978-1-4673-1900-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE 5A3-1

NEXTGEN AIRCRAFT MIXED EQUIPAGE AND CAPABILITIES Sean McCourt, Quang Nguyen, James Nickum, Donald Nicolson, Douglas Vandermade,

The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA

Abstract The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) leverages aircraft avionics to deliver beneficial communications, navigation, and surveillance capabilities. The avionics and enabled capabilities vary among aircraft and the resulting mixed capability environment presents challenges to air traffic control operations and, by extension, NextGen planning and implementation. The MITRE Corporation’s Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (MITRE/CAASD) applies a data-driven approach to understanding the mixed capability environment, both current and forecast. While all aircraft are important to the success of NextGen and understanding the mixed capability environment, this paper focuses on the fleet of aircraft operated under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 121 authorization and the specific capabilities defined in the NextGen Implementation Plan, Appendix A. This paper describes the avionics and capabilities of this fleet and discusses the expected impact of the mixed capability environment on the National Airspace System (NAS).

Background The success of NextGen requires aircraft to be

equipped with approved avionics systems and components in order to achieve NextGen operational capabilities. However, the evolutionary nature of aviation leads to mixed equipage and approved capabilities. An example is a Category III Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach: many aircraft have this capability, many others do not. Furthermore, the specific aircraft components and systems that provide an aircraft’s Category III ILS capability vary widely between aircraft types.

Methodology To better understand and communicate avionics

equipage requirements, MITRE has taken the

approach of separating the topical domain into five distinct levels referred to as the Avionics Equipage Pyramid (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Avionics Equipage Pyramid

The bottom level is “Components,” the basic units that make up the avionics on an aircraft. Components have part numbers and are frequently combined into specific avionic systems. The second level, “Equipage,” represents a functioning avionic system comprising one or more components. Examples could include a data communications system, surveillance system, or a navigation system.

The middle layer, “Equipped Capability,” takes into account the operational capability of the Equipage (avionics system) combined with what the aircraft is capable of functionally (e.g., is it possible for a turbo-prop). An operational capability can be defined in different ways. One capability may be defined in an Advisory Circular, where regulatory guidance is detailed and definitive; another definition may postulate that something is possible from a group of components but for which no Advisory Circular or guidance material is currently available.

5A3-2

Advisory Circulars specifically indicate that any referenced equipage –may be approved but is not the only means of achieving compliance. MITRE data at this level is representative of the equipage described in applicable Advisory Circulars but may under count availability where the capability can derive from a different component or from a group of systems and components that together enable the capability.

The “Ops Approved” level for aircraft operated under FAR Part 121 authorization (referred to herein as the “Part 121 fleet”) indicates the aircraft operator (the Part 121 “airline”) has been granted approval by the FAA in the form of an Operations Specification (OpSpec). An OpSpec is the most definitive indication of a capability and “Ops Approved” can be trusted without any reference to the underlying equipage and component details.

Operational use (“Ops Use”) of an approved capability requires both that the aircraft is covered by the necessary OpSpec and that the crew onboard is capable of executing the particular operation. The OpSpec will typically also specify crew training, maintenance procedures, and perhaps even dispatch procedures, as a condition of approval. While the pyramid includes an “Ops Use” level, no available information source provides information at this level of detail, so no MITRE analyses report at this level.

Information Collection MITRE has been capturing equipage and

capability data for several years to better understand the mixed capability environment [1]. The assembled data set includes representation for a defined selection of equipment and capabilities on all aircraft in the Part 121 fleet. Sources used for data collection include the airlines, aircraft manufacturers, avionics suppliers, commercial data sets, and the set of approved OpSpecs. The use of OpSpecs to establish the approval state provides distinct value to both the confidence and traceability of the data reported.

Where possible, the actual equipment onboard an aircraft is identified by manufacturer or model or part number, or a combination of those identifiers. Where there are gaps and voids in equipage information, the term UNKNOWN is used rather than guessing or assuming some level of equipage.

While OpSpec derived data is correct and complete, the data typically reference aircraft grouped by make, model and series category, not specific aircraft. In cases where airlines have compliance across all their aircraft in a given grouping, no difference would exist between the pictures of Equipped Capability and Ops Approved. Cases of split capability fleets do occur, but are rare and usually arise during the adoption of new capabilities into a fleet at a particular airline.

