2 nd Annual Workshop Innovations In NAS-Wide Simulation In Support Of NextGen Benefits

Innovative Solutions for Aviation

2nd Annual WorkshopInnovations In NAS-Wide

SimulationIn Support Of NextGen Benefits

January 2010Kenny Martin

Innovations In NAS-Wide SimulationGMU Jan 27/28 2010

© 2010 – ISA Software


NextGen Requirements

Functional Requirements Of NextGenCross-Cutting Infrastructure/Enabler Programs

ADSBSWIMDataCommNextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW)NAS Voice SwitchRNAV/RNP

Solution SetsTBO Trajectory Based

ManagementCATM Collaborative ATMHD High Density AirportsFLEX Flexible Terminals &

AirportsRWI Reduce Weather ImpactsSSE Safety, Security,

Environmental PerformanceFAC Transform Facilities




ISA Software NextGen ActivitiesCross-Cutting Infrastructure/Enabler Programs

ADSBSWIMDataCommNextGen Network Enabled Weather

(NNEW)NAS Voice SwitchRNAV/RNP

Solution SetsTBO Trajectory Based

ManagementCATM Collaborative ATMHD High Density AirportsFLEX Flexible Terminals &

AirportsRWI Reduce Weather

ImpactsSSE Safety, Security,

Environmental PerformanceFAC Transform Facilities

ISA Software Modeling Approach




Approach To System-Wide AnalysisSimulation Platform

CHILLSimulation Components

RAMS Plus NAS-Wide Fast-Time ModelMulti-Sector PlannerTrajectory BuilderConflict Detection & Resolution ComponentsMONACO user-preferred flight plan

optimizationComplexity Analysis toolEvaluator Metrics Assessment

Recent Example ApplicationsMSP Coordination AnalysisTBO in High Performance Airspace (HPA)SESAR Collaborative Network Planning

(Gaming)ADSB 3nm Separation AssessmentDataComm Segment 1 BenefitsSupersonic Aircraft Impact Assessment

ISA Software Modeling Approach




CHILL Agent-Based Modeling

What is CHILL?Collaborative Human In the Loop Laboratory,

supportingSystem-wide, Networked Agent-based Modelling

Platform Implements SWIM and NNEW FunctionalitiesModel-based and/or HITL (Gaming) Studies

Collaborative ATMTrajectory-Based OperationsMulti-Sector Planner MONACO system-wide DCB optimizationUser-Preferred Problem SolvingEvaluator Metrics Assessment




Features of CHILLVersatile collaborative platform for validation of

advanced Air Traffic Management conceptsEvaluate traffic demand and airspace/airport

conditions, to support collaborative decision-making processes

Promoting common situational awareness through SWIM

Rapid sharing of changes to airspace, airport and traffic conditions to all subscribers

Adapt CATM service based on operator preferencesMaximize user opportunities to propose problem

solutions Identify optimal solutions from multiple agents /

participantsProvide up to date and timely picture of the entire

ATM network in support of collaborative traffic management initiatives that maximize airspace capacity and improve operational efficiency

On-Demand NAS-Wide metrics

CHILL Main Features




CHILL : Flexible Situation Awareness

Flow Oriented AnalysisProviding instantaneous information on a system-

wide perspectiveWithin any 4-dimensional element (airport,

sector, FEA, FCA, waypoint, SUA, weather volume etc.)

