UNITED AIRLINES 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 approvalTotally 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 AC A 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-of- vision, graphical Nav/MFD displays In this environment it is extremely unlikely that pilots will find a side- mounted, 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