Upload
duongmien
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MIT ICATMIT ICAT
16.72 Air Traffic Control Overview
Prof. R. John Hansman
MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
US Capacity Issue
Prior to 9/11 the US Air Transportation system is approaching a criticalsaturation threshold where nominal interruptions (e.g. weather) resulted in anonlinear amplification of delay
US and Regional Economies highly dependant on Air Transportation Business travel (stimulated by info technology) Air Freight Personal travel
System is highly complex and interdependent Need better understanding of system dynamics and real constraints to guide
and justify efforts to upgrade NAS Current efforts will not provide capacity to meet demand which will re-emerge
when the economy cycles up
Impact of upcoming capacity crisis is not well understood Operational Impact Economic Impact
Similar Issues in Europe Different Issues in Emerging Regions (eg China, India)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
MIT ICATMIT ICAT
Passenger Traffic by Region
Scheduled Revenue Passenger-Kilometers by Region
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
RP
K (b
illio
n)
North America
Europe
Asia and Pacific
Latin America & Caribbean
Middle East
Africa
Source: ICAO, scheduled services of commercial air carriers
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Trends in Aircraft Size A
vera
ge
seat
s p
er d
epar
ture
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
801990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: DOT Form 41 data (including Regional Jets and Turboprops)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
US FlightUS DelaysFlight Delaysfrom 1995 tofrom 20061995 to 2006
Data source: FAA Operational Network (OPSNET)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Flight CancellationsCancellations
Thousands 250
200
150
100
50
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: BTS, Airline On Time Performance data
0
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
US FlightUS DelaysFlight Delaysfrom 2000 tofrom 20062000 to 2006
Source: FAA OPSNET data
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Delays at Chicago O’HarePressure for Demand Managment
ORD: Total Delays
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
To
tal D
elay
s 2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Source: FAA OPSNET data
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
1980 198
2 198
4 198
6 198
8 199
0 199
2 199
4 199
6 199
8 200
0 20
0020
02
2004
Consumer complaints
0
5
10
15
20
25
Com
plai
nts
to t
he D
OT
(00
0) Southwest
USAirways United TWA Northwest America West Delta Continental Alaska American
Note: Year 2005 consumer complaints is an extrapolation using data from Jan-Mar 2005
Data source: DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division, available at: http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Air Traffic Control Functions
Aircraft Separation Assurance
Traffic Congestion Management
Flight Information
Search and Rescue
Example of a Command, Control and Information System
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
COMPONENTS OF AIR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Airports Runways Terminals Ground transport interface Servicing Maintenance
Air traffic management Communications Navigation Surveillance Control
Weather Observation Forecasting Dissemination
Skilled personnel
Cost recovery mechanism
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Current Control Structure
Surface Control “Ground”
Local Control “Tower”
Terminal Area Control (TRACON) “Approach and “Departure”
Enroute Control (ARTCC) “Center”
Oceanic Control (FIR) “Oceanic”
Flow Control (ATCSCC) “Central Flow”
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
US Air Route Traffic Control Center (ATRCC) Airspace - 20 Centers
ZSE ZMP
ZLC ZAU ZBW
ZOB ZDV ZNY
ZOA ZKC ZID ZDC
ZLA ZME ZAB ZFW
ZTL
ZJX
ZHU ZMA
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
High Level Sectors257
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Low Level Sectors 378
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
TRACONSMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Overall StructureMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
ATM System CurrentFunctional Structure
Planning - Strategic Level
Sector Traffic
Planning
Aircraft StateAircraft Guidance and
Navigation
Sector Traffic Control
Traffic Sensor
Vectors
ClearancesPlanning
Approved Handoffs
Desired Sector Loads
Clearance Requests
Flight Planning
Weather
Filed
Negotiate < 5 min
Execution - Tactical Level
Pilot
Planned Flow Rates
Clearance Requests
AOC Schedule of Capacities
Approved Flight
National PlansFlow
Facility Flow
Planning
Flight Plans
FlightSchedule
Airline
hrs - day hrs 5-20 min 5 min Handoffs
CFMU TMU D-side R-side
Measurement
Real State Plan/Intent
Requests
AC State Sensor Other Aircraft
States
Efficiency Throughput Safety
Increasing Criticality Level
Source: A. Haraldsdottir Boeing
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
ATC Control LooRadar Surveillance Limits
Vectors
Aircraft F light
M anagementC omp ute r
S tate
Flight PlanAmendments
Autop ilo tAuto thrust
MCP Controls
ATCF lightS trip s
Surveillance: Enroute: 12.0 s Terminal: 4.2 s
S tate C ommands
Tra jecto rC ommands
Initial Clearances
CDU
ADS : 1 sDisplays
AOC: Airline Operations Center
Pilot
DisplaysManual Control
Voice
ACARS (Datalink)
Decision Aids
N av igation
Emerging Approaches: ADS-B and Multi-Lateration
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Radar Display Example
CO 123 350C B757 310
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
ATM is a Human Centered Process
Contract process Negotiation Execution Monitoring Re-negotiation/amendment
Agents Controllers
Strategic Tactical
Pilots Airlines
Dispatchers ATC coordinators
Airports
Resources Airspace Runway Airport surfaces
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Flight Progress StripMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Human Factors andAdaptation
ATM is a human centered contract process for the allocation ofairspace and airport surface resources.