In many cases the aircraft equipage information is obtained through dialog with individual airlines and aircraft manufacturers. Avionics subject matter experts (SMEs) consider Advisory Circulars, Supplemental Type Certificates, approved aircraft manuals, manufacturer data, and other sources to determine groups of equipages and systems that provide a particular aircraft capability. These capability enablers are compared to the individual systems and equipment in the database to determine the capability potential of a specific aircraft.

A building-block analysis is used to postulate that if an aircraft is equipped a certain way; it also has a certain capability. Onboard equipment can also be inferred from OpSpecs in a version of reverse engineering. That an aircraft has a capability enables one to postulate on its equipage at a high level. While this reverse method cannot identify the actual make, model, or part number of the boxes installed, it may answer a high-level equipage question.

Some airlines feel that revealing their aircraft equipment and capabilities harms their competitive advantage. In those circumstances, information can be aggregated to de-identify specific airlines.

Aircraft equipage and capability questions must be understood well enough to determine what data source is best in determining the answer. High confidence detailed data may not be necessary to answer a question. Some questions may only ask for a high level estimate of capability or equipage. The corresponding analysis may tolerate low-confidence data. Other questions may require high confidence and very detailed data about a certain system or aircraft type.

MITRE analyses include a qualitative assessment of the accuracy of the reported data expressed in terms of confidence (low, medium, or

5A3-3

high) and tied to the data source. For OpSpec data, the confidence is reported as Medium because a guaranteed mapping from OpSpec approvals to individual aircraft is not always possible. Where possible, effort is made to validate data with the airlines, but that method is not always available. In the absence of other indicators, having multiple sources report the same data adds a measure of confidence.

Capabilities and Approvals The NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP),

Appendix A outlines a collection of navigation, surveillance, communications, and safety capabilities beneficial for aircraft in the NextGen era [2]. MITRE has analyzed the associated equipage and approval data and estimated their availability in the Part 121 fleet. Table 1 lists the NGIP capability set and highlights the subset used to illustrate the analytical approach and resulting observations in this paper.

Table 1. NGIP Capabilities

In this Paper Navigation

RNP 10 Oceanic ■

RNP 10 GoMex ■

RNP 4 ■

RNAV 1 Terminal Only ■

RNAV 2 ■

RNP with Curved Path ■

VNAV Terminal Area ■

VNAV Approach ■

LPV ■

RNP Approaches (AR) ■

Trajectory Operations Navigation

Surveillance ADS-B Out ■

Airborne/Ground CDTI

Surface Indications/Alerts (ADS-B In)

In-Trail Procedure

Interval Management (ADS-B In)

Traffic Situational Awareness and Alerting

Closely Spaced Parallel Operations

Communications FANS 1/A (Satcom)

FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 ■

ATN Baseline 2

Low-visibility Operations / Safety HUD/ILS

EFVS

GLS III

FIS-B

EFB

Operational Approvals are not always needed by an airline to implement a specific capability. For example, it is not envisioned that an OpSpec will be needed for airlines to implement Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) out capability. However, for other capabilities such as Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Approval Required (AR) approach, very specific approval is required (i.e., OpSpec C384). In the tables that follow, cases where an OpSpec is required and granted are counted as “Approved”. Where an OpSpec is not required, the circumstance is represented with “not applicable” (NA).

Distinguishing results as Capable and Approved provides insight into the mixed capability environment. Low capability percentages indicate that equipage is not on the fleet of aircraft; possible explanations include: equipment availability from manufacturers, cost and benefit challenges for

5A3-4

operators, unclear concepts of operations, or technical constraints for particular aircraft sizes and types. Where Capability percentages are higher than for Ops Approval, this could indicate: high costs of crew training, high costs of equipment maintenance, lack of benefit to the airline to utilize the equipment, or the equipment has been added to satisfy international requirements but are not applicable in the NAS.

Developing a forecast of future capabilities requires a forecast of how many and which new aircraft makes and models are expected, but also a characterization of what capabilities will be standard, optional or not available for each make and model. Understanding the possible pattern of new aircraft deliveries and their capabilities has been developed through discussions with aircraft manufacturers and the avionics manufacturers.

