benefits and costs of applications in us airspace · 2019. 6. 26. · benefits and costs of ads- b...

Benefits and Costs of ADS-B In Efficiency Applications in US Airspace

Presented by: Dan Howell, Rob Dean, and Gary Paull

Date: 6/20/2019

This work was supported by FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services through contract 693KA9-18-D-00010

Outline• Introduction• CAVS and Airport Throughput• A-IM and Airport Throughput• Benefits Modeling Approach and Assumptions─ Simulation Description─ Throughput Assumptions─ Demand─ Equipage─ Outputs and Monetization

• Benefits Results─ Benefit by Application─ Benefit by Percent Equipped─ Lifecycle Benefits

• Cost Assumptions• Cost Benefit Comparison• Summary

2Benefits and Costs of ADS-B In Efficiency Applications in US Airspace

Introduction


1. Deploying ground infrastructure and automation to provide air traffic services using ADS-B Out (preparing for ADS-B Out mandate in January 2020)

2. Leverage infrastructure for future operational improvements, especially those that use information received into the cockpit on the ADS-B frequency (ADS-B In)

Initial suite of ADS-B In efficiency applications is described in RTCA DO-317B

MOPS (DO-361) describes Flight-deck Interval Management (FIM)

• No ADS-B In mandate, so equipage will continue to be voluntary Business decisions on the value of

using ADS-B In applications as compared to the costs to equip need to be considered.

• FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) program upgrading surveillance capabilities and services through Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)

CAVS and Airport Throughput


• CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS) Arrival rates using visual separation are much higher than during instrument separation CAVS – avionics provides distance to a target aircraft and the ground speed differential aiding

the flight crew in monitoring the target aircraft during visual approach allowing visual separation rates in reduced conditions, described in FAA Advisory Circular 90-114A, Change 1

FAA and American Airlines are developing an enhancement to CAVS, called ECAVS, that includes a controller equipage indicator that will make CAVS more usable and allow visual separation at even lower conditions. ECAVS will not require additional avionics beyond CAVS.

Ceiling and Visibility values are notional, in reality they differ considerably by airport and runway configuration

In the paper, and this presentation the CAVS benefit is likely a combination of CAVS and ECAVS

A-IM and Airport Throughput

5

• Advanced Interval Management (A-IM) airborne and ground automation tools allowing the air traffic controller to instruct a flight crew to maintain a desired spacing relative to another aircraft


C0 is original throughput and C1 is the new throughputσ0 is the old IAT sigma and σ1 is the new IAT sigmat0 is the minimum required separation timer0 is the currently observed buffer to variability ratio

Single Runway (SR) – spacing relative to aircraft directly ahead on a single runway approach (reduces in-trail separation buffer)

Dependent Crossing and Converging Runways (DCCR) –used to keep an IM Aircraft a desired distance from its runway threshold when a target aircraft on converging or crossing crosses its threshold (reduces runway crossing/converging buffers)

Dependent Staggered Approaches (DSA) –diagonal spacing goal relative to a target aircraft arriving on a parallel runway (reduces diagonal separation buffer)

Paired Approach (PA) –all-weather capability to minimize successive landings at closely spaced parallel runways when environmental conditions preclude the use of visual separation. For dependent parallel runways < 2500 feet (reduces separation minima)

• Delivery accuracy and throughput variance in the spacing difference between aircraft at a fix or

runway The variance is directly translated into a variance of inter-

arrival time (sigma IAT) because of reduction in necessary spacing buffer

𝐶𝐶1 = 𝐶𝐶0(𝑟𝑟0𝜎𝜎0 + 𝑡𝑡0)(𝑟𝑟0𝜎𝜎1 + 𝑡𝑡0)

• NextGen System Wide Analysis Capability (SWAC): An integrated set of computer program modules designed to model the entire NAS, including airports, terminal, en route, and oceanic airspace. The model includes the effects of weather conditions, air-traffic control procedures, and air-carrier operating practices.

