discrete radio signals that repetitiously request all
transponders, on the mode being used, to reply. The transponder on board the aircraft selectively
replies with a specific pulse group within a specified time window only to those interrogations
being received on the mode to which it is set. These replies are much stronger than a primary radar
reflection signal. The replies are received by the secondary radar, and the distance is determined by
the time of the return. The target can be easily identified from the return code, a four-digit octal
identification code. This is done by assigning discrete transponder codes to each aircraft under
radar control. The same code is normally used by an aircraft during the entire flight, thus there may
be duplicate codes returned as aircraft from different origins move to the same area. There are
three transponder modes. Mode A only returns the transponder code. Mode C includes coded
pressure altitude from the aircraft. Mode S is a digital data link with messages containing a unique
24-bit address and 56 data bits. Mode S interrogation and reply messages can also be used in a
sequence to transmit large blocks of data, which can be encoded to request or transmit latitude,
longitude, altitude, speed, and intent information. Secondary radar is often collocated with primary
radar and the two radars operate in synchronism. For example, Airport Surveillance Radar 11
(ASR-11) used in the United States is an integrated primary and secondary radar. Short-range
radars (60 nmi range), such as ASR-11, have an update rate (rotation rate) of about five seconds,
while long-range radars (250 nmi range) have an update rate of 10 to 12 seconds.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) is a surveillance technique in which aircraft
automatically provide, via a data link, data derived from on-board navigation and position fixing
systems, including aircraft identification, 4D position, and additional data as appropriate. With
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), the aircraft periodically broadcasts its
GPS-derived position and other information such as velocity over the data link, which is received
by a ground-based transmitter/receiver (transceiver), which is less expensive to acquire and
operate than radar systems. The FAA has mandated [17] Mode S-based ADS-B for aircraft
operating in Classes A, B, and C airspace, as well as certain other specified classes of airspace
within the NAS by January 1, 2020. As a data link position reporting system, ADS-C is controlled
by a ground station that establishes contracts with an aircraft’s avionics that automatically report
aircraft position whenever specific events occur, or specific time intervals are reached. When
implemented over HF or satellite data links, ADS-C provides surveillance beyond the line of sight
of radar systems. ADS is an application that represents the merging of communications,
navigation, and surveillance technologies. It serves the conventional surveillance needs of the
ANSP, but also allow for potential automated conflict resolution, and automated trajectory
negotiation between airborne and ground-based computers.
Multilateration is a technique to determine the position of aircraft by computing the time
difference of arrival (TDOA) of the transponder signal from the same aircraft to three or more
small inexpensive receivers. Multilateration has been used for years to provide independent
tracking for non-certified applications such as airport noise monitoring [18]. It has also been used
in FAA’s Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X) to enhance surface
surveillance performance. FAA’s Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) system is developed to
compensate for terrain obstructions of surveillance radar signals. The surveillance data from
WAM is transmitted to air traffic control for use in providing en route separation services [19], a
significant step from past use of multilateration in civilian airspace. A WAM system consists of
mostly passive receivers, but it also includes active stations to send interrogations to the aircraft.
Multilateration systems provide a near term surveillance solution to complement the existing
surveillance infrastructure and to transition into ADS-B environment.

1.4 Phase of Flight

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) [20], defines a flight as the operation of
one or more legs with the same flight designator, which is given by airline code, flight number, and
optional operational suffix, although the optional operational suffix is normally not used. A leg in
this definition is the operation between a departure station and the next arrival station. ICAO
Annex 13 defines that a flight begins when any person boards the aircraft with the intention of
flight, and continues until such time as all such persons have disembarked; or, in the case of
unmanned aircraft, begins when the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such
time as it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down [21].
However, there are cases where the flight crew would remain on board the aircraft to prepare for
the next flight by the same aircraft. In this document, however, a flight is considered the full cycle
of phases from the departure airport to the next arrival airport, while the departure airport and the
next arrival airport may be the same in some cases. A phase of flight is a period of time during
which certain operational tasks are performed. Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) and
ICAO Common Taxonomy Team (CICTT) developed broad phase-of-flight definitions for
powered fixed-wing land-based aircraft and rotorcraft operations [22]. The CICTT definitions
include both phases during the normal operation of a flight and those during abnormal operations.
Ref. [23] provides a description of phase-of-flight from a flight crew perspective. Major phases in
the order of their occurrence during a flight are listed below. This list is mainly based on CICTT
definitions. Within each phase, there are normally sub-phases, which are listed only when the
sub-phases constitute a significant portion of a flight, or when it’s necessary for clarity. It should
be noted that a particular flight may include a subset of these phases.
Pre-flight Standing. Prior to pushback or taxi, at the gate, ramp, or parking area, while the
aircraft is stationary. This flight phase may include an Engine Start-up sub-phase
 Pushback/Towing. Aircraft is moving in the gate, ramp, or parking area, assisted by a tow
vehicle before taxi out or takeoff. This flight phase may include an Engine Start-up sub-phase.
Taxi Out. The aircraft is moving on the aerodrome surface under its own power prior to
takeoff. Taxi out may include a Power Back sub-phase.
Takeoff. From the application of takeoff power, through rotation and to an altitude of 35 ft
above runway elevation. For unmanned aircraft systems, this includes launching via systems such
as a catapult. Takeoff may include a Rejected Takeoff sub-phase: From the point where the
decision to abort has been taken until the aircraft begins to taxi from the runway.
Initial Climb. From the end of the Takeoff sub-phase to the first prescribed power reduction,
or until reaching 1,000 ft above runway elevation or the VFR pattern, whichever comes first.
En Route. IFR: From completion of Initial Climb through cruise altitude and completion of
controlled descent to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF). VFR: From completion of Initial Climb
through cruise and controlled descent to the VFR pattern altitude or 1,000 ft above runway
elevation, whichever comes first. This phase of flight includes the following sub-phases:
Climb to Cruise: IFR: From completion of Initial Climb to arrival at initial assigned
cruise altitude. VFR: From completion of Initial Climb to initial cruise altitude.
Cruise: Any level flight segment after arrival at initial cruise altitude until the start of
descent to the destination.
Change of Cruise Level: Any climb or descent during cruise after the initial climb to
cruise, but before descent to the destination.
Descent: IFR: Descent from cruise to either IAF or VFR pattern entry. VFR: Descent
from cruise to the VFR pattern entry or 1,000 feet above the runway elevation,
whichever comes first.
Holding: Execution of a predetermined maneuver (usually an oval race track pattern)
which keeps the aircraft within a specified airspace while awaiting further clearance.
Descent during holding is also covered in this sub-phase.
Maneuvering. Low altitude/aerobatic flight operations.
Approach. IFR: From the IAF to the beginning of the landing flare. VFR: From the point of
VFR pattern entry, or 1,000 ft above the runway elevation, to the beginning of the landing flare.
This phase of flight includes the following sub-phases:
Initial Approach: From the IAF to the Final Approach Fix (FAF).
Final Approach: From the FAF to the beginning of the landing flare.
Circuit Pattern—Downwind: A flight path (normally 1,000 feet above the runway)
which commences abeam the departure end of the runway and runs parallel to the
runway in the direction opposite the landing, and terminates upon initiating the turn to
base leg.
Circuit Pattern—Base: From start of turn at end of downwind leg until the start of the
turn for final.
 Circuit Pattern—Final: From the start of the turn to intercept the extended runway
centerline, normally at the end of base leg, to the beginning of the landing flare.
Includes VFR straight-in approaches.
Circuit Pattern—Crosswind: A flight path of the VFR traffic pattern, which is
perpendicular to the landing runway, crosses the departure end of the runway, and
connects with the downwind leg.
Missed Approach/Go-Around: From the first application of power after the crew elects
to execute a missed approach or go-around until the aircraft re-enters the sequence for a
VFR pattern or until the aircraft reaches the IAF for another approach in IFR.
Landing. From the beginning of the landing flare until the aircraft exits the landing runway,
comes to a stop on the runway, or when power is applied for takeoff in the case of a touch-and-go
landing. This phase of flight includes the following sub-phases:
Flare: Transition from nose-low to nose-up attitude just before landing until
touchdown.
Landing Roll: After touchdown until aircraft exits the landing runway or comes to a
stop, whichever occurs first.
Aborted Landing After Touchdown: When an attempt is made to get airborne after
touchdown (successful or not). This does not include the take-off portion of a
touch-and-go.
Taxi In. The aircraft is moving on the aerodrome surface under its own power after landing.
Towing. Aircraft is moving in the gate, ramp, or parking area, assisted by a tow vehicle after
landing or Taxi In. This phase may include an Engine Shut Down sub-phase.
Post-flight Standing. After arrival, at the gate, ramp, or parking area, while the aircraft is
stationary. This phase may include an Engine Shut Down sub-phase.

1.5 Software Safety Assurance Levels in Airborne and Ground

Systems
Many of the software or systems related to ATM operations have safety and security
implications, and thus are subject to safety assurance and detailed certification processes. As part
of the system safety assessment process, the assurance level of software is determined by
establishing how an error in software relates to system failure conditions and their severity. The
newly published Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) document DO-178C [24],
the guidance for software airworthiness requirements, uses the term software level for software in
airborne systems and designates software level by letters A-E. RTCA DO-278A [25], the guidance
for software integrity assurance for non-airborne systems (ground- and space-based), uses the term
Assurance Level (AL) for ground systems and designates AL by numbers 1 through 6. A summary
of changes over the previous revision and newly added requirements in these two documents can
be found in [26]. The assurance levels for airborne and ground systems as defined in RTCA
documents are listed in Table 2.
The software level(s) or assurance level(s) are determined based upon the failure condition that
may result from anomalous behavior of the software, including both loss of function and
malfunction. External factors, such as adverse environmental conditions, as well as architectural
strategies may be considered when identifying the failure condition categories. The software
should be assigned the level associated with the most severe failure condition to which the
software can contribute [24],[25].
A previous study [27] investigated issues that arise from the use of commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in safety-critical systems and the approaches needed to ensure the integrity of
the data, as well as the advantages posed by the use of COTS components.
Table 2: Software Assurance Levels.

Failure Condition Description DO-178C DO-278A

Catastrophic Failure would cause multiple fatalities, usually Level A AL1
with the loss of the aircraft

Hazardous or severe Failure would have a large negative impact on Level B AL2
safety or performance of the aircraft or flight
crew, potentially with serious or fatal injury to a
small number of occupants

Major Failure would have significant impact on safety Level C AL3

and performance, potentially with discomfort or
physical distress, and possibly including injuries

Less than major, Certain non-airborne CNS/ATM systems where Not used AL4
more than minor AL3 is too stringent and AL5 is too lenient.
Minor Failure would be noticeable but would not Level D AL5
significantly impact safety and performance, with
a slight increase in workload or some physical
discomfort
No safety effect Failure has no impact on safety Level E AL6
2 ATM Operations at ANSP

2.1 Introduction
The JPDO defines ANSP as “engaged in providing ATM and ATC services for flight operators
for the purpose of safe and efficient flight operations. ATM responsibilities include CNS. They
also include ATM facility planning, investment, and implementation; procedure development and
training, and ongoing system operation and maintenance of seamless CNS/ATM services.” [1]. In
this definition, flight operators refer to both the aircraft operator and the aircraft. The
responsibilities of the ANSP are carried out by different operational facilities that directly interact
with the aircraft and the aircraft operator in real time during the execution of a flight, and technical
and support facilities that do not directly interact with the aircraft and the aircraft operator in real
time during the execution of a flight.
Divided by their responsible regions in the NAS, operational ATC facilities include ATCT at
the airport, terminal area control facilities serving air traffic transitioning between en route
airspace and airports within a region, and en route control facilities serving air traffic transitioning
between terminal areas. In the United States, terminal area facilities are referred to as Terminal
Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities. En route control facilities are referred to as Air
Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs). Their responsibilities include tactical control within
their jurisdiction, and coordination with adjacent facilities, as shown in Figure 4 (after [28]). A
supporting hierarchy may exist among different facilities, with the ATCT supported by the
overlaying TRACON, and the TRACON support by the overlaying ARTCC.

ARTCCs
TRACON TRACON

Tower Tower

ARTCC controls the

TRACON controls aircraft in its specific TRACON controls
aircraft in the airspace aircraft in the
Departure Tower terminal airspace (1) ARTCC airspace is terminal airspace Arrival Tower
(1) Gives (1) 5 to 40 nmi further divided into (1) 5 to 40 nmi (1) Gives
departure from the airport, sectors. from the airport, clearance to land
clearance or (2) The control of aircraft or (2) Controls
(2) Controls (2) until an is handed from one sector (2) when below an aircraft on the
aircraft on the altitude of above to another and from one altitude of 10,000 final approach to
ground 10,000 ft ARTCC to another when a ft the airport
(3) Controls boundary is crossed (3) Controls
aircraft in the air aircraft on the
within 5 nmi Ground

Figure 4: FAA’s ATC Facilities Involved during a Flight (after [28]).

As the traffic level increases and the demand approaches system capacity, one or more NAS
system-wide traffic management facilities may also be established to balance air traffic demand
with system capacity in the NAS, mainly through various Traffic Flow Management (TFM)
programs. In the United States, the facility responsible for these tasks is the Air Traffic Control
System Command Center (ATCSCC). The Command Center, as it is commonly known, operates
TFM programs and is committed to managing the NAS in a safe, efficient, and cohesive manner
through coordinating other facilities and the aircraft operators to ensure safe and efficient
operations in the NAS. Traffic Management Unit (TMU) and Traffic Management positions also
exist at ATC facilities to facilitate TFM through coordination with adjacent facilities and the
Command Center. Unlike ATC commands, compliance with Traffic Management Initiatives
(TMI) is not necessarily mandatory. However, excessive delay and inefficiencies may result in to a
large number of aircraft from non-compliance.
Operational facilities have also been established to provide continuous broadcast and
on-demand flight information services pertinent to the safe and efficient conduct of flight. These
services include meteorological information, airport and en route navigation information,
information on hazardous conditions, emergency services, search and rescue operations, and
issuing and canceling Notices To Airmen (NOTAM). Unlike ATC facilities or traffic management
facilities, flight information service facilities do not issue instructions to aircraft operators or
aircraft. Flight information services are general services to the broad flying public. These services
are normally limited in scope, due to resource limitations and funding support mechanisms, and
they do not necessarily satisfy all the specific needs of a particular aircraft operator. In the United
States, certain services in this category are provided by Flight Service Stations (FSS). FAA’s FSS
network is currently managed by Lockheed Martin under a ten-year contract. Under this contract,
many of the previously separately operated local FSS facilities have been integrated into three
hubs located in Ashburn, Virginia; Prescott, Arizona; and Fort Worth, Texas.
ANSP technical and support facilities are normally responsible for ATM facility planning,
investment, and implementation; procedure development and training; and ongoing system
operation and maintenance of seamless CNS/ATM services. Although not directly interacting with
the aircraft and the aircraft operator in real time during the execution of a flight, some of the
services offered by these facilities are related to the real-time decision making process of the
aircraft and the aircraft operator, and are thus of interest to this research. FAA
Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) is FAA’s primary means for telecommunications
services and it forms the basic infrastructure for the NextGen. It replaces FAA’s legacy networks
to provide consolidated telecom services for the 5,000 facilities and 30,000 circuits in the NAS
with reduced costs and improved bandwidth and security. The FTI network supports NAS
operations by providing the connectivity required by various automation systems. FTI provides an
enterprise-wide approach to information security assurance. It meets the latest government
standards for information security, and offers improved security services, like encryption.
Depending on the Service Level, the Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA)
requirements of FTI range from 99.72603% (RMA Level 5, or RMA5) to 99.99971% (RMA1) and
these requirements are all met in the latest available report [29], and across a range of latency
limits from 50 ms to 1000 ms.
In the United States, En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), the system is replacing
the 40-year-old En Route Host computer and backup system at 20 FAA ARTCCs, and is
considered the heart of NextGen [30]. ERAM provides surveillance data processing, flight data
processing, weather data processing, and conflict probe capabilities for en route operations. Many
other tools and systems developed over the years are in use at terminal and airport facilities. New
tools and systems are added as NextGen development progresses. There is thus no comprehensive
literature on ATM operations at ANSP. The review must be based on many individual publications
and sources, including subject domain knowledge of the research team. Nonetheless, a few
publically available documents have provided an overview of ATM operations at ANSP, such as
[6], [31] and [32]. FAA publications such as the AIM [2], TFM brochure [28], ATC [33], and
Facility Operation and Administration (FAC) [34] provide a wide spectrum of information,
although not necessarily very detailed and comprehensive from a technical perspective, on current
ATM programs and systems used by the FAA. The Federal Information Technology (IT)
Dashboard [29] provides information on federal IT investments, which include many FAA
programs. In addition to budget and spending information, operational performance metrics such
as percent uptime are also provided.
The review of ATM operations at ANSP is not focused on the facilities themselves; rather, it
focuses on functions and automation systems supporting the operations at such facilities. By doing
so, the information extracted from the review can be directly used to identify functional
duplications across different facilities and to abstract common services to which advanced
computing technologies may benefit the most. Due to interdependencies between many of the
functions, services, and automation systems, the review is presented as a collection of subjects that
does not necessarily follow the organizational hierarchy where particular systems are operated or
accessed.

2.2 Airspace Planning and Design

Airspace planning and design is the task to develop rules, policy, and standards for airspace
allocation, and to develop and maintain the airspace structure to exercise the said airspace
allocation. The current airspace structure, as discussed earlier in Section 1.2, is an evolved system
rather than a designed system. It is a static structure that has largely been detected by the
conventional fixed navigation infrastructure. To accommodate increased and ever changing traffic
demand, changes have to be made to the airspace design, but these changes have to be compliant
with safety measures often individually introduced to address specific issues or risks, have to
preserve stakeholder’s existing investment and interests, and have to meet with existing and new
natural and social constraints. The airspace system has to support aircraft with very diverse
performance characteristics and capabilities, including a sizable fleet of airframes manufactured
decades ago. The airspace thus has evolved into a complex structure of patchwork. Many areas of
inefficiency inevitably exit in such a system. Making new design changes to the airspace has
become a very difficult and lengthy process.
As a recent major undertaking, the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
Airspace Redesign Project exemplifies the complexity of the airspace planning and design
process, especially for terminal airspace. The project was started in 1998 and encompassed a
complete redesign of the airspace in the area. The purpose was to increase efficiency and reliability
of the airspace structure and ATC system, so as to accommodate growth while enhancing safety,
reducing delay and taking advantage of new technologies. After nearly 10 years of extensive
analysis, development, and review, in September 2007, the FAA signed a Record of Decision
(ROD) selecting the Integrated Airspace alternative with the Integrated Control Complex with
Noise Mitigation Strategy [35]. This alternative includes changes in both Center and TRACON
airspace. However, it does not require any external physical changes to existing facilities,
construction of new facilities, or local or state actions. The design alternatives addressed the
baseline requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the recommendations
from the aviation community, and the input from the local communities gained during the
environmental scoping process. The New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia project involved
incorporating the sectors of airspace handled by the New York TRACON and the New York
ARTCC, as well as some handled by the Washington and Boston ARTCCs. In addition to
reconfiguring the airspace to implement the selected alternative, actions are taken to take
advantage of improved aircraft performance and emerging ATC technology. New and modified
ATC procedures are designed, multiple departure gates are modified, and new arrival posts and
departure headings are added. Arrival and departure profiles are also improved. Environmental
concerns are major constraints faced by the project. A significant amount of efforts were invested
to prepare and review the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the NEPA.
This process involved extensive public outreach activities, including 31 pre-scoping workshops,
28 formal scoping meetings, and 30 public meetings on the draft EIS and seven public information
meetings on the Noise Mitigation Report prior to the ROD. Thousands of public comments were
received and responded to by the project. The implementation of Stage 1 changes was initiated in
2007, but due to the scope and complexity of the project and two years’ litigation that mainly
challenged the compliance with NEPA and the Clean Air Act (CAA), the projected was delayed.
According to the plan released in April 2012 [36], the implementation of the final stage, i.e., Stage
4, will not be completed until the end of 2016, resulting in an 18-year process since the start of the
project.
In the cruise domain, the objectives are the design and management of routes and en route
structures, as well as addressing the interconnectivity with the terminal and oceanic operational
environments. The Navigational Reference System (NRS) [37] and “wind routes” are two
examples of en route airspace programs. The NRS is a grid of waypoints (as opposed to discrete
waypoints) overlying the U.S. continent. It is the basis for flight plan filing and operations in the
redesigned high-altitude environment. It provides increased flexibility and provides ATC the
ability to more efficiently manage tactical route changes during en route separation, TFM, and
weather avoidance. Pilots can use NRS in requesting route deviations around weather areas, which
will improve common understanding between pilots and ATC of the desired flight path.
“Chokepoint routes” were designed to funnel traffic from various parts of the Western United
States through one or two fixes located over the Midwest. The effect was that the flow of traffic
was consolidated and organized at these fixes, long before it arrived in the complex and congested
airspace surrounding the New York metropolitan area. Chokepoint routes had some limitations.
They were only available to either Newark International Airport (EWR) or to John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK), meaning that they were largely used by the air carriers only. The
chokepoint routes were also static – they could not be adjusted to take advantage of the jet stream
winds. In April 2010, the FAA implemented a new set of routes called “wind routes” for traffic
headed from the Western United States into the New York metropolitan area. These routes are
available not only to EWR and JFK, but also to LaGuardia International Airport (LGA) and to
Teterboro Airport (TEB). This expansion allows ATC to further simplify the flow of traffic on
busy days. Wind routes are also dynamic, meaning that they can be modified as needed in order to
take advantage of favorable winds. The routes are dynamic because they are based upon RNAV
waypoints rather than upon navigational fixes defined by ground-based NAVAIDs.
A number of tools are available for airspace design and planning. The Sector Design and
Analysis Tool (SDAT) is an FAA-owned tool supporting the airspace analysis. SDAT has two
primary areas of focus: Minimum Instrument Flight Rules Altitude (MIA)/Minimum Vectoring
Altitude (MVA) chart analysis and airspace design. SDAT provides multi-facility display and
analysis of the interactions between airspace and traffic. The system includes full support for FAA
data sources, project management, and airspace modification/design. SDAT performs analysis of
potential conflicts, traffic density, and traffic loading in air traffic control sectors, military
airspace, and other airspace volumes. SDAT provides tools for post-operation analysis and
engineering of airspace and traffic flows. Environmental analysis is an integrated part of airspace
design. The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) [38] is a software system that
dynamically models aircraft performance in space and time to estimate fuel burn, emissions, and
noise. Full flight gate-to-gate analyses are possible for study sizes ranging from a single flight at an
airport to scenarios at the regional, national, and global levels. AEDT is currently used by the U.S.
government to consider the interdependencies between aircraft-related fuel burn, noise, and
emissions. In 2014, AEDT will become the next generation aviation environmental consequence
tool, replacing the current public-use aviation air quality and noise analysis tools such as the
Integrated Noise Model (INM) and the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).
FAA’s mid-term plan is an Integrated Airspace and Procedures approach that provides a
geographic focus to problem-solving with a systems view of PBN initiatives and the design of
airspace. The Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) is an important
method by which Integrated Airspace and Procedures efforts will be incorporated into the NAS.
OAPM is a systematic and expedited approach to implementing PBN procedures and airspace
changes. Planned future concept exploration efforts include Integrated Arrival and Departure
Control Services and High Altitude Trajectory-Based Airspace. The Integrated Arrival and
Departure Control Services calls for improving operational efficiencies in major metropolitan
areas by expanding the lateral and vertical limits of arrival and departure airspace, including
transition airspace. The High Altitude Trajectory-based Airspace concept blends the principles of
Generic Airspace with Trajectory-based Operations [39].

2.3 Instrument Flight Procedure Design

Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) design is the determination of the flight path constraints for
specific operations in the terminal area airspace, given the airspace structure and the NAS route
system. Although the same set of factors in airspace design needs be considered in procedure
design, due to the limited scope, and potential to categorically exclude certain processes, e.g.,
full-scale environmental analysis, the development, evaluation, and approval cycle is much
shorter. As a matter of fact, an airspace design project always involves procedure design.
Depending on the complexity of the airspace environment, the process for procedure design could
be several weeks to several months, and total elapsed time could be a few years.
Even though simpler, procedures design also includes many steps. There are separately
defined processes, standards, criteria and implement approval requirements for the various types
of procedures. The references include airspace management standards and procedures, safety
management system manual, environmental standards and policy and procedures, procedure
design standards, RNAV procedure implementation processes (known as the 18-step process), and
facility administration and standards. The PBN technology will be leveraged in both the terminal
environment and the en route environment.
Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) is a
software tool for RNAV procedure design, flyability assessment, and ANSP and operator
evaluation. The visualization features of TARGETS and its readily accessible design tools enable
specialists to rapidly and easily design RNAV procedures for the terminal environment. The data
output of TARGETS is formatted to support operational, certification, and charting needs.
Instrument Flight Procedure Automation (IFPA) is a suite of next generation development tools
for visual and instrument flight procedures. IFPA encompasses AeroNav Products Procedure
Tracking System (APTS) and IFP databases, which include Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAP) and Fixes, Instrument Approach Procedure Automation (IAPA), and recent
Instrument Procedure Development System (IPDS) development tool.

2.4 Technology Test and Evaluation

Technology test and evaluation discussed in this section refers to the capabilities to explore,
evaluate, assess, and demonstrate alternative concepts, algorithms, technologies, and human
factors related to decision making automation in ATM operations, in an integrated system-level
environment. To reduce associated risks, test and evaluation must be done thoroughly in a realistic
environment before decisions can be made to introduce new concepts and technologies in
real-world operations.
The FAA’s NextGen Test Bed environment is comprised of the William J. Hughes Technical
Center (Tech Center) near Atlantic City, New Jersey; the field laboratory at the NASA/FAA North
Texas facility (NTX) at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; and the Florida NextGen Test
Bed (FTB) at Daytona Beach International Airport.
The Tech Center provides the FAA’s centralized set of laboratories that are used to develop
prototype systems and NextGen solutions that are tested and integrated into the NAS. Once
systems become operational, the prototypes become part of the FAA’s test bed and are used to
support development and test necessary changes to the operational field sites over their lifecycle.
According to FAA, maintaining a centralized core of test beds reduces the overall cost to the FAA
and increases efficiency in testing and preparing new systems for operational use. The NextGen
Integration and Evaluation Capability (NIEC) program is the test bed platform located at the Tech
Center [40]. In August 2012, NIEC successfully demonstrated distributed simulation by
connecting multiple aircraft simulators located at five different facilities with Tower simulator and
TRACON simulator in the NIEC Display Laboratory. This demonstration was achieved by using
multiple tools and protocols to share data and voice [41].
The NTX is a field laboratory developed and managed by NASA Ames Research Center’s
Aviation Systems Division. NTX is located on the premises of Fort Worth ARTCC (ZFW). NTX
represents more than 17 years of collaboration with the FAA on ATM research and technology
transfer. NTX features a network of high-fidelity operational NAS data and sophisticated analysis
tools, and represents established partnerships with a wide range of FAA (e.g., ZFW), air carriers
(e.g., American Airlines, Southwest Airlines), and airport operational facilities (e.g., Dallas/Fort
Worth International Airport, and Dallas-Love Field Airport). The laboratory enables off-line,
real-time “shadow” testing of prototype technologies in a secure environment. In large part due to
its unique location and its direct access to the air transportation system, NTX provides tremendous
benefits to research and technology transfer [42].
FTB is a cooperative FAA and industry initiative that provides a platform where early-stage
NextGen concepts can be integrated, demonstrated, and evaluated [43]. The FTB core
infrastructure is architected and configured to enable remote connection with other FAA test sites
and industry partner sites to allow for the multi-site demonstration capabilities. It is expected that
through appropriate governance and oversight, these approaches enable flexibility for industry to
continue participation in the Test Bed, to provide upgrades, and to maintain their own contributed
systems.
These NextGen Test Beds are now linked by a secure, high-speed network to facilitate
collaborative research. However, the Multi-Test Bed Architecture for information sharing to
support real-time simulation is still being developed and implemented. The participation of FOC
will not be included in the NextGen Test Beds until 2015 [44].
Net-Enabled Test Environment (NETE) is a technology developed by the JPDO that allows
NextGen partner agencies to create an environment for testing concepts, building information
services, and demonstrating new NextGen capabilities in a virtual test environment that requires
no new facilities. To facilitate the NETE, the JPDO developed an information-sharing approach
that focused on incorporating technical components among NextGen partners by leveraging their
existing interagency infrastructures. The technical management of the NETE technology has been
transferred to the FAA, and it is now part of the System Wide Information Management (SWIM)
portfolio.

2.5 ATC Facility Training

ATC facility training is the function to support technical training of air traffic controllers at
ATC facilities in an operational environment. In the United States, air traffic controller training
begins at the FAA Academy where students gain foundational ATC knowledge using lecture,
computer-based instruction, medium-fidelity simulation, and high-fidelity simulation. After
graduating from the FAA Academy, developmental controllers receive the necessary training to
become Certified Professional Controllers (CPC). Depending on the type of facility, facility
complexity level, and the number of candidates to certify, controllers are generally completing
certification in one and one-half to three years [45].
Facility training begins in the classroom, where developmental controllers learn
facility-specific rules and procedures. Often, these rules and procedures are practiced in
simulation. Simulation technology allows instructors to duplicate and play back actual operating
events to give students opportunities for improvement in a safe environment. Simulators enable
students to not only see the cause and effect, but also to avoid mistakes in the future. Until recently,
controllers working in airport traffic control towers were trained solely on live air traffic. Since
live traffic is inconsistent and unpredictable due to weather and system delays, a controller may
have to wait days or weeks for an opportunity to learn a particular procedure, and even longer to
become proficient at it. The FAA uses simulation to help compress the training timeline while also
improving the students’ learning experience and reducing training cost. After classroom and
simulation training are complete, developmental controllers begin on-the-job training in
operational positions. This training is conducted by CPCs who observe and instruct developmental
controllers working the control position. Once they are certified in control positions,
developmental controllers often work independently in those positions under the direction of a
supervisor to gain experience and to supplement staffing. The FAA has recently renewed emphasis
on periodic refresher training to maintain proficiency for current CPCs. this is also a combination
of cadre-led and computer-based instruction [45].
Most systems in ATC facilities include simulators to support training, but the system
architecture, the capability, and the flexibility of these simulation functions vary greatly from
system to system. The FAA is increasing the use of simulators. According to FAA, facility training
has improved with the deployment of dedicated training computers, upgraded bandwidth and IP
connectivity, redesigned stage training courses at both En Route and Terminal facilities, and
changes to training standards [46]. The FAA is also exploring the feasibility of deploying mobile
simulator labs to reduce the distance and travel time for controllers at smaller facilities without
their own simulators. The FAA has also increased facility access to the SimFast Terminal radar
simulator, a scenario generation tool and low-cost simulation software that provides radar
simulation training capability via the personal computer (PC). SimFast enables smaller facilities to
provide PC-to-PC simulations involving a pilot operator and a trainee, without requiring expensive
radar equipment.
It is worth noting that, while simulation-dedicated training is beneficial to ATC facility
training, it increases the footprint of the facility, and requires the facility to maintain redundant
configuration of systems.

