NextGen is a technology-enabled transformation of the Nation’s air transportation system. NextGen must achieve higher levels of system performance to meet our Nation’s demand for aviation services.  Technology is a key enabler for higher performance, and therefore, we often think of NextGen in terms of big modernization programs designed to deliver that performance: ADS-B, Datacom, and SWIM, for example.  But what often gets lost in the focus on those big programs is that transformation is about change—change to the way we deliver services; change to roles and responsibilities; change to policies and procedures—that is fundamental to translating high-performance technologies into a high-performance system.

We too often think that if we can just find the right message on the benefit of these new technologies everyone will line up behind them and support their implementation.  But change is a human-focused process that must broadly involve the people and organizational cultures at the heart of aviation: pilots, controllers, dispatchers, and other emerging operators (think UAS, for example) as well as the planners, researchers, and developers that support them.  As John Kotter, one of the nation’s leading experts on change management puts it, “People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings.”  Therefore, perhaps the most critical part of the NextGen transformation is the process that enables us to show truth and influence feelings.  We must engage the intellect, creativity, and passion of aviation’s cultures.  And I would contend that means a substantial and sustained focus on prototyping, experimentation, and demonstration involving the people required to operate the system.

In a very interesting analogy to that very point, in a recent article in The New Yorker entitled, “Testing, Testing,”  Dr. Atul Gawande recounts the transformation of farming at the turn of the 20^th century, and draws analogies to the transformation that is required to achieve health care reform.  To cut to the punch line, through an extensive and continuous series of pilot programs and demonstrations involving working farms and the capture and communication of best practices through U.S.D.A. Extension Services, the U.S. went from a crisis in food production to agricultural abundance.  This process created “a feedback loop of experiment and learning and encouragement.”  The “simple but critical rule” for change was this: “What a man hears he may doubt, what he sees he may possibly doubt, but what he does himself he cannot doubt.”  That quote, from 1903, is completely in line with John Kotter’s quote from 2002!

Dr. Gawande goes on to conclude that “there are, in human affairs, two kinds of problems: those which are amenable to a technical solution and those which are not.”  The approach to the first type of problem is to pick a solution and charge forward.  However, “problems of the second kind, by contrast, are never solved, exactly, they are managed.”  Dr. Gawande argues that health care has both types of problems.  For example, achieving universal coverage is a problem of the first kind – pick an approach, implement, and adjust.  However, health care reform is of the second kind – it is extraordinarily complex and requires the kind of extensive and continuous experimentation that enabled the transformation of agriculture.

Aviation, too, has problems of both kinds.  The modernization of systems tend to be problems of the first kind, and the transition to new and different policies and ways of delivering service is of the second kind.  Now, to be clear, health care is not agriculture and aviation is certainly not health care.  But there are common threads in the transformation of these complex systems—among them the need for continuous and extensive experimentation; the need to be inclusive of the people and cultures that comprise the systems; the need for feedback and learning; and, the need for flexibility to change plans and directions as required.

So, let’s make sure we keep both modernization and transformation in our sights—together they will get us to the NextGen system that our Nation needs.

Bob Pearce
JPDO Deputy Director

The JPDO has posted its FY10 Work Plan to the Collateral Library of our Web site.  Click here to download the plan.  The major thrusts of the plan are to “Continuously Improve the Joint Planning Environment; Mature NextGen Portfolio Analysis; and Facilitate Interagency Actions and Initiatives”.

Specific technical priorities are listed in the plan, and a management roadmap of major milestones is included.  As in the past, we will update the plan on a monthly basis to reflect accomplishments and issues.  An innovation for this year is an interactive management roadmap on the KSN that will link completed milestones to the evidence of accomplishment.  Also, the closeout of last year’s plan is available here.

Bob Pearce
JPDO Deputy Director

Current methods to assure that fielded systems are safe and perform as expected will be inadequate for some of NextGen’s more complex capabilities involving distributed, software intensive systems.  Use of current methods in such instances could cost more and take more time than the rest of the design and implementation phases put together.  Better methods are required, or such complex capabilities will not be feasible.  These issues led the JPDO to list the V&V of complex systems as a high priority interagency focus area.

Through the JPDO Board of Directors, we requested that NASA assess the problem space in partnership with other JPDO partner agencies and develop a research plan that could address NextGen challenges. In response, at the recent NASA Aviation Safety Program Technical Conference, a full day V&V session was held that presented the results of NASA’s assessment and their formulation of a research plan.  NASA articulated that the goal of the assessment was to “examine the research required to develop transformative safety V&V methods needed to rigorously assure the safety of Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) developments in a time- and cost-effective manner.”

