2011 Trajectory Based Operations Flight Trials...2013/06/11 · 2011 Seattle Flight Trials Overview...

Approved for Public Release. Case 13-2318 © 2013 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

Chris Wynnyk Mahesh Balakrishna Paul MacWilliams Dr. Thomas Becher June 11th, 2013

2011 Trajectory Based Operations Flight Trials

| 2 |


Acknowledgments

FAA Sponsors: Neal Suchy and Matt Modderno (ANG) ASA and ZSE management for their support ASA pilots and ZSE air traffic controllers for participating ASA ACARS group for working with us to set up automated messaging MIT Lincoln Lab: John Taylor, Tom Teller MITRE: Dave Gouldey, Robin Kirkman, Mushava Kodzwa, Niamh Lowry, Cameron Osborne, Thomas Schafer, Roland Sgorcea, Will Symionow, John Timberlake, Carmen Villani, and Mitch Wynnyk Systems Enginuity: Alan Bell Veracity Engineering: Lou Rosgen and Steve Torzone

| 3 |


Findings

JAKSN

RADDYOLMKSEA

RTAs IssuedMeter Fixes GLASR

EIGHT

OLYMPIASEVEN

CHINS SEVEN

• Meet time accuracy is very good for aircraft fully executing the RTA

• Many factors beyond accuracy affect the operational viability

• While limited implementation is possible, additional capabilities and procedures are needed for broader use


| 4 |

Overview

| 5 |


4D Trajectory Based Operations (TBO)

Concept Apply RTA and FMS downlink data to time-based arrival metering

Research Operational data analysis (TMA, FMS downlinks) Large scale parametric studies (Spacing / RTA factors) Human in the Loop Simulations (HITL) Seattle Flight Trials (2010, 2011)

Objectives Evaluate viability for Mid-term implementation (2015 - 2018) Inform on standards development

| 6 |


2011 Seattle Flight Trials

Overview Large-scale use of RTA for meeting meter fix times into Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (KSEA) Nov 30th, 2011 – Dec 22nd, 2011 833 Flights assigned an RTA 3 metering fixes (OLM, RADDY, JAKSN), North and South flow Automated data transfer and data collection

Objectives Increase RTA acceptance + success rate Assess viability of RTA as a near-term leave behind operation Automate information exchange Increase exposure to RTA concepts/procedures Assess FMS downlink data use for ATC

| 7 |


Arrival Runway

FREEZE HORIZON

Sector A

Sector B

Sector C

PLANNING HORIZON

TRACON

(Typically 150 - 200 nm)

(Typically > 200 nm)

2

2. RTA Assignment: • Sector A/B controller assigns the STA as

an RTA to the aircraft at the merge fix • The pilot accepts RTA clearance verbally • Crew enter the RTA into the FMS and the

aircraft adjusts the throttle to meet the RTA.

3. RTA Monitoring: • ATC Monitors the aircraft to assure that

it will meet the RTA using: • Host/ERAM Controller tools • TMA information

• Takes action if aircraft does not appear to be able to meet the RTA

3 1

1. RTA Planning/Calculation: • TMA ground system calculates STA • Detailed flight plan downlinked • Winds and performance limits

uplinked

| 8 |


Previous Trials

2010 Trials 2011 Trials Duration 7 days 23 days Fleet ASA subset Entire ASA fleet

Metering Conditions Non-metering Metering and non-metering

Airport Configuration (Flow) South only North and South

Meter Fixes OLM OLM, RADDY, JAKSN

Flights Assigned an RTA 57 833

Wind Forecast Uplinks Descent only Cruise and Descent

Automation Limited Extensive using ACARS

| 9 |


Issues and Mitigations

Issue Mitigation Difficult to detect “RTA Unable” events Improved detection through ACARS message downlink.

Some flights missing downlink data

Extensive FMS ACARS automation to provide complete flight information, including both periodic and event-driven message downlinks. Dataset includes true airspeed, detailed trajectory predictions, RTA window and status, cost index, wind measurements, and event-acknowledgement messages.

Unexpected RTA window sizes RTA Window periodically downlinked and displayed to ZSE prior to RTA assignment.

Missing or out of date FMS-entered winds, winds mismatch with the TMA system

FMS cruise and descent winds automatically uplinked via wind service, downlink to acknowledge pilot acceptance. Wind values interpolated from 2-hour Rapid Update Cycle data, the same source as TMA.

FMS Performance – speed fluctuations, low speeds, high deck angles, and buffet alerts observed during RTA HITLs [8]

Aircraft performance limits configured with minimum Climb, Cruise, and Descent Calibrated Air Speeds (CAS); Pilot to intervene in cases of inappropriate speeds, cancelling the RTA.

Speed, altitude constraints not honored by RTA Performance limits automatically uplinked to aircraft based on planned trajectory.

RTA Window unavailable on the FMS downlink bus

Temporary RTA uplinked to aircraft FMS, triggering the FMS to calculate the RTA Window, window information subsequently available for downlink.