• Parameters: Airport Capacities, Sector Capacities, Fix Capacities

Simulation Description


Throughput Assumptions


• Modeling Future CAVS Capability SWAC contains throughput curves for 300

NAS airports under 3 meteorological conditions VMC, MMC, IMC IMC is below 1000 ft ceiling or 3 miles vis VMC is better than or equal to facility specific

conditions (see table in paper) MMC is in-between

The NextGen curves already contain projected impacts for other programs Wake re-categorization Terminal Metering (TSAS)

To model CAVS we use the VMC arrival throughput during MMC conditions for properly equipped aircraft; it is likely that ECAVS functionality will be necessary to obtain this result

• MITRE developed new A-IM curves at 35 airports

Different curves for 3 different Meteorological Conditions

Applicability of application dependent on current common use of runway configurations and SME input

Each set of curves builds on previous so SR, SR+DCCR, SR+DCCR+DSA1/PA

Throughput Assumptions (continued)


• How applications impact maximum throughput

• The graphs to the right are NOTIONAL; the arrival-departure throughput curves differ dramatically by airport

• The ADS-B In applications modeled at an airport depend on whether FAA plans meter arrivals (TBFM) into that airport

• The implementation order impacts the benefit attributed to an application

Throughput Assumptions (continued)


Airport SR VMC,MMC,IMC SR+DCCR SR+DCCR+DSA/PAATL 12%, 13%, 10%BOS 5%, 6%, 1% MMC 12%, IMC 10% IMC 15%BWI 16%, 12%, 9%CLE 13%, 14%, 10%CLT 13%, 11%, 10%CVG 13%, 14%, 11%DCA 11%, 14%, 11% VMC 14%, MMC14%DEN 14%, 14%, 11%DFW 14%, 14%, 11%DTW 14%, 6%, 5%EWR 9%, 4%, 1% VMC 12% MMC 35%,IMC 36%FLL 0%, 2%, 2%HNL 19%, 19%, 15% 20%, 23%, 18%IAD 13%, 12%, 11%IAH 5%, 0%, 3%JFK 13%, 6%, 10%LAS 14%, 16%, 12% MMC 17%LAX 12%, 12%, 10%LGA 14%, 14%, 12%MCO 13%, 14%, 11%MDW 26%, 26%, 24%MEM 12%, 10%, 10% VMC 12%, MMC10%MIA 12%, 13%, 12% 12%, 13%, 12%MSP 6%, 11%, 10% VMC 6%, MMC 11%ORD 13%, 13%, 10%PDX 13%, 13%, 10%PHL 21%, 10%, 4% 21%, 10%, 4%PHX 14%,0%,0%PIT 28%, 29%, 24%SAN 13%, 11%, 9%SEA 10%, 8%, 7% MMC 9%, IMC 7%SFO 11%,0%,0% MMC 18%, IMC 31%SLC 18%, 18%, 15%STL 9%, 0%, 6% MMC 13%, IMC 7%TPA 29%, 17%, 15%

• Summary of maximum arrival throughput change compared to baseline including the following where applicable:

– Improved TBFM (TSAS)– .308 and other baseline CSPO

procedures– Wake re-categorization– Departure Fanning– Future runways

• Even though DCCR and DSA1/PA curves were produced for the indicated airports, sometimes those changes did not impact the maximum arrival throughput above SR (those highlighted in green had a positive increase above SR)

Demand


FY201610/12/2015 04/07/201610/13/2015 05/06/201611/11/2015 05/21/201612/04/2015 06/17/201612/27/2015 06/27/201601/09/2016 07/18/201601/24/2016 08/04/201603/03/2016 08/30/201603/06/2016 09/10/201603/17/2016 09/23/2016

• Simulation uses a set of 20 representative days

Chosen by FAA System Operations Services Forecast Analysis Group

Days are chosen so that they represent a wide variety of demand and weather conditions and most closely match many yearly metrics when extrapolated to a year

• The schedule based on historical flight plans from the FAA Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS)

Future schedules were created in SWAC using inputs from the Policy and Planning Office (APO) growth projections

New flights are generated for future years by “cloning” existing flights and varying the scheduled departure times.

The baseline schedule was scaled to FY2025 FY2025 was chosen because the bulk of the equipage does

not start until then and it is FAA investment policy to generally only allow demand growth out to 10 years from the analysis date

Equipage


• Assumptions While CAVS application can be attained separately

it is assumed A-IM applications will only be available packaged with the CAVS application

Relevant equipage profile represents current and near-term planned CAVS Existing fleet retrofit + CAVS New production aircraft + A-IM & CAVS New production aircraft + Existing fleet retrofits (both Existing fleet retrofit from CAVS and Existing fleet retrofit from nothing)

Baseline: CAVS New production aircraft starting 2024, A-IM & CAVS New production aircraft starting 2028 and Existing fleet retrofit starting 2029

