NextGen for Airports, Volume 4: Leveraging NextGen Spatial Data to Benefit Airports: Guidebook (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 | LEVERAGING NEXTGEN SPATIAL DATA TO BENEFIT AIRPORTS Cost-Benefit Considerations 3 T he spatial data that airports collect benefits NextGen, other FAA programs, and the NAS over-all. Although the cost of collecting this data is relevant, when viewed system wide, the cost appears relatively small in comparison to the benefits provided by new NextGen-enabled flight procedures. The resulting cost-benefit ratio is extremely small. From an individual airport’s perspective, however, the benefits seem indirect and prolonged whereas the costs appear immediate, tangible, and non-optional. Conversely, airports also can benefit from the spatial data that the FAA produces. Thus far, however, many airports have been unaware of or have found this data largely inaccessible. Fortunately, airports can take steps to identify and improve the returns they receive from their investments in spatial data. This chapter addresses these cost-benefit considerations. Airport Data Benefits NextGen The spatial data that airports collect that benefits NextGen primarily falls into two categories. The first category is safety-critical data that is used for the development of flight procedures, as was described in Chapter 2. The second category is airfield configuration data that is used to support improved surface operations. From a cost-benefit perspective, these two data categories have very different characteristics. Safety-Critical Data As defined in FAA AC 150/5300-18, safety-critical data includes information about runway end, airport control point, NAVAID equipment, obstacle, obstruction identification surface, and obstruction area features. To meet the FAA’s accuracy requirements, this data must be collected using field surveys or photogrammetry. Collecting this data requires on-the-ground surveying and aerial photography. The collected data must be analyzed, attributed, and checked before it is submitted to the FAA. GIS data submitted to the FAA also must include a detailed report and extensive supporting information. The collection and analysis work often requires specialized training, equipment, and software. These factors drive up the cost of collecting and submitting this data. The cost also can vary greatly based on the number and type of obstruction identification surfaces to be analyzed, the terrain around the airport, and the relative number of vertical features posing potential hazards to air traffic. Although safety-critical data must be updated as it changes, full airspace analyses are completed infre- quently. Ongoing data maintenance costs for safety-critical data are therefore generally low. After being validated by the FAA and/or NGS, safety-critical data is used by procedure designers to develop IFPs. This type of data is essential to flight procedure development and represents a relatively small portion of the cost of developing a procedure, which can exceed $1M in some cases. New PBN

Cost-Benefit Considerations | 25 procedures, however, are a fundamental part of NextGen, which is estimated to provide $133B in benefits through 2030 (FAA 2014b). These procedures have and will continue to streamline air traffic flow, reduce minimums, increase operational efficiencies, and reduce emissions at small, medium, and large airports. In addition, the improved air service generates indirect economic benefits such as job creation. The cost-benefit ratio for this data is, therefore, relatively small. The cost for these safety-critical aeronautical surveys is borne directly by airports, which means that many airports perceive that they bear new data collection costs but do not reap corresponding re- wards. In fact, airports are gaining new capacity, reducing minimums, and increasing safety because they have collected this data; unfortunately, these benefits have been less apparent to airports than the costs. The FAA, RTCA, industry associations, and others are trying to change this perception. To help federally obligated airports fulfill their grant assurances and, ultimately, realize the benefits safety- critical data can offer them, airports are encouraged to: 1. Integrate clear definitions of safety-critical data requirements into internal data maintenance proce- dures and policy manuals, as well as relevant consultant contracts. 2. Proactively monitor airport and community projects that could impact airport airspace and other safety-critical data. Doing this would help satisfy the airport’s obligations to (1) submit safety- critical data changes in a timely manner, (2) protect instrument and visual operations at the airport, and (3) report new obstacles to the FAA (DeLeon 2012; FAA 2014b; 14 CFR Part 77.7). To achieve these goals, some airports have worked with local communities to implement zoning restrictions and permitting requirements. 