The following sections detail the current and forecast characterizations for the mixed capability environment in the NAS.

Fleet Size The current Part 121 fleet was estimated to be

6651 active aircraft as of mid-June 2012 operated by 85 organizations (commonly referred to as airlines). The estimated numbers of aircraft in the current and future Part 121 fleet are provided in Table 2. The estimates represent end-of-year counts.

Table 2. Current and Forecast Part 121 Fleet

Year 2012 2015 2020 2025 Ai

rcraft 6

651 7

413 8

604 9

441

The combination of existing aircraft retiring and new aircraft entering the fleet will change the future environment. Anticipating this future environment helps planners to design the NAS to make the best use of these capabilities through new procedures and airspace design. This information can also assist in providing incentives to improve the availability of NextGen capabilities by targeting those aircraft that could invest in service bulletins to enable specific desired NextGen capabilities.

The majority of capabilities are potentially applicable to any aircraft in the fleet and the percentages reflect that total count. Some capabilities (e.g., RNP 10 Oceanic and Future Air Navigation System [FANS] 1/A+ with Very High Frequency [VHF] Data Link [VDL] Mode 2 [VDLM2]) are appropriate only for that subset of the fleet approved for oceanic regions, which is estimated to be 3772 aircraft, based on aircraft model.

Forecasting Future Capabilities Forecasting the number and models of aircraft is

the starting point for understanding what the fleet capabilities will be in the future. The forecast has to consider which aircraft will retire from the current fleet and the mix of aircraft that will be entering the fleet.

New delivery aircraft in the forecast are drawn from a family of aircraft types tied to recognized current and proposed makes and models. Through discussions with the aircraft manufacturers, a detailed understanding of what NextGen capabilities will be standard, optional or not available is developed for each aircraft model. This characterization of “forward-fit” capabilities includes information about the time periods when the make/models and capabilities are expected to be available. The capabilities and retirements of the current fleet are combined with projections of future aircraft deliveries and their forward-fit features to develop the overall forecast of future capabilities.

The result of this forecasting process is assembled for each of the NGIP capabilities as a percent of the forecasted fleet in each year in the forecast period.

For this paper, the information is distilled to three future years (2015, 2020, and 2025). For each of the forecasted capabilities reported below, the figures combine the number of residual aircraft from the current Part 121 fleet that are thought to have the requisite equipage with the number of new aircraft that are expected to be delivered with the capability installed or available as an option.

Navigation / PBN Table 3 summarizes the navigation-related

capability equipage and approval percentages for the

5A3-5

current Part 121 fleet. Table 4 forecasts the capable aircraft in subsequent years.

Table 3. Current Navigation Capabilities and Approvals

Capable

Approved

RNP 10 Oceanic 95% 55%

RNP 10 GoMex 70% 96%

RNP 4 95% 55%

RNAV 1 Terminal Only

96% 94%

RNAV 2 98% 96%

RNP with Curved Path

50% NA

VNAV Terminal Area

69% NA

VNAV Approach limited data

68%

LPV Approach << 1%

<< 1%

RNP AR 50% 27%

Table 4. Forecast of Navigation Capabilities

2015

2020

2025

RNP 10 Oceanic 97%

98%

99%

RNP GoMex 78%

83%

89%

RNP 4 97%

98%

99%

RNAV 1 98%

99%

99%

RNAV 2 99%

99%

99%

RNP with RF 61%

71%

79%

VNAV 74%

79%

85%

LPV 2%

4%

8%

RNP AR 55%

57%

58%

The Part 121 fleet has high levels of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) capabilities and approvals. Contributing significantly to this is the high presence and use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. New aircraft coming into the fleet are generally coming with GPS and resultant RNP and Area Navigation (RNAV) capable avionics as standard equipment. The degree of mixed equipage therefore, for capabilities that are enabled specifically by GPS, is very low and trending lower.

