Upload
dinhminh
View
222
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presented to:
Presented By:
Date:
Federal AviationAdministration8th USA/Europe
ATM R&D SeminarPaper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”
ATM2009 R&D Seminar
Mike Paglione, FAA
July 1, 2009
Authors: M. Paglione, Federal Aviation AdministrationG. McDonald, Airservices AustraliaI. Bayraktutar, EUROCONTROLJ. Bronsvoort, Airservices Australia
2 2Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Presentation Overview• Background - Motivation
– Trajectory Based Operations– Trajectory Prediction Process Lateral Intent
• Flight Examples• Lateral Deviation Metrics• Measurements on ATC Operational Data• Impact on Conflict Predictions• Measurements on Airborne Operational Data• Conclusions
3 3Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Background and Motivation• Trajectory Based Operations central to NextGen,
SESAR, and Australian ATM Strategic Plan• Trajectory Based Operations
– “Requires precise management of aircraft’s current & future position”– Thus, trajectory prediction needs to be more accurate than today– Lateral intent is a key component of this TP process
Initial condition
ABC
DEF
XYZ
Flight Plan: AAA123 B752 0450 310 XXX..ABC..DEF.BUC7.XYZ
BUC7
Route Conversion
XXX Aircraft trajectory modeling x(t),y(t),z(t
Constraint Specification
Lateral path initialization
4 4Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Flight Example 1• Commercial carrier flying a B737-300• From Cleveland Ohio - To Denver Colorado• Climbs to FL340 after a series of cleared steps• Enters Denver en route center at FL 340• Starts smooth descent into Denver airport after
crossing radial distance 2 nm from AMWAY fix –follows SAYGE6 arrival
5 5Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Flight Example 1 Continued
6 6Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Flight Example 1 Continued• Focused on arrival
phase into Denver ARTCC
• ATC issues horizontal path stretch – not entered into ground automation
• Trajectory prediction exhibits large cross and along route errors
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
450 500 550 600 650 700 750
X-coord (nm)
Y-co
ord
(nm
)
Actual Path via Radar Reports
Predicted Trajectory
7 7Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Flight Example 1 Continued
HORZ_ERR LAT_ERR LONG_ERR VERT_ERR CROSS_TRK_ERR ALONG_TRK_ERR TIME_ERR
16.9858 16.5285 -3.9148 0 16.5347 -3.9148 -34
455
460
465
470
475
480
570 575 580 585 590 595
X-coord (nm)
Y-c
oord
(nm
)
Track
TimeCoTraj81960
SpatialCoTraj81960
First Track Point, 83360s
Time Coincident Trajectory Point, 83360s
Spatially Coincident Trajectory Point, 83625s
8 8Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Flight Example 2• Commercial carrier flight recorded in Washington ARTCC (ZDC) • Origin: Dallas Fort Worth, Texas • Destination: John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York• Hand-off into ZDC at 20:14 UTC and outbound to New York
ARTCC at 20:56 UTC during brief cruise at FL 240
9 9Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Flight Example 2 Cont’d• TP generated 34 trajectories• Sampled 18 of the trajectories
to produce 109 measurements• Focus on trajectory build 74005
seconds (20:33:25 UTC) with 5 measurements below
Sample Time Measurement TimeLook
Ahead Time Horizontal ErrorCross-
track ErrorAlong-
track ErrorVerticalError
Clear Flag
Seconds Seconds HH:MM:SS SecondsNautical
MilesNautical
MilesNautical
Miles Feet
74040 74040 20:34:00 0 0.4 0.3 -0.3 0 0
74040 74340 20:39:00 300 0.1 -0.1 0.0 793 1
74040 74640 20:44:00 600 1.2 -0.5 -1.0 0 1
74040 74940 20:49:00 900 2.1 -0.1 2.1 2096 1
74040 75240 20:54:00 1200 34.6 11.9 -32.5 6952 1
10 10Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Direction of flight track
dr
β
α
Cleared route
dn
da
Threshold Value (units)
D1 0.5 (nm)
D2 1.5 (nm)
D3 1.0 (nm)
P1 30 (deg)