2.6 Industry Training

Industry training is the function to support the training of airspace users, i.e., aircraft operators,
of new procedures, technology, and systems. The purpose of industry training is twofold: to train
aircraft operators’ personnel and to convince aircraft operators to invest in essential technology to
work with new ANSP systems. In the United States, a major portion of the industry training is
related to Collaborative Air Traffic Management (CATM) technologies that are developed to
enhance decision making by enabling increased collaboration among controllers and aircraft
operators. Other training may relate to new interfaces or new operational procedures established
by the ANSP, or new technology introduced in the NAS. Focus is given to the former. Because the
level of engagement with FOC and the amount of automation involved in CATM is higher, it
serves as a good example to explore the characteristics of industry training.
CATM technologies are hosted by TFM systems (see 2.19, 2.27, and 2.36). Industry training
related to CATM can be divided into three phases: 1) industry briefing while a new system or a
new capability is still under development and testing; 2) training and testing when initial capability
is ready; 3) system refresh training.
During industry briefing, information on the new capability, its concept of operations,
potential benefits, algorithms, system interface, and interim testing results are introduced to
aircraft operators. This is done by giving specific examples, often schematically. One of the key
objectives of industry briefing is to convince aircraft operators to make an early decision on the
investment necessary to support infrastructure, technology, and automation tools. This is not an
easy task. Without operational data to support the benefit analysis, aircraft operators would have
difficulties judging the associated risk. Additionally, the technical specifics of the new capability
might still be finalized during this process. To bring the industry on board, this phase may start at
the early stages of system development, sometimes two to three years before the system is ready
for industry testing. For major developments, the FAA often delivers industry briefing
presentations at training sessions and/or at industry forums dedicated to the topic.
Training and testing is conducted when the initial capability is ready for testing. During the
planning phase, the Interface Control Document (ICD) is released so that the aircraft operators or
their vendors can finalize their interface design. Before the initial capability is ready, the FAA may
make the interface test environment available in advance for industry connections. In some cases,
aircraft operators may be given the opportunity to participate in development testing in the test
bed. When the initial capability is ready, aircraft operators may participate in operational test and
evaluation. These testing opportunities offer great value to aircraft operators from a training point
of view. They provide aircraft operators a means to learn the new capability and gain insights in
how the system would work before the deployment. In addition to industry forums and major
training sessions, telecon and web meetings may be offered throughout this process.
The system refresh training is targeted to enhance knowledge about existing capabilities,
address confusions or issues related to interacting with those capabilities, and update incremental
systems changes. System refresh training provides insight into software logic, and discussion of
subtle differences between different processes. The ultimate goal is to help aircraft operators to
improve usage of the system. Because specific details are discussed, such training is intended to
provide aircraft operator personnel with prior experience, and it is best suited for in-class training
sessions.
A key factor in industry training is to provide operators early access to the system and
operational data so that they can evaluate the benefits of the new technology, and make investment
decisions in time to take advantage of the new system once it’s in place. This has become a
concern for the NextGen implementation as airlines are reluctant to invest in NextGen technology,
due to lack of needed information, as pointed out in a recent report from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) [47]. While this is a concern of a broad range of factors, the industry
training could be improved to help address this issue.

2.7 Aeronautical Information Management (AIM)

Aeronautical Information Management (AIM) is envisioned by ICAO as the future of
Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) [48]. The goal of AIM is to transition to the dynamic,
integrated management of aeronautical information services—safely, economically, and
efficiently—through the provision and exchange of quality-assured digital aeronautical data in
collaboration with all parties [49]. The expectations are that the transition to AIM will not require
many changes in terms of the scope of aeronautical information to be distributed. Changes will
include shifting from the requirements of preflight briefing to the requirements of all aspects of
ATM operations for all phases of flight: from standardizing products to standardizing data and
digital data exchange; from paper products to electronic data with increased use of computing
technology; from text products to both graphical and text products; and from preflight bulletins (if
provided), with information not relevant to the flight due to limited filtering, to targeted
customized data delivery, including new products such as in-flight information bulletins, and
common networks for both static and dynamic data.
A wide range of aeronautical information products have been established to support ATM
operations, in the format of paper charts, paper documents, and telex-based text messages. These
products are often outcomes of systems that exist in isolation. The FAA’s Aeronautical
Information Management Modernization (AIMM) is a program with the mission of supporting the
goal of an integrated AIM system, by developing a mechanism for aeronautic information
exchange between data providers, stewards and distributors, both within the aviation authority (or
ANSP) as well as to external aviation data users (operators and aircraft). AIMM is being
developed in segments. Segment I modernizes the NOTAM (see 2.10) and the Central Altitude
Reservation Function (CARF) (see 2.12), which represent temporary changes to the airspace
system. Segment 2 will provide the capability to fuse data from different sources to meet the needs
of airspace users that need aeronautical information about SAA (see 2.12) and airports. Segment 3
will modernize the collection of data so that relevant information is converged into the common
operating picture of the NAS. This capability will modernize the “system of record” for static
information about the aviation infrastructure of the nation. Segments 2 and 3 are part of the FAA’s
NextGen initiative.
The Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM) [50] is a data specification designed
to enable the management and distribution of AIS data in digital format. It is the data exchange
standard used by FAA’s AIMM and many other AIM programs around the world. AIXM has two
main components, the Conceptual Model, and the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema.
The AIXM Conceptual Model is a conceptual model of the aeronautical domain. It describes the
features and their properties within the domain, such as geographical, geometrical, and temporal
attributes and associations. Therefore, it can be used as the logical basis for AIM databases. The
AIXM XML Schema is an exchange model for aeronautical data. It is an implementation of the
Conceptual Model as an XML schema. Therefore, it can be used to send aeronautical information
to others in the form of XML encoded data, enabling systems to exchange aeronautical
information. The current AIXM version is 5.1, which can be found at [50]. Related data exchange
standards include the Flight Information Exchange Model (FIXM) [51], a data interchange format
for sharing information about flights throughout their lifecycle, and the Weather Information
Exchange Model (WXXM) [52], a platform-independent, harmonized and interoperable
meteorological information exchange data format for the air transport industry.
Current aeronautical information products and programs, which will ultimately be integrated
into AIM, and their characteristics are described in Section 2.8 through Section 2.13.

2.8 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) [48] is the publication issued by or with the
authority of a State, e.g., FAA [53], and containing aeronautical information of a lasting character
essential to air navigation. Specific contents of an AIP include national regulations and practices,
availability of services and facilities, general rules and procedures, information on airspace
structure and the associated ANSP facility, detailed description of ATS routes, radio
NAVAIDs/GNSS/waypoints/en route ground lights, SUA/alert areas/hazard/obstacles/bird
migration and areas with sensitive fauna, airport information, and aeronautical charts (as part of
the AIP or distributed separately) to support operations at the airport, in the terminal area, and en
route. Between necessary reissues (editions), permanent changes to the AIP are published as AIP
Amendments. In the United States, AIP Amendments are published every six months [53].
Temporary changes of long duration (three months or longer) and information of short duration
which contains extensive text and or graphics are often published as supplements. In current
operations, AIP is still largely a paper-based product. Electronic AIP (eAIP), when available, is
published in a format that allows for displaying on a computer screen and printing on paper (e.g.,
pdf format).

2.9 Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC)

Operationally significant changes to the AIP are published in accordance with Aeronautical
Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) [48], a regulated system for the establishment and
withdrawal of, premeditated significant changes. These include changes (including operational
trials) to 1) limits, regulations, and procedures applicable to airspace facilities, ATS routes, and
SUA/alert areas/hazards; 2) NAVAIDs and ANSP CNS facility changes; and 3) changes to
transition levels/altitudes/minimum sector altitudes, meteorological facilities, airport information,
and airport and terminal airspace operational procedures. This information is distributed upon a
series of common AIRAC effective dates at intervals of 28 days, including January 14, 2010. The
changes notified in each cycle will remain unchanged for at least another 28 days after the
effective date. Information provided under the AIRAC system is currently required to be published
in paper copy form and to be distributed at least 42 days in advance of the effective date with the
objective of reaching recipients at least 28 days in advance of the effective date. If the information
is also provided in electronic form, it is required to be distributed so as to reach recipients at least
28 days in advance of the effective date. When desirable and practicable, major changes are
distributed at least 56 days in advance of the effective date. In the contiguous United States,
sectional charts are updated every six months, IFR en route charts every 56 days, and amendments
to civil IFR approach charts are accomplished on a 56-day cycle with a change notice volume
issued on the 28-day mid-cycle. In addition to paper and electronic form, FAA’s National Flight
Data Center (NFDC) also releases 56-day cycle National Airspace System Resource (NASR)
subscriptions, Daily National Flight Data Digest (NFDD) and other aeronautical data in digital
format [54]. The 56-day NASR digital subscription is a subset of FAA’s AIRAC publication in
machine-readable text tables.

2.10 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)

A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is a notice of a temporary nature and of short duration or of
operationally significant changes that are made at short notice, except for extensive text and/or
graphics. NOTAMs are distributed by means of telecommunication messages containing
information concerning the establishment, condition, or change in any aeronautical facility,
service, procedure, or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned
with flight operations [48]. Temporary information does not affect the safe movement of aircraft in
the airspace and in the airport aircraft movement area, and other temporary information such as
lack of apron marshaling services and road traffic control, is not notified by NOTAM. Current
NOTAM systems use fixed text tables of limited size containing time, location, and operational
attributes of the NOTAM, and a plain-language text using standard abbreviations, identifiers, and
call signs. NOTAMs constitute a very important part of the preflight briefing provided by the
ANSP, albeit weather briefing. At least seven days’ (three days in the United States [53],[55])
advance notice is required for the activation of established danger, restricted, or prohibited areas
and temporary airspace restrictions other than emergency operations. Whenever possible, at least
24 hours’ advance notice is desired to permit timely completion of the notification process and to
facilitate airspace utilization planning. In the United States, except for emergency situations, the
minimum advance notice time varies from no more than 3 days to 30 minutes depending on the
classification of the NOTAMs, with unprogrammed extended NAVAID shutdowns requiring at
least one hour and the time of delayed National Weather Service (NWS) Radiosonde balloon
releases, at least 30 minutes.
2.11 GPS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM)
The FAA en route and terminal GPS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM)
prediction program [56] is developed to support aircraft RNAV operations that are solely based on
GPS navigation. This program provides daily en route and terminal RAIM prediction calculations,
regardless of the number of operational satellites, and provides web-based graphical presentation
of en route grid with a resolution of one degree, and terminal grid with a resolution of 0.5 degree.
The program predicts continuous loss of RAIM more than five minutes in duration. It
automatically refreshes RAIM predictions with new (unplanned, unknown) satellite vehicle
outages within 15 minutes at one minute sampling rate and five degree mask angle.

2.12 Dynamic Airspace Management Services (DAMS)

In addition to regularly published AIP, the AIRAC system, and NOTAM programs, a number
of airspace management programs exist that deals with time sensitive aeronautical information.
Examples of such FAA programs are described in the following paragraphs.
Central Altitude Reservation Function (CARF) is an FAA tool responsible for coordinating
military and civilian altitude reservations for operations within the NAS. It informs controllers
when airspace ordinarily reserved for military, national security, and other civilian emergency
operations use is available for civilian use. Special Airspace Management System (SAMS) [57] is
a real-time and dynamic tool for coordinating between the FAA and Department of Defense
(DOD) so that DOD SUA requests can be accommodated rapidly with minimum disruptions of
civil aviation operations. It informs controllers when airspace ordinarily reserved for military use
is available for civilian use.
Often with more advance time to prepare, Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) is a regulatory
action issued via the U.S. NOTAM system to restrict certain aircraft from operating within a
defined area, on a temporary basis, to protect persons or property in the air or on the ground [58].
The FAA issues TFRs in the following types: in the vicinity of disaster/hazard areas; in national
disaster areas in the State of Hawaii; under emergency air traffic rules; in the proximity of
presidential and other parties; flight limitation in the proximity of space flight operations; in the
vicinity of aerial demonstrations and major sporting events; and under special security
instructions. FAA uses a system called TFR Builder to support about 500 TFRs issued annually
and approximately two million hits to the TFR website monthly [59].

2.13 Geographic Information Management Services (GIS)

Geographic information management services covers the traditional terrain and obstacle data,
and the emerging need for structured airport mapping data. These data items are used by the ANSP
for airspace analysis, planning and procedure design; and by the flying public for the safe
operations of flight as well.
The FAA maintains a Digital Obstacle File (DOF) that includes a record of all as-built
manmade obstructions. It also includes records of manmade obstructions reported through various
other sources, both inside and outside the FAA. The obstacles are assigned unique numerical
identifiers and accuracy codes, and are listed in order by state. The DOF is updated every 56 days.
The Daily Digital Obstacle File (DDOF) provides the latest obstacle information in the database
(same as the DOF), but is updated daily.
 The FAA also maintains the SDAT. SDAT is used to analyze the impact of airspace design
changes on the flow of air traffic through various components of the NAS. SDAT is used at
terminal ATC facilities with radar (approximately 180 facilities) and all ARTCC for MVA and
MIA programs that meet regulatory requirements for terrain, obstacle, and airspace clearance.
SDAT is also used for airspace design.
Airport GIS is an FAA program to address the shortcomings in airport data management. Prior
to Airport GIS, there was no common or standardized format for storing or exchanging survey
data, and no centralized access point for submitting, validating, verifying, and storing airport
survey data or changes to airport data. Multiple systems store and maintain the same data without
having to compare or acquire them from a single authoritative source. There is currently no
automated way to update aeronautical information in the appropriate database, NASR. Airport
GIS will provide a central location for the collection, evaluation, processing, and delivery of
master airport data. The system will consist of a web application that will allow users (airport
sponsors) to submit airport data via airport surveys and airport data change requests, and it will
manage the workflow to effectively evaluate and process the data. Airport GIS will collect this
data and provide it to AIM for quality control and standardization. AIM will store airport data in a
centralized database and deliver this data to the FAA and its customers via AIM enterprise web
services. The Airports GIS web portal was launched on May 5, 2008. The system has gone through
a number of updates, with Version 3.0 released in January 2012 [60]. The requirements for
collecting and structuring Airport GIS data that meets the needs of the FAA (and airports in most
cases) are defined in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-18B [61]. To address issues with
traditional paper-based Airport Layout Plan (ALP), particularly the labor and time cost associated
with keeping the ALPs update, Electronic Airport Layout Plan (eALP) is being developed and
integrated into the Airport GIS. Airport GIS is expected to transition to the complete process of
eALP submittal, review, and approval in 2016.

2.14 Slot Control and Management

At congested airports, slot controls may be enforced to limit the number of takeoff and landing
operations at these airports to strategically balance demand and capacity, so as to void excessive
delay. Slot in this case refers to operational authorization to conduct a takeoff or landing within a
given time window.
In the United States., slot management is regulated by 14 CFR Part 93, Subpart K and Subpart
S [62]. The FAA has designated Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA), Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), LaGuardia Airport
(LGA), and Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) as high-density traffic airports that are
limited to hourly numbers of allocated IFR operations (takeoffs and landings) that may be reserved
for specified classes of users. The FAA also has designated ORD along with San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) as Level 2 airports under the IATA Worldwide Slot Guidelines
(WSG) [63], requiring the implementation of a voluntary process to manage operational growth at
ORD and SFO. These user classes are scheduled air carriers, scheduled commuters, and all others.
Scheduled commuters refer to air carriers with turboprop and reciprocating engine aircraft having a
certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of less than 75, or turbojet aircraft having a
certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of less than 56, or if used for cargo service in air
transportation, with any aircraft having a maximum payload capacity of less than 18,000 pounds,
with some exceptions. The air carrier user class is given the majority of the total allocated slots.
Any reservations allocated to, but not taken by, air carrier operations is available for scheduled
commuter operations, and then for other operations. Specific rules are in place to limit the number
of operations for certain individual 30-minute periods and certain two consecutive 30-minute
periods at LGA and ORD. During a specified time of the day (normally outside the 12 a.m. to 6
a.m. window, local time), no person may operate an aircraft to or from an airport designated as a
high-density traffic airport unless he has received, for that operation, an arrival or departure
reservation from ATC. A reservation for an unscheduled operation is granted by the ATC without
regard to the maximum number of allocated operations whenever the aircraft may be
accommodated without significant additional delay to the operations allocated for the airport.
The allocation of the slots to individual scheduled operators was initially based on historical
slot usage dating back to December 16, 1985. Priorities are given to international operations and
operations to and from Essential Air Service (EAS) Program airports in allocating vacant slots.
Subject to certain conditions, slots may be bought, sold, or leased for any consideration and any
time period and they may be traded in any combination for slots at the same airport or any other
high-density traffic airport, but this is generally a slow process. Since slots do not represent a
property right but represent an operating privilege subject to absolute FAA control, slots may be
withdrawn to serve operational needs, such as to fill international obligations. The withdrawl
normally only applies to domestic operations, and they are done according to lottery-based
priorities. Operators may also voluntarily return slots. Whenever the FAA determines that
sufficient slots have become available for distribution for purposes other than international or EAS
operations, but generally not more than twice a year, they will be allocated in accordance with the
order determined by a random lottery. With some exceptions, any slot not utilized 80% of the time
over a two-month period will be recalled by the FAA. FAA requires that any slot request must be
submitted by announced deadlines that are normally six months in advance of the next season.
Operators are required to submit the schedule at designated airports for the next season.
To manage traffic at the designated airports, a web-based Computerized Voice Reservation
System (e-CVRS) [64] has been established by the FAA. Unscheduled operations are required to
use the system to make reservations. Requests for IFR reservations will be accepted beginning 72
hours prior to the proposed time of the operation at the affected airport. Public charter flights are
allowed to request an IFR reservation up to six months in advance at LGA. Reservations are
provided for an hourly or half-hourly time period. A reservation is required before takeoff. Special
Traffic Management Program (STMP) may be in place at other airports to handle above-normal
traffic demand, normally associated with special events. Similar to e-CVRS, a web-based e-STMP
system [65] has been established by the FAA. When STMP is in effect, slot reservation can be
made on a first-come, first-served basis, beginning 72 hours prior to the proposed operation. FAA
requires slot reservations to be confirmed by the requestor between 24 and 12 hours prior to the
proposed operation, otherwise the reservation will be cancelled automatically and made available
in the reservation pool. Because currently the FAA does not store flight plans in the NAS computer
more than two hours in advance, STMP reservations provide long-range planning capability for
special traffic events.

2.15 Weather Products and Weather Processing Systems

The operation of today’s ATM is supported by a variety of weather sensing, processing, and
forecast systems maintained by different government agencies and private entities. The capability
of these systems and the availability of weather products and services vary significantly from
country to country. The development of new weather products and services by different entities,
coupled with increased access to these products offered by enhanced network communication
capabilities created confusion within the aviation community regarding the relationship between
regulatory requirements and qualification of weather products. For this reason, in the United
States, the FAA defines weather products in two categories [53],[66]:
Primary Weather Products meet all the regulatory requirements and safety needs for
use in making flight-related aviation weather decisions
Supplementary Weather Products may be used for enhanced situation awareness,
which must only be used in conjunction with one or more primary weather products
The FAA has also determined three categories of weather information sources that may be
used by the aircraft operator and flight crew:
Federal Government. The FAA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS), including contractors,
collect raw weather data, analyze the observations, and produce forecasts, including
in-flight aviation weather advisories. In addition, the federal government is the only
approval authority for sources of weather observations.
Enhanced Weather Information System (EWINS). An EWINS is an FAA approved
proprietary system for tracking, evaluating, reporting, and forecasting the presence or
absence of adverse weather phenomena. EWINS is authorized to produce flight
movement forecasts, adverse weather phenomena forecasts, and other meteorological
advisories. The approval to use EWINS is required for air carriers and commuters
certified under 14 CFR Part 121 [67] and Part 135 [68]. In such a case, the products by
the approved EWINS are considered primary weather products.
Commercial Weather Information Providers. In general, commercial providers
produce proprietary weather products based on NWS/FAA products with formatting
and layout modifications but no material changes to the weather information itself.
This is also referred to as “repackaging.” In addition, commercial providers may
produce analyses, forecasts, and other proprietary weather products that substantially
alter the information contained in government-produced products. However, those
proprietary weather products that substantially alter government-produced weather
products or information may only be approved for use by 14 CFR Part 121 and Part 135
certificate holders if the commercial provider is EWINS qualified.
Weather systems and programs produce three distinct types of weather products: observations,
analysis, and forecasts. Major FAA/NWS-managed aviation weather observation products
include:
Surface Observations. These observations are produced by manual Aviation Routine
Weather Report (METAR) stations, which generate reports every hour along with
Aviation Selected Special Weather Reports (SPECI) when conditions change
significantly, and Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS)/Automated
Weather Sensor System (AWSS) stations that provide continuous minute-by-minute
observations and generate METAR and other reports.
 Weather Radar Services. The network of Next-Generation Radar (NEXRAD) hourly
and non-routine special Radar Weather Reports (SD/ROB) provide coarse and brief
information on convective echo in alpha-numeric formats. Radar precipitation and
non-precipitation target reflection images are updated every 10 minutes when
operating in Clear Air Mode, and every four to six minutes when operating in
Precipitation Mode (WSR-88D radar). Radar mosaics are combined images from
multiple single-site radar images on a regional or national scale. They are derived from
single-site data within the last 15 minutes.
Satellite Imagery. There are three types of satellite imagery for weather purposes:
visible (daylight only), infrared (IR), and water vapor. Different types of satellite
imagery may be used in conjunction to determine convection activities.
Pilot Weather Reports (PIREP) and Aircraft Meteorological Data Relay
(AMDAR). PIREPs are reports of observations from the flight deck of conditions such
as icing and turbulence. AMDAR is the automated report from airborne sensors. More
information on PIREP and AMDAR can be found in Section 4.11.
Major FAA/NWS managed aviation weather analysis products include:
Surface Analysis Charts. These charts depict the distribution of sea level pressure, the
location and character of fronts, and various boundaries, from surface observations.
Other symbols are often added depending upon the intended use of the chart. These
charts are issued every two or six hours.
Constant Pressure Charts. These are maps of selected conditions along specified
constant pressure surfaces (pressure altitudes) and depict observed weather. They help
to determine the 3D aspect of depicted pressure systems. These charts are issued twice
per day from observed data obtained at 00Z and 12Z.
Freezing-level Graphics. These charts depict the lowest altitude in the atmosphere at
which the air temperature reaches 0°C. They are issued every two hours with an initial
analysis and forecasts 12 hours into the future at three-hour intervals. The forecasts are
based on the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) forecast model (see RAP below).
Weather Depiction Charts. They contain a plot of weather conditions at selected
METAR stations and an analysis of weather flying category at terminals; issued eight
times daily (hourly for Alaska).
Radar Summary Chart. It is a computer-generated mosaic of radar echo intensity
contours based on Radar Weather Reports, including remarks. It is issued hourly.
Major FAA/NWS managed aviation weather forecast products include:
Area Forecasts (FA). This is a forecast in an abbreviated plain language of specified
weather phenomena covering a Flight Information Region (FIR) or other area
designated by the meteorological authority. It is used to determine forecast en route
weather (see below) and to interpolate conditions at airports that do not have a
Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF). FAs are issued three to four times daily
depending on the region.
Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF). This is a concise statement of the expected
meteorological conditions significant to aviation for specified time periods within five
statute miles of the center of the airport’s runway complex (terminal). It uses the same
weather codes found in METAR. TAF is issued four times a day, each for a valid
period of 24 or 30 hours.
International Aviation Route Forecasts (ROFOR). This is a forecast along the
planned route in text format. A ROFOR may contain data for multiple altitudes and
include TAFs for the destination or alternates. ROFORs are prepared and issued
several hours in advance of regularly scheduled flights, or as soon as time allows for
unscheduled flights.
Wind and Temperature Aloft Forecast (FB). FBs are computer prepared forecasts of
wind direction, wind speed, and temperature at specified times, altitudes, at specific
locations, provided in text format. FBs are issued four times daily.
Forecast Charts. A number of forecast chart products are also available, such as
Short-Range Surface Prognostic (PROG) charts, low-level Significant Weather
(SIGWX) charts, mid-level SIGWX charts, high-level SIGWX charts. These charts are
issued two to four times daily for forecasts from 12 up to 48 hours into the future,
depending on the product and region covered.
Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMET) and Airmen’s Meteorological
Information (AIRMET). A SIGMET is a concise description of the occurrence or
expected occurrence of specified en route weather phenomena which may affect the
safety of aircraft operations. An AIRMET is similar to a SIGMET but it is at intensities
lower than those that require the issuance of a SIGMET. The Graphical-AIRMET
(G-AIRMET), provides more precise and informative weather hazard depictions than
the text-only AIRMET. SIGMETs are issued as soon as practical for a maximum
forecast period of four hours. AIRMETs are issued four times daily with a maximum
forecast period of six hours, and when conditions are occurring or expected to occur,
but were not forecast. A Center Weather Advisory (CWA) is an aviation weather
warning for conditions meeting or approaching national inflight advisory (AIRMET,
SIGMET or Convective SIGMET) criteria. CWAs complement or refine those inflight
advisories.
Volcanic Ash Advisory. The ICAO designated nine regional Volcanic Ash Advisory
Centers (VAACs) (two in the United States.) to provide advisory volcanic ash
information. A Volcanic Ash Advisory Statement (VAAS) may be issued to provide
information on hazards to aircraft flight operations within six hours of an eruption and
every six hours thereafter (more frequently if new information is received). A Volcanic
Ash Advisory (VAA) is issued as necessary, but at least every six hours until certain
conditions are met.
Rapid Refresh (RAP). A next-generation gridded numerical forecast covering North
America, with 13 km horizontal resolution and 50 vertical pressure levels. The RAP
replaced the RUC forecast model on May 1, 2012 [69]. The RAP is an hourly updated
model with forecasts up to 18 hours into the future, at one-hour intervals.
 World Area Forecast System (WAFS) Grid Point Data. This is an upper-air gridded
numerical forecast product covering the entire globe. This data is provided in Gridded
Binary 1 (GRIB1) (was to be discontinued in 2013) and GRIB2 format [70], with a
base grid resolution of 1.25° by 1.25° for vertical levels up to FL530. WAFS gridded
data is released four times daily for forecast up to 36 hours into the future at six-hour
intervals.
Supplementary Aviation Weather Products. These products include Collaborative
Convective Forecast Product (CCFP), National Convective Weather Forecast
(NCWF), Current Icing Product (CIP), Forecast Icing Potential (FIP), Graphical
Turbulence Guidance (GTG-2), and Meteorological Impact Statement (MIS). These
products may be issued regularly or as dictated by the situation. They are to be used in
conjunction with primary weather products.
Major FAA weather processing systems include:
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP). The core of WARP is the Radar
Acquisition Mosaic Processor (RAMP), which provides regional and national radar
mosaic products. The latency between a given NEXRAD sees a feature and that feature
shows up on the ATC display ranges from three to five minutes. This includes
NEXRAD product generation (10 seconds), transfer data NEXRAD to WARP (10 to
20 seconds), RAMP mosaic generation (five seconds), Volume Coverage Pattern
(VCP) and radar overlap (two to five minutes), and display update rate (25 seconds)
[71]. Radar mosaic along with other weather data are distributed to other NAS
customers by the WARP Weather Information Network Server (WINS). There are
currently 25 WARP systems in operation; 21 of them are located at ATRCCs.
Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS). CIWS ingests weather sensor and
model data to generate a suite of convective weather forecast products (0 to two hours
at five-minute intervals). CIWS integrates data from Airport Surveillance Radar
(ASR), Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), NEXRAD, surface weather
observations such as those from Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS), and
radar imagery. The main products are gridded precipitation, i.e., Vertically Integrated
Liquid (VIL), and echo tops [72]. CIWS is operated at Massachussetts Institute of
Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory, and CIWS products are currently disseminated to
15 FAA facilities (ATCSCC, ARTCCs, TRACONs), airlines FOC, and several
research organizations.
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS). ITWS integrates terminal weather
data from multiple sensors (including ASR, TDWR, NEXRAD, and aircraft) and
system (including RAP) and provides current weather information and predictions in
both graphic and textual form, including windshear and microburst predictions, storm
cell and lightning information, and terminal area winds aloft. It also provides a
60-minute forecast of anticipated weather conditions. ITWS are installed at 34
locations. The information is provided to controllers at tower cabs, TRACONs, and
their associated ARTCCs. Data are also available to airlines and other aviation users
for their use in planning activities.
As can be seen from the description above, a variety of weather sensing and processing
systems exist. These disparate sources of aviation weather data sometimes conflict with one
another, creating challenges for efficient operational planning and decision-making. Furthermore,
consistent NAS-wide weather information is rarely available in any one location. As a result,
NAS-wide operational coordination requires excessive ad hoc discussion among stakeholders,
which is time-consuming and inefficient. The FAA is currently planning two weather-related
programs, expected to be cloud-based applications, to address these issues:
NextGen Weather Processor (NWP). NWP is envisioned as a weather processing
platform and infrastructure to replace functions of legacy FAA weather processor
systems and host new capabilities [73],[74]. NWP may replace the functionality of
WARP RAMP, CIWS, and ITWS. NWP may further provide advanced
aviation-specific weather information through the integration of real-time radar data
extrapolation with NWS forecast models up to eight hours; consume and process
NOAA numerical models and satellite information to generate products that vary in
update rate from 10 seconds to every five minutes; and perform Weather Translation to
produce weather avoidance fields which will enable the use of weather information by
automated Decision Support Tools (DSTs).
Common Support Services—Weather (CSS-Wx). CSS-Wx, formerly known as
NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW), is intended to establish an aviation
weather publishing capability for the NAS and to provide the FAA and NAS users with
same-time access to a unified aviation weather picture via the SWIM network [75].
CSS-Wx will publish standardized weather information provided by the NWP, the
NOAA 4D Weather Cube and other weather sources. CSS-Wx will filter weather
information geospatially and temporally to provide its consumers only the specific data
requested. CSS-Wx will be the FAA’s single provider of aviation weather data,
consolidating several legacy weather systems. Once CSS-Wx is operational, the FAA
will begin to decommission selected legacy weather information systems.

