ATCA Journal - Fall 2016

Fall 2016 | VOLUME 58, NO. 3

Paul Rinaldi

Named Winner of 2016 Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award NATCA President to Receive ATCA’s Highest Honor

Plus • Big Data’s Best Laid Plans • SWIM: The Big Picture • Remembering CAP’s Ambassador

• European Air Traffic Management: The German View of Current and Future Trends

• Working IT Security for the FAA • And More

345°

0°

15° 30 °

0° 33 DLT1445 B777 410 490

31 5°

° 45

JFH6752 B738 390 450

° 60

30 0°

OPG3256 A388 400 520

YGD1723 A350 380 425

75°

285°

CKR8976 B744 350 415

APH6388 A321 370 485

XVX6211 B748 300 490

90°

270°

MAG7521 E190 270 410 PVP0786 A320 310 400

AQP6800 BCS3 280 400

ZTV3309 A332 360 420

12 0°

5° 22

13 5°

MKJ5509 B789 390 470 KNH2006 B748 400 500

0° 15

21 0°

165°

180°

195°

0° 24

255°

105°

YGD1723 A350 380 425

delivering enterprise solutions to Transform our nation’s airspace Our experts are helping to evolve the integrated systems and technologies that will carry us into the next generation of air transportation In partnership with the FAA, Noblis is helping to enable faster, safer, predictable and more secure air travel with a full lifecycle systems engineering approach to delivering effective, real-world solutions. We bring the best of scientific thought, management, acquisition, and engineering expertise to develop impartial solutions to complex aviation and enterprise-level system of systems problems.

Enterprise Systems Engineering

MODELING and SIMULATION

Advanced data analytics and high performance computing

Agile Software Development and Integration

Cybersecurity

program and acquisition management

Strategic Advisory Services

Enterprise Lifecycle Transformation Noblis is appraised at Level 3 of the CMMI Institute’s Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)

6 1 0 2 A C T !

A H T O O B SIT OUR VI

#223

Talk to a Noblis expert: answers@noblis.org

noblis.org

Fall 2016 | Vol. 58, No. 3

Contents

ATCA members and subscribers have access to the online edition of The Journal of Air Traffic Control. Visit www.lesterfiles.com/pubs/ATCA Password: ATCAPubs (case sensitive).

Published for:

Stoyan Yotov / Shutterstock.com

Air Traffic Control Association 1101 King Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-299-2430 Fax: 703-299-2437 info@atca.org www.atca.org

Published by:

140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Toll-free phone: 866-953-2189 Toll-free fax: 877-565-8557 www.lesterpublications.com President & Publisher, Jeff Lester

EDITORIAL Editorial Director, Jill Harris Editorial Assistant, Andrew Harris

DESIGN & LAYOUT Art Director, Myles O’Reilly Senior Graphic Designer, John Lyttle DESIGNER/PROGAMER, ONLINE MEDIA Gayl Punzalan

Articles 18 Paul Rinaldi Named Winner of 2016 55 Remembering CAP’s Ambassador Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award NATCA President to Receive ATCA’s Highest Honor this October

22 Out With the Old

Addressing the Challenges and Costs of the Aging US Air Traffic Control Infrastructure

By Chris Giacoponello, Thales, and John Kefaliotis, IOU Consulting

29 Whose Airspace Is It, Anyway?

Sales Manager, Sharon Komoski Quinn Bogusky | 888-953-2198 Louise Peterson | 866-953-2183

DISTRIBUTION

35 Big Data’s Best Laid Plans

By Kristen Knott, ATCA

39 SWIM

The Big Picture

Printed in Canada. Please recycle where facilities exist.

Cover image: Gualtiero Boffi / Shutterstock.com

59 Working IT Security for the FAA

By Sebastian Dunne, Red Hat

65 A Review of Sinclair McKay’s

The Secret Life of Fighter Command, the Men and Women Who Beat the Luftwaffe

By David Hughes

71 Opinions From the Field

On Matters of Safety, Neither Side Can Claim Victory in the Privatization Debate

By Dr. Ashley Nunes

43 European

Air Traffic Management: The German View of Current and Future Trends A Q&A with Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, CEO of DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung, the German ANSP

13

48 A Scalable, Cost-Effective Survellance Solution for Small UAS Integration

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors of the editorial articles contained in this publication are those of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of ATCA.

By Dan Bailey, Mitzi Palmer and Cadet Master Sgt. Sara Williams

By Kristen Knott, ATCA

Nikki Manalo | 866-953-2189

© 2016 Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of ATCA.

By Frank L. Frisbie, Double F Consulting, LLC

ADVERTISING

Aviation Legend Mary Feik Traveled the US in Support of Civil Air Patrol’s Cadet Program

By David Whitaker, Gryphon Technologies

2016 ATC/ATM Spotlight

Departments 5 9

From the President From the Editor’s Desk

10 69

Letter to the Editor Directory of Member Organizations

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

3

Visit us at the ATCA Annual Conference and Exposition, Booth #429.

FROM THE PRESIDENT

By Peter F. Dumont, President & CEO, ATCA

Increasing Connectivity,

ESCALATING RISK T this quote represents the complicated reality of the connected world in which we live.

There’s a great deal of information at our fingertips, and on the f lip side, a high risk of faulty and possibly damaging information. The need for stronger cybersecurity in our industry and throughout government is clearer than ever before.

In the modern age, large public spaces like airports and transportation hubs have been prime terrorism targets. Political and law enforcement leaders react to threats by strengthening intelligence gathering and policing, as well as implementing other security measures. When discussing solutions – or rather, how to respond – to terrorist attacks, policy discussions must take many issues into consideration, from international relations, constitutional freedoms, policing, privacy, and, of course, safety.

The terrorist attacks at the Istanbul

and Brussels airports were intended to inf lict pain and suffering on innocent civilians and erode our native expectation for safety. As a result, we saw changes in aviation safety and airport security protocol and tactics, including increased screening while, at the same time, avoiding the new creation of large (read: unprotected) queues. Law enforcement and national security officials are expected to update or institute new policies and procedures as a first reaction to terrorist attacks.

In aviation, we have worked hard to move beyond simply responding to the latest safety threat. Decades ago, the only way to improve aviation safety was to pass laws and regulations after an aviation accident.

We adopted an insensitive name for these reactive policies: “tombstone regulations.”

Now, the FAA and the wider aviation industry look at trends in various data

GlebStock / Shutterstock.com

he world is changing. Technology is increasingly integrated into our day to day. While the majority of these advancements greatly improve our lives (Text messaging! Online shopping! Pokémon Go!), the more we rely on devices and automation, the more vulnerable we make ourselves.

From identity theft and cyber vandalism, to espionage and ransom malware, hackers are getting more sophisticated and arguably more malevolent. It’s easy these days to sink into paranoia, fear, and negativism, but I am inherently an optimist. I saw a quote not too long ago attributed to Winston Churchill, “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” This is a great quote, but it turns out Churchill never said it (nobody seems to have any idea who did). So, while I agree with the sentiment,

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

5

FROM THE PRESIDENT sources to predict potential problems and solve them before incidents occur. This predictive and proactive approach has contributed to an impressive reduction in aviation accidents. Unfortunately, we’re not able to predict safety incidents and terrorism in the same way. To add insult to injury, in today’s resource-constrained environment, we find ourselves struggling with how to reconcile limited budgets when the very technology that improves our capabilities, safety, and cash f low also introduces new, potentially expensive and catastrophic risks.

Using risk management to determine how limited resources should be invested is at the foundation of how healthy companies are managed. The company relies on the expertise and intuition of its leadership to both identify and rank risks. Since 9/11, we have seen emerging threats, such as terrorist bombings, rise to boardroom agendas. Today, cybersecurity attacks figure more and more into these C-level conversations as well. And soon, we will see these two types of attacks come up more often in the same discussion, if they’re not already.

For the past seven years, the Pentagon

has been shaping the US Cyber Command’s mission and workforce. These offices, in cooperation with Israel, were supposedly linked to the malware employed to damage Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility. The dramatic video of the centrifuges shaking and failing at the hands of Stuxnet, an attack malware, became a new milestone in global cyber warfare. Not surprising, the Pentagon is now beginning to release additional information in their efforts to attack ISIS through digital means, targeting their computers and cellphone networks. We all knew this was coming, and I guess I would say now it’s here.

In response to the growing sophistication of cyber threats, international governments and the global aviation industry have been hardening their cyber exposure for some time. As the US begins to talk openly about its efforts to counter terrorist groups through malware attacks, we have already seen an uptick in breaches. The cybersecurity headlines have moved from the private sector hackings of Target, Sony, and Home Depot to ransom attacks on hospitals and schools. Many breaches are

traced back to foreign countries like China and North Korea.

US federal agencies are certainly not immune to attack either. Last June, Chinese hackers accessed the OPM data of over 20 million people, and are believed to have stolen hundreds of thousands of security clearance documents and even fingerprint scans. And as the US presidential campaign battle rages on, July’s attack on the Democratic National Committee, which resulted in the leak of thousands of emails, is still fresh on the mind of voters everywhere. Are we prepared for this emerging world where instead of fighting battles with troops, tanks, and yes, drones, nations and groups wage tactical warfare from laptop computers with victims numbering in the tens or even hundreds of millions?

Cybersecurity may be the new kid on the block where frontpage news is concerned, but we’ve been talking about it for a while.

You’ll hear discussions at our 61st ATCA Annual this October 16-19, but ATCA has also been holding annual cybersecurity talks for the past five years. We were one of the first to hold such events. We have improved

FROM THE PRESIDENT the way we identify aviation’s vulnerabilities, and our approaches to preparing for the worst have evolved. But I am still concerned that not enough aviation leaders are adequately thinking through these complex risks. Cybersecurity needs to be discussed more in our boardrooms, classrooms, and air traffic control facilities.

Recognizing the lack of high-level attention paid to cybersecurity, the GAO released a report in January 2015 on FAA’s readiness for cyber-based threats. The report stated, “The weaknesses in FAA’s security controls and implementation of its security program existed, in part, because FAA had not fully established an integrated, organization-wide approach to managing information security risk that is aligned with its mission.”

While the FAA has made progress since 2015, I am not hearing our top leaders make it a priority. Even though budgets are tight, and the bureaucratic process forces funding decisions to be made years in advance, we cannot ignore emerging threats to the aging aviation infrastructure. Every program manager, system designer, and team maintaining existing systems in the National

Cybersecurity needs to be discussed more in our boardrooms, classrooms, and air traffic control facilities.

Airspace System (NAS) needs to prioritize investments in cybersecurity. As stated in the GAO report, that only happens when we have an integrated, agency-wide approach supported by top aviation leaders.

As a NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) member, I have been discussing and will continue to discuss the need to focus on information. ATCA has also supported a cybersecurity committee for the last five or six years. The committee outlines best practices and impending threats, and is authoring white papers on the subject. We will continue to support our members’ interest in this topic, including publishing articles from the field, such as the “Working IT Security for the FAA” article on page 59 of this issue.

I do think that if we focus on the threat we can harden the air traffic system. We know that much of our infrastructure – be it transportation, power, banking, etc. – cannot be connected without hardening and protecting our interfaces. Protecting our system involves not only a perennial financial commitment, but also ensuring the labor is trained and ready to make constant and continual updates to keep our systems secure.

If we fail to prepare for an attack, we could have our NextGen investments irreparably damaged. Something Winston Churchill did say was, “To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often.”

Hardening our cyber walls will be a slow, laborious, never-ending task, but it must be done. Now.

DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE? WE DO! Telephonics’ Passive Detection & Reporting System (PDRS) offers a receive-only IFF system that enhances situational awareness for civil and military air traffic controllers, effectively eliminating radio frequency interrogation transmissions in the airspace.

To learn more, visit www.telephonics.com Š Telephonics I www.telephonics.com

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

By Steve Carver Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Fall 2016 | Vol. 58, No. 3 Air Traffic Control Association 1101 King Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-299-2430 Fax: 703-299-2437 info@atca.org www.atca.org Formed in 1956 as a non-profit, professional membership association, ATCA represents the interests of all professionals in the air traffic control industry. Dedicated to the advancement of professionalism and technology of air traffic control, ATCA has grown to represent several thousand individuals and organizations managing and providing ATC services and equipment around the world.

Editor-in-Chief: Steve Carver Publisher: Lester Publications, LLC

Officers and Board of Directors Chairman, Neil Planzer Chairman-Elect, Charles Keegan President & CEO, Peter F. Dumont Treasurer, Rachel Jackson East Area Director, Susan Chodakewitz Pacific Area, Asia, Australia Director, Peter Fiegehen South Central Area Director, William Cotton Northeast Area Director, Mike Ball Southeast Area Director, Jack McAuley North Central Area Director, Bill Ellis West Area Director and Secretary, Chip Meserole Canada, Caribbean, Central and South America, Mexico Area Director, Rudy Kellar Europe, Africa, Middle East Area Director, Jonathan Astill Director at Large, Rick Day Director at Large, Vinny Cappezzuto Director at Large, Michael Headley

Staff Marion Brophy , Communications Specialist Abigail Glenn-Chase, Director, Communications Ken Carlisle, Director, Meetings and Expositions Theresa Clair, Associate Director, Meetings and Expositions Ashley Haskins, Office Manager Kristen Knott, Writer and Editor Christine Oster, Chief Financial Officer Paul Planzer, Manager, ATC Programs Rugger Smith, International Development Liason Sandra Strickland, Events and Exhibits Coordinator Tim Wagner, Manager, Membership Glenn Cudaback, Manager, Digital Media and Marketing

Practice, Practice, Practice

I

t’s easy to lose our skills if we don’t practice them. I was recently thinking about my father teaching me skills as a boy that are rarely done now, like shaving with a straight razor. He seemed like an expert as he moved that blade over the side of his face, under the nose, and under his chin. As years passed, Dad changed to a safety razor and never looked back. When he was 60, I wonder if he could have taken a straight razor and shave without cutting himself.

The same is true with automation replacing manual operations in aviation. With the increasing amount of technology being introduced into the airspace, it can be easy for operators to lose their skills. How many times have we read about pilots who, after taking over from auto pilot, have made mistakes that led to loss of lives? When the FAA has an interruption of one of its NAS mission support systems, airspace management is affected.

While I enjoy the introduction of new aviation technologies, I recognize that automation brings dependencies and loss of operational knowledge. When crisis hits, the loss of automation then hampers our ability to function and respond quickly and appropriately. As air traffic moves into another generation of automation where a single application assists in many operations, how do we prepare for the

inevitable of loss of proficiency? Air traffic technology could progress to the point where the loss of certain skill will become a safety challenge. At this point, air traffic will have to move fast to complete the replacement of partial automated air traffic control services to full automated operations. The challenge is in implementing the latest aviation technologies without sacrificing safety. I don’t envy the FAA this role.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control helps bring issues like these to light and I’m proud to be a part of it. When I came on board as editor-in-chief of the Journal a few years ago, I had one goal: to make each issue better than the last. I believe we’ve gone above and beyond with this one. I have to say (even though I’m partial) that this is our best issue yet. It covers the gamut of aviation issues, from big data to cybersecurity to UAS traffic management, while also celebrating this year’s Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award recipient, NATCA President Paul Rinaldi.

If you have a paper on the subject of loss of proficiencies due to automation (or any other topic), please send it to myself or Kristen.knott@atca.org for consideration. I am certain all of our Journal readers would enjoy reading about your knowledge in this field. I hope you enjoy the issue.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control (ISSN 0021-8650) is published quarterly by the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. Periodical postage paid at Alexandria, VA and additional entries.

EDITORIAL, SUBSCRIPTION & ADVERTISING OFFICES at ATCA Headquarters: 1101 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Telephone: (703) 299-2430, Fax: (703) 299-2437, Email: info@atca.org, Website: www.atca.org.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Journal of Air Traffic Control, 1101 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. © Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., 2016 Membership in the Air Traffic Control Association including subscriptions to the Journal and ATCA Bulletin: Professional, $130 a year; Professional Military Senior Enlisted (E6–E9) Officer, $130 a year; Professional Military Junior Enlisted (E1–E5), $26 a year; Retired fee $60 a year applies to those who are ATCA Members at the time of retirement; Corporate Member, $500–5,000 a year, depending on category. Journal subscription rates to non-members: U.S., its territories, and possessions—$78 a year; other countries, including Canada and Mexico—$88 a year (via air mail). Back issue single copy $10, other countries, including Canada and Mexico, $15 (via air mail).

Contributors express their personal points of view and opinions that are not necessarily those of their employers or the Air Traffic Control Association. Therefore The Journal of Air Traffic Control does not assume responsibility for statements made and opinions expressed. It does accept responsibility for giving contributors an opportunity to express such views and opinions. Articles may be edited as necessary without changing their meaning.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

9

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Letter to the

EDITOR

Air Traffic Technology Development is Key to Meeting the Challenge of UAS Integration and Rising Complexity in NAS

By Christian Ramsey, Harris Corporation

T

he rapid growth of air traffic volume from manned and unmanned platforms in the NAS is placing increasing pressures on our existing infrastructure and processes, despite the rollout of NextGen technologies.

An article from Intelligent Automation, Inc. (IAI), which appeared in the summer issue of The Journal, highlighted the number of new missions, increases in volume, and dynamic flight profiles complicating the development of an architecture that will keep all users safe and operational. There is a critical need for new technology and updated processes to enable the success of unmanned systems integration into the NAS. Due to the new mission types and flight characteristics of UAS, non-traditional flight trajectories increase the stressors placed on the air traffic management (ATM) system and air traffic controllers. As noted in the aforementioned article, numerous new missions are flown every day by unmanned systems with vastly different characteristics from those designed when the NAS’s current architecture was implemented. To boost predictability, industry and government have been working together to define the most pressing pain points and create new rules and procedures that will allow increasingly diverse aircraft to operate in the NAS. For the foreseeable future, large unmanned systems operating at higher altitudes and in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace should have to operate under the same restrictions as other large aircraft– including filing and following a flight plan.

