The results of the Gap Analysis are presented in three subsections that treat the FAA ASD IS Gaps, the Application Gaps, and the R&D Gaps respectively. Applications overlaps are treated as a separate section at the end of this chapter.

The analysis of the gaps in the ASD Implementation Steps revealed that most of the gaps consisted of Information Gaps (i.e., there was not sufficient descriptive information concerning the IS). Funding Gaps were primarily attributed to the lack of funding of several of the DAG CEs and some SF21 applications. The technology gaps were few. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the Technology Gaps and the Information Gaps, respectively. The details of the ASD IS Gap Analysis are presented as Appendix D.

The identified Application Gaps have been divided into major and other gaps. Major application gaps have a significant impact on the evolution of the NAS toward the Operational Concept identified in CDRL 2 of RTO 62. Other Gaps, while having an impact on the evolution of the NAS, are more easily accommodated by including the related requirements within existing programs via program modifications. The details of the Application Gap Analysis are presented in Appendix E.

1. General Aviation
   No explicit determination of future requirements for General Aviation, nor programs to develop the necessary CNS and ATM infrastructure to satisfy General Aviation’s needs.
2. Military Aviation
   No explicit determination of future requirements for military aviation nor programs to ensure NAS compatibility with the CNS and ATM infrastructure to satisfy military aviation’s needs.
3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs), Reusable Launch Vehicles( RLVs)
   Little activity to quantify or satisfy the requirement to accommodate UAVs, ELVs, and RLVs in the NAS.
4. NAS Integrity, Reliability, Vulnerability, Security, and Backup
   Inadequate attention to design of NAS system for high integrity, reliability, security and with suitable backup provisions.
5. Weather Forecasts, Depiction, and Hazard Determination
   Many TFM concepts require accurate depiction of current weather along with current and short and long term weather forecasts, including hazardous weather regions. Current weather research programs are inadequate to support this requirement and few DST developments can incorporate such forecasts or depictions if available.
6. Flight Deck Decision Support Tools
   Requirements for Flight Deck Decision support tools are implicit rather than explicit and there is no explicit determination of requirements for cockpit DSTs; cannot determine the extent to which DAG DSTs satisfy the unstated requirements.
7. Future Communication Systems (NAS WIS, Datalink)
   No explicit determination of future communication requirements in terms of users, availability, coverage, bandwidth, integrity, security, spectrum use, and cost, nor projects to develop the necessary communication infrastructure to satisfy the unstated requirements.
8. Reduced Separation Standards
   Current projects aimed at reducing separation standards are not comprehensive nor integrated. Several DAG Concept Elements and Safe Flight 21 applications that deal with reduced separation are not funded.
9. Arrival/Surface/Departure Integration
   Current projects do not address how the arrival and departure tools can be interfaced and integrated with surface management tools.
10. Tower Automation
    No explicit determination of tower automation requirements, including integration with surface and terminal automation systems, nor projects to satisfy tower automation requirements.
11. Surface Automation
    Current projects in surface automation are limited in scope and do not support full surface traffic management and arrival/surface/departure integration.
12. Collaboration and Negotiation in Flight Planning
    Many DAG Concept Elements to explore collaboration and negotiation in flight planning are unfunded.
13. Surveillance Processing
    There are no terminal and en route projects to develop new methods to process multisensor surveillance data.

1. Cockpit Displays
   No projects to develop cockpit displays of expanded airport information (e.g. RVR, braking action and surface condition reports, and runway availability as well as wake turbulence and wind shear advisories).
2. NAS Common and Consistent Displays
   No projects to develop pilot, Airline Operations Center (AOC), and service provider displays that support a common and consistent view of weather, traffic, infrastructure and other NAS information.
3. Flight Object
   Many projects make use of a new “flight object” for flight planning and tracking, but there are no projects to develop and incorporate flight objects into automation systems.
4. Dynamic Airspace
   No projects to provide dynamic airspace, sector, and facility structures with seamless inter and intra facility communication. DAG Concept Elements and Safe Flight 21 applications that deal with dynamic airspace structures and designs are not funded.
5. Infrastructure Management Tools
   No projects to develop infrastructure management tools to support activities such as
   1. monitoring and managing NAS resources
   2. manage budgets, staff, and costs.
   3. dynamic assignment/reassignment of NAS infrastructure assets to mitigate infrastructure problems as well as in response to changes in sectorization and airspace assignments.
   4. contingency planning that moves from maintaining some level of serve in the face of serious infrastructure problems to maintaining the highest level of flow given the ability to dynamically reallocate assets.
   5. strategic flow initiatives that move from modifying demand within the constraints of the existing NAS resources into full realignment of NAS resources to best meet the traffic situation.
6. NAS Design Support Tools
   No decision support systems for developing alternative airspace designs, simulating traffic through the NAS for each airspace structure proposal, and evaluating each proposal.
7. Oceanic Airspace Design
   Oceanic projects do not provide oceanic airspace that resembles domestic airspace relative to waypoints, surveillance, self separation, and airspace structure and communications, with similar control methods that permit a transition from tracks to trajectories.
8. Common GIS
   There is no project to develop a common Geographical Information System (GIS) format to store all NAS information including terrain, obstacle, weather, and navigation, surveillance, and communication coverage information.
9. Improved ELT
   No program to provide improved ELT.

The objective of this analysis was to identify Eurocontrol ARDEP projects that could potentially satisfy the Applications Gaps Identified above. The Major Applications Gaps potentially satisfied by ARDEP Projects were found to be:

• Weather Forecasts, Depiction, and Hazard Determination
• Reduced Separation Standards
• Collaboration and Negotiation in Flight Planning
• Surveillance Processing

No additional gaps are specifically addressed by the Eurocontrol program. The details of this analysis are presented in Appendix F.

The details of the Applications Overlap Analysis are provided in Appendix G. The NASA/FAA IAIPT Integrated Plan was examined to determine if any new applications had been introduced that were not already covered by existing FAA and NASA applications. No new programs were introduced, and existing FAA and NASA applications completely cover the IAIPT programs. In addition, all applications were examined to identify overlapping activities among themselves. The results of the applications overlap analysis are as follows:

Table 5 reveals that there are three potential overlaps within the CIP itself; 15 potential overlaps between the CIP and the NARP; and, 8 potential overlaps between the CIP and the AATT Applications. There are no overlaps within or between the NARP and the AATT Applications. The highest potential for overlapping activities are among the aviation safety analysis applications.

Further examination of the potential overlaps between the CIP and the AATT applications reveals that these are not overlaps between programs but rather technology transfer between the FAA and NASA. There are 8 such technology transfer applications. In addition, several FAA applications appear both in the CIP and the NARP in order that the research and implementation aspects of the applications may be adequately funded from the appropriate funding sources.

End of Gap Analysis Report Section 3