An Inertial Reference Unit (IRU) is an important technology for enabling RNP 10 Oceanic and RNP AR capabilities. IRU technology is not as widely available across aircraft types and is also expensive in comparison to GPS. One result of lower IRU equipage rates is the impact of IRU equipage on RNP AR. Currently, RNP AR is showing a more significant degree of mixed equipage with approximately 50 percent of the fleet capable of RNP AR and 25 percent operationally approved. The forecast of capability suggests a trend of increasing RNP AR, but still in the context of a mixed capability environment.

RNP 10 Oceanic RNP 10 routes are currently applicable to

oceanic and Gulf of Mexico (GoMex) airspaces. For RNP 10 Oceanic capability, the MITRE fleet data set consists of aircraft that are able to fly into oceanic airspace (areas of 50 nautical mile separation) and are approved for Extended Operations (ETOPS) with six or more hours of flight time. Examples of aircraft not considered to meet these criteria include: regional jets, turboprops, and other aircraft not approved for ETOPS such as DC-9 and MD-80 aircraft.

5A3-6

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining the RNP 10 data: Order 8400.12B Required Navigation Performance 10 (RNP 10) Operational Authorization; OpSpec B036 Class II Navigation Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems.

From an equipage perspective, RNP 10 Oceanic is considered to require one of four possible configurations: a time limit for Inertial Navigation System (INS)/IRU-only systems; dual navigation systems with integrity, or dual Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) primary means, or single INS/IRU and single GNSS primary means. Communications requirements are not considered in the counts, but it is recognized that communications and other system requirements exist for aircraft to operate in oceanic airspace.

MITRE’s forecast of RNP 10 Oceanic assumes all new production aircraft in the oceanic fleet will be capable of RNP 10 Oceanic operations.

RNP 10 GoMex The RNP 10 GoMex fleet differs from the RNP

10 Oceanic fleet; all of the Part 121 fleet is considered as potentially flying GoMex routes if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining the RNP 10 GoMex capability: B035 Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems; Order 8400.12B Required Navigation Performance 10 (RNP 10) Operational Authorization.

From an equipage perspective, RNP 10 GoMex is considered to require one of four possible configurations: a time limit for INS/IRU-only systems, dual navigation systems with integrity, or dual GNSS primary means, or single INS/IRU and single GNSS primary means.

MITRE’s forecast assumes the majority of new production aircraft will be capable of RNP 10 GoMex operations. The contributor to a mixed environment will be regional aircraft that may be delivered without dual GNSS or with a single INS/IRU.

RNP 4 As compared with RNP 10, RNP 4 further

enables reduced oceanic separation when used in conjunction with FANS 1/A communications. The RNP 4 fleet is the same as the RNP 10 Oceanic fleet comprising aircraft able to fly into oceanic airspace and capable of over six hours of flight time.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining the RNP 4: OpSpec B036 Class II Navigation Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems, Order 8400.33 Procedures for Obtaining Authorization for Required Navigation Performance 4 (RNP-4) Oceanic and Remote Area Operations.

From an equipage perspective, RNP 4 is considered to require dual independent Long-Range Navigation Systems (LRNS), RNP monitoring and alerting, and dual independent GNSS.

MITRE’s forecast assumes the majority of new production aircraft will be capable of RNP 4 operations. The contributor to a mixed environment will be aircraft either not having the dual equipage required or that dual equipage is an option and therefore is not guaranteed to be selected by an operator.

RNAV 1 Terminal Only The RNAV 1 Terminal Only capability enables

aircraft to fly on more efficient routes and procedures in the terminal environment if and where those routes have been properly planned and designed. RNAV 1 procedures can be implemented for both arrivals and departures as needed at a given location. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these routes if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining RNAV 1 Terminal Only capability: OpSpec C063 U.S. IFR RNAV Departure Procedures, RNAV Routes, and RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival; AC 90-100A U.S Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations.

From an equipage perspective, RNAV 1 Terminal Only requires a GPS Navigator with Approach capability or a Flight Management Computer (FMC) integrated with Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) in a dual, multi-scanning (DME/DME) configuration.

5A3-7

MITRE’s forecast assumes all new production aircraft are capable of RNAV 1 Terminal Only operations. The primary equipage enabler is that GPS and Flight Management Systems (FMSs) capable of RNAV 1 operations are becoming standard on new aircraft.