These plans should be required even within uncontrolled airspace as there is no unmanned equivalent to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) for Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations. However, the current flight planning infrastructure built around legacy Navaids, waypoints, and airways do not have the granularity required for unmanned missions that will be flying non-traditional flight paths as described in the IAI report.

It is vital that we agree on this distinc-

10

Fall 2016

tion as we determine a more predictable path forward. Many experts, including those at Harris, are working on important technology upgrades to deal with increasing ATM complexity. Great advancements are being made across the country in areas such as: • Air Traffic Control (ATC) Situational Awareness: Even with a greater number of flights and profiles, air traffic controllers need to develop a comfort level with missions. Situational awareness in this sense comes down to accurate aircraft surveillance and knowledge of what the aircraft intends to do next. From the surveillance perspective, the usage of Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B) is a possible solution.

From the predictability perspective, being able to quickly and easily develop and deliver more granular flight plans using GPS waypoints will allow for more knowledge and less stress from the ATC perspective. NASA’s UAS Traffic Management (UTM) program is actively exploring these granular flight planning and monitoring concepts which will inform future procedures and technologies for both low and high altitude UAS. (Editor’s note: Interested in UTM? Join us at UTM Convention 2016 in Syracuse, Nov. 8-10, the first event focusing solely on UTM solutions. Learn more at www.utm2016.com.)

• Shared Stakeholder Knowledge: Current system limitations make it difficult for airlines, air navigation service providers (ANSPs), and airports to share information and make collaborative decisions. The System Wide Information Management (SWIM) system is a NextGen technology that increases the situational awareness of all stakeholders, both internal and external to the NAS. To meet the rising demand for airspace access, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Harris partnered to create SkyFusion, a solution that integrates Collaborative Decision Making

(CDM) and SWIM in a single platform.

• UAS Operator to ATC Communications: Currently, communication methods between UAS operators and ATC include using the aircraft as a VHF voice relay. Both methods are not ideal or scalable. The NAS Voice Switch (NVS) program is another NextGen technology that is overhauling the antiquated analog voice switching system and integrating Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.

This will allow future networked UAS operators to communicate to the appropriate ATC personnel through integrated IP systems directly.

• Beyond Visual Line of Sight: Higher altitude operations with larger systems are impossible without extended range command and control as well as detect and avoid solutions. The FAA Pathfinder Program for BVLOS is leveraging integrated surveillance and display solutions encompassing FAA radar, ADSB, local primary radar, and LTE-based surveillance. In the future, these types of systems could evolve to scalable sense and avoid solutions.

There have been many recent positive steps forward to address the large challenges in developing the policy and technology needed to safely integrate UAS into the NAS. But there is still much work to be done to harness the benefits of these new platforms. Airlines, airports, UAS operators, and air traffic operations all face challenges in dealing with the rising complexity of the NAS as identified in the Journal’s IAI article. All stakeholders can benefit where progress is being made to manage the NAS’s rising complexity using technology to heighten situational awareness, improve communications, and increase operational efficiency – all while maintaining safety across air traffic borders.

Read something in The Journal that you find interesting? Contact Kristen Knott, Managing Editor, at Kristen.Knott@atca.org.

KVM FROM G&D

LEADING THE WAY IN DIGITAL KVM

www.gdsys.de

IT control that towers above the rest

From the ANSP to the controller to the technician, everyone’s better off with KVM. For the service provider, KVM adds flexibility to IT infrastructure. It enables emergency workarounds, improves workflows, adds reliability to redundancy concepts and provides continuous, uninterrupted IT availability.

ATCOs enjoy a computer-free environment.

Moving the computers to a central location creates less noise, less heat and more space to create better working conditions in the control room. And the system’s more reliable too!

With KVM, technicians can access several systems from a range of locations - not just their workplace. Administration is made easier and maintenance too: the computers are stored centrally so no more crawling under desks. There’s also more time for maintenance because ATCOs can be simply switched to a back-up system whenever it’s required.

For optimum IT system control, improved working conditions and increased system safety, there’s only one all-round answer – KVM from G&D.

Mikael Damkier / Shutterstock.com

SPOTLIGHT 2016 ATC/ATM

ADVERTORIAL

2016 ATC/ATM SPOTLIGHT BOEING

The Boeing Company, with Jeppesen, a whollyowned subsidiary, is working with government, industry and airline partners globally to improve the world’s air traffic system. Boeing’s Air Traffic Management team is focused on creating comprehensive solutions to airlines, airports, ANSPs and CAAs to transform the air traffic system utilizing our expertise in airspace design and system integration.

DIGITALiBiz, Inc.

Founded in 2002, iBiz is a Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) that is ISO 9001:2008 certified.

As a trusted partner of the FAA, iBiz supports critical NextGen initiatives such as the En Route and Oceanic Integration & Interoperability Facility (IIF), Established on RNP (EoR), and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to ensure new technology is implemented safely into the National Airspace System (NAS).

929 Long Bridge Drive Arlington, VA 22202 boeing.atm@boeing.com www.boeing.com

Booth # 303

Booth # 519

Wayne Porter 9210 Corporate Blvd., Suite 410 Rockville, MD 20850 240-252-6816 wporter@digitalibiz.com www.digitalibiz.com

The world’s largest and most respected university specializing in aviation and aerospace. We offer a Bachelor’s of Science in Air Traffic Management and a minor in ATC, using high-fidelity simulation. ERAU has been an Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative 600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd school since 1997. Students can participate in an ATC Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Organization and IAT Honor Society, along with our Phone: 386-226-6794 award-winning Air Traffic Management Study Abroad Toll-free: 800-222-3728 Program. Located adjacent to the FAA’s NextGen Testbed, the ATM program has collaborated on coynea7e@erau.edu www.erau.edu/degrees/air-traffic-management/ several NextGen research projects.

EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY

Booth # 142

ENGILITY

Engility (NYSE: EGL), a leading provider of mission-critical and highly technical services for the U.S. government, is engineered to make a difference. As a trusted partner to the FAA for more than 25 years, we leverage our in-depth domain knowledge across the agency to support some of the most secure systems in the world and assist in the ongoing modernization of key systems.

GUNTERMANN & DRUNCK GMBH

For more than 30 years G&D have been creating high quality products and are especially focused on applications in ATC. Their KVM extenders and switches are deployed in various control centers around the world. Numerous ANSPs trust in G&D when it comes to freeing up space and improving both working conditions and system availability in ATC environments.

3750 Centerview Dr. Chantilly, VA 20151 Phone: 703-708-1400 askengility@engilitycorp.com www.engilitycorp.com

Booth # 513 14

Fall 2016

Dortmunder St., 4a Wilnsdorf, Germany 57234 Phone: +49 27 39 89 01 333 sales@gdsys.de atc.gdsys.de

2016 ATC/ATM SPOTLIGHT Booth # 318

IHSE USA, LLC

IHSE USA is the leading provider of KVM solutions, supporting long distance signal extension and switching for high definition video, USB, audio and RS-232 signals. IHSE technology is deployed worldwide for air traffic management and ATC towers. The company offers a complete line of video extenders for Cat 5e/6/7 or fiber optic cables. IHSE is headquartered in Germany with offices in the USA and Singapore

LMI

LMI is a mission-driven consulting firm committed to improving the management of government. With over 20 years of experience analyzing the benefits, costs, and risks of aviation investments and operations using modeling, simulation and industry outreach, our results and recommendations provide practical solutions to complex problems.

1 Corporate Drive, Suite F Cranbury, NJ 08512 Phone: 732-738-8780 Toll-free: 866-721-0744 info@ihseusa.com www.ihseusa.com

7940 Jones Branch Rd. Tysons, VA 22102 Phone: 703-917-7167 vstouffer@lmi.org www.lmi.org

One Company One Mission Engineering Gate-to-Gate Solutions

A wholly-owned subsidiary of Enroute Computer Solutions

Engineering, Systems Integration, Software Development, Deployment and more

Simulation and Modeling, Real Time Modeling Tool Development, Laboratory Integration

2511 Fire Road, Suite A-4 | Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234 p: 609.569.9255 | f: 609.569.9256 info@enroute-computer.com | enroute-computer.com

3120 Fire Road, Suite 200 | Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234 p: 609.569.1477 | f: 609.569.1829 contact@jvncomm.com | jvncomm.com

1331-ECS ATC Half Page Ad FINAL.indd 1

1/23/15 2:59 PM

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

15

ADVERTORIAL

2016 ATC/ATM SPOTLIGHT Booth # 115

YEARS

celebrating excellence

Booth # 223

Booth # 229

LS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

LST, a veteran-owned small business founded in 2000, is a rapidly-growing provider of professional and technical services. With a strong foundation in the aviation industry, LST employs more than 250 professionals located in over 40 states, supporting geographically diverse customers. The company strives to consistently exceed customer expectations by providing “Trusted Experience, Practical Solutions.”

NOBLIS

Noblis brings hands-on experience across the spectrum of current and future aviation enterprise infrastructure and services. Our experts take a lifecycle approach to engineering, acquisition, service management, program management, and cybersecurity for mission-critical terrestrial and air-ground communications and service-oriented architecture needs. Noblis also brings advanced modeling and simulation, and data analytics supported by unparalleled high performance computing platforms.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN

For 75 years, Northrop Grumman pioneers have been developing the world’s most advanced aircraft systems. With a legacy in U.S. and international air space command and control systems, integration and migration of past systems, and an eye toward meeting evolving mission needs, we provide high impact, best value aerospace products and services.

PLASTIC-VIEW ATC

Plastic-View is the world’s leading manufacturer of ATCT shades since 1947. Our shades have been installed in 98% of all U.S. civil and military ATCTs, as well as in over 90 nations worldwide. Virtually every ATCT shade specification ever published has explicitly called for Plastic-View because of our proven track record of safety, service, quality, and innovation.

PRAGMATICS, INC.

Think. Innovate. Deliver. Pragmatics brings together expertise in aviation and IT to deliver high-quality solutions. Pragmatics has partnered with the FAA for 20 years, playing an instrumental role in the introduction of satellite navigation technology, the development of new airport standards, the evolution of flight standards, and the development of mission-critical software. We continue to support the FAA with a range of solutions to meet its critical missions. We have been externally appraised at CMMI® Level 5 and are ISO 9001, ISO/IEC 20000-1, and ISO/IEC 27001 certified.

600 Maryland Ave., SW Suite 940W Washington, DC 20024 Phone: 703-205-9146 info@lstechllc.com www.lstechllc.com

600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Suite 700E Washington, D.C. 20024 Phone: 202-863-2983 matt.salter@noblis.org www.noblis.org

Mike Ball 7575 Colshire Dr. McLean, VA 22102 410-302-6999 michael.ball@ngc.com www.northropgrumman.com

4585 Runway St., Ste B Simi Valley, CA 93063-3479 Toll-free: 800-468-6301 info@pvatc.com www.pvatc.com

1761 Business Center Drive Reston, VA 20190 Phone: 703-975-9990 DavisM@Pragmatics.com www.pragmatics.com

Booth # 202 16

Fall 2016

ADVERTORIAL

2016 ATC/ATM SPOTLIGHT PROFESSIONAL AVIATION SAFETY SPECIALISTS (PASS)

Since 1977, the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) has represented more than 11,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) employees. From inspectors who ensure industry compliance with FAA safety standards to systems specialists who protect the safety and efficiency of critical aviation systems, PASS members are focused on safety, every step of the way.

THE MITRE CORPORATION

The MITRE Corporation is a not-for-profit organization that provides systems engineering, research and development, and information technology support to government agencies.

MITRE operates federally funded research and development centers, including the FAA’s Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), and has worked with the FAA for over 55 years. MITRE also performs ATM/CNS systems engineering for many foreign civil aviation organizations.

VAUGHN COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

Vaughn College is a small, private institution located in New York City adjacent to LaGuardia Airport. The College offers rigorous associate, bachelor’s and master’s degrees and professional, technical, and certification programs in engineering, technology, management and aviation. Vaughn’s has a 14:1 student-faculty ratio and 98 percent of graduates are employed or continuing their education within one year. Graduates work in 20 countries and all 50 states.

1200 G St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-293-7277 nationaloffice@passmember.net www.passnational.org

Booth # 720

7515 Colshire Dr. McLean, VA 22102-7539 Phone: 703-983-6000 media@mitre.org www.mitre.org

86–01 23rd Ave. Flushing, NY 11369 Toll-free: 866-6VAUGHN admitme@vaughn.edu www.vaughn.edu

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

17

Paul Rinaldi Named Winner of 2016 Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award NATCA President to Receive ATCA’s Highest Honor this October

T Brian A Jackson / Shutterstock.com

he Air Traffic Control Association will present one of aviation’s premier awards – the Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award – to Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). ATCA and the aviation industry will honor Rinaldi on October 19, 2016, at the Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Banquet – a capstone to the 61st ATCA Annual. As president of NATCA, the federal labor union representing aviation safety professionals at the FAA, DoD, and within contract towers, Rinaldi has displayed an exemplary career-long commitment to the betterment of the NAS. In accepting the Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award, Rinaldi joins aviation greats, including the Hon. Jane Garvey and the Hon. Najeeb Halaby, Capt. Elrey B. Jeppesen, former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, pilot A. Scott Crossfield, and current ATCA Chairman Neil Planzer.

18

About the Winner Paul Rinaldi became the sixth president of NATCA when he began his first term in October 2009. He is now in his third term, and is the first leader in NATCA’s history to serve three terms as president.

Since taking office in 2009, Rinaldi and Executive Vice President Patricia Gilbert have worked as a team, along with the NATCA National Executive Board, elevating NATCA to new levels of success. NATCA’s team is committed and focused on improving the working relationship between the Union, the FAA and Department of Transportation. Efforts like the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), fatigue mitigation, Professional Standards, and Partnership For Safety are a result of the team’s focus Fall 2016

on progress and safety. These processes have led to collaborative decisions on important issues involving airspace, procedures, technology, staffing, and training while cementing NATCA’s leadership role and voice in the aviation industry.

Rinaldi has been a legislative force for NATCA, leading the Union to many successes, such as ensuring collective bargaining for NATCA members and leading the charge to end the sequesterrelated furloughs of 2013. He saw his union through many tumultuous times including two federal government shutdowns (one full and one partial) and repeated attacks on federal employees that threatened NATCA members’ professions and the system they safeguard.

Rinaldi has testified before the House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation on a host of issues, including FAA reauthorization and reform, facility consolidations and realignments, NextGen modernization, and collaboration to ensure air safety. He’s also testified about air traffic control safety oversight.

Prior to being elected NATCA president, Rinaldi served three years as NATCA’s executive vice president, after 16 years as an air traffic controller at Washington-Dulles Tower (IAD). Rinaldi currently holds positions on the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC), the FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC), and at the AFL-CIO 2013 Convention he was elected as a vice president on the labor federation’s Executive Council. Rinaldi also serves on the RTCA Policy Board, the Board of Advisors for the Eno Center for Transportation, and as a union representative on the FAA National Labor-Management Forum, a group whose formation was mandated

GLEN A. GILBERT MEMORIAL AWARD

Since taking office in 2009, Rinaldi and Executive Vice President Patricia Gilbert have worked as a team, along with the NATCA National Executive Board, elevating NATCA to new levels of success.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

19

GLEN A. GILBERT MEMORIAL AWARD by a presidential executive order to improve labor relations within the federal government.

On May 26, 2016, Rinaldi received the prestigious 2016 Humanitarian Award from the Sons of Italy Foundation (SIF) at its National Education & Leadership Awards (NELA) Gala in Washington, D.C. The SIF is the philanthropic arm of the Order Sons of Italy, the nation’s largest and oldest organization for people of Italian heritage.

Rinaldi is a native of Island Park, N.Y. He resides in Manassas, Va., with his wife, Debra. They have two sons, Anthony and Nicholas, and a daughter, Olivia.

Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)

AI R

T R AFFI C

About the Glen A. Gilbert Award The Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award is dedicated to the memory of one of the recognized Fathers of Air Traffic Control and honors the lifelong achievements of an individual in the field of aviation.

Glen Gilbert was a visionary who, along with Earl Ward, founded the US air traffic system and dedicated his professional career to its improvement.

The award trophy, donated by ATCA corporate member Raytheon Company, is inscribed with recipient names and is on permanent display in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. The Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award is ATCA’s most prestigious honor. The award is presented during a banquet held at the close of the ATCA Annual Conference and Exposition.

C ON T R O L L ER

PR O GR A M

in

C O L O R A D O

The Aims Community College Air Traffic Control Program holds the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AT-CTI designation. We prepare students for air traffic control careers and our graduates have a 95% success rate at the FAA training academy in Oklahoma City.

With small class sizes, one-onone simulator instruction and experienced faculty, Aims is the perfect place to train for your career as an Air Traffic Controller!

GREELEY, CO L OR A D O

|

C A L L ( 9 7 0 ) 3 39 - 6 4 7 2 O R EMA I L AV I AT I O N @ A I MS . ED U

Aims Community College is an EEO Employer and an equal opportunity educational institution.

20

Fall 2016

|

W W W. A I MS .E DU

ENGAGE, EVOLVE, EXCEL.

