BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF REDUCED SEPARATIONS … · BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF REDUCED SEPARATIONS IN...

Research to Reality in Air Traffic Management

BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF REDUCED SEPARATIONS IN NORTH ATLANTIC

ORGANIZED TRACK SYSTEM

August 2005

Almira Williams, CSSIIsrael Greenfeld, NASA Glenn

2

Project Objective

• Determine benefits of reduced horizontal separations in the North Atlantic Track System as a function of equipage levels and demand growth for up to 2015

• Determine improvements in flight efficiency through metrics such as fuel and time cost savings, and additional cargo revenue potential (by flight and by airframe)

• Determine improvements in system performance through metrics such as approved alt. change requests, and duration at sub-optimal altitude

3

Project Scenarios

• Three Demand levels: 2005, 2010, and 2015

• Five Equipage levels: 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100

• 2 sets of tracks: early morning eastbound (V-Z) and early afternoon westbound tracks (A-F).

• Three types of track configuration: - Regular: current tracks with mixed equipage operations

- Segregated: some tracks not accessible to non-equipped flights

- Additional Segregated: new tracks established between two adjacent segregated tracks

=> 72 simulation scenarios (+9)

4

Modeling Requirements

• Future traffic generator to determine traffic demand levels, and fleet and equipage for the future years of interest

• Fuel consumption optimization model to determine optimal trajectories, step-climb and speed profiles for each of the flights (ISO atmosphere and forecasted wind data)

• Track selection model to determine user-preferred tracks for the future flights

• Track operations simulation models to impose restrictions due totraffic interactions (modify optimal altitude and speed profiles)

• Fuel consumption model to determine fuel requirements for the constrained trajectories

5

Benefits Mechanisms

6

Benefits Mechanisms

- Improved routes, altitude and speed profiles• Lower fuel consumption• Shorter flight times• Additional cargo potential

- Improved ability to estimate fuel requirements • Contingency fuel reduction• Improved schedules• Additional cargo potential

- Improved system performance• Accommodation of higher demand levels, accommodation of user preferred

choices, including denied alt. change requests, duration at sub-optimal altitude, etc.

7

Benefits Mechanisms:Current Practices in NAT OTS

Each flight is required to maintain its track, altitude and Mach number, as assigned by the oceanic ATSP.

LateralSeparation

Longitudinal Separation

Track A

Track B

Track C

Track D

Track C

LongitudinalSeparation

Vertical Separation

Cruise climb

Step climb

8

Benefits Mechanisms due toSeparations Reduction

Track A

Track B

Track C

Track D

Track C

Separations affect both spatial and temporal distribution of flights within the track system

30 NM 30 NM50 NM 50 NM

30 NM 30 NM50 NM 50 NM

Flight A

40 NM

9

Benefits Calculations:Regular Tracks

10

Assumptions Summary• Flights cannot switch tracks once they entered the track system

• Traffic is conducted independently on each track

• Longitudinal separations: 30NM between two equipped flights, and 10 minutes Mach technique (~ 80 NM) otherwise

• 6-hour wind forecasts and ISO atmosphere

• Cost Index values are determined for each of the aircraft models

• Each flight takes off with MTOW

• Unit fuel cost: $1.39/gallon ($0.21/lb), and unit cargo revenue: $1.60/lb

• Fuel and Time Cost Savings and Cargo Revenue Potential can be negative (penalties)

11

NAT OTS – Equipage Considerations

Equipped flights can climb throughout their flights, whereas the non-equipped flights cannot climb while on NATOTS

320

330

340

350

360

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

GMT (hr)

Non-equipped Flight

Equipped Flight

Track Segment

12

Regular Tracks: Average Fuel and Time Savings (per flight)

$0

$40

$80

$120

$160

$200

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Avg

. Fue

l and

Ti

me

Savi

ngs

($)

200520102015

13

Regular Tracks – Fuel and Time Savings: Benefits vs. Penalties

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent F

light

s w

/Ben

efits

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent F

light

s w

/Pen

altie

s

$0

$50

$100

$150$200

$250

$300

$350

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Ave

rage

Ben

efits

($)

-$120

-$100

-$80

-$60

-$40

-$20

$00% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Ave

rage

Pen

altie

s ($

)