The objectives NASA developed for the research were:  “1)  Meet the JPDO’s critical interagency needs associated with V&V research in support of NextGen transformation; 2) Demonstrate advanced methods to answer relevant questions from aviation community; 3) Reduce barriers to innovation associated with safety V&V; and 4) Develop V&V methods for safety throughout the entire life cycle.”  NASA grouped their findings and detailed research thrusts into four challenge areas:  “1) Argument-Based Safety Assurance; 2) Distributed Systems; 3) Authority and Autonomy; and, 4) Software Intensive Systems”.

NASA also released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) to solicit research proposals in support of the V&V thrusts.  The detailed briefings and the NRA can all be downloaded here.

Bob Pearce
JPDO Deputy Director

A response to a previous blog, which asked the following questions:

“How should NextGen perform information exchange?  Specifically, how do we adopt a services-oriented approach to federating existing networks that accommodate transparent, timely, and safe exchange of authoritative data between all appropriate constituents of the National Airspace System (NAS)?”

The questions posed are about “how” – how to do information exchange, how to adopt a service-oriented approach. However, before diving into that, I suggest that “what” and “why” are just as important. What information is to be exchanged? Who is involved? What are the operational requirements? What policies must be accounted for? And, finally, is it worth the effort?

The astute reader may remark, “You’re in danger of missing the point. We need a big-picture solution that works for all cases, some we don’t even know about today. If we get bogged down in too many details, we’ll end up with a patchwork of near-term solutions that don’t scale.” It’s a valid concern. Still, without exploring some specifics, we can’t be sure that we’re solving even today’s problems, let alone tomorrow’s. Concepts of Operation, scenarios, use cases, etc. – and, specifically, the net-centric aspects of these – are an important part of working out the “what” and “why” details.

We need to do a tricky thing, which is to apply “top-down design” and “bottom-up design” in parallel. That is, we need to iterate between designing for the big picture and designing for the specific needs. When both those efforts meet in the middle, like railways converging from the east and the west, you can hope to have a good, total solution. At the “bottom-up” end, this approach requires selecting a manageable set of specific problems… a good topic for another day.

Having said all that, this would be a poor post if it didn’t make some attempt to address the questions as posed, so here goes.

A key element in working out the big-picture “how” is to reference well-accepted, mature standards to the maximum extent possible. There is no way that multiple federal organizations and industry partners are going to agree on a common vendor or platform (nor would this be beneficial at the macro-system level). Therefore, the best path to interoperability is for the partners to agree on standards that define compliant interfaces between them.

In fact, standards may become so critical to success that it becomes appropriate for NextGen as a collective group to apply pressure to move the necessary standards toward maturity. If we get stalled by insufficient standards for NextGen, the result will be a failure to interconnect, interoperate, and make progress, period. In other words, everyone loses, even vendors that might in other situations benefit from proprietary offerings, because it’s just not feasible that the entire NextGen space will buy into a proprietary solution. The investment timelines are too long, the partners too diverse.

I wouldn’t say that any applications are “easy,” but some are more straightforward than others. For example, exchanging weather information is relatively free of identity management and privacy concerns, and has relatively achievable QoS requirements (e.g., delay of a minute or two in updating a forecast seems acceptable). This combination of factors has permitted weather information exchanges to make quite impressive progress, thanks also of course to the efforts of many dedicated individuals. The JPDO Weather Working Group and associated programs have met most of their requirements for “infrastructure-level” standards (so far) by referencing existing industry standards such as XML, SOAP, and ebXML. (For weather, the “information level” is more interesting, bringing in organizations like OGC and standards like WXXM, but that’s a bit off-topic.)

Other applications, however, are likely to have more stringent information exchange requirements, for example: real-time traffic data, trajectory and airspace negotiations, emergency response coordination, etc. In such cases, it will be more challenging to identify (or develop) an acceptable set of infrastructure-level standards and agreements. Key areas are likely to include authentication/authorization, information assurance, infrastructure provisioning and monitoring, and quality of service. I’m sure this list is not complete. Even among standards, “the devil’s in the details.” What standards should be selected? In what areas are standards insufficient today? Exploring specific standards areas could be a productive next step.

Standards are a part of the solution. However, answering the questions posed will require many other aspects, large and small, to come together. Perhaps the most important step toward a complete answer is to continue building and resourcing a collaborative team focused on the challenge.