Patti Wilson, PWC President

Our Mission

Professional Women Controllers, Inc. (PWC) is a resource that provides support, training, encouragement, and camaraderie for all air traffic professionals. PWC advocates balancing work and family life, recruiting and retaining excellent employees, developing people, enjoying work, and maintaining a positive sense of community.

www.pwcinc.org

Out With the Old

22

Fall 2016

AGING ATC INFRASTRUCTURE

Addressing the Challenges and Costs of the Aging U.S. Air Traffic Control Infrastructure

By Chris Giacoponello, Thales, and John Kefaliotis, IOU Consulting The shift in infrastructure investment over the last 10 to 15 years has created a problem for the aviation industry. As a case study, we will explore the current state of legacy navigation and surveillance systems, and why it is essential to ensure the sustainment of these capabilities in a cost effective manner for at least the next 30 years.

Finally, we will outline several concepts that will allow the aviation industry to simultaneously deliver enabling NextGen programs and modernize legacy systems, while still working within the context of current budgetary constraints.

US Infrastructure Investment: Trends & Impacts Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a report card on America’s infrastructure, assigning a letter grade based on the physical condition and needed investments for improvement. In 2013, America’s infrastructure received a D+, with

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Lisa S. / Shutterstock.com

O

ur nation’s transportation infrastructure is a major foundation of our economy and affects the daily lives of nearly every citizen. Maintaining a healthy transportation system that evolves to meet our expanding needs is essential in today’s highly competitive, global economy. However, aging infrastructure, and its associated impact on our economy in terms of lost productivity, has become a systemic issue facing the entire transportation sector. In the aviation industry, the problem is particularly acute. Budgetary issues over the last 15 years have meant investment has been unstable and primarily focused on NextGen. As such, many legacy ATC systems in the field are now well beyond their planned life expectancy. Though some are scheduled to be removed, most of these systems will still be required in a NextGen world as backup and/or complementary capabilities, to ensure safety, robustness, and resiliency.

23

AGING ATC INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 1. US Transportation infrastructure spending: 1956-2014.

Figure 2. US Transportation infrastructure spending, by category: 19562014. FAA capital investment and modernization priorities in aviation.

over $3.6 trillion estimated investment required by 2020.1 The aviation industry fared slightly worse, receiving a D. Not surprisingly, the FAA estimates that the national cost of airport congestion and delays (in economic impact) was almost $22 billion in 2012. If current federal funding levels are maintained, the FAA anticipates that the cost of congestion and delays to the economy will rise to $63 billion by 2040 – an almost 300 percent increase.

It is tempting to attribute this problem purely to a lack of funding. With a soaring budget deficit and mounting pressure to reduce spending, it certainly seems like we are investing less in infrastructure. In that context, it may come as a surprise to learn that public spending on infrastructure over the last 60 years has actually remained fairly constant as a percentage of GDP (Figure 1). However, a closer look at this issue shows there has been a significant shift in how these funds have been spent. Over the last 10 years, there has been a 23 percent decrease in the amount of funds spent on capital improvements, while the amount spent maintaining the existing infrastructure has increased by six percent (Figure 2).

Within the aviation industry, a review of the spending profile of the FAA over the last 15 years shows a very similar story (Figure 3). This figure highlights enacted FAA F&E (capital) and operations budgets from 2002 to 2016. 2 Consistent with the national trend, capital expenditures have remained flat while the operations budget has increased – in inflation adjusted terms, the capital budget has actually decreased by 27 percent while the operations budget has grown by eight percent. During this period, the FAA has undertaken a major capital investment program focused on modernizing the ATC system under NextGen. This initiative seeks major improvements in the safety, capacity, and efficiency of the ATC system with a vision

toward enabling trajectory-based operations in the NAS. As Figure 3 shows, the NextGen buildout has been conducted under a relatively flat capital equipment budget. While the pace of progress has been criticized, the challenges associated with sequestration and 23 short-term reauthorization extensions have had a real and harmful impact on FAA’s ability to execute its mission.

Unfortunately, the legacy NAS infrastructure has become a casualty of both the budget constraints and NextGen investment priorities.

Evidence of this is provided by looking at the age of the legacy ground-based navigational aid (Navaid) and surveillance infrastructure in the NAS (Tables 1 and 2), all of which are well beyond their planned service life (typically 20 years).

While it is comforting to know that this legacy infrastructure has been reliably performing its mission for the last 30-plus years, two questions quickly come to mind: 1. Under a NextGen ATC system, is this infrastructure still required?

2. If yes, is the age of the equipment a problem?

Table 1. En route ground-based navaids, quantities, and service life

Table 2. NAS surveillance system types, quantities, and age

En Route Ground Navaid

Quantity

% in Service > 20 years

% in Service > 30+ years

VOR

967

100%

100%

DME

393

100%

94%

TACAN

545

100%

94%

The answer to the first question is, emphatically, yes. Two issues mandate the continuation of this system in the NAS, albeit at reduced quantity. The first of these is the need for universal equipage of the aircraft fleet with the required avionics equipment fully supportive of a satellite-based NAS. The second is for NAS resiliency in the event of degradation of the satellite-based navigation signals required for navigation and for the proper operation of the NextGen aircraft surveillance system: ADS-B. In recognition of these needs, the FAA has planned for the continuation of essential ground-based navigation and surveillance

Primary Surveillance Systems

Secondary Surveillance Systems

Type

Quantity*

Vintage**

Type

Quantity*

Vintage**

ASR-8

38

1975

ATC BI-5

47

1980

ASR-9

122

1989

Mode-S

115

1992

ASR-11

65

1998

MSSR

65

1998

* Quantity denotes approximate number of systems still in operation today ** Vintage denotes approximate year of initial field deployment

24

Fall 2016

AGING ATC INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 3. FAA spending

Figure 4. Legacy radar surveillance system

infrastructure. In the case of VHF Omni-directional Radio Ranges (VORs), for example, the FAA, under a program known as the VOR Minimum Operating Network, will, between now and 2025, reduce the number of VOR facilities from the current 967 to around 650, with no full discontinuance of the VOR network. The surveillance roadmap calls for the eventual reduction of ground-based primary and secondary radar systems, but includes system maintenance to ensure NAS continuity in the event of the failure of satellite-based surveillance. Additionally, the explosive growth in small UAS, nearly all of which are non-cooperative, necessitates an ongoing need for some level of primary radar surveillance.

The second question posed was whether the age of the equipment is a problem. Again, the answer is yes, and the reason is cost – specifically, operational cost. Old equipment costs the taxpayers in three distinct ways. The first of these is the need to respond to failures at a greater rate than is required for new equipment. This is best illustrated through a consideration of the specified Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), a measure of how often equipment fails. For example, a 1980s vintage VOR has a MTBF of 4,000 hours; a modern VOR has a MTBF in excess of 15,000 hours. This alone would imply a 75 percent reduction in unscheduled maintenance visits over a 20-year lifespan.

This does not tell the whole story, however. Modern, dual redundant systems with automatic failover capability enable rapid restoration of service, all but eliminating downtimes and the need for rapid emergency dispatching of field service personnel. Aging equipment in use beyond its life cycle typically begins to incur failure rates above that specified by its MTBF. This problem is compounded by the difficulty in maintaining an inventory of replacement parts, some that can no longer be procured, which at times is solved through costly reengineering efforts and even more expensive service life extension programs.

The second way in which legacy equipment presents costs to the taxpayer is through its limitation on the ability for maintenance processes to be realigned for cost efficiency. Since the deployment of legacy NAS navigation and surveillance equipment, major advances have been made in the technology to remotely manage large-scale field equipment deployments. This includes the complimentary development of management databases in equipment, the IP networks, and communications protocols to query and to set parameters within them, and the centralized software applications that enable interaction with these elements. These innovations have enabled a fundamental change

in the field support paradigm under which virtually all maintenance, monitoring, and system control is now done from a central site.

The third way in which legacy equipment signifies higher cost is in power consumption. Multiple generations of transistor form factor reduction (due to Moore’s Law) have come and gone, allowing for massive reductions in the number of components (via large scale integration). Systems that required 10 to 15 cabinets of electronic equipment to field in 1990 will likely require three to five cabinets

es Servic n o i t a i k Av sh Bac from to

!

Pu Down Touch

• Air Traffic Services • Ramp Tower Services • ATC Communications / NAVAIDS / Weather Equipment • Air Traffic Research and Analysis • Airport Security Analysis and Training

Learn More at...

www.rvainc.com

703 366 3138 ISO Certified QMS: Certificate #FS 516174

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

25

AGING ATC INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 5. Modern radar surveillance system: Thales STAR-NG and RSM970

A service-based contract approach allows for the procurement of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions. Ground-based ATC navigation products such as VORs, distance measuring equipment (DME), and tactical air navigations (TACANs) designed to meet ICAO technical and performance standards are available from multiple, highly qualified OEM suppliers, each of whom can boast of hundreds of global deployments. The same is true for ATC surveillance products. A systems integrator or a prime contractor that routinely deals with multiple air navigation service providers (ANSPs) worldwide can suitably identify the most cost effective solutions that meet system requirements, and deliver the full capability as a service, at a fraction of the cost of a traditional government-led procurement.

SLAs are typically constructed in a manner to incentivize the service provider to continuously meet or exceed the required system performance level. The FAA maintains its critical oversight role, establishing the assessment criteria and monitoring the service provider based on the SLA, thereby ensuring the overall safety and resiliency of the navigation and/or surveillance capability to all NAS users.

Conclusion Aging legacy infrastructure is a systemic problem in the broader transportation industry, but particularly in aviation. While the FAA is investing in NextGen, our legacy NAS infrastructure is consuming a larger portion of a limited budget, due to the fact that this equipment is out of date and well past its intended service life. Despite efforts to rationalize these systems to reduce cost, the FAA recognizes that a large portion of these capabilities will be required for the foreseeable future. Implementing a tech refresh program will deliver significant benefits in terms of reduced operational cost and improved reliability and resiliency. In order to address the short-term budgetary challenges, a service-based or leased service arrangement could be considered.

Partnering with private industry to deliver these legacy capabilities as a service will deliver significant short-term benefits, and will result in a lower, long-term operational cost profile for the FAA. The result will enable future investments in new, highly efficient, safety-oriented aviAlternative Financing: Service-Based Contracting and ation platforms and systems. More importantly, lower operational cost Leased Service Arrangements profiles and higher efficiencies result in savings for the government Based on the above, it seems clear that a technology refresh is a logical and US taxpayers. solution to reduce costs and provide for a more reliable NAS. So, why has this approach not been adopted? Budget constraints are largely References to blame. The transition from the old to the new implies a period of [1.] http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ double cost for the infrastructure. This double cost is associated with [2.] US DOT Budget Summaries -https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/ having to maintain legacy equipment during the period over which replacement systems are procured and installed. The solution to this Chris Giacoponello brings over 20 years of experience to his business develproblem is twofold: minimize the time over which new systems are opment role at Thales ATM U.S. He began his career at Lockheed Martin, brought online and use alternative financing to allow the cost profile of where he held a variety of systems engineering roles, including Electrical the equipment compliment to stay within, or below, its current profile. Systems Manager for NASA’s Landsat 7 spacecraft. Prior to joining Creative contracting approaches can deliver both of these objec- Systems, he held a number of senior level product management and business tives. Service-based contracting for a navigation or surveillance “signal development roles in the wireless telecom and IT industries. Giacoponello in space” can dramatically reduce the time and expense of traditional holds a BSEE degree from Bucknell University and an MSEE degree from procurement practices associated with the FAA taking on organic Villanova University. ownership of assets. This alternative procurement approach allows the specification of the characteristics of the signal in space and the con- John Kefaliotis has more than 40 years of ATM experience. He was an FAA tracting of its reliability through a Service Level Agreement (SLA), employee from 1970 to 1983, serving as an ATC specialist and manager in rather than the specification of detailed equipment requirements, both the en route and terminal options. Upon leaving the FAA in 1983, and its attendant time consuming test regime. Standard industry best Kefaliotis began a 33-year career of progressively responsible positions in practices for items such as logistics support, maintenance, and training ATM system engineering, business development, and program manageare provided by the contractor. There is no further need to reformulate ment. He holds a mathematics degree from California State University these methodologies to government standards, and the added costs Hayward, a transportation engineering degree from U.C. Berkeley, and a associated with transferring these defined practices to government. computer science degree from George Washington University. today. An illustrative example is shown in Figures 4 and 5, comparing side-by-side the processing equipment of a legacy ATC surveillance system, and modern combined primary and secondary ATC surveillance radar.

The knock-on effects are significant. Modern electronics components are smaller and require fewer cabinets; fewer cabinets draw less power; less power consumption creates less heat; and less heat reduces air conditioning requirements, further reducing facility power requirements and saving money. It is worth noting that a significant reduction in power consumption implies a considerable savings in CO2 emissions, particularly over a 20-year period. There has been a lot of focus on the need for aircraft to reduce their carbon footprint – the aviation community would be remiss to not explore similar opportunities on the ground.

26

Fall 2016

COLLABORATION

MAKES US FLY As a trusted partner of the FAA for more than 25 years, Engility has applied our engineering expertise and disciplined program management to help the FAA develop, acquire, support and field multiple generations of programs, systems and portfolios of systems.

Our in-depth domain knowledge across the agency affords us a unique perspective of the FAA’s programs and initiatives — from mission analysis to in-service management — and we effectively leverage this knowledge to achieve the agency’s goals.

Taking flight together, we can soar to new levels of success.

engilitycorp.com

REGISTER NOW! Be a Part of Tomorrow’s Aviation Solutions Be at the 61st ATCA Annual October 16-19, 2016 Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center National Harbor, Maryland, USA

Join more than 3,000 industry leaders from over 40 countries for 3 days of presentations, discussion, demonstrations, and networking opportunities at the largest air traďŹƒc control conference and exposition in the Americas.

REGISTER! Take advantage of Early Bird Savings. WWW.ATCA.ORG/61ANNUAL

AIRSPACE

Whose Airspace Is It, Anyway?

By Frank L. Frisbie, Double F Consulting, LLC

T

he answer to this question is not easily answered. Common law states that a landowner “owns� the airspace above their land.1 There is a public right of way for transit only, with the landowner permitted to exercise exclusive rights to any and all airspace over their property to the extent that dominion is required for the quiet enjoyment of his or her property. In 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue, rejecting the common law doctrine by saying that it had no place in the modern world. Since then, this subject has been a lively area of legal discussion. This article does not do justice to the many court cases dealing with the subject over the years, including the very relevant Congressional Research Service Paper cited here, 2 but does, I trust, set the stage for the coming debate over how Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) will reignite public interest in air rights and airborne transit over private property.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

29

AIRSPACE

Currently, there is lively discussion over whether – and how – to safely employ UAVs for commercial and public service purposes in both urban and rural settings.

Looking back, even before the Wright Brothers began the era of powered f light, property owners were troubled by overf lights of balloons and even kites. In the intervening years, we gradually became accustomed to airplanes overhead, although each stage in their evolution (e.g. prop to jet or subsonic to supersonic) created ripples in the truce between the earth-bound and the aircraft above. Not that everyone would ever be satisfied with the noise or pollution, especially when it was too close or too frequent for their personal preference. Thus, even at a time when f lying and aircraft have become almost ubiquitous, a new runway or approach/ departure route can create vigorous, albeit local, opposition. Now we find ourselves seemingly inundated with the potential of low f lying drones that challenge us to find accommodation so as to restore a measure of domestic tranquility.

Currently, there is lively discussion over whether – and how – to safely employ UAVs for commercial and public service purposes in both urban and rural settings. The general characterization of these services has them operating autonomously, beyond line of sight (BLOS) at or below 400 feet above ground, over or near the population for surveying, photographing, delivering packages, or

30

Fall 2016

medicine. In considering public policy we are now principally confronted with the physical proximity of the vehicle (and payload) and, to a lesser extent, by the noise generated as UAVs traverse over rooftops, treetops, etc.

This new model has not yet had the benefit of the case law that has been well established for manned aircraft. Re-examination of the question “whose airspace is it anyway?” from the ground up is needed. Closely coupled with that issue is a reexamination of FAA authority and ability to regulate the use of the airspace from the ground up, irrespective of the underlying real property ownership.

The courts have recognized that Congress has placed into the public domain, as a public highway, the navigable airspace above the minimum safe altitude of f light: 500 or 1,000 feet. The answer to who owns the airspace is that we all do, at least with respect to the navigable airspace. The problem arises in redefining navigable airspace, because most small UAS f lights are likely to occur below the current navigable airspace. And while not always addressing who owns the airspace up to 500 feet, courts have allowed Continued on page 32

THINK. INNOVATE. DELIVER.

Solutions and Innovations

Aviation Services

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

Pragmatic Agility® Agile Software Engineering Agile Business Intelligence & Analytics Audiovisual & Networking Technologies Cybersecurity Systems Engineering Independent Verification & Validation IT Service Management Program Management Transportation Solutions

Software Development GNSS Performance Monitoring Program Management | Acquisition Systems Engineering | Integration Safety Engineering | Assessments Aviation Standards & Criteria NextGen Implementation

CMMI® Level 5 ISO 9001 ISO/IEC 20000-1 ISO/IEC 27001

www.pragmatics.com Submit your resume at www.pragmatics.com/careers.

Pragmatics is an Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D/V.

AIRSPACE

Gwoeii / Shutterstock.com

The FAA can only regulate transit in the airspace – they don’t own it.

32

landowners to collect damages for f lights that interfered with the use and enjoyment of their land, especially if those f lights occurred below the navigable airspace.

The FAA can only regulate transit in the airspace – they don’t own it. Airspace is not a publicly-owned asset. With the advent of helicopters and things that hover and can land vertically, navigable airspace can extend all the way to the ground. The very term navigable airspace is a f lexible concept itself, and varies with the capabilities of the aircraft (e.g. under 400 feet is not navigable airspace for a jetliner, but is – or should be – for a small UAS). Additionally, FAA can only regulate airspace for safety. To the extent airspace is or needs to be regulated for economic or air commerce reasons and to coordinate commercial operators in competition for the same airspace, the Department of Transportation (DOT) does the regulating. Even the DOT may not have the authority to regulate for economic reasons between general versus commercial aviation.