3. Establish an ongoing program to manage obstacle mitigation activities. This program can help sat- isfy an airport’s obligation to develop, submit, and annually update an Obstacle Action Plan (OAP) to the FAA (FAA 2015d). 4. Provide safety-critical data to airport planners and designers, and, as applicable to, consultants, community representatives, and developers. Particularly in the short term, when safety-critical spatial data has highlighted potential safety con- cerns, some airports have experienced reductions in service or increased costs to maintain their current service levels. For example, guidance that went into effect on January 6, 2014, prompted the FAA to remind airports of the importance of identifying and mitigating obstacle or terrain penetrations to 20:1 Visual Area Surfaces (DeCleene and O’Donnell 2013; FAA Order 8260.3B). Subsequently, airports were required to provide proof that such penetrations were not valid or, depending on their severity, to mitigate them within a period of time. Increased minimums and/or reduced nighttime service were possible results. Moreover, combined with the initial costs of collecting the spatial data, many airports faced negative benefit in the form of immediate and largely unforeseen costs to analyze and mitigate the obstacles and penetrations identified by the data. Airfield Configuration Data Airfield configuration data includes runway, taxiway, apron, marking line and area, airport sign, airfield light, and shoulder features that depict the current and possible future layout of an airfield. The major- ity of this data is collected photogrammetrically and attributed to features of the airport by experi- enced analysts with input from airport planners and engineers. This data has been commonly collect- ed by airports for decades in support of master plans, pre-construction design, and other activities. The cost of collecting this data can range from a few thousand dollars on small projects that imple- ment minor configuration changes, to approximately $1M for large data collection efforts incorporat- ing major configuration changes. AGIS data requirements are a large driver of these costs; previously, two-dimensional (2-D) data could be collected to support airport needs, at a lower accuracy, with

26 | LEVERAGING NEXTGEN SPATIAL DATA TO BENEFIT AIRPORTS little or no attribution, and with fewer topology constraints. The additional cost of acquiring data that meets the FAA’s specifications has gone down, however, as consultants become more familiar with the processes required, vendors provide tools that help, and the FAA’s guidance is refined. Although the FAA’s requirements increase the cost of collecting airfield configuration data, the collec- tion of this data also promises to provide new benefits, such as the following: • Reduced data maintenance. Airports that maintain their non-safety-critical data as required by the FAA benefit by having up-to-date, accurate information to support airfield operations and maintenance activities, which increasingly rely on maps integrated with FAR Part 139 reporting, maintenance management, and gate allocation systems. A small but growing number of airports that have implemented such GIS applications are beginning to reap these benefits. Furthermore, the cost of preparing a comprehensive set of airfield configuration data (often called “eALP data”) should be a one-time expense provided the data is updated as the airport’s configuration changes. The need for data maintenance has prompted some airports to hire GIS analysts or impose a sur- charge on construction projects. Over time, however, the costs of ongoing data maintenance are likely to be less than the costs of periodic comprehensive mapping efforts. • Reuse of aeronautical data. Airports for which wide-area augmentation system (WAAS) aeronauti- cal studies have been performed may experience a cost savings toward an ALP update or eALP data collection project (Woolpert 2015). • New capabilities. As the FAA continues to roll out AGIS modules such as the eALP, modification of standards, and surface analysis and visualization tools, airports will continue to gain new capabili- ties that directly benefit their ongoing needs. Already, airports have begun to benefit from addi- tional data development tools that can leverage the standardized data model the FAA requires. • Operational efficiency. NextGen programs such as surface operations will improve operational ef- ficiencies as they are rolled out at larger commercial airports. • Growth of available imagery. Aerial imagery that is collected to support the development of safety-critical and airport configuration data is being loaded by the FAA to a secure cloud-based service that airports and other entities will be able to access in the future. A growing number of other government and commercial sources also are collecting imagery that potentially enriches the pool of useful information available to airports. The cost-benefit ratio of airport configuration data soon promises to pass breakeven and provide a positive return to airports that maintain their data and take advantage of the growing number of FAA and vendor-supplied tools that use this data. To achieve this improved return, the research team sug- gests that airports take the following steps: 1. Structure spatial data in a manner that is compatible with the FAA’s requirements as defined in FAA AC 150/5300-18. Airports that choose to maintain data in another format can establish a strategy for converting the data to an FAA-compliant format when it is to be submitted or used with tools that leverage the FAA’s data structure. 