Federal Aviation Administration Managing Arrival Congestion “Rushing to Wait Vs. Slowing to Save...

Federal AviationAdministration

EUROCONTROL

Managing Arrival Congestion

“Rushing to WaitVs.

Slowing to Save (Fuel)”

•Dave Knorr – FAA

• Liaison to DFS and Eurocontrol PRU

• CANSO Benchmarking and Environmental WG‘s

2Federal AviationAdministration

EUROCONTROL

Outline

• Part 1: Background and Motivation

• Part 2: Calculated Baseline Inefficiency

• Part 3: Estimating Terminal time and fuel savings from Speed reduction in Cruise

Many Thanks to Co-authors: Philippe Enaud, Xing Chen, Marc Rose, Holger Hegendorfer and

John Gulding


EUROCONTROL

Motivation

• Examples of Controlled Times of Arrival (CTA’s) to manage terminal area congestion:– ALOFT and MAESTRO Programs at Airservices Australia– Collaborative Flow Management – Airways NZ– NATS/United Trials into Heathrow – ATTILA with Delta into Atlanta– Morning Rush into Zurich– FAA ATTILA Trials at Charlotte– Tailored Arrivals into LAX and SFO– UPS use of ADS-B at Memphis– XMAN for FABEC…. And Lufthansa ASCAPE trials– Others??

• All cases motivated by fuel savings associated with incorporating FMS capabilities


EUROCONTROL

Excerpt From Air Services Australia on ALOFT


EUROCONTROL

Improvement Pools for Time and Fuel Savings

Estimated Benefit Pool Actionable by ANSPs

Estimated Average Time (per flight)

Estimated Fuel Burn

Taxi ~5 min ~80 Kg*

Cruise ~3 min ~150 Kg

Approach

(100nm and in) ~3 min ~120 Kg

Averages for Busiest 34 airports in the US and Europe

GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-relatedHolding at theGate (ATFM/

EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

IFR flightsTo/fromMain 34 airports

Efficiency In last

100NM

Taxi-inefficiency

IFR flightsTo/fromMain 34 airports

*Under Review


EUROCONTROL

Consider….

• In the US and Europe congestion management is applied based on projected arrival times

…… but mainly implemented through ground holds


EUROCONTROL

Consider….

Most flights receiving a ground delay will speed up (fly faster than cost index 0) after receiving a

ground delay

Premise for discussion:

Once an arrival time constraint is established - FUEL is the only variable left for an airline to optimize

(after safety)


EUROCONTROL

Additional time within the last 100NMGATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-relatedHolding at theGate (ATFM/

EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-routeFlight

efficiency

Efficiency In last

100NM

0

2

4

6

8

10London

(LH

R)

Fra

nkf

urt

(FR

A)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Madrid

(MA

D)

Munic

h(M

UC

)

London

(LG

W)

Zurich

(ZR

H)

Geneva

(GV

A)

Nic

e (

NC

E)

Rom

e(F

CO

)

Duss

eld

orf

(DU

S)

Dublin

(DU

B)

Ham

burg

(HA

M)

Barc

elo

na

(BC

N)

Manch

est

er

(MA

N)

Mila

n(M

XP

)

Paris

(OR

Y)

London

(ST

N)

Osl

o (

OS

L)

min

ute

s p

er

arr

iva

lAverage additional time within the last 100NM miles

(only the first 20 airports in 2008 are shown)

Europe main 34 average (2.8 min.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phila

delp

hia

(PH

L)

New

York

(JF

K)

New

York

(LG

A)

New

ark

(EW

R)

Charlotte

(CLT

)

Atla

nta

(AT

L)

Mem

phis

(ME

M)

Bost

on

(BO

S)

Chic

ago

(OR

D)

Wash

ingto

n(I

AD

)

Balti

more

(BW

I)

Min

neapolis

(MS

P)

Chic

ago

(MD

W)

San

Fra

nci

sco

Tam

pa

(TP

A)

Orlando

(MC

O)

Wash

ingto

n(D

CA

)