Fall 2016

This situation is made all the more problematic by the fact that the FAA cannot compel a landowner to not build a structure, be it a TV tower or a skyscraper office building. Nor can the FAA compel the landowner to take down such structures, however they may interfere or endanger aircraft operations. The FAA can and does attempt to deal with proposed construction using Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 77 by holding an airspace hearing wherein the property owner is advised of the potential danger the structure poses to f light operations and of the FAA’s request that the owner withdraw or modify plans so as to mitigate the risk. The only leverage the FAA would seem to have is to declare the structure a “hazard to air navigation,” with the anticipated result that the owner would adjust or withdraw when advised of the liability, and/or the increased cost of insurance against claims resulting from a possible future incident. Nevertheless, there is precedent Continued on page 34

Vision & Innovation That Works to Improve Safety and Efficiency in the NAS

At DIGITALiBiz (iBiz), we focus on providing innovative solutions to support advanced transportation operations for the federal government, especially the FAA. We support critical NextGen initiatives such as the En Route and Oceanic Integration and Interoperability Facility (IIF), Established on RNP (EoR), and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to ensure new technology is implemented safely into the National Airspace System (NAS).

As a trusted partner providing system engineering and integration, air traffic management, research and analysis, enterprise IT solutions, and program management for NextGen, Flight Standards, ATO, and the Volpe Center — iBiz remains committed to our guiding philosophy of Vision & Innovation That Works.

www.digitalibiz.com

AIRSPACE where the “offending” structure was built in the face of the FAA’s position without further consequences. This historical perspective is likely to loom even larger as we consider obstacles to low f lying UAVs. For example, should Part 77 be amended to cover these intended paths and uses?

Another term familiarly used in traditional aviation is the minimum obstruction clearance altitude (MOCA). If we are establishing new routes or are going to sanction UAVs to f ly freely “off route,” established chosen paths and altitude clear of obstructions become necessary, particularly as there are no on-board pilots to see and avoid these fixed objects. Is this another role for avionics, governance, or regulation? CFR Part 91 clearly does not currently anticipate or accommodate low f lying UAVs. Furthermore, as is the case for most issues related to UAVs, the serious analyst sooner or later has to characterize the UAV fleet.3 Too often this issue is left untreated, with the implicit conclusion that all unmanned aircraft operating in the body of airspace under examination are alike. If one proceeds along that simplified line of logic the solution to problems of traffic management or control are greatly facilitated. The problem, of course, is that in the real world there is already great diversity between and among UAVs. Leaving the issue untreated is to produce a flawed outcome. There are two responsible approaches: a) Define those specific UAS/UAV that are eligible to operate in the designated airspace. b) Design the operational control over the airspace to cater for any and all. The key is to resolve the issue of the user fleet before attempting to further study the problem.

Taking the FAA jurisdiction question first, the answer seems to be that FAA has jurisdiction and can exercise authority

TETRA TECH

Complex World, Clear Solutions Aerospace Management Information Technology Infrastructure Safety Environment Training

Contact Information: Dieter.Guenter@tetratech.com

34

Fall 2016

should they elect to do so. This opinion is based on the ample precedent whereby FAA regulates use of the navigable airspace, at and around airports (from the ground up), and their frequently employed restricted areas or no-f ly zones. Less clear is the FAA intention to use their authority to regulate low f lying drones and to really integrate them into the NAS. As has been the case since the UAV tidal wave swept over us all, we seem to be repeatedly confronted with new issues – or old issues with new twists. Without minimizing the challenges facing the regulators, the FAA and NASA should resist the current pressure from commercial interests and avoid creating solutions that will not benefit all of the stakeholders in the long term. Instead, FAA should embark on an architecture effort that would expose these issues, and commit to a full-out effort to study and propose solutions to all of them so UAS may achieve full integration into the NAS. References

[1.] From the ancient maxim, “ejus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad infernos,” in determining the landowner’s rights to the airspace above his property. Freely translated the maxim reads, “He who possesses the land possesses also all that which is above and below.”

[2.] United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1996) [3.] See, inter alia, J. Joseph Cummings, Ownership and Control of Airspace, 37 Marquette Law. Review. 176 (1953).

[4.] Integration of Drones into Domestic Airspace – Selected Legal Issues by Dolan & Thompson, April 4, 2013, CRS Report for Congress [5.] Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations focuses on objects affecting navigable airspace and is most often invoked in connection with construction on or near airports, although it would seem to apply to any object higher than 499 ft above ground level.

[6.] Aerospace America’s “Unmanned Aircraft Roundup – 2015” categorized over 200 capable of staying aloft for 30 minutes.

Tetra Tech provides outstanding support to the FAA, and other USG and commercial clients with a professional staff of over 16,000 employees in 400 offices around the world. We are a leading provider of consulting and engineering services, specializing in aerospace, Information Technology, environmental support, aviation safety and technical training. As the FAA’s leading provider of Satellite Navigation and Performance Based Navigation (PBN) support, we have demonstrated great success providing a proactive, systematic approach to any challenge.

Tetra Tech also provides mission critical information technology support services, including business transformation, identity management, information security, enterprise architecture, and enterprise software development. In a complex world with competing demands for increasingly limited resources, Tetra Tech offers clear solutions focused to meet customer needs.

BIG DATA

Big Data’s Best Laid Plans

By Kristen Knott, ATCA Writer and Editor

Y

ou’re closing in on the seventh hour of what will be more than eight spent sitting on San Francisco International Airport’s tarmac, a prisoner of your own airplane seat. At this point, you’re so bored that you’re reading the captions on the safety card. You’re flying to Dallas but there’s a summer thunderstorm standing between you and your destination. So, now your flight, your business trip, and your life are delayed. Your misery is palpable. You are one unhappy airline customer. The effects of this one storm are felt across the NAS. Could this have been avoided? While a decade ago, the answer would have been a hard no, in recent years this situation has all but disappeared.1 Big data has been a huge part of that solution. It’s a commonality between airlines, airports, government, and industry. On any given day, data users primarily fall into two camps: data consumers and data producers, or those who want more data and those who have it to give. Of course, on another day, data consumers could find themselves being producers, and vice versa.

In the past, controllers and air traffic managers reacted to storms on an ad-hoc basis, implementing contingency plans over the phone.

Big data – through collaborative decision making (CDM) tools such as System Wide Information Management (SWIM), NextGen’s star – has turned everything upside down.

“An essential objective of NextGen is to provide predictability,” says Jim Crites, executive vice president of Dallas/Fort Worth Airport (DFW). “The aviation community wants to maintain a higher continuity of operations especially during periods of adverse weather.

While operators make use of SWIM data in order to satisfy their own

operational mission objectives, I believe that they would realize better outcomes through more extensive real-time collaboration.”

Data consumers like airlines and airports have realized that planning for weather events can be a 24/7 job of its own. Big data has radically changed how airlines and airports execute emergency response plans (ERPs). “Each storm has a different impact,” says Bernie Davis, manager of ATC and airfield operations for American Airlines. “One convective event at a certain time of day can lead to gridlock.”

According to Davis, American Airlines runs 80-90 percent load factors for weekend summers. With that volume, the chance of delays is high, even in perfect weather. All in all, it’s obviously easier to combat a disruption in service if you’re already expecting it. It keeps everyone happier, especially the flying public.

“Airlines have been utilizers of big data since before it was called big data,” says Tim Niznik, director of operations systems and decision support for American Airlines. “From an operations perspective, it’s not just an accumulation of big data. In order for us to leverage it, we need to take advantage of computational increases that allow us to process it. It’s not just combing through data, but using that data to make better business decisions.”

It was a similar Dallas storm that motivated Jim Crites to become a player in the big data game. He foresaw its uses as more than information but as a potential partnership between stakeholders.

“The customer doesn’t care who is at fault,” says Crites. “You can have 100 diversions in a typical big storm. We look at how can we improve and reduce impact of weather so it’s a minimal impact to everyone.”

Continued on page 38

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

35

IT’S TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH TO ATM

boeing.com/commercial

With the ever-growing amount of traffic in the sky, air traffic management (ATM) is a critical priority that requires continuous progress. Working together with industry and government organizations, Boeing is committed to an ATM transformation that improves safety, efficiency and the environment for all. At the core of Boeing’s ATM solutions are secure network-centric operations that will incorporate the capabilities of modern airplanes, as well as ensure global interoperability and real-time access to critical information. The time is now, and Boeing is ready to help.

BIG DATA

“The customer doesn’t care who is at fault. You can have 100 diversions in a typical big storm. We look at how can we improve and reduce impact of weather so it’s a minimal impact to everyone.”

– Jim Crites, Executive Vice President, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport “The only way we can make the next move is through big data,” he continues. “If there’s weather on the West Coast, big data will give me the opportunity to know better where problems are starting to manifest themselves. Big data is the future for all of our future success.”

Big data’s growth encourages stakeholders to stop operating in silos and to see the overarching benefits. At the urging of then Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, ACI-NA and DFW teamed up to establish an approach to airport irregular operations (IROPS) contingency planning. This effort eventually resulted in an Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) project that provided guidance to all airport operators as well as airlines. It formed a partnership between airlines, government, and hub and diversion airports that aims to provide a “unified level of customer care.” In a pre-big data world where stakeholders didn’t yet have today’s wealth of tools at their disposal, the ACRP represented a turning point in aviation and demonstrated the importance of communication and collaboration.

In DFW’s case, 22 airports, the FAA and airlines serving DFW aligned their IROPS contingency plans to better distribute diversion flights so as to not overwhelm any one airport, while providing the added benefit of a quicker recovery of flights from these airports once

AIR TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS

the weather has passed. All participants communicate throughout the weather event to minimize adverse impacts to passengers. In the event of an emergency – which, in the NAS, is not a matter of if, but when – this pre-planning of contingency plans is invaluable and helps maintain operational continuity. It makes implementing big data tools that much easier.

“Partners are realizing that their active collaboration is making a difference,” says Crites. “We have a shared opportunity and a shared risk – by having a unified level of care, we can all affect better outcomes. This is where we crossed over in terms of weather [planning].”

In many ways, big data is still in its infancy, especially for data consumers. A summer thunderstorm is just the tip of the iceberg for ERPs (and it’s one big iceberg).

“We’re constantly looking at how a weather event will unfold,” says Niznik. “Big data has given us new insight into that. We start to look at weather events by comparing them to similar events in the past. A lot also comes from advances in weather forecasting and being able to predict a weather event with more accuracy around a forecast.”

“We’re also responding to ATC’s and FAA’s reactions to that weather event – they’re creating the environment in which we operate,” he continues. “The more we can use data to anticipate and predict, the better we’re able to put into plans earlier.”

Both Niznik and Crites agree that data providers and consumers should be sharing weather data more.

“SWIM is a data broker, a mechanism by which we interact with FAA from a data perspective for surface data (Airport Surface Detection Equipment-Model X) and for en route and flight movements,” says Niznik. “Once you establish a connection to SWIM, there’s a whole cafeteria of data options that you can subscribe to.

SWIM is the pipe to connect to the data source.”

Crites would like to see a two-way information exchange for SWIM and all CDM tools. It would allow easier access to data and enable a more seamless role reversal between data consumers and producers.

“Data helps people understand their individual capabilities and have a systems view of the operation,” Crites says. “It allows people to understand their real operational capacity in a shared airspace.”

While Niznik notes that the aviation industry is on the cusp of bringing together these new sources of data, it’s clear there is a long way to go. With more big data tools at the disposal of airlines and airports than ever before, the crucial next step is solidifying lines of communication between data producers and consumers. One thing is certain: big data is the future of the aviation industry.

References

Service Disabled Veteran 8(a) Certified Woman Owned Small Business

YouTube / The JMASolutions

38

Fall 2016

600 Maryland Ave. SW, Suite 400 E Washington, D.C. 20024 Phone: 202-465-8205 www.jma-solutions.com

Twitter/JMA_Solutions

LinkedIn / jma-solutions

[1.] This situation no longer exists thanks to the 2010 Department of Transportation consumer rule that prohibits US airlines operating domestic flights from permitting an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning passengers, with exceptions allowed only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

SWIM

SWIM:

The Big Picture O

ne cannot talk about big data in the aviation world without mentioning its North Star, SWIM. At this point, one does not exist without the other. It’s been a game changer for Collaborative Decision Making (CDM). It’s widely known that SWIM is the data delivery backbone of NextGen, but what exactly does that mean?

For decades, agencies and companies connected to FAA’s network via serial data lines (like cables). SWIM now provides a central location with one line for users to connect to. Think of dial-up internet versus fiber optic. How could anyone go back to AOL at this point?

“SWIM is kind of like the cable company – we provide content to people,” says

Chris Pressler, SWIM’s lead engineer for the FAA. “SWIM is the evolution of data sharing.”

Much like fiber optic internet, SWIM is a relatively new concept. It has a long way to go. It requires users to invest in its infrastructure, both literally and metaphorically.

SWIM ensures that everyone – from the FAA’s ATC Command Center in Warrenton, Va., to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport – is looking at the same data (i.e. sharing a common language, like meteorological data accessible by everyone in a standardized weather format). “Data standardization is the best part of SWIM,” says Pressler. “All the data that airlines need is available on SWIM.” A key data producer of SWIM is the

Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS), which provides crucial flight data and flow information, the bread and butter of the airline industry. TFMS takes all of the data and translates it into SWIM, which also includes weather and aeronautical data. Users can then subscribe to the data. SWIM users – there are 150 now and counting – include airlines, airports, industry, and the FAA itself.

External users plug into SWIM in one of four gateway locations: Atlanta, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, and FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, N.J. SWIM’s internal user (the FAA itself) can connect at any one of its 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs).

SWIM provides NAS Enterprise Messaging System (NEMS) nodes at each of The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Stock image / Shutterstock.com

By Kristen Knott, ATCA Writer and Editor

39

SWIM the four gateway locations and 20 ARTCCs, as well as a node on the FAA administrative local area network (LAN). The node, or cluster of servers, is the vehicle with which each user connects to SWIM. It’s up to each user to decide how many nodes to use, or how much of an upfront investment to make in SWIM’s infrastructure. The user then has access to all of FAA’s data.

“All of our nodes are completely independent of each other,” says Pressler.

“During the [September 2014] Chicago fire, that SWIM node went down, so people connected to another – you just have to build it into your system.”

The whole process of subscribing to SWIM can take anywhere from one to nine weeks. “At the end of the day, the users need to build their own system – we just provide the data” says Pressler.

Now, anyone with an internet connection can request data from the FAA. And the best part? It’s free (seriously: visit www. data.gov for more information). Users just

have to pay for their infrastructure.

Why does it matter?

SWIM’s existence enables the FAA to govern big data. It forces users to follow their governance practices. If users are going to publish data, they need to use SWIM’s standard markup language.

Big data and SWIM help guarantee that Tony Tisdall – who is responsible for managing the national airspace (no pressure there) – and everyone at the FAA Command Center are looking at the same data. The facility is at the center of the big data web.

This is crucial year-round, but especially during the center’s busiest time of year: Summer thunderstorm season.

“People tend to call us the quarterback of the NAS,” says Tisdall. “Weather is the number one driver of delay in the system.

With the implementation of SWIM, the speed and accuracy of TFMS data processing will be greatly improved. This will allow us to be more predictive in our decision making

and more agile in our response to system constraints.”

“As we begin to get more and more data, we’ll be able to expand our focus from effective runway-to-runway to gate-to-gate to curb-to-curb, expanding traffic flow management focus and providing better customer service,” says Tisdall.

So, who is whose customer? For the FAA Command Center, the airlines, and the air traffic facilities are its primary customers.

They are the ones most closely collaborating in the Command Center’s teleconferences every two hours. In SWIM’s case, everyone is its customer, including the FAA and its Command Center. Surprisingly, Tisdall places the Command Center in the data consumer camp.

“As an end-user of SWIM data, I am less concerned about how the data distribution is structured, as long as it gets into the system in a reliable and consistent manner. This will enhance everyone’s situational awareness.”

kirill_makarov / Shutterstock.com

“We openly and happily share data with FAA. PASSUR was one of the first consumers of SWIM.”

40

– Keith Wichman, Senior Vice President of Airlines and Airports, PASSUR

Fall 2016

SWIM Ideally, over time it will become less and less clear who is a data producer and who is a data consumer.

This is where industry comes in …

While the FAA is the most popular and well known data producer, third party companies like PASSUR Aerospace, Inc., are also there to help. PASSUR is an aggregator and distributor of SWIM data, among other CDM tools. It’s another sign of SWIM’s reach.

“We build upon the FAA NAS data, making it an integral part of the smart, predictive analytics and decision support software that we’ve deployed and evolved over the past 15 years,” says Keith Wichman, senior vice president of airlines and airports at PASSUR. “Our role is to provide value to our airline and airport customers. The FAA SWIM data makes our already unique data even more meaningful and effective.”

PASSUR changed their business model and threw their hat in the big data ring 15 years ago. They now have more than 60 air-

port subscribers, all five of the largest North American airline carriers, and more than 200 fixed-based operators as subscribers to the PASSUR platform. They also help hundreds of international carriers via PASSUR’s IATA platform.

“We don’t just plot FAA data – it’s a small part of what we do. We aggregate, store, contextualize and apply predictive intelligence to the data,” says Wichman.

“So far, the FAA has delivered to industry an overflow of the SWIM data they need internally. It would benefit the aviation community if industry helped guide the SWIM content going forward.”

“We openly and happily make use of the shared data from the FAA,” says Wichman.