RNAV 2 This capability is utilized by procedure

designers and airspace planners to enable aircraft with the ability to fly on more efficient routes and procedures in the en route environment. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these routes if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining RNAV 2 capability: OpSpec B035 Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems; AC 90-100A U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations.

From an equipage perspective, RNAV 2 is considered to require a GPS Navigator with en route capability or an FMC integrated with DME/DME equipage.

MITRE’s forecast assumes all new production aircraft will be capable of RNAV 1 Terminal Only operations. The primary equipage enabler is that GPS and FMS systems capable of RNAV 1 operations are becoming standard on new aircraft.

RNP with Curved Path RNP with Curved Path capability allows an

aircraft to fly departure, arrival and approach procedures including repeatable curved paths in the form of Radius to a Fix (RF) leg. This capability enables precise departure, arrival, and approach procedures that can improve airport de-confliction and flight path efficiency. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these routes if properly equipped.

Historically, the capability has been treated as an RNP 0.3 Approach capability with an RF leg occurring before (outside of) the Final Approach Fix (FAF) and it is reported that way in this paper. Recently, NGIP has shifted focus toward RNP 1 terminal procedures utilizing RF leg capability. MITRE is adjusting its data sets to track and report RNP 1 with Curved Path capability, but is not yet

ready to report those analysis results. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these routes if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key document to assist in defining RNP with Curved Path: AC 90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System. It should be noted that no specific OpSpec addresses RNP 1 with Curved Path specifically, but several OpSpecs may provide the basis for approval of this capability, notably: OpSpec C063 U.S. IFR RNAV Departure Procedures, RNAV Routes, and RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival.

From an equipage perspective, the capability of RNP 0.3 Approach with RF Leg outside the FAF is considered to require an RNP capable FMC outputting RF Leg and integrated with a DME/DME and GPS sensors.

MITRE’s forecast assumes the majority of new production aircraft will be capable of RNP with Curved Path capability. The RF capability, previously uncommon in regional aircraft, is now becoming standard along with associated GPS and FMS equipage capable of executing terminal and approach RNP procedures.

VNAV Terminal Area The ability to fly defined climb and descent

paths using advisory Vertical Navigation (VNAV) can improve fuel efficiency on arrival procedures. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these routes if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining VNAV Terminal Area: AC 90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System; AC 20-138C Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems. No specific OpSpec is required for operators to utilize VNAV capability on their aircraft. However, OpSpec C063 U.S. IFR RNAV Departure Procedures, RNAV Routes, and RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival has potential applicability.

From an equipage perspective, VNAV Terminal Area is considered to require an FMC with Vertical Path Following Guidance.

5A3-8

MITRE’s forecast assumes all new production aircraft will be capable of VNAV Terminal Area operations. The primary equipage enabler is that GPS and FMS systems capable of advisory VNAV operations are becoming standard on new aircraft.

VNAV Approach The ability to fly defined barometric approach

paths improves safety. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these procedures if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining VNAV Approach: AC 90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System; AC 20-138C Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems; and OpSpec C073 IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV).

From an equipage perspective, VNAV Approach is considered to require an FMS or VNAV Approach capable system.

MITRE’s forecast assumes all new production aircraft will be capable of VNAV Approach operations. The primary equipage enablers are GPS and FMS systems capable of VNAV Approach operations and these are coming as either standard or optional equipment in new aircraft.

LPV Approach Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance

(LPV) capability improves access to many airports in reduced visibility conditions where the approach is aligned to the runway. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these procedures if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining LPV Approach: AC 90-107 Guidance for Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance and Localizer Performance without Vertical Guidance Approach Operations in the U.S. National Airspace System; AC 20-138C Airworthiness Approval of Positioning and Navigation Systems; and OpSpec C052 Straight in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima.

From an equipage perspective, LPV Approach is considered to require either an FMS or a GPS approach-capable system utilizing a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) sensor.

LPV, although widely used in general aviation aircraft, shows low equipage levels in the Part 121 fleet. MITRE’s forecast anticipates WAAS LPV options will be selected on many new production aircraft, particularly regional aircraft where use at smaller airports with LPV approaches would be beneficial. It is important to note that an unknown factor is the degree to which the requirement for ADS-B Out will influence future LPV equipage since WAAS technology is common to both capabilities and operators will be considering installing WAAS equipage for ADS-B rule compliance.