2005

2010

2015

14

Regular Tracks – Fuel and Time Savings: Equipped vs. Non-equipped Flights

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent P

enal

ized

-N

on-E

quip

ped

Flig

hts

(%)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent P

enal

ized

-Eq

uipp

ed F

light

s (%

)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent B

enef

ited

-N

on-E

quip

ped

Flig

hts

(%) 2005

2010

2015

c

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent B

enef

ited

-Eq

uipp

ed F

light

s (%

)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Perc

ent U

ncha

nged

-N

on-E

quip

ped

Flig

hts

(%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Per

cent

Unc

hang

ed -

Equ

ippe

d Fl

ight

s (%

)

15

Regular Tracks: Equipped vs. Non-equipped Flights (cont.)

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)A

vera

ge S

avin

gs p

er

Non

-equ

ippe

d Fl

ight

(%)

2005

2010

2015

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Ave

rage

Sav

ings

per

Equi

pped

Flig

ht (%

)

16

Regular Tracks: Total Annual Benefits

25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total Annual Fuel And Time Benefits

4 M$ 9 M$ 12 M$ 14 M$ 13 M$ 19 M$ 29 M$ 31 M$ 26 M$ 41 M$ 52 M$ 60 M$

Total Annual Add.Fuel Benefits 3 M$ 7 M$ 11 M$ 12 M$ 10 M$ 14 M$ 18 M$ 19 M$ 19 M$ 30 M$ 40 M$ 47 M$

Total Annual Benefits 7 M$ 16 M$ 23 M$ 27 M$ 23 M$ 34 M$ 47 M$ 51 M$ 46 M$ 72 M$ 92 M$ 106 M$

2005 2010 2015

• If operators do not want to carry extra cargo, but want to take maximum advantage of potential fuel savings instead, the total annual benefits system-wide are …

17

Regular Tracks: Total Annual Benefits (cont.)

25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Daily Fuel andTime Savings 11 K$ 24 K$ 33 K$ 40 K$ 36 K$ 53 K$ 79 K$ 86 K$ 72 K$ 113 K$ 143 K$ 163 K$

Daily Add.Cargo Revenue 87 K$ 189 K$ 276 K$ 325 K$ 253 K$ 390 K$ 608 K$ 674 K$ 512 K$ 802 K$ 1,062 K$ 1,239 K$

Total DailyBenefits 99 K$ 214 K$ 309 K$ 365 K$ 289 K$ 443 K$ 686 K$ 759 K$ 584 K$ 914 K$ 1,205 K$ 1,402 K$

Total Annual Benefits 36 M$ 78 M$ 113 M$ 133 M$ 106 M$ 162 M$ 251 M$ 277 M$ 213 M$ 334 M$ 440 M$ 512 M$

2010 20152005

• If operators do want to carry extra cargo, the total annual benefits will be 4.7 to 5.5 time higher!

18

Benefits Calculations: Segregated and Additional Segregated Tracks

19

Assumptions

• Segregated Tracks are chosen based on:- Preferences of the equipped flights- Equipage level: 25% equipage - one, 50% equipage – two, and

75% equipage three segregated tracks• Potential candidates for segregated tracks do not include

outside tracks • Additional tracks can be established only between two

adjacent segregated tracks

20

Average Fuel and TimeSavings Comparison (per flight)

2015

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Equipage Level (%)

Avg

Fue

l and

Tim

e S

avin

gs ($

)

2010

$0

$50

$100

$150

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Avg

Fue

l and

Tim

e S

avin

gs ($

)

2005

$0

$50

$100

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Avg

Fue

l and

Tim

e S

avin

gs ($

)

RegularSegregatedAdd.Segr.