“PASSUR was one of the first consumers of SWIM. The FAA does a tremendous job with the resources they have applied. So well, in fact, that our airline and airport customers crave more and more data, along with the intelligence applied by companies like PASSUR Aerospace.”

What’s next for SWIM? While the first phase of SWIM was building the infrastructure and getting everyone connected – an ongoing process – Pressler is already thinking about SWIM’s second act.

“We need to mature SWIM,” says Pressler. “We now need to apply more governance and rules to qualify data pedigrees.”

Pressler would like to have more user interaction on the 16 terabytes of data that SWIM is sending out every day.

“I don’t think we get enough feedback on the external side to see what users are actually doing with the data. Now it’s time to apply data management principles.”

In the meantime, SWIM is meant to be a resource. It’s Pressler’s hope that people use it to build their own big data platform. It’s just the beginning.

Core Services

E N G I N E E R I N G Integrity in Innovation The Future of Aviation is Now Veracity Engineering is an industry leader in aviation engineering and management consulting, applying proven principles and innovative approaches to solve tomorrow’s problems today. For over 15 years, Veracity’s staff of experienced, passionate, and creative professionals has provided our government and commercial clients with innovative solutions to modernize air traffic systems and advance global initiatives in safety, efficiency, and capacity.

Systems Engineering

Software Engineering

ATC Communication

Operations Management

Information Security

Surface Surveillance

Systems Integration

Program Management

System Maintenance

Risk Management

RTIFIED CE

 

C

O M ANY P

veracity engineering | 425 3rd street sw | suite 600 | washington dc 20024 | 202.488.0975 | www.veracity-eng.com

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

41

FAA’S NEWEST ATC RADIOS ARE NOW DEPLOYED NAS Certified – Networkable CM 300/350 (V2) VHF/UHF Software Defined Radios What you get:

What you won’t get:

•

Radios that will meet the global ATM VoIP standard

•

Proprietary interfaces

•

IP and legacy connectivity

•

Lengthy certification cycle time

•

Long term supportability and reliability

•

Long procurement times

•

Proven Performance - Over 5,000 radios delivered

•

Fast turnaround times

gdmissionsystems.com/atc ©2016 General Dynamics. All rights reserved.

Visit us at ATCA Worldwide, Booth #529 to Learn More

Q&A

European Air Traffic Management: The German View of Current and Future Trends

Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, CEO of the German ANSP, DFS

What are your thoughts on harmonization in Europe? What role does DFS play?

There are different approaches on how to harmonize ATC in Europe. In 1999, the European Commission launched the Single European Sky (SES) initiative. One idea was to establish functional airspace blocks (FABs) organized according to traffic f lows instead of national borders. DFS is a member of one of these airspace blocks, called FABEC (Functional Airspace Block Europe Central), along with the air navigation service providers (ANSPs) of Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

Unfortunately, after years of investing

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Seamartini Graphics / Shutterstock.com

A Q&A with Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, CEO of DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung

43

Q&A

Air traffic controllers at work at Germany’s Upper Area Control Centre (uac) in Karlsruhe.

energy, time, and money into FABEC, no major airspace restructuring projects have actually taken place. At the ANSP level, we have done the best we could under the circumstances by implementing operational optimizations such as hundreds of direct routes for the benefit of our airline customers. However, to some extent, there has been a lack of willingness to pursue these complex projects.

Another approach has been to focus on technological harmonization and interoperable solutions. This is what the SES ATM Research (SESAR) Programme has been doing. SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) coordinates research and development, including testing and validating systems, while the SESAR Deployment Manager monitors the implementation of SESAR solutions into everyday operations across Europe.

European air traffic management (ATM) needs to focus on the issues of harmonization and interoperability. This is why DFS, together with other European ANSPs, established the A6 Alliance in 44

Fall 2016

2011. Today, the Alliance represents ANSPs from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Poland, Austria, Norway, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Slovakia. Together, the A6 controls more than 80 percent of air traffic in Europe. The goal of the A6 Alliance is to push forward the development of SESAR technologies and make sure they are actually deployed.

The European Commission has made about three billion euro available for research and deployment. It is important that this money is allocated wisely. The A6, which I am chairing this year, has the goal of making real progress in harmonization by taking a pragmatic approach.

One of the challenges in the deployment program is to create interconnectivity between the solutions. To tackle this key issue, it is necessary to provide common and very specific requirements based on jointly validated results from the SESAR Research and Development Programme that leave little room for interpretation and

long discussions.

DFS strongly supports this approach.

Interoperability and open standards are essential because the existing system is no longer tenable for the future. Further progress is needed, and more awareness of the situation may help to push through the changes.

Can you describe the working relationship between DFS, EUROCONTROL, and German airlines?

DFS has always had a close relationship with EUROCONTROL, not only because we have worked together at EUROCONTROL’s Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) in the Netherlands. For us as an ANSP, the most important function of EUROCONTROL is the Network Manager, which provides air traffic f low management. This is essential for operations, and we are working together with the entire aviation industry Continued on page 46

The Defining Event for the Commercial Applications of UAS Technology

See Your Business from a New Perspective November 15-16, 2016 San Jose Convention Center San Jose, CA

Reserve your complimentary pass at droneworldexpo.com VIP Code: ATCAVIP Association Partner:

End users qualify for complimentary full conference passes. Other industry professionals receive complimentary expo passes. Visit droneworldexpo.com/register.asp for details.

Q&A

“DFS has been able to reduce its running costs by introducing a strict efficiency program. By 2019, our aim is to reduce costs by 10 percent as compared with 2013.”

– Klaus-Dieter Scheurle, CEO, DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung to enhance its efficiency.

To keep the focus on the priorities of the industry and to avoid duplicating work being done by other institutions, the Network Manager and EUROCONTROL need to adjust their governance structures.

Future governance structures need to use the industry’s experience and expertise to best evaluate what is really needed in the European ATM network and to focus on pragmatic and cost-efficient solutions.

DFS has also always maintained a close working partnership with German airlines. When I took over the chair of DFS in January 2013, I established a working group together with the airlines under the motto, “Optimized Flying.” The goal was to start a close dialogue and better cooperation to increase the efficiency of air traffic. We conducted several successful joint projects such as the “Free Route Maastricht and Karlsruhe” (FRAMaK) and the “Optimized Descent Profiles” (ODP) project, which will be finalized in the fall of this year.

Generally, as concerns the current situation in Europe, ANSPs need to re-gain the trust of the airlines by securing and boosting their service quality in close dialogue with customers. But most importantly, they need to create sustainable, costeffective structures.

DFS has been able to reduce its running costs by introducing a strict efficiency program. By 2019, our aim is to reduce costs by 10 percent as compared with 2013.

Our workforce has been reduced by almost seven percent in 2015 by natural f luctuation alone. Our high levels of safety, service quality, punctuality, and environment have been maintained and in some cases improved. We were also able to lower the en route charges for airspace users by 8.4 percent and terminal services fees by 12.3 percent in 2016.

My vision is a consolidated air navigation services sector where free market conditions determine success within a reg46

Fall 2016

ulatory framework. Furthermore, I predict that ANSPs will cooperate with each other as well as offer and purchase services from each other as required. Only a few of the privatized enterprises will be able to provide the complete value chain of air navigation services. National borders will no longer determine the route network or service provision throughout Europe.

We have entered a close collaborative partnership with LVNL, the Dutch ANSP, to develop the next generation ATM system, a trajectory-based system called iCAS. It harmonizes with the European ATM collaboration iTEC (interoperability Through European Collaboration), which involves the ANSPs NATS and ENAIRE and the technology partner, Indra. The iCAS system will enable DFS and LVNL to achieve significant performance gains both in capacity and cost-effectiveness. Deploying this system jointly will significantly reduce the total system cost for both organizations.

Negotiations are underway with additional ANSPs hoping to join the iTEC Group. A healthy balance between competition and cooperation could be the basis for future collaboration among ANSPs in the context of the SES Initiative.

UAS have become an ATM issue worldwide. How should the growing number of UAS be integrated into airspaces?

UAS can be seen as a disruption to current airspace management. DFS is well aware of the positive potential in addition to the risks. My concern is about the impact of UAS on routine ATC. In terms of safety, we need to find a way to identify the UAS operators in sensitive airspaces. The more UAS there are, the higher the risk of a collision. We take this issue very seriously.

About 400,000 UAS have been sold for private and commercial use in Germany alone. By 2020, this number will have increased to about 1.1 million.

DFS is engaged in a number of activ-

ities to tackle this problem. In December 2015, DFS assisted Lufthansa Aerial Services (LAS) and the operator of Frankfurt Airport, Fraport, to conduct a two-hour trial. Test f lights were performed using a remote-controlled, transponder-equipped UAS near runway 07L/25R. LAS, DFS, and Fraport are set to conduct further tests in 2016 to gain insight into the development of market-capable solutions and areas of application for implementation in sensitive airport environments.

DFS has also established an internal working group that includes engineers, regulatory experts, legal advisers, and airspace design managers to work on the UAS issue.

This team is in dialogue with UAS manufacturers, operators, and industry stakeholders. In the fall of 2016, DFS will hold a technology conference with international participation at its headquarters to discuss operational and technological issues with various stakeholders.

UAS will play an important commercial role in the future, and our aim is to be an enabler and driver of this new technology.

We are working on establishing a way of integrating UAS into the airspace that will be of benefit to this technology and to meeting the needs of our customers. The operational rules, however, will need to be based on those now used for manned air traffic.

Klaus-Dieter Scheurle was the State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development before he took on the role of CEO of the German ANSP, DFS. As the head of the Minister’s Office and later as head of the department of the German Federal Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications responsible for regulation, he was in charge of the privatization of the state-owned enterprises Deutsche Post, Deutsche Telekom AG, and the Postbank AG in the 1990s. From 1998 on, he was the first president of the Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Posts, the present-day Federal Network Agency, and oversaw the introduction of more competition.

Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO

SAFETY Every step of the way Composed of inspectors, systems specialists, engineering services employees, support staff and more, members of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO (PASS) ensure the integrity, reliability and safety of the National Airspace System. Every day, on more than 102,000 flights, users and operators of the aviation system rely on the safety and reliability of over 71,000 pieces of equipment, the integrity of aircraft and systems, and the safe navigation over 24.6 million square miles of international airspace. That is why, every day, members of PASS are there to keep you safe.

PASS represents approximately 11,000 systems specialists, aviation safety inspectors and other aviation professionals at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) who ensure the safety, integrity and reliability of this country’s aviation system. The sole focus of these federal employees is to keep you safe. Every step of the way.

Facebook

Twitter

Youtube

Instagram

1200 G Street NW, Suite 750 | Washington, DC 20005 | Phone: 202.293.7277 | Fax: 202.293.7727 | Web: www.passnational.org

A Scalable, Cost-Effective Surveillance Solution for Small UAS Integration

By David Whitaker, Gryphon Sensors Introduction The proliferation of UAS, also known as drones, UAV, and Remotely Piloted Systems (RPS) promises to revolutionize many areas of modern life. Since becoming available to the public just a few years ago, drone sales have been increasing exponentially (by 224 percent over last year, according to the NPD Group). This technology will transform dozens of industries including law enforcement, disaster relief, entertainment, and package delivery, to name a few. Figure 1 provides a look at the expected trends for UAS applications in different industries.

While these systems offer a tremendous economic opportunity, they also present unique safety challenges. The FAA is charged with the safe integration of small UAS (sUAS) into the national airspace.

Currently, sUAS operations are subject to a number of rules, which primarily limit their use to daytime flying within visual line of sight (VLOS) – any commercial activities require a special exemption and pilot’s license. The FAA has responded to advancing technology and market demands by augmenting its rules to allow sUAS to operate in previously restricted areas. Most recently, the agency implemented Part 107 on August 16, 2016, which permits sUAS operation in most low-altitude uncontrolled airspace. This rule requires a level of demonstrated pilot competency and airframe integrity and allows certain restrictions to be waived on a case-by-case basis.

Continued on page 51

Figure 1. Projection of UAS market growth

48

Fall 2016

In order to advance widespread use of this new technology, the UAS community is challenged with developing an effective approach to UAS detection that will provide adequate safety without an overwhelming cost.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Dmitry Kalinovsky/Shutterstock.com

SMALL UAS

49

SMALL UAS Even with these rules in place, the FAA receives more than 100 reports each month from pilots and others who spot what appear to be sUAS flying close to an airport or a commercial airplane. In order to advance widespread use of this new technology, the UAS community is challenged with developing an effective approach to UAS detection that will provide adequate safety without an overwhelming cost. The significant potential economic and societal benefits of UAS may not be fully realized if both are not addressed. This article highlights some of the surveillance challenges embedded in the industry as a whole, discusses the keys to providing cost-effective surveillance, and summarizes some of the enabling technologies and activities currently underway.

The Surveillance Challenge Today, robust technology systems and procedures provide air surveillance for nearly all civil and military applications. However, the proliferation of sUAS requires drastically different systems to provide adequate surveillance and safety. The current rules require drone operators to be able to “see and avoid” other aircraft with additional restrictions and requirements for equipage in controlled airspace. This approach may be prudent for the current manned aircraft-driven surveillance paradigm, but will become a limiting factor to enabling commercial sUAS operation BVLOS. Several aspects of the UAS proliferation drive the new surveillance requirements: • Target size and materials: The physical size of a sUAS is drastically smaller than civilian aircraft, making them virtually undetectable to most existing primary air traffic surveillance systems. Additionally, drones are constructed of lightweight material, much of which is non-metallic, further reducing the radar cross section of an already small craft. The typical measured cross section of a sUAS is less than 0.05 square-meters while a typical single engine general aviation aircraft is greater than 10 square-meters.

• Equipage and payload limitations: Typical sUAS does not contain equipage that would allow it to be detected by current cooperative surveillance technology. There is technology that exists today, and more is being developed, that would provide compliant data links for sUAS. However, without forced equipage, the number of owners who would choose to equip is likely to be low given the cost and consumption of aircraft resources (i.e., weight and power).

• Quantity/Density: According to the FAA, approximately 400,000 UAS were registered in the first three months of registration. Some estimates put the number of sUAS sold in the last quarter of 2015 at over one million units, and project 2016 sales as high as two million. Sales of sUAS will only increase as more manufacturers enter the market and drive prices down.

The FAA projects there will be seven million sUAS in operation by 2020. As Figure 2 demonstrates, this dramatically exceeds the total number of manned aircraft in the US – approximately 211,000 in 2014 (97 percent of these are general aviation).

• Range and visibility: FAA rules allow operation of sUAS only within VLOS of the pilot or visual observer. The allowable range of operation is dependent on the observer’s visual acuity, visibility conditions, aircraft attitude, terrain, and a host of other factors.

A longer, clearly-defined surveillance range in all weather conditions will be required for many UAS Traffic Management (UTM) systems or security applications.

Figure 2. Manned vs. UAS growth over time

Figure 3. Sensor configuration for rural environment

• Lack of data link standardization and autonomous modes: For security purposes, it is often difficult to detect non-cooperative craft links due to the lack of standardization and potential transmission encryptions. They may even be non-existent in the case of a craft flying solely by GPS waypoints with no ground controller downlink.

Safety Requirements Vary by Scenario In Part 107, the FAA recognized that varying levels of acceptable safety are required in different environments. For example, allowing VLOS flights in uncontrolled airspace below 400 feet and not over people or property has, in effect, defined the acceptable level of safety as the sight of the pilot and airworthiness of the craft. By extension, this suggests that providing the same or better surveillance performance as a visual observer achieves a similar level of safety in the same environment. Additional surveillance capability will most certainly be required in environments where the consequences of inadequate surveillance are higher, such as near cities, airports, or critical infrastructure.

Several example environments and the corresponding surveillance systems can be envisioned by extrapolating this assertion. In rural, sparsely populated areas devoid of high-risk property, a simple surveillance capability that provides BVLOS awareness could expand the use of UAS for many applications (e.g., agriculture and utility inspection) with no additional risk with respect to the current rule.

Figure 3 illustrates such a scenario.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

51

SMALL UAS Table A: Sensor performance comparison

understood. Interpretation of the data is also possible provided the link is not encrypted.

Active sensor technology: Because all craft are not required to transmit signals (e.g. transponder squawks) in all airspace under all weather conditions, active surveillance such as primary radar and optical sensors are required to provide a complete and reliable air picture.

Radar solutions can utilize airborne or ground-based platforms or a combination of both. The main advantages of radar – namely its ability to survey large volumes of space quickly and effectively in all weather conditions – make it the clear choice for most volume coverage situations. Onboard airborne sensors currently exist to potentially allow for self-separation but are relatively large and consume a significant amount of lift capacity and power, making them unsuitable for sUAS operation at this time. Optical/infrared (IR) are limited in volume surveillance capability but have the ability to provide shorter range target tracking and classification, making it a great complementary sensor.

To achieve an acceptable level of safety in areas with meaningful risk (populated or critical infrastructure), additional surveillance capability will be required to deliver reliability similar to that of a controlled airspace. This foretells the likely surveillance requirements for craft in these environments. The expectation of full cooperation from all craft presents an unacceptably high risk, as unequipped craft can enter the airspace intentionally or unintentionally. This suggests that reliable active surveillance must be an element of any surveillance requirement for environments that have a meaningful risk of physical harm or property damage.

The optimal solution is a modular, scalable solution that can be tailored to all requirements. A system that can selectively provide passive and active surveillance and includes strong target classification will provide the most cost-effective solution to the overall surveillance solution.

Surveillance Solutions Table A summarizes some of the key performance capabilities of several active and passive sensors necessary for reliable sUAS surveillance. Important factors to provide a cost-effective surveillance solution for BVLOS sUAS operations include: 1. Scalability to provide proper capabilities for the application/ environment.

