We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAiden O'Connell
Modified over 2 years ago
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation Document Number Here Traffic Flow Management Impact Assessment Research TFM Technical Interchange Meeting 31 October 2001 Craig Wanke
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Traffic Flow Management (TFM): Why Impact Assessment Decision Support? Today, FAA facilities and airlines plan flow management actions with limited collaboration and little or no way to predict effects of actions such as: –Ground delay programs, ground stops –Severe weather reroutes –Miles-in-trail boundary crossing restrictions Few decision support tools available to evaluate impact! Result: localized, highly conservative solutions to problems affecting wide areas of the US airspace –Excessive constraints on airports and airspace –Unintended consequences of multiple restrictions
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct CAASD Research Integrated miles-in-trail (MIT) and rerouting evaluation capability –Analyzes one or several proposed MITs in conjunction with manual or National Playbook reroutes NAS-wide TFM impact assessment analysis –Couples demand estimation with large scale queuing model to obtain NAS throughput and delays Several types of applications: –Real-time decision-support –TFM post-event analysis –Analysis of changes in the NAS
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct MIT Evaluation Interface 80:44:77 20 Number of Miles in Trail Average Delay in minutes Maximum Delay in minutes Number of aircraft involved MIT delay (hh:mm:ss) MIT delay + Reroute delay (hh:mm:ss)
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Example: Weather in Northeast U.S. WEST_VUZ Play Being Evaluated
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Impacted Arrivals: ZNY, ZBW, ZDC
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Modeling Miles-In-Trail Impact - Delays ZME-ZTL Boundary, Passbacks to ZKC, ZFW
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct ZTL Sector Loads, No Actions
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct ZTL Sector Loads, WEST_VUZ applied:
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct ZTL Sector Loads, Reroute + MITs
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Modeling MIT Restrictions for TFM DSS Model MIT impact for predicting: –Sector counts, upstream and downstream of the restrictions –Delays for spacing aircraft to the modeled restrictions Not necessary to model ATC actions precisely –Actions can include vectoring, holding, speed instructions Modeling approach –assume ground delay for flights departing near the restriction –active flights and inactives departing far from the restriction: slow flight progress starting near the restriction Preliminary research indicates this is a good model –vectoring activities rarely take aircraft into new sectors –spacing maneuvers start approximately two sectors upstream
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Modeling MIT Restrictions for TFM DSS 23:10:14 20 KBBB KAAA Range Limit for Airborne Delays Range Limit for Ground Delays ABC Top of Descent This Flight: Ground Delay = Airborne Delay These Flights: Airborne Delays = Ground Delay 20 MIT Restriction = Navigation Aid = Airport Key:
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct ORD ZAU OKK ZID ZTL ZME Hour of Boundary Crossing = Z x (NMI) y (NMI) No Delay Vectoring ORD Arrival Flow from ZID via OKK 4/2/2001 Different Colors = Different Tracks
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct In-Trail Spacing at Boundary (NMI) ORD Arrival Flow from ZID via OKK 4/2/2001: Observed Spacing During MITs Pairwise Spacing at Boundary (NMI) Posted MIT (NMI) Delay Vectoring Observed Lack of Delay Vectoring Time of Flight Crossing Boundary
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Delay Vectoring Example ORD ZAU OKK ZID ZTL ZME Delay Vectoring: Begins 150 nmi Upstream of MIT Hour of Boundary Crossing = Z x (NMI) y (NMI) Different Colors = Different Tracks
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct MIT + Rerouting Evaluation Capability: Plans Continue to obtain field feedback –Initial responses were enthusiastic. TMCs see great potential for using this capability to reduce usage of MIT restrictions –What are the basic assumptions, metrics, procedures, etc. for collaborating on enroute flow restrictions such as MITs? CAASD has defined a strawman operational concept to facilitate discussion Provide to CAASD Spring 2002 staff at ATCSCC for use in replay mode (post-event analysis) Continue to study technical issues –Model validation –Modeling in-place restrictions (static and dynamic) –Implementation on the TFM-I (ETMS, CCSD, …) –Include additional traffic management initiatives? (GDPs, etc.)