Current NAS has evolved over 60 years
The system has significant local adaptations resulting innonhomogeneity Airspace design Local procedures Letters of agreement Noise restrictions Site specific training (FPL = 3-5 years)
Major operational changes were event driven, enabled btechnical capability Positive radar control - Grand Canyon 1956 TCAS - Los Cerritos 1982
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
New York Arrival and Departure Tracks
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
ATC Workload as a System Constraint
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Blocking
Air traffic controller
Blocking action
Controlled resource
Block the flow to maintain number of aircraft within the acceptable level (ex. Set by AAR or OALT)
Finite capacity buffer
AAR is Airport Acceptance Rate OALT is sector Operationally Acceptable Level of Traffic
Saturated resource
Number of aircraft threshold corresponding For example,
to, for example, AAR or rate set by
OALT, (varies depending AAR or OALT
on current conditions)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
MIT ICATMIT ICAT
Downstream Flow Constraints
Flow Management Capacity Constraint ex. Airport
Capacity Acceptance Constraint Rate (AAR)
Departure flow
Gates Ramp Taxiways Runways Terminal area and exit fixes
En route sector airspace
Destination airports
Gate Restrictions
ex. Sector Operationally Acceptable Level of Traffic (OALT)
Ramp Restrictions
Runway Restrictions
Taxi Restrictions Capacity
Constraint ex. Miles In Trail through exit fix
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
12:19 p.m. 153 Aircraft In-bound
Dallas Fort-Worth
Aircraft are condensed into distinct flows feeding 4 arrival fixes.
June 20, 2001
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
116 Aircraft In-bound
Atlanta
Condensation and merges have reduced 116 trajectories at airport to 4
ARTCCBoundaries
RouteFlown
11:15 a.m. June 14, 2001
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
78 Aircraft In-bound
San Francisco
Special use airspace provides additional constraints
Special UseAirspace
RouteFlown
Flight Plan
June 11, 2001 4:13 p.m.
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Projected % DevelopmentalControllers
From: ATCS Workforce Plan Briefing
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Capacity Limit Factors
Demand Peak Demand Hub & Spoke Networks
Airspace Capacity Airspace Design Controller Workload Balkanization
Airport Capacity Runways Gates Landside Limits (including Security) Weather
Environmental Limits Noise (relates to Airport) Emissions (local, Ozone, NOX, CO2)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Airport SysteCapacity Limit Factors
Runways
Weather Capacity Variability Convective Weather
Landside Limits Gates Terminals & Security Road Access
Downstream Constraints
Controller Workload Environmental
Community Noise Emissions
Safety
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Arr
ival
s p
er H
ou
rA
rriv
als
per
Ho
ur
MITMIT Airport Capacity EnvelopeICATICAT Boston (BOS)
100
80
90
68,50VFR ASPM - Apr 2000 - Visual Approaches
ASPM - Jul/Aug 2000 - Visual ApproachesCalculated VMC Capacity
70 Optimum Rate (BOS)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Departures per Hour
100
IFRASPM - Apr 2000 - Instrument Approaches
90 ASPM - Jul/Aug 2000 - Instrument Approaches
Calculated IMC Capacity 80 Reduced Rate (BOS)
70
60
50 44,44
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Departures per Hour Source: FAA Benchmark Data
Separation Requirements forArrival (Same Runway)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Wake Turbulence Requirement Radar Separation requirements
Trailing Aircraft
Leading Aircraft
Heavy Large Small Heavy 4 5 5 B757 4 4 5 Large 3(2.5) 3(2.5) 4 Small 3(2.5) 3(2.5) 3(2.5)
Visual Separation requirements Pilots Discretion
Preceding arrival must be clear of runway at touchdown Runway Occupancy time
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Variable Capacity Effects1995 Delays vs Operations
Data from FAA Capacity Office, CY95
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Total Operations (CY95)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Dela
yed
Flig
hts
(per
100
0)
SFO
LGA EWR STL
LAX
ORD
DFW
ATL BOS
JFK
PHX
LAS
SJU
HNL PIT DEN
CLT
IAH
MEM
From John Andrews, MIT Lincoln Lab
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Safety vs CapacityMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
The current airborne system is extremely safe but conservative
Increased capacity with current infrastructure implies Reduced OperationalSeparation Airborne Separation Standards Runway Occupancy Times Wake Vortex Controller Personal Buffers ...