2. Sensor diversity to improve overall detection performance and leverage strength of each technology.

3. Cost-effectiveness of the solution relative to the risk and economic benefit.

Sensor Options Existing technology provides many potential solutions for both passive (craft transmitting detectable signals) and active surveillance requirements. The fundamental ability to rely on an emission from the craft greatly reduces the cost and complexity of the sensor. Active detection requires the sensor to generate the necessary energy to detect the craft.

Passive sensor technology: Signals from sUAS are dependent on the type of craft (fixed wing, rotary wing, hovercraft), the command and control (C2) interface/methodology, and the payload transmissions. The payload transmissions are dependent on the craft type and the choice of equipage. This analysis covers the typical stock sUAS payload such as a video link. Other payloads could have improved surveillance capability (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast transponders) or provide no transmission and no added surveillance capability. Surveillance of the C2 link is limited by the number of users on a link and by craft using range-dependent variable radio frequency (RF) transmission levels to conserve power. All powered craft emit acoustic noise at various levels but the detection of these sounds is severely limited in range and is susceptible to background noise, making it unsuitable for BVLOS applications.

Passive surveillance of the RF link has the potential to extract information directly from the link itself. All sUAS manufacturers utilize a small number of protocols, many conforming to industry standards, and differing data configurations within a few frequency bands. Detection is straightforward once the interface format is 52

Fall 2016

Ground Radar

Camera

Passive RF

Figure 4. Sensor configuration for critical infrastructure

The best surveillance solution begins with the mission and environment, which drive the safety level and cost. For example, an infrequent agriculture survey over a large rural area might best be solved by a series of passive sensors augmented by a mobile or transportable radar co-located with the pilot to provide cost-effective situational awareness. At the other end of the spectrum, an airport approach corridor requiring constant surveillance in a high population density area may require radar, spectrum sensing, and optical/IR sensors to detect and track cooperative and non-cooperative targets and verify the type and threat of certain targets.

Figure 4 illustrates an example surveillance solution for the detection of sUAS in the critical regions above and around airports.

These environments represent some of the most stressful from a surveillance standpoint, as they tend to have densely populated airspace and RF spectrum, as well as high consequences for incursions.

The illustrative solution utilizes a combination of primary radar and multiple passive RF sensors to augment the current airport sensors

SMALL UAS

The physical size of a small UAS is drastically smaller than civilian aircraft, making them virtually undetectable to most existing primary air traffic surveillance systems.

Figure 5. Sensor configuration for disaster relief

and data links to provide highly reliable detection of all airborne craft in the airport area. Camera systems are employed to confirm the type and position of all targets of interest prior to alerting the personnel responsible for mitigating potentially dangerous situations. The increased cost of this robust surveillance system is more than justified given the potential consequences of a commercial airplane incursion.

A second scenario is illustrated in Figure 5. This situation represents the aftermath of a widespread natural disaster where existing infrastructure such as power and communications may not be present for some period of time. Utilizing sUAS assets in this environment can provide several valuable functions including the ability to assess the damage over a wide area, provide temporary airborne communications links, deliver aid packages, and more. A multispectral mobile/ transportable system could be deployed and provide capability in the early hours of the recovery when aid is most needed.

The value provided by sUAS surveillance system data in a high consequence environment, such as an airport, can be used for more than monitoring aircraft separation. A system such as described above would provide valuable information on potential sUAS threats to security personnel responsible for maintaining the integrity of the airport and surrounding area. The sensor data can be easily shared between users; however, a separate information processing and display system for each user may be necessary to provide the unique information required and maintain independence.

innovate to meet new and evolving mission requirements. The user community and industry are continually learning how to best balance the benefits and risks of the applications with the cost of surveillance. Some examples of promising activity in the surveillance community are provided below.

• NASA UTM: úú Building on its legacy in ATM for commercial aircraft, NASA is leading the charge in researching prototype technologies for a UTM system that could develop airspace integration requirements to enable safe, efficient low-altitude operations. úú High level objectives include: úú Operational rules and guidelines úú UAS requirements úú CNS requirements úú Airspace management requirements úú Data services, interfaces, and architecture requirements úú With help from more than 200 industry collaborators, NASA is leading four Technical Capability Airspace Management Demonstrations (TCL 1-4) between 2015 and 2019. Each planned demonstration builds on prior capabilities to show BVLOS concept of operations and performance in increasing complex environments including rural, urban, high traffic, shared airspace, and contingency operations. úú Airspace integration requirements research results are expected to be transferred from NASA to the FAA in 2019 for further testing.

The Way Forward There are many ongoing activities with multiple industry and government partners examining the effectiveness and tradeoffs • FAA Pathfinder/Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA): inherent to the UAS environments. The FAA and other airspace úú Evaluates technology performance in a number of environments. management organizations are establishing the safety cases by úú Explores how UAS might be safely used for newsgathering in evaluating technology to provide the least restrictive rules possible populated areas. without sacrificing safety. Technology developers will continue to The Journal of Air Traffic Control

53

SMALL UAS

Dusan Petkovic/Shutterstock.com

Surveillance of sUAS is critical to realizing the full economic benefits of sUAS.

54

úú Explores how UAS flights outside the pilot's direct vision might 1. Build on the existing drone security technology to develop an affordable surveillance solution for all who wish to be protected allow greater UAS use for crop monitoring in precision agriculfrom this threat. Develop, deploy, and certify systems that ture operations. provide effective surveillance at the highest threat airports, as this úú Explores C2 challenges of using UAS to inspect rail system represents the largest recurring threat to safety. infrastructure. úú Evaluates procedures and technologies designed to identify unau- 2. Continue to advance the use of surveillance to allow BVLOS operation in rural environments with industry and government thorized UAS operations, in and around airports, addressing one partners making use of existing test facilities such as Project of the significant challenges to safe integration of UAS into the U-SAFE. This provides a low-risk environment for time-efficient nation’s airspace. research and technology development while quantifying the úú Explores how to keep the skies safe from “bad actors” who want tangible economic benefits of UTM. to use unmanned aircraft for malicious purposes.

3. In the long term, as technology developments allow, modify rules to allow sUAS integration by incrementally adding the necessary • Test facilities (e.g., Project UAS Secure Autonomous Flight surveillance requirements to maintain an adequate level of safety.

Environment or U-SAFE): Replacing outright bans with performance-based requirements úú Provides facilities to conduct controlled, repeatable testing of for operation in a given airspace will incentivize the industries drones, surveillance, and UTM systems and procedures to valthat will most benefit to invest in the necessary infrastructure. idate effectiveness and build safety cases in a safe environment.

The goal is to provide a situation where the added benefit of úú Provides capabilities (qualified pilots, instrumented aircraft, dedinvesting in surveillance significantly outweighs the cost of not icated airspace, sensor interconnect, data backbones, etc.) to gaining access to valuable airspace. enable vendors ready access to facilities providing quick testing of crafts, technologies, and procedures at minimal cost.

Surveillance of sUAS is critical to realizing the full economic benúú Performs objective testing of UAS to develop air worthiness stanefits of sUAS. Many industry and government partners are working to dards consistent with all levels of safety requirements. úú Provides the opportunity for aircraft developers and airspace reg- increase existing technologies’ applicability to the specific challenges of ulators to collaborate on mutually acceptable standards and test the sUAS. The aviation community should expect rapid expansion in the use of UAS surveillance in rural UTM and asset protection in the to these standards. úú Provides a focused policy center to explore and resolve the legal near future, followed by operations in more densely populated areas as surveillance costs decrease and surveillance deployment and governand social challenges raised by the proliferation of UAS. ment regulations increase.

Conclusion Functional sUAS surveillance technology exists today. The cost David Whitaker is the director of Program Management at Gryphon Sensors, a of this capability is coming down as resources and technology are developer of sensor systems that detect, track and identify small UAS. Leveraging applied to this rapidly growing business opportunity. Regulatory six decades of proven expertise in radar and electronic surveillance sensor and research organizations continue to support UAS integration by research and development from parent company SRC Inc., Gryphon Sensors taking prudent steps to address safety concerns and establish the provides innovative multi-spectrum solutions in the drone security and UAS necessary UTM system before authorizing widespread commercial integration markets. The company is involved in the FAA’s BSNF Pathfinder, use of sUAS. FAA Drone Detection Pathfinder, Project UAS Secure Autonomous Flight To achieve the maximum commercial gain from sUAS while Environment (U-SAFE), and NASA’s UAS UTM program. Dave has 35 maintaining safety on the ground and in the air, the following steps years of experience in radar and RF sensor engineering for military and civil provide one roadmap to success: applications. Contact him at dwhitaker@gryphonsensors.com.

Fall 2016

IN MEMORIAM

Remembering CAP’s Ambassador

Portrait photo by Capt. Allen Moore, Virginia Wing Background: Stanislav Fosenbauer/Shutterstock.com

Col. Mary Feik, pictured here in 2013, was considered one of the most influential women in aerospace by NASA

Aviation Legend Mary Feik Traveled the US in Support of Civil Air Patrol’s Cadet Program

By Dan Bailey, Mitzi Palmer, and Cadet Master Sgt. Sara Williams

M

ary Feik’s influence on aviation is undeniable. Two months before the famous aerospace engineer and test pilot’s death in June, members of the Maryland Wing’s newly chartered Col. Mary S. Feik Composite Squadron came to Feik’s Annapolis home for a visit.

Feik received 21 unannounced visitors in her living room that morning, surrounded by a lifetime of awards and honors from numerous aviation organizations. The smile on her face grew as the room filled with cadets from her home squadron. What she thought was simply a visit by her squadron then turned into a very special presentation.

Capt. Don Cook, the unit’s commander, explained the unexpected visit to Feik.

“As one of the most well-known and loved figures in Civil Air Patrol (CAP), the Annapolis Composite Squadron has always been proud to call you one of our own over the years,” he told her. “We would now like to honor you in a way that will ensure your legacy lives on at our squadron from this day forward.”

Cook then presented Feik with a framed copy of the new squadron charter certificate bearing her name and welcomed her to the Col. The Journal of Air Traffic Control

55

IN MEMORIAM

Ensuper/Shutterstock.com

Feik’s aviation career dated back to the early 1940s, and her contributions as an engineer, pilot, mechanic, instructor, aerospace educator, and in other capacities earned her numerous national and international distinctions.

56

Mary S. Feik Composite Squadron. The squadron’s cadet commander, Cadet Lt. Col. Emmy Hoyt, then presented her with a print of the new squadron patch design.

Feik clutched the items and said, “This is a once-in-a-lifetime honor. I certainly never expected anything like this when I joined the squadron all those years ago.”

After the ceremony, Feik spent an hour talking with the group.

The visit ended with her thanking the cadets for their service to their community and challenging them to keep CAP vital by recruiting and training their replacements. “Civil Air Patrol teaches young people about aerospace to take the place of us old people,” she joked.

Feik spent over 62 years in the aerospace industry, and then dedicated her retirement to educating youth in the field of aviation. She traveled throughout the US promoting aviation and aerospace to CAP cadets and other youth.

There was no better CAP ambassador than Mary Feik, who died on June 10, 2016. At age 92, she was the last living person for whom a CAP achievement award is named. Cadet achievements are named after pioneers in aviation such as Neil Armstrong, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, and Charles Goddard.

Fall 2016

Feik routinely provided young award recipients with a signed certificate supplied at her own expense. Her daughter, Robin Vest, estimated that her mother personally gave out more than 10,000 of these certificates. Since it was established in 2003, more than 27,000 cadets have earned her award – the Mary Feik Achievement.

Devoted to CAP Cadets Feik’s aviation career dated back to the early 1940s, and her contributions as an engineer, pilot, mechanic, instructor, aerospace educator, and other capacities earned her numerous national and international distinctions. But, she insisted her “greatest honor” was the CAP cadet milestone award named for her in 2002.

During an interview with the Civil Air Patrol Volunteer in 2013, Feik said the most important thing in her life was the CAP cadet program. She was a big hit with the cadets, who were often called “Mary’s little lambs.”

At the time (unlike most people one year shy of turning 90), Feik strived to stay knowledgeable about the latest aviation developments.

“My function in life now is to stay ahead of technology,” she said. “I have to find out how they do repairs with carbon fiber. I know

IN MEMORIAM

there will be cadets who ask me. As an old lady, I don’t have all the answers. I have to keep learning.”

Even though Feik had been retired since 1985, she maintained a busy schedule traveling across the country, speaking to crowds about her journey and experiences in aviation. In the three years before the Volunteer interview, Feik said her appearances had topped 70 – flying about 30,000 miles annually, always at her own expense, to mentor and inspire CAP cadets. That’s quite a schedule for anyone, especially a 90-year-old.

But modesty was important to Feik. At CAP gatherings, she never sat at the head table and didn’t even wear her uniform. Instead, she dressed in a business suit and wore her CAP jewelry on her lapel.

“I always sit with the cadets,” she said. “I feel comfortable with them, and I get a lot of information from them about how they feel about CAP, and that’s what I really want to know.”

Feik recalled one of her favorite ambassador trips to a conference in Texas.

“I was standing in line for dinner and a man came up to me, asked to take a picture with me, then hugged me and started to cry,” she remembered. “He said, ‘Ma’am, my cadets love you.’ Sadly, I don’t

know who it was, but these things happen to me often and it keeps me going.

“I feel like I’m investing in the future and this country,” she said about her CAP involvement. “And I think a lot of people in CAP feel that.”

Feik was named a CAP colonel and awarded the organization’s Distinguished Service Medal in 2004. In 2008, she was made a Life Member of CAP. A Lifetime of Aviation Outside CAP, Feik was even more renowned. Her honors include: úú Member of the Women in Aviation Pioneer Hall of Fame. úú Designation by NASA as one of the 47 most significant women in aerospace. ú ú Order of Merit from the World Aerospace Education Organization. úú Recognition with the Katharine Wright Trophy, an award administered by the National Aeronautic Association in partnership with The Ninety-Nines and presented annually to a woman who has contributed to the success of others or made The Journal of Air Traffic Control

57

IN MEMORIAM

Above: At aviation shows like this “Women Can Fly” event held several years ago at the Warrenton-Fauquier Airport in Virginia, Col. Mary Feik was like a magnet for Civil Air Patrol officers and cadets who were always eager to get their picture taken with her. Here, Feik, center, posed with members of the Virginia Wing – from left, Cadet Chief Master Sgts.

Aaron Corbett and Gina Scalzo, 2nd Lt. Kelly Muzzin and Cadet 1st Lt. Elena Shriner.

Photo courtesy of Christine DeLude

Left: Feik’s annual speaking schedule was legendary, often consisting of at least 20 trips across the United States each year to tell about her journey and experiences in aviation. Here, dressed in her original flight suit circa World War II, Feik accepts thanks from Capt. (now Col.) Sandra Brandon at the 2006 Doylestown Composite Squadron 907 annual banquet.

Photo by Lt. Col. Annette Carlson, Pennsylvania Wing

a personal contribution to the advancement of the art, sport, “Basically my job, even as a teen, was a master mechanic in charge and science of aviation and space flight over an extended period. of flight training,” she said. “I was a test pilot for 9,000 hours and wrote (She also received two other NAA honors – the Katherine and the flight training manual for the airplanes.”

Marjorie Stinson Award for Achievement in 2003 and the Frank Feik, who wasn’t allowed to study engineering in college – even G. Brewer Trophy in 2006.) with a 4.0 grade point average – because she was female, got her first job in the Army Air Corps. She worked 20 years with men only – airFeik, who overhauled her first auto engine at the age of 13 and men and sergeants.

“I had a wonderful, wonderful career working only with men,” she was teaching aviation mechanics for the U.S. Army Air Corps at 18, is considered one of the most influential women in aerospace by NASA said. “They pushed me, and I worked hard.”

Feik was a professional restorer of antique and classic aircraft. She and others. Her biography is lengthy and her list of achievements helped restore famous planes at the Smithsonian National Air and impressive.

Perhaps one of her most noteworthy awards was the FAA’s Space Museum before, and after, she retired.

Her husband of 54 years, Robert Feik, died in 2004. He was Charles Taylor Master Mechanic Award she received in 1996 in recognition of her many contributions to aviation safety. Feik was the also a member of CAP’s Maryland Wing and had a noteworthy first woman to ever receive the award, named for the Wright Brother’s career in aviation as well, serving as a chief scientist for the Air Force Communications Command. He was inducted into the Air Force mechanic and engineer.

During World War II, she became an expert on several Cyberspace Operations and Support Hall of Fame. The Feiks’ daughter, fighter planes and was credited with becoming the first woman Robin Vest, is a lieutenant colonel in Civil Air Patrol. Vest’s husband engineer in research and development for the Air Technical and Feik’s son-in-law, Col. Warren Vest, is also a CAP member. He currently serves on CAP’s Board of Governors.

Service Command.

58

Fall 2016

SECURITY

Working IT Security for the FAA

By Sebastian Dunne, Red Hat This architecture continues to bedevil legacy systems when they need to be upgraded and new computer hardware purchased.

Computer hardware manufacturers regularly update their offerings to take advantage of the latest advances in technology, offering their customers cost savings and performance increases.

But, you can easily imagine a scenario where legacy systems would need hundreds more servers of a particular model, chipset, or parts that simply aren’t available anymore. Diligent system integrators need to pay a premium for unsupported hardware on secondary markets, if it can be found at all. Isolation also cannot prevent intentional or unintentional disruptions from inside the network.Isolation also cannot prevent intentional or unintentional disruptions from inside

Dean Drobot/Shutterstock.com

The status quo Isolation has long been considered a good way to keep IT systems secure. “Set it and forget it” has been the governing attitude, so that today many systems are still “air-gapped” or otherwise physically separated from other systems and unauthorized users.