RNP AR The RNP with Authorization Required (AR)

capability improves access to airports in reduced visibility with an approach that can curve to the runway. Additionally, these procedures can be used to separate traffic flows particularly in heavily used, multi-airport airspace. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these procedures if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining RNP AR: AC 90-101A Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR; OpSpec C384 Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required.

From an equipage perspective, RNP AR is considered to require RNP-able dual FMCs integrated with multi-scan DME/DME, RNP alerting, IRU, and GPS sensors. MITRE’s data set does reflect some aircraft that have been alternately approved via AC 90-101A.

MITRE’s forecast assumes many new production aircraft capable of RNP AR. However, data shows that some regional aircraft will continue to be delivered for many years without RNP AR capability. These regional aircraft would need extensive and expensive modifications to their FMS and the addition of an IRU in many cases. For many regional aircraft, RNP AR may not even be an option available for purchase.

5A3-9

Surveillance / ADS-B Table 5 summarizes the surveillance-related

capability equipage and approval percentages for the current Part 121 fleet. Table 6 forecasts the capable aircraft in subsequent years.

Table 5. Current Surveillance Capabilities and Approvals

Capable Approved

ADS-B Out 0% No OpSpec

Table 6. Forecast of Surveillance Capabilities

2015 2020 2025

ADS-B Out 10%

100%

100%

The FAA has established a rule that is applicable to the Part 121 fleet that requires rule-compliant ADS-B Out equipage to be installed before the year 2020. Equipage is just now occurring on the Part 121 fleet for ADS-B Out rule-compliant systems. Mixed equipage in this case will become more significant through the middle part of the decade, but the mixed equipage environment will essentially disappear by the end of the decade as a result of the rule.

Other surveillance capabilities identified in Table 1 involve ADS-B In technology. These capabilities are in various forms of maturity with some being utilized today and others requiring additional work to become mature. ADS-B In applicable OpSpecs have not been established and overall equipage rates are very low with most equipage occurring at operators who have implemented capability for demonstration and trial programs.

ADS-B Out This capability enables improved air traffic

surveillance and automation processing. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially flying these procedures if properly equipped.

MITRE utilizes the following key documents in defining ADS-B out: DO-260B Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B); AC 20-165 Airworthiness Approval of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Systems. The FAA has stated that no specific operational approval is expected to be required for ADS-B Out operations.

From an equipage perspective, ADS-B Out is considered to require a rule-compliant transponder that utilizes either a WAAS sensor or a Selective Availability (SA) Aware Multi Mode Receiver (MMR).

Equipage for ADS-B Out rule-compliant systems is now occurring with recent Supplemental Type Certificates being issued enabling this capability. Airframe manufacturers plan to make equipage available by the 2015 timeframe for both forward-fit and retrofit applications allowing time for operators to equip ahead of the 2020 mandate.

Data Communications Table 7 summarizes the communications-related

capability equipage and approval percentages for the current Part 121 fleet. Table 8 forecasts the capable aircraft in subsequent years.

Table 7. Current Communications Capabilities and Approvals

Capable Approved FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 2% 12%

Table 8. Forecast of Communications Capabilities

2015 2020 2025 FANS 1/A+

VDLM2 5

% 8

% 1

1%

FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 While FANS 1/A+ is applicable to oceanic

operations, FANS communications using VDLM2 extends FANS to domestic, non-oceanic airspace. The entire Part 121 fleet can be considered as potentially using FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 if properly equipped.

5A3-10

MITRE utilizes the following key documents to assist in defining FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 capability: OpSpec A056 Data Link Communications; AC 20-140A Guidelines for Design Approval of Aircraft Data Communications Systems; and AC 120-70B Operational Authorization Process for Use of Data Link Communication System. It is important to note that FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 does not specifically map to OpSpec A056, but this OpSpec is used through discussions and guidance from the FAA.

From an equipage perspective, FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 is considered to require a FANS 1/A+ capable FMS, an ARINC 758 Communications Management Unit (CMU) with ARINC 631-5, and an ARINC 750 Voice Data Radio (VDR) (TSO-C160A).