Quantify demand against available service levels in support of collaborative Demand-Capacity management

Simple (GUI-based) or declarative language based flows

Management solutions applied to all/part of any flow




CHILL : Traffic Management Planning

Service-Oriented SolutionsMatching service levels to demandAllow all participants including airspace users to

assess potential overload issues togetherSupporting other capacity metrics

Workload, Complexity, Fuel, Emissions…Applying user-preferred management initiativesProviding interactive trial planning featuresAssisting capacity balancing through automated

toolsDiverse set of solutions supported:

Dynamic Airspace AllocationUser-preferred rerouting Optimization of multiple rerouting portfoliosMulti-pass flight dispatching and slot

managementMIT or Time-base MeteringEquitable distribution of penaltiesFine-tuning capabilities for improving efficiency




CHILL Mixed Fidelity Modeling

Macroscopic and Microscopic AgentsMatching fidelity of the model(s) to the validation

requirementsExample: RAMS Plus representing a range of

fidelity




FAA Multi-Sector Planner (MSP)High Performance Airspace : TBO AssessmentNASA N+3 Supersonic Aircraft Impact AssessmentADSB 3nm SeparationDataComm Benefits AnalysisSESAR Trajectory-based ATM ConceptsSESAR ‘Episode III’ Collaborative Airspace/Network Management Validation

Recent Validation Experiments




MSP acting in Area Flow Manager role Previous RTS participants felt Area Flow was more efficient

(solve more problems further in advance) Multi-D could become unmanageable with high traffic loads

potential for loss of situational awareness

Investigate multiple MSP working across ATC Centers Fort Worth, Kansas City and Memphis centers 150 sectors, long inter-center boundaries, complex mix of traffic Dallas-Fort Worth, St. Louis and Memphis airports Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Denver adjacent

FAA Multi-Sector Planner




Modeled 50 adjacent MSP’s Sectors grouped based on traffic flows for high and super-high

airspace Major terminal regions excluded as they would have their own

DST’s

FL240-245 FL345+





Complex Experimental Platform 150 executive ATC controllers modeled using RAMS Plus agents 4 Major airports (DFW, DAL, STL, MEM) also modeled with RAMS Plus CHILL’s MSP Component: 50 MSPs MSP Workload Model Many agents with different levels of fidelity SIM-C (SWIM) Component Underlying Messaging Via SENS for service discovery / message

exchange





MSP Responsibilities Knowledge of traffic 45 minutes in advance If overload predicted, the MSP:

– Finds flight(s) in sector during overload– Attempts to find suitable reroutes to reduce overload– If successful, coordinate with impacted MSPs

» Upstream MSP, if reroute begins in another MSA» Downstream MSPs, if reroute enters a sector not

previously in flight plan, within 40 minutes of start of reroute

Other MSPs will accept reroute unless:– Reroute creates or worsens an overload in other MSA– Other MSP is too busy (using new MSP workload

model) Executive controller action (conflict resolution) always

cancels pending MSP trial plans





Key Findings Traffic balance improved with MSP: Stdev of peak % of MAP

reduced by 50%.


12

:45

13

:15

13

:45

14

:15

14

:45

15

:15

15

:45

16

:15

16

:45

17

:15

17

:45

18

:15

18

:45

19

:15

19

:45

20

:15

20

:45

21

:15

21

:45

22

:15

22

:45

23

:15

23

:45

0:1

5

5

10

15

20

25

30

ZKC30 TimelinePlus40 MSP/NoMSP Scenarios

NoMSP MSP MAP (=19)

NFlights In Sector

Change as % of MAP

Change as % of MAP

12

:45

13

:15

13

:45

14

:15

14

:45

15

:15

15

:45

16

:15

16

:45

17

:15

17

:45

18

:15

18

:45

19

:15

19

:45

20

:15

20

:45

21

:15

21

:45

22

:15

22

:45

23

:15

23

:45

0:1

5

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-45%

-35%

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

Change in Peak Number of Flights Per 15 Minute PeriodZKC30, Plus40 NoMSP to MSP Scenarios