David Rinehart
Senior Systems Architect

Louis Uchitelle, in his article “Entering the Superproject Void” (New York Times – 11/28/2009), made an excellent point about “giant public works projects” that “have altered the American landscape” through generations.  And, he correctly highlighted that “the strongest periods of economic growth in America have generally coincided with big outlays for new public works and the transformations they bring once completed.”  However, he missed the mark when observing that, “For the first time in memory, the nation has no outsize public works project underway.”

Actually, given the writer’s clear and commendable interest in encouraging investment (public and private) in such projects because of the need to repair, strengthen, and enhance the nation’s infrastructure and economy, it is unfortunate that he missed an opportunity to emphasize the value and magnitude of the Congressionally mandated Next Generation Air Transportation System/ Joint Planning and Development Office (NextGen/JPDO) initiative in this context.  The focus of NextGen/JPDO–transformational modernization of the aviation system–is, indeed, a critically important and “giant” endeavor.  Furthermore, the NextGen/JPDO initiative has been “underway” since 2003 and relevant government and industry leaders are committed to it.

Although it has been suggested that an opportunity was also missed when the stimulus package enacted in early 2009 provided insufficient investment for “big projects” (including NextGen/JPDO), statements of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Vice President Biden’s chief economist Jared Bernstein, referenced by Uchitelle, give reason to expect that the funding believed necessary will be provided.  Concerning a particular outsize public works project, Governor Rendell was quoted as saying, “Just think about a high-speed rail system for the country.  Think what it would mean for steel factories, concrete factories, asphalt factories, electrical equipment factories.  It would mean a massive amount of orders and a lot of economic growth.”  In terms of “megaprojects” Bernstein was quoted as saying, “We are on the eve of making truly significant and lasting down payments that are going to plant some lasting seeds.”

Well, “just think” about a modernized aviation system for the country that applies existing technologies more effectively and leverages new technologies such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems.  Just think what such a system, with improved safety, access, capacity, predictability, and operational efficiency, would mean for the country (particularly related labor, manufacturers, operators, and users).  A steady, deliberate, highly collaborative, and properly funded NextGen/JPDO initiative would surely “plant some lasting seeds” for maintaining and enhancing the national aviation system’s already significant contribution to the economy and transportation infrastructure.  And, “just think” … wouldn’t that be “super?”

There is a memorable television commercial that presents the thoughts of an American Airline employee who is walking around an aircraft he has responsibility for, while it is positioned at a gate on the tarmac.  As he climbs the stairs that lead inside the airport terminal he is thinking to himself something along the lines of, “Every so often, when I am contemplating the importance of the work I do, I go inside and, then, there it is.”  What he sees … a young boy and young girl excitedly staring out the window as they prepare to board the plane … says it all.

Whenever anyone associated with the NextGen/JPDO initiative pauses to contemplate the importance of the unique government/industry partnership dedicated to transformational modernization of the national aviation system, he or she should, obviously, keep in mind the critical effect of that system on the nation’s economy and the mobility of the American people.  And, of course, the fact that it is a provision of law should also provide clarity as to reasoning.  However, all one really needs to do to remain effectively focused and motivated in this regard is to consider the young people in one’s own personal lives who (along with other children) represent the flying public of the future—individuals who will rely on the safe, efficient, and secure product of efforts by the adults in their lives.

So, “there it is.”  The purpose that really says it all about the important NextGen/JPDO work we do.

When Congressional action in 2003 led to establishment of the Next Generation Air Transportation System/Joint Planning and Development Office (NextGen/JPDO) initiative, a key consideration, focal point, and catalyst for the mandate was and remains serious attention to and direct involvement of the aviation industry.  Reflecting a keen understanding of the value and importance of an effective government/industry partnership for achieving the transformational modernization of the aviation system, the JPDO has initiated outreach efforts with those industry officials responsible for economic modeling and analysis.

The goal of this collaboration is to incorporate a fair and comprehensive view of estimating benefits and costs into the NextGen business case.

The first meeting in this context was between the enlightened experts with JPDO and the Air Transport Association (ATA).  As hoped, and by design, the meeting proved fruitful from the perspective of all participants.  Of particular value was ATA’s input on JPDO’s performance metrics and cost estimates, such as the unit cost assumptions for equipage and an appropriate discount rate to use in discounting calculations.  An ATA suggestion concerning the use of block time volatility versus average delay in JPDO’s modeling and analysis efforts was appreciated, as well.  There was agreement to have additional meetings and continue related dialog in line with the JPDO objective of ensuring effective awareness of the views of the airline industry and all stakeholders.