Lateral Deviation Metrics
11 11Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from ATC Operational Data:United States En Route Facilities
Descriptive Summary Statistics
Percentiles (nm)Airspace Source
SampleSize 25th 50th 75th
United States Airspace: Center Data
ZAB 427361 -0.399 0.014 0.562 1.352 15.326
ZAU 435974 -0.406 0.050 0.846 2.238 15.706
ZBW 303583 -0.570 0.081 1.700 3.727 22.329
ZDC 565728 -0.319 -0.013 0.356 1.795 13.964
ZDV 490275 -0.267 0.063 0.765 3.770 29.597
ZFW 384097 -0.809 0.039 0.951 1.266 12.797
ZHU 421271 -0.607 0.045 0.890 2.151 20.797
ZID 430507 -0.376 0.059 0.671 1.371 10.867
ZJX 540701 -0.714 0.056 1.100 1.361 11.486
ZKC 443290 -0.571 0.041 0.977 2.943 24.252
ZLA 367723 -0.337 0.014 0.743 5.652 26.665
ZLC 348567 -0.458 0.015 0.545 2.704 22.985
ZMA 377355 -1.000 0.068 2.100 6.397 44.761
ZME 437666 -0.481 0.034 0.844 2.333 18.434
ZMP 404147 -0.417 0.043 0.845 3.548 23.644
ZNY 258725 -0.352 0.057 0.723 1.803 13.986
ZOA 227412 -0.412 0.037 0.726 4.075 22.201
ZOB 472835 -0.418 0.005 0.630 1.356 10.306
ZSE 207031 -0.360 0.038 0.536 2.113 20.574
ZTL 566839 -0.535 0.048 0.820 1.734 13.964
Avg 405554 -0.493 0.039 0.857 2.579 20.816
Mean(nm)
Std Dev(nm)
• One day – seven hours of traffic
• All 20 ARTCCs• 50,000 flights• Over 8M
measurements
12 12Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
ZAB
ZAU
ZBW
ZDC
ZDV
ZFW
ZHU
ZID
ZJX
ZKC
ZLAZLC
ZMA
ZME
ZMP
ZNY
ZOA
ZOB
ZSE
ZTL
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Stan
dard
Dev
iatio
n (n
autic
al m
iles)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interquartile Range (IQR - nautical miles)
Measurements from ATC Operational Data: Cluster Analysis Results
13 13Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from ATC Operational Data: Geography of Clusters
ZLA
ZOA
ZSEZLC
ZDV
ZAB
ZMP
ZKC
ZAU
ZID
ZME
ZFW
ZHUZMA
ZJX
ZTL
ZDC
ZOB ZNY
ZBW
14 14Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from ATC Operational Data: Precipitation Weather Map of Same Date
15 15Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from ATC Operational Data:Distributions of Three ARTCCs
16 16Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
220000
240000
Freq
uenc
y of
Mea
sure
men
ts49%
16%
9%
25%
47%
13%8%
32%30%
12%9%
49%
inne
rInC
onf
mid
InC
onf
mid
Non
Con
f
oute
rNon
Con
f
inne
rInC
onf
mid
InC
onf
mid
Non
Con
f
oute
rNon
Con
f
inne
rInC
onf
mid
InC
onf
mid
Non
Con
f
oute
rNon
Con
f
ZID ZM P ZM A
Lateral Adherence Status within ARTCC
Measurements from ATC Operational Data: Three ARTCC’s Lateral Adherence States
17 17Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from ATC Operational Data:Lateral Deviation Statistics from Europe
• EUROCONTROL’s Flight Data Management Metrics Project published report July 2007
• Analyzed data set from November 2006– Approximately 27,000 flights from EUROCONTROL’s Central
Flow Management Unit– Supplied by 31 European Air Traffic Service Providers (ANSPs)– Utilized a software tool called EUROCONTROL Flight
Information Consistency Analysis Tool (EFICAT)• Results for two dimensional route analysis
– Grouped into major deviations > 50 nm off route and minor deviations between 20 and 50 nm
– Of 27,300 sample measurements…• 19% - minor deviations with average lateral deviation of 30 nm• 3% - major deviations with average lateral deviation of 73 nm
18 18Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Impact on Conflict PredictionsConflict Event Counts For Each
Lateral Adherence StateAlert State In Out
106 102
111 97
12 12
7 27
118 114
χ2=5.04, df=1; p-value=0.025
232Totals
24No Alert
208Alert
Totals
χ2=84.742, df=1; p-value=0.000
1460669617645Totals
66547508 14162
67497413No Alert
307137 444
212232Alert
OutIn Totals
Encounter Event Counts For EachLateral Adherence StateAlert
State
Beyond paper applied method to operational conflict probe
Both conflict and non-conflict predictions effected by lateral adherence state.
