Small Airport Autonomous and Remote Traffic Systems (SmAARTS)

The idea behind this is simply stated by the two questions posed below:

1. How does the NAS accommodate the benefits of air traffic services at
   small airports without increasing costs to aircraft operators, users,
   and government? 2. What advances in technology offer opportunities for
   increasing and improving air traffic services at small airports? The
   benefits of air traffic services encompass improved access for community
   services and economic development, more reliable air services, safer,
   and orderly flows, time savings, etc. Communities with large commercial
   service airports have seen a cascade of benefits from advances in both
   aeronautical technologies, reductions in costs, and increases in
   productivity coupled with the impetus of airline deregulation whereupon
   the government stepped back from micro managing aviation. Meanwhile
   small airports are still reliant on air traffic services and
   technologies largely developed and first approved for use by the US Army
   Signal Corps in 1917 at Langley Field, Virginia, aeronautical radios,
   and the first civilian airport control tower was established in 1930 at
   Cleveland, Ohio. Not much has changed for small airports since then.
   Over 80 years later the benefits of terminal air traffic control
   services are limited to about ten percent of the public use airports in
   the U. S. The objective of this applied project is to demonstrate the
   cost effective utility and implementation of advanced surveillance,
   sensing, or sequencing systems for terminal air traffic services.
   Approach to Research 1. Solicit industry proposals for advanced
   surveillance, sensor displays, or sequencing systems. 2. Select one or
   more test bed airport sites for testing and evaluation of systems. 3.
   Develop testing protocols and evaluation criteria in consultation with
   the FAA. 4. Conduct field trials including user evaluations. 5.
   Document findings and recommendations for further research and potential
   policy or approval actions by FAA. 6. Develop follow on integrated
   technology and procedural applications implementation plans utilizing
   the most promising and proven features derived from field tests.

The objective of this applied project is to demonstrate the cost effective utility and implementation of advanced surveillance, sensing,
or sequencing systems for terminal air traffic services.

App
roach to Research
1.
Solicit industry proposals for advanced surveillance, sensor displays, or sequencing systems.
2.
Select one or more test bed airport sites for testing and evaluation of systems.
3.
Develop testing protocols and evaluation criteria in consultation with the FAA.
4.
Conduct field trials including user evaluations.
5.
Document findings and recommendations for further research and potential policy or approval actions by FAA.
6.
Develop follow on integrated technology and procedural applications implementation plans utilizing the most
promising and proven features derived from field tests.

Cost and Justification
Recommend $1,500,000 for multiple technology evaluations to cover costs for vendor staff and technology, project
evaluators, aircraft operations, data analysis and documentation.
Estimated duration of 26 months based on the following timeline:
a) Solicit proposals and select demonstrations (
4 months)
b) Invite FAA and other ANSPs to suggest functional requirements and evaluation metrics and criteria for selected
air service demonstrations (4 months) and advise ACRP independent Panel
c) Implement test bed airport site(s) (4 months)
d) Conduct
field trials (8 months)
e) Document findings and evaluation (4 months)

Remote Tower research, testing, and certification by Frequentis, Konisberg, SaabSensis, Searidge Technology
Automated airport advisory services (i.e. MicroTower), F
AA Alaska weather camera program; FAA Flight Services
Airport surface surveillance systems such as millimeter wave radar (i.e. Moog Tasier system, X
-Sight, etc.)
Multi
-sensor demonstrations by U.S. military forces including:
U.S. Air Force –
Black Dart for counter
-UAS
U.S. Air Force –
Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Program,
U.S. Army – Maneuver Fires Integrated Experiment (MFIX) for tactical counter
-UAS
U.S. Air Force –
Commander's Challenge Counter
-UAS
FAA – Autonomous Air Traffic Control Program
ACRP 03
-27 Evaluating Methods for Counting Aircraft Operations at Non-
Towered Airports
ACRP 01
-23 Mitigating Disruptive Wifi Interference at Airports –
evaluation of technology
ACRP 11
-02 Alternative IT Delivery Methods and Best Practices for Small Airports – or
iented to small airports
ACRP 07
-03 Developing Improve Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems – evaluation of technology
ACRP 04
-02 Lightning Warning Systems for Use by Airport
– evaluation of technology