Similar meetings of the mind among those with relevant expertise and insight are being arranged and will occur as a result of this outreach process.  Again, this will enable JPDO to touch the various elements of the aviation industry so that a healthy community of effort can contribute to understanding of and appreciation for the economic rationale that needs to be included in the formula for success affecting the immediate, mid-term, and, ultimately, long-term phases of the initiative.

Clearly, the NextGen/JPDO initiative is critically important because of the significant contribution of the aviation system to the American economy and societal experience.  Furthermore, if successful, it can also serve as a model for confronting other complex and essential challenges throughout government.  And, on these two points, it appears safe to observe that the responsible parties would agree.

The Congressionally-mandated Next Generation Air Transportation System / Joint Planning and Development Office (NextGen/JPDO) was highlighted a number of times by government and industry officials as they testified during a hearing concerning the RTCA Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report. The hearing was held on Wednesday, October 28, 2009, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation.  Several comments and observations were of particular interest and relevance, including the following:

Ed Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association, and RTCA Policy Board Chairman, asserted that the JPDO provides us “magnetic North” relative to modernization and transformation of the aviation system as we focus on accelerating the process to affect the immediate and mid-term.

Neil Planzer, Vice President of Strategy for Air Traffic Management, The Boeing Company, who testified on behalf of the Aerospace Industries Association, responded to the suggestion of Congressman Thomas Petri (R-WI), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee, that there should be reliance on the insight and resources of the Department of Defense and other government users of the system.  He stated that the JPDO has been and should continue to facilitate the coordination and collaboration of the government partners in this context, especially since it is a federal system …not just a civil system.

Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association, emphasized that the NextGen initiative should be a national priority based on a positive business case, metrics and accountability … especially in light of the huge payback from infrastructure investment.  And, he stressed that his role as co-chair of the Institute Management Council (of the NextGen Institute) through the JPDO is a significant factor in this context.

While the testimony from Hank Krakowski, COO of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, focused on the primary topic of the hearing with specific attention to review and implementation of the RTCA task force recommendations, he did offer that the JPDO is focused on the longer term and the government partners.  As well, he stressed the key role going forward of the NextGen Management Board of which the JPDO Director is a member.

The chairs of the Committee and Subcommittee, Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Jerry Costello (D-IL), each reiterated their strong interest in moving the NextGen initiative forward in line with the intent of the 2003 FAA authorization law, as well as the provisions in the reauthorization measure that has been approved by the full House and is still evolving in the U.S. Senate.  And, the two Congressional leaders added direction to the DOT Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and the aviation industry in general, to closely monitor the FAA’s progress in this regard.

To summarize this aspect of the hearing one can reflect on another point made by Congressman Petri.  He expressed the importance of not just addressing the immediate and mid-term, but that we also need to make sure we plan effectively for the more distant future.  He opined that he and we would “dread” a process that deals with current and nearer term needs, but, in years further ahead finds us experiencing a “Ground Hog Day” where we don’t have the modernization we need for the future.

Last month, many JPDO Weather Working Group members traveled to the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) Conference in Orlando, Florida to hold a NextGen Weather Public Meeting. The meeting was a tremendous success.

Steve Brown, Weather Working Group Industry Co-Chair and Mark Andrews, JPDO Assistant Director of Commerce and Weather Working Group Government Co-Chair, delivered the opening remarks. The leads of each JPDO Working Group formed a panel and presented their accomplishments for the year (to date). The meeting ended with a Q&A session between audience participants and the panel.

Acknowledging the effects to industry from the recent economic downturn, Mr. Brown opened the meeting with the call for more industry partners to participate. As the NextGen weather initiatives have moved from “weather capability planning” to implementation, this call will become more important with the need for private expertise in proof of concept demonstrations.

Mr. Andrews emphasized that while weather forecast accuracies have improved over the years, operational use and performance have not. He also underscored the cultural issues that need to be addressed with more consistent weather information. This still allows for different products but all based on the same data. Another important take-away from Mr. Andrews was that the weather community needs to show the improved value in the proactive use of weather on operations. He sees the value in strategic vice tactical applications and from a risk management focus. The demonstrations will need to support this.

Industry participants re-emphasized the desire to know what opportunities will be made available, when, and with whom. In a similar vein, some feel that there is a need to better delineate between what the government is going to do (GFI) and what industry will need to address.  Timing is becoming important. There is a need to soon realize these opportunities—otherwise, there will not be enough time to do anything.