2.16 Preflight Weather Services

Many of the weather products described in Section 2.16 are available for use by the aircraft
operator and the flight crew for preflight planning purposes via network access to government
operated weather servers, and from private industry sources on an individual or contract basis. Air
carriers and operators certificated under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 119 are required to use the
aeronautical weather information systems defined in the Operations Specifications issued to that
certificate holder by the FAA. As the ANSP in the United States, the FAA does operate a number
of specific preflight weather services. These include automated toll-free services and preflight
briefing services offered by FAA Flight Service Station (FSS) personnel.
FAA Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSS) provide a Telephone Information Briefing
Service (TIBS), and in Alaska, Transcribed Weather Broadcast (TWEB). These are continuously
updated with recorded weather information and aeronautical information. The Direct User Access
Terminal System (DUATS) can be accessed by U.S. certified pilots with a current medical
certificate toll-free via personal computer. Pilots can receive alpha-numeric preflight weather data
and file domestic VFR and IFR flight plans. Most AWOS and ASOS/AWSS sites also have a
dial-up capability so that the minute-by-minute weather messages can be accessed via telephone.
In the United States, FAA’s FSS preflight briefings are mostly designed for general aviation
(GA) pilots. These briefings are available 24 hours a day through the use of toll free number
1-800-WX-BRIEF or in person at an AFSS/FSS [53]. These services are provided by certified
Flight Service Specialists at FSSs. They are not authorized to make original forecasts, but are
authorized to translate and interpret available forecasts (TAF) and reports (METAR/SPECI)
directly into terms describing the weather conditions that the pilot can expect along the flight route
and at the destination. At some of the larger AFSSs/FSSs, weather display may be available for
pilot use. A standard briefing may include adverse conditions, current conditions, en route
forecast, destination forecast, and winds aloft for the proposed route interpolated between levels
and stations as necessary to provide expected conditions at planned altitudes. An outlook briefing
may be requested if the proposed time of departure is five or more hours from the time of the
briefing. In addition, NWS meteorologists are assigned to all ARTCCs as part the Center Weather
Service Unit (CWSU). They provide advisory service and short-term forecasts (nowcasts) to
support the needs of the FAA and other NAS users.

2.17 Inflight Weather Services

Similar to preflight briefing, inflight briefing may be requested from the nearest AFSS/FSS by
radio. In addition, En Route Flight Advisory Service (EFAS) is provided by specialists in selected
AFSSs/FSSs to serve the non-routine in-flight weather needs. EFAS provides communication
capabilities for aircraft flying at 5,000 ft AGL to 17,500 ft MSL on 122.0 MHz, while discrete
frequencies are established to ensure coverage from FL180 to FL450 in each ARTCC area.
A number of inflight weather broadcasts are provided. AWOS transmits on a discrete VHF
frequency or the voice portion of a local NAVAID a 20- to 30-second weather voice message
updated each minute that is engineered to be receivable to a maximum of 25 nmi from the AWOS
site and a maximum altitude of 10,000 ft AGL. ASOS/AWSS provides identical data as ASOS.
Continuous TWEB are made continuously over selected NAVAIDs. These broadcasts contain the
general weather forecasts and winds up to 12,000 ft within a 250 nmi radius of the radio. In some
cases the forecasts are for route of flight rather than the general area. They also broadcast PIREPs,
radar reports, and hourly weather reports of selected locations within a 400 nmi radius of the
broadcast station. Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) Broadcasts are operated by the
terminal facility. These broadcasts are made continuously and include as weather information only
the ceiling, visibility, wind, and altimeter setting of the aerodrome at which they are located.
Digital ATIS, currently hosted by ARINC, provides ATIS text messages. ARTCCs issue weather
advisory broadcasts including Severe Weather Forecast Alert (AWW), Convective SIGMET, and
CWA, once on all except emergency frequencies when any part of the area described is within 150
nmi (within 50 nmi for TRACON) of the airspace under their jurisdiction. Hazardous Inflight
Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS) is a continuous broadcast of inflight weather advisories
including summarized AWWs, SIGMETs, Convective SIGMETs, CWAs, AIRMETs, and urgent
PIREPs.
Flight Information Services (FIS) deliver weather and other operations information to the
aircraft for display in the cockpit. There are two basic types of FIS systems: Broadcast only
(FIS-B) or two-way request/reply systems. FIS uses ground- or space-based transmitters and
receivers. Products available via FIS-B include textual weather products such as
METARs/SPCEIs and TAFs; inflight advisories such as SIGMETs, Convective SIGMETS,
AIRMETs, PIREPs, and AWWs; and graphical products such as radar composite/mosaic images,
graphic SIGMETs, graphic TFRs, and other NOTAMs. FIS services are available over broadcast
data link over VHF from private providers under service agreement with the FAA; through FAA
operated services using broadcast data link on the ADS-B Universal Access Transceiver (UAT)
for GA flights; from private providers operating under customer contracts using aeronautical
spectrum; and from private providers operating under customer contract using methods other than
aeronautical spectrum, including Internet data-to-the-cockpit service providers. Flight Information
Services Data Link (FISDL) (VHF) Service is a VHF Data Link (VDL) Mode 2 implementation on
136.450 and 136.475 MHz operated under FAA service agreements with two private vendors, free
of charge. FISDL (VHF) service provides coverage throughout the continental United States from
5,000 ft AGL to 17,500 ft MSL, except in areas where this is not feasible due to mountainous
terrain. FISDL provides textual products and inflight advisories. Additional products, called
“Value-Added Products,” are also available from the vendor on a paid subscription basis. FAA’s
UAT FIS-B is currently available in specific regions of the country, with NAS-wide service
availability planned for 2013. UAT FIS-B is free of charge, and provides the textual products and
graphic products. UAT FIS-B products are updated and transmitted at specific intervals based
primarily on product issuance criteria (see [53] TBL 3.5-2). Under current rules, FIS is not
intended to replace traditional pilot and controller/flight service specialist/aircraft dispatcher
preflight briefings or inflight voice communications. It can, however, provide textual and
graphical background information that can help abbreviate and improve the usefulness of such
communications. FIS enhances pilot situation awareness and improves safety. If FIS products are
systemically modified (for example, are displayed as abbreviated plain text and/or graphical
depictions), the modification process and limitations of the resultant product should be clearly
described in the vendor’s user guidance.

2.18 Flight Planning

It is commonly required by civil aviation regulatory authorities that a flight plan be filed with
the ANSP prior to takeoff for aircraft operating under IFR. As a minimum, a flight plan identifies
the aircraft type, equipment capability, the departure airport, cruise altitude and speed, the route
defined by airways, ATS routes, and/or waypoints, the destination airport, and estimated (or
proposed) departure time and estimated arrival time. Depending on the type of operations and
aircraft equipage, various restrictions and limitation must be observed in the flight plan. The FAA
requires that a pilot must submit a complete flight plan and receive an ATC clearance prior to
departure from within, or prior to entering Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace, if weather conditions
are below VFR minimums.
The FAA requires international flights, domestic flights planning to fly RNAV procedures,
flights planning to enter RVSM airspace, or flights expecting services based on ADS-B to file an
ICAO flight plan (see [76],[77],[78] Appendix 2). Domestic flights not desiring to fly RNAV
procedures may file a domestic or NAS flight plan [79]. Flight plan filing under VFR is not
required but strongly recommended. The ICAO flight plan requires more specific information
about the flight than the domestic flight plan and is more accurate, thus it is always preferred. The
aircraft operator or the pilot can file a flight plan with FAA via Aeronautical Fixed
Telecommunication Network (AFTN) addressing directly the departure en route facility (ARTCC)
En Route Automation System (ERAS), or by submitting a filled hardcopy form [76] or [79] to an
FSS, by phone to the weather briefing number (1-800-WX-BRIEF), through DUATS services, or
commercial flight planning service providers. FAA’s FSSs provide preflight briefings, including
weather briefings (see 2.16) and pertinent NOTAMs to support flight planning for GA pilots.
FAA-contracted DUATS service vendors provide free flight planning tools for GA pilots
[80],[81], along with FAA weather briefing.
A flight plan can be filed with the FAA up to 24 hours in advance of the filed Estimated
Off-Blocks Time (EOBT), and at least 30 minutes prior to the estimated time of departure, to
preclude possible delay in receiving a departure clearance from ATC. When changes to a filed
flight plan are necessary, they should be initiated at least 30 minutes prior to EOBT to insure that
the change can be effected prior to the ATC clearance delivery. To prevent computer saturation in
the en-route environment, parameters have been established to delete proposed departure flight
plans that have not been activated after the proposed departure time. Most Centers have this
parameter set so as to delete these flight plans a minimum of one hour after the proposed departure
time. To ensure that a flight plan remains active, pilots whose actual departure time will be delayed
one hour or more beyond their filed departure time, are requested to notify ATC of their departure
time.
A related requirement for future deployment is the submission of Trajectory Option Set (TOS)
for TFM re-routing. Details of this requirement can be found in Section 2.23.

2.19 Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS)

The Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) is an FAA system operationally deployed in
2010 to replace the legacy Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS). ETMS was initially
developed at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Volpe Center in the 1980s. The ETMS hub
was hosted at the Volpe Center and has gone through a number of enhancements over the years.
ETMS integrates real-time flight and weather data from multiple sources; presents information
graphically in a highly adaptable format; and enables more efficient, predictable, and equitable
management of air traffic in congested airspace. ETMS facilitates a common air traffic situation
awareness that makes possible collaborative decision making among FAA, aircraft operators, and
military operations [82]. It proved to be the foundation for the development of modern TFM.
TFMS continues the benefit of ETMS, providing a modernized, scalable, service oriented
architecture (SOA) solution to support the FAA NextGen vision [83]. TFMS serves as the
automation backbone for the ATCSCC and the nationwide TMUs that assist the Command Center
in strategic planning and management of air traffic. The system is the nation’s primary source for
capturing and disseminating flight information across the aviation community. The TFMS
automation and communication mechanisms support the decision-making process used to adjust
flight schedules and/or routes as necessary. TFMS also serves as a source for travel data to the
public. The TFMS SOA is based on systems technologies that include business process
management, portals, XML-based messaging, improved business rules execution, a relational
database, and reporting tools. The modernized TFMS infrastructure adheres to open
industry-driven standards such as the Java 2-Enterprise Edition (J2EE) suite and XML. TFMS
minimizes the impact of changes to the NAS by isolating interfaces from processing components
(including system-to-system interfaces and human-computer interfaces), isolating data
management from processing and modularizing processing in subsystems. The primary TFMS
Production Center (TPC) is hosted at the FAA William J. Hughes Technology Center (WJHTC) in
Pomona, NJ, with a new TFMS Disaster Recovery Center (DRC) as a backup site located in Mt.
Weather, VA. The TFMS DRC provides the capability for the ATCSCC and TFMS remote sites to
continue operations in the event of a long-term outage at the TPC.
 The core of the TFMS is a Production Data system, which is a collective information store
built on relational data models to support portal and application services, and a Post Operations
Data system, which is a one-line data archive that supports analysis for TFM and NAS
improvements. TFM capabilities and programs are structured as processes and services for
flexibility and time to market. Current and near-term TFM capabilities are described separately in
Section 2.20 through Section 2.25. On top of application services is the TPC portal infrastructure
that easily maintains internal and external interfaces. This infrastructure supports an FAA portal
and an external portal. The FAA portal supports collaboration and integration of situation
awareness and TMIs within the FAA and with external stakeholders. The FAA portal provides
connection to FAA remote sites to support local interfaces and responsive displays. The external
portal provides connection to external remote sites to support local interfaces and responsive
displays. It also supports improved web-based situation awareness and TMIs. The Traffic
Situation Display (TSD) is a workstation-based TFMS client application that allows the traffic
manager to graphically display the current position of all IFR flights that are in the air. The TSD
also displays the current status of alerts and weather, as well as map overlays such as sectors, fixes,
NAVAIDs, and airports. In addition to its main function of displaying aircraft positions, the TSD
gives the traffic manager access to the various TFMS databases. A think client TSD is also
available. Other applications available on a TFMS workstation include Flight Schedule Monitor
(FSM) (see more details in 2.21), the static Route Manager (RMGR), Traffic Management Shell
program (TM Shell), and applications for constructing and seeding advisories and messages.
TFMS provides infrastructure to support Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) (see 2.26), with
many of the TFM capabilities and programs designed around CDM processes. For instance, the
FSM is a client application that has been used by both the FAA and aircraft operators for the
Ground Delay Program (GDP) (see 2.21) and Airspace Flow Program (AFP) (see 2.22). TFMS has
an internal traffic demand evaluation rate of once per minute, and determines the system status at
15-minute intervals. Although the 15-minute interval is more or less arbitrary, it is a common
parameter used for airport, fix, and sector demand analysis. Individual TFM programs often use
integer numbers of the 15-minute interval as the decision time horizon or update cycle.
TFMS is being enhanced through Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies
(CATMT) Work Packages (WPs), with CATMT WP1 replacing the ETMS. CATMT WP2 is
currently underway, with Arrival Uncertainty Management (AUM) and the integration of the
CIWS product onto the TSD already completed. CATMT also includes the integration of the
Route Availability Planning Tool (RAPT) [84] onto the TSD, the Collaborative Airspace
Constraint Resolution (CACR) [85], and the Airborne Reroute (see 2.24). CATMT WP3 provides
a major re-architecture of the existing TFMS remote sites used by traffic managers to provide an
integrated tool suite and to match the software architecture of the modernized TFMS hub site. The
functional enhancement with Collaborative Information Exchange (CIX) increased situation
awareness and improved constraint prediction by the incorporation of data made available via
SWIM mechanisms.

2.20 Ground Stops (GS)

A Ground Stop (GS) [28] is an FAA procedure requiring aircraft that meet specific criteria to
remain on the ground. The GS may be airport-specific, related to a geographical area, or
equipment-related. GSs are implemented when air traffic control is unable to safely accommodate
additional aircraft in the system for a short period of time. They are most frequently used for
severely reduced capacity situations such as severe weather, major equipment outages, or
catastrophic events; for precluding extended periods of airborne holding; for precluding sectors
from reaching saturation levels; or for precluding airports from reaching gridlock. GSs are
tier-based and are often reactive to the current situation. Tier is a concept to define the relationship
between adjacent ARTCCs. First-tier ARTCCs are those adjacent to the selected ARTCC, and
second-tier ARTCCs are those adjacent to the first tier. In some situations, a GS may also be
planned in advance. For example, inclement weather is forecast to develop along the East Coast.
Aircraft may be released until the weather materializes, at which time a GS would be issued to
ensure additional aircraft are not released until the operational situation allows, and weather is no
longer a factor.
ATC facilities may implement an internal GS for up to 30 minutes. If it is expected to continue
longer, the ATCSCC, i.e., the Command Center, will assume control and may extend the time and
expand the scope. An advisory will be issued by the Command Center advising customers of the
stop. Ground stop information for delays of less than 15 minutes is provided by the ATC facility
directly. Delays of 15 minutes or more are published on the Command Center Operational
Information System (OIS) Web [86]. GS has the higher priority over other TMIs, such as those
described in Sections 2.21 and 2.22.

2.21 Ground Delay Programs (GDP)

The Ground Delay Program (GDP) [28] is an FAA TFM process where aircraft are delayed at
their departure airport in order to manage demand and capacity at their arrival airport. Flights are
assigned departure times, which in turn regulate their arrival time at the impacted airport. GDP will
normally be implemented at airports where capacity has been reduced because of weather—such
as low ceilings, thunderstorms or wind—or when demand exceeds capacity for a sustained period.
GDPs are implemented to ensure the arrival demand at an airport is kept at a manageable level to
preclude extensive holding and to prevent aircraft from having to divert to other airports. They are
also used in support of a Severe Weather Avoidance Plan (SWAP).
The FAA uses software called Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM) [87], which compiles scheduled
flight information and flight plans from the ARTCC to calculate and then display graphically the
known demand for arrivals and departures at airports. Capacity is expressed in Airport Acceptance
Rate (AAR)—the number of aircraft an airport can accept in a one-hour time frame. The AAR is
determined by the Aviation System Airport Performance Metrics, which takes into consideration
the runways in use, weather conditions, and NAVAID limitations. When an overage of demand
versus capacity is noted, a GDP is modeled through the FSM software. FSM assigns arrival “slots”
to aircraft based on the available capacity and flight arrival times, and adds delay in sequential
order until demand equals capacity. All aircraft known to the FSM as filed to a GDP airport are
assigned an Expect Departure Clearance Time (EDCT), and will receive a delay from zero minutes
to possibly several hours depending on the amount of traffic in the program. EDCT is defined as
the runway release time or wheels-up time. Aircraft that are not in the original list of flights when
the GDP is implemented (i.e., popup flights) will also receive a delay. Their delay will be equal to
the average delay assigned to all other flights arriving in the 15-minute time interval in which their
flight is requesting to arrive.
There are two types of GDPs: A Delay Assignment (DAS) program and a General Aviation
Airport Program (GAAP) program. DAS is the original delay mode. It is best used when original
known demand exceeds capacity. In DAS mode, the delay assignment may be tier-based, that is,
flights are delayed based on ARTCC overlaying their origin airport relative to the ARTCC
overlaying the GDP airport. Tier-based GDP programs are referred to as first tier, second tier, Six
West (limited to West Coast airports), No West (limited to East Coast airports) and an All
program. The delay assignment may also be distance-based in that only flights whose origin is
within a specific distance from the GDP airport are delayed. GAAP is a GDP that allocates arrivals
in an equitable manner to an airport temporarily in a high demand situation such as special events.
GAAP is best used when original known demand is below capacity, but it is anticipated that
significant numbers of popup flights will cause capacity to be exceeded.
In both DAS and GAAP, new popup flights become additional demand above the Program
Rate, thus requiring periodic revisions to bring demand and capacity back into balance. Unified
Delay Program (UDP) is a new type of delay mode that is suitable for either the DAS or GAAP
scenario or scenarios in which some hours would be better served by DAS and other hours by
GAAP [88]. In UDP, a certain amount of capacity is retained for projected popups when the
program is originally issued. The goal is to improve handling of popup flights, thus increasing the
overall equity of delays and the stability of GDP, and consequently require fewer revisions due to
the effect of popups.
To be compliant with the GDP, aircraft must depart within ±5 minutes of their EDCT. Each
flight needs to plan to taxi in a manner consistent with meeting the EDCT. If an aircraft is late, air
traffic controllers are required to call the Command Center to get a new EDCT. This could mean
additional delay for the aircraft and missed slot opportunities for other aircraft. Airline customers
are thus given the opportunity to substitute their aircraft’s EDCTs to meet their schedule objective.
If an airline reported flight cancellations before a GDP is implemented, those flights were simply
dropped from the FAA database. The airline was not able to use the potentially assigned arrival
slots for substitution. If an airline reported a mechanical delay on a flight, the system would
re-project its arrival time. If a GDP were run at that time, that flight would likely receive an
additional delay on top of its mechanical delay. These effects were known as the “Double Penalty”
issue which represented a barrier to implementing open data exchange. The airlines would simply
not send in information that would produce clear adverse economic consequences. A philosophy
of Ration by Schedule (RBS) [89] is followed to avoid this disincentive.
Sometimes a cancelled flight may result in an unusable slot, e.g., when the originally assigned
arrival slot of a cancelled flight is earlier than the scheduled arrival time of the aircraft operator’s
other flights to the same GDP airport. Compression, also known as bridging substitutions, is a
process whereby unusable arrival slots are shifted in time so the owner can again use that slot.
Compression prevents the slot of the cancelled flight from being wasted by moving up another
operator’s flight that can use the slot, and then subsequently filling the newly vacated slot until the
open slot can be used by the operator of the cancelled flight. Adaptive compression is an
automated approach to compression implemented in March 2007 to help ensure higher utilization
of the airport/airspace capacity, more proactive aircraft operator involvement, and reduced
workload for the Command Center specialist/ATC coordinator. Adaptive compression has a
nominal minimum notification time of 30 min, the duration between current time and a new
departure time that can be given to a flight.
2.22 Airspace Flow Programs (AFP)
Airspace Flow Program (AFP) [28], [90]-[93] is an FAA TFM process introduced in Summer
2006. The principal goal for the initial deployment was to provide enhanced en route traffic
management during severe weather events. An AFP identifies constraints in the en route system,
develops a real-time list of flights that are filed into the constrained area, and distributes EDCT to
meter the demand through the area. AFPs use predefined Flow Evaluation Areas (FEAs) to
identify Flow Constrained Areas (FCAs) that are defined to generally correspond to ARTCC
boundaries and filtered for arrivals to specific destination centers. One such FCA is shown in
Figure 5. Currently, the AFPs are focused on severe weather events in the eastern half of the
United States. However, as AFP technology and procedures improve, it is expected that AFPs will
be utilized to manage airspace constraints throughout the NAS. They are also being used to
manage increased seasonal demand into Mexico and the Caribbean, and may be utilized during
equipment failures that result in loss of radar coverage and/or frequencies.
The National En route Spacing Position (NESP) at the Command Center oversees all AFPs.
When convective weather forecasts suggest there will be major impact on traffic, the NESP, in
consultation with the field Traffic Management Coordinators at ATC facilities and aircraft
operators, will select the FCA most appropriate for the expected weather and traffic situation. For
the selected FCA, Aggregate Demand Lists (ADLs), i.e., detailed information on all flights
expected to be in the FCA for the next several hours, will be generated and regularly updated.
Based on the anticipated conditions, the NESP will select an AFP arrival rate based on guidelines
developed through analysis of historical data (also shown in Figure 5). The arrival rate may be a set
number of aircraft allowed to pass through the FCA per hour or may be a percent reduction of
known demand. The duration of the program and any appropriate flight exemptions (few if any
flights will be exempted for AFPs) are specified. A list of entry times, or slots, consistent with the
specified rate is generated and allocated to flights expected to enter the FCA in a manner consistent
with the philosophy of RBS. For each affected flight, the EDCT is produced by subtracting its
predicted transit time from departure to entry into the FCA. Popup flights are assigned an EDCT
consistent with the delay received by other flights filed to enter the AFP at about the same time.
FCAA01 is defined by the western
boundary of ZNY & extending to Lake Erie.
Altitude Filters: 120 – 600
Arrival Filters: ZNY & ZBW
Departure Filters: None
FCAA01 Likely weather for use: Weather close in
to or moving toward the N.Y. Metro area.
Weather Triggers: Intense weather that is
close in or moving toward the N.Y. Metro
area and is or will likely directly impact the
N.Y. Metro airports.

NESP Rate Guidelines

Flow through ZOB:
Low Weather Impact: 90 – 100 Rate/Hour
Med Weather Impact 80 – 90 Rate/Hour
High Weather Impact 70 – 80 Rate/Hour

Figure 5: AFP Flow Constrained Area FCAA01 and NESP Flow Rate Guidelines (from [93]).
 The EDCT for each flight is then sent to the centers, towers, and aircraft operators’ FOC, and
made available at the Command Center’s website. Flights are asked to depart as close to the EDCT
as possible. If conditions warrant, a flight may depart five minutes before the EDCT and up to five
minutes after. Outside of that window, a flight may request for a new time or may explore other
options such as route out the AFP. If a flight elects to explore other options, a re-filed new flight
plan into an existing AFP, or a re-filed flight plan out of an AFP and into another, is treated as a
popup and will forfeit the arrival slot in the original AFP. It is recognized that the predicted
demand through an AFP and the weather impacting the area may change substantially over time.
When the conditions warrant, the NESP will take steps to coordinate and implement revisions to
the AFP. In a revision, AFP entry slots are recomputed so that demand is again metered to meet
capacity and new EDCTs are sent to centers, towers, and FOCs. Adaptive compression used in
GDP is also applied to AFP. On average, AFPs are implemented three hours in advance, with
duration of six hours, and less than one revision per AFP.
The Command Center’s Collaborative Decision Making Flow Evaluation Sub-Team is
currently working on furthering the concept of AFP, including a more flexible FCA definition and
accurate and dynamic FCA capacity estimation.

2.23 Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP)

As discussed earlier in Section 2.22, other than delaying the aircraft on the ground at the origin
airport, as in the case of AFP, when en route constraints are identified, the aircraft may be routed
out of the AFP area. The route may be assigned according to the National Severe Weather
Playbook [34],[94], Coded Departure Routes (CDR) [34],[95], or on on an ad hoc basis. The
Playbook is a collection of Severe Weather Avoidance Plan (SWAP) routes that have been
pre-validated and coordinated with impacted ARTCCs. The Playbook is designed to mitigate the
potential adverse impact to the FAA and customers during periods of severe weather or other
events that affect coordination of routes. The CDR program is a combination of coded air traffic
routings and refined coordination procedures designed to mitigate the potential adverse impact of
severe weather or other events. With these TMIs, aircraft operators are limited to reacting options
and their business preferences are not included in the decision process.
Integrated collaborative rerouting (ICR) [28],[96] is a process, which was first implemented in
Spring 2007, that builds on the FEA and FCA technology. It laid the foundation for “Electronic
Negotiation.” The ICR process requires that a constraint be identified early. Traffic management
may issue a Planning (PLN) advisory describing the system constraint and providing route
guidance. Aircraft operators are allowed an opportunity to consider the area of concern, and
provide Early Intent (EI) messages or file a flight plan that communicates their decisions in
response to the constraint. EI messages update ETMS (now TFMS) flight trajectories, and monitor
alert values and routing intentions. At the expiration of the EI window, which is no less than 45
minutes prior to implementation of ICR, aircraft operators’ responses are analyzed to decide if the
actions taken have resolved the issue, or if recommended routes, required routes, AFP, and/or
other TMIs will be necessary to further reduce demand.
Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) [97],[98] is a program that was expected to
replace ICR and combine with AFP in Fall 2013. With CTOP, the traffic manager focuses on
constraint management. It moves from defining routes to defining constraint and capacity, and
provides the aircraft operator as much input as possible in the issuance of delay and/or reroute
assignment. With this information, aircraft operators will control how each flight responds to a
constraint based on their business model. The process can be initiated more than six hours in
advance of the predicted constraint. The first step is for the Command Center to identify constraint
and plan potential TMIs. This is done by creating one or more FEA(s), converting FEA(s) to
FCA(s) and assigning capacities to them, and publishing this information. At the same time, the
aircraft operator identifies constraints and plans route options. The aircraft operation then submits
the Trajectory Option Set (TOS), a list of optional trajectories ranked by Relative Trajectory Cost
(RTC). An optional trajectory may also include earliest runway time of departure, Required
Minimum Notification Time (RMNT), and trajectory valid time window. CTOP algorithm then
assigns to each flight the most preferred option that it can, while taking into account other demand
and the available capacity. The proposed TMI shares the potential impact, allowing for informed
discussion between Command Center and aircraft operators. Aircraft operators can respond to the
proposed CTOP with a new or modified TOS. From about four hours to two hours in advance, the
CTOP is issued and implemented. Starting at around t hours in advance, it becomes the managing
and monitoring phase of CTOP. Conformance to the assigned route is monitored using automation
tools based on common situation information. Through collaboration and electronic trajectory
negotiation, the TMI may be adjusted and the aircraft operator’s options may be further refined.
For example, the aircraft may decide to substitute the slot time of entry or the trajectory assigned to
one flight with another flight of its own between FCAs. CTOP will also be able to apply multiple
FCAs in one solution.
CTOP TMIs will have a lower priority than GS and GDP TMIs. Within CTOP and AFP, the
order of issuance determines priority. CTOP will require the aircraft operator submitted TOS to
conform to published Preferred Routes [28], North American Route Program (NRP) [28],[99],
Wind Routes [94], AZEZU Routes [94], and current route advisories. Aircraft operators who
choose not to provide TOS will have no choice but to accept extended ground delay, extensive
reroutes, or re-file flight plan and avoid CTOP. A critical factor in an aircraft operator’s flight plan
design will be the ability to compute multiple trajectories simultaneously and submit them as a
TOS.

2.24 Airborne Reroute (ABRR)

Airborne Reroute Execution (ABRR) [100],[44] is an FAA program currently under
development. The ABRR conceptual study and initial demonstration have been completed. The
initial design of ABRR was expected to be completed in 2013, and development and test was
expected to be completed in 2013. ABRR provides the ability to electronically send
TFM-generated airborne reroutes to ARTCC automation (i.e., ERAM) for ATC execution.
Controller then issues clearance via voice and amends the flight plan. Data link, once this
capability becomes available, can then be employed to reduce the need for voice transmission of
reroutes to properly-equipped airborne aircraft, and to allow for implementation of more complex
reroutes (e.g., RNAV routes). Rerouted flights are monitored for conformance to reroute TMI, and
if necessary, reroutes are modified or cancelled.