That is the “set it” part. “Forget it,” on the other hand, means if it’s working, don’t touch it. That is not a terrible approach to many mechanical things in life. It was done for the best of reasons; updating and patching software involves risk in this legacy design of systems and networks. Sometimes a fix to one part of a computer system can break something else unexpectedly. “Forgetting it” in today’s world; however, means not fixing potentially dangerous security vulnerabilities.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

59

SECURITY

welcomia/Shutterstock.com

the network. FAA users and contractors have direct access to most of these systems today. A contractor to the FAA set a fire in the Chicago ARTCC in September 2014 that shut the center for 17 days and disrupted over eleven thousand flights.

I don’t bring up the challenges of legacy systems to criticize the technology, architectures, or those who built them. They serve an important purpose. And it’s unhelpful, if accurate, to simply say, “technology has changed.” Technology changes are important not only for the changes they make to computer systems and hardware, but also for the way we use, manage, and secure those systems. About all of these functions, architectures, and designs, our entire thinking needs to change.

The advent of mechanization in warfare did not just replace horses with Jeeps and tanks. Tactics and strategies also changed. The successful German blitzkrieg into France during World War II did not mean that the French should have built a stronger, higher, or longer Maginot Line. The proper response would have been to abandon a static defense for a more flexible and adaptable one.

The challenge of integrating systems and providing modern security for them is not trivial. The reports and prescriptions from security auditing agencies can be overwhelming, as is the wide array of tools the technology industry has introduced to fix the problems. But, there is a way forward. There are tools and practices that can help protect most computer systems. Adopting those practices, however, requires a critical change in mindset. The connectivity required by NextGen systems has made obsolete most of the cases for security through “set it and forget it.” It’s time to look at the new technologies available for FAA systems and to protect those systems in new ways.

60

Fall 2016

Use a new operating system and manage it Now that security is an important differentiator within the software industry, new code is written to better security standards and old, insecure code is gradually re-written. There are exceptions, of course, and some new code may be introduced that is a step backward in security. It’s still a good rule of thumb that later versions of an operating system or other system software are more secure than older versions.

Patch management, configuration management, and monitoring are essential. “Patches” and updates are software created to fix vulnerabilities that are discovered in a system or to add functionality. Modern systems require the right tools to know exactly what software is running and to apply important patches and updates as they become available.

Configuration management refers to tracking the other settings on a computer system that can have a dramatic effect on security. Throughout the life of a system, configuration changes must be applied in a controlled and repeatable way. Over time, configuration changes applied by individual engineers and by hand lead to “configuration drift.” Surprising things can happen when the configuration among a group of servers is no longer identical or what the engineers think it is. Monitoring and logging take many forms, but in essence it is the practice of “trust yet verify.”

Build secure systems and manage their software and configurations, but then watch them continuously to ensure they continue to meet security requirements over time.

SECURITY

Upgrading and updating are not optional for a secure environment. Forty-four percent of security breaches are estimated to come from known vulnerabilities that are between two and four years old.

The good news is that while updating and upgrading systems still involve the risk of things breaking, new practices, tools, and technologies are available to help make this easier and to manage the risk. In a wonderful irony, modern IT techniques of making more frequent updates and changes to environments, actually encourages their resilience and improves uptime.

It’s time to talk about DevOps. DevOps, automation, and cloud DevOps (a combination of “development” and “operations”) is a loaded term today. Fierce argument reigns on the Internet about the proper definition. We can start with Gene Kim as an acknowledged father of the idea and its practice: “DevOps is all the sets of cultural norms and technical practices and architectures required to get a flow of work from dev to ops and production while preserving world-class reliability, security and stability. Most of our experience [says that] to go fast is diametrically opposed to being reliable, but high performers are able to do both.” (http://searchitoperations.techtarget.com/news/450297784/ QA-DevOps-transformation-is-not-just-for-devs-and-unicorns) Others maintain that DevOps is simply a more agile and cooperative relationship between development and operations teams or an improved focus on business results within IT organizations. This may sound silly to those outside of IT. Isn’t it obvious that the teams in IT need to cooperate? Haven’t business results always mattered? Of course, but historically, Dev and Ops were “siloed” from each other within IT organizations. They were in different departments with different managers. Their jobs and skills were significantly different and when they interacted it was easy to blame the other when problems arose. It was a natural, if regrettable, tension in many organizations.

DevOps isn’t evolving by itself. It is evolving along with two other major technology changes: automation and cloud.

Automation is essential to a working DevOps culture. If software developers are writing applications faster, it means the operations team has to move faster to deploy new servers and new versions of the software.

This can be done only through better automation of the IT “infrastructure” – the computer servers, data storage, and networking that software systems run on. The advent of new automation tools like Ansible, Chef, and Puppet made this kind of automation possible. And in a virtuous cycle of productivity, automation and cloud services matured together.

“Cloud” is a frequently misunderstood term as well, but just think of it as more-flexible computing infrastructure. Cloud services, whether running internal to IT organizations or in the well-known public clouds at Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure, allow system administrators to deploy new servers, networks, and data storage more quickly, while only paying for what is used.

In perhaps the most dramatic new twist, this cloud infrastructure could be deployed using “code,” using the automation tools mentioned previously. For those who build and manage data centers, this change is extraordinary. Adding computing power and data storage to a traditional data center used to mean weeks or months of ordering hardware, waiting for delivery, installation into server racks, finding power, cooling, and network capacity, and then painstaking configuration with other components in the data center. And this was before the installation of the software that provided actual value to the organization.

The ability to deploy compute,data storage capacity, and networking with lines of computer code in seconds is revolutionary. And like the other technology changes we’ve talked about, it didn’t just make things easier, it makes it possible to change radically the way we do things in IT. Pets, cattle, and chaos monkeys DevOps culture, automation, and cloud began to change how IT was done. When this writer was a young system administrator in the 1990s, servers were large, expensive, and fairly permanent things. It was not uncommon to name them. In short, we treated them like pets that required care and feeding.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Ti Santi/Shutterstock.com

“ Technology changes aren’t just important for the changes they make to computer systems and hardware, but also for the way we use, manage, and secure those systems.”

61

SECURITY

welcomia/Shutterstock.com

“ Our application would be as frustrating as a whack-amole game to an attacker. If an attacker does manage to compromise a system, they only have minutes to use that system to attack others or gather data.”

62

Cloud resources are a different animal. Their ease of deployment means they’re just as easily destroyed when not needed. Cloud-service pricing is usage-based and a key cost-saving advantage. You spin up new servers when you need them,shut them down when you don’t, and save money. Wags on the Internet joke that servers are no longer pets, but cattle. If your pet is sick you take it to the vet—you do your best to restore its health. Cruelly, if not literally, if one of your hundreds of nondescript and nameless cows breaks its leg you dispose of it—you’ve got hundreds more just like it. Ranchers don’t name their cattle.

These ideas led to other changes in how we build computer systems. Because physical computer hardware was typically expensive and semi-permanent, you tried to buy enough capacity so that if one big server failed another could take its place until the first server could be repaired or replaced. Equipment failures happened and you did your best to minimize the impact. You built your computer, network, and storage infrastructures with the most reliable hardware and design possible because failures meant service outages and late nights doing repairs and re-installations.

Cloud servers are easier and faster to deploy, more automated, and often cheaper. IT architects soon realized that instead of designing to avoid any failures they could design their systems “assuming” that failures would occur and build self-healing and redundancy into their designs.

“Designing for failure” means expecting that any part of your system can and will fail at any time and architecting your system so that failures can happen without impacting the service you’re delivering.

Netflix became famous within the IT community for designs like these. They even introduced special code into their systems called Chaos Monkey. To get the idea, imagine an angry or scared monkey loose in a data center pushing buttons and pulling out cables. Chaos Monkey code deliberately and randomly stops systems and services within their production video-delivery network to validate that they designed adequately for all possible failure scenarios.

This new automation made operations teams great partners for the development teams. It changed their processes to deliver smaller portions of new code faster and deploy it quickly and often. Making small changes more frequently was found to be less risky than large changes made less frequently, with the added benefit of being able Fall 2016

to deliver business value with new software in less time. And this was made possible because the operations teams determined how to automate complex deployments into infrastructures that were more flexible, further reducing the risks involved in making changes.

The lesson for computer system security is that we need not fear setting up automated and careful processes to test and deploy patches and updates to well-designed systems today. The risk of leaving vulnerabilities in software un-patched now clearly outweighs the risk in making the updates required to fix them.

Don’t turn off SELinux DevOps and automation have led to good new practices in IT. They have also made it easier to stop some all-too-common bad practices. Take, for example, the industry’s experience with SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux). SELinux is a set of mandatory access controls for Linux systems designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) and then given to the world as open source code in 2000. It’s a terrific way of protecting Linux systems and should be implemented everywhere. But before DevOps, IT teams struggled to implement SELinux effectively. Traditional developers wrote and tested their code on their own systems or on “development” systems that didn’t necessarily resemble what was in production. After months of work, the software would be deployed on a test system with SELinux running and the software would stop working.

The SELinux security software did what it was supposed to do.

It saw any unknown new code that was trying to make changes to files and processes and blocked it. Developers blamed operations for their test server not working, and operations blamed the developers for not telling them enough about the application to configure SELinux properly. Before long, IT was missing deadlines for the new software and management was ordering IT to “make it work.”

Security administrators dutifully disabled SELinux, frequently vowing to turn it back on once they had time to figure out the right SELinux configuration with the developers. All too often it never happened and SELinux, arguably the most effective security tool available for Linux, was left disabled.

Today, DevOps culture is changing this dynamic.

SECURITY

As developers deploy their code more frequently to the new systems built by operations that are configured carefully to reflect the settings in production, new software is more likely to be tested with SELinux much earlier in the development cycle. Problems can be discovered earlier and before deadlines force bad decisions.

Containers Greater flexibility has evolved from Linux in the form of container technology, with added benefits for system security. “Container” is a hot word like “cloud” in IT today, but container technology (also called operating system-level virtualization) is not new. There was similar technology from Solaris called Zones in 2004 and VMware hadThinApp in 2008. Its current popularity has been ignited by the IT industry coalescing around the “Docker” format, released as open source in 2013. This ingenious combination of proven core technologies in the Linux kernel – the heart of the Linux Operating System – enables workloads to be cleanly separated from each other while running on the same operating system, but sharing enough of that operating system to be highly efficient.

Think of containers as allowing our applications to run in bubbles of computing power that emerge, do their work, and then disappear, because they are small and efficient enough to be re-created instantly when needed again. Many efficiencies are possible when applications can be run like this. Imagine that a new FAA website has a surge of new subscribers who want to register. The application can spin up thousands of containers to run the registration application and easily scale to handle that unexpected load. Once the registration rush has ended, most of those containers are destroyed, leaving more room for the other system resources users may require.

NAS services could also benefit from the ability to scale parts of their complex applications dynamically up and down as the demand and load on them changes.

There are interesting security aspects to container technology as well. Containers themselves are “ephemeral.” Because they are intended to be built and destroyed as needed, they’re not designed to hold important data permanently. Before containers, we might build a wall of web servers to face the Internet. Any server facing the Internet encounters constant attack and possible compromise.

Imagine a wall of containerized web servers that re-builds itself over the course of the day from its original secured and tested building blocks. (There is no interruption in service because this is done one-by-one, always leaving enough working web servers to serve the customers.) To an attacker, going after our application would be as frustrating as a whack-a-mole game. If an attacker does manage to compromise a system, they only have minutes to use that system to attack others or gather data. Again, think of a Maginot Line of defense – a static armored wall – compared to the flexible, adaptable defenses like our modern infantry would use against an attacker.

Who would prefer admittedly-solid bunkers and pillboxes armed with powerful, but immovable heavy artillery over a mobile infantry using tanks, mortars, night-vision devices, and ever-present drones to follow enemy movements?

Conclusion NextGen systems will interconnect more and more NAS and nonNAS systems. The lesson for the FAA, and those who help them serve their mission is that technology is changing so dramatically as to challenge many common assumptions. The design of our systems as well as our IT practices must change accordingly.

With DevOps ideas, automation, and cloud technology in our toolbox, we can manage complex systems as they should be managed in an interconnected and dynamic world. Systems can be monitored, patched, and updated without disrupting normal operations.

SELinux can be turned on and left running to provide strong security. NextGen systems can be “designed for failure” using flexible cloud and container technology to produce robust and scalable systems that can withstand individual system or location outages. Those same technologies will break the link between critical systems and specific computer hardware, allowing the FAA to upgrade systems more quickly and efficiently.

Security challenges, perceived or real, too often present a barrier to innovation. Information security can be dauntingly complex and good solutions may seem out of reach unless we adopt a fresh mindset about our computer system architectures. NextGen systems can be more secure when we embrace new technologies and the opportunities for productive change that they provide.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

63

ISO 9001:2008 Certified

A LEADER IN GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE Data distribution systems Technical Services

Sunhillo Corporation Sunhillo handles all lifecycle aspects of surveillance data distribution systems for the Federal Aviation Administration, US Military, civil aviation authorities, and national defense organizations across the globe. Products include: Longport ADS-B Receiver, Surveillance Monitoring System (SMS), MPS1000, RICI 5000 and Protocol Software Suite

www.Sunhillo.com

Sunhillo Technical Services (STS) Award-winning company providing highly qualified, competent and customer focused talent to the FAA WJHTC and partners throughout the industry. STS has the following capabilities: Software Engineering, Test & Evaluation, 2nd Level Engineering Support, Hardware & Systems Integration and Project & Program Management

www.SunhilloTS.com

sunhillo.com | 1-856-767-7676 | sales@sunhillo.com

BOOK REVIEW

The Secrets Behind the Few Who Won the Battle of Britain A Review of Sinclair McKay’s The Secret Life of Fighter Command, the Men and Women Who Beat the Luftwaffe

W

hen the Battle of Britain began in the summer of 1940, a few thousand Royal Air Force fighter pilots, averaging 20 years old, captured the world’s attention with their heroic efforts to defend England. In one of the most often quoted statements of WWII, Winston Churchill told the House of Commons, on Aug. 20, “Never, in the field of human conflict, was so much owed, by so many, to so few.”

Less well known even today is the story of the women, as young as 18, who worked in total secrecy in underground bunkers to help picture the air battle. This is where Fighter Command housed its air operations centers to process the radar and aircraft sighting information used to direct the pilots to intercept the enemy bombers and fighters. Bunkers were used in case the sites were attacked from the air. What is astonishing is that this complex air defense network was developed just a few years before World War II (WWII) broke out, following a successful demonstration in Britain

in 1935 that showed how reflected radio waves could be used to detect aircraft.

Unlike today’s air defense or air traffic control systems, this early radar technology used large numbers of people, rather than computers, to plot and filter information on incoming enemy aircraft. From deep within Fighter Command’s nerve centers, the young women of the Royal Air Force (RAF)-affiliated Women’s Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) plotted the altitude, speed, heading, and location of enemy aircraft – a mission that would remain secret during the war. These women were selected from those in training to be WAAFs based on qualifications such as being good at math or even card games, which showed the requisite skill with mental calculations.

A few men in their 30s who had been employed on the floor of the London stock exchange before war began and thus were used to thinking on their feet worked alongside the women. The RAF air defense system required quick decisions on incoming radar reports, but The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Photos courtesy of Michael James Photo

By David Hughes

65

BOOK REVIEW

“ Mine was the purely defensive role of trying to stop the possibility of an invasion, and thus giving the country a breathing spell. It was Germany’s objective to win the war by invasion, and it was my job to prevent such an invasion from taking place.”

– Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding

Models in the recreated filter room at Bentley Priory Museum

the results the former stock brokers came up with would be mean the difference between life and death rather than dollars and cents. The women who were good at cards were now playing for the same incredibly high stakes in tracking hostile and friendly aircraft to protect their homeland. The RAF had discovered that scientists weren’t able to do the job. They would second-guess all their own answers.

The architect of the air defense network was Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, a visionary who was Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command from 1936 and during most of the Battle of Britain. The world’s first integrated system of air defense became known as the Dowding System. Dowding didn’t fit in well with his superiors at the Air Ministry. His nickname was Stuffy and he never had the confidence of his bosses, who sacked him. By the time he was fired, he had already won the Battle of Britain.

Sinclair McKay’s new book, The Secret Life of Fighter Command, the Men and Women Who Beat the Luftwaffe (Aurum Press Ltd., 2015), tells the story of the young women and men who won this most critical air battle. McKay tells their personal stories in a fluid narrative.

Preventing the German air force from obtaining air superiority meant that there would be no invasion across the English Channel.

The fate of a free nation and indeed the world hung in the balance more than a year before America entered WWII. “Mine was the purely defensive role of trying to stop the possibility of an invasion, and thus giving the country a breathing spell,” Dowding said. “It was Germany’s objective to win the war by invasion, and it was my job to prevent such an invasion from taking place.”

66

Fall 2016

The RAF squadrons were greatly outnumbered and yet they still won the battle, due in large part to Fighter Command’s ability to scramble Hurricane and Spitfire fighter aircraft at just the right time and direct them to the German bomber formations inbound to targets. Once the fighter pilots had the enemy in sight, the battle was joined. McKay relates that only at night did radar play a role in the shooting engagement itself as the RAF soon developed airborne radar for night fighters. Pilots needed to be able to see the location of the enemy bomber on radar for the final run in to shoot it down in the dark of night.

Fighter Command headquarters was located at Bentley Priory in northwest London during the war. This impressive English mansion, reminiscent of Downton Abbey, once served as a mission home to Augustinian friars in the 12th century. At first, the air defense system was run from the mansion’s ballroom, but after the war began the RAF added an underground bunker behind the house to protect the nerve center from air attack. In 2013, the mansion was restored as a museum to celebrate the role it played as Fighter Command headquarters during the war.

