1. 1 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review OPERATIONAL APPLICATION, STC/TC & DATA COLLECTION PROJECT Project Review March 6, 2011

2. 2 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Agenda 16:00 Welcome/OIT Update – Dave Peterson 16:15 Flight Operations Status – Glenn Daley 16:30 Data Collection - Rich Cole 17:00 Draft Criteria Status - Mike Webb 17:30 Various Subjects - Dave/Chris/Rich – Merck/CSC – ASOS – Conops 17:45 Action Items / Wrap-up – All Happy Hour

3. 3 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review OIT Update Dave Peterson

4. 4 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Flight Operations Update Glenn Daley

5. 5 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Contract Status Milestone Scheduled DeliveryActual DeliveryPaid Data Collection Plan Delivered 30 September 20092 October 2009 STC Process Initiated 11 November 2009 Helo #1 STC Completed 10 Jan 201023 December 2009 Helo #2 STC Completed 9 July 201030 January 2010 Final Report Delivered 28 June 2012

6. 6 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Risk Assessment Update Risk IDProject Risk AssessmentMitigationResidual Risk ProbabilitySeverityRisk Risk 1: Failure to gain FAA procedure and criteria approvals OccasionalCriticalModerate1-Early N90/AFS airspace coordination. 2-Government/industry tiger team to facilitate procedure development. Moderate Risk 2: VF routes threaten other redesign projects or existing fixed-wing operations (Access) OccasionalMarginalModerate1- Stakeholder participation in VF route selections. 2- Develop MOU to establish criteria/ expectations for operational approvals. Moderate Risk 3: Insufficient data to evaluate business case for WAAS OccasionalCriticalModerate1-Expand operator participation to Part 91 and/or other Part 135 carriers. 2-If required, extend comparative WAAS / non-WAAS collection periods to maximum project execution dates. Moderate Risk 4: Unable to overcome vertical coordination/integra tion infrastructures of the government and VF community SeldomMarginalModerate1-Engage ATC, AFS, and RNAV WG to gain synergistic benefits/objectives. 2- Provide open invitation to all interested parties to participate in project developmental meetings. Low

7. 7 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Draft Criteria Update Mike Webb

8. 8 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review TERPS Update ActionStatus Terps Document Submitted to FAA Operational Approval Submitted to FAA Approaches Flight Evaluation

9. 9 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Data Collection and Analysis Rich Cole

10. 10 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review  WAAS Anecdotal data forms offer important information to help fill in critical information holes  Offers insight into ground and airborne delays  Sufficient conclusions can be drawn from the existing data  Skytrac data is continually provided by AAG (Sampled at 1 per minute)  Provides insight into the flight path trajectory profiles  WAAS Receiver data available on AAG 7660 and 7667 (Sampled at 1 per second)  Provides insight into WAAS receiver data collected on the airframes  Preliminary conclusions drawn. Final conclusion post WAAS IFR approach information collection. Bottom Line Up Front

11. 11 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review General Observations  POU to 6N5  Average VFR direct flight time is 27 minutes  Average in-flight fuel burn is 318 lbs  Average ground delay time is 2 minutes  Average fuel burn on the ground is 12 lbs  POU to JRA  Average direct VFR flight time is 25 minutes  Average in-flight fuel burn is 315 lbs  Average ground delay time is 1/2 minutes  Average fuel burn on the ground is 4 lbs  Need to continue to collect consistent details in WAAS anecdotal data  Estimates and correlations require greater emphasis on pilot entry of all data fields on the anecdotal data forms.  Statistics will mature with increased volume and data quality improvements

12. 12 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Summary Data Collection 6N5 - POU ParameterData Demographics Statistical Results General Observations Fuel BurnAverage in-flight fuel burn318 lbs On 4 occasions – more than 80 lb of fuel is spent waiting on the ground. On one occasion more than 380 lbs of fuel is spent waiting on the ground Average ground delay fuel burn12 lbs Time Average en-route time 27 minutes Average En route time consistent with the historical data collected between July 08-July 09. Average Ground Delays 2 minutes Airborne Delays Frequency of occurrence and elapsed time 5 in 53 data points An IFR approach was flown in VFR – caused 25 minutes delay Ground Delays Frequency of occurrence and elapsed time 6 in 53 data points One 25 minutes of ground delay – Cause unknown ATC WorkloadRadio transmission countRanged from 2 to 2411 contacts during ground delay of 25 minutes 24 contacts to fly IFR in VFR

13. 13 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Summary Data Collection JRA - POU ParameterData DemographicsStatistical Results General Observations Fuel BurnAverage in-flight fuel burn315 lbs On 1 occasion – 90 lb of fuel is spent waiting on the ground. On four occasions more than 40 lb of fuel is spent waiting on the ground. On 10 occasions, more than 100 lb of fuel spent above average (Causes unknown) Average ground delay fuel burn4 lbs Time Average en-route time 25 minutes Average En route time consistent with the historical data collected between July 08-July 09. Average Ground Delays 1/ 2 minutes Airborne Delays Frequency of occurrence and elapsed time 3 of 72 data points Two airborne delays more than 10 minutes Ground Delays Frequency of occurrence and elapsed time 4 in 72 data points Two 10 minutes and one 7 minutes of ground delay – Cause unknown. More than 50 lb of fuel used waiting on ground on 3 occasions ATC WorkloadRadio transmission countRanged from 1 to 1515 contacts during ground delay of 7 minutes

14. 14 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Equipped Data Collection ObjectiveSource Data Demographics Results General Observations Fuel Burn Comparisons Pilot fuel burn entry and historical data Current vs historical burn performance En route Time Improvements Pilot OOOI entry and historical data Current vs historical total enroute time Airborne Delays Pilot anecdotal entry and FMS data Frequency of occurrence and elapsed time Ground DelaysPilot anecdotal entry Frequency of occurrence and elapsed time Noise Reduction FAA’s ‘Integrated Noise Model (INM)’ v7.0 Simulation using FAA’s INM v7.0 ATC Workload ATC interviews and pilot anecdotal entry Radio transmission count Clearance Approvals ATC interviews and pilot anecdotal entry Record of rerouting

15. 15 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review BACKUPS WITH DATA ANALYSIS AND REPRESENTATION

16. 16 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review = + Total time of flight = In-air flight Time + Ground Delays Data Analysis 53 Anecdotal data forms for flights between 6N5 and KPOU Ground Delays Airborne Delays (IFR in VFR) ??? – Most likely ground delay 13 minutes of airborne delay

17. 17 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Data Analysis 53 Anecdotal data forms for flights between 6N5 and KPOU =+ Total Fuel Spent = In-air Fuel Usage + Ground Delay Fuel Use Ground Delays Airborne Delays (IFR in VFR) ??? – Most likely ground delay ??? – Most likely Data collection error

18. 18 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review = + Total time of flight = In-air flight Time + Ground Delays Data Analysis 72 Anecdotal data forms for flights between JRA and KPOU Ground Delays ??? – Most likely ground delay

19. 19 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Data Analysis 72 Anecdotal data forms for flights between JRA and KPOU =+ Total Fuel Spent = In-air Fuel Usage + Ground Delay Fuel Use

20. 20 June 23, 2010 Q2 2010 Project Review Various Subjects/Actions AAG/Merck/CSC – telecom ASOS status CONOPS – Mirus to send out Chap 3 (technical) later this week Actions – Continue to refine WAAS anecdotal information Next meeting – Jun 11 @ AAG