UNITED AIRLINES
Flight Standards and Technology
FLIGHT DECK WEATHER A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
UNITED AIRLINES “AIRNET”
PROGRAM
• Class II EFB, Charts, Manuals, and WIC
• Fully funded United program
• In vendor selection now
– Phase I – domestic fleets
– Phase 2 – international
• First fleet deployments flying mid-2007
• Totally business case driven approval
EFB / WIC BUSINESS CASE
• EFB Business Case is difficult to make
• Industry agrees it’s a good idea, but how
do you prove it pays for itself?
• Charts / manuals / paper replacement
don’t come close to covering costs
• Demonstrable increased operating
efficiency is key to making the case
• Quantifying “might-have-beens”
EFB-ENABLED OPERATING EFFICIENCIES
• Weight & balance, takeoff performance
• Weather-related benefits
– Diversion distance/time reduction
– Contingency fuel reduction
– Turbulence-related incident reduction
• Paper replacement
– Printing, shipping and paper costs
– Overall weight reduction
THE WIC BUSINESS CASE
• United did detailed analysis of over
80,000 actual flights to quantify WIC
benefits
• WIC benefits are a major, compelling
part of United’s AIRNET business case
– Graphical and alphanumeric products
– Broadcast delivery, NOT request/reply
– ACARS cost reduction
– Increased operating efficiencies
DOMESTIC versus INTERNATIONAL
WIC BUSINESS CASES
• United’s two-phased approach is based on
significant differences in cost/benefit
• International WIC is harder to cost-justify
– Communications is harder, more expensive
– Less weather information, granularity, &
verification
– Delivery must “buy itself on” aircraft for
other reasons
EFB – CLASS 1, 2, or 3?
• Class 1 cannot be used for true paper
replacement in all phases of flight
• Class 3 costs substantially more than
Class 2, making payback extremely
difficult to justify
• Class 2 allows most payback per unit
cost – BUT with some artificial
limitations driven by ‘avionics thinking’
WIC on CLASS II EFB
Avionics, or Not?
• GA is essentially exempt from AC12076A limitations
– Single pilot typical operations
– Limited if any other graphical avionics
displays onboard typical GA aircraft
– Definite potential for graphical EFB/WIC
display to become “compelling” to pilot
– No AC limitations on pilot “over-use” of
non-certified graphical displays/information
WIC on CLASS II EFB
Avionics, or Not?
• Part 121 and 91/F operators are explicitly
prohibited from Class II display of own-ship,
or even “circle of uncertainty” displays
• Background thinking based on traditional
avionics certification methodology
– Consider only the system being certified, not the
operational context
– No certification “credit” for other related
aircraft/crew capabilities, equipage, training, etc.
• Yet AC120-76A is an OPERATIONAL
APPROVAL process by definition
WIC on CLASS II EFB
Avionics, or Not?
• Typical NBAA and airline aircraft today
have multiple certified, center-field-ofvision, graphical Nav/MFD displays
• In this environment it is extremely
unlikely that pilots will find a sidemounted, limited function EFB to be
“compelling” relative to PFD/ND/MFD
• Crews are highly trained and
performance/compliance monitored
WIC on CLASS II EFB
Avionics, or Not?
• The industry needs a more pragmatic
approach to operational approval
guidance for Class II EFBs, considering:
– Other aircraft equipage
– Relative locations of displays
– Crew training and disciplinary standards
– Merit versus gain [Example: reduced
turbulence injuries]
FLIGHT DECK vs DISPATCH
WEATHER
• Optimized decision making requires
collaboration and information pooling
• Very different responsibilities and
environment:
– information acquisition
– display, assimilation, and usage
– capabilities and limitations
• WIC must mitigate the problem of
information “Haves” and “Have Nots”
FLIGHT DECK vs DISPATCH
WEATHER
• Dispatch:
– strategic planning, flight following
– High bandwidth, low cost comms
– High resolution displays, low light/vibration
environment
– No access to real-time board radar or sensory inputs
• Flight Crew:
–
–
–
–
Tactical planning, safety of flight, ride quality
Low bandwidth, high cost comms
Low resolution displays, poor viewing environment
Real-time sensory and radar data access
FLIGHT DECK vs DISPATCH
WEATHER
• United’s approach:
– “Functionally equivalent” weather
information
– Emphasis on “commodity weather” data
• NEXRAD, IR SAT, GTG, etc.
• METARs, TAFs, D-ATIS
– Different suppliers, but equivalent data
– Dispatch must have ability to view the
same data delivered to flight deck if/when
needed
NGATS / WIC FACTORS to CONSIDER
• Near-term operational benefits are key to
technology adoption in today’s industry
• Incremental approach is the only practical
way to reach “brave new world”
• Don’t price the solution out of the game
• Demanding the perfect solution IS the
greatest enemy of accomplishing
something good
UNITED NGATS PERSPECTIVE
• Monolithic “Hal 9000” or
“Colossus” is NOT the answer
• ALL viable contributing
capabilities must be leveraged to
succeed
• “System of Systems” is a better
analogy
UNITED NGATS PERSPECTIVE
“The problems we face
cannot be solved
by the same level of thinking
that created them”
-Albert Einstein