Denve

r(D

EN

)

Seattle

(SE

A)

Phoenix

(PH

X)

min

ute

s p

er

arr

iva

l

US OEP 34 average (2.9 min.)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis

•Top 68 Busiest Airports average 3 min of delay and 120Kg additional fuel on approach


EUROCONTROL

Congestion versus Flight Time

0 2 4 6 8 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34

010

2030

4050

EGLL Jet

Arrival congestion

0 2 4 6 8 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34

010

2030

4050

EGLL Jet

Arrival congestionNumber of aircraft in the arrival queue

Ave

rage

tran

sit t

ime

(100

nm to

land

ing)

Impact of congestion on the descent phase at London Heathrow airport (LHR)


EUROCONTROL

Excerpt From NATS Presentation


EUROCONTROL

US and Europe - Establishing a Baseline

• How much time and fuel is currently spent absorbing delay on approach?

• Methodologies– Sample Airline data– Statistically based excess time using radar data, ac type and

crossing times– Converting excess distance and level segments to time and

fuel• Reduces impact of wind on estimates…


EUROCONTROL

•En-route•Flight

•efficiency

•Taxi-Out•efficiency

•Efficiency

•40 NM

•Taxi-In Efficiency

•Gate-to-Gate

•Efficiency •100NM

•Efficiency

•100NM

Inefficiency: Excess time in the last 100NM

•100 nmi

•40 nmi

•x

•Arrival

•Airport

•Arrival Fix

•Actual Route

•Notional Optimal

•Route•2.5%

•Direction of

•Flight

Originally Based on TAER Methodology – ATM2009

Updated to Better Account for Vertical Level-Offs – ATM2011


EUROCONTROL

50 Flights Active within 15 Minutes

A100 Measure Jan 15, 2009 12:30-12:45pm8 Arrivals in 15 Minutes

8.4 Minutes Average Inefficiency

40 nm

100 nm


EUROCONTROL

Inefficiency Detected from RADAR Data

Level SegmentsVertical Inefficiency

Direct FlightHorizontal Inefficiency

= ATC Constraints

Fuel (Act(x) – Fuel (Opt(x)

Fuel (Opt(x) – Fuel (Opt(x0)


EUROCONTROL

AAL 1612 763

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0

Distance from Touchdown (nm)

AL

titu

de

(ft)

TZ Trajectory Benchmark Trajectory

Vertical Component

di – distance of level seg.

hi – altitude of level seg.

hc – new altitude of level segment

N

ii

cii hvhvdT

1

))(/1)(/1(

))(/)()(/)((1

N

iii

ci

cii hvhfhvhfdF

T Change in Time

F Change in Fuel

v(h) – Speed at Alt h

f(h) – Fuelburn at Alt h

From BADA


EUROCONTROL

Horizontal Component

100nm circle

Unimpededtrajectory

Actualtrajectory

)( chv

ch - Cruise Altitude- Actual Distancex x0 - Minimum Distance

0DxDxD

*/ vDT ))()(/( cc hvhfDF

Nominal Speed at Cruise )( chf Nominal Fuel at Cruise

From BADA

v* benchmark speed from 100 nm to 40 nm for the group


EUROCONTROL

Vertical Profile View

NWA 1176

SWA 1132

SWA 186


EUROCONTROL

Example Calculation

NWA 1176 SWA 1132

SWA 186

“Un-Impeded”

•- 14 Min. “Delay”

- 6 Min. “Delay”


EUROCONTROL

Potential Benefit Pool Calculation

A100 VERTICAL HORIZONTAL excess distance

Carrier Flt. # AC Type Time (min) Fuel (kg) Time (min) Fuel (kg) Time (min) 100-40 (nm) 40-0 (nm)