Change in Peak Flights Change as % of MAP




Key Findings Overloads for entire region significantly reduced by MSP in all

scenarios – More than 10x Reduction with traffic+40% scenario


ETMSInitial Baseline Plus20 Plus400

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

210650

2089

4880

18 92387

1 Minute Periods

ETMSInitial Baseline Plus20 Plus400

50

100

150

200

250

10

39

109

243

1 4

6+ Minute Periods

Tactical Only With MSP

Minutes Above the MAPAll Centers Combined

MSPNo MSP




Key Findings Traffic Demand across region is significantly better balanced

– Example: Core 12-hour analysis period with traffic+40% scenario


Plus40 NoMSP Plus40 MSP

SECTORS




Key Findings Around 50% of flight plan uplinks require coordination with ATC

in another ATC center


51%

5%7%

17%

3%

17%

ZFW

1%

63%5%

1%

18%

2%6%

4%0%

ZKC

17%

8%

49%

1%

1%

8%

18%

ZME

ZFW ZKC ZME ZAB ZAU

ZDV ZHU ZID ZMP ZTL

Inter-Center Coordination

Percent of Trial Plans Uplinked by Centerfor each Initiating Center




FAA TBO in High Performance Airspace HPA ConOps relies heavily on TBO HPA is defined as FL 340+ Airspace based on generic sectors and flexible

airspace design principles TBO aircraft are RNAV and DataComm equipped 4D Trajectories

– Basis for planning and control– Sent and received independently of ground

navaids.– Include Controlled Time of Arrivals (CTA) at the

entry and the exit of the high altitude airspace Intermediate waypoints CTA’s, if optionally defined,

have less restrictive timing constraints

High Performance Airspace: TBO




Study Objectives Understand the expected benefits and risks on

both users and service providers in terms of:– Capacity and throughput– Users operational cost in terms of punctuality, travel

distance and fuel consumption– Sector conflict density and traffic complexity inherent

to freedom to navigate outside structured routes. Implement a set of metrics to quantify:

– Conflict geometry and attitude distribution– Traffic density and controlled flight hours in a given

volume– Variation of demand and average transit time in a

given volume





Modeling Approach Use of Navigation Reference System

(NRS) as the primary blueprint for direct routing in the high altitude airspace





TBO Application Every TBO aircraft follows a direct route in the high altitude

airspace The two nodes of the direct routes are located by their

respective NRS points TBO aircraft may still contain structured routes when passing

through non-high altitude airspace Separation standards remain the same: 5 miles laterally/ 1000

feet vertically

Entry Exit





Validation Status Initial (baseline and variant) scenarios

completed Metrics being reviewed with sponsors Initial report in progress Work will continue through 2010





NASA ‘N+3’ Supersonic

Objectives NASA research contract to investigate

environmentally friendly supersonic airframe and propulsion concepts

Develop technology maturation plans to make the concept a reality

Goals: Achieve a NextGen Integrated Advanced Vehicle

Concept - Operational in the 2030 – 2035 timeframe Assess the impact of the introduction of such

vehicles within the NAS - Benefits, complexity, interaction with other

traffic, possible ATC issues…





Experimental objective Develop N+3 aircraft performance models Incorporate N+3 operations in the traffic

forecast Evaluate the impact of N+3 aircraft in the

NAS Assuming the re-introduction of supersonic

aircraft in the future NAS, what is the likely impact on:

– Traffic in the initial acceleration phase (around 10000ft) – Traffic in the second acceleration phase (23000ft and

climb to supersonic)– Air traffic complexity due to the N+3 traffic– Controller workload due to special procedures required to

handle supersonic aircraft





N+3 Aircraft Performance Introduce supersonic aircraft performance

models - based on N+3 aircraft mission profiles supplied by LM-Aero

team - carefully calibrated to be representative of expected

performance

N+3 fast/time model climb-phase mission profiles (compared to A320 in orange)

Comparison of LM-NASA & RAMS Mission Profile Altitude (Climb Phase)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Mission Time (s)

Alt

itu

de

(Ft)

"LM/Nasa Mission Profile"

"RAMS Mission Profile"

"RAMS A320 Mission Profile"

Comparison of LM-NASA & RAMS Mission Profile Distance (Climb Phase)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Mission Time (s)

Dis

tan

ce (

NM

)