19 19Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Impact on Conflict Predictions: Sensitivity Analysis - Terms
• Probability of Alert – ratio of:– Number of conflict predictions (a.k.a. alerts) for min-max-ratio range to– Number of non-conflict events for same min-max-ratio range
• Min-max-ratio– Unit-less distance combines both dimensions of separation and
directly corresponds to standard separations.– Calculated on each position for each aircraft pair combo, such that:
( )[ ]ρ λ π= min max ,ik
i i
( ) ( )λ
δi
x ia xi
b yia yi
b
i=
− + −⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟
⎛
⎝⎜⎜
⎞
⎠⎟⎟
2 2
πυi
ia
ib
i
z z=
−
points track ofnumber total=k ;point track icurrent = i
feet. in baircraft ofpoint track i theof position altitude
feet; ina aircraft ofpoint track i theof position altitude
point;data track edsynchroniz i for the standard separation vertical=
positions y ingcorrespond theare , and
miles; nautical in baircraft ofpoint track i theof positionx
miles; nautical ina aircraft ofpoint track i theof positionx
point;data track edsynchroniz i for the standard separation horizontal =
where
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
=
=
=
=
bi
ai
i
bi
ai
bi
ai
i
z
z
yy
x
x
υ
δ
20 20Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5Min-Max-Ratio Separation Factor
Prob
abili
ty o
f Ale
rt (#
Ale
rts/
#Enc
ount
ers)
All
InConf
OutConf
FitCurve(OutConf)
FitCurve(All)
FitCurve(InConf)
Impact on Conflict Predictions: Sensitivity Analysis
21 21Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from Airborne Operational Data• From Airservices
Australia– ADS-C data– 778 flights
• 58 flights of type Airbus A330-300
• 168 flights of type Airbus A340-500
• 258 flights of type Boeing 747-400
• 294 flights of type Boeing 777-300
– Avg. 34.4 reports/flight
-0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20
500
1000
1500
2000
LATERAL DEVIATION [nm]
CO
UN
T
22 22Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Measurements from AirborneOperational Data:
Summary from Both U.S. & Australia
Descriptive Summary Statistics
Percentiles (nm)Airspace
Source
SampleSize 25th 50th 75th
United States Airspace: ADS-C Dataa
U.S. 39012 -0.018 -0.002 0.007 -0.001 0.184Australian Airspace: ADS-C Data
A.A. 26731 -0.019 -0.002 0.015 -0.003 0.026
Mean(nm)
Std Dev(nm)
23 23Federal AviationAdministration
ATM2009 - Paper #141: “Lateral Intent Error’s Impact on Aircraft Prediction”July 1, 2009
Conclusions• TBO concepts will require accurate TP• Missing lateral intentlateral intent is significant TP error source • Metrics defined to capture lateral intent state•• LargeLarge samples of ground automation measurements
analyzed in both U.S. and Europe – U.S. reported lateral errors with an overall standard deviation of
about 21 nm and IQR of 1.35 nm– Europe reported 19% of their flight sample had lateral errors of
30 nm on average
• Impact on conflict predictions significant• Airborne ADS-C data measures from Australia and
U.S. much more precise – 100 to 1000 times!• Global challenge – needs global collaboration…