Early every morning around 2:30 a.m., a cargo-laden United Parcel Service Boeing 757 taxies out to the active runway at Standiford Field in Louisville, Kentucky, bound for Ontario, California, a load of packages in its silent hold. The pilots know to ask for a direct routing, and if they don't get one from clearance delivery, chances are good they'll have it passing through 5,000 feet on their way to an altitude of their choice.
The reason behind the easy slide into Ontario? No one else is on that exact route, and both the pilots and controllers know it and can verify the fact readily. Thanks to the successful implementation of the FAA's Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) program so far, direct IFR routings and smoother traffic flow are becoming more the rule and less the exception.
The firm numbers of success clearly show how the FAR Part 121 crowd has benefited. According to the FAA's own statistics, one aspect of FFP1 helps airlines avoid three to five weather diversions a week, to the tune of $5,000 to $100,000 saved. The question that immediately pops in the mind of any general aviation pilot, though, is, "What's in it for me?" Well, depending on the aspect of FFP1 involved, either quite a bit or not much. One thing is certain: The folks responsible for FFP1 on a daily basis are concerned with how the program affects us spinning around out there in our little bug-squishers. As part of the high-sounding program mission, the FFP1 office solicits feedback from users of the National Airspace System (NAS). From the outset — in part because of the persistent efforts of AOPA's Government and Technical Affairs Division — they've recognized that we're an important user.
Conwal Inc., a consulting firm serving the Free Flight program, has developed a response form that will soon be available to all users of the NAS, from airline pilots to flight dispatchers, controllers, and GA pilots via local FBOs and as a download from AOPA Online. Lane Speck, a former director of air traffic integration for the FAA, is now director of air traffic services for Conwal. He says that FFP1 is not just for the airlines, and he foresees the program with unending benefits. "It just gets better and better for all users." To get better, he maintains, everyone's voice needs to be involved in the program's evolution. As chairman of the original committee on Free Flight and its chief spokesman during the building process, Speck shows unabashed fatherly pride in FFP1's current trajectory.
How does it get better?
If you could pin one concept on the whole FFP1 agenda, distilling a pro-gram motto from the acronym grist, it would be communication. As anyone with access to the Internet (or a library, for that matter) understands, there's a lot of information out there. Some of it is proprietary, and some of it you just can't get to because you have no idea where in the heck it's stored, or even if the information would be useful. If you take this analogy to the ATC level, you find that all who use the NAS potentially have the same problem. For example, a high-altitude center controller knows what's going on in his sector, and another controller in a different high-altitude center has the same knowledge of his own sector. Though it seems simple, communication of this local knowledge between centers — such as a thunderstorm complex moving through the airspace — has previously been accomplished only on a case-by-case basis. Through initiatives implemented in FFP1, a program called collaborative routing in this case, this communication is streamlined and made a top priority.
"Communication and collaboration," says Charlie Keegan, director of Free Flight. "We're not changing what we do, but focusing. We have a whole future [ahead of us] to do the right thing."
Phase 1 tool kit
Just as communication doesn't happen spontaneously, users of the NAS needed a way to share their information. Enter the "tools" of FFP1, as the new software/hardware installations are called. This is the ground infrastructure of free flight, and there are no new avionics required for these new tools to do their job. Advanced avionics installations come later in the game, and the full-scale effort will take until 2025 or beyond, according to current estimates.
The first program from which most GA pilots are likely to benefit is the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET). URET is a conflict probe that enables controllers to role-play pilot requests in the en route environment by identifying potential traffic conflicts up to 20 minutes ahead. Controllers conduct trial routings upon a pilot's request, to identify the possibility of accepting the proposed new routing or to find a solution that suits both the pilot and traffic situation.
GA pilots can request direct routings, and instead of guessing, controllers will be able to run the proposed routing through the program and estimate any traffic conflicts. You are more likely to get approval of a direct routing because of increased controller confidence and ability to see ahead.