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct NAS-Wide TFM Impact Assessment CORBA-Based Data, Comm, Control Services RDBMS DPAT CRCT Delay and Throughput VisualizationScenario and Simulation Management
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct NAS-Wide TFM Impact Assessment CORBA-Based Data, Comm, Control Services RDBMS DPAT CRCT Delay and Throughput VisualizationScenario and Simulation Management Specify Strategies: Rerouting, Dynamic Miles-in-Trail Provide Detailed Demand Data for DPAT: Individual, up-to-minute flight plans for NAS Detailed trajectories, including LOA/SOP effects Trial plans for strategy evaluations Real-time and Playback Modes Available
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct NAS-Wide TFM Impact Assessment CORBA-Based Data, Comm, Control Services RDBMS DPAT CRCT Delay and Throughput VisualizationScenario and Simulation Management Define Scenario: Reroute Sets, MIT Sets, Resource Capacities, Schedule Changes Simulation Control: Run DPAT with baseline or scenario Choose results for comparative display Can run several DPAT instances at once
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct NAS-Wide TFM Impact Assessment CORBA-Based Data, Comm, Control Services RDBMS DPAT CRCT Delay and Throughput VisualizationScenario and Simulation Management DPAT for TFM IA: Individual flight plans (not city-pair) TAF WX parser for airport capacity Airframe itineraries DBMS management of results
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct NAS-Wide TFM Impact Assessment CORBA-Based Data, Comm, Control Services RDBMS DPAT CRCT Delay and Throughput VisualizationScenario and Simulation Management Visualize Results: NAS Pacer Airport Delays Delay and Throughput Charts by Airport
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Example: Delay Impact on Pacer Airports Green: <15 min avg delay Yellow: min avg delay Red: >30 min avg delay
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct Impact at Airports: Average Arrival Delay at JFK Baseline Reroutes & MIT Applied Hourly Average Delay (min)
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation 31 Oct NAS-Wide TFM Impact Assessment: Plans NAS-wide system simulation is envisioned as a widely- available capability with scenario sharing –Users of many types could develop scenarios, share them, modify them, discuss the results However, this is a very early concept! –operational applications and collaboration issues are not well understood –NAS-wide simulation models are not fully mature –not clear how it fits within TFM-I FY02: focus on improving simulation models
October 31, Metron Aviation, Inc. Dan Rosman Assessing System Impacts: Miles-in-Trail and Ground Delays.
Free Flight Phase 1 & 2 Performance Measurement Dave Knorr May 16, 2002.
May 15-17, 2002 National Aeronautical and Space Administration and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, US Dept. of Transportation Performance.
Development and Validation of Simulation Metrics FAA-EUROCONTROL Technical Interchange Meeting Performance Metrics in Air Traffic Management Toulouse,
URET Problem Analysis, Resolution and Ranking (PARR) and Flow Management Applications Dan Kirk October 21, 1999 © 1999 The MITRE Corporation. All rights.
©Ian Sommerville 2004Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 16 Slide 1 User interface design.
Measuring ATM Performance in a Performance-Based Organization May 2002 William Voss Director Terminal Business Unit (ATB)
Page 1 FAA / Eurocontrol TFM/CDM Technical Interchange Meeting David J. Hurley, Air Traffic Control System Command Center Mark Libby, National Operations.
ASWEC 2008Slide 1 Construction by Configuration: An opportunity for SE research Prof. Ian Sommerville St Andrews University Scotland.
CHARLES N. GLOVER MICHAEL O. BALL DAVID J. LOVELL Collaborative Approaches to the Application of Enroute Traffic Flow Management Optimization Models.
01/14/01 S2K+1 Field Training Spring /14/01 FAR 121 Air Safety PAD Operational Responsibility shared by: –P ilots –A TC –D ispatchers Enhancing.
Federal Aviation Administration Data Communications Program Presented to:ACP WG-M By:Gregg Anderson US Member for OPLINKP Date:February 1-2, 2011 Program.
© 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Sector Capacity Prediction for Traffic Flow Management Lixia Song April 13 th, 2010.
Safety Risk Management Managing Risk in the N.A.S. Mark ONeil NATCA Safety and Technology Department.
CARE/ASAS EUROCONTROL/ – Version 1.2 – February 13, First Package of Operational Applications Enabled by ADS-B Joint Co-ordination Board.
1 Federal Aviation Administration Right Sizing Kick-off – v0.1 March 17, 2009 Goals Today Shared understanding of NextGen Sources of information Shared.
© 2001 The MITRE Corporation Document Number Here US Civil - Military Airspace Sharing: Collaboration Tools and Trials April 2001.
One Sky for Europe EUROCONTROL © 2002 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) Page 1 FAA/Eurocontrol Technical Interchange.
Analysis, Modeling & Simulation Joe Adamo Department Head - Operations Analysis Joyce Wheeler Manager – Operations Analysis This document does not contain.
Presented to: Asia/Pacific Air Traffic Service Message Handling System (AMHS)/SWIM Workshop By: Hoang Tran, FAA International Telecommunication Service.
1 Requirements Engineering Processes – 2. 2 Recap of Last Lecture - 1 We introduced the concept of requirements engineering process We discussed inputs.
1 PHARE Achievements Dr. H. Schröter PHARE Programme Manager EUROCONTROL version 1.1,
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc Business Data Communications and Networking 11th Edition Jerry Fitzgerald and Alan Dennis John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1 Safety Assessment February SAFETY ASSESSMENT A Safety Assessment is essentially a process for finding answers to three fundamental questions:
MFG Assessment Application: Assessment Criteria and Metrics 1 Performance assessment criteria and metrics may be used as the basis for determining the.
Standard Flow Abstractions as Mechanisms for Reducing ATC Complexity Jonathan Histon May 11, 2004 M I T I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r A i.
Resource Allocations within Constrained Airspace October 31, 2001 Metron Aviation, Inc. Robert Hoffman, Ph.D.
Steve Zaidman, AAF-1 George Sakai, ASR-1 Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC September 16, 2003 There are no benefits to compromising safety…only.
Federal Aviation Administration SUMMARY This information paper is intended to provide status of on going activities within the FAA for the implementation.
© UNCTAD End © UNCTAD End About … Risk Management.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.