“NextGen suffers from an inability to clearly and simply articulate what it will do for everyday Americans.”

Our task is clear….

I hadn’t focused on volcanic clouds until the Eyjafjallajökull eruption this past April. As I began studying the problem, I found that we have much more capability than we had 20 years ago. In the early 1990s, TOMS was the only satellite providing any meaningful information about volcanic clouds. It was designed for ozone mapping, but worked well with SO2 as well. Transport and dispersion models needed for forecasting were in their infancy. Today, we have several good transport and dispersion models that have been enhanced over the course of many years. I was with the FAA’s Operations Research group in the early 1990s. Back then, the technology was not available to optimally and quickly restructure traffic flows in response to volcanic clouds or large convective systems.

Today, these all exist. But, there is a need to integrate them. So much of today’s process is manual. It needs to be automated.

In this most recent experience, I learned that volcanos erupt much more frequently than most people realize. They impose many disruptions that are not covered widely in the press. I believe these events in some cases may be inducing damage to engines and aircraft that can’t be correlated to such events, but nonetheless result in reductions to engine and aircraft service life. This may be a useful piece of future research. I do agree that the level of investment ought to be commensurate with the likelihood and magnitude of impacts. Intuitively, it suggests to me that we ought to be investing more than we are today.

Norm

A paper on ATC system design [ Evans, J. E., Development of a Real-Time ATC Volcanic Ash Advisory System Based on the Future Aviation Weather System, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety, Seattle, WA, 1991.]for a volcanic ash advisory system can be downloaded from http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/aviation/publications/publications-by-name/evans-je.html. This paper drew heavily on the experience with developing and deploying wind shear protection at US airports.

The use of satellite data to get volcanic particle size distributions is pretty difficult technically (people have been trying to do this for rain for years without much success), and instrumenting air carrier aircraft for this purpose will be very expensive. UAVs may be a more attractive candidate.

The other big issue is cost-benefits. Volcanic eruptions are pretty rare which is why the momentum that existed for a while in the early 1990′s went away. At that time, it was pretty clear that without appropriate engine testing, one could not set thresholds based on quantitative data. But no one wanted to step up to the expense.

Jim

I completely agree with proposal to integrate ash forecast modeling capabilities with satellite data and AFTM systems.

Nick

At the same time, experience tells me that diverse interests, motivations and agendas won’t simply go away. It may be more productive to acknowledge them and strive to address them, perhaps in the vein of interest-based negotiations. By working together creatively, we may be better able to satisfy the needs and interests of all stakeholders, at least to a point where each can live with and support the way forward.

Processes to develop concepts and systems, and the procedures and regulations that go along with such changes, need to be streamlined. We have examples of novel approaches that have helped us move toward more streamlined approval processes. We should be leveraging these experiences too as we work to introduce NextGen changes.

Thanks for the response and the promise of future blogging comments on specific benefits from your perspective. I believe your comments will help mitigate the fragile nature of the issue.

Acknowledging the difficulty in the translation of a few hundred text characters in response to a blog, I want to make sure you understand that I am a big supporter of NextGen. And, I am an enormous backer of bringing operational improvements to flight ops in the NAS. My entire industrial life has been spent in our air transportation industry. When someone with authority begins the initiative to improve operations, I want to be one of the first in line to cheer and do what I reasonably can to help make a difference.

When I say that benefits are elusive, it means that everyone must pull their share of the load to insure success manifests itself in being real and attainable. This should be a common understanding among all stakeholders. This also means there is no room for separate agendas allowing achievements to escape into the ether. It is imperative that we all focus on the goal. It might be our last chance to make meaningful contributions.

The industry is desperate for improvement. We all have a responsibility to make our industry successful. Our collective support is vital.

Thanks,

Bud Bensel

Although your above comments were posted about a month back, I have just completed a review of the RTCA Task Force 5 report on NextGen implementation. You raise a valid question as to what honest and reliable agent will lead this effort. It would be very enlightening, in my view however, to read your opinion on an equally central issue. Through the eyes of the individual who developed the initial SOIA procedures and PRM operations, I have a question about which an answer continues to be allusive relation to NextGen. Where do you believe definitive, quantifiable and verifiable improvements in capacity and flight operational efficiencies will be realized in NextGen?

Collegially,

Bud Bensel
Retired Captain