Early Adoption: CAVS New production aircraft available starting 2020, A-IM & CAVS New production aircraft starting 2024 and Existing fleet retrofit starting 2025

• Source: Equip 2020/FAA survey Gathered inputs from the major avionics vendors

and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) Determined when ADS-B In applications would

be available both for new production aircraft and for existing fleet retrofits and potential cost

Outputs and Monetization


• Simulation produces the following outputs per flight: Delay at the gate, Delay on the ground, Delay in the air, Cancellation (Y/N)

• Delays are calculated compared to an optimal flight flown on the flight plan as opposed to using scheduled times

• Delays are monetized using variable Aircraft Direct Operating Costs (ADOC) and Passenger Value of Time (PVT)

• Values for ADOC (fuel, crew, maintenance) per hour differ by aircraft type and phase of flight and align with those published in the most current FAA Economic Guidance for Investment Analyses (FY17)

Underlying fuel cost is assumed to be $1.92 per gallon (FY17 $) Gate ADOC for a B737-800: $1,980 per hour Taxi ADOC for a B737-800: $2,448 per hour Airborne ADOC for a B737-800: $3,408 per hour

• PVT = $48.60 per hour (FY17 $); the passengers per aircraft differ by aircraft type based on seat capacity, load factor, and mission (passenger, cargo, GA)

Seat capacity 737-800: 156, load factor 82.2%, PVT per hour: $6232

• Cancellations are monetized assuming a 5 hour passenger delay

• Present Value calculations use a discount rate of 7% and a base year of FY17

Benefit by Application


• Percent equipped refers to Air Transport fleet only (no military/GA)

• Examined Benefits in terms of Delay saving (hours), ADOC savings, and ADOC + PVT savings (only ADOC+PVT shown below)

• Build up below assumes both 100% Initial ADS-B In (CAVS) and 100% A-IM (SR, DCCR, PA/DSA1) equipage for apples-to-apples comparison, also includes impacts of Enhanced TBFM

Benefit per Percent Equipped


• Percent equipped refers to Air Transport fleet only (no military/GA)

• Ran Scenarios at 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%

• Examined Benefits in terms of Delay saving (hours), ADOC savings, and ADOC + PVT savings

• Developed linear fit lines for each scenario over the equipage values (no obvious nonlinear impact)

2025 NAS-wide Benefit as a function of percent equipped (x)

Application Delay Savings (hours) ADOC (FY17 $M) ADOC+PVT (FY17 $M)CAVS 44,198 x $83.5 x $265.9 xSR (no CAVS) 206, 824 x $475.7 x $1,545.9 x SR + DCCR (no CAVS) 211,791 x $487.2 x $1,582.9 xSR + DCCR + PA/DSA1 (no CAVS) 239,185 x $557.3 x $1,779.2 xCAVS + SR + DCCR + PA/DSA1 251,717 x $593.6 x $1,855.2 x

Lifecycle Benefits


• Applied: Lifecycle 2018-2045 Demand (increases through 2028 but

then held constant using current FAA guidance)

Enhanced TBFM implementation phasing (assumed 2019-2024), and

CAVS and A-IM Equipage (see slide 11)

• Graphs show NAS-wide benefit results (ADOC + PVT) in FY17 $M New production aircraft only and New production + Existing fleet retrofit

Early Adoption

Cost Assumptions

16

• Costs were based on inputs from major avionics vendors and OEMs gathered in 2018.

• The costs include procurement and installation. Table V presents unit cost inputs in thousands of dollars ($K) for an average scenario and an optimistic scenario (as requested by the Equip 2020 team).

• The ADS-B In unit costs vary widely, depending on application, airframe, cost scenario, and whether the aircraft receives the application during production or as a retrofit.

Unit Costs (FY18 $K)

Average Inputs Optimistic InputsCAVS/ ECAVS

A-IM with CAVS/ECAVS

CAVS/ ECAVS

A-IM with CAVS/ ECAVS

New Production AircraftWeighted Avg. $192 $349 $125 $179

Minimum $130 $200 $114 $164Maximum $290 $560 $190 $240

Existing Fleet RetrofitWeighted Avg. $275 $472 $69 $209

Minimum $112 $300 $50 $164Maximum $518 $1,580 $350 $500


Cost Benefit Comparison


Fleet TypeLifecycle Benefits 2018-2045 Avionics Costs

Delay Savings (K hours)