How do you dependably predict the safety impact of changes in a complexinterdependent system? Statistics of small numbers Differential analysis limited to small or isolated changes Models??
Safety Veto Effect
Runway Incursions are an area of concern
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
EN ROUTE MINIMA HAVE NOTCHANGED DESPITE 5 x IMRPOVEMENT
IN RADAR PERFORMANCE
ARSR-1 ARSR-4 ASR-6 ASR-9 Mode A Mode S 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Azim
uth
reso
lutio
n at
max
imum
rang
e as
% o
f en
rout
e m
inim
a 5 nm en route separation minima
1950
2000 1960
2000 1960
2000
1950 2000
Long range Medium range Medium rangeprimary radars primary radars secondary radars
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
SEPARATION ASSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS
PERSONAL SURVEILLANCE SAFETY BUFFER UNCERTAINTY
MINIMUMSEPARATIONSTANDARD
PROCEDURAL HAZARD ZONESAFETY
BUFFER
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
IMPROVED SURVEILLANCE HAS NOT LED TO REDUCED EN ROUTE MINIMA
WHEN STANDARDS IMPROVED SURVEILLANCE WERE DEVELOPED ENVIRONMENT
(e.g. 1950s for en route radar) (e.g. today for en route radar) Minimum
SeparationStandard
Surveillance has improved, but separation minima have not changed:procedural safety buffer has implicitly increased
Schedule FactorsMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Peak Demand/Capacity issue driven (in part) by airline Hub and Spokescheduling behavior Peak demand often exceeds airport IFR capacity (VFR/IFR Limits) Depend on bank spreading and lulls to recover Hub and Spoke amplifies delay
Hub and spoke is an efficient network Supports weak demand markets
Schedules driven by competitive/market factors Operations respond to marketing Trend to more frequent services, smaller aircraft Ratchet behavior Impact of regional jets
Ultimately, airlines will schedule rationally To delay tolerance of the market (delay homeostasis)
Limited federal or local mechanisms to regulate schedule
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT Hub and Spoke Network
Completely Connected Network = 2(N-1) Flights(eg., 50 Airports, 98 Flights)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT Fully Connected Network
Completely Connected Network = N(N-1)(eg., 50 Airports, 2450 Flights)
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Capacity Exampl(50 Flights/hr)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time
0
50
100
150
200
250
T ime
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Capacity Exampl(40 Flights/hr)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time
250
200
150
100
50
0
T ime
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Capacity Exampl(30 Flights/hr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
T ime
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time
Classic Delay vs DemandCurve
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
DELAY
CapacityLimit
Linear Region
Non-Linear Region
DEMAND
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT LGA Air 21 Impact
LaGuardia Airport
0
20 40
60
80
100 120
140
160 180
200
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day
Historic Movements AIR-21 Induced Svc.
Maximum Hourly Operations Based on Current Airspace & ATC Design
Source: William DeCota, Port Authority of New York
DELA
Y
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT LGA
DEMAND
Capa
city
Lim
it
Source: William DeCota, Port Authority of New York
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Flight Delays at LGAFlight Delays at LGAfrom 2000 to 2006from 2000 to 2006
Source: FAA OPSNET data
Suggested PoliticalSolutions to Capacity Shortfall
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Full or Partial Privatization (eg AIR-21) May improve modernization,costs and strategic management Limited impact on capacity
Re-regulation Increased Costs to Consumer
Demand Management (eg Peak Demand Pricing) Reduced service to weak markets Need to insure that revenues go to improved capacity
Run System Tighter Requires improved CNS Safety vs Capacity Trade
Build more capacity Local community resistance
Multi-modal transportation networks
ConclusionMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Technology in Pipeline will have limited impact on peak Capacity atCurrently Stressed Airports 20% to 40% Optimistically
System will become (is) Capacity Restricted Airlines will Schedule in Response to Market Demand
Delay Homeostasis (at Hubs) Increased Traffic at Secondary Airports High Frequency Service Changing Value for Reliability
Overall system response is not clear
Need Protection of Airport and Spectrum Resources More runways in critical locations New ATM paradigms
Need for leadership
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
Multi-Stakeholder Considerations & Role of System Transition Plans
Demand Performance
Stakeholder Decisions
Transformative Actions
Change Process
Implementation
SystemCapability
Selected Actions
AggregateInefficiencyMetrics
Corrective Actions
Monitoring & Forecasting
Stakeholder Awareness or Perception Ai
Research and Development
Capabilities
Research Needs System Concepts
Road Map
Stakeholder Values Vi
Stakeholder Objectives Oi Stakeholder
Decisions Stakeholder Decisions
Stakeholder i Optimization
FAA>OEP JPDO > NGATS EU > CESARE
Focus is the OEP 35 airportsMIT ICAT
MIT ICAT
More? Oakland Burbank Long Beach John Wayne-Orange County Tucson Albuquerque San Antonio Houston Hobby Palm Beach
MIT ICAT
MIT ICAT