Automated Integration of Arrival and Departure Schedules

Automated Integration of Arrival and Departure Schedules

Topics Concept Overview Benefits Exploration Research Prototype HITL Simulation 1 Lessons Learned Prototype Refinement HITL Simulation 2 Summary 2

The Problem At airports where there is a dependency between arrival and departure operations Same runway Crossing runways appropriately sized departure gaps must be provided when required. 3

Approach controller unaware of departure queue needs?? 4

Still providing gaps when there are no departures?? Can we increase arrival and departure throughput by providing dynamic arrival spacing guidance? 5

Research Idea Transform surface situation into arrival spacing guidance

Departure Schedule Small spacing changes increase runway throughput 2-4 operations per hour Integrate arrival and departure schedules to dynamically account for surface situation and depict spacing guidance on radar controller s display Scheduling Algorithm Recommended arrival spacing to maximize total runway throughput Flight Data 7

Example Scenario Slot markers 3.8 nm 6.2 nm Heavy Jet 8

Example Scenario Minimum 3.8 nm 6.2 nm Heavy Jet 9

How it might look on an Aircraft Situation Display Runway Guidance Slot Markers 10

Potential Application at U.S. Airports Same Runway DCA MEM MSP SAN SEA SLC Both BOS BWI FLL IAD General Aviation Airports Crossing Runways CLT EWR LGA MDW MIA ORD SFO Is there a multiple airport application? Integrating arrival and departure traffic between adjacent airports 11

Benefits Exploration Increased Arrival and Departure Capacity Reduce or Eliminate Verbal Coordination Always Available 12

Concept Design Points SPACING DISTANCE = GROUNDSPEED / 3600 * (ARRIVING AC ROT + DEPARTING AC ROT + BUFFER) Time-based spacing accounts for: Compression Winds Minimum Required Separation The radar controller decides the sequence ROT is Empirical Runway Occupancy Time 13

Design Factors How is compression predicted? System learning observes aircraft specific groundspeeds inside Final Approach Fix The Buffer is an adjustable amount of time and accounts for conditions such as: Expected variance in pilot compliance with ATC instructions Runway conditions (e.g., wet, dry, icy) Ceiling and visibility considerations How is the ROT predicted? Airport specific empirical aircraft-type specific ROT values 14

Complements Other Scheduling Tools This capability is designed to be a tactical tool Relies on controller vectoring aircraft into slot markers Allows controller to make sequencing decisions Controller can ignore guidance when arrival demand exceeds capacity controller can reset guidance Ability to favor arrivals or departures 2:1, 1:2, n:1, 1:n modes Arrival Management Arrival manager delivers arrivals to feeder fixes Departure Management Departure manager provides departure schedule 15

HITL Assumptions Assumptions made for the HITLs A certain fleet mix, no heavy jets The departure schedule will be available to the algorithm Aircraft depart based upon statistical rules that are representative of actual operations The departure sequence will be executed without disruption No visual separation No winds Fixed arrival spacing of 105 seconds MIN spacing based upon aircraft pair (minimum 2.5 nm) 16

Simulation Environment Reagan National Airport (DCA), north operation Approach in use: ILS01, no visuals Nominal conditions 30 minute scenarios 17

HITL 1 Goals Participants will vector accurately and hit slot markers Participants will reduce spacing when minimum spacing guidance is provided Presenting participants with slot markers will reduce overall participant workload Our initial focus was not on increasing runway throughput 18

Results: Overall Throughput 3% increase 2% increase 2% decrease 1% increase Overall throughput remained same, but with more departures due to larger arrival spacing 19

A Design Change Needed Goal Due to design, the middle of the slot markers represented ~4.75 nm interval whereas goal was ~4.0 nm 20

Design Changes Implemented Smaller slot markers Goal is center of slot marker Refined departure list 21

Refined Departure List ARR THRESHOLD DEP TAXI Blue UNK represents blue slot markets RPA3265> EGF4532> UNK> UNK> 05 <SWA621 <EGF1120 <UAL118 05 <DAL1562 Green area is 10 10 <AAL218 MIN zone 15 15 AAL218 just taxied Time bars are absolute time to threshold (minutes) In follow up testing revised departure list allows controller to see MIN opportunities earlier 22

Results of Testing Design Changes: Overall Throughput 12 % increase 4.6 % increase 16.5 % increase Overall throughput increased with the use of smaller slot markers 23

Results of Testing Design Changes: Arrival Spacing 2 % decrease 1% decrease 10 % increase Smaller slot markers resulted in reduced arrival spacing Reduced arrival spacing yielded reduced departure interval 24

Results of Testing Design Changes: Departure Throughput Average Number of Departures Baseline Guidance on With Updates Number of Departures 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 12.0 11.4 9.8 8.5 8.0 7.4 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.3 6.8 22 % increase 7.6 % increase 17.6 % increase A B C D Scenario 2 % decrease 1% decrease 10 % increase Reduced departure interval allowed increased number of departures. Increased number of departures yielded more MIN opportunities 25

Additional Hypotheses to be Tested HITL 2 A smaller slot marker size will: Improve precision Reduce spacing Increase throughput A more robust Departure List will allow earlier recognition of minimum spacing (MIN) opportunities

Summary Relatively easy to implement in prototype software Capability was intuitive to learn Controllers are able to successfully meet slot markers and improve spacing performance Workload impacts were minimal Arrival and departure throughput can be improved Transforms surface situation data into operationally actionable information for radar controllers Can provide benefit if implemented in Terminal operations 27

Questions? 28

Results: Arrival Spacing Std Dev Hitting slot markers provided a more consistent interval 29

Results of Testing Design Changes: Arrival Throughput Average Number of Arrivals Baseline Guidance on With Updates Number of Arrivals 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 16.0 14.3 14.7 15.1 14.5 14.6 15.0 14.6 14.0 14.4 13.3 2 % decrease 1% decrease 10 % increase A B C D Scenario Minimal change from baseline 30

NOTICE This work was produced for the U.S. Government under Contract DTFAWA-10-C-00080 and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System Clause 3.5-13, Rights In Data-General, Alt. III and Alt. IV (Oct. 1996). The contents of this document reflect the views of the author and The MITRE Corporation and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA or the DOT. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the Department of Transportation makes any warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of these views. Approved for Public Release: 13-2251. Distribution Unlimited 31