Coming off several months of studying volcanic disruptions to aviation, I come away with sobering observations about the way we as an aviation community go about solving real world problems, or the way we don’t solve them as the case may be.At the core, volcanic disruptions require safe and efficient rerouting of aircraft to avoid volcanic clouds, making use of available airspace, and managing disruptions to flight schedules. But, the full scope of the problem becomes rather complex when we begin to think about all of the moving parts that have to work together to allow the system to function effectively with flights and passengers getting to their destinations.

We need:

• Forecasts of future volcanic cloud positions and densities
  -More accurate, timely and frequently updated
  -Finer temporal and spatial resolution
  -Forecast models augmented with satellite and other sensor and
  observation data
• Optimal rerouting of aircraft to:
  -Avoid volcanic clouds
  -Provide predictable departure and arrival times
  -Determine the trajectory to be flown, load to be carried and fuel required
  -Verify that the aircraft and equipment can fly the planned route, including
  extended twin engine operations as well as prolonged exposure to low
  levels of volcanic contaminants
  -Crews, equipment, and resources are available to support the flight
• Sufficient airspace capacity to accommodate demand based on:
  -Airspace sector configurations
  -Communications, navigation, surveillance and automation support systems
  -Controller staffing and scheduling
  -Capabilities to manage the supply-demand problem
• Airport services:
  -Ability to handle arrivals, departures, and other critical services
  (fuel, de-icing, security, etc.)
  -Surface capacity and scheduling
  -Ramp and gate capacity and scheduling
  -Ground equipment and personnel
  -Terminal capacity and scheduling
  -Intermodal connectivity

This is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. All of the parts need to work together in a reasonably coordinated way. This means we need to develop coordinated plans and execute those plans in close coordination. Each stakeholder in the system – the aircraft operators, the air navigation service provider, and the airports – has its own set of interests and objectives. To the extent possible, our approach should enable each stakeholder to achieve its goals. In the end, if one of the pieces is not an integral part of the plan, it would be like pulling out one of the gears in a clock – it will stop working.

Management guru Stephen Covey says “Begin with the end in mind.” If we are to develop a coordinated approach that is capable of coordinated planning and execution, we need to begin with the end in mind. We need to deal with all of the stakeholders and all of the moving parts in an integrated way. Instead, we seem to be too focused at any given time on one facet of the problem. We seem to ignore the dynamic nature of the problem. We seem to unnecessarily constrain the problem by imposing the limitations of today’s or yesterday’s system; for example, discussions have focused on the need to have the text and graphics of a  SIGMET match exactly and the definition of restricted areas limited to no more than seven points (see recent SIGMET from the Darwin VAAC concerning the Merapi eruption). We seem to be swept away by abstractions and abstract processes that sometimes distract us from what is going on in the physical world and the physical problem we should be solving. Perhaps because we come from a community of specialists and experts and seem to thrive in stovepipes, we have a natural tendency to want to limit our work to our own backyard and drill down ‘til the cows come home. Unfortunately, these kinds of problems don’t lend themselves to being solved a piece at a time. Even a very rough, integrated approach is likely to have much more success.

 

 

There have been years of substantial investments in satellite sensors and imagery, transport and dispersion modeling, air traffic management, and stakeholder collaboration in operational planning and execution. I believe we have all of the foundational pieces needed to develop a far better operational capability to coordinate planning and execution. I’m not saying there isn’t room for more research and improvement across the board. There absolutely is a need for that. But, what we need more urgently is an integrated approach. With a modest amount of additional investment focused on integration, we could have an initial operational capability within 1-2 years.

The lesson for NextGen is the same. We need to be more top-down. We need to stay focused on the physical world and problem, using abstractions to help rather than distract us. We need a more integrated view and use more integrated approaches. We need involved stakeholders. We need to leverage existing capabilities. We need to deliver valuable operational improvements in 1-2 years, and we can.