Billed as the "Path to Free Flight", the US Federal Aviation Administration's Flight 2000 programme could prove a rocky road for planners of this ambitious demonstration of the future US air-traffic-management system. While agreeing that a large-scale rehearsal of the Free Flight concept is a good idea, lawmakers, operators and manufacturers alike are asking: "What will it cost?" and: "Who will pay?"
The FAA's estimate of the cost of staging the two-year, 2,000-aircraft demonstration - $400 million - is being regarded with scepticism by both Congress and industry, and for the same reason. The cost projection assumes a degree of support from aircraft operators and avionics manufacturers that Congress describes as "vague" and industry regards as "unrealistic".
These comments are directed at the initial programme plan, published in July, and the basis of the FAA's request for additional funding in 1998 to begin the effort. One reason for the scarcity of financial and technical detail in this initial document is the short time available to plan and stage a Free Flight demonstration if the FAA is to meet the Clinton Administration's accelerated deadline for modernising the US National Airspace System (NAS) by 2005.
Assistant Administrator George Donohue argues that the demonstration must start in 2000 if the NAS 2005 deadline set earlier this year by the Gore Commission is to be met. The Flight 2000 programme is required, the FAA says, to validate the benefits of Free Flight, evaluate transition issues, streamline avionics certification and reduce the risks for accelerated NAS modernisation.
If the FAA is to meet its stated target of beginning the demonstration on 30 September 2000, initial funding is required by the end of 1997, Donohue says. The FAA's request for supplementary funding for the programme is still with the Clinton Administration, however, and is unlikely to be presented to Congress until early 1998. Congress, meanwhile, has passed an FAA budget specifically prohibiting the use of existing 1998 funds for the Flight 2000 programme.
While programme officials concede that t is now likely that the demonstration will slip into 2001, Donohue has made it clear that, if the Flight 2000 programme is delayed, then NAS modernisation will be delayed. "That's what I'm telling them," he says, referring to his discussions with Administration budget officials.
The FAA freely admits that the Flight 2000 programme is an "aggressive initiative", but hopes that the compressed timescale will act as a catalyst to streamline its certification procedures. By subsidising the equipping of 2,000 aircraft for a two-year trial in Alaska and Hawaii, the FAA hopes to demonstrate the benefits and reduce the costs to operators of upgrading the other 150,000 aircraft that will be flown within the overall modernised US airspace system.
Flight 2000 programme director David Tuttle describes the demonstration as "-an off-Broadway tryout of the Free Flight concept - a chance to do the integration and work out the procedures in a controlled environment, where we won't screw up everybody else if we get it wrong". The plan is to establish a "mini-NAS" within which to conduct an operational evaluation of the architecture and procedures planned for the modernised NAS.
Scaling up from Flight 2000 to NAS 2005 will reduce the risks associated with meeting the accelerated schedule for US airspace-system modernisation, Tuttle says. The demonstration will address key issues concerning the NAS 2005 concept of operations, including the implications of improved surveillance on the roles of pilots and controllers. Technical issues to be resolved include the choice of datalink for controller-pilot communications.
Critically, the Flight 2000 programme is seen as a way to collect cost/benefit data which can be used to persuade users to equip their aircraft to operate within the NAS 2005 environment. The FAA argues that previous limited-scale technology demonstrations have not established conclusively the benefits of Free Flight and "-have not been compelling to the point where most NAS users are willing to equip with the requisite systems."
At the same time, the FAA hopes to bring down the cost of equipping aircraft by streamlining its certification procedures and "jump-starting" production of Free Flight avionics by buying an initial tranche of 2,000 systems with which to equip the trials aircraft. This "major subsidy" - Donohue's words - is considered necessary to persuade operators in Alaska and Hawaii to participate in the demonstration, although the FAA is convinced that operators will see benefits as soon as the trial begins.
The avionics-installation programme is one of the more contentious elements of the Flight 2000 plan. Of the $170 million that the FAA has budgeted to buy and install systems, $57 million has been earmarked for avionics acquisition. This translates into an average cost per shipset of $28,500, a figure which many general-aviation operators worry is too high and some avionics manufacturers fear is too low.