According to Free Flight Office numbers, URET is currently in use 141 hours a week at Indianapolis Center and 145 hours a week at Memphis Center. Between these two centers, controllers posted more than 721,000 sector hours of URET use from its inception through October 2000. The increase in direct routings is estimated to save the airlines approximately $1 million per month in Indianapolis airspace, and $500,000 a month in Memphis airspace. While GA pilots won't see a windfall in the millions yet, the difference in cost between a direct flight and the previous VOR dogleg route buys more than just a $100 hamburger, no matter what your destination.
The core capability/limited deployment (CCLD) version of the software code is complete and currently the one in service. "Some bells and whistles aren't there yet, but the primary and most important functions are," says Denny Hugg, FFP1 Demonstration Laboratory manager. When Phase 1 is complete, seven ATC centers will have access to URET.
Opening up arrivals
Other tools aid controllers in mitigating congestion as herds of aircraft come into the terminal area and vie for the same pieces of concrete. Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) provides en route controllers and traffic management specialists with the capability to develop arrival sequence plans for certain airports. The program makes sequencing more efficient in the extended reaches of terminal airspace around major airports without increasing controller workload.
To understand the true utility of TMA, you need to know about the airport's version of rush hour. A rush occurs when an increased number of flights either arrive or depart the airport. Rushes typically occur because of popular travel times and the subsequent airline schedules, as well as the airlines' use of hubs.
While it's clear that airline traffic smoothes out when rushes are managed efficiently, we're more concerned with whether it affects the GA pilot transiting the airspace. Other aircraft in the airspace benefit from TMA because of the optimized throughput of airline flights and the easing of demand for a given time period. The program allows controllers to blend traffic more easily and keep final approach courses evenly full, rather than slammed in spurts. However, those pilots using smaller outlying airports, even in major terminal areas, may not perceive these benefits.
Los Angeles Center began the initial daily use of TMA on November 21, 2000. The system is now operational at the Denver, Minneapolis, and Fort Worth, Texas, centers. As a result of TMA, Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) reports a 5-percent increase in its arrival acceptance rate (the number of arrivals a tracon can handle during a particular period). Minneapolis Center reports that the effect of TMA use has been an increased arrival rate, increased capacity — at the rate of three additional en route flights per rush period — and decreased flying time through extended terminal airspace.
Another arrival system smoother, the passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST), improves runway utilization by giving controllers aircraft sequence numbers and runway assignments according to pilot preferences and system restraints. It increases the arrival acceptance rates and the efficiency of air traffic operations in the terminal airspace surrounding major airports without decreasing safety or increasing controller workload. It accomplishes this by making best use of available runways.
Controllers can give runway assignments at larger airports in a well-paced manner; when used in conjunction with TMA, GA aircraft can be slotted into the mix with greater efficiency for final approach sequencing.
Data collected at DFW shows that the use of pFAST allows for eight more operations per rush period during eight rushes per day, for an increased potential capacity of 64 operations. Installation was recently completed at Southern California (SoCal) Tracon, and shadow testing continues in which controllers operate the main system and the new system concurrently and compare data to see if there are any discrepancies.
Life on the ground
Perhaps you haven't experienced congested tarmac at your local field, but with major airports as busy as they are, it's likely that at some point you'll have to wait in line to take off. For airports with a large number of airline operations, the traffic jam can gum up the works not only on the ground but in the air as well. To ease this problem, Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) helps tower controllers provide aircraft arrival information to airline ramp controllers, to better assist airlines in managing ground operations, such as gates, baggage handling, refueling, and food service. Ramp operators get information on precise aircraft touchdown times, and tower and ground controllers get information on available gates for arrival and taxi planning, which mitigates gridlock and reduces taxi delays.
At some airports, such as New York's La Guardia (LGA), there are times when airport taxiways become saturated — including any GA flights in the mix — and SMA helps controllers move traffic on the taxiways to reduce this effect.
SMA implementation is complete at Philadelphia International, Newark (New Jersey) International, Detroit Metropolitan, Dallas/Fort Worth International, Chicago O'Hare International, and Teterboro (New Jersey) airports. As mentioned earlier, feedback from Northwest Airlines (the primary user at Detroit) indicates, SMA helps controllers avoid three to five costly diversions per week because of traffic congestion on the ground during inclement weather. This success immediately prompted requests for additional installations.