ADOC (PV $M)

ADOC+PVT (PV $M)

Average (PV $M)

Optimistic (PV $M)

Baseline Equipage ProjectionNew

Production 1,864 $1,026 $3,309 $690 $410Existing Fleet

Retrofit 871 $479 $1,547 $352 $140Total 2,735 $1,505 $4,856 $1,042 $549

Early Adoption Equipage ProjectionsNew

Production 2,534 $1,502 $4,845 $833 $509Existing Fleet

Retrofit 572 $367 $1,185 $216 $79Total 3,106 $1,869 $6,030 $1,049 $588

Fleet TypeB/C ADOC Only Using Average

Costs

B/C ADOC Only Using

Optimistic Costs

Baseline Equipage Projection; New Production 1.5 2.5Existing Fleet Retrofit 1.4 3.4Total 1.4 2.7

Early Adoption Equipage ProjectionNew Production 1.8 3.0Existing Fleet Retrofit 1.7 4.6Total 1.8 3.2

• Cost benefit comparison done in Present Value (PV) units

PV analysis considers the time value of money to produce financial metrics

A discount rate is chosen and applied annually to the projected constant year costs and benefits through the lifecycle (7% FAA standard)

• Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) To be conservative, examined the B/C ratio

assuming only the ADOC benefits In general, if a scenario is cost-beneficial using

ADOC only, it will also be cost-beneficial (with a much higher B/C ratio) when considering ADOC + PVT

Cost Benefit Comparison


Fleet Type B/C ADOC Only Using Average CostsB/C ADOC Only Using

Optimistic CostsBaseline Equipage Projection

New Production 2.1 4.1Existing Fleet Retrofit 1.4 3.3

Early Adoption Equipage ProjectionNew Production 2.4 4.5Existing Fleet Retrofit 1.7 3.9

• B/C ratios on previous slide are impacted by factors that make direct comparison of New production and Retrofit difficult to gauge: Existing fleet retrofit includes those retrofitting from nothing to A-IM & CAVS and those

retrofitting from CAVS only to A-IM & CAVS (who gain a large benefit at a low price) Existing fleet retrofits are implemented over a 7-year period (2029-2035 baseline or 2025-2031

early adoption) while New production aircraft enter fleet with capability through 2045 Result is that retrofit aircraft exhibit, on average, 13-17 years of benefit while New production

aircraft only exhibit, on average, 7-9 years of benefit

• To develop a fair comparison, analysis was modified to examine costs and benefits of aircraft where A-IM & CAVS were implemented over the same 7 year periods Existing fleet retrofit case was modified to only look at cost and benefits of those retrofitting from

nothing to A-IM & CAVS Results below reflect slightly higher cost of retrofitting vs. New production aircraft

Summary

19

• ADS-B In applications have the potential to produce significant benefits Increasing runway throughput through an increased ability to perform visual approaches

and increasing delivery accuracy to meet a schedule While the benefits potential for ADS-B In is large, so are the costs. Both the FAA and

aircraft operators will need to invest significant funds to achieve the benefits The cost benefit comparison suggests that the benefits outweigh the costs for equipping

with ADS-B In avionics for both new production aircraft and existing fleet retrofits

• Results and techniques will be used to justify FAA automation changes needed to fully take advantage of ADS-B In applications

FAA economic analyses involve costs and benefits for all users (government, industry, and the flying public), so costs are expected to increase to include not only avionics, but also changes to automation and procedures

A significant increase in benefits is also expected due to the inclusion of PVT and additional benefit mechanisms.

• Aircraft operators should find equipage costs information of interest The B/C ratios modified to better compare equipping new production aircraft to retrofitting

may also inform business decisions on how and when to equip.


20

BACKUP


Modeling Future CAVS Capability– Throughput curves have only been developed for

VMC, MMC, IMC– IMC is below 1000 ft ceiling or 3 miles vis– VMC is better than or equal to conditions in the table to the

right– MMC is in-between

– To model CAVS we use the VMC arrival throughput during MMC conditions for properly equipped aircraft; this is not strictly correct since CAVS cannot be operated during all of MMC conditions