The FAA hopes to stimulate competition by splitting its purchase of 2,000 systems between four to six vendors. Although aircraft to be equipped will range from piston-single trainers to long-haul airliners, and the equipment fit may vary between types, the basic elements are:
•VHF datalink (VDL) radio, with Mode 2 data-only capability and upgradeable to Mode 3 voice/data;
•global-positioning system (GPS) receiver, with wide-area augmentation system (WAAS) capability;
•Mode S transponder, with automatic dependent-surveillance - broadcast (ADS-B) squitter capability;
•cockpit information system, to integrate, process and route data for display and transmission; and
•integrated multi-function display (I-MFD) - a 125mm, or larger, colour display for traffic, weather, terrain and other information.
The majority of systems purchased will be for general-aviation and air-taxi aircraft, with the FAA paying for installation. In return, operators will provide the FAA with data on system use. At the end of the trial, Tuttle says, operators will be able to buy the equipment installed in their aircraft from the FAA for a "small" residual value. The ground infrastructure installed in Alaska and Hawaii for the Flight 2000 programme will remain in place after the trial, he says, enabling operators to continue to enjoy Free Flight benefits while the rest of the USA catches up.
Equipage will be voluntary, Tuttle emphasises, but the plan is for all Hawaii-based aircraft (mainly general-aviation and air-taxi) to be equipped, along with all air-taxi and commercial-airline aircraft based in Alaska. As the trial also involves airspace between Hawaii and the continental USA, some long-haul airliners may also have to be equipped. The initial programme plan does not identify how many commercial aircraft are to be equipped, but Tuttle indicates that the FAA is counting on airlines to carry the installation costs. "Operators will contribute the loss of service for installation, and data on installation and operation," he says.
In return, airlines will expect to gain operating benefits, another contentious issue. Before they can equip their aircraft for Flight 2000, or NAS2005, airline flight-operations departments will have to convince their financial masters that there will be a return on the investment within a relatively short time - possibly as little as the two-year duration of the trial. Here, the airlines are sceptical, having seen the FAA fail to deliver infrastructure improvements promised when carriers were making their business cases for equipping aircraft with the future air-navigation system (FANS) to allow dynamic re-routing on transpacific flights.
Tuttle maintains that the benefits promised for the Flight 2000 programme will be realised "-because it is a single initiative: avionics and ground infrastructure together. I guarantee the ground infrastructure will be there." Limiting the trial to Alaska and Hawaii "-means we can move more rapidly", he says. "The long pole in the tent will be the acquisition, installation and certification of the avionics," Tuttle maintains.
To illustrate the Flight 2000 concept of operations, the initial programme plan contains a number of scenarios, ranging from a commercial-airline flight from the continental USA to Hawaii to a general-aviation flight within Alaska (see diagrams).
The Alaskan element of the demonstration will focus on validating ADS-B for surveillance and VDL for communications in varied weather and rugged terrain. In the scenario shown, ADS-B will be used for airport and airborne surveillance, while VDL will be used to transmit airport maps, weather graphics, terrain and traffic data and other flight-information services for display in the cockpit. The traffic display will integrate ADS-B reports and data from the Anchorage traffic-information system - a ground-based version of the traffic-alert and collision-avoidance system. GPS/WAAS will be used for en route navigation and approaches up to Category I. A local-area augmentation system will allow Cat III GPS approaches to Anchorage. "All this will allow aircraft to operate more predictably, and provide an incentive to equip," Tuttle says.
The Hawaii element of the Flight 2000 demonstration will focus on inter-city travel and services to the pilot. Again ADS-B will provide improved surveillance on the ground and in the air, while GPS/WAAS will allow direct routes and reduced minima. Situational awareness will be provided by the display of traffic and weather information in the cockpit.
Interest in flights between continental USA and Hawaii will focus on oceanic airspace and the transition to domestic airspace. Standard FANS-1/A avionics, already in use on transpacific flights, are sufficient and include a flight-management system, automatic dependent-surveillance - addressed and controller-pilot data-link communications. Expected benefits include increased flexibility to climb, descend or reroute to save fuel and time.
Services will be added as the Flight 2000 demonstration progresses. "ADS-B will be used early on to improve situational awareness in the cockpit and provide radar-like separation services, "Tuttle says. "Later, we will assess it for station-keeping, allowing the pilot to identify aircraft and monitor his own separation," he says. "Eventually, we will use it to reduce parallel-runway separation."
Source: Flight International