Comparison of LM-NASA & RAMS Mission Profile Speed (Climb Phase)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Mission Time (s)

Sp

eed

(K

ts)








N+3 Aircraft Performance Descent Phases Also Represented

N+3 fast/time model descent-phase mission profiles (compared to A320 in orange)

Comparison of LM-NASA & RAMS Mission Profile Distance (Descent Phase)

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

2200

8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600Mission Time (s)

Dis

tan

ce (

NM

)



A320 not included (still in enroute phase)

Comparison of LM-NASA & RAMS Mission Profile Speed(Descent Phase)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600Mission Time (s)

Sp

eed

(K

ts)




A320 'adjusted'arrival time

Comparison of LM-NASA & RAMS Mission Profile Altitude (Descent Phase)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600Mission Time (s)

Alt

itu

de (

Ft)




A320 'adjusted'arrival time





N+3 Potential Operations Operational Range around 6500NM with 200

passengers Potential Applications

» Major International Routes » Economically Viable Domestic Routes

Research from the US OTA ‘Impact of Advanced Aircraft Technology’ report [Princeton, 1980] chapter 3 (variables affecting a supersonic transport market) suggests that

“ An aircraft’s product is passenger (/ cargo) miles”

“ There are 2 ways to improve productivity: 1) larger aircraft (more seats – same flying time) 2) faster aircraft (same seats – shorter flying time)”

Both will improve the metric “PAX miles per hour”





Traffic based on 2008 ASDI recordings Cloned based on MITRE forecasts (approx

2% growth per year) to achieve 2030 traffic

Airspace from current NAS (2008) 5NM separation standard No additional ATC/ATM concepts included

Metrics to evaluate Traffic interactions (N+3 vs Conventional

conflicts, particularly in acceleration phases) ATC Complexity ATC Controller workload Delays / On-Time arrival (particularly for

N+3 operations)





Current Status Baseline 2030 (no supersonic) and variant

(conventional + supersonic) scenarios completed

Results being reviewed with contractual partners

Final report due for publication end Feb 2010

Examples of potential International and Domestic Supersonic routes




ADSB 3nm Separation

ADSB 3nm Separation Problem Statement: Quantify Benefits of

ADS-B In Terms of Reduction in En-route Separation

Questions To Be Answered In terms of system throughput, do

flights get through the system with less delay?

How Do The Delay Benefits Reduce As With 3nm Flight Level Ceiling is lowered?

Key Assumptions Enroute Separations Drive The

Alternative Cases ADSB Is Modeled As An Enabler However: No Future Anticipated

NextGen ConOps Behavior Is Introduced




ADSB 3nm Separation

ADSB NAS-Wide Scenario Traffic Demand

2012: 60,699 Flights 2017: 67,180 Flights

Full NAS Sectorization 4D Flight Profiles 4D Conflict Probe Wake Separations Conflict Resolutions

Closely Spaced Parallel Routes

Airport Capacity Model




ADSB 3nm Separation

Airport Capacity Modelling Focus On OEP Airports For Metric Generation Used ATO-F FACT2 Arr/Dep Rates (arr/dep

ops/hr) Rates => Input To Airport’s Time-Based

Metering Feature Benefits

Ensures Aircraft Enter Enroute At Realistic Rate

Eliminates Need For Detailed Airport/Runway Operations In An Enroute View




ADSB 3nm Separation

ADSB Results ADSB Metrics

Enroute & Arrival Delay Sector Loadings

ADSB Findings Reduced Separations Allow Flights To Get

Through the Enroute Faster. Some of the gain/benefit is lost in transition

from Enroute to Airport. Overall System Benefits Remains With

Reduced Separations




DataComm – Segment 1 Benefits

Datacomm Segment 1 Benefits Focus On Controller Communications

Voice Vs DCL Revised Departure Clearance

Scope: IAH Airport Ground Movements Gate, Runway , SID/STAR Operations

Question To Answer: Do DCL-Equipped Aircraft Take Off Any Faster Than Non-Equipped Aircraft in a revised departure clearance situation?