2. Record and store metadata sufficient to determine the source, quality, and methods used to create spatial data. 3. Maintain and update the data as airfield configuration changes are made, as opposed to conduct- ing periodic updates when the data is needed. Effective maintenance requires an ongoing dialog between airport project managers who are responsible for physical changes and GIS technicians who are responsible for depicting those changes on a map. 4. Avoid redundant and repetitive data collection efforts that do not consider or trust existing data. Encourage consultants and contractors that are concerned about the liability of using data col-

Cost-Benefit Considerations | 27 lected by others to at least review and attempt to validate existing data to determine if it can meet their needs. 5. Promote the awareness and use of existing data across airport divisions, among consultants, and where appropriate, in communications with the public. Data can be distributed and used in its na- tive format, published as maps or services, and incorporated into applications. Regardless of how it is distributed, the more data is used, the greater is its benefit. Safety-critical and airfield configuration data are the primary categories of data collected by airports that are used in support of NextGen programs. In addition, noise contours developed by airports to support EAs or FAR Part 150 studies and utilities data shared to facilitate NextGen equipment instal- lations are also relevant. These data types, however, have been previously collected by airports, face few new FAA requirements, and are typically not exchanged between airports and the FAA. For these reasons, the marginal costs and benefits are insignificant when compared with the more significant impacts described above for safety-critical and airfield configuration data. FAA Data Benefits Airports Airports also stand to benefit from spatial data that is produced by the FAA. This is especially true for airports that chose to take an increased role in planning and protecting their airspace. Their cost- benefit implications for airports are described in this section. • The FAA notes that “airports have a need for access to real-time FAA flight track data for their surface situational awareness and noise monitoring programs” (Black 2015). Awareness and noise monitoring programs use in-flight and on-the-ground aircraft locations to help airports plan, make decisions about, and protect their airspace. These locations also help airports establish and main- tain a safe and efficient operating environment on the ground. • Flight procedures define a path for aircraft to follow. These paths, or tracks, are published on the 56-day AIRAC schedule as “approach plates.” Textual information about the parameters of each flight track also is available from the FAA. Although this data is spatial, it is not published in a com- mon geospatial format that allows airports to easily view and analyze the data in GIS and CAD programs they may use. This data is beneficial to airports looking to understand the impacts new or proposed flight procedures may have on their operations and surrounding community. • Data about utilities installed by the FAA or its contractors to support FAA NAVAIDs and facilities often are not available to the airports concerned with the location of these utilities during project design and construction phases. The FAA’s computer-aided engineering graphics (CAEG) program is taking steps to alleviate this problem, but airports currently must request utilities data on a case- by-case basis. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Open Data Policy (White House memorandum May 9, 2013), the FAA is taking steps to provide the spatial data it collects to the pub- lic. Meanwhile, airports can take steps to proactively seek data that may be of benefit to them. The following steps are suggested: 1. Airports can request a direct connection to the FAA’s Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI) data or subscribe to the services of commercial vendors who offer such data. Airports also can request a direct connection to the FAA’s ASDE-X data. For more details, airports can consult the FAA memorandum, Requests for Release of FAA Real-time NAS Data to Airports for Surface Situational Awareness and Noise Monitoring Programs (FAA 2015e).