Assumptions concerning Future CAVS

Airport Ceiling (feet) Visibility (miles) Percent of hoursVMC MMC IMC

ATL 3600 7 73.2 14.3 12.5BOS 2500 3 80.2 7.1 12.7BWI 2500 5 74.1 10.9 15CLE 2600 3 77.2 11.3 11.5CLT 3600 5 76.1 11.9 12CVG 2900 3 75.5 12.6 11.9DCA 3000 4 82 9 9DEN 2000 3 92.1 2.6 5.3DFW 3500 5 81.9 12.1 6DTW 3000 5 68.7 19.1 12.2EWR 3000 4 77.4 10.8 11.8FLL 4000 5 81.7 14.7 3.6HNL 2500 3 97.5 2.3 0.2IAD 3000 7 75.1 13.6 11.3IAH 4000 8 66.2 22.3 11.5JFK 2000 4 81.4 6.5 12.1LAS 5000 5 98.2 1.5 0.3LAX 2500 3 72.4 11.8 15.8LGA 3200 4 76.9 10.9 12.2MCO 2500 3 90.3 3.9 5.8MDW 1900 3 78.7 8.6 12.7MEM 5000 5 67.3 22.1 10.6MIA 2000 5 94.8 3.5 1.7MSP 3500 8 75.3 16.3 8.4ORD 1900 3 81.5 7.6 10.9PDX 3500 8 74.2 19.1 6.7PHL 2300 4 77.4 9.6 13PHX 3300 7 98.6 1.1 0.3PIT 1800 3 80.7 5.7 13.6

SAN 2000 3 74.6 16 9.4SEA 4000 3 62.3 27.2 10.5SFO 3500 8 70.8 20.5 8.7SLC 5300 3 86.5 7.8 5.7STL 5000 5 70.5 19.7 9.8TPA 2100 3 92 2.6 5.4

A-IM applications• MITRE developed A-IM curves at

35 airports– Different curves for different

Meteorological Conditions– Applicability of application dependent

on current common use of runway configurations and SME input

– Each set of curves builds on previous so SR, SR+DCCR, SR+DCCR+DSA1/PA

• Modeling Future CAVS Capability– Throughput curves have only been

developed for VMC, MMC, IMC– IMC is below 1000 ft ceiling or 3 miles vis– VMC is better than or equal to conditions

in the table to the right– MMC is in-between

– To model CAVS we use the VMC arrival throughput during MMC conditions for properly equipped aircraft; this is not strictly correct since CAVS cannot be operated during all of MMC conditions

Airport SR +DCCR +DSA1/PAATL VMC, MMC, IMCBOS VMC, MMC, IMC MMC IMCBWI VMC, MMC, IMC MMC, IMCCLE VMC, MMC, IMCCLT VMC, MMC, IMCCVG VMC, MMC, IMCDCA VMC, MMC, IMC VMC, MMCDEN VMC, MMC, IMCDFW VMC, MMC, IMCDTW VMC, MMC, IMCEWR VMC, MMC, IMC VMC MMC, IMCFLL VMC, MMC, IMCHNL VMC, MMC, IMC VMC, MMC, IMCIAD VMC, MMC, IMCIAH VMC, MMC, IMCJFK VMC, MMC, IMCLAS VMC, MMC, IMC MMCLAX VMC, MMC, IMCLGA VMC, MMC, IMCMCO VMC, MMC, IMCMDW VMC, MMC, IMCMEM VMC, MMC, IMC VMC, MMCMIA VMC, MMC, IMC VMC, MMC, IMCMSP VMC, MMC, IMC VMC, MMCORD VMC, MMC, IMCPDX VMC, MMC, IMCPHL VMC, MMC, IMC VMC, MMC, IMCPHX VMC, MMC, IMCPIT VMC, MMC, IMC

SAN VMC, MMC, IMCSEA VMC, MMC, IMC MMC, IMCSFO VMC, MMC, IMC MMC, IMCSLC VMC, MMC, IMCSTL VMC, MMC, IMC MMC, IMCTPA VMC, MMC, IMC

Benefits and Costs of ADS-B In Efficiency Applications in US AirspaceOutlineIntroductionCAVS and Airport ThroughputA-IM and Airport ThroughputSimulation DescriptionThroughput AssumptionsThroughput Assumptions (continued)Throughput Assumptions (continued)DemandEquipageOutputs and MonetizationBenefit by ApplicationBenefit per Percent EquippedLifecycle BenefitsCost AssumptionsCost Benefit ComparisonCost Benefit ComparisonSummarySlide Number 20Assumptions concerning Future CAVSA-IM applications

benefits and costs of applications in us airspace · 2019. 6. 26. · benefits and costs of ads- b...

Documents