Datacomm Segment 1 Benefits Revised Departure Clearance Situation

High TMI Day When Departure Gates Are Closed

Example: Northern Flows (departure gates) from IAH into DFW are closed.

Revised departure clearances necessary for all flights using the closed gates who have received their PDC (pre-departure clearance)

Today’s situation requires controller to go sequentially down a list of flights and transact the revised clearance departure by voice.

This results in a significant taxi-out delay.





Datacomm Segment 1 Benefits Locations Of Flights When Revised

Departure Clearances Are Needed





Datacomm Segment 1 Process Scenarios

Equipage at 0%, 30%, 60% and 100% Baseline against “good” day, and then

instigate convective weather impacts. Simulate IAH, and metroplex

IAD/BWI/DCA Design Extrapolation Process For NAS-

Wide Benefits in support of FID. Current Status

Airport Simulation Results In Progress Extrapolation Process Being Designed




SESAR Trajectory-based ATM

Objectives Based on 2012 traffic in the European Airspace

investigate the feasibility, impact and potential benefit of 4D Trajectory-based operations:

– Using pre-flight Target Time of Arrival (TTA) for Capacity Demand Planning (Reference Business Trajectory RBT-Constraints)

– Using revised TTA’s following take-off– Allocating dynamic Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA)

for key points during flight (e.g. entry to arrival management systems)

– Using aircraft performance variation to try to respect TTA’s of all kinds.





Modeling Features RBT (pre take-off) constraint modelling TTA model including heuristic and deterministic a/c

performance management to respect target time ‘windows’

FMS model to incorporate different TTA capabilities Dynamic CTA modeling including time-base meters

for entry to TMA system models Unexpected weather / other noise modeling to

perturb TTA plans Impact of Non-homogeneous traffic mix (e.g. FMS-

based CTA capable, Manual CTA with ATC assistance, non-compliant)

TTA compliance cancelled during ATC separation intervention

TTA recovery mode (if possible) following resolution





Typical Metrics Considered Conformance to initial target time constraints Conformance to TTA following take-off Impact of departure (taxi/take-off queue) delay Dynamic CTA conformance Failures to achieve dynamic CTA (+ reasons) Impact of ATC Intervention Ability to recover TTA following interventions Compliance rates

– With speed management– Without speed management– Average speed changes

Impact of ‘unexpected weather’ + recovery rates Impact on fuel use ATC workload due to target time management





Status Initial report delivered to client Awaiting formal feedback Recommendations include

– Additional experiments to include improved TFM / AMAN models

– Improved fuel assessment models– Enhancement of modeling features




SESAR Episode II Gaming Exercises

Gaming Exercises For SESAR/EP3 Validation of Concepts Analysis of SESAR Airspace Management Concepts

using Interactive Gaming Scenarios Evaluation of different gaming strategies Supported 6-8 operational (HITL) positions 1 Game master, 1 Network Manager, 1 Regional

Manager, 1 Military, 2 AOC positions Final report currently in review by European

Commission




Future Activities

What’s Planned For 2010? Additional MSP Simulations

– Expand 2008 MSP Analysis to NAS-Wide– Consider Data Com between Flight deck and MSP

Assessment of UAV impacts in The NAS Continue TBO Validation Data Com Segment 1 & Segment 2 Benefits Support to SESAR system-wide TBM concept

validation

Benefits To NextGen Modeling Efforts Continued Development & Enhancement Of CHILL-

compatible tools Integration of 3rd Party Tools Within CHILL Cross-Program (USA/Europe) Sharing Of

Applications– Scenarios, metrics, behaviour, etc.

2 nd Annual Workshop Innovations In NAS-Wide Simulation In Support Of NextGen Benefits

Documents

Transcript of 2 nd Annual Workshop Innovations In NAS-Wide Simulation In Support Of NextGen Benefits