2.25 Field Facility Traffic Management Initiatives

A number of types of basic TMIs are used by ATC field facilities to manage traffic flows and
volume within the jurisdiction of the facility or between facilities. These TMIs fall into two
general categories: spacing TMIs and altitude TMIs. Basic spacing TMIs include Miles-In-Trail
(MIT) and Minutes-In-Trail (MINIT), while altitude TMIs include Low Altitude Alternate
Departure Route (LAADR), Capping, Tunneling, and Tower En Route [28].
MIT and MINIT can be used to apportion traffic into a manageable flow, as well as provide
space for additional traffic (merging or departing) to enter the flow of traffic. MIT describes the
number of nautical miles required between aircraft departing an airport, over a fix, at an altitude,
through a sector, or on a specific route. The standard separation between aircraft in the en route
environment is 5 nmi. During a weather event, the downstream sector may be constrained, thus
requiring spacing between successive flights to be increased significantly to manage flow into the
constrained sector. MINIT describes the amount of time needed between successive aircraft. It is
normally used when aircraft are operating in a non-radar environment or transitioning to/from a
non-radar environment. This would be the case with offshore and oceanic routes spacing.
Altitude is often used to segregate different flows of traffic, e.g., turbo prop vs. jet traffic, or to
distribute the number of aircraft requesting access to a specified geographic area. LAADR is a
procedure whereby flight altitudes may be limited to FL230 and below. LAADR procedures are
primarily used in the departure phase of flight, but can be extended for an entire flight when
operational benefits are achieved, especially for short flights. Capping is a colloquialism for
planning to hold aircraft at altitudes lower than their requested altitude until they are clear of a
particular area. It may be in response to weather or other situations that have impacted air traffic
controllers’ ability to provide service and it may be applied to the entire route of flight. It is used
during constrained situations in the NAS and enables aircraft to continue to depart while remaining
underneath a constrained airspace. Tunneling is a colloquialism for descending traffic prior to the
normal descent point at an arrival airport to keep aircraft clear of an airspace situation on the route
of flight. It is used to avoid conflicting flows of traffic and holding patterns. Tower En Route is a
situation where the aircraft never reaches the en route stratum, but stays in the lower terminal
altitudes being handed-off from one terminal facility (Tower or TRACON) to another vs.
center-to-center. This sometimes reduces delays, especially if the higher en route stratum is
congested.
The TMIs described in this section are often implemented according to predefined procedures
or Letters Of Agreements (LOA) between ATC facilities. However, current FAA procedure [34]
calls for the use of the FEA tool and sharing of FEA with the ATSCC and coordinate justification
for MIT of 25 or greater. FEAs provide an excellent tool for airspace and constraint analysis and
allow for common situation awareness between ATC facilities, aircraft operators, and the
Command Center. Requiring the use of FEAs to manage MIT of 25 or greater ensures the TMI is
appropriately managing the concern, minimizes delays, and maintains situation awareness. Upon
implementation of the TMI, the facility is required to enter the TMI to the National Traffic
Management Log (NTML).

2.26 Collaborative Decision Making (CDM)

The CDM program is primarily a process of information sharing and operational procedures
for optimizing traffic management decisions. The CDM process maximizes participation from the
operational and technical communities of the ANSP, aircraft operators, and the aircraft to address
the tremendous inter-dependency between changes invoked by the service provider and changes
developed by NAS users. CDM explicitly acknowledges these interlocking and inter-dependent
roles through the joint development of CDM procedures and software decision support tools.
Through joint government and aviation industry partnership, CDM enables constant and
common situation awareness which is critical to the early detection and efficient resolution of
traffic flow problems across the NAS. Much of the same general kinds of information are required
by ANSP traffic management specialists and aircraft operators alike—traffic, weather, and
knowledge about other factors that can affect the capacity of the system to handle the demands
being placed on it, particularly during severe weather events. Tools and procedures also need to be
in place to enable ANSP and aircraft operators to more easily respond to changing conditions.
The Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI) [101] subsystem of TFMS provides aircraft
operators and other aviation-related organizations with access to near real-time air traffic data
from the NAS. The program was initiated by the FAA in 1992, first in a research environment. The
name ASDI was used when the program became operational in June 2, 1998. At that time, the
ASDI transitioned from a data feed over serial lines to a TCP/IP feed over dedicated lines directly
connected to the ETMS hubsite at Volpe Center. The data in the feed consists of a stream of text
messages. The ASDI server receives data from ETMS, filters out sensitive flights and message
types before sending the data through a firewall and an Ethernet switch to the registered clients.
The ASDI data stream contains information of tracked flights, including flight plan and
amendments; departure, arrival, and cancellation messages; position updates; ARTCC boundary
crossings; and certain ETMS predictions. The position updates are provided at a rate of one
message every one to five minutes, as set by the sending facility. In 2007, the ASDI feed was
replaced with a version in XML format. The current XML ASDI data stream is delivered using the
site-to-site virtual private network (VPN), eliminating the need for dedicated lines. The XML data
are compressed and transmitted as binary payload of ASDI packets. As of 2011, the required
minimum bandwidth for the ASDI feed is 128 kilobits per second (kbps), and a minimum
bandwidth of 256 kbps is recommended for future growth. In 2004, FAA initiated the TFM Data to
Industry (TFMDI) that provides TFM data in a computer-readable format to Industry, which could
then be incorporated with local tools. For example, the data that defines an FCA (the
latitude/longitude of the corners, upper and lower altitudes, filtering, and so forth) can be provided
for the Industry to integrate the FCA into their own displays and other tools. Currently the TFMDI
is provided over the same feed as of ASDI, and the ASDI server is hosted at the TFMS TPC.
As described in Section 2.20 through Section 2.24, TFM programs provide aircraft operators
with constraint definition and take their preference options and substitution requests as inputs. The
general CDM message exchange between processes at the various sites (TFMS, aircraft operators)
is performed in sessions through dedicated TCP/IP sockets. In each session, the application
running at the CDM Participant site is considered the client and the application running at TFMS is
considered the server. A client process opens a socket connection to a server process using a
well-known IP address and starts a session. Data is exchanged between the client and server
indefinitely. Either the client or server terminates the session and closes the connection. The
session could range from a single message sent and reply returned or months of continuous data
exchange. A number of sub-protocols are implemented, depending on the data to be transferred, to
support the TFM programs [102]. TFMS client tools such as FSM may be used to facilitate the data
exchange (for programs such as GDP), or the aircraft operator may have used its own client. In
addition to the infrastructure and capabilities provided by TFMS, aircraft operators are urged to
invest in communication technology, flight planning automation, slot swapping tools, integration
of data communication with operations, and training of personnel to maximize the benefits of
CDM for TFM.
The FAA is currently working with industry stakeholders, aircraft operators, airports, and
other members of the Surface CDM Team (SCT), to develop the Surface CDM Concept and to
implement initial operational evaluations [103]. This program is currently working on modeling
and simulation evaluation of the concept of operations in a laboratory environment. Initial
operational experience is expected from 2015 to 2017.

2.27 Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM)

Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) is an FAA program to enhance the NASA-developed
Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) system. TMA is an arrival scheduling tool for flights arriving
into highly congested terminal airspace. TMA computes the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) to
the outer meter arc, meter fix, final approach fix, and runway threshold for each aircraft. The
system will then compute a Scheduled Time of Arrival (STA) to each of these fixes in order to
meet the constraints entered by the Traffic Management Coordinator (TMC) to deliver aircraft to
the runway at a rate that will meet the capacity of the airport based upon the runway configuration,
wind, and aircraft type mix. The progress is monitored directly by a timeline that provides the
TMC with required delay information (through maneuvers) for each individual flight and runway
to ensure that aircraft are in the correct sequence. This timeline also assists in determining whether
constraints need to be adjusted. An aircraft’s STA is constantly updated until the aircraft’s meter
fix ETA is less than or equal to the freeze horizon, i.e., 19 minutes in the future. At that point, the
aircraft’s STA is frozen. Time-based metering employed by TMA can reduce the less efficient
MIT TMIs widely used throughout the NAS. TBFM will significantly expand time-based metering
though enhancements such as Extended Metering (see below). TMA consists of a
Communications Manager (CM), a Radar Daemon that receives data from the Host Computer
System or ERAM and TRACON interfaces, a Weather Daemon, a Timeline Graphical User
Interface (TGUI), a Planview Graphical User Interface (PGUI), a Route Analyzer (RA), a
Trajectory Synthesizer (TS), and a Dynamic Planner (DP) which computes the runway assignment
for each aircraft and computes the sequences and STAs. En Route Departure Capability (EDC) is
an enhancement to TMA that also assists the planning and controlling of traffic departing or
passing through a Center’s airspace. TMA is deployed at all 20 of the ARTCCs (primary TMA
server rack and workstations), and 30 TRACONs and 29 Towers (workstations).
TBFM is a program to re-architecture the TMA, which suffered hardware and interface
obsolescence, to include porting to a new platform and architecture for information sharing,
enhancement to fill performance gaps, and to ingrate new capabilities. The TBFM system
re-architecture upgrades the system architecture to simplify monitor and control, computer-human
interface (CHI) improvements for operational effectiveness and simplified training, and as part of
this re-architecture, TBFM system interfaces are modified to support the SWIM standards.
Performance enhancements are planned as work packages. Work Package 1 was the initial
platform of TMA capabilities. Work Package 2 enhancements include: Convective Weather
Integration, Metering for RNAV/RNP flights, which will allow for more accurate ETAs and
increase accuracy of TBFM scheduling, Extended Metering, which will allow for meter points to
be created in en route airspace over extended distances and coupled with arrival meter fix so that
upstream and downstream schedules are coordinated; and Integrated Departure Arrival Capability
(IDAC), which will allow for tower TMCs or controllers to schedule departures, which reduces
departure Approval Request (APREQ) phone calls. IDAC automates the coordination and
management of departures over shared, congested NAS resources (fixes, airways) [104]. These
enhancements are expected to be deployed in 2015. Future enhancements (beyond 2015) may
include TBFM in terminal environment, Integrated Arrival and Departure Scheduling with
enhanced knowledge of surface movement of aircraft at TBFM-related airports through
interfacing with Surface Management Systems (SMS), and En Route Resolution of TBFM
Metering Constraints. The ability to capture surface movement event times—predicted and
actual—and incorporate that data into TBFM’s scheduling capabilities would reduce 4D trajectory
inaccuracies. In addition, TBFM would benefit from increased knowledge of the surface situation,
such as the predicted time of an airport reconfiguration or departure scheduling times for a runway
in dual operations. TBFM would not attempt to duplicate the current capabilities of these surface
movement management and data systems, but rather would interface with these systems to use
their data for TBFM’s trajectory prediction and scheduling calculations, and would provide data to
these systems insofar as these other systems could benefit from TBFM data.

2.28 Oceanic Automation System

The FAA is currently responsible for providing air traffic service to 80% of the world’s
oceanic airspace. There are three oceanic facilities, located in Oakland ARTCC, California;
Anchorage, Alaska; and New York ARTCC. Due to lack of radar coverage, controllers had to
manually track oceanic air traffic and estimate aircraft locations. This labor-intensive process
requires larger-than-necessary separation between aircraft because of the lack of real-time
information on their location. For example, using manual procedures, controllers must maintain
100-nmi lateral and 10 minutes longitudinal separation between aircraft. FAA’s Advanced
Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) is a single system for all three oceanic ATC
facilities to modernize the ATC systems and procedures. By using automation to refine the known
position of aircraft, ATOP will enable safe reduction of separation between aircraft to 30 nmi and
to provide for more fuel-efficient routing. ATOP dramatically changed the operation from the old
paper flight strip based system to an automation system.
ATOP collects, manages, and displays air traffic data as well as provides electronic flight-strip
data on the computer displays. The system integrates a variety of capabilities such as satellite and
HF data link based ADS-C and CPDLC along with support to en route radar and ADS-B
surveillance. It utilizes ATS Inter-facility Data Communications 2.0 (AIDC). ATOP incorporates
current wind data into aircraft trajectory modeling and trajectory conformance monitoring. The
ATOP automatic conflict probe for aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-airspace conflicts is featured
with conflict resolution advice.
One notable issue with the development of ATOP was the significant increase of Software
Line of Code (SLOC). As of 2004, the SLOC that needed to be developed for ATOP rose from
83,000 to an estimated 160,000, which represents an increase of 93% over estimates made in 2001.
This was mostly due to the decision of the contractor to rely on a previously developed system that
could not meet FAA’s requirements [105]. ATOP is based on COTS hardware. Similar to ERAM,
it has a dual-channel architecture.
ATOP has been operational at the New York Center since June 2005, Oakland Center since
October 2005, and Anchorage Center since March 2006. A very lengthy training process (7 to 11
weeks, depending on existing experience) was necessary to make the transition. Future initiatives
include reducing separation below RNP-4 and 30 nmi lateral/30 nmi longitudinal; ADS-B-based
airport separation assurance; and oceanic airspace concepts such as trajectory managed airspace
and autonomous airspace.

2.29 En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)

En Route Automation Modernization replaces the 40-year-old En Route Host Computer and
backup system used at the 20 ARTCCs. ERAM is the most complex system in the NAS, and it is
considered the heart of the NextGen. In comparison, ERAM is able to track 1,900 aircraft at a time
instead of 1,100 by the Host Computer system. Additionally, ERAM coverage extends beyond
facility boundaries, enabling controllers to handle traffic more efficiently, because ERAM
processes data from up to 64 radars versus the 24 radar processing with the Host system. ERAM
uses an end-to-end, 4D trajectory model that predicts the path of each aircraft in time and space.
This trajectory is the basis for coordination, control, and strategic separation in the automation
system. ERAM supports air-ground data link communications to transfer clearances, issue flight
plan adjustments, and ultimately share 4D trajectory between the air and the ground automation
systems.
The ERAM deployment is divided into a series of releases. The ERAM baseline consists of the
first three releases. The system architecture of Release 3 is shown in Figure 6 (from [106]). ERAM
provides an open, extensible architecture that includes customized and COTS components. The
ERAM architecture provides separation of mission-critical and non-mission-critical functions to
reduce ATC critical service outages. The ERAM operational system at each ARTCC consists of
two identical channels (Channel A and Channel B), either of which is capable of supporting full
function operations. The two channels are kept in sync with exchange of operational data between
the channels. To meet capability requirements, the application processing is distributed across
multiple dual redundant processor pairs within a channel. There are four core application function
processors: Surveillance Data Processing (SDP), Flight Data Processing (FDP), Conflict Probe
Tool (CPT), and Weather Data Processing (WDP). These function processors are described
separately in Sections 2.30-2.33. The Data Synchronization Processor provides a mechanism for
the active channel applications to send state data to their corresponding backup channel
applications, so that ERAM operations can switch to the backup channel and continue without
disruption. At the Center, ERAM provides Radar Position (R-Position), Radar Data Position
(D-Position), and Air Traffic (AT) Specialist workstations. Exchange of data with external
interfaces is provided by the En Route Communications Gateway (ECG). SWIM Application
Services (SAS) interfaces with FDP to retrieve and forward flight data, and with SWIM Service
Consumers (e.g., TFMS) beyond the ERAM system boundary via ECG. Finally, there are
Monitoring and Control (M&C) functions. ERAM also provides a separate hardware
configuration to support controller training at the site without interference to the operational
configuration. Specific rules and parameters for a particular ERAM installation are managed
through local adaptation. An overview of ERAM can be found in [107] and some expected future
capabilities can be found in [108].
The ERAM system (hardware and initial software) has been installed at all 20 ARTCCs.
ERAM Release 2 will be used as the system baseline for sites to achieve Initial Operating
Capability (IOC). Two ARTCCs have declared IOC: the Salt Lake City ARTCC since October 19,
2010; and Seattle ARTCC since December 28, 2010. In-Service Decision was achieved on March
29, 2011, which committed the FAA in moving forward with declaring IOC at the remaining 18
sites; seven sites during FY2012 (six with Release 2, one with Release 3) and 11 sites during
FY2013 (with Release 3). The first ERAM site Operational Readiness Date (ORD) was planned
for March 2012.

Figure 6: ERAM Release 3 Physical Architecture (from [106]).

2.30 ERAM Surveillance Data Processing (SDP)

The ERAM Surveillance Data Processing (SDP) performs target and track processing,
Real-Time Quality Control (RTQC) and surveillance source monitoring, surveillance radar
weather processing, and safety alert functions. The design of ERAM SDP is based on the tracking
function in Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) (see 2.34) and the
safety function in Micro-En Route Automated Radar Tracking System (EARTS). SDP receives
sensor reports from primary and secondary short- and long-range radars, ADS-B ground stations,
WAM ground stations, and virtual radar through ECG. SDP receives reports from those systems.
Kalman filters are used for multi-sensor tracking. SDP also receives from FDP (see 2.31) flight
identification, flight control data such as pairing, flight rules and current phase of flight, cleared
and manually entered altitude data, climb and descent profile and nominal rate, and initiation and
update messages. SDP uses these data items to perform reasonableness tests and indicate future
intent, and in the absence of some surveillance data items (e.g., altitude). SDP provides to FDP
flight tracks. The coupling between SDP and FDP is minimized to facilitate maintainability and
system availability. This is done by allocating functions that use both surveillance and track data
and flight data, such as pairing and conformance monitoring, to the FDP. SDP receives from WDP
(see 2.32) barometric pressure readings by station and uses them for the calculation of Mode-C
altitude correction factors. SDP provides to the display system: reported position (targets),
smoothed position and horizontal and vertical velocities (tracks), location and type of jamming
(strobes), geographic filtered radar weather providing precipitation from long-range radars, and
aircraft-to-aircraft, aircraft-to-terrain, and aircraft-to-airspace short-term alerts (two to three
minutes warning time). SDP also has a Center Radar Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS)
Presentation (CENRAP) Processing that provides surveillance data to TRACONs when data from
their own sensor is unavailable.

2.31 ERAM Flight Data Processing (FDP)

The ERAM Flight Data Processing (FDP) performs a number of functions, including
managing air routes and airspace definition, allocating airspace to sector positions, processing
flight plan entries, performing route conversion and 4D trajectory modeling, managing flight
object data, performing track to flight plan pairing, allocating beacon codes, conformance
monitoring, and using trajectory data to project boundary crossings for automatic handoff
initiation. FDP accepts flight plans and flight plan amendments from controllers, aircraft
operators, other ATC facilities, and other systems in the ARTCC. FDP generates a converted
end-to-end route and trajectory for each flight plan that is within U.S. domestic airspace. FDP also
provides CPT (see 2.33) route conversion and trajectory modeling for trial plan objects. Each
ERAM facility is able to perform route conversion and trajectory modeling independently of other
ARTCCs. Adaptable restrictions, aircraft performance data, and navigation data (e.g., fixes,
airways and airports) are available nationally. For paired aircraft, FDP models two trajectories,
Flight Plan Trajectory and Aircraft Trajectory. The former is based on the cleared route contained
in the flight plan that the aircraft is expected to follow. An Aircraft Trajectory is an estimation of
the route the aircraft is actually following, based on track history data received from the SDP. FDP
monitors whether an aircraft’s latest reported position is in conformance with its Flight Plan
Trajectory and adherence with its Aircraft Trajectory. If the aircraft is out of conformance, the
controller is notified, and an adherence trajectory is created to best predict how the aircraft will
return to conformance of its flight plan. FDP receives from WDP gridded pressure, temperature,
and winds data for use in trajectory modeling. Altimeter settings for adapted reporting stations are
also received from the WDP. FDP distributes flight data to the display system, to interfacing
facilities, and to other NAS domains through the En Route Data Distribution System (EDDS).
ERAM FDP provides full ICAO message compatibility. It encapsulates unique legacy functions
and interfaces and supports legacy and new external interfaces with interface proxy architecture.

2.32 ERAM Weather Data Processing (WDP)

The ERAM Weather Data Processing (WDP) performs non-surveillance weather data
processing. The WDP receives external weather data from WARP and Weather Message
Switching Center Replacement System (WMSCR), a system that collects, processes, stores, and
disseminates textual aviation weather products and NOTAM, via ECG. WDP processes WARP
weather grids containing wind, temperature, and pressure data for use by FDP trajectory modeling
and display systems for operational positions. WDP performs the required coordinate conversions
and interpolation to the desired grid. WDP also formats WARP NEXRAD products for display of
precipitation data at controller positions. Finally, WDP processes and distributes text-based
meteorological information.
Because SDP directly interfaces with the radar equipment to receive surveillance data, the
processing of surveillance weather data is allocated to the SDP to provide an independent path for
surveillance weather data as an alternative to NEXRAD weather products in case of WDP
unavailability. WDP retains input data for a given period (e.g., five hours) to protect the system
against the longest potential WARP outage.

2.33 ERAM Conflict Probe Tool (CPT)

The ERAM Conflict Probe Tool (CPT) performs strategic aircraft-to-aircraft conflict
detection, aircraft-to-airspace conflict detection, and trial planning. CPT uses modeled trajectories
generated by FDP for pairwise aircraft-to-aircraft conflict detection. Aircraft-to-airspace conflict
detection is done in a similar manner, with the addition of SAA definition, status, and schedule
(among other restrictions) from the FDP. CPT performs a conflict probe for all Automated
Problem Detection (APD)-eligible aircraft against all other APD-eligible aircraft and trajectories.
CPT employs the “eligibility” concept to exclude certain aircraft, or aircraft with certain attributes,
from the conflict probe process. Likelihood estimates are computed to determine the best time to
notify the controller that a conflict has been predicted. ERAM currently does not support
automated conflict resolution. CPT processes trial requests (route, speed, or altitude
modifications) from the controller via display systems (D-Position). The controller can enter flight
plan amendments for trial planning and probing by the system. The Strategic alert and trial plan
results are forwarded to the display system. The trial plan can be submitted as an amendment to the
active flight plan. CPT does not interface with systems external to ERAM. The look-ahead time for
strategic conflict probe is adapted to the facility, and it is normally 20 minutes.

2.34 Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS)

The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) is a system jointly
procured by the FAA and DOD to replace capacity-constrained, older technology systems at FAA
and DOD terminal radar approach control facilities and associated towers. The STARS platform is
deployed under the FAA’s Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR)
program [109] to replace the Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) and Common
Automated Radar Terminal System (CARTS) used at TRACONs. TAMR Phase 1 (1996-2004)
replaced the automated radar processing and display systems at 47 TRACONs and their associated
towers with the STARS. This phase of the program is currently modernizing the original 47 sites
with an enhanced STARS system. TAMR Phase 2 (2005 to 2009) involved the upgrade to STARS
at four additional TRACONs and the modernization of air traffic controller displays and system
processors, i.e., the CARTS platform, at four large TRACONs including Denver and Chicago. The
upgrade to STARS at those four TRACONs will occur in Phase 3. TAMR Phase 3 is replacing the
remaining 100+ automation systems with STARS. These remaining CARTS sites are nearing the
end of their intended service lives. TAMR Phase 3 is conducted in two segments: Segment 1 will
modernize 11 of the largest TRACONs and Segment 2 will modernize the remaining facilities. By
the end of 2011, 55 terminal facilities were using new or upgraded automation systems to control
air traffic. The ATC systems at the remaining 106 TRACONs will be replaced with STARS by the
end of 2017.
 The STARS employs an open architecture, enabling it to expand and adapt to new functional
requirements, and changing systems configurations due to airspace changes and runway
modifications. A standard system to be used by both the FAA and DOD provides substantial
savings in lifecycle cost relative to previous systems it is replacing. STARS integrates radar and
flight plan data and displays accurate information to air traffic controllers with two proprietary
software systems, one for Full Service Level (FSL) and another for Emergency Service Level
(ESL). The system can operate in redundant FSL and ESL configuration or in independent ESL
configuration. It also includes a multi-purpose, real-time ATC Simulator system that supports the
generation of data needed to supply automation systems with surveillance, weather, and flight data
for STARS training and testing. As of 2002, when STARS first became operational, the system
consisted of 915K SLOC commercially available software and 415K SLOC developed software
[110]. STARS is capable of tracking up to 1350 airborne aircraft simultaneously within a terminal
area. The system interfaces with up to 16 short- and long-range radars, 128 controller
workstations, 20 remote towers, and a 400 by 400 nmi area of coverage. The controller
workstations’ color displays are capable of displaying six distinct levels of weather data (identified
by different colors) simultaneously with air traffic, allowing controllers to direct aircraft around
bad weather.

2.35 Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM)

Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM), previously known as the Tower Flight Data Manager,
is an integrated system currently being planned by the FAA to: optimize terminal and surface
operations, including information exchange among stakeholders; provide efficiencies through
transitioning from paper flights strips to electronic flight data distribution; integrate with future
TFM capabilities (e.g., IDAC); and provide some ATCT infrastructure consolidation [111],[112].
TFDM is a key tower infrastructure program for NextGen mid-term operations in the areas of
flight planning; push back, taxi, and departure; descent and approach; and landing, taxi and arrival
(initial surface traffic management). The benefits of TFDM were demonstrated with a prototype at
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in 2011 [113] and an eight-airport benefit assessment
study [114]. The initial work package (“Core”) includes initial Surface CDM (S-CDM) capability
(2015) such as Surface Situation Awareness (SSA) capability and initial data exchange; and
NAS-integrated TFDM (2017 to 2020) for metroplex areas and selected airports. Potential future
work packages (2020+) include expanded site deployment; enhanced air traffic decision support
capabilities; and ATCT automation platform consolidation in compliance with NextGen
roadmaps. When fully deployed, TFDM will support over 500 FAA owned or operated ATCTs.
Current ATCTs operate using a number of automation, radar, and planning systems. These
systems have been developed over decades and deployed as independent, self-contained
stand-alone systems. Each ATCT has various combinations of equipment, systems, and tools.
Some ATCTs do not require certain systems and others may have older versions of a system or
equipment. This has created a nonstandard patchwork of systems, equipment, and tools at FAA
ATCTs, which leads to supportability and inter-system communication challenges. The systems
are often not modular or expandable and cannot be changed to address the complex requirements
of NextGen. Additionally, the information generated by these systems is not easily shared outside
the tower, and is presented in dissimilar views to tower controllers. Also, knowing the surface
movement and location of aircraft is still largely limited to the controllers viewing aircraft from
Out-The-Window (OTW) views. Control instructions issued to aircraft are known only to the
controller who issued them or, at best, by a handful of controllers viewing paper flight progress
strips and note pads in the ATCT. Data and information generated in the ATCT must be exchanged
within the ATCT using manual methods. Planning tools used by ATCT are not integrated with
other data and systems, leading to sub-optimal decision making and limiting overall system
performance. Finally, minimal automated data sharing with stakeholders outside the ATCT limits
their effectiveness in decision making. It is within this environment that the following operational
shortfalls exist [111]:
All stakeholders do not have a shared situation awareness of the airport operations.
Surface operations tend to be more tactical and reactive as opposed to being strategic
and predictive.
During periods of high demand for airport resources, long physical departure queues
tend to develop.
Departing aircraft may have to hold short or be diverted to a holding area as they
approach the runway for the departing flight to meet separation requirements and
traffic management constraints.
When an aircraft in a queue is delayed, the delay may extend to the following aircraft in
the queue.
Aircraft engines run while in queues which results in noise, air pollution, and wasted
fuel.
To reduce the number of stove-piped and disparate systems, TFDM will integrate the
functionality of many of the existing terminal flight data systems and decision support tools, and
output from other systems including: clock, Electronic Flight Strip Transfer System (EFSTS),
Advanced Electronic Flight Strip (AEFS) System, Flight Data Input/Output (FDIO), Low Cost
Ground Surveillance (LCGS), ASDE-X, Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC), ASOS
Controller Equipment Information Display System (ACE-IDS), AWOS, AWSS, Stand-Alone
Weather Sensors (SAWS), TDWR, CIWS, ITWS, WARP, Weather System Processor (WSP),
Wind Measuring Equipment (WME), Digital Altimeter Setting Indicator (DASI), Low-Level
Wind-shear Alert System (LLWAS), Runway Visual Range (RVR), NAS Information Display
System (NIDS), Ribbon Display Terminal (RBDT), Airport Resource Management Tool
(ARMT), and Tower Data Link Services (TDLS).
The long list of systems from the previous paragraph is an indication of the complexity of the
current operational environment, and the complexity in the development of the envisioned TFDM.
This complexity is coupled with the fact that no airport environment is the same. The TFDM
program thus was revised in scope and was proved by the FAA on August 15, 2012 with the
following goals:
Focus on operational needs within the TFDM “Flagship Items”
Focus on realizing early benefits from TFDM capabilities
Reduce program risk by addressing fewer sites as part of TFDM Core (Prove concept
prior to a major FAA commitment of resources)
Enable other NAS system improvements through TBFM, TFMS, etc. integration
 Maintain FY2017 IOC target for TFDM
Under the revised scope, the TFDM program focuses on electronic flight data and surface
metering including enhanced information exchange with the FOC, considering different TFDM
capabilities to be implemented based on ATCT need, and defers major ATCT infrastructure
consolidation. NAS-integrated TFDM (2017 to 2020) will be limited to a number of metropolitan
areas. One of the new developments is to incorporate surface 2015 initiatives into TFDM to realize
surface efficiency improvements. Initial surface management capability, i.e., S-CDM, is identified
as a TFDM Flagship Item under NAS-integrated TFDM. This is essentially a new allocation of
functions among TFMS, TBFM, and TFDM (also see 2.26). The S-CDM initiative is further
discussed in Section 2.36.