28 | LEVERAGING NEXTGEN SPATIAL DATA TO BENEFIT AIRPORTS 2. Airports can obtain current and upcoming instrument flight procedure information via the FAA’s IFP Information Gateway at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/. 3. Airports can contact representatives in their Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Service Center to request and obtain copies of as-built drawings of facilities and utilities installed by the FAA and its contrac- tors. Service center points of contact can be found at https://www.faa.gov/foia/foia_coordinators/ ato_service_centers/?section=service_center_contact. 4. Once airports receive data from the FAA, they are encouraged to incorporate it into the airport’s geospatial data resources, which are kept current and published to their staff and consultants who require this information. In summary, since 2006, when AGIS data requirements were first published, the marginal cost of col- lecting data to meet NextGen and other FAA requirements has been high. This has been especially apparent since 2013, when the FAA’s transition policy solidified the roll-out of these requirements. At the same time, the relative benefits have been low, as not all procedure designers have had access to airport spatial data, AGIS modules have only begun to be rolled out, and airports have only begun to implement or integrate with internal systems to use the data to address their needs. Furthermore, the availability of FAA-produced spatial data has been unclear to or elusive for many airports, and a sometimes costly challenge to overcome for others. The result is that the return on investment (ROI) for collecting spatial data to both the FAA and to airports has been lower than it could be. In particu- lar, the ROI to airports has been perceived as very low, if not negative. Fortunately, airports have an opportunity to change this perception and receive greater benefit from FAA-collected spatial data by taking the steps described above. Moreover, as more NextGen programs, FAA lines of business, and airports begin to use this data for expanded purposes, the ROI will grow to the point at which both the FAA and airports can recognize the benefits and cost-benefit analyses of these activities are no longer of concern. Airport Data Can Benefit Carriers Spatial data produced by airports also can benefit air carriers. This data can support both aircraft operations and facility management. For aircraft operations, many air carriers employ flight procedure specialists who seek to optimize the arrival and departure procedures of their aircraft. Some seek to hone flight procedure parameters based on the specific configuration of their aircraft. Others have become proponents of PBN procedures that benefit their operations. Carriers with significant opera- tions at an airport often work with the FAA and the airport to plan the future configuration of airspace around an airport. For these activities, air carrier flight procedure specialists need the same information as their counterparts who work for the FAA (see the section on flight procedures in Chapter 2). Spatial data on obstacles, terrain, runway configuration, and NAVAIDs are essential. Airlines also can take into consideration land use, population, and other factors that affect stakeholders around the airport. Airline dispatchers can benefit from spatial data that depict runways, taxiways, aprons, gates, parking locations, fueling locations, deicing pads, and other components of airport infrastructure that affect their safe and efficient operations. Dispatchers may use this data in moving map displays, similar to those being implemented for FAA controllers as a part of NextGen, while schedulers may use this information to predict taxiing times. Airline station managers, maintenance staff, and other personnel assigned to work at airports served by an airline often need information on the physical layout of the facility, airport and airline assets, interior floor plans, and other spatial data. Airlines lease and reconfigure space to suit their needs.

Cost-Benefit Considerations | 29 This requires floor plans from the airport to support the planning and design needs. Most airports will require airlines and other tenants to submit as-built drawings once these projects are complete. Although this facilities data is important to airlines and airports, it is outside the scope of NextGen and therefore only briefly mentioned in this guidebook. An increasing number of airports collect and maintain the types of spatial data airlines need. Informing airport lease managers, operations personnel, and other staff members who work directly with airlines about the spatial data resources their airport offers helps them better support their airline customers. Furthermore, sharing this data is a means of helping airlines operate more efficiently, which can bring more revenue to an airport and further improve the return an airport is able to achieve on its invest- ment in spatial data. Public Agency Data Can Lower Costs Another way to improve the return on investment (ROI) in spatial data is to lower its cost. One way to do so is to take advantage of the increasing amount of spatial data that is made available by public agencies, much of which is available at a low cost, or even free. This opportunity, as well as effective practices several airports have used to exchange spatial data with local agencies, has been document- ed in ACRP Synthesis of Airport Practice 59: Integrating Airport Geographic Information System (GIS) Data with Public Agency GIS. This synthesis report found that airports require spatial data “from surround- ing communities to support planning and development, airspace analysis, property acquisition, noise mitigation, environmental protection, customer service, and other procedures.” Conversely, the study found that “public agencies require geographic information from airports for transportation planning, compatible land development, emergency response, and zoning.” Furthermore, some airports rely on their parent organizations, such as municipal or county agencies and, in some cases, regional planning organizations for software, hardware, and personnel. Some airports have collaborated with regional agencies to cost-effectively procure aerial