View
219
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
MIT ICATMIT ICATAirspace Resource Allocation
-Operations Impact
Prof. R. John Hansman, DirectorMIT International Center for Air Transportation
rjhans@mit.edu 617-253-2271
MIT ICATMIT ICATPreliminary Thoughts
Have not seen the political argument to justify the costs/pain of transition What is the problem we are trying to solve What are the functional requirements Is this an issue which extends beyond LGA
Current system is regulated by delay Schedule integrity, passenger tolerance
Current system is complex, evolved and impedance matched Gates Runways Taxiways Landside Security Arrival fixes Departure fixes
Safety Concerns will drive Arguments to Resist
MIT ICATMIT ICATWhat are the property rights that make sense in the operating environment?
Landing Slots (Perishable) Time Based
Time scale (1min, 15 min, 1hr, 3hr, day) Sequence Based
Priority
What are the rights and responsibilities of property ownership Users
Precision When do you loose the resource Provider (Safety) induced delays (who is responsible)
Providers Guarantees Substitution Failure propagation
MIT ICATMIT ICATHow do you set the resource limit?
VFR Capacity ?
IFR Capacity ?
With Margin ?
Peak Capacity Airport “flush” modes
MIT ICATMIT ICATRunway Configuration Capacity Envelops
Runway Configuration Capacity Envelops(Source: ETMS / Tower Records, 7-9 AM, 4-8 PM, July 1-15
1998 except Saturdays, Logan Airport)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Actual Departure Rate (per 15 minutes)
Actual Arrival Rate (per 15 minutes)
4L/4R-9 (reportedaverage 68 AAR - 50DEP)
27/22L-22R (reportedaverage 60 AAR - 50DEP)
33L/33R-27 (reportedaverage 44 AAR - 44DEP)
Single Runway (January1999, reported average34 AAR 34 DEP)
MIT ICATMIT ICATVariable Capacity Effects1995 Delays vs Operations
10000008000006000004000002000000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Total Operations (CY95)
Delayed Flights (per 1000)
SFO
LGA EWR STL
LAX
ORD
DFW
ATL
BOS
JFK
PHX
LAS
SJU
HNL
PITDEN
CLT
IAH
MEM
Data from FAA Capacity Office, CY95
From John Andrews, MIT Lincoln Lab
MIT ICATMIT ICAT
From: Xavier Fron, Eurocontrol
MIT ICATMIT ICATRobustness Issues
Robustness Issues Flexibility to normal interruptions
Convective Weather Go around Mechanicals Deicing Lack of Data Special Runway Requirements
Non-Normal Ops
How do you handle high priority non planned demand? Air Force 1 “Lifeguard”
How do you handle unplanned resource loss? Disabled Aircraft Blown Tire Snow Plow
MIT ICATMIT ICATConvective Weather Impact
May 3, 2001 6:20 p.m. 295 Aircraft In-bound
MIT ICATMIT ICATTerminal Area Weather Impact
Two responses observed: Standard flow abstraction for
aircraft traversing the weather no longer available – aircraft treated as “special cases.”
Alternative standard flow abstraction is used.
Weather disrupting NW corner fix into Chicago perturbs standard flow abstraction.
MIT ICATMIT ICATReal Time Allocation Challenges
Planning Time Horizons Weather time constants (< 30 min for convective) Airline response time constants ( ATC Response
Safety Constraints Acceptable Level of Traffic Wake Vortex
Asymmetric Control Fast Shut Down Slow Start Up
Airline Planning/Response issues Planning time constant
(median 90 min) Disrupted Options Lack of consistent or clear objective function
Inter Airline Units
MIT ICATMIT ICATIdentification of AOC dynamics Timing of Flight Planning
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Minutes before actual departure time
Cumulative percentage
Start of flight planning End of flight planning - all flights End of flight planning - flights with delay > 5 min.
Actual departure time
# samples = 4180
Source: AOC computer transactional data from a major airline (March 1998)
Nominal Flight PlanComplete 90 min prior to departure
Flight Planning Tools eg, Wind Optimal Routing
Optimization Basis Rarely Presented to Flight Crews
Recommended