2.36 Surface Management System (SMS)

Surface Management System (SMS) is a DST that assists controllers, traffic managers, and
aircraft operators in managing the movements of aircraft between the gate and the runway at busy
airports, improving capacity, efficiency, and flexibility, and enhancing safety. SMS serves as the
connection between gates that are mostly managed by aircraft operators, and the airspace that is
managed by the ANSP. Technologies and basic concepts behind SMS trace back to NASA’s
research under the Advanced Air Transportation Technologies (AATT) Project in cooperation
with the FAA’s Free Flight Phase 2 (FFP2) program [115]. With TFDM scope revision (see 2.35),
surface management is now included under the TFDM program. The initial surface management
capability, i.e., S-CDM, is expected to roll out in 2015 [112].
In current ATM operations, “first come, first served” has been employed as the basic rule in
managing surface traffic, but it sometimes fails to meet the needs of NAS stakeholders. S-CDM
seeks to address predicted imbalance between demand and capacity. The planned S-CDM includes
five core capabilities:
Surface Situation Awareness (SSA) to allow for improved surface TFM by sharing
real-time and forecast operational information which positions stakeholders to better
predict the airport operation (both arrivals and departures).
Strategic planning and tactical management of surface traffic flows and
departure queue, to avoid excessive taxi-out times and improve departure efficiency.
Improved management of arrival traffic flows to increase throughput with better
balance of arrival and departure demand.
Analysis, measurement, and monitoring capabilities to objectively quantify airport
operational performance, the impact of the specific airport operations on the NAS, and
the performance of individual stakeholder organizations.
Global harmonization/interoperability to ensure synergy with international
Airport/Surface CDM models and interoperability among existing and planned Surface
CDM solutions.
The foremost component of S-CDM is the understanding of real demand through SSA. In
TFMS, the initial flight record is based on schedule data 24 hours prior to departure. Existing flight
records are updated by CDM messages from the aircraft operator and the NAS data. Under
S-CDM, the aircraft operator will initially send nine different messages using existing TFMS
message format, including actual off-block, takeoff, landing, and in-block times; registration
number (tail number); earliest off-block time, cancellation, gate assignment, and initial off-block
time. Except registration number and gate assignment, all the other seven messages are existing
TFMS messages. Potential SSA capabilities may include predictions such as on-block, off-block,
and takeoff times, time at the departure queue, departure queue length, departure delay, and
number of flights taxiing on the airport surface. SSA may also include real-time display of aircraft
location on the airport surface, gate location and identification, airport configuration, arrival and
departure demand graphs, and delay graph. One issue with current ASDE-X is the lack of
controller intent data and the lack of integration between electronic flight data and surface
surveillance. Integration is necessary to address safety alerts and prediction of airport congestion
and gridlock.
The planned S-CDM initial DST capabilities for 2015 include departure queue management
and Departure Metering Program (DMP). S-CDM will continuously predict the departure queue
length based on real demand and other operational data, as well as locally configurable parameters,
including runway capacity parameters. For example, a weather condition and weather forecast
change could possibly prompt ATC to update the planned runway configuration, and consequently
to update planned Runway Departure Rate (RDR). The Unscheduled Demand Buffer (UDB) may
also be updated due to a special event in the region and associated unscheduled demand at the
airport. The queue management will then identify predicted demand/capacity imbalance and notify
all stakeholders. Options will be assessed. If required, DMP is set beginning with the EOBT of the
first flight that is predicted to enter the queue after the target queue length is exceeded. Target
Movement Area Entry Time (TMAT) may be assigned to active flights or cancelled flights marked
for substitution if their EOBT or Schedule Off-Block Time (SOBT) is inside the planning horizon.
Additional surface management DST capabilities, such as taxi routing automation and
integrated arrival and departure management, will be incorporated in future work packages.

2.37 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS)

Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) [116] is a post-operational
system that was jointly developed by the FAA and NASA under NASA’s Aviation Safety
Monitoring and Modeling (ASMM) in 1997 to enable a system-wide capability to monitor
day-to-day operations in the NAS and to measure ATC’s delivery of services to ensure that they
are safe and efficient, and meet the needs of its customers. Southern California TRACON was the
first ATC facility brought online with PDARS in 1999. Under a framework established in
collaboration with the bargaining unit representing air traffic controllers, PDARS has being
continuously collecting flight plan and radar track data from an expanded list of facilities since
then. The current system collects data from all of the 20 ARTCCs and major TRACONs in the
CONUS. In 2006, PDARS was integrated with additional data sources including the NTML, other
TFM data, and comprehensive weather information. In 2009, efforts were initiated to include
ASDE-X data into the PDARS dataset, which will allow for system-wide “gate-to-gate”
performance measurement among the major airports. Connection with ERAM and ATOP is also
underway.
By translating flight track and flight plan data and integrating that information with other
relevant data sources, PDARS provides analysis tools including the BirdWatch Reporting System
(BWRS) and the Graphical Airspace Design Environment (GRADE). BWRS provides capabilities
for designing and generating a wide variety of numerical and graphical reports on NAS operations.
GRADE is a visualization and computational system that supports a wide range of applications,
including: visualization of complex air traffic operations, display of real-time and fast-time
simulation results, airspace design, redesign and modification, static and dynamic flight path and
profile analysis, traffic flow/sector loading analysis, obstruction analysis, environmental impact
assessment, and accident/incident investigation.
PDARS consists of a central network administration site at NASA Ames, and systems installed
at client sites, including ATC facilities providing data and additional user sites at FAA
headquarters and other offices and facilities, all connected by a private, secure wide-area network.
Users at the FAA headquarters and ATCSCC were provided access to the PDARS central database
from PDARS desktop applications installed on local PDARS machines. This allowed the users to
access a subset of PDARS data. PDARS Enterprise Website, accessible within the FAA Intranet,
provides some of the PDARS reports and other information to all FAA users. Data access in
PDARS is near-real-time, with a two-hour delay to allow processing of the live data.
As PDARS enters into its next decade of operation, the demand for comprehensive
high-fidelity performance measurement data and analysis tools throughout the FAA and other
aviation-related entities has increased dramatically. In order to extend and improve upon the
technology underlying the system and open up the capabilities of PDARS to more users in the
FAA, an enhancement to the system was initiated to create a net-centric architecture. One of the
initiatives to modernize PDARS is to switch from the NASA Ames managed PDARS network to
FTI (expected to be completed in FY2014). Another proposed initiative is to transition from
dedicated PDARS analysis workstations to software capabilities and data that can be deployed to
standard desktop workstations, laptops, and mobile devices. Expansion to integrate new data
sources (e.g., ADS-B, connection to ERAM), program security updates, system backup and
recovery enhancements, and training initiatives were also proposed; some of these proposed
initiatives are currently being implemented.

2.38 Operations and System Performance Systems (OSPS)

Operations and system performance refers to the collection, analysis, and distribution of ATM
operations performance. Different from programs like PDARS, which tracks individual radar hits
and aircraft movements in the airspace and at airport surface, operations and system performance
focuses on discrete events and performance metrics. FAA’s Operations and Performance Data
[117] is a program that collects and provides access to historical traffic counts, forecasts of
aviation activity, and delay statistics. Some of the databases contains proprietary information, thus
are restricted to the FAA and its contractors. This program consists of the following databases:
Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) provides data on flights to and from
the 77 ASPM airports, and on all flights by the ASPM carriers (currently 22), including
flights by those carriers to international and domestic non-ASPM airports. All IFR
traffic, and some VFR traffic is included. ASPM also includes airport weather, runway
configuration, and arrival and departure rates. This combination of data provides a
robust picture of air traffic activity for these airports and air carriers. Preliminary
next-day ASPM data is used by the FAA for close monitoring of airport efficiency and
other aspects of system performance, and finalized ASPM data is invaluable for
retrospective trend analysis and targeted studies. ASPM records based on preliminary
data are available on a next-day basis, whereas updated records are not available until
three or four weeks after the end of each calendar month, and the data cannot be
considered final until approximately 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, pending
receipt and incorporation of any corrected input files. Access to ASPM is restricted.
Operations Network (OPSNET) is the official source of NAS air traffic operations
and delay data. The data collected through OPSNET is used to analyze the performance
of the FAA’s ATC facilities. Data collected include IFR and VFR operations at
airports, handled by Towers, TRACONs, and Centers. OPSNET also provides
reportable delays, updated daily for the previous day. Access to OPSNET data is
restricted, but the official traffic count released to the public is available from the Air
Traffic Activity System (ATADS) on a monthly bases.
Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC) is designed to provide
information on traffic counts by airport or by city pair for various data groupings such
as aircraft type or by hour of the day. Information on oceanic flights, fractional
ownership flights or business jet activity is also maintained. TFMSC source data are
created when flight plans are filed and/or when flights are detected by the NAS, usually
via radar. TFMSC contains every flight record constructed. It includes information
about air carriers and air taxis, GA, and military to and from every landing facility, as
well as fixes, both in the United States and in nearby countries that participate in the
TFMS system. Data are available for access approximately 10 days after the end of the
month. Access to TFMSC is restricted.
Airline Service Quality Performance System (ASQP) provides information about
airline on-time performance, flight delays, and cancellations. It is based on data filed
by airlines each month with the DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).
Carriers with one percent or more of total domestic scheduled service passenger
revenues are required to report data for their flights involving any airport in the 48
contiguous states that account for one percent or more of domestic scheduled service
passenger enplanements. Voluntary reports of a carrier’s entire domestic system and
voluntary reports by other carriers are also collected. In fact, the reporting carriers have
uniformly elected to report their data on their entire domestic system operations.
Access to ASQP is restricted but the same data is publicly available from BTS.
Flight Schedule Data System (FSDS) contains flight schedule data by air carrier and
airport. Flight schedule data is used by the FAA for forecasting traffic demand and
investment analysis. Access to FSDS is restricted.
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) is the official forecast of aviation activity at FAA
airport facilities. It should not be confused with Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF)
which is a meteorological product (see 2.15). These forecasts are prepared to meet the
budget and planning needs of the FAA and provide information for use by state and
local authorities, the aviation industry, and the public. Detailed forecasts are prepared
for major users of the NAS large air carriers, air taxi/commuters, GA, and military.
2.39 Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)
The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) [118] [119] is a software system that
dynamically models aircraft performance in space and time to produce fuel burn, emissions, and
noise metrics. Full flight gate-to-gate analyses are possible for study sizes ranging from a single
flight at an airport to scenarios at the regional, national, and global levels. AEDT is developed to
replace the current public-use aviation air quality and noise analysis tools such as the Integrated
Noise Model (INM), the Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS), and the Emissions and
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). The inaugural version of AEDT—known as AEDT2a—is
now available to the public. AEDT2a is a runway-to-runway tool that was designed specifically to
replace the NIRS and thus is mandated by the FAA to be used in place of NIRS. The primary
purpose of AEDT2a is to model the environmental consequences of air traffic airspace and
procedure actions being designed and implemented by the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. In
2014, AEDT2b will become available, replacing the INM and the EDMS. AEDT is currently used
by the U.S. government to consider the interdependencies between aircraft-related fuel burn,
noise, and emissions.
AEDT2a is built on the Microsoft .NET Framework and is capable of running on Windows XP
Professional, Windows 7, and Windows Server operating systems. It is supported by an extensive
system databases covering airports, airspace, and fleet information that span the global nature of
the aviation industry. All information is rendered in a geo-spatial nature, given the Esri-based core
of the tool, which supports the compatibility with other geo-spatial applications. State-of-the-art
software technology is used to enhance the capabilities of AEDT, such as the XML-based AEDT
Standard Input File (ASIF) that allows for the input of large datasets of 4D trajectories, fleet
information, and event assignments. AEDT2a outputs include reports, graphs, and tables that
describe the fleet mix, receptor sets, flight performance, noise, contours, fuel burn, and local air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
In AEDT, the default configuration is to run jobs on a single computer. AEDT uses distributed
computing to provide the ability to run jobs across a number of remote servers to reduce
processing time. In AEDT2a, up to ten remote servers running Taskmaster (TM) service can be
networked to a single AEDT client computer running AEDT. The AEDT GUI need only be
installed on the AEDT client. If a study references terrain and/or weather files, the necessary files
must be placed on all remote servers in the same location. Each remote server receives a batch of
flight operation information from the AEDT client, processes it, returns the resulting data, and
awaits the next batch. The AEDT client assigns batches to the remote servers sequentially, as each
remote server becomes available. AEDT databases can reside on the AEDT client, or to reduce
memory consumption, on the AEDT server. Due to its use of SQL server for processing, the
databases can reside on a separate database server. In the latter case, the AEDT client relays all
necessary information to the remote servers. The remote servers do not communicate directly with
the separate database server.
3 ATM Operations at FOC

3.1 Introduction
The aircraft operator is the owner of business objectives of flight operations, and is responsible
for the overall safety of operations of its fleet of aircraft. Operations at the aircraft operator can be
divided into two phases: strategic planning and operations on the day of the flight. The strategic
planning phase generates flight schedule and fleet assignment, and assignment of specific aircraft
and crew for a given flight. Strategic planning is normally performed days, weeks, or even months
before the day of flight, and may be adjusted before the actual flight to account for various
changes. On the day of the flight, FOC is responsible for executing, monitoring, and re-planning
and recovery of the schedule in real time. Although terms such as Airline Operations Center
(AOC) or Operations Control Center (OCC) are frequently seen in the literature, the term FOC is
used in this document, as aircraft operators are not limited to airlines, and the term AOC is rarely
used by airlines themselves.
The organization and responsibility of the FOC varies considerably from one operator to
another, depending on the type and size of the operator, among many other factors. Large network
air carriers often have a System Operations Control Center (SOCC or SOC) to handle system-wide
or network-wide operations, regional or hub operations control centers at the carrier’s major hub
airports, and Ramp Control Towers (RCTs) at busy terminals. To improve efficiency and system
performance, some carriers have integrated their regional operations control into a single SOC or
FOC, such as the case of American Airlines [120]. An RCT is responsible for the operator’s own
operations at the airport. It monitors the flow of traffic in the ramp area and the movement area, as
well as en-route traffic to and from the airport, to effectively manage its operations at the airport.
Smaller aircraft operators may have a simpler FOC. In some cases, small operators subcontract
some of the FOC’s responsibilities to third-party operations control service providers. Whatever
the case, FOC is where ATM operations occur at an aircraft operator.
FOC consists of a number of different groups, including representatives from other
departments of an aircraft operator. Within the FOC, flight dispatch, flight planning, air traffic
control coordination, and meteorology are the groups most relevant to ATM operations. Aircraft
dispatchers, or operations controllers as they may be referred to, are the largest group of
professionals working at the FOC and the center of ATM operations. These are licensed
professionals [121] jointly responsible with the pilot in command for the safety and operational
control of flights. An aircraft dispatcher is responsible for the dispatch release of a flight according
to regulations, policies, and procedures. The dispatcher’s decision will consider aircraft
performance specific to flight, weather information, airport conditions, NOTAMS and many other
factors required for the safe operation of the flight. The dispatcher controls and monitors the
progress of flight and is required to be able to reliably and rapidly communicate (via approved
communications) with each aircraft under normal operating conditions over the entire duration of
each flight. ACARS has been the major data link capability for this purpose. The dispatcher is also
jointly responsible with the pilot in command for the continuation, diversion, and termination of
the flight. The ATC coordinators serve as the central contact for communications and coordination
with the ANSP. The ATC coordinator monitors ATM operations in the NAS, including airport
configurations, air TFM initiatives, and restrictions. This includes regular teleconference hosted
by the ANSP, such as FAA, throughout the day. When significant ATC issues are detected or
anticipated, the ATC coordinator informs aircraft dispatchers. Aircraft dispatchers also work
closely with other groups within the FOC. Depending on the structure of the FOC at a particular
aircraft operator, the role of aircraft dispatchers may expand to other aspects of operations,
including those not related to ATM operations.
A few publications have described observations and the study of the work flow at FOC, such as
[122]-[127]. Traditionally, research on operations at FOC has focused more on solving the
complex operations research problem of disruption management, such as [128]. Outside this focus
area, Ref. [129] studied the multi-agent decision making of the dispatcher. One recent
development is JPDO’s effort to bring greater attention and focus to the important role that FOC
should play in the evolution of NextGen [130],[131]. That said, publically available information
on FOC ATM operations is still very limited. The literature review thus has been combined with
team’s domain knowledge.
Traditionally, due to various constraints, aircraft operators have taken a more reactive role in
ATM operations. Very few tools have been available at the FOC for the dispatchers or ATC
coordinators to take a more proactive role. In the next few sections, both existing ATM functions
and those proposed in research are reviewed. This review is focused on existing and potential
automation that would benefit the operator or the NAS operations as whole. Less focus is given to
the specific tasks to be performed by professionals such as dispatchers and ATC coordinators.

3.2 Slot Management

At congested airports, a slot management system may be in place to strategically balance
demand and capacity (also see 2.14). Slot management includes two separate aspects: slot
allocation that coordinates and assigns available scheduled slots to different aircraft operators
accessing the same airport during the seasonal scheduling process, and slot coordination per
operational needs. The IATA WSG [63] provides a set of standards for slot allocation procedures.
The IATA Standard Schedules Information Manual (SSIM) [132] specifies common standards and
procedures for schedule data exchanges. The coordination is done through Slot Clearance
Request/Reply (SCR) or Schedule Movement Advice (SMA) messages from the aircraft operator
and reply messages from airport coordinators via electronic means, such as emails, as specified in
Chapter 6 of [132], Airport Coordination Procedures. SCRs are required to be submitted at least
three business days in advance. Some airports allow slots to be temporarily swapped between
flights of the same operator or between different operators, for the day of operations. This provides
flexibility for aircraft operators to make prioritized decisions. For ATM operations, the increased
flexibility and certainty is the most important aspect of slot management.
Currently there are five high-density traffic airports subject to slot management in the United
States: JFK, DCA, LGA, ORD, and SFO. STMP may be in place at other airports to handle
above-normal traffic demand, normally associated with general aviation traffic during special
events. When STMP is in effect, slot reservation can be made on a first-come, first-served basis.
FAA requires slot reservations to be confirmed by the requestor between 24 and 12 hours,
otherwise the reservation will be cancelled automatically and made available in the reservation
pool. Because currently the FAA does not store flight plans in the NAS computer more than two
hours in advance, STMP reservations provide long-range planning capability for special traffic
events [28].
3.3 Flight Planning
The flight planning at the FOC includes generating the flight plan for the specific aircraft
assigned to perform the flight from its origin airport to its destination airport. For large aircraft
operators or special missions, there is normally a route planning phase before a flight can be
planned. That phase of planning is considered out of the scope of flight planning. The flight
planning function concerns the specific operating conditions and the routes and profiles on the day
of operations.
This function involves collecting information on operational conditions such as weather and
NOTAMs for all flight phases from the origin airport to the destination airport; selecting routes,
altitudes, and speed; and determining aircraft loads and operating weights limits, alternate
destination airports, and fuel. Many additional factors are normally considered in the flight
planning process. The main body of the flight plan is a list of points along the route with the
associated altitude, speed, time, fuel, winds, and other parameters that define a planned (predicted)
trajectory. The flight plan trajectory is normally optimized for minimum fuel, minimum time, or a
trade in between (e.g., via a cost index [133] [134]). In the controlled airspace, aircraft are required
to follow predefined airways and flight levels. This imposes constraints on the flight plan, and
consequently constraints on economic efficiency. Airspace improvements and more flexible
airspace usage will allow for more optimal flight plans (e.g., wind optimal routes) to be used.
Traditionally flight planning tools are installed at the aircraft operator’s facility. One recent
development, especially for smaller operators, is to host the flight planning tools at the vendor’s
facility and provide network interfaces for the operator to request flight plans remotely. In some
cases, the generated flight plan could be returned within 15 minutes from the time a request is
submitted.
Once the flight plan is generated, it is transmitted to the origin station or the aircraft directly,
where the electronic copy or a printed paper copy is reviewed and signed by the flight crew. The
flight plan can be automatically loaded (if the aircraft is so equipped, such as ACARS) into the
aircraft Flight Management System (FMS). For IFR operations the aircraft operator is required to
file the flight plan with the ANSP prior to departure. Flight plan is also strongly recommended for
VFR operations. The filed flight plan is required to follow a specified format and guidelines
[76]-[79]. The filed flight plan is a short version of the flight plan transmitted to the flight crew.
The new ICAO flight plan [76]-[78] allows for more details to be included, but it is still a
simplified version. Certain parameters are considered business proprietary information, thus will
not be included in the filed flight plan even if the format allows for such information to be
included.
The flight planning at the FOC is normally performed before the aircraft loading is finalized, to
meet flight planning filing deadlines and to allow flight crew sufficient time to plan the flight and
program airborne automation. As the aircraft loading is finalized, takeoff performance may be
recalculated. A collaborative rerouting program, such as FAA’s ICR, may also be available to
provide information on en route constraints early so that a reroute flight plan can be generated and
submitted before departure.

3.4 Departure Planning

Weather and many other factors could significantly impact capacity at airports and capacity in
en route airspace. Even with slot management as described in 3.2, this would cause imbalance
between demand and capacity on the day of operations that is often very difficult to predict days
ahead of time. The ANSP uses various dynamic TFM measures to manage this imbalance by
restricting access to impacted airspace resources. From a departure planning perspective, there are
three general types of restrictions: 1) a required departure interval between successive flights
departing an airport, over a fix, at an altitude, through a sector, or on a specific route, given as MIT
or MINIT; 2) a takeoff time assigned to individual flights, such as the departure time from a
sequencing program, or EDCT or Calculated Take Off Time (CTOT) generated by a GDP or an
AFP; and 3) GS that requires aircraft to meet specific criteria to remain on the ground until further
notice. In a future metroplex environment, coordination between different airports and merging
into over-flight flow may also require precise takeoff time. Advisories may be issued by the ANSP
for anticipated TMI to allow for proactive actions taken by aircraft operators. In some cases, this
may actually eliminate the need to formally issue a TMI.
Compliance with the TMI and accurate input and feedback to TFM are very important to
system-wide performance and to the benefit of the aircraft operator as well. On the other hand, the
aircraft operator is subject to many internal constraints such as maintenance, Ground Support
Equipment (GSE), crew, passenger, and cargo. The aircraft operator is also subject to external
constraints: security constraints, airport infrastructure capacity such as terminal and gate, de-icing
during winter times, and airport noise abatement procedures. Depending on the location, the
terminal and gate may or may not be controlled by the operator. The handling of some of these
internal and external constraints is out of the scope of ATM operations, but they all impact on or
have implications in ATM operations.
Departure planning actions taken by the aircraft operator include slot swap between flights
from the same airport or from different airports, releasing flights to meet ANSP issued EDCT or
CTOT, proactive flight delays, reroutes, and proactive or reactive flight cancelations. Integrated
schedule disruption recovery has been an extensively researched area within the airline
community (such as [128]). It involves a broad range of issues including aircraft recovery, crew
recovery, and passenger/cargo flow recovery that are beyond the scope of ATM operations.
Integrated schedule disruption recovery is thus considered a function separate from departure
planning. On the other hand, departure planning is not meant to address details of aircraft
operations in the air and on the ground, but reliable information and predictions are critical to the
effectiveness and efficiency of departure planning. One particularly interesting example is the
compliance with the ANSP-issued EDCT or CTOT, which are given as a 10- to 15-minute time
window for takeoff from the runway. The aircraft operator normally only has control to the
pushback time. To meet the takeoff time, taxi time and de-icing time in winter storm conditions,
must be accounted for. However, taxi time not only depends on gate and runway, but more
importantly depends on the overall traffic situation at the airport. Timely, reliable, and
comprehensive information sharing among different groups within FOC and between FOC and the
ANSP is at least equally important, or even more important than algorithms driving the departure
planning process at FOC.

3.5 Flight Following

The aircraft operator is required to monitor the progress of the flight, to maintain the
availability of communications system with the aircraft, and provide necessary information for the
safety of the flight. Flight following is a function that helps the aircraft operator to carry out these
responsibilities.
 The flight following is to monitor the progress of each flight from departure at the origin
airport to arrival at the destination airport, including intermediate stops and diversions. For
commercial air carriers in the United States, in-flight monitoring is also required. At a minimum,
in-flight monitoring must consist of the monitoring of the flight’s fuel state, flight time remaining,
destination and alternate airport weather trends, en route winds and weather (including pilot
reports), and the status of airport and navigational facilities. While en route to the destination, ATC
frequently delays, reroutes, or assigns altitudes to flights other than those planned by the operator.
This flexibility is necessary for safe and effective operations during adverse weather or when there
is traffic congestion or conflicts. To maintain the responsibility shared by the aircraft dispatcher
and the pilot in command, the aircraft operator may specify maximum amounts of deviations that
the aircraft may make from the plan, without reporting to the dispatcher and obtaining an amended
flight release.
To monitor flight progress, a flight following software tool may be used to graphically display
information collected from the aircraft, such as via ACARS, from the ANSP, or third-party
suppliers. Such a system may have a map display showing current position and historical track of
the flight, along with other air traffic in the same airspace volume, plus navigation aids, airways
and terminal procedures, airports, terrain, and weather information, which may be turned on or off
or filtered to meet the needs of flight following. Additional information, such as aircraft state and
fuel, cleared route, and ETA, may also be displayed or queried via such a tool or a separate tool.
The FAA’s ADSI [101], a subsystem of TFMS, provides near-real-time air traffic data to aircraft
operators and the aviation industry. ASDI covers traffic data from the United States, Canada, and
the United Kingdom. Data available from ASDI include flight plan and flight plan amendment,
flight plan cancellation, departure, position report, boundary crossing, and arrival. This has been a
major source of the NAS-wide information feed to U.S. aircraft operators.
In some regions of the world, a system similar to ASDI might not be available. In that case, an
aircraft operator might not be able to track the position of its aircraft in the airspace in real time. A
Gantt-chart-style flight display showing scheduled, active, and completed performed by different
aircraft is often used for flight following. Weather information may still be depicted in a map
display, either as static charts or as overlay to a web-based interactive map.

3.6 En Route Trajectory Management

In addition to the flight following tools mentioned in the previous section (3.5), en route
trajectory management tools may also be available at the FOC to achieve flight operational
efficiency benefits. In this document, en route trajectory management is treated separately from
flight following. This is mainly because the level of engagement of FOC in en route trajectory
management varies drastically from one operator to another, and the tools described in this section
are not yet widely used by many operators.
Dynamic flight re-planning is intended to account for significant weather and other condition
changes during the course of a flight. This is especially valuable for long cross-continental and
intercontinental flights. An updated flight plan considering updated winds and temperature aloft
forecast, available since the pre-departure flight planning, can often result in a better route and
vertical profile for the remainder of the flight. Flight re-planning relies on air-ground data link
capabilities to transmit the updated flight plan as an advisory to the aircraft, and upon crew
evaluation, to down link updated flight plan as a route request to the ANSP for approval. One of
such system was developed for Air New Zealand [135].
Attila [136] is an airline-based tactical flow control system managing arrivals to a given
airport. The system dynamically monitors flight progress and constantly compares the traffic
situation to airspace resources such as arrival fixes. Through optimization, it generates advisories
of small and timely adjustments to the time of arrival at the arrival fix. The advisories are sent to
aircraft via ACARS as RTA messages. By doing so, the flow over the arrival fix is streamlined,
and the need to vector aircraft for spacing within the terminal area airspace is reduced, so as to
achieve fuel savings and flight time reductions. This system has been operational at Delta Airlines
for arrivals to Atlanta International Airport since August 2006 [137]. The technology is currently
being tested at Emirates Airline for oceanic arrivals to Dubai International Airport [138].
Direct-To (D2) [139] is a tool to identify aircraft that can save at least one minute by flying
direct to a down-stream fix on their route of flight without conflicting with other traffic. It has a
Trial Planner that allows the user to easily display, modify, or accept Direct-To flight plan
amendments. Used by the air traffic controller, the flight plan amendments can then be sent to the
ANSP computer system. The D2 tool has been licensed by Boeing for commercial use, with the
intention to offer airlines the opportunity to subscribe next year to a new air traffic efficiency
service that uses the software [140].
Built on the D2 tool, Dynamic Weather Routes (DWR) [141] is a ground-based trajectory
automation system that continuously analyzes aircraft in en-route airspace to find time and
fuel-saving corrections to convective weather avoidance routes. It makes use of the latest available
weather and traffic information to identify fuel-saving opportunities. The system could help airline
dispatchers and ANSP controllers find more efficient routes around convective weather. Simple
reroutes are automatically proposed and updated every 12 sec. Interactive automation enables
users to visualize reroutes and modify them if necessary, and evaluate flying time savings,
proximity to weather, sector congestion, and traffic conflicts. A shadow testing of DWR was
completed at the American Airlines SOC on Friday July 20, 2012 [142].
It is worth mentioning that similar to the case of ANSP tools, trajectory prediction is a
fundamental function that exists in different tools mentioned above, with different levels of
fidelity, of course. Depending on the specific system design, trajectory prediction could also be a
function within flight planning systems described in Section 3.3, departure planning systems
described in Section 3.4, and surface management systems described in Section 3.7. However,
there is no consistent treatment, and often times the aircraft operator does have little control or
insight to the trajectory function, due to these systems having been developed by different vendors.

3.7 Surface Tracking and Surface Management System

Airline-based SMS was first tested and used at hub airports of express delivery carriers such as
FedEx and UPS. The high-density nighttime operations at express delivery carrier hub airports
impose unique challenges and provide opportunities to surface and ramp operations. Attributed to
the nature of express delivery business and performance guaranty, there is essentially a single
arrival/departure bank where flights arrive within a short time window for the packages to be
offloaded, sorted, reloaded, and transported to destination airports. The packages will then be
delivered by trucks to customers before the promised delivery time. Significant waste may be
incurred if aircraft movements, gate operations, and the sorting facility are not properly
coordinated. Dominated by flights from a single operator during the midnight push, operations at
express delivery hub airports offer a more suitable environment for testing and implementing
collaborative SMS than other hub airports where multiple operators and complex schedules exist.
The SMS originally developed by NASA was evaluated at Memphis International Airport
(MEM) with FAA MEM Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and Memphis TRACON, and FedEx
in 2002 and 2003 [143]. The benefits demonstrated through these evaluations have led to the
operational SMS at FedEx. A similar but separate SMS is used by UPS at Louisville International
Airport. One key to the success of SMS is to create shared situation awareness of airport surface
and terminal airspace, not only current state, but also predictions of future aircraft movements.
Aerobahn [144] is a browser-based SMS that can be used by airports, airlines, and ANSP to
manage and measure airport surface operations. Aerobahn uses the airborne transponder
multilateration as the major surface surveillance source, the same technology that powers the
FAA’s ASDE-X system. Although less sophisticated than the ANSP SMS system mentioned
earlier, due to its simple deployment model Aerobahn has been installed at more than 20 locations
throughout Europe, Canada, and Asia. Aerobahn web-based services have been subscribed by a
number of airlines operating at those locations.