2015

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Avg

Add

Car

goR

even

ue ($

)

2010

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Avg

Add

Car

go

Rev

enue

($)

2005

$0

$500

$1,000

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Equipage Level (%)

Avg

Add

Car

go

Rev

enue

($)

21

Sensitivity of Benefits to Segregated Track Selection

Fuel & Time Savings: Equipped Flights

-50

0

50

100

150

200

W X Y

Designated Track

Avg

. Sav

ings

($)

Fuel & Time Savings: All Flights

-50

0

50

100

150

200

W X Y

Designated Track

Avg

. Sav

ings

($)

2005

2010

2015

• 9 test scenarios- 25% equipage level- One segregated track (candidates: inside tracks)- Eastbound tracks early morning tracks

22

Conclusions

23

25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Regular Tracks 36 M$ 78 M$ 113 M$ 133 M$ 106 M$ 162 M$ 251 M$ 277 M$ 213 M$ 334 M$ 440 M$ 512 M$

Segregated Tracks 8 M$ 62 M$ 91 M$ 45 M$ 146 M$ 205 M$ 139 M$ 353 M$ 413 M$

Additional Segregated Tracks 71 M$ 105 M$ 151 M$ 160 M$ 233 M$ 300 M$ 354 M$ 459 M$ 569 M$

2005 2010 2015

Conclusions

• Yes, both equipped and non-equipped flights will benefit

• Equipped flights are 2-5 times more likely to experience savings than non-equipped flights, and on average save 1.5-4.6 times more

• The sooner an air carrier equips its fleet, the better off it will be (provided that sufficient overall equipage is reached)

• Designating certain tracks for exclusive use by equipped flights is controversial and will require careful examination

24

Additional Slides

25

System Performance Metrics SummaryRegular Tracks

81%

84%

87%

90%

93%

96%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Perc

ent o

f Alt

Cha

nge

Req

uest

s G

rant

ed

Segregated Tracks

81%

84%

87%

90%

93%

96%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Perc

ent o

f Alt

Cha

nge

Req

uest

s G

rant

ed

Additional Segregated Tracks

81%

84%

87%

90%

93%

96%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Perc

ent o

f Alt

Cha

nge

Req

uest

s G

rant

ed

Regular Tracks

81%

84%

87%

90%

93%

96%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Perc

ent o

f Tim

e A

tO

ptim

al F

light

Lev

el

200520102015

Segregated Tracks

81%

84%

87%

90%

93%

96%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Per

cent

of T

ime

At

Opt

imal

Flig

ht L

evel

Additional Segregated Tracks

81%

84%

87%

90%

93%

96%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Perc

ent o

f Tim

e A

tO

ptim

al F

light

Lev

el

26

NAT OTS Baseline Traffic DataAB

ZYXWV

FEDC

GANDER OCEANIC FIR SHANWICK OCA

SONDRESTROM FIR REYKJAVIK FIR

SANTA MARIA OCANEW YORK (MNPS)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

V W X Y Z A B C D E F

Eastbound tracks[1:00-8:00 GMT]

Westbound tracks[11:30-19:00 GMT]

ADS: 27%

Datalink: 34%

RNP: 99%

Scheduled: 88%

Non-sch.: 6%

Military: 2%

GA: 2%

Cargo:1%

27

NAT Traffic Growth Parameters• Average annual growth rate

– Scheduled: 4.5%– Cargo: 4.3%– GA: 3.7%– Non-scheduled: 2.68%– Military: -1.95%

• Overall traffic growth rate– 7.6% by 2005– 30.4% by 2010 – 58.9% by 2015

• Equipage assumptions– New airframes enter the system

already equipped– Newer models are equipped

before old 5%3%--B7876%3%--A3801%1%1%1%

CL60/CL64

1%1%1%1%GLF4--1%1%DC10--2%2%MD11

3%3%3%3%B7577%7%8%7%A3408%12%13%14%B747

17%16%15%15%A33022%22%19%19%B77729%30%33%32%B767

2015201020052004

28

Equipage Assumptions

100%100%-100%100%-100%100%-GLF4

100%--100%--100%--CL60/CL64

100%100%100%100%100%100%---B7E7

100%60%40%100%100%50%100%100%75%B777-300

75%60%40%75%75%50%100%100%75%B777-200

75%25%-75%25%-75%25%-B767-300/400

30%--30%--30%--B757-200

75%70%33%100%75%50%100%75%50%B747-400

100%100%100%100%100%100%---A380

75%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%A340-500/600

75%60%40%100%75%50%100%100%75%A340-300

75%50%-75%50%-100%50%-A330-200/300

75%50%25%75%50%25%75%50%25%AC Type

2015 Overall Equipage2010 Overall Equipage2005 Overall Equipage