Limited support tools for RTA monitoring

Intent Display provides aircraft eligibility, diagnostics, and RTA status information. TMC communicates assignment to ATC via phone call.

| 10 |


Intent Display

| 11 |


Data Analysis Framework

Software Analysis Scripts

Flight Trials Database

ACARS Messages

Observer Notes RUC Winds

Intent Display Data ETMS Records NOP Radar Tracks

TMA Records

Quantitative Results


| 12 |

Results

| 13 |


833 RTA Assignments

JAKSN

RADDY

KSEA

OLM

| 14 |


Flight Distributions

OLM

RADDY

JAKSN

125 (15%)

89 (11%)

619 (78%)

South Flow

North Flow

653 (78%) 180 (22%)

Meter Fix Airport Configuration

| 15 |


Time Performance

833 RTA Assignments

AAA:

AAT:

AAC:

AAU:

AUI:

Assigned, Accepted, Achieved

Assigned, Accepted, Outside

Assigned, Accepted, Canceled

Assigned, Accepted, Unachievable

Assigned, Unable Immediately

Tolerance (±20 seconds)

27 (3%)

79 (9%)

132 (16%)

514 (61%)

81 (10%)

| 16 |


Crossing Time Distribution

CrossingTime – FmsEnteredRtaTime (seconds)

Num

ber o

f Flig

hts

| 17 |


Aircraft Configuration

† As percentage of Accepted Performance Limits.

Configuration Step Aircraft % Total % Previous

Eligible Meter Fix 1532 100% -

Requested Descent Winds 1423 92.9% 92.9%

Sent Descent Winds 1357 88.6% 95.4%

Accepted Descent Winds 1281 83.6% 94.4%

Accepted Cruise Winds (if Sent) 1258 82.1% 98.0%

Accepted Performance Limits 1205 78.7% 95.8%

Accepted Temporary RTA 731 47.7% 60.7%

Issued RTA 833 54.4% 69.1% †

| 18 |


Speed and Altitude Compliance Rates

% Within Compliance

OLM JAKSN RADDY North South North South North South

AAA Speed 89.1 92.0 75 95.8 100 90.4

Altitude 83.6 100 100 87.5 100 100

AAT Speed 83.3 78.0 100 100 100 87.5

Altitude 83.3 96 100 100 100 100

Note: A number of these flights were likely cleared by ATC to cross the meter fix outside published restrictions

| 19 |


Speed and Cost Index Changes at RTA Assignment

| 20 |


Speed Change vs. Absorbed Delay

| 21 |


Wind Error C

umul

ativ

e D

istri

butio

n Fu

nctio

n (C

DF)

Vector Wind Error [knots]

No Wind

Flight PlanWind

Cruise &DescentWind

RUC 2-Hr

Cum

ulat

ive

Dis

tribu

tion

Func

tion

(CD

F)

Vector Wind Error [knots]

| 22 |


Air Ground Harmonization

TMA

ETA

min

us F

MS

ETA

[sec

]

Without Wind Update With Wind Update

| 23 |


Controller Feedback

Based on 38 survey responses (approximately 241 RTA assignments)

| 24 |


Detailed Controller Feedback

0% 50% 100%

yes no

Were you able to give RTA clearances to all eligible aircraft?

Was the phraseology for issuing and controlling the RTA aircraft clear and concise?

Did you have to cancel an RTA clearance?

Were you usually able to allow the aircraft to achieve RTA without altering the course, altitude, or speed of surrounding traffic?

Was the speed/descent profile of the RTA flights within the expected performance range?

Were the RTAs to be assigned passed to you in a timely manner?

If you accepted a handoff on an RTA aircraft, were you aware that an RTA had been assigned and what time had been assigned?

Was sufficient information identifying RTA flights present in the datablock (i.e. 4th line)?

Were the flight crews well informed and did they respond in an expected manner?

If the aircraft were not able to meet the RTA times, did the crews inform you in a timely manner?

89%

84%

89%

88%

93%

61%

72%

44%

86%

43%

| 25 |


Conclusions

Conclusions Meet time accuracy is very good for aircraft fully executing the RTA Many factors beyond accuracy affect the operational viability Additional automation and ground support tools would enable broader use Next Steps Further develop and mature concepts for RTA use: RTA for departure spacing RTA coupled with other concepts such as 3D PAM and Interval Management Inform on standards development: RTCA SC-227: Updates to the MASPS / MOPS – RTA requirements RTCA SC-214: Data Communications – RTA and trajectory-related message sets


| 26 |

Questions

| 27 |


Speed and Altitude Restrictions

STAR Flow Restrictions

OLM7 North 250 KIAS / 12000 ft MSL for OLM

South 270 KIAS / at or above 17000 ft MSL for OLM

CHINS7 North 250 KIAS / 12000 ft MSL for RADDY

South 270 KIAS / 16000 ft MSL for RADDY

GLASR8 North 270 KIAS / 16000 ft MSL for JAKSN

South 250 KIAS / 12000 ft MSL for JAKSN

| 28 |


Flight Trials Wind Uplink

ACARS Service

NFDC Database

ASA AOC

RUC Winds

2 3

4 5 6

Aircraft FMS

1

7

Research Wind

Service

2011 Trajectory Based Operations Flight TrialsAcknowledgmentsFindingsOverview4D Trajectory Based Operations (TBO)2011 Seattle Flight TrialsSlide Number 7Previous TrialsIssues and MitigationsIntent DisplayData Analysis FrameworkResults833 RTA AssignmentsFlight DistributionsTime PerformanceCrossing Time DistributionAircraft ConfigurationSpeed and Altitude Compliance RatesSpeed and Cost Index Changes �at RTA AssignmentSpeed Change vs. Absorbed DelayWind ErrorAir Ground HarmonizationController FeedbackDetailed Controller FeedbackConclusionsQuestionsSpeed and Altitude RestrictionsFlight Trials Wind Uplink

2011 Trajectory Based Operations Flight Trials...2013/06/11 · 2011 Seattle Flight Trials Overview...

Documents

Transcript of 2011 Trajectory Based Operations Flight Trials...2013/06/11 · 2011 Seattle Flight Trials Overview...