NWA 1176 DC95 0.0 75.6 1.9 18.9 0.5 0.0 3.2

SWA 1132 B737 5.9 68.5 2.5 75.7 2.1 0.2 14.5

SWA 186 B733 14.0 90.4 4.9 241.0 5.8 0.0 39.9


EUROCONTROL

20091016 UAL870

Horizontal Calculation

100 to 40 excess distance: 0

40 to 0 excess distance: 0

Time improvement pool: 0

Fuel improvement pool: 0


EUROCONTROL

•20091016 UAL870 Vertical Calculation

Level distance: 0

Time saving pool: 0

Fuel saving pool: 0


EUROCONTROL

20090703 UAL870

Horizontal Calculation

100 to 40 excess distance: 0.42 nm

40 to 0 excess distance: 6.11 nm

Time saving pool: 0.93 minute

Fuel saving pool: 122.9 kg


EUROCONTROL

20090620 UAL870Vertical Calculation

Level distance: 19.1 nm

Time pool saving: 1.7 minute

Fuel saving pool: 160.7 kg


EUROCONTROL

Additional Fuel on Descent at Top 34 US Airports

0

50

100

150

200

250

EW

R

PH

L

LG

A

JFK

MD

W

ME

M

OR

D

AT

L

MS

P

BO

S

CL

T

DT

W

IAD

CV

G

IAH

DF

W

FL

L

BW

I

SF

O

DC

A

LA

S

PIT

ST

L

CL

E

MIA

DE

N

SE

A

PD

X

LA

X

SL

C

PH

X

TP

A

MC

O

SA

N

kg fuel

Horizontal Excess Fuel Vertical Excess Fuel

2009


EUROCONTROL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

EW

RP

HL

LG

AJF

KM

DW

ME

MO

RD

AT

LM

SP

BO

SC

LT

DT

WIA

DC

VG

IAH

DF

WF

LL

BW

IS

FO

DC

AL

AS

PIT

ST

LC

LE

MIA

DE

NS

EA

PD

XL

AX

SL

CP

HX

TP

AM

CO

SA

N

Min

ute

s/A

rriv

al

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Kilo

gram

s of F

uel (M

illion

s)

Total Excess Fuel Average Excess Time

Average Excess Time and Total Fuel by Facility

3.1 Minute Avg.

Total Fuel a Product of Time, Fleet Mix and Total Volume of Operations

JFKORD

ATL

DFW

2009


EUROCONTROL

The CASE for Speed Control in Cruise

• How much of the terminal area inefficiency can be recovered without changing throughput rates??

• Assumptions:– No speed adjustments for aircraft at the beginning of a “rush”– Used 1.5 to 5 minutes of absorbed delay as necessary for

keeping pressure on the runways aircraft/ANSP flow control based speed

– No fuel change estimated for slowing down in the cruise segment

– Assumed 30, 60, 90 and 120 minute windows for absorbing time in cruise

– If aircraft reaches cruise inside of 30 minutes left in cruise it is not considered in the pool


EUROCONTROL

SAMPLE Impact of Mach Speed on Fuel Burn

• Maximum Range (MR) is “Cost Index 0” and minimizes fuel burn

• Long range cruise (LRC) is a compromise between speed and fuel

• Going slower in cruise burns less fuel

….up to a point!

No fuel savings estimated for cruise speed reduction


EUROCONTROL

Methodology for Minutes of Cruise Delay Absorption

1. Calculate time in cruise for each flight• Remove Climb (15min) and last 100nm

• Establish variable for time available for speed reduction

2. Estimate potential time that can be absorbed for varying speed reductions

• Example…5% reduction on a 90 minute cruise time implies up to 4.7 minutes can be absorbed (90/0.95-90)

3. Time absorbed in cruise is the difference between Potential time above and the Excess (previous slide)

• Fuel Saved = Excess Fuel x time_saved/excess time


EUROCONTROL

Potential Time savings (US airports 2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6EW

RPH

LLG

AJF

KM

DW

MEM ORD ATL

MSP

BOS

CLT

DTW IA

DCV

GIA

HD

FW BWI

FLL

SFO

DCA LA

SPI

TST

LCL

ED

EN MIA

SEA

PDX

LAX

SLC

PHX

TPA

MCO

SAN

Exce

ss T

erm

inal

Tim

e (m

in/fl

ight

)