imagery on a periodic basis (Murphy and Bannura 2014). The spatial data and related resources exchanged between airports and public agencies benefit the implementation of NextGen in a few ways. Primarily, the exchange of data helps collaborative land use planning that can protect airspace for new NextGen PBN procedures. The data makes it easier for flight procedure specialists to balance airspace configuration changes among the sometimes compet- ing needs of airport, airline, and community stakeholders. Spatial data also can help in developing maps that are an essential component of the stakeholder engagement that supports NextGen imple- mentation (a finding of ACRP Project 01-28 further documented in ACRP Report 150: NextGen for Airports, Volume 2: Engaging Airport Stakeholders: Guidebook). By seeking existing data from local agen- cies, airports can lower their costs by avoiding the generation of duplicative spatial data while increas- ing the likelihood that NextGen procedures will be implemented in a manner that benefits the airport, its operators, and the surrounding community. The Importance of Data Maintenance The quickest way to lose an investment in spatial data is to not maintain it. Airports are dynamic en- vironments with ongoing development and maintenance activities that constantly change the physi- cal facilities and assets depicted by spatial data. Airports also are transportation hubs, which attract off-airport development that can change the areas of interest to the airport and to NextGen. If the

30 | LEVERAGING NEXTGEN SPATIAL DATA TO BENEFIT AIRPORTS relevant spatial data does not keep up with these changes, users lose confidence and seek alternatives or, worse, make decisions based on invalid data. The result is that benefits dwindle and the ROI rapidly erodes. The solution is to continuously maintain data so that it is kept as up to date as possible. This goal has been challenging for many airports to achieve for a variety of reasons. Spatial data is often produced as a part of a specific project such as a master plan update, facility construction, boundary survey, air- space analysis, or environmental study. An ACRP study into subsurface utility engineering (SUE) noted that “the desire to complete projects and bring new facilities into use often eclipses the need for infor- mation necessary to efficiently operate and maintain them” (Anspach and Murphy 2012). When the project ends, so does the mechanism to update the data. As a consequence, the data that is delivered remains a snapshot in time until a similar project emerges. Furthermore, a risk exists that the data that is delivered will not meet the airport’s requirements, and therefore will not improve the overall quality of the airport’s geospatial data. This problem often occurs because airports lack data standards that sufficiently define their needs, or because existing standards are not enforced. In addition, consultants and contractors often prefer to re-collect spatial data on each project to minimize the risk of mistakenly relying on poor data. As a result, variations can occur across time that make using the data less efficient and effective. A growing number of airports have attempted to address these challenges by implementing and enforcing data standards and by assigning data maintenance responsibilities to qualified staff or on-call consultants. These airports establish procedures to maintain the data and enforce those procedures through policies endorsed by senior management. This approach requires management education and oversight, ongoing funding, and interdepartmental coordination. Because time, funding, and staff resources are always limited, those airports that have been successful have focused on data sets that frequently change and have many users. These data sets include: • Utility locations that are established or discovered during airfield construction activities; • Tenant space utilization that changes as tenants come and go or when facilities are altered; • Maintenance and repair histories of airfield pavement and other location-specific assets; and • Environmental monitoring and mitigation. Interestingly, despite airports’ commitment to their ongoing maintenance, these data sets are not among those most needed by the FAA for NextGen or other internal activities. This allocation of re- sources again suggests that airports do not currently perceive a positive (beneficial) cost-benefit ratio in maintaining the data the FAA requires. To remedy this situation, the FAA has established several requirements, including the following: • Submission of up-to-date spatial data that the FAA defines as safety critical for flight operations, as well as “as-built” data reflecting airfield changes as a condition of AIP grant offers and passenger facility charge (PFC) decisions (DeLeon 2012); • Tracking and accounting for land or property rights acquired by airports using federal funds, often using spatial data to depict airport parcels; • Submission of noise contours depicting day-night average sound (or noise) levels (DNLs) of current and forecast aircraft operations for FAR Part 150 noise studies; and • Under FAR Part 77.9, the filing of spatial data with the FAA about objects that may impact the safety of navigable airspace (14 CFR 77.9). In addition to these federal mandates, a small but growing number of states are requiring spatial data to be developed for airports. South Carolina, for example, requires “a map of each public use airport

Cost-Benefit Considerations | 31 in the State showing airport property, runways, taxiways, runway approach and departure zones, airport safety zones and airport land use zones,” also mandating that “these maps should be updated as needed, but at least every 5 years” (SC Code § 55-13-5 [2015]). Whether driven by airport needs, federal regulations, or state statutes, the requirement to maintain spatial data is increasing. No single approach will work for all airports, but it is prudent for each airport to consider their options and to develop a program to maintain their valuable spatial data. As this occurs, increasing amounts of spatial data will become available to support NextGen implementation and other FAA initiatives, ultimately to the benefit of airports and their stakeholders.