Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) - Joint Planning and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) Study Team Report current trajectory may pose a wake hazard to Transcon, which will pass only a thousand feet below its path unless its trajectory is modified. Normally, Transcon would have priority in this situation, and the Antonov an25 should be maneuvered. However, the tactical controller monitoring this airspace believes that, for safety reasons, Transcon should level off until clear of the Antonov an25’s potential wake. He can see on his screen that a short duration level-off will not cause a conflict with any other aircraft for Transcon. He contacts Transcon by voice and instructs a one-minute level off, together with termination of the in-trail following task. Transcon responds by voice and adjusts the mode control panel to maintain level flight. Knowing that they are now on an open trajectory, the Transcon flight crew attentively monitors their CDTI for nearby traffic, especially the Antonov an25 climbing above them. This capability provides a helpful safety backup while the controller makes adjustments to the parameters for conformance monitoring. The tactical controller creates a new closed trajectory for Transcon and waits a few seconds while the strategic TBO evaluation automation updates. He checks this trajectory for conflicts, and, when the automation has verified the new trajectory, he sends it to Transcon. Transcon’s flight crew receives, reviews, and accepts the new trajectory, and executes the change. A confirming data link message is sent to the ANSP. The crew maintains level flight for one minute before climbing to the initial cruise altitude. The tactical controller continues to monitor the Antonov an25 until the aircraft has climbed to its cruise altitude, and there is no discrepancy between its projected and actual 4DT. Transcon 1324 reaches the initial cruise altitude further downstream than planned, but is still able to join the flow of traffic towards IAD as intended to meet their “turn” requirement for a flight to Europe because the unplanned level off has not caused a significant delay in their overall flight plan. On this departure, the aircraft started with a closed trajectory, for which the ground and airborne automation were in sync. This makes conformance monitoring possible by the automation and reduces controller workload. Controllers need to manage strategically or provide tactical intervention for nonconforming aircraft. As soon as the controller identified the potential wake conflict (or was alerted by the ground automation) and gave Transcon an intermediate level-off and discontinued the flight crewtimed climb following another aircraft, the trajectory became open. The effect is to expand the area of variability or to impose a restriction in the 4DT. This change is counter to the downstream planning for the aircraft, and requires a recomputed 4DT to return the aircraft to a closed trajectory. 20 14.3 Detroit to Dulles Cruise Segment This describes negotiated changes to the cruise segment that alters arrival ETAs and the flight profile. In the cruise phase, aircraft intent is being downlinked to the ANSP from the aircraft, and the ANSP makes the information available to the AOC and others via network-centric operations. ATC is checking to assure the trajectory “fits” with others in the airspace/routing. Exceptions and changes can be “what-ifed” and accepted or not using the ANSP’s strategic TBO evaluation automation. During climb out, the ANSP had verified that the aircraft ETA at the arrival meter point fit with all other traffic and cleared the