3.8 Weather Data and Weather Systems

Air carriers and commercial operators (such as those certified under 14 CFR Part 119 [145])
are required to use the aeronautical weather information systems defined in the Operations
Specifications issued to them by the air navigation authority. As an integral part of this system
approval, the procedures for collecting, producing, and disseminating aeronautical weather
information, as well as the crew member and dispatcher training to support the use of system
weather products, must be accepted or approved. These systems may utilize basic FAA/NWS
weather services, commercial or operator proprietary weather services, or EWINS when approved
in the Operations Specifications (see 2.15). For example, Delta Airlines has its own team of
meteorologists to integrate and analyze data from external sources, and in some situations produce
customized weather forecasts of their own. Other aircraft operators are encouraged to use
government and ANSP weather products and services. In the NextGen environment, the
performance of government weather forecast products will be significantly improved (see 2.15).
However multiple sources of weather services are likely to continue to serve specific needs of
different aircraft operators.
Weather information is a foundation of many ATM decision making processes. It supports
proactive scheduling adjustments, disruption recovery process, flight planning, and operations
control. The weather data and weather forecast described in this section refer to the process to
collect, analyze, and synthesize data from various sources, and make the data ready for various
groups within the aircraft operator.

3.9 Weather Information Uplink

Weather information uplink is a specialized service, based on data discussed in the previous
section (3.8), to uplink weather information to the aircraft. Accurate and consistent weather
forecast data (such as air pressure, winds, temperature aloft) are important to optimal flight
operations, such as Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) and Optimized Profile Climb (OPC). In
current operations, an ATIS and a Data link ATIS (D-ATIS) from the ANSP only broadcast a
relatively small set of safety-critical weather data, and only for the region of a particular airfield.
In some existing trials of an airline-based weather uplink service, ACARS is used to uplink
winds aloft so that trajectories can be planned and executed more efficiently and more
consistently. Developments in air-ground data link capabilities, or more importantly the increased
use of airborne Internet services, would enable more complex weather information to be uplinked
to aircraft more frequently, for both situation awareness and for better trajectory planning and
execution. It is envisioned that the aircraft operator could either perform weather uplinks by itself,
or subcontract this task to third-party service providers.

3.10 Flight Data Monitoring and Analysis

Recorded data from the aircraft have been used to establish the Flight Operational Quality
Assurance (FOQA) program. FOQA is a voluntary safety program designed to improve aviation
safety through the proactive use of recorded data [146]. Operators use these data to identify and
correct deficiencies in all areas of flight operations. Properly used, FOQA data can reduce or
eliminate safety risks, as well as minimize deviations from regulations. Through access to
de-identified aggregate FOQA data, they can be used to analyze operational trends and guide
actions to reduce operational risks in the NAS, ATC, flight operations, and airport operations.
The airborne device that acquires aircraft data is referred to as Flight Data Acquisition Unit
(FDAU). FDAU acquires data via a digital data bus and analog inputs and formats the information
for output to the Flight Data Recorder in accordance with requirements of regulatory agencies. In
addition to the mandatory functions, many FDAUs have a second processor and memory module
that enables them to perform additional Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS)
functions/reports. The FDAU can provide data and predefined reports to the cockpit, directly to
ACARS for downlink to the ground, or to a Quick Access Recorder (QAR) for recording/storage
of raw flight data that can be easily retrieved once the aircraft has landed. In most cases, the FOQA
program at the aircraft operator collects, analyzes, and archives for later use data downloaded from
QAR. For this reason, the term FOQA data is normally used to refer to such data downloaded from
the aircraft.
FOQA data downloaded from the aircraft may contain up to three thousand parameters. The
raw data is in a binary format that consists of data frames of fixed length. A data frame contains
four subframes of equal length, given in 64 to 1024 words, each with 12 bits. The frame is repeated
every four seconds, one subframe per second. As such, a parameter may be recorded once per
second, and stored in each subframe. A parameter may also be recorded once every four seconds,
and stored in one of the subframes contained in a frame. A parameter may also be recorded every
few frames. In this case, it is in certain frames, but not every frame. A parameter may occupy any
number of bits. Actually, there is no public specification to define the frame layout of a particular
installation. The frame layout is defined by the aircraft manufacturer and/or the aircraft operator to
satisfy their specific needs, as long as it satisfies the minimum requirements set forth by relevant
regulations.
In addition to its traditional use for safety purposes, FOQA has seen increased use in aircraft
performance and efficiency analysis, which would in turn be used to develop procedures to
improve fuel consumption and noise and emissions reductions. It is also used to establish aircraft
engine maintenance baselines. ACARS data link, although it still has very limited bandwidth, can
be used to downlink flight data in near-real time. For example, engine throttle setting at specified
points along the arrival or departure path may be downlinked to monitor aircraft noise restriction
compliance. Aircraft landing roll parameters may be downlinked to monitor runway friction
conditions in nearly real time, to improve prediction and avoiding runway closures that are
required when runway condition measurement is needed [147]. With increased connectivity, flight
data monitoring and analysis provide a great opportunity to improve ATM operations.
4 ATM Operations at Aircraft

4.1 Introduction
As it has been mentioned earlier that as end nodes in the ATM hierarchical structure, aircraft
are where the ultimate goal of ATM operations is realized. Safe, economical, efficient, and
environmentally responsible aircraft operations require functions on board the aircraft to
Receive flight plans and any subsequent updates from the operators’ FOC
Coordinate with ANSP flight intent and follow instructions or restrictions from the
ANPS for safety or TFM reasons
Receive navigation information
Measure and detect meteorological conditions around the aircraft
Guide and optimize aircraft movement, and
Provide timely feedback as necessary to other relevant air and ground entities.
Depending on equipage on board the aircraft and on the ground, some of these functions are
performed by the flight crew and some of these functions are performed by installed airborne
automation with or without the support from external systems, and some of these functions may be
performed by the flight crew with the assistance of uninstalled tools such as applications running
on the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) or a mobile device.
From a controls point of view, operations at the aircraft comprises multiple levels of controls
with higher levels defining and tracking the flight plan and flight intents, and lower levels
controlling aircraft movements and tracking deviations from the flight intent. The FMS installed
on board modern transport aircraft is the major automation system that handles higher level
controls by means of flight plan, performance optimization, and navigation and guidance
functionalities, while Automatic Flight Control Systems (AFCS), including autopilot and auto
throttle functionalities, are for lower-level controls [148]. AFCS itself consists of outer control
loops and inner control loops. Under certain conditions, automated flight may be achieved for a
given flight plan by coupling the FMS with AFCS.
The flight crew may engage with higher level controls by entering or modifying the flight plan
in the FMS via a Control Display Unit (CDU) or Multipurpose CDU (MCDU); or by entering or
modifying tactical flight intent, such as altitude, speed and heading, for autopilot and auto throttle
via the Mode Control Panel (MCP). Of course, the flight crew may engage with lower-level
controls to manually fly the aircraft using traditional control columns, paddles, and thrust
quadrants.
While knowledge of lower-level controls is useful, ATM operations is mostly concerned with
higher-level controls of the aircraft, as long as the lower-level controls can satisfy the required
performance to achieve the flight intent or flight plan. With Required Navigation Performance
(RNP), an operational concept of flying precise trajectories to required performance, such
performance levels are known prior to the clearance of a procedure, and are continuously
monitored and alerted by the on-board system. The review of ATM operations at the aircraft is
thus focused on functions related to the high-level control, i.e., the management of high-level
flight objectives specified as flight plans, procedures, and flight intents.
Details of flight crew procedures for operating a particular aircraft type are described by the
Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) issued by the aircraft manufacturer for the specific
aircraft type. These FCOMs are normally adapted by the aircraft operator to address additional
procedures or requirements. FCOMs contain very detailed information for flight operations,
including limitations and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures specific to the aircraft
type. Ref. [23] provides a summary of typical flight crew activities during various phases of a
typical commercial flight.
FMS is the most important airborne system related to ATM operations. Aside from operational
manuals and training materials issued by the original equipment manufacturer or operator, general
reference of FMS can be found in [149]-[151]. Many of the operational details as well as some of
the basic concepts behind specific functions can be found in [152] [153], both are publicaly
available. EFBs, rooted from laptop computers brought on-board the aircraft by pilots, have
evolved into sophisticated systems beyond replacing paper-based reference materials
transitionally carried in pilot’s flight bags. More intelligent applications coupled with embedded
GPS have offered flight planning functionalities similar to an installed FMS. Recent developments
in mobile computing devices, especially touch-screen-based devices have led to more intuitive
human-machine interfaces than existing installed avionics.
In the next few sections, the most important aspects and functions of ATM operations at the
aircraft are reviewed. This review is focused on the application layer of aircraft ATM operations.
Data link communications, for example, belongs to common services, thus they are not considered
a separate function. Their roles however will be discussed as appropriate. Some of the functions to
be reviewed are hosted by the same system, such as the FMS, while others may be hosted jointly
by several systems. The partition of these functions is roughly based on the interaction between
different aircraft, and between aircraft and ground systems.

4.2 Navigation Data Base (NDB)

The Navigation Data Base (NDB) is part of the FMS. It contains information about navigation
objects including airports, NAVAIDs, waypoints, airways, standard arrival and departure
procedures, approach procedures, and predefined company routes. These navigation objects are
the building blocks of flight plans. NDB is accessed by several other functions, such as flight
planning and navigation functions, through coded names. Current standards of the NDB are
specified in ARINC 424-20 [154].
The raw data contained in the NDB are based on navigation information published by air
navigation authorities or ANSPs (see Section 2.7). Independent database providers compile this
information into a worldwide database, and update the database as new data become available. A
FMS NDB service provider, normally a division of FMS manufacturers, repacks the NDB into
proprietary digital media that can be loaded into the FMS. The NDB is often tailored to fit the
specific system configuration on-board the aircraft and needs of the aircraft operator. For example,
the FMS may have limited memory, and/or it may not have the functionality to handle all types of
operational procedures. A domestic aircraft operator may not be willing to pay for the maintenance
cost associated with an international database it would never use. In current operations, the content
of the NDB are updated every 28 days. On the other hand, navigational data such as charts for
EFBs may access a web-based distribution system from which the user can pull the latest updates
whenever a network connection is available, and in some cases the distribution system can push
content to the device whenever new updates are available.

4.3 Flight Planning

Flight planning is also part of the FMS. A flight plan defines the planned 4D trajectory intent
from the origin airport to the destination airport. The FMS flight plan is normally more detailed
than the flight plan filed with the ANSP. The FMS flight plan may include the origin airport, the
departure runway, the departure procedure, routes, the arrival procedure, the approach procedure,
the arrival runway, and the destination airport. Cost index [133] [134] may also be entered to
enable the aircraft to fly economic speeds instead of specified speeds. It may also include routes
and procedures associated with alternate airports. The flight plan may be built using predefined
objects in the NDB, or specified points. Ultimately, the flight plan route can be expanded into
points and segments with connecting points. Such elements may have altitude, speed, and time
constraints associated with them. Altitude and speed constraints may be predefined in the NDB as
part of a procedure, or they may be dynamically determined based on traffic and meteorological
conditions. Time constraints, however, are dynamically determined. Meteorological forecasts,
mainly winds and temperature aloft, may also be entered along the route to allow for accurate
trajectory predictions (see 4.5). Current standards of the FMS flight plan are specified in ARINC
702A-3 [155].
The flight planning function in the FMS manages flight plans, normally with an active flight
plan to guide the flight, and additional flight plans for trial alternates or different options. It
provides a means for the flight crew to manually create flight plans, add additional information, or
make modifications. In some systems, alternate airports and alternate routes may be automatically
generated as the flight progresses through different geographical regions. The flight planning
function also provides a means to allow for automatic upload of flight plans or flight plan
modifications directly into the FMS via data link. Simplified versions of the flight plan and
predicted trajectories may also be downlinked to the ground. Currently, the data link is achieved
via character-based ACARS, CPDLC, or ADS-C messages. The main issues with current
character-based air-ground data communications are limited bandwidth, asynchronous nature, and
lack of performance requirements (such as round trip latency).
One of the issues related to the flight plan is discrepancies between the airborne flight plan and
the flight plan in ANSP and FOC ground systems. One reason for such discrepancies is differences
in the design of air (e.g., FMS) and ground systems. Flight plan discrepancies may also be due to
flight plan changes not being entered or updated in any of the systems in a timely manner, or not
entered or updated at all. These discrepancies significantly impact the accuracy of trajectory
prediction, and the performance of DSTs relying on accurate trajectory predictions.

4.4 Performance Computation and Optimization

Performance computation and optimization is based on aerodynamic and engine data. It
provides various performance parameters, such as lift, drag, thrust, and fuel flow, based on any
given aircraft configuration (e.g., flap/landing gear positions and engine inoperative state) and
aircraft state. It also computes flight limitations for various configurations and optimal altitude and
speed for various operational conditions and requirements.
 In general, this function is not accessible from applications external to the aircraft. It is mainly
for supporting other functions hosted by the FMS, such as trajectory prediction and the display of
certain parameters to the flight crew.
The aircraft performance models used for performance computation are normally static unless
there is a change to the airframe or engine configuration. Drag and fuel factors may be provided to
account for actual differences from internal performance models. Some FMS configurations are
capable of determining reference values for drag and fuel factors by analyzing the actual
performance of the aircraft. These reference values may then be selected or revised to achieve
more accurate performance computation and optimization. However, this capability may not be
used consistently.

4.5 Trajectory Prediction

Trajectory prediction is part of the FMS. While the flight plan defines the 4D trajectory intent,
the trajectory prediction generates a 4D trajectory that is used to guide the aircraft. On one hand,
the flight plan does not necessarily contain all the parameters of a full trajectory. For example, turn
radii at fly-by and fly-over waypoints connecting straight line segments are not available in the
flight plan. Such parameters will need to be computed based on the predicted aircraft state and
operational standards. On the other hand, vertical profile parameters such as speeds and flight path
angles may not be always directly specified in the flight plan. In such cases, those parameters need
to be computed based on the aircraft performance according to given constraints and
meteorological conditions. In doing so, different profile logic may be employed, either due to
differences in system design or operator-specific procedures. This is to say, all else being equal,
the same flight plan could result in different 4D trajectories should different FMS be installed on
board the same aircraft. These subtle details are not known to the ANSP. Often, even the aircraft
operator’s performance engineering department does not have good grips with such details. This
situation imposes a serious challenge to the current ATM operations.
Trajectory prediction is essentially a fast time simulation on board the aircraft; some iteration
might be necessary to achieve accurate predictions. The prediction may be performed on the active
flight plan and any additional flight plans, depending on the specific system design. The prediction
on non-active flight plans allows for different trial flight plans being evaluated by the FMS before
a decision is made to fly a different route, different vertical profile (altitudes and speeds), or both.
Due to the required computational power, trajectory prediction is normally performed in the
background, while other higher priority tasks are being handled.
The predicted trajectory is heavily influenced by the meteorological information available for
prediction use, due to the impact of trajectory kinetics and aircraft performance. The trajectory
prediction function normally employs a mixing algorithm to blend weather forecast entered into
the flight plan and current measurements from airborne sensors. These include winds and
temperature or temperature deviation from International Standard Atmosphere (ISA). Often, the
weather forecast is outdated (if they have been entered at all), thus significant error may exist. This
has become a major source of airborne trajectory prediction errors.
During a course of a flight, many factors could cause changes in the flight plan. As discussed in
Section 4.3, discrepancies in the flight plan could develop between FMS and ground systems. The
FMS flight plan from which trajectory prediction is performed often differs from the final flight
plan that will be executed. This is another source of airborne trajectory prediction errors. The same
could be true for ground trajectories. To address the issue, data-link-based air-ground trajectory
synchronization has been studied [156]. New data link standards currently been developed have
incorporated provisions to support air-ground trajectory synchronization [157].

4.6 Navigation
Navigation refers to the function to determine the current state of the aircraft. Aircraft state
includes rigid body six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) position and velocity of the airframe, e.g.,
latitude, longitude, altitude, heading (or yaw angle), pitch angle, roll angle (or bank angle), and
their derivatives. Additional navigational parameters such as track angle, flight path angle, drift
angle, wind direction and speed, and position uncertainty are also estimated.
Modern aircraft are equipped with multiple navigation systems such as the Air Data Computer
(ADC), Inertial Reference System (IRS), radio navigation receivers including VHF VOR, DME,
TACAN, ILS, among others, and satellite navigation system such as GPS. With computational
capability, automated navigation systems are able to determine aircraft position at any point within
the coverage of ground- or satellite-based navigation aids or within the limits of self-contained
aids, or a combination of these. In the FMS, the navigation function integrates information from all
available sources to provide seamless operations, even if individual navigation sources become
temporally unavailable. The FMS navigation function is able to automatically tune to the
appropriate radio NAVAIDs and to provision navigation satellites according to the flight plan.
Airborne navigation is generally achieved independent of the intervention from the ground.
Radar Approach Control is a technique developed during World War II to guide the landing and
approach at war time airports where sufficient navigation aids were not available [158]. When this
technique was first developed, it relied on the ground radar to provide accurate position of the
aircraft. The controller then used the radar position to verbally guide the aircraft to a safe landing.
The navigation function is essentially performed by ground systems, and then communicated to
the aircraft. Today, this technique is still used in some emergency situations, and it is referred to as
surveillance approach.

4.7 Guidance
The guidance function generates commands for controlling the aircraft to follow the predicted
trajectory. This function can be divided into Lateral Navigation (LNAV) and Vertical Navigation
(VNAV). The lateral part tracks the desired ground track defined by route segments (straight or
curved) by providing roll control command. The vertical part tracks the vertical profile defined by
target speeds, target thrusts, target altitudes, and target vertical speeds by providing pitch, pitch
rate, and thrust control commands. The computed tracking errors and speeds are displayed to the
flight crew. The guidance function can also be engaged with the Flight Director to provide
guidance for the flight crew to manually fly the aircraft.
In case the aircraft is off from the lateral path when LNAV is engaged, the guidance function
builds a route capture segment. In case the aircraft is off from the predicted vertical path when
VNAV is engaged, the guidance function builds a vertical profile capture segment. Various alerts
may also be generated based on tracking errors.
VNAV also controls switching of automatic flight modes based on specific criteria. The
switching may be triggered by the transition from one phase to another on the predicted trajectory,
or by deviations from the predicted trajectory. The logic and algorithms behind such operations are
very complex and are normally specific to the aircraft type and the equipment installed on board
the aircraft (e.g., the specific FMS configuration).

4.8 Trajectory Control Functions

Often, the predicted trajectory cannot be followed due to changes in weather and traffic
conditions. In addition to flight planning and trajectory prediction, several FMS functions have
been developed to dynamically control trajectory without significantly modifying the basic flight
plan. Some of the trajectory control functions are briefly discussed in this section.
Speed intervention and altitude intervention. Speed intervention allows for the crew to
manually adjust speed from FMS computed speed targets without changing the vertical profile
otherwise. Altitude intervention allows for the cruise altitude or altitude constraints to be changed
by the flight crew to the predicted trajectory.
Required Time of Arrival (RTA). RTA allows VNAV to target arrival at a waypoint at a
required time. When RTA is activated, the speed command is continuously calculated based on the
current prediction and winds aloft, instead of using that computed from the flight plan. In case the
RTA is not achievable, an alert will be generated. The RTA function has been used for
airline-based arrival slot management to improve efficiency and reduce delay [136].
Lateral offset. The lateral offset function builds a lateral flight path parallel to the assigned
route. Some FMS configurations are able to handle lateral offset up to 100 nmi. With the lateral
offset function, the aircraft can be directed temporarily away from the assigned route, and later
return to the original route if so desired. This function has been used in Strategic Lateral Offset
Procedures (SLOP) to create an artificial dispersion of tracks (to the right of the route center line)
in oceanic and remote continental en route operation to reduce the risk of collision. There have also
been studies to use lateral offset for tactical control of in-trail spacing.

4.9 Surveillance
As mentioned in Section 1.3, ADS relies on the aircraft to provide reports of its own state or
intent—including but not limited to altitude, position, speed, and next waypoint—to ground
stations for surveillance purposes. Currently there are two major types of ADS. ADS-C is a
method for the ground to specify and for the aircraft to provide on-demand or periodic surveillance
reports. In current operations, ADS-C is mostly used in oceanic operations where there is limited
or no radar or VHF coverage. ADS-B is a method for the aircraft to automatically broadcast
surveillance reports. This is referred to as ADS-B Out.
ADS-B provides highly accurate satellite surveillance reports at a rate higher than the
conventional radar, which is limited by its azimuth resolution and the rate at which its antenna
rotates. ADS-B may use frequencies currently used by the secondary radar (transmits on 1030
MHz and receives on 1090 MHz) and airborne transponder (transmits on 1090 MHz and receives
on 1030 MHz). Because the secondary radar no longer needs to continuously send out
interrogation messages, two additional ground broadcast services may be provided. Universal
Access Transceiver (UAT) ADS-B uses 978 MHz. Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B)
provides complete traffic surveillance information, including targets not equipped with ADS-B, to
ADS-B equipped aircraft. Flight Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B) provides meteorological
and aeronautical information to ADS-B aircraft. TIS-B and FIS-B are referred to as ADS-B In.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Rebroadcast (ADS-R) rebroadcasts traffic information from
each broadcast link and rebroadcasts it to ADS-B In-equipped aircraft on the other link.
ADS-B is expected to enable a host of applications that may enhance safety and improve traffic
throughput and efficiency. The FAA final rule [17] mandates ADS-B Out for aircraft operating in
Classes A, B, and C airspace, as well as certain other specified classes of airspace within the NAS
by January 1, 2020. However, there are no requirements on ADS-B In equipage due to lack of
substantiated benefits and mature technical standards.

4.10 Airborne Spacing and Conflict Resolution

TCAS is a mandated system for commercial aircraft with 11 or more seats, with TCAS I
mandated for turbine powered passenger-carrying aircraft with 11 to 30 seats and TCAS II
mandated for commercial aircraft with more than 30 seats or a maximum takeoff weight greater
than 33,000 lb. TCAS I provides Traffic Advisories (TAs) to assist pilots in visual acquisition of
intruder aircraft for “see and avoid.” In addition to TAs, TCAS II also provides Resolution
Advisories (RAs), i.e., recommended escape maneuvers but only limited to the vertical dimension
to either increase or maintain the existing vertical separation between aircraft [159]. TCAS relies
on the ATC secondary radar beacon transponders installed on the target aircraft, thus it provides no
protection against aircraft that do not have an operating transponder. Recent developments include
algorithms for multiple threats [160].
Airborne Separation Assurance System (ASAS) is a collection of tools for conflict detection,
prevention, and resolution [161] [162]. ASAS is developed for equipped aircraft to resolve
conflicts with other aircraft, SUA, and hazardous weather. The decision horizon of ASAS is to
provide effective alerts and resolutions prior to the time that a TCAS would provide a RA. ASAS
is expected to reduce controller workload through delegation of separation responsibility to
equipped aircraft. As an application of ASAS, airborne spacing is a concept where the controller
still maintains separation responsibility, but may instruct flight crews to achieve and maintain a
spacing interval to a specified reference aircraft using on-board guidance [163]. Airborne spacing
may reduce controller workload and required communications and improve efficiency. It may
provide the capability for “equivalent visual operations.” Traffic intent sharing and inference is an
important capability to enable ASAS applications.

4.11 Airborne Weather Information

Modern commercial aircraft are equipped with an array of meteorological sensors and systems
to support safe and efficient operations. These sensors range from simple pressure and temperature
sensors to sophisticated airborne weather radar systems. Modern airborne weather radar systems
incorporate radar, powerful computational technology, and global geographic databases. They are
able to detect convection, windshear, and turbulence, and to predict hail and lighting in 3D volume
airspace up to 320 nmi in range [164].
Essentially, aircraft moving in the airspace form a network of airborne meteorological sensors
that are of immense value to ATM operations. There are several programs to share these valuable
resources. PIREP is a program to solicit and disseminate reports in conjunction with preflight and
inflight communications with pilots. Urgent Pilot Reports (UUA) include hail, low-level wind
shear (within 2000 ft of surface), severe icing, severe extreme turbulence, tornado, funnel cloud or
water spout, and volcanic eruption and/or volcanic ash. AMDAR is a program to collect and
disseminate automatic meteorological reports from commercial aircraft [165]. These reports are
downlinked from aircraft either via VHF ACARS or satellite link. In the United States, these data
have been used as inputs to weather forecast models and made available for research use by
NOAA. There have also been research efforts to study the benefits of uplinking to the aircraft
previously downlinked meteorological reports from aircraft in the nearby airspace.
Related to fast growth of EFBs, applications have been developed to uplink meteorological
information to the cockpit to improve situation awareness.
Frequency 123.45 MHz is designated as an air-to-air VHF communications channel to enable
aircraft operating over remote and oceanic areas out of range of VHF ground stations to exchange
necessary operational information and to facilitate the resolution of operational problems. This
frequency is used to pass along turbulence and en route weather information directly between
aircraft.
5 Existing NAS Architecture, Issues, and Opportunities

5.1 Existing NAS Architecture

The existing NAS architecture can be illustrated by a dependency map of ATM functions in the
NAS, as shown in in Figure 7. This map was developed based on the review of ATM functions
described earlier, including all the functions and sub-functions. Dependency refers to requiring
input from or relying on functionality of another function. Dependencies between two ATM
functions may be unidirectional or bidirectional. In the figure, ATM functions are first grouped by
their owner entity in the decision triad of ANSP, FOC, and Aircraft. ANSP functions are further
grouped by major systems for operations in different domains. Dependencies may represent
connections via different communication channels, including air-ground voice, air-ground data
link, commercial data link, and ground network. Connections may exist between functions within
and between systems owned by the same entity. They may also exist between functions within
different systems owned by different entities, e.g., between a function in an ANSP system and a
function in the FOC system. It should be noted that for the sake of simplicity, sensors are not
considered as separate ATM functions, but integrated systems involving sensors are considered.
In current ATM operations, the supporting infrastructure consists of the FAA FTI for
communications within the ANSP, as required by the FAA to satisfy its security and safety
requirements. The FAA’s SWIM serves as the IT enterprise infrastructure necessary for NAS
systems to share and reuse information and increase interoperability. SWIM provides governance
to NAS programs to ensure services are SWIM compliant and meet all FAA SOA standards. By
providing this governance and a supporting common enterprise infrastructure, SWIM is
envisioned by the FAA to reduce the cost and risk of rework for NextGen programs that develop
and deploy services within the NAS. For this reason, the dependency map assumes that all the
ANSP systems are interconnected through SWIM. This is, of course, based on existing
infrastructure and on planned infrastructure development that is not yet fully operational. It is also
assumed that some level of air-ground data link capability exists between ANSP and the aircraft,
as in oceanic operations. Communications between FOC and the ANSP are Internet-based through
controlled entry boundary to the FTI infrastructure.
In Figure 7, the grouping of functions and sub-functions for the ANSP is done by aligning
functions representing the same major system vertically, where possible. Dependencies between
functions or sub-functions within the same major system are denoted by solid black arrows while
dependencies between systems or functions within different systems are denoted by dark blue
arrows. All the ANSP systems depend upon FTI and SWIM. Although this may not necessarily
reflect the current state of all existing systems, because SWIM is still under development, it does
represent FAA’s vision of the NextGen network environment.
As seen in the dependency map, many connections exist. In addition to the ground network,
such as FTI, and the commercial network, these also include air-ground voice communications,
ANSP operated air-ground data link, and commercial data link. However, many of these
connections are not integrated with automation. This inevitably creates barriers to fully utilizing
the capabilities of current existing systems and causes operational inefficiencies. With the level of
functionality details incorporated in the ATM function dependency map, it is also clearly seen that
disparity, gaps, and complexity in communication are not the only issues in current ATM
operations.
Ideally, all the ANSP ground-based systems such as TFMS, TBFM, ATOP, ERAM, STARS,
and TFDM, FOC ground-based systems such as flight following and trajectory management, and
airborne systems such as trajectory prediction and ASCR, should all rely on the same true and
complete picture of the operational environment to make informed and robust decisions. This true
and complete picture represents:
1. Configuration and condition of the airspace infrastructure;
2. Atmospheric and weather conditions;
3. Traffic demand and situation; and
4. Behavior of individual flights and aggregated air traffic as a whole.
Yet, each of these systems has been developed with its own processes, creating its own version
of the picture with discrepancies among assumptions, input data, and capabilities. Often, these
supporting processes cost much more to develop and operate than the core decision support
capabilities, not to mention the many conflicts and inconsistencies in decision making associated
with this issue. The ATM Function Dependency Map provides a means to investigate this issue
and, jointly with the analysis of advanced computing technologies, provides insights into potential
improvements that may be achieved by leveraging advanced computing technologies, as discussed
later in this document.
In summary, the current NAS architecture can be characterized by:
Traditional ownership – ANSP, FOC, and Aircraft own their functions
Systems installed at facilities where users reside
Stove-piped system and rigid architecture tied to hardware and software platforms
- Heavy local adaptation including disparate site-specific functionalities
- Limited capacity and capability
Duplications across systems from same and different entities
Functionality and performance gaps in individual systems
Bounded by this NAS architecture, ATM operations in the NAS are characterized by:
Responsive and tactical decision making with limited 4D scope
Inconsistent decision making across different systems and entities; or lack of decision
making process in some cases
Figure 7: ATM Function Dependency Map.
5.2 Maintenance and Operating Cost of ATM Systems
The hard-wired and highly coupled NAS-wide system architecture inevitably causes high
maintenance cost of existing ATM systems. In this architecture, there are many duplications and
lack of standardization in system infrastructure. Systems are separately deployed and installed at
various locations requiring separate maintenance and support efforts at those locations. The
long-lived software often heavily depends on specifics of hardware infrastructure and platform.
Many ATM systems have a lifecycle on the order of 20 years, much longer than the typical server
lifespan of 3 to 5 years. The obsolescence of hardware is frequently cited as a high risk factor in
FAA’s investment analysis. In some cases, the hardware is already obsolete by the time a
modernization program is completed [166]. The upgrade and replacement of hardware often
require significant changes in the software, thus incurring high maintenance and support costs.
Many site-specific features and patches are added over the years, creating separate configurations
at each site that have to be separately installed and maintained. Because system software upgrades
are limited by existing architecture, they have proven to be difficult, lengthy, and costly processes.
These issues in maintenance and operating of ATM systems also significantly limit the level of
service that can be offered by the ANSP, and the efficiency and productivity of Air Traffic
Controllers (ATCOs). For example, as reported by the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation
(CANSO) [167], the 2010 ANSP (i.e., FAA Air Traffic Organization) performance metrics in the
United States are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: U.S. ANSP Performance Metrics in 2010.