From a human factors perspective, automation that supports transfer of flight plan information from the data communications subsystem to the FMS could reduce pilot workload. This automation-enhanced transfer of flight plan information is often referred to as auto-load or push-to-load. However, the current NGIP definition for FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 capability does not specifically require or address auto-load and therefore the equipage counts in the reported data include installations both with and without auto-load capability.

It is important to note that MITRE datasets on VDLM2 capability are not as complete as other capabilities and gaps exist (i.e., no information is available for 24 percent of the part 121 fleet). In addition to the data gap, many operators do not utilize their VDLM2 capability and instead use only a related Mode 0 analog functionality.

Current equipage for FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 is low, but increasing. The VDLM2 equipage (without FANS 1/A+) is relatively high and many airlines are moving toward equipping completely with VDLM2 radios. The addition of FANS 1/A+ capability has been primarily driven by new, wide-body aircraft. Some new production regional aircraft are also expected to have the option of FANS 1/A+ VDLM2.

Summary and Conclusions The presence of NGIP capabilities in the NAS is

now and will continue to be a mixed environment. Capabilities in high evidence now will continue to be

heavily represented. This includes the navigation capabilities RNAV 1 and 2 and the communications capability FANS 1/A+ VDLM2. Conversely, surveillance capabilities requiring ABS-B In currently show low capability counts and that is not expected to change over the next 10-12 years. Most other capabilities transition through the middle range, starting at or below 50 percent and rising above 50 percent by 2025. Of the NGIP capabilities, two show more noticeable transitions: ADS-B Out and FANS 1/A+ VDLM2. Adoption of ADS-B Out is driven by the mandate for equipage by 2020. Adoption of FANS 1/A+ VDLM2 will be driven by the perception of the airlines regarding net benefit, or lack thereof, relative to cost.

Based on these analyses, airspace design and route planning can confidently proceed with the understanding that most of the Part 121 fleet will be equipped for RNAV 1. Conversely, no planning for significant RNAV incentives will be necessary because adoption rates are already strong.

Capabilities where equipage is high and approvals are lower are candidates for operational incentive planning. These include: RNP AR and RNP with curved path.

Observations and Next Steps A number of observations arise from the

activities necessary to assemble equipage information and to apply it in support of NextGen planning.

First on the list is the importance of the test-takers’ adage: “Be sure you understand the question”. For equipage questions, that applies to both the question asker and the respondent. Is the capability of interest well defined (e.g., has an OpSpec) or notional? Is an overall fleet percentage an adequate result or are there operational considerations (e.g., in Alaska) that limit applicability? Should it reflect current capabilities or is it a far-future time frame?

The ability to answer a question, even the same question, has the potential to degrade over time because the data are perishable. The data sets must be regularly refreshed at a rate that is often enough to be informative for trend and snapshot analysis, without being so frequent as to be effort without impact.

5A3-11

Going forward, MITRE is continuing to refine its dataset to support cost and benefit studies which in turn drives a desire for improved forecasts of aircraft and capabilities. Improved forecasts can help NAS planners explore how new procedures and airspace design could take advantage of the aircraft that are in the NAS today and that will be there in the future. Improved forecasts can also assist in designing incentives to accelerate the adoption of NextGen capabilities by targeting those aircraft that could benefit from service bulletins to enable specific desired NextGen capabilities.

New questions lead to new information needs and may require new data sources. MITRE has capability and approval data across many aircraft operator types beyond the Part 121 fleet, including: military, general aviation pistons, general aviation turbine powered, helicopters, and commercial operators authorized under FAR Parts other than 121. Emerging planning issues will require data collection in additional technology areas such as displays and covering additional aircraft types such as Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).

References [1] Vandermade, D. W., 2012, Collecting, Managing, and Analyzing Avionics Equipage Information, 2012 Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance (ICNS) Conference, Herndon, VA, pages B2-1-B2-7.

[2] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2012, NextGen Implementation Plan, FAA Integration and Implementation Office, Washington D.C., p. 41-47, http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2012.pdf

Disclaimer The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of The MITRE Corporation and should not be construed as an official government position, policy, or decision, unless designated by other documentation.

31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference

October 14-18, 2012