The application of SMA at Teterboro is of particular interest to GA pilots, as it is used currently to coordinate incoming charter operations. Need to have a limo waiting at the end of the air stair when you pull up to parking? SMA makes that happen.
A new way of thinking
The final piece of the program is more an overall mindset, which mimics FFP1's mission of communication. Collaborative decision making (CDM) provides airline operations centers and the FAA timely information, including weather, equipment availability, and delays, leading to increased overall system efficiency.
CDM is threefold. The process incorporates the National Airspace System Status Information (NASSI) program, which allows real-time access to the operational status of various elements of the national airspace system (NAS). This information was previously unavailable or unusable for most NAS users, such as controllers in other ATC facilities and pilots. Airspace information is available on the Web ( www.atcscc.faa.gov/oisedit/summary_sys.html), updated every five minutes.
Ground Delay Program Enhancements (GDP-E) enable the ATC command center and airlines to share information on airline schedules and projected airport demand, and capacity rates at times when airport capacity is expected to be reduced. GDP-E optimizes airline scheduling.
Finally, collaborative routing gives traffic management specialists at the command center and traffic management coordinators at high altitude sectors the ability to share real-time traffic flow information amongst themselves. The most common use is to create and assess routing strategies around hazardous weather. GA would feel these effects, for example, in a local controller's knowledge of the overall system effects of a transitioning line of thunderstorms, or by a business jet cruising in the flight levels. Otherwise the total capacity improvement is a little harder for us to quantify than it is for the airlines.
Who knew that so simple a concept as increased communication was groundbreaking? Just as corporations become entrenched and put up barriers to the effective flow of information, so do bureaucracies. FFP1 has struck a nerve within government channels: The CDM team received a Hammer Award from the National Partnership for Reinventing Government on November 15, 2000.
So what's in it for me?
The biggest benefit to GA is likely to be increased efficiency by ATC personnel, and more time for them to talk to us about radar advisories, pilot reports, and Class B access, for example. "[We'll see] possible increased access to terminal airspace, possible better routing, and possible reductions [in delays] on the surface. The FFP1 office wants our help to quantify those indirect benefits as best they can," says Randy Kenagy, AOPA's director of advanced technology.
The good people at Free Flight want to know what, if any, experiences GA has with the changes to the system. Were you able to get a direct route or get into a terminal area during a busy time without fuss? Positive differences don't smack us in the noggin like the negative ones, so be on the lookout for times when the sailing is smooth. Of course, any problems you encounter are important, too, and this is your opportunity to vent as well. The reporting form will be available online, and, starting soon, at FBOs and flight schools. The FAA also wants feedback on the usability of the form.
What the future holds
Phase 2 is intended to build on Phase 1's success. The program began implementation in 2000 and will continue into 2005. What's in store for Phase 2? Controllers will have access to new tools and programs added to those already up and running, as well as their expanded geographic availability. For example, URET grows from seven installations by the end of Phase 1 to 16 centers in Phase 2.
Potential components of Phase 2 include expanding TMA capabilities to multiple centers, conflict resolution programs, and the implementation of the surface management system. Check for updates on the well-designed Free Flight Phase 1 Web site ( http://ffp1.faa.gov).
Another key element of Free Flight's future is controller-pilot datalink communication (CPDLC). Like the telex-style machine used today to relay messages from airline operations to the aircraft, CPDLC will initially take over routine handoffs in controlled airspace, and later shoulder frequency changes and altimeter settings. With frequency congestion a hot topic, the potential reduction in pilot-controller voice communications makes CPDLC vital. CPDLC is still firmly in the research phase, and there will most likely be a test installation in the Miami Center at some point in the next few years. However, don't look for new mandates or equipment requirements any time soon.
Future innovations start with great ideas — including feedback on what works and doesn't within the current program. While the FFP1 form may look like another FAA piece of paper handed to you with your fuel bill, if you read the fine print closely, you can almost make out its potential to affect the way you fly.
Links to additional information about Free Flight may be found on AOPA Online ( www.aopa.org/pilot/links/2001/links0103.shtml ). E-mail the author at [email protected] .
Related Articles
