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.
67 stakeholders to set appropriate expectations based on the requirements and constraints of a given study or project. Following the introduction section, a detailed description of the array of profile modeling techniques that existed before AEDT, that are new to AEDT, and that are provided by ACRP 02- 55 is included in Section 2. Then, Section 3 gives a guideline for AEDT users to select the appropriate profile modeling method based on their unique situation and the needs versus constraints of the environmental study at hand. In Section 4, a step-by-step walk through of the process to review profile data, compare to the available AEDT and ACRP profiles, and select the appropriate profile is presented. Finally, Section 5 discusses how users should review the flight performance computed by AEDT to ensure reasonableness of the modelâs outputs. In conclusion, this guidance document is intended to inform AEDT users as well as other stakeholders, and to promote improved flight profile modeling using the full extent of AEDTâs capabilities. The guidance document will be published separately from this research report by ACRP. 5 Implementation Plan Products of the Research The products of this research are: 1) 840 new arrival procedural profiles covering most of the aircraft types currently available within AEDT 2) 1,410 new departure procedural profiles covering most of the aircraft types currently available within AEDT, consisting of three sets: a. Departure Procedures at Standard Thrust, Standard Weight, Unconstrained Speed b. Departure Procedures at Reduced Thrust, Standard Weight, Constrained Speed c. Departure Procedures at Reduced Thrust, Flexible Weight, Constrained Speed 3) A description of a new profile customization tool 4) A standalone Guidance Document. This combination of products provides the necessary information to AEDT users to not only be able to improve their ability to model real-world profiles, but also understand how, when, and why they should make the extra effort to do so. Audience for the Products The audience for this research effort is the full range of AEDT users, which covers a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations. The AEDT user base spans analysts with a wide range of experience, expertise, available data, and available resources. Potential Impediments to Successful Implementation We believe that the greatest impediments to successful implementation of the market acceptance or adoption of the products of this research effort would include the following: ï· FAA policy considerations â The FAA determines what data and analysis methods can be applied to a given type on environmental analysis. For example AEDT already
68 contains altitude control functionality for profile customization but FAA policy has not confirmed that it can be used for airport-level noise analyses. If not supported by FAA regulatory policy, the outcomes for this research may only be applicable for research- oriented environmental analyses. ï· Aircraft manufacturer participation and support â The FAA relies on aircraft manufacturers for the bulk of the aircraft flight performance and profile data used within AEDT, and they have shown a vested interest in how their products are represented within regulatory environmental models. FAA will likely not adopt the outcomes of this research into AEDT without agreement from aircraft manufacturers in order to protect their ongoing relationship and preserve this critical data source. ï· AEDT adoption of project outcomes â Within FAAâs constraints including competing development priorities and limited development resources, it is not a given if or when the research outcomes will be adopted within AEDT. Leadership in Applying the Research Products We view the FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE), the FAA Airports Division (APP- 400), FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) environmental stakeholders, the SAE A-21 Committee, and aircraft manufacturers as the primary champions for the products produced under this effort. FAA AEE determines which and when new functionalities and data are added to AEDT. AEE, APP-400, and ATO jointly determine the policies dictating the use of different modeling techniques and data for U.S. regulatory analyses, with AEE overseeing all FAA environmental considerations, APP-400 focusing on airport-level environmental analyses, and ATO focusing on regional environmental analysis. The SAE A-21 Committee develops technical guidance documents and determines best practices for aviation environmental modeling. Aircraft manufacturers often control or at least heavily influence the aircraft performance and flight profile data used by AEDT. These groups combined will determine when the outcomes from this research are available for actual application and in what situations they can be applied. Activities Necessary for Successful Implementation This research effort included coordination with two of the main stakeholders, the AEDT Development Team and the SAE A-21 Committee. This has provided a good start towards eventual implementation. Now it will be up to FAA AEE, as the owners of AEDT, to decide if and when they wish to incorporate the products of this research within AEDT. This may be done in conjunction with the SAE A-21 Committee and aircraft manufacturers which generally coordinate with FAA AEE on how their aircraft are to be represented within AEDT. Additionally, APP-400 and ATO will need to be engaged to make sure regulatory policy is in line with and/or allows the use of the functionalities and data developed through this research. The FAA organizations overall are also the best able to promote their adoption given their regulatory authority and involvement in the wide range of applications of AEDT. Once FAA has decided to move forward, the mechanism for implementation is very straightforward. The new flight procedures developed during this research are defined in such a way as to allow them to be directly ingested into the AEDT FLEET database. The new profile customization tool is described using pseudocode to define the mechanism for modifying existing procedures that is readily implementable by AEDT developers. The other aspects of the tool that would need to be implemented, i.e., the GUI modifications needed to accept the userâs input for profile modifications and other work to store the newly modified profiles are very minor and are consistent with work that the AEDT Development Team does constantly when adding new or modifying existing functionality within AEDT.
69 Criteria for Judging Progress of Implementation We believe that the criteria for judging progress for the implementation effort can be measured only one to two years after the results of this research have been adopted by AEDT and made available to its users. Only then will anyone be able to quantify the rate of use of the research outcomes through evaluation of the publicly available documentation describing the methods and data used for regulatory environmental analyses, as these types of analyses generally take a long time to complete and there is often a lag between when new capabilities first become available within FAA regulatory tools and when they are first applied to actual analyses. There is a lot of inertia to overcome when changing regulatory analysis methods due to ingrained practices of users themselves, and justifiable conservatism on the part of analysis sponsors and regulatory stakeholders. Judging the consequences of implementation may be a more nebulous area. When adopted by AEDT, the research outcomes will go through the AEDT Confidence Assessment (CA) process (formerly the Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) process). If past efforts and methods are any guide, this will include both individual flight and larger scale (airport, regional, and/or potentially even global level) assessments of the effects of the changes in functionality, providing a good description of the impacts users can expect. Some actual AEDT users may also do their own before and after evaluations of the research outcomes that could also be informative. Beyond that, larger trends in environmental metric results could be analyzed through evaluating publicly available regulatory analysis documentation for analyses conducted before and after AEDT adoption of the research outcomes to determine their consequences. We look forward to doing our part to help ACRP drive the momentum forward for AEDT users to understand and embrace the important AEDT enhancements produced by this research.