Performance Metrics Value

Total number of employees 34,911
Total number of operational ATCOs 18,001
Total annual IFR movements 16,123,364

Annual IFR flight hours per ATCO in operations (continental) 1803

Total annual operating costs $9,313,332,144

Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) $429

Cost per IFR flight hour (continental), average annual change 2006-2010 7.6%

As can be seen, the U.S. ANSP incurred a $9.3 billion operating cost in 2010. The annual IFR
flight hours per ATCO in operations (continental) were 1803, in the same order of normal total
working hours per year. The ANSP operating cost per IFR flight hour (continental) was $429. In
comparison, using data reported in an analysis by Airlines for America (A4A) [168], the crew cost
(pilots and flight attendants) for U.S. scheduled passenger airlines was $908 per block hour during
the same year.

5.3 Lengthy and Costly Avionics Adoption Process

The development, certification, and investment of avionics are a lengthy and costly process.
This is especially true for safety-critical systems. The development of ADS-B Out avionics is a
very recent example. Table 4 lists the timeline of ADS-B avionics development, from the initial
product development and technical standards to mandate compliance, a 20-year process from the
publication of the first ADS-B avionics technical standard (RTCA DO-260). It should be noted
that the mandate compliance date is only the beginning of the full nationwide operational lifecycle.
It is estimated that the avionics equipment will cost $2.5 to $6.2 billion, in addition to FAA
development and operating cost of $2.7 to $5.5 billion. In comparison, in the IT field, the
publication of many industry standards is trailing behind the adoption in commercial products.
This is to say, in the IT field, it is not uncommon that by the time a standard is published, the
underlying technologies may have already been adopted in commercial products for some time.
ADS-B is not the only example. From an aircraft operator’s point of view, any new equipment
investment must pass a cost-benefit test. This is especially critical in the environment where air
carriers are operating at very small margins (see Section 5.4). For these reasons, mixed equipage
operations are the normal scenario in ATM operations. In current operations, older fleets are
normally equipped with less capable avionics but are competing with better equipped aircraft for
the same airspace resources, making the avionics investment decisions more difficult. This is
because even after costly equipage, not all automation capabilities are able to be utilized, for
example the FMS capability is frequently underutilized in congested airspace.
Table 4: Timeline of ADS-B Out Avionics.

Milestones Date
Earliest known 1090 MHz ADS-B Out initial product development 1998
RTCA DO-242 ADS-B MASPS 2/18/1998
RTCA DO-260 1090 MHz ADS-B MOPS 9/20/2000

RTCA DO-242A ADS-B MASPS 6/25/2002

RTCA DO-260A 1090 MHz ADS-B MOPS 4/10/2003

FAA TSO-C166 ADS-B and TIS-B on 1090 MHz, including references and 9/20/2004
modifications to DO-260/DO-260A

FAA TSO-C166b ADS-B and TIS-B on 1090 MHz, references and modification to 12/21/2006
DO-260A Changes 1, 2
RTCA DO-260B 1090 MHz ADS-B MOPS 12/02/2009
FAA TSO-C166b ADS-B and TIS-B on 1090 MHz 12/02/2009
FAA ADS-B Out mandate effective (FR Vol. 75, No. 103) 08/11/2010

FAA ADS-B Out mandate compliance 1/01/2020

One exception to this pattern is the success story of ACARS. ACARS was introduced in 1978
and has been in widespread use by aircraft operators since early 1980s. It has never been a
mandated avionics, but it has been the basis for operational air-ground data link to this date.
5.4 Operational Inefficiencies
Issues in ATM operations as discussed in previous subsections ultimately translate into
operational inefficiencies, which in turn translate into inferior performance to aircraft operators
and a waste to the public. For example, based on data from BTS [169], when oil price was high a
couple of years ago, U.S. air carriers were operating at very low margins, as shown in Table 5. The
table also shows that flying operations expenses and aircraft and traffic servicing expenses account
for about 50% of operating expenses. Flying operations expenses are defined by BTS as those
incurred directly in the in-flight operation of aircraft and expenses related to the holding of aircraft
and aircraft operational personnel in readiness for assignment for an in-flight status. Aircraft and
traffic servicing expenses are defined as compensation of ground personnel, in-flight expenses for
handling and protecting all non-passenger traffic including passenger baggage, and other expenses
incurred on the ground to: 1) protect and control the in-flight movement of the aircraft; 2) pchedule
and prepare aircraft operational crew for flight assignment; 3) handle and service aircraft while in
line operation, and 4) service and handle traffic on the ground after issuance of documents
establishing the air carrier's responsibility to provide air transportation. These two operating
expense components are thus directly related to ATM operations. It’s interesting to note that in the
past three years, the net income for U.S. air carriers was close to or even much less than the
baggage fees or reservation cancellation fees they charged to passengers.
The impact of inefficiencies to aircraft operators is significant. From Table 5 it can be
estimated that 1% extra fuel burn would have cost U.S. air carriers $529 million. An A4A analysis
[168] indicates that each single minute of extra block time (taxi or airborne) has cost U.S.
scheduled passenger airlines a direct aircraft operating cost of $78 in 2012, resulting in $7.2 billion
total direct aircraft operating cost due to 92 million system delay minutes in 2012.
The impact to passengers is in no way less. A National Center of Excellence for Aviation
Operations Research (NEXTOR) analysis [170] estimated that in 2007, the total delay accrued by
passengers due to delayed flights, cancelled flights, and missed connections was 15 billion
minutes, or 28,539 years, with an estimated cost to air passengers of $16.7 billion (lost time due to
padding and delay, at $37.6/hour). Using simpler assumptions and not accounting for cascaded
effects, a U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee (JEC) report [171] estimated traffic delays cost
passengers time worth up to $12 billion in the same year. Other indirect cost was estimated to be
on the order of $10 billion, by both analyses.
Although due to the descrease of fuel price in the past couple of years, there has been a
desrease of direct aircraft operating cost, operational inefficiencies are still significant and the
challenges are still ahead.

5.5 System Transformation Opportunities

The global nature of the ATM operations becomes ever important. Long range commercial jets
can reach any major city within the world by a single hop of a flight, traversing airspace with
drastically different environmental conditions and CNS/ATM infrastructures. The operator’s FOC
needs to plan, follow, and support its aircraft as the flight progresses. Conversely, an ANSP facility
may have to accommodate flights from around the globe, executed by aircraft with drastically
different capabilities. As traffic demand increases, many procedural approaches have been adapted
to balance the demand and system capacity at business airspace facilities, and to enable safe
operations where CNS/ATM infrastructure lacks, such as in oceanic and remote airspace. On the
other hand, air transportation is expected by the public to provide the highest level of safety, and
consequently, air traffic systems are subject to the most stringent certification requirements than
any other mode of transportation.
The global nature of ATM operations requires highly integrated smart interacting networks of
physical assets and intellegent systems both vertically from sensors, avionics, aircraft, fleet, to the
NAS, and laterally across different operational domains from ground, terminal, to en route, and
across different geographical regions and political boundaries. Coupled with new operational
concepts and technologies, a transformation of ATM operations into the afore mentioned
integrated smart interacting networks of physical assets and intellegent systems is anticipated to
provide significant benefits, including:
Reduced and predictable system operating cost
Increased, elastic system capacity and flexibility
Improved decision support and flight efficiency

Table 5: Financial Data of U.S. Carriers with Annual Operating Revenues of $20M or More.

Metrics 2010 2011 2012

Operating revenues 1 $174,677M $192,996M $195,055M

Scheduled passenger revenue $103,978M $114,299M $115,990M

Passenger baggage fees $3,401M $3,393M $3,517M

Passenger reservation cancellation fees $2,298M $2,390M $2,555M

Operating expenses 2 $164,160M $185,961M $187,078M

Flying operations expenses $60,037M $73,710M $73,974M
(Percentage of operating expenses) (36.6%) (39.6%) (39.5%)

Fuel cost $39,389M $52,508M $52,888M

(Percentage of operating expenses) (24.0%) (28.2%) (28.3%)

Aircraft and traffic servicing expenses $22,892M $24,191M $24,370M

(Percentage of operating expenses) (13.9%) (13.0%) (13.0%)

Operating profit $10,517M $7,036M $7,977M

Net Profit $3,666M $1,392M $872M

Net profit margin 2.1% 0.7% 0.4%
1.
In addition to scheduled passenger revenue, passenger baggage fees and reservation and
cancellation fees, operating revenues also include freight and mail, charter, transport related
revenue, miscellaneous operating revenue, and public service revenue.
2.
In addition to flying operations and aircraft and traffic servicing expenses, operating expenses
also include maintenance, transport related expenses, passenger service, promotion and sales,
general and administrative, and depreciation and amortization.
 New safety regime
Stakeholder social-cultural ecosystem
Improved life cycle development efficiency and accelerated pace of technology
transition
1. Reduced and predictable system operating cost. One immediate benefit of such a system
transformation is reduced and predictable operating cost. This is largely achieved by leveraging
cloud-based system integration and deployment. The cloud deployment model enables previous
discrete on primes installations to be integrated into a streamlined system that is transparent to the
user. Duplications in can be reduced. High levels of resource pooling, including computing, data,
deployment, and maintenance and support can be achieved with similar and often better
performance and at much lower cost. An analysis of a notional arrival sequencing and scheduling
system shows 31–89% 3-year total cost of ownership (TCO) savings without considering software
system adaptation cost, and 26–58% 3-year TCO savings considering software system adaptation
cost [172],[173]. Such savings are enabled by the availability of a NAS wide ADS-B integration
network [174] along with other aeronautical services whose costs are separate from the cost of the
application system in question both before and after the transition.
2. Increased, elastic system capacity and flexibility. Real-time integration of sensors
information, system state, and decision support capabilities/autonomy enables airspace constraints
to be dynamically determined instead of using rigid, predefined procedural parameters. For
instance, the integration of weather sensor information and aircraft state information may be used
to determine dynamic wake vertex separation. System down time associated with the evaluation of
current condition (eg, runway condition during snow storm) or that associated with airspace
configuration switch may be reduced. Utilization of system resources can be maximized thus
increases system capacity. The system transformation also enables real-time or near real-time
performance-based resource assignment, and thus provides certain levels of elastic capacity and
flexibility based on realtime demand.
3. Improved decision support and flight efficiency. The system transformation enables
increased level of system-wide situation awareness by making integrated, comprehensive system
state information available to all entities involved, including Aircraft, FOC, and ANSP. Flight
operation decisions can be made at a longer time horizon and at a more strategic level. Networked
cyber components enable increased remote access of decision support capabilities by different
users. Informed coordination and negotiation can be made to ensure high levels of success of such
decisions. Flight efficiency is thus increased due to reduced waste caused by shorter time horizon,
tactical, reactive decisions.
4. New safety regime. With the integration of best available physical and computational
components, the transformed system provides potential backup in a timely manner when adverse
conditions occur in the primary system, and thus provides a new safety regime. Two recent
commercial aircraft accidents exemplify this concept. In both, Air France 447 [175] and Malaysia
370 [176], adverse conditions occurred in the primary systems. The former lost the airspeed
sensor, and the latter lost communications. Investigation indicates alternative capabilities, either
airborne or on ground, were available but the existing physical and cyber components associated
with those alternative capabilities were separated. Should a transformed system integration be in
place, the accidents could either be avoided, or the search and rescue be expedited.
 5. Stakeholder social-cultural ecosystem. Social-cultural aspects have been an important factor
in aviation. The advancement in aviation has significantly improved the quality of life for
countless people, contributed to the economy, and revolutionized global cultural and economic
interaction. However, aviation is still a highly specialized profession. Interactions between
stakeholders frequently run into issues due to disconnections and misunderstanding. Stakeholder
models, especially of consumers and the general public, may be integrated with the remainder of
the aviation system to form an integrated ecosystem to further improve aviation system efficiency,
the quality of life and the world economy. This is made possible by big data and ubiquitous mobile
technology, and it is already happening in many other industries.
6. Improved life cycle development efficiency and accelerated pace of technology transition.
Architecture and component abstraction and standardization enable seamless and flexible
integration of physical and cyber components. This maximizes component reuse. The design and
development of an application system can thus focus on its core algorithm capabilities instead of
spending precious resources on developing mission specific supporting services and interfaces as
in conventional discrete system development regime. Individual components can also be
developed and replaced without having to wait all the components supporting the application to be
designed and developed all at once. Improved life cycle development efficiency and accelerated
pace of technology transition can thus be achieved.

-
References
[1] JPDO, “Operational Concept for the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen),” V3.2, JPDO, Washington, DC, September 30, 2010.
[2] FAA, Aeronautical Information Manual – Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and
ATC Procedures, Change 1, FAA, Washington DC, July 26, 2012.
[3] FAA, “Air Traffic Organization,” ATO webpage, FAA, Washington DC, December 2,
2011. Available at <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/>.
[4] , A., “Stakeholders Influence on the ATM Strategy Development,”
EUROCONTROL Report CRDS/RND/UNV-9949-BOZ, EUROCONTROL CRDS,
Budapest, Hungary, August 29, 2008.
[5] NATS, “Our Ownership,” NATS webpage, NATS, Fareham, Hants, U.K., 2012. Available
at <http://www.nats.co.uk/about-us/what-we-do/our-ownership/>.
[6] de Neufville, R., and Odoni, A., Airport Systems: Planning, Design, and Management,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
[7] FAA, “Boston General Edward Lawrence Logan INTL (BOS),” Airport Diagram,
Effective January 12, 2012 to February 0, 2012, FAA, Washington DC.
[8] DECEA, “Rio de Janeiro Galeão–Antonio Carlos Jobim, INTL (SBGL),” Aircraft
Parking/Docking Chart, DECEA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 30, 2007.
[9] ICAO, “Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Rules of the Air,”
ICAO 7300 Annex 2, 10th Edition, ICAO, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, November 19,
2009.
[10] FAA, Instrument Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-15B, FAA, Washington DC, 2012.
[11] ICAO, “Manual of Technical Provisions for the Aeronautical Telecommunication
Network (ATN),” Doc 9705, 3rd Edition, ICAO, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, 2002.
[12] ICAO, “Manual on Detailed Technical Specifications for the Aeronautical
Telecommunication Network (ATN) using ISO/OSI Standards and Protocols,” Doc 9880,
1st Edition, ICAO, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, 2010.
[13] Witzen, R., “Developments on the ICAO Aeronautical Telecommunication Network
(ATN),” 2007 CNS/ATM Conference, AFCEA and ELSG, AFCEA, Fairfax, VA, April
23-26, 2007.
[14] ICAO, “Manual on the Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) using Internet
Protocol Suite (IPS) Standards and Protocols,” Doc 9896, 1st Edition, ICAO, Montréal,
Quebec, Canada, 2010.
[15] Harris, “Harris Corporation Awarded $291 Million Contract to Provide Federal Aviation
Administration's New National Air Traffic Control Communications System,” News
Release, Harris, Melbourne, FL, August 28, 2012.
[16] FAA, “Concept of Operations for NextGen Alternative Positioning, Navigation, and
Timing (APNT),” FAA, Washington DC, March 1, 2012.
[17] FAA, “Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance
Requirements to Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service,” Final Rule, Federal
Register, NAAA, Washington DC, May 28, 2010.
[18] PASSUR, “AirportMonitor,” live airport monitor web portal, PASSUR, Stamford, CT,
2012. Available at <http://www.passur.com/airport-monitor-product-detail.htm>.
[19] FAA, “Colorado Wide Area Multilateration,” FAA, Washington DC, November 11, 2011.
Available at <http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/programs/adsb/wsa/wam/>.
[20] IATA, “Passenger Glossary of Terms,” Montréal, Quebec, Canada, 2011. Available at
<http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/passenger/Documents/passenger-glossary-of-terms.xls>.
[21] ICAO, “Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Aircraft Accident and
Incident Investigation,” ICAO 7300 Annex 13, 10th Edition, ICAO, Montréal, Quebec,
Canada, August 30, 2010.
[22] CICTT, “Phase of Flight, Definitions and Usage Notes,” Version 1.1, CAST/ICAO
Common Taxonomy Team (CICTT), ICAO, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, October 2011.
[23] Midkiff, A. H., Hansman, R. J., and Reynolds, T. G., “Airline Flight Operations,” Chapter
8 in The Global Airline Industry, Belobaba, P., Odoni, A., and Barnhart, C. edited, John
Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, UK, November 2009, pp. 213-252.
[24] SC-205, “Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification,”
DO-178C, RTCA, Washington DC, December 13, 2011.
[25] SC-215, “Software Integrity Assurance Considerations for Communication, Navigation,
Surveillance and Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems,” DO-278A, RTCA,
Washington DC, December 13, 2011.
[26] Jacklin, S. A., “Certification of Safety-Critical Software Under DO-178C and DO-278A,”
AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2012, AIAA, Washington DC, June 19-21, 2012.
[27] Lee, Y. H. and Krodel, J., “Flight-Critical Data Integrity Assurance for Ground-Based
COTS Components,” Report DOT/FAA/AR 06/2, Office of Aviation R & D, FAA,
Washington DC, March 2006.
[28] FAA, “Traffic Flow Management in the National Airspace System,” ATO, FAA,
Washington DC, October 2009.
[29] CIO, “Federal IT Dashboard,” Website, CIO Council, Washington DC, August 31, 2012.
Available at <http://www.itdashboard.gov>.
[30] FAA, “En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM),” Web Article, FAA, Washington
DC, November 11, 2010. Available at <http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/eram/>.
[31] Hansman, R. J., and Odoni, A., “Air Traffic Control,” Chapter 13 in The Global Airline
Industry, Belobaba, P., Odoni, A., and Barnhart, C. edited, John Wiley and Sons, West
Sussex, UK, November 2009, pp. 377-403.
[32] Nolan, M. S., Fundamentals of Air Traffic Control, 5th Edition, Delmar Cengage Learning,
Clifton Park, NY 12065-2919, January 28, 2010.
[33] FAA, “Air Traffic Control,” Order JO 7110.65U with Change 1, FAA, Washington DC,
Effective Date: July 26, 2012.
[34] FAA, “Facility Operation and Administration,” Order JO 7210.3X with Change 1, FAA,
Washington DC, Effective Date: July 26, 2012.
[35] FAA, “Record of Decision: New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
Airspace Redesign,” FAA, Washington DC, September 5, 2007.
[36] FAA, “NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign Implementation Schedule – April 2012,” FAA,
Washington DC, April, 2012.
[37] FAA, “National Airspace and Procedures Plan 2010,” FAA, Washington DC, December
2010.
[38] FAA, “Aviation Environmental Design Tool,” AEDT Support Website, FAA, Washington
DC, March 15, 2013. Available at <https://aedt.faa.gov/>.
[39] FAA, “National Airspace and Procedures Plan 2011,” FAA, Washington DC, July 2012.
[40] FAA, “NextGen Integration and Evaluation Capability, Multi-Year Program Plan,” FAA,
Washington, DC, October 31, 2012.
[41] Lasewicz, V. Jr., “FAA Labs in a Distributed and Collaborative Environment to Support V
& V,” Presentations at the 2012 FAA V&V Summit, Washington DC, October 10-11,
2012.
[42] NASA, “NTX, NASA/FAA North Texas Research Station,” Fact Sheet, NASA Ames
Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, October 4, 2012.
[43] Kovacs, A., “FL NextGen Test Bed Overview,” Net Centric Demonstrations and
Prototypes TIM 6, FAA, Washington DC, November 3, 2010.
[44] FAA, “National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan FY 2013-2017,” FAA,
Washington, DC, March 2012.
[45] FAA, “A Plan for the Future, 10-Year Strategy for the Air Traffic Control Workforce
2012-2021,” FAA, Washington DC, April, 2012.
[46] FAA, “Air Traffic Technical Training,” Order JO 3120.4M, FAA, Washington DC,
Effective Date: March 15, 2011.
[47] GAO, “NextGen Air Transportation System, FAA Has Made Some Progress in Midterm
Implementation, but Ongoing Challenges Limit Expected Benefits,” GAO-12-264, GAO,
Washington, DC, April 2013.
[48] ICAO, “Annex 15 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Aeronautical
Information Services,” ICAO 7300 Annex 15, 13th Edition, ICAO, Montréal, Quebec,
Canada, July, 2010.
[49] ICAO, “Roadmap for the Transition from AIS to AIM,” 1st Edition, ICAO, Montréal,
Quebec, Canada, 2009.
[50] AIXM, “Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM),” AIXM Website,
FAA/EUROCONTROL, Washington DC/Brussels, Belgium, 2013. Available at
<http://www.aixm.aero>.
[51] FIXM, “Flight Information Exchange Model (FIXM),” FIXM Website,
FAA/EUROCONTROL, Washington DC/Brussels, Belgium, 2012. Available at
<http://www.fixm.aero>.
[52] WXXM, “Weather Information Exchange Model (WXXM),” WXXM Website,
FAA/EUROCONTROL, Washington DC/Brussels, Belgium, 2011. Available at
<http://www.wxxm.aero>.
[53] FAA, “Aeronautical Information Publication, United State of America,” 22nd Edition,
FAA, Washington DC, March 7, 2013.
[54] FAA, “National Flight Data Center Portal,” Web Portal, FAA, Washington DC, July 18,
2012. Available at <https://nfdc.faa.gov/xwiki/bin/view/NFDC/WebHome>.
[55] FAA, “Notices to Airmen (NOTAM),” Order JO 7930.2M with Change 2, FAA,
Washington DC, Effective Date: October 20, 2011.
[56] FAA, “AC90-100A GPS RAIM Prediction,” FAA En Route and Terminal GPS RAIM
Prediction Website, FAA/Volpe Center, Washington DC, Accessed January 15, 2013.
Available at <http://www.raimprediction.net/>.
[57] FAA, “Special Use Airspace Management System,” Order 7450.1, FAA, Washington DC,
Effective Date: June 21, 1999.
[58] FAA, “Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs/TFR),” Advisory Circular, AC No: 91-63C,
FAA, Washington DC, Effective Date: May 20, 2004.
[59] FAA, “Air Traffic Organization Fiscal Year 2013 Business Plan,” Publication HQ-121501,
FAA, Washington DC, December 10, 2012.
[60] FAA, “FAA Airport Surveying - GIS Program,” Airport GIS Website, FAA, Washington
DC, <https://airports-gis.faa.gov/public/>
[61] FAA, “General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical Surveys to
NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS) Standards,”
Advisory Circular, AC No: 150/5300-18B, FAA, Washington DC, Effective Date: May
21, 2009.
[62] FAA, “Special Air Traffic Rules,” Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 93, GPO,
Washington DC, January 1, 2012.
[63] IATA, “Worldwide Slot Guidelines,” 3rd Edition, Effective August 2012, IATA,
Montréal, Quebec, Canada, 2012.
[64] FAA, “Computerized Voice Reservation System (e-CVRS),” e-CVRS Website, FAA,
January, 2013. Available at <https://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs/index.html>.
[65] FAA, “e-STMP,” e-STMP Website, FAA, January, 2013. Available at
<https://www.fly.faa.gov/estmp/index.html>.
[66] NWS and FAA, “Aviation Weather Services,” Advisory Circular, AC No: 00-45G with
Change 1, NWS, Oklahoma City, OK/FAA, Washington DC, July 29, 2010.
[67] FAA, “Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations,” Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 121, GPO, Washington DC, January 1, 2012.
[68] FAA, “Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations and Rules
Governing Persons on Board such Aircraft,” Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
135, GPO, Washington DC, January 1, 2012.
[69] NOAA, “Rapid Refresh (RAP),” Product Website, ESRL, NOAA, Boulder, CO,
December 28, 2012.
[70] WAFC, “The World Area Forecast System (WAFS) Internet File Service (WIFS) Users
Guide,” WAFC Washington, Washington DC, March 28, 2012.
[71] Stobie, J., Moosakhanian, A., Johnson, J., Jackson, P., Brown, W., Nguyen, T., and Rando,
P., “Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) Products for En-Route Controller Displays,”
13th Conference on Aviation, Range and Aerospace Meteorology, AMS, Washington, DC,
January 20-24, 2008.
[72] Rappa, G. W. and Troxel, S. W., “CIWS Product Description,” Project Report ATC-355,
Revision 1.0, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA, May 29, 2009.
[73] Deans, B., “NextGen Weather Process (NWP),” Presentation at Friends & Partners of
Aviation Weather (FPAW), FAA, Washington DC, July 14, 2011.
[74] FAA, “Descriptions of Potential Cloud Tenant Applications,” Draft Version 1.8,
Attachment 2 to Solicitation 12385, Common Support Services Cloud Request for
Information (RFI), FAA, Washington DC, September 11, 2012.
[75] FAA, “Common Support Services – Weather, DTFAWA-13-R-00001, Part I, Section C”
Draft SOW attached to RFI 12425, FAA, Washington DC, October 9, 2012.
[76] FAA, “International Flight Plan,” Form 7233-4, FAA, Washington DC, September 30,
2006.
[77] FAA, “United States Implementation of the ICAO Flight Plan (FPL),” NOTAM, FAA,
Washington DC, July 27, 2012.
[78] ICAO, “Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management
(PANS-ATM),” Doc 4444, 15th Edition, ICAO, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007.
[79] FAA, “Flight Plan,” Form 7233-1, FAA, Washington DC, September 30, 2006.
[80] CSC, “CSC DUATS,” DUATS Website, CSC, Chantilly, VA, 2013. Available at
<http://www.duats.com>.
[81] DTC, “DTC DUAT,” DUATS Website, Turnersville, NJ, 2013. Available at
<https://www.duat.com>.
[82] ATMS/ETMS Teams, “Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) Functional
Description,” Version 5.0, Report No. Volpe Center-DTS56-TMS-002, Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, June 30, 1995.
[83] CSC, “Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS),” Product Flyer, CSC, Falls Church,
VA, 2012.
[84] DeLaura, R., “Route Availability Planning Tool,” Tech Notes, Lincoln Laboratory, MIT,
Lexington, MA, 2012.
[85] Stalnaker, S. E., DeArmon, J. S., and Katkin, R. D., “Collaborative Airspace Congestion
Resolution (CACR) Benefits Analysis,” Proceedings: the 28th Digital Avionics Systems
Conference (DASC), AIAA/IEEE, New York, NY, October 25-29, 2009.
[86] FAA, “National Airspace System Status,” OIS Webpage, ATCSCC, FAA, Washington
DC, Accessed October 25, 2012. Available at <http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/>.
[87] Metron, “Flight Schedule Monitor User’s Guide,” Version 9.00 Client, Metron Aviation,
September, 2010.
[88] Baradi, O., “TFM Release 5: Unified Delay Program (UDP),” Presented to FSM Users,
ATCSCC, FAA, Washington DC, October 6, 2010. Available at <http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/
ad/TFMS_R5_ICDs/R5-to%20industry%20Brief%2010062010%20v2.pdf>.
[89] FAA, “Ration by Schedule (RBS),” GDP Information Webpage, ATCSCC, FAA,
Washington DC, October 25, 2012. Available at <http://cdm.fly.faa.gov/ad/rbs.html>.
[90] FAA, “New FAA Air Traffic Program to Ease Severe Weather Delays, Save An Estimated
$900 Million Over Ten Years,” Press Release, FAA, Washington DC, July 13, 2006.
[91] Libby, M, Buckner, J., and Brennan, M., “Operational Concept for Airspace Flow
Programs (AFP),” Version 1, ATO, FAA, Washington DC, October 2005.
[92] FAA, “Principles of AFP (Airspace Flow Program),” AFP Industry Training Presentation,
ATCSCC, FAA, Washington DC, May 1, 2006. Available at
<http://tfmlearning.fly.faa.gov/server/cdm/Principles_of_AFP_for_Dispatchers.ppt>.
[93] FAA, “Graphical Depiction of AFP,” ATCSCC, FAA, Washington DC, March 15, 2006.
Available at <http://www.fly.faa.gov/What_s_New/AFPs.ppt>.
[94] FAA, “National Severe Weather Playbook,” ATCSCC, FAA, Washington DC, Effective
January 10, 2013 to March 6, 2013. Available at <http://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/
cdm_operational_coded_departur.jsp>.
[95] FAA, “CDM Operational Coded Departure Routes Database Query,” RMT WebService
1.50, ATCSCC, FAA, Washington DC, Effective January 10, 2013 to March 7, 2013.
[96] FAA, “Integrated Collaborative Rerouting (ICR),” Notice N JO7210.828, ATO, FAA,
Washington DC, Effective September 26, 2012 to September 25, 2013.
[97] Somersall, P. and Wolford, D., “Collaborative Trajectory Options Program,” Presentation
at FAA Industry Forum 2012, FAA, Washington DC, November 28-30, 2012.
[98] Golibersuch, M. “CTOP Assignment Algorithm and Substitution Processing,”
Presentation at FAA Industry Forum 2012, FAA, Washington DC, November 28-30, 2012.
[99] FAA, “North American Route Program,” Advisory Circular AC90-91K, FAA,
Washington DC, December 11, 2008.
[100] Kaler, C. and Hopkins, M., “Collaborative Airspace Constraint Resolution (CACR)
Trajectory Based Operations (TBO),” Future Concepts Team (FCT) Update at CDM
General Meeting, FAA, Washington DC, September 23, 2010.
[101] FAA, “Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI),” Website on Information for ASDI
Data Subscribers, FAA, Washington DC, March 8, 2012. Available at
<http://www.fly.faa.gov/ASDI/asdi.html>.
[102] CSC, “Traffic Flow Management System CDM Message Protocol Specification for the
Traffic Flow Management-Modernization (TFM-M) Program,” Final, Release 9, Version
2.5, CSC, Rockville, MD, November 19, 2012.
[103] Hartman, M., Goldman, R., and Davis, B., “Surface CDM Team (SCT),” Status Update,
CDM General Meeting 2012, FAA, Washington DC, May 8-10, 2012.
[104] Tyo, B., “Time Based Flow Management Program (TBFM),” Presentation at FAA Industry
Forum 2012, FAA, Washington DC, November 28-30, 2012.
[105] FAA, “Status Report on the Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures,” Report
Number AV-2004-37, FAA, Washington DC, March 31, 2004.
[106] Ng, T., “Architecture of the FAA En Route Air Traffic Control System – ERAM,”
Presentation at 9th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, IEEE, New
York, NY, June 20-24, 2011.
[107] FAA, “FY11 ERAM System Overview,” Attachment to Solicitation 4221, Industry
Knowledge Base Survey for Sustainment and Evolution of En Route Automation, FAA,
Washington DC, April 11, 2011.
[108] FAA, “Potential Future ERAM Capabilities and Requirements,” Attachment to
Solicitation 4221, Industry Knowledge Base Survey for Sustainment and Evolution of En
Route Automation, FAA, Washington DC, April 11, 2011.
[109] FAA, “Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR),” Program web
page, FAA, Washington DC, September 14, 2012. Available at
<http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/tamr>.
[110] Feinberg, A., “Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) –
Development and Deployment of a Complex ATC Mission-Critical Terminal Automation
System,” Software Technology Conference, Software Technology Support Center (STSC),
USAF, Hill AFB, UT, May 1, 2002.
[111] FAA, “Terminal Flight Data Manager Request for Information,” Solicitation and
Attachments to Solicitation Number DTFAWA-11-R-00012, Terminal Flight Data
Manager (TFDM), FAA, Washington DC, December 11, 2012.
[112] Guy, R. and Hanes, R., “Terminal Flight Data Manager Program Overview,” Presentation
at FAA Industry Forum 2012, FAA, Washington DC, November 28-30, 2012.
[113] Reynolds, H., Ishutkina, M., Johnson, D., Jordan, R., Kuffner, M., Lokhande, K.,
Reynolds, T., and Yenson, S., “Dallas/Fort Worth Field Demonstration #2 (DFW-2) Final
Report for Tower Flight Data Manager (TFDM),” Project Report ATC-393, MIT Lincoln
Laboratory, Lexington, MA, May 16, 2012.
[114] Reynolds, T., Alexander, A., Ishutkina, M., Joachim, D., Jordan, R., Nakahara, A., and
Weaver, A., “Tower Flight Data Manager Benefits Assessment: Initial Investment
Decision Final Report,” Project Report ATC-394, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington,
MA, March 9, 2012.
[115] Titan, “Surface Management System Operational Concept Description,” AATT Project
Office, NASA Ames, Moffett Field, February 4. 3003.
[116] Chin, D., “Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) Modernization
Plan FY2010-2014,” FAA, Washington DC, August 2009.
[117] FAA, “FAA Operations & Performance Data,” Online Help, FAA, Washington DC,
March 23, 2012. Available at <http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Main_Page>.
[118] Koopmann, J., Ahearn, M., Boeker, E., Hansen, A., Hwang, S., Malwitz, A., Senzig, D.,
Solman, G. B., Dinges, E., Yaworski, M., Soucacos, P., and Moore, J., “Aviation
Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Technical Manual,” Version 2a, FAA, Washington
DC, November 30, 2012.
[119] FAA, “Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT),” AEDT Website, FAA, Washington
DC, September 9, 2013. Available at <https://aedt.faa.gov/ProductReleases.aspx>.
[120] AMR, “AMR Corporation - American's Parent Company,” Fact Sheet, AMR Corporation,
Fort Worth, TX, November 2010. Available at <http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/
corporateInformation/facts/amr.jsp>.
[121] FAA, “Certification: Airmen other Than Flight Crewmembers, Subpart C—Aircraft
Dispatchers,” 14 CFR part 65C, Washington DC, December 8, 1999.
[122] Grandeau, S. C., “The Process of Airline Operational Control,” Flight Transportation
Laboratory Report 95-2, MIT, Cambridge, MA, January 1995.
[123] Clarke, M. and Naryadi, Y., “The Airline Operation Control Center: An Overview of
Garuda’s Operation Control (EM) at Cengkereng, Jakarta, Indonesia,” Flight
Transportation Laboratory Report R95-9, MIT, Cambridge, MA, October 16, 1995.
[124] Pujet, N., Feron, E., and Rakhit, A., “Modeling of an Airline Operations Control Center as
a Queueing Network,” Proceedings of the American Control Conference, American
Automatic Control Council, June 1998.
[125] Clarke, D. M., Lettovsky, L., and Smith, B. C., “The Development of the Airline
Operations Control Center,” Chapter 10 in Handbook of Airline Operations, 1st Edition,
Butler, G. F. and Keller, M. R. edited, Aviation Week, New York, NY, 2000.
[126] Rogers, W. H., Allen, J. A., and Hoyme, K. P., “The Airline Operations Center Dilemma:
Solving ‘Day-of-Operation’ Disruptions with Greater Economic Efficiency,” Chapter 11
in Handbook of Airline Operations, 1st Edition, Butler, G. F. and Keller, M. R. edited,
Aviation Week, New York, NY, 2000.
[127] Irrgang, M. E., “Airline Operational Efficiency,” Chapter 12 in Handbook of Airline
Operations, 1st Edition, Butler, G. F. and Keller, M. R. edited, Aviation Week, New York,
NY, 2000.
[128] Kohl, N., Larsen, A., Larsen, J., Ross, A., and Tiourine, S. “Airline Disruption
Management—Perspectives, Experiences and Outlook,” Journal of Air Transport
Management, Vol. 13, Issue 3, May 2007, pp. 149-162.
[129] Bruce, P. J., Understanding Decision-Making Processes in Airline Operations Control,
Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, England, 2011.
[130] JPDO, “Guidance on the Evolution of NextGen from the Perspective of Airline and Flight
Operations Centers,” JPDO Paper 2010:016, ANS Working Group AOC/FOC
Subcommittee, JPDO, Washington, DC, July 28, 2010.
[131] JPDO, “Flight Operations Centers: Transforming NextGen Air Traffic Management,”
FOC Study Team Report, JPDO, Washington, DC, July 2012.
[132] IATA, “Standard Schedules Information Manual (SSIM),” 22nd Edition, IATA, Montréal,
Quebec, Canada, 2012.
[133] Roberson, B., “Fuel Conservation Strategies: Cost Index Explained,” Aero Quarterly, No.
2, 2007, pp. 26-28.
[134] Airbus, “Getting to Grips with Cost Index,” Issue II, Airbus, Blagnac, France, May, 1998.
[135] Bornemann, D. R. and Kelley, W. E., “The Future of Air Navigation,” Chapter 13 in
Handbook of Airline Operations, 1st Edition, Butler, G. F. and Keller, M. R. edited,
Aviation Week, New York, NY, 2000.
[136] ATH, “Attila Aircraft Arrival Management System,” Product Brochure, ATH Group,
Lanham, MD, February 6, 2007. Available at <http://www.athgrp.com/
Ath_02_06_07brochure.pdf>.
[137] Delta, “Delta Adds Arrival Management System to Growing List of Fuel Conservation
Initiatives,” Press Release, Delta Airlines, Atlanta, GA, August 24, 2006. Available at
<http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2006/08/24/347477/104269/en/Delta-Add
s-Arrival-Management-System-to-Growing-List-of-Fuel-Conservation-Initiatives.html>.
[138] GE, “GE Aviation and Emirates Airline Work Together to Optimize Traffic Flows, Reduce
Flight Costs,” Press Release, GE Aviation, May 22, 2012. Available at
<http://www.geaviation.com/press/systems/systems_20120522.html>.
[139] McNally, D., Brasil C., Gong, C., Frey, J., and Vincent, D., “Operational Evaluation of the
Direct-To Controller Tool,” 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, FAA
and EUROCONTROL, December 3-7, 2001. Available at
<http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/4th-seminar-santa-fe-nm-usa-december-
2001/papers/paper_107>.
[140] NASA, “NASA Software Promotes Airline Fuel Efficiency,” Press Release, NASA Ames,
Moffett Field, CA, October 26, 2010. Available at <http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/
2010/oct/HQ_10-280_Direct_Software.html>.
[141] McNally, D., Sheth, K., Gong, C., Love, J., Lee, C. H., Sahlman, S., and Cheng, J.-H.,
“Dynamic Weather Routes: A Weather Avoidance System for Near-Term
Trajectory-Based Operations,” 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences,
ICAS, September 23-28, 2012.
[142] NASA, “Dynamic Weather Routes Shadow Testing at American Airlines Gains
Overwhelmingly Positive Feedback,” Research News, NASA Ames, Moffett Field, CA,
July 26, 2012. Available at <http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/
news/highlights/af_highlights_20120726.shtml>.
[143] Atkins, S., Brinton, C., Walton, D., Arkind, K., Moertl, P., and Carniol, T., “Results From
the Initial Surface Management System Field Tests,” 5th USA/Europe Air Traffic
Management R&D Seminar, FAA and EUROCONTROL, December 3-7, 2001. Available
at <http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar5/papers/p_074_AM.pdf>.
[144] Sensis, “Aerobahn,” Product web page, Saab Sensis, East Syracuse, NY, 2012, Available
at <http://www.saabsensis.com/products/aerobahn/>.
[145] FAA, “Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators,” Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 119, GPO, Washington DC, January 1, 2012.
[146] FAA, “Flight Operational Quality Assurance,” Advisory Circular, AC No: 120-82, FAA,
Washington DC, Effective Date: April 12, 2004.
[147] Pasztor, A., “New System Targets Runway Overruns,” The Wall Street Journal,
September 24, 2012. Available at <http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10000872396390443884104577647444012136890.html>.
[148] Lambregts, A. A., “Automatic Flight Control Systems: An Interactive Video Teletraining
and Self-Study Course,” FAA, Washington DC, January 27, 1999.
[149] Erzberger, H. “Automation of On-Board Flight Management,” Collection of Papers of the
24th Israel Annual Conference on Aviation and Astronautics, NASA Ames, February
17-18, 1982. Available at <http://ntrs.nasa.gov/>.
[150] Liden, S., “The Evolution of Flight Management Systems,” 13th Digital Avionics Systems
Conference, AIAA/IEEE, New York, NY, October 30-November 3, 1994.
[151] Walter, R., “Flight Management Systems,” Chapter 15, The Avionics Handbook, Spitzer,
C. R. edited, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2001.
[152] Bulfer, W., 737 NG FMC User’s Guide – Advanced Guide to the 737 Flight Management
Computer, Rev. 3, Leading Edge Publishing, Merced, CA, July 2003.
[153] Bulfer, W. and Gifford, S., Big Boeing FMC User’s Guide – Advanced Guide to the Flight
Management Computer, Rev. 2, Leading Edge Publishing, Merced, CA, January 1999.
[154] AEEC, “Navigation System Database,” ARINC Specification 424-20, ARINC, Annapolis,
MD, December 5, 2011.
[155] AEEC, “Advanced Flight Management Computer System,” ARINC Specification 702A-3,
ARINC, Annapolis, MD, December 15, 2006.
[156] Torres, S., Klooster, J., Ren, L., and Castillo-Effen, M., “Trajectory Synchronization
between Air and Ground Trajectory Predictors,” Proceedings: the 30th Digital Avionics
Systems Conference (DASC), AIAA/IEEE, New York, NY, October 16-20, 2011.
[157] SC-214, “Data Communications Safety and Performance Requirements,” DO TBD, Draft
Version J, SC-214 (Joint with EUROCAE WG-78), RTCA, Washington DC, June 22,
2012.
[158] Fishbein, S. B., Flight Management Systems: The Evolution of Avionics and Navigation
Technology, Praeger, Westport, CT, June 13, 1995.
[159] FAA, “Introduction to TCAS II, Version 7.1,” FAA, Washington DC, February 28, 2011.
[160] Chryssanthacopoulos, J. P. and Kochenderfer, M. J., “Decomposition Methods for
Optimized Collision Avoidance with Multiple Threats,” Proceedings: the 30th Digital
Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), AIAA/IEEE, New York, NY, October 16-20, 2011.
[161] Wing, D. J., Adams, R. J., Barmore, B. E., and Moses, D., “Airborne Use of Traffic Intent
Information in a Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management Concept: Experiment
Design and Preliminary Results,” 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar,
Santa Fe, CA, December 3-7, 2001.
[162] Barhydt, R., Eischeid, T, M.; Palmer, M, T.; Wing, D, J., “Use of A Prototype Airborne
Separation Assurance System for Resolving Near-Term Conflicts During Autonomous
Aircraft Operations,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit
2003, AIAA, Washington DC, August 11-14, 2003.
[163] Callantine, T. J., Lee, P. U., Mercer, J., Prevot, T., and Palmer, E., “Terminal-Area Traffic
Management with Airborne Spacing,” 5th Aviation Technology, Integration and
Operations (ATIO) Conference, AIAA, Washington DC, September 26-28, 2005.
[164] Smith, D., “The Past, Present, and Future of Airborne Weather Radar,” Avionics News,
February 2006.
[165] GSD, “Aircraft Data Web,” NOAA AMDAR Website, Global Systems Division, Earth
System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, CO, September 7, 2010. Available at
<http://amdar.noaa.gov/>.
[166] FAA, “National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan FY 2013–2017,” FAA,
Washington DC, 2012.
[167] CANSO, “ATM Report & Directory 2012,” CANSO, Hoofddorp, Netherlands, May 2012.
[168] A4A, “Annual and Per-Minute Cost of Delays to U.S. Airlines,” Analysis for Calendar
Year 2012, A4A, Washington DC, 2013.
[169] BTS, “Air Carrier Financial Reports (Form 41 Financial Data),” Schedule P-1.2 and
Schedule 6, BTS, Washington DC, 2013.
[170] Ball, M., Barnhart, C., Dresner, M., Hansen, M., Neels, K., Odoni, A., Peterson, E., Sherry,
L., Trani, A., and Zou, B., “Total Delay Impact Study, A Comprehensive Assessment of
the Costs and Impacts of Flight Delay in the United States,” Final Report, NEXTOR,
Berkeley, CA, October, 2010.
[171] JEC, “Your Flight has Been Delayed Again: Flight Delays Cost Passengers, Airlines, and
the US Economy Billions,” JEC, Washington DC, May, 2008.
[172] Ren, L., Beckmann, B., Citriniti, T., and Castillo-Effen, M., “Cloud Computing for Air
Traffic Management – Framework and Benefit Analysis: Final Report,” V1.0, Project
Document Submitted to NASA, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, October 29, 2014.
[173] Ren, L., Beckmann, B., Citriniti, T., and Castillo-Effen, M., “Cloud Computing for Air
Traffic Management – Framework and Benefit Analysis,” AIAA 2014-2582, 14th AIAA
Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum,
AIAA, Washington DC, June 16-20, 2014.
[174] FAA, “Surveillance and Broadcast Services Description Document,” SRT-047, Revision
01, FAA, Washington DC, October 24, 2011.
[175] BEA, “Final Report on the Accident on 1st June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 Registered
F-GZCP Operated by Air France Flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro—Paris,” BEA, Aeroport du
Bourget, Le Bourget, France, July, 2012.
[176] Malaysian Team, “Factual Information Safety Investigation for MH370—Malaysia
Airlines MH370 Boeing B777-200ER (9M-MRO) 08 March 2014,” Malaysian ICAO
Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370, Ministry of Transport, Malaysia, Mach
08, 2015.
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFTN Aeronautical Fixed