Total Excess Time

Speed Reduction: 8%Delay Threshold: 2.5 minMaximum Cruise: 90 min

0

1

2

3

4

5

6EW

RPH

LLG

AJF

KM

DW

MEM ORD ATL

MSP

BOS

CLT

DTW IA

DCV

GIA

HD

FW BWI

FLL

SFO

DCA LA

SPI

TST

LCL

ED

EN MIA

SEA

PDX

LAX

SLC

PHX

TPA

MCO

SAN

Exce

ss T

erm

inal

Tim

e (m

in/fl

ight

) Excess Time Shifted to CruiseNon-Recovered Excess Time



EUROCONTROL

Potential Fuel savings (US airports 2009)

0

50

100

150

200

250EW

RPH

LLG

AJF

KM

DW

MEM ORD ATL

MSP

BOS

CLT

DTW IA

DCV

GIA

HD

FW BWI

FLL

SFO

DCA LA

SPI

TST

LCL

ED

EN MIA

SEA

PDX

LAX

SLC

PHX

TPA

MCO

SAN

Exce

ss T

erm

inal

Fue

l (kg

/flig

ht)

Total Excess Fuel


0

50

100

150

200

250EW

RPH

LLG

AJF

KM

DW

MEM ORD ATL

MSP

BOS

CLT

DTW IA

DCV

GIA

HD

FW BWI

FLL

SFO

DCA LA

SPI

TST

LCL

ED

EN MIA

SEA

PDX

LAX

SLC

PHX

TPA

MCO

SAN

Exce

ss T

erm

inal

Fue

l (kg

/flig

ht)

Excess Fuel RecoveredRemaining Excess Fuel



EUROCONTROL

Potential Savings vs Allowable Speed Reduction

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

Maximum Speed Reduction (%)

Po

rtio

n o

f E

xc

es

s T

erm

ina

l Sa

ve

d (

%)

Fuel

Time

Delay Threshold: 2.5 minMaximum Cruise: 90 min


EUROCONTROL

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Maximum Cruise Time Available to Absorb Terminal Delay (minutes)

Perc

ent T

ime

and

Fuel

Fuel (1.5)

Time (1.5)

Fuel (2.5)

Time (2.5)

Fuel (5)

Time (5)

US - 5% max speed reduction

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


Perc

ent T

ime

and

Fuel

Fuel (1.5)

Time (1.5)

Fuel (2.5)

Time (2.5)

Fuel (5)

Time (5)


EUROCONTROL

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


Perc

ent T

ime

and

Fuel

Fuel (1.5)

Time (1.5)

Fuel (2.5)

Time (2.5)

Fuel (5)

Time (5)

US - 8% max speed reduction

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


Perc

ent T

ime

and

Fuel

Fuel (1.5)

Time (1.5)

Fuel (2.5)

Time (2.5)

Fuel (5)

Time (5)


EUROCONTROL

Potential time savings (Europe 2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8L

HR

FRA

VIE

MA

DZ

RH

MU

CA

TH

LG

WO

RY

HA

MFC

OG

VA

DU

SB

CN

CD

G LIS

MX

PPR

AM

AN

OL

SD

UB

STN

PMI

AM

SB

RU

CPH TX

LA

RN

potential time savings

additional time less potential savings

Source : CFMU, Year 2009

Add

ition

al ti

me

[min

utes

/arr

ival

]

Speed reduction: 5%Delay threshold: 1.5 minutesMaximum cruise: 90 minutes


EUROCONTROL

Potential fuel savings (Europe 2009)

050

100150200250300350400450

LH

RFR

AV

IEM

AD

ZR

HM

UC

AT

HL

GW

OR

YH

AM

FCO

GV

AD

US

BC

NC

DG LIS

MX

PPR

AM

AN

OL

SD

UB

STN

PMI

AM

SB

RU

CPH TX

LA

RN

potential fuel savings

additional fuel less potential savings

Source : CFMU, Year 2009

Add

ition

al fu

el [k

ilogr

am/a

rriv

al]