At Bentley Priory, WAAFs sorted initial radar reports from different antenna sites initially plotted on a table in the filter room.

The RAF amalgamated not only the radar observations from different antenna sites, but also information from human spotters located at huts equipped with a special mechanical measuring device. This so-called post instrument plotter, which looked like a large sundial, had a vertical attachment that could be used to

BOOK REVIEW

measure the altitude of an aircraft or group of aircraft and to plot the position on a map grid.

The 1940 radar only looked out from the coast. Once the Luftwaffe aircraft were over land, they could only be tracked by the observers. Men and women volunteered for the Royal Observer Corps, a civil defense organization also headquartered at Bentley Priory, staffed at the widely dispersed huts.

Once the filter room sorted out the radar data into verified tracks of hostile and friendly aircraft or groups of aircraft, the Bentley Priory operations room received the information. It was then displayed on a map of England laid out on a table. RAF commanders on a balcony, overlooking the display, surveyed the developing air battle. The information was also passed on to operations rooms at four regional headquarters and their respective sector headquarters.

The squadrons were notified when it was time to scramble aircraft.

Some of the friendly aircraft had an identification friend or foe (IFF) system, and pilots had to make sure to activate it.

Women Codebreakers Also Led Top Secret Lives This is McKay’s second Secret Life of book. His first was the bestseller, The Secret Life of Bletchley Park: The History of the Wartime Codebreaking Centre by the Men and Women Who Were There (Aurum Press Ltd., 2010). This is another great read that shows how the men and women who cracked the German Enigma codes in WWII worked and lived together in one of the most unconventional organizations of the war, and perhaps the most important one of all.

Women who interrupted their university studies helped crack the codes while others who joined the Women’s Royal Naval Service (known as the Wrens) operated the first two types of computers ever built, one electromechanical and the other electronic. Both types of machines needed the constant attention of highly skilled operators.

Jane Fawcett, for example, was one of hundreds of women working at Bletchley Park. She came from high society and joined the code-breaking operation at age 20. She lived until this year, dying on June 17 at the age of 95.

When the Royal Navy was searching for the German battleship Bismarck in 1941 during its sortie into the North Atlantic to sink Allied ships, Fawcett was working on decoding German naval messages. She typed out one decoded message and realized it was a German general who was asking about the health of his son serving on the battleship.

In response, the German Navy said the Bismarck was damaged and headed for a port in France. This helped the British Navy track the big ship down and sink it.

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

Photos: Bentley Priory Museum, Everett Historical/Shutterstock.com (aerial view of London)

Eileen Younghusband, one of the veterans of the filter room at Bentley Priory

67

BOOK REVIEW

It is rather incredible to learn that someone who worked as an au pair in France before the war would soon be using a groundbreaking new technology to track hundreds of aircraft in battles over England a few years later.

McKay notes that government secrecy after the war meant that nothing much was done in Britain to exploit the invention of the computer as a product for sale in global commerce. The United States got a jump on Britain in this regard, with efforts that eventually led to an economic colossus: Silicon Valley. Today, computer automation helps run air defense and civil air traffic control systems all over the world.

In the book on the Battle of Britain, McKay writes about several of the WAAF volunteers in the greatest generation in England, including Eileen Younghusband, one of the veterans of the filter room at Bentley Priory. Younghusband published a memoir of her work in Fighter Command in 2011: One Woman’s War (Candy Jar Books).

Her memoir is a pretty basic account of one person’s WWII experiences from enlistment to a wide range of operational service. It is rather incredible to learn that someone who worked as an au pair in France before the war would soon be using a groundbreaking new technology to track hundreds of aircraft in air battles over England a few years later.

Younghusband applied to the WAAF when she was only 19.

Becoming a cook or a driver didn’t sound very interesting, but she was tipped off by a friend in the WAAF to ask to be assigned as a “clerk special duty.” Younghusband had no idea what the job involved.

When she volunteered for that duty at the end of boot camp she wasn’t told anything more. It wasn’t until she signed the Off icial

For those visiting London, the Bentley Priory

museum is open several days each week. It has a

Secrets Act and agreed to severe disclosure penalties that the job description came into focus. A briefer began filling her in on the British radar system with antennas on the East Coast and the work she would be doing in turning radar data into aircraft trajectories. The work would require her to make rapid and accurate calculations and to avoid mistakes that might prevent RAF fighters from intercepting enemy formations before they could reach their targets.

During the war, Younghusband was commissioned as a WAAF officer and moved from aircraft plotting to information filtering. She was so good at her job that, in 1944, the RAF chose her to help identify the origin of V2 rockets fired on London from Belgium. (Since it only took four minutes for a V2 to hit London after a launch, the government had decided it was pointless to issue warnings to residents of the city.) She joined a team of WAAFs operating in an already liberated part of Belgium. They used slide rules to calculate the ballistic missile trajectories and locate the launch site. RAF Mosquito aircraft would then attack the trucks used as mobile launching platforms before they could get away.

In three short years, Younghusband found herself graduating from the challenge of tracking hundreds of military aircraft to tracking the Nazi rockets that launched the space age.

The Imperial War Museum in London

replica of a filter room and an operations room. It also has a small conference center.

The Imperial War Museum website features a and Purpose of the Filter Room,” which fully

explains the Dowding System and how it worked, showing activity in the filter room on the plotting table. It is posted in five segments of about ten

minutes each. Visit http://bit.ly/IWM-film. Even just watching the first 10-minute clip is an eye

opener as to how the air defense system worked.

68

Fall 2016

crazychris84/Shutterstock.com

remarkable black and white film titled: “The Scope

MEMBER COMPANIES

Directory of Member Organizations Academic/Research Institutions Advanced ATC Atlantic Beach, FL AIMS Community College Greeley, CO Arizona State University Mesa, AZ Daniel Webster College Nashua, NH Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach, FL Hampton University, Department of Aviation Hampton, VA Kent State University Kent, OH MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington, MA Stockton Aviation Research and Technology Park of New Jersey, Inc. Galloway, NJ The Community College of Baltimore County Baltimore, MD The MITRE Corporation/CAASD McLean, VA University of North Dakota/ JDOSAS Grand Forks, ND University of Oklahoma Norman, OK Vaughn College of Aeronautics & Technology Flushing, NY VT UASTS Blacksburg, VA

Air Navigation Service Providers AEROTHAI Bangkok, Thailand Airservices Australia Canberra, Australia ANS CZ Jenec,Czech Rep Austro Control GmbH Vienna, Austria HungaroControl Zrt. Budapest, Hungary NATS Edinburgh, United Kingdom

NAV CANADA Ottawa, Canada

USAF Flight Standards Agency Oklahoma City, OK

Beacon Management Group Mitchellville, MD

ROMATSA-Romanian ATS Administration Bucharest, Romania

USAF HQ Air Mobility Command/A3 Scott Air Force Base, IL

Booz Allen Hamilton Washington, DC

Aviation Associations AAAE-American Association of Airport Executives Alexandria, VA Airlines for America Washington, DC AOPA-Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Frederick, MD APROCTA Madrid, Spain CANSO Amsterdam, Netherlands FAA Managers Association, Inc. Chandler, AZ NATCA Washington, DC National Safe Skies Alliance Alcoa, TN PASS-Professional Aviation Safety Specialists Washington, DC Professional Women Controllers, Inc. Washington, DC

Government & Military Orgs DOT/RITA/Volpe Center Cambridge, MA EUROCONTROL Brussels, Belgiun FAA Academy Oklahoma City, OK German Air Operation/ Command Nordhein-Westfalen, Germany NASA Washington, DC NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium NCAR - National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO US Army Air Traffic Services Command Fort Rucker, AL US Navy SSC LANT N. Charleston, SC

William J. Hughes Technical Center Atlantic City, NJ

Industry – Products & Service Providers A3 Technology, Inc. Egg Harbor City, NJ Adacel Systems, Inc Orlando, FL Addx Corporation Alexandria, VA Advanced Sciences & Technologies LLC Berlin, NJ AIRBUS Herndon, VA Aireon McLean, VA AirMap Santa Monica, CA Airtel ATN Dún Laoghaire, Ireland AIRTOPSOFT, SA Brussels, Belgium All Weather, Inc. Sacramento, CA

BPA Services LLC Washington, DC CACI Arlington, VA CGH Technologies, Inc. Washington, DC Çhangeis, Inc. Arlington, VA Chickasaw Nation Industries Norman, OK CI2 Aviation, Inc. Dunwoody, GA Clancy JG International Lancaster, LA CNA Corporation Alexandria, VA Cobec Consulting, Inc. Washington, DC Cogent Technologies Steilacoom, WA COMSOFT Solutions GmbH Karlsruhe, Germany Concept Solutions, LLC Reston, VA CPS Professional Services Fairfax, VA Crown Consulting, Inc Arlington, VA

Antenna Associates, Inc. Brockton, MA ARCON Corporation Waltham, MA ASRC Federal Beltsville, MD AT&T Government Solutions Oakton, VA ATAC Corporation Santa Clara, CA ATECH - Negocios Em Technologias Sao Paulo, Brazil Aurora Sciences Washington, DC AvMet Applications Inc. Reston, VA BCF Solutions, PMA Division Arlington, VA BCI-Basic Commerce & Industries, Inc Moorestown, NJ

CSRA Falls Church, VA CSSI, Inc. Washington, DC Diamond Antenna and Microwave Corporation Littleton, MA DIGITALiBiz, Inc. Rockville, MD DSI-Dynamic Science, Inc. Phoenix, AZ Easat Antennas Limited Staffordshire, UK ECS-EnRoute Computer Solutions Egg Harbor Township, NJ EMCOR Enclosures-Crenlo Rochester, MN

The Journal of Air Traffic Control

69

MEMBER COMPANIES Industry – Products & Service Providers (cont’d) Indigo Arc LLC Rockville, MD

Mosaic ATM, Inc. Leesburg, VA

Serco Inc Reston, VA

Engility Corporation Chantilly, VA

Infina, Ltd McLean VA

NEC Corporation Tokyo, Japan

Sierra Nevada Corporation Sparks, NV

Ernst & Young McLean, VA

Information Sciences Consulting, Inc. Manassas, VA

New Bedford Panoramex Corporation Claremont, CA

SJ Innovations Oklahoma City, OK

Intelligent Automation, Inc. Rockville, MD

Noblis Falls Church, VA

Intersoft Electronics NV Olen, Belgium

Nokia Corporation Murray Hill, NJ

Esterline Duluth, GA Evans Consoles Vienna, VA Flatirons Solutions Arlington, VA Foxhole Technologies, Inc. Fairfax, VA

Iron Bow Technologies Niceville, FL

FREQUENTIS USA Columbia, MD General Dynamics IT Needham, MA General Dynamics Mission Systems Fairfax, VA Global Business Analysis Gig Harbor, WA

Joint Venture Solutions (JVS), LLC Washington, DC JTA

Washington, DC

Global Engineering Management Services, Inc. Washington, DC

Kearney & Company Alexandria, VA

Grant Thornton LLP Alexandria, VA

Kongsberg Gallium Ottawa, ON

Gryphon Sensors North Syracuse, NY

L-3 Communications Reston, VA

Orion Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA OST, Inc. McLean, VA Parsons Washington, DC PASSUR Aerospace Washington, DC Plastic-View ATC, Inc. Simi Valley, CA Pragmatics, Inc. Reston, VA

Landrum & Brown, Inc. Cincinnati, OH Leidos San Diego, CA Guntermann & Drunck GmbH Wilnsdorf, Germany

LMI - Logistics Management Institute McLean, VA

Raytheon Company Marlborough, MA Red Hat, Inc. Raleigh, NC

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Herndon, VA Hi-Tec Systems, Inc. Egg Harbor Township, NJ Human Solutions, Inc. Washington, DC

LS Technologies, LLC Washington, DC MCR, LLC Bedford, MA

Subsystem Technologies, Inc. Arlington, VA Sunhillo Corporation West Berlin, NJ Systems Atlanta, Inc. Atlanta, GA Tantus Technologies, Inc. Arlington, VA Tech Source, Inc. Altamonte Springs, FL Telephonics Corporation Farmingdale, NY Tetra Tech AMT Arlington, VA

Thales Air Traffic Management U.S. Overland Park, KS

Rigil Corporation Washington, DC Robinson Aviation (RVA) Inc Manassas, VA Rockwell Collins Cedar Rapids, IA Russ Bassett Corp.

Whittier, CA

The Boeing Company Alexandria, VA Thinklogical Milford, CT TKO’s East Syracuse, NY Triumph Enterprises, Inc. Fairfax, VA UFA, Inc. Burlington, MA

IBM Bethesda, MD

Vaisala Louisville, CO

ICF International Fairfax, VA

Veracity Engineering Washington, DC

IHSE USA, LLC Cranbury, NJ Imtradex Hor-/Sprechsysteme GmbH Dreieich, Germany

70

Lockheed Martin Rockville, MD

Spectrum Software Technology Egg Harbor Township, NJ

Regulus Group, LLC Woodstock, VA Ricondo & Associates Chicago, IL

Harris Corporation Melbourne, FL

Snowflake Software Hampshire, UK

STR - SpeechTech Ltd. Victoria, BC Northrop Grumman McLean, VA

JMA Solutions Washington, DC

Skysoft-ATM Suwanee, GA

Fall 2016

Metron Aviation, Inc. Dulles, VA

Saab Sensis Corporation East Syracuse, NY

MicroSystems Automation Group Falls Church, VA

SAIC-Science Applications International Corporation Washington, DC

Midwest ATC Services, Inc. Overland Park, KS

Searidge Technologies Ottawa, ON

WCG-Washington Consulting Group, Inc. Bethesda, MD WIDE USA Corporation Anaheim, CA

COMMENTARY

OPINIONS from the

FIELD

On Matters of Safety, Neither Side Can Claim Victory in the Privatization Debate

Bychykhin Olexandr/Shutterstock.com

By Ashley Nunes, Ph.D.

T

he case for privatizing (or corporatizing, if you prefer) the nation’s skies goes something like this: The FAA runs an ATC system using antiquated technology from a bygone era. This means WWII radar keeps track of airplanes, and spotty voice radio connects air traffic controllers to pilots. Although newer, much improved systems are available, the FAA’s cumbersome procurement process often makes these technologies obsolete by the time they are acquired (if they happen to be acquired at all). This is best illustrated by the agency’s efforts to roll out NextGen. Although it has been in the planning for more than a decade, NextGen remains years away from full implementation. Reform advocates point out that a non-governmental organization would be better positioned to address these issues, more nimbly cutting through the red bureaucratic tape that has long hindered the FAA. But in an industry where mistakes can prove deadly, any change in the status quo raises safety concerns. This was clear during this summer’s congressional hearings on privatization efforts. Witnesses and lawmakers on both sides of the debate were quick to use the safety argument to their advantage. Reform advocates argued that not only would privatization leave the nation’s safety record intact, it would improve upon it. Opponents took an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach. Privatization, we were told, is, “a risky science experiment that threatens to jeopardize safety.” The reality, however, is more complicated.

The idea that safety can be improved through privatization comes from reports by the General Accountability Office (GAO) and the MITRE Corporation. The GAO found the number of “air proximity incidents” – instances where the safety of the aircraft is threatened – declined after air traffic service providers underwent some form of privatization. However, proving such declines are the result of privatization is a challenge. Air proximity incidents occur against the backdrop of millions of flights. From a statistical perspective, working with such large data sets risks attaching significance to The Journal of Air Traffic Control

71

COMMENTARY

Gonzalo Aragon/Shutterstock.com

“ There are valid reasons to favor privatization and valid reasons to oppose it. But all available data suggests that safety shouldn’t be one of them.”

72

Privatization opponents are not in the clear either. Central to their argument is the view that the United States has “the safest system in the world.” And as one lawmaker suggested, “How can you get safer than the safest system in the world?” The claim of being the safest seems to be based on the low number of fatal incidents the American aviation system has seen in recent years. However, as criminologist Frederic Lemieux notes, a focus on fatal incidents alone narrows our appraisal of risk. Nonfatal incidents, such as those involving controller and pilot error, and the ever present dangers of controller and pilot fatigue, still pose a risk to passengers. This has culminated in incidents that, despite being nonfatal, still pose a risk to passengers. Such incidents highlight the opportunity and need for further improvement. The system can in fact be made safer.

There are valid reasons to favor privatization and valid reasons to events that result from chance alone. Put another way, the drop seen in air proximity incidents following privatization may have very little to oppose it. But all available data suggests that safety shouldn’t be one of do with privatization itself. The MITRE report poses an even bigger them. Moreover, emphasizing safety as a reason for or against privatproblem for reform advocates. Its safety claims regarding privatization ization obscures a seldom-discussed truth: namely, the safest system is are based on a 2005 university study. The study’s author notes that the one in which no airplanes fly at all. with regards to privatization efforts, “increased flight safety was indicated but could not be measured or forecasted.” In other words, even Dr. Ashley Nunes is an independent consultant and contributor to though study participants believe that privatization-related measures Aviation Week and Space Technology. His work has also appeared in The improve safety, there is no quantitative data to back up this claim.

American Scientist, Wired, and NPR.

Fall 2016

QUALITY SERVICE FOR OVER 38 YEARS Founded in 1978, Midwest ATC supports a diverse customer base, including the US Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA International Office, the US Department of Defense, the North Atlantic Treaty organization, and the Canadian Department of Defense.

With our solid reputation and team of highly qualified aviation experts, Midwest ATC is dedicated to providing clients with an outstanding level of service and commitment to safety at a reasonable price.

1.913.782.7082 www.atctower.com