1
Telecommunication Network
3D Three-dimensional AGL Above ground level
4D Four-dimensional AIDC ATS Inter-facility Data
6DOF Six-degrees-of-freedom Communications
AIM Aeronautical Information
A Manual
A4A Airlines for America AIMM Aeronautical Information
AAC Advanced Airspace Concept Management Modernization
AAR Airport Acceptance Rate AIP Aeronautical Information
AATT Advanced Air Transportation Publication
Technology AIRAC Aeronautical Information
ABRR Airborne Reroute Execution Regulation and Control
AC Advisory Circular AIRMET Airmen’s Meteorological
AC Aircraft Information
ACARS Aircraft Communications AIS Aeronautical Information
Addressing and Reporting Services
System AIXM Aeronautical Information
ACE-IDS ASOS Controller Equipment Exchange Model
Information Display System AL Assurance Level
ACMS Aircraft Condition ALP Airport Layout Plan
Monitoring System AMDAR Aircraft Meteorological Data
ADC Air Data Computer Relay
ADL Aggregate Demand Lists ANSP Air Navigation Service
ADS Automatic Dependent Provider
Surveillance APD Automated Problem
ADS-B Automatic Dependent Detection
Surveillance-Broadcast API Application Programming
ADS-C Automatic Dependent Interface
Surveillance-Contract APNT Alternative Positioning,
ADS-R Automatic Dependent Navigation and Timing
Surveillance-Rebroadcast APREQ Approval Request
AEDT Aviation Environmental APTS AeroNav Products Procedure
Design Tool Tracking System
AEFS Advanced Electronic Flight ARMT Airport Resource
Strip Management Tool
AFCS Automatic Flight Control ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control
Systems Center
AFP Airspace Flow Program ARTS Automated Radar Terminal
AFSS Automated Flight Service System
Stations ASAS Airborne Separation
Assurance System
ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection C
Equipment, Model X
CAA Clean Air Act
ASDI Aircraft Situation Display to
CACR Collaborative Airspace
Industry
Constraint Resolution
ASMM Aviation Safety Monitoring CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services
and Modeling Organisation
ASOS Automated Surface CARF Central Altitude Reservation
Observing Systems
Function
ASPM Aviation System Performance CARTS Common Automated Radar
Metrics Terminal System
ASQP Airline Service Quality
CAST Commercial Aviation Safety
Performance System Team
ASR Airport Surveillance Radar CATM Collaborative Air Traffic
ASR-11 Airport Surveillance Radar 11
Management
ASSC Airport Surface Surveillance CATMT Collaborative Air Traffic
Capability Management Technology
AT Air Traffic CCFP Collaborative Convective
ATADS Air Traffic Activity System Forecast Product
ATC Air Traffic Control CDM Collaborative Decision
ATCO Air Traffic Controller Making
ATCRBS Air Traffic Control Radar
CDN Content delivery networks
Beacon System CDR Coded Departure Routes
ATCSCC Air Traffic Control System CDU Control Display Unit
Command Center CENRAP Center Radar Automated
ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower Radar Terminal System
ATIS Automatic Terminal Presentation
Information Service CHI Computer Human Interface
ATM Air Traffic Management
CICTT CAST and ICAO Common
ATN Aeronautical
Taxonomy Team
Telecommunication Network
CIP Current Icing Product
ATOP Advanced Technologies and
CIWS Corridor Integrated Weather
Oceanic Procedures
System
ATS Air Traffic Service CIX Collaborative Information
AUM Arrival Uncertainty Exchange
Management CM Communications Manager
AWOS Automated Weather CNS Communication, Navigation
Observing System and Surveillance
AWSS Automated Weather Sensor
CONUS Contiguous States
System
ConOps Concept of Operations
AWW Severe Weather Forecast
COTS Commercial off-the-shelf
Alert
CPC Certified Professional
Controllers
B
CPDLC Current Controller-Pilot Data
BTS Bureau of Transportation Link Communication
Statistics CPT Conflict Probe Tool
BWRS BirdWatch Reporting System
CSS-Wx Common Support Services – EDCT Expect Departure Clearance
Weather Time
CTOP Collaborative Trajectory EDDS En Route Data Distribution
Options Program System
CTOT Calculated Take Off Time EDMS Emissions and Dispersion
CWA Center Weather Advisory Modeling System
CWSU Center Weather Service Unit EFAS En Route Flight Advisory
Service
D EFB Electronic Flight Bag
D2 Direct-To EFSTS Electronic Flight Strip
DAMS Dynamic Airspace Transfer System
Management Services EI Early Intent
DAS Delay Assignment EIS Environmental Impact
DASI Digital Altimeter Setting Statement
Indicator EOBT Estimated Off-Blocks Time
D-ATIS Data link ATIS ERAM En Route Automation
DCA Ronald Reagan National Modernization
Airport ERAS En Route Automation System
DDOF Daily Digital Obstacle File ESL Emergency Service Level
DME Distance Measuring ETA Estimated time of arrival
Equipment ETMS Enhanced Traffic
DMP Departure Metering Program Management System
DOD Department of Defense EWINS Enhanced Weather
DOF Digital Obstacle File Information System
DOT Department of Transportation EWR Newark Liberty International
DP Dynamic Planner Airport
DP Departure Procedure
DRC Disaster Recovery Center F
DST Decision Support Tool FAA Federal Aviation
DUATS Direct User Access Terminal Administration
System FAC Facility Operation and
DWR Dynamic Weather Routes Administration
FAF Final Approach Fix
E FB Wind and Temperature Aloft
eAIP Electronic AIP Forecast
eALP Electronic Airport Layout FCA Flow Constrained Areas
Plan FCOM Flight Crew Operations
EARTS En Route Automated Radar Manual
Tracking System FDAU Flight Data Acquisition Unit
EAS Essential Air Service FDIO Flight Data Input/Output
ECG En Route Communications FDP Flight Data Processing
Gateway FEA Flow Evaluation Areas
e-CVRS Web-based Computerized FFP2 Free Flight Phase 2
Voice Reservation System FIP Forecast Icing Potential
EDC En Route Departure FIR Flight Information Region
Capability FIS Flight Information Services
FIS-B Flight Information Services I
Broadcast
IAF Initial Approach Fix
FISDL Flight Information Services
IAP Instrument Approach
Data Link
Procedure
FIXM Flight Information Exchange IAP Internet Access Point
Model IAPA Instrument Approach
FL Flight Level Procedure Automation
FMS Flight Management System
IATA International Air Transport
FOC Flight Operations Center Association
FOQA Flight Operational Quality ICAO International Civil Aviation
Assurance
Organization
FR Federal Register ICD Interface Control Document
FSDS Flight Schedule Data System ICR Integrated collaborative
FSL Full Service Level
rerouting
FSM Flight Schedule Monitor IDAC Integrated Departure Arrival
FSS Flight Service Stations Capability
FTB Florida NextGen Test Bed IFPA Instrument Flight Procedure
FTI FAA Telecommunications Automation
Infrastructure IFP Instrument Flight Procedure
IFR Instrument Flight Rule
G
ILS Instrument Landing System
GA General Aviation INM Integrated Noise Model
G-AIRMET Graphical-AIRMET INS Inertial Navigation System
GAAP General Aviation Airport IOC Initial Operating Capability
Program IPDS Instrument Procedure
GAO Government Accountability Development System
Office IPS Internet protocol suite
GDP Ground Delay Program IPv4 Internet protocol version 4
GIS Geographic Information IPv6 Internet protocol version 6
Management Services IR Infrared
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite IRS Inertial Reference System
System ISO International Organization for
GPS Global Positioning System Standardization
GRADE Graphical Airspace Design IT Information Technology
Environment ITWS Integrated Terminal Weather
GRIB Gridded Binary System
GS Ground Stop
GSE Ground Support Equipment J
GTG-2 Graphical Turbulence J2EE Java 2-Enterprise Edition
Guidance JEC U.S. Senate Joint Economic
Committee
H
JFK John F. Kennedy
HF High frequency International Airport
HIWAS Hazardous Inflight Weather JPDO Joint Planning and
Advisory Service Development Office
K NDB Navigation Data Base
NDB Non-Directional Beacons
NEPA National Environmental
L Policy Act
NESP National Enroute Spacing
LAADR Low Altitude Alternate Position
Departure Route NETE Net-Enabled Test
LAAS Local Area Augmentation Environment
System NEXRAD Next-Generation Radar
LCGS Low Cost Ground NextGen Next Generation Air
Surveillance Transportation System
LF Low Frequency NEXTOR National Center of Excellence
LGA LaGuardia Airport for Aviation Operations
LLWAS Low-Level Wind-shear Alert Research
System NFDC National Flight Data Center
LNAV Lateral Navigation NFDD Daily National Flight Data
LOA Letters Of Agreements Digest
LORAN Long Range Navigation NIDS NAS Information Display
System
M NIEC NextGen Integration and
M&C Monitoring and Control Evaluation Capability
MCDU Multipurpose CDU NOAA National Oceanic and
MCP Mode Control Panel Atmospheric Administration
METAR Aviation Routine Weather NOTAM Notices To Airmen
Reports NRP North American Route
MIA Minimum Instrument Flight Program
Rules Altitude NRS Navigational Reference
MINIT Minutes-In-Trail System
MIS Meteorological Impact NSA National Security Area
Statement NTML National Traffic Management
MIT Miles-In-Trail Log
MOA Military Operations Area NTX NASA/FAA North Texas
MON Minimum Operating Network facility
MVA Minimum Vectoring Altitude NVS NAS Voice System
MSL Mean sea level NWP NextGen Weather Processor
MTR Military Training Route NWS National Weather Service

N O
NAS National Airspace System OAPM Optimization of Airspace and
NASA National Aeronautics and Procedures in the Metroplex
Space Administration OCC Operations Control Center
NASR National Airspace System OIS Operational Information
Resource System
NAVAID Navigation aid OPC Optimized Profile Climb
NCWF National Convective Weather OPD Optimized Profile Descent
Forecast OPSNET Operations Network
ORD Chicago O’Hare International RNP Required Navigation
Airport Performance
ORD Operational Readiness Date ROD Record of Decision
OSI Open Systems ROFOR International Aviation Route
Interconnection Forecasts
OSPS Operations and System RTA Required Time of Arrival
Performance Systems RTC Relative Trajectory Cost
OTW Out-The-Window RTCA Radio Technical Commission
for Aeronautics
P RTQC Real-time quality control
PBN Performance Based RUC Rapid Update Cycle
Navigation RVR Runway Visual Range
PC Personal computer RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation
PDARS Performance Data Analysis Minimum
and Reporting System
PGUI Planview Graphical User S
Interface SAA Special Activity Airspace
PIREP Pilot Weather Report SAMS Special Airspace
PLN Planning Management System
PROG Short-Range Surface SAS SWIM Application Services
Prognostic SATCOM Satellite Communications
SAWS Stand-Alone Weather Sensors
Q SBS Surveillance and Broadcast
QAR Quick Access Recorder Services
S-CDM Surface CDM
R SCR Clearance Request/Reply
SCT Surface CDM Team
RA Resolution Advisories SDAT Sector Design and Analysis
RA Route Analyzer Tool
RAIM Receiver Autonomous SDP Service Delivery Point
Integrity Monitoring SDP Surveillance Data Processing
RAMP Radar Acquisition Mosaic SD/ROB Radar Weather Report
Processor SFO San Francisco International
RAP Rapid Refresh Airport
RAPT Route Availability Planning SIAP Standard Instrument
Tool Approach Procedures
RBDT Ribbon Display Terminal SID Standard Instrument
RBS Ration by Schedule Departure
RCT Ramp Control Towers SIGWX Significant Weather
RDR Runway Departure Rate SIGMET Significant Meteorological
RMA Reliability, maintainability, Information
and availability SLOC Software Line Of Code
RMGR Route Manager SLOP Strategic Lateral Offset
RMNT Required Minimum Procedures
Notification Time SMA Schedule Movement Advice
RNAV Area Navigation
SMS Surface Management TCP/IP Transmission Control
Systems Protocol and Internet Protocol
SOA Service oriented architecture TDLS Tower Data Link Services
SOBT Schedule Off-Block Time TDOA Time difference of arrival
SOC System Operations Control TDWR Terminal Doppler Weather
Center Radar
SOCC System Operations Control TFDM Terminal Flight Data
Center Manager
SPECI Aviation Selected Special TFDM Tower Flight Data Manager
Weather Reports (obsolete)
SSA Surface Situation Awareness TFM Traffic Flow Management
SSIM Standard Schedules TFMDI TFM Data to Industry
Information Manual TFMS Traffic Flow Management
SSR Secondary Surveillance System
Radar TFMSC Traffic Flow Management
STA Scheduled time of arrival System Counts
STAR Standard Terminal Arrival TFR Temporary Flight Restriction
STARS Standard Terminal TGUI Timeline Graphical User
Automation Replacement Interface
System TIBS Telephone Information
STMP Special Traffic Management Briefing Service
Program TIS-B Traffic Information
SUA Special Use Airspace Services-Broadcast
SWAP Severe Weather Avoidance TMA Traffic Management Advisor
Plan TMAT Target Movement Area Entry
SWIM System Wide Information Time
Management TMC Traffic Management
Coordinator
T TMI Traffic Management
TA Traffic Advisories Initiatives
TACAN Tactical Air Navigation TMU Traffic Management Unit
TAF Terminal Aerodrome TPC TFMS Production Center
Forecast TOS Trajectory Option Set
TAF Terminal Area Forecast TRACON Terminal Radar Approach
TAMR Terminal Automation Control
Modernization and TS Trajectory Synthesizer
Replacement TSD Traffic Situation Display
TARGETS Terminal Area Route TWEB Transcribed Weather
Generation, Evaluation, and Broadcast
Traffic Simulation TWR Air Traffic Control Tower
TBFM Time-Based Flow
Management U
TBO Trajectory Based Operations UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems
TCAS Traffic Collision Avoidance UAT Universal Access Transceiver
System UDP Unified Delay Program
TCO Total cost of ownership UDP User Datagram Protocol
UDB Unscheduled Demand Buffer WARP Weather and Radar Processor
UUA Urgent Pilot Report WDP Weather Data Processing
WINS Weather Information
V Network Server
VAA Volcanic Ash Advisory WME Wind Measuring Equipment
VAAC Volcanic Ash Advisory WMSCR Weather Message Switching
Center Center Replacement System
VAAS Volcanic Ash Advisory WSG Worldwide Slot Guidelines
Statement WSG84 World Geodetic System 84
VCP Volume Coverage Pattern WSP Weather System Processor
VDL VHF Data Link Wx Weather
VFR Visual Flight Rule WXXM Weather Information
VHF Very high frequency Exchange Model
VIL Vertically Integrated Liquid
VNAV Vertical Navigation X
VoIP Voice over IP XML Extensible Markup Language
VOR VHF Omnidirectional Range
VPN Virtual private network Y

W
WAAS Wide Area Augmentation Z
System
WAFS World Area Forecast System
WAM Wide Area Multilateration

-
View publication stats

Acknowledgement
This work was partially supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) under contract NNA12AB81C under the project “Cloud Computing for Air Traffic
Management – Framework and Benefit Analysis.” Portions of this document was originally
released as Appendix B to the project final report. The authors would like to thank Benjamin
Beckmann, Thomas Citriniti, and Mark Harrington for their valuable comments to the original
manuscript.