Speed reduction: 5%Delay threshold: 1.5 minutesMaximum cruise: 90 minutes


EUROCONTROL

Europe 2009 - 5% speed reduction

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

30 50 70 90

Fuel (1.5)

Time (1.5)

Fuel (2.5)

Time (2.5)

Terminal time absorbed in cruise with fuel saving (%)- 5% speed reduction -

Maximum Cruise Time Available To Absorb Terminal Delay (min)

Perc

ent t

ime

& fu

el


EUROCONTROL

Europe 2009 - 8% speed reduction

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

30 50 70 90

Fuel (1.5)

Time (1.5)

Fuel (2.5)

Time (2.5)

Terminal time absorbed in cruise with fuel saving (%)- 8% speed reduction -

Maximum Cruise Time Available To Absorb Terminal Delay (min)

Perc

ent t

ime

& fu

el


EUROCONTROL

Challenges

• Need better data on fuel saved by slowing in cruise• Implementation Issues remain with:

– moving outside an Individual ANSP or Center’s sphere of influence

– how to get times to pilots– how to enforce time windows (CTAs)– combining speed control with ground holds for shorter flights – how to handle equity and airline preferences for individual

flights– conflict resolutions in cruise impact on achieving CTAs– controller roles and acceptance

• Role of Simulations?• Additional Trials?


EUROCONTROL

Conclusions

• Potential pools for saving fuel thru speed changes can be estimated with basic ANSP data

• Fuel savings can be achieved through speed control in cruise– Fuel can be saved both through slowing down and reducing

excess time in the terminal area– Fuel Savings from speed control is achieved without increasing

capacity or throughput

• Worldwide implementation of CTA’s is growing and proving that fuel can be saved with speed adjustments today (without the benefit of full 4D trajectory management)


EUROCONTROL

END


EUROCONTROL

Fuel savings from speed control versus flight length (Europe 2009)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

<200 200-300 300-400 400-500Flight distance

Time (0.08)

Fuel (0.08)

Time (0.05)

Fuel (0.05)

% ti

me

and

fuel

Terminal Time Absorbed in Cruise with Fuel Saving (%)


EUROCONTROL


EUROCONTROL

Vertical Profile View

NWA 1176

SWA 1132

SWA 186


EUROCONTROL

Example Calculation

NWA 1176 SWA 1132

SWA 186

“Un-Impeded”




EUROCONTROL

Benefit Calculation

A100 VERTICAL HORIZONTAL excess distance

Carrier Flt. # AC Type Time (min) Fuel (kg) Time (min) Fuel (kg) Time (min) 100-40 (nm) 40-0 (nm)

NWA 1176 DC95 0.0 75.6 1.9 18.9 0.5 0.0 3.2

SWA 1132 B737 5.9 68.5 2.5 75.7 2.1 0.2 14.5

SWA 186 B733 14.0 90.4 4.9 241.0 5.8 0.0 39.9


EUROCONTROL

ANSP Quality of Service has 4 primary focus areas

1. Availability of Direct or Wind Optimal Routes

2. Maximizing Capacity and Throughput (Terminal and En Route)

3. Resilience of Capacity (IMC like VMC, time based separation for wind reduced capacity on final)

4. Managing necessary delay in the most fuel efficient manner (Measuring delay by phase of flight)


EUROCONTROL

Calculating Potential Benefits from Reduced Speed in Cruise

Methodology

• Start with total excess terminal time on a per flight basis– Remove additional

terminal time to keep pressure on runways

(1.5, 2.5, & 5min)

• Establish estimate for potential time absorption in cruise

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Excess Minutes

Per

cen

tag

e

Additional Terminal Time into SFO

Example

Excess Minutes

Federal Aviation Administration Managing Arrival Congestion “Rushing to Wait Vs. Slowing to Save...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Aviation Administration Managing Arrival Congestion “Rushing to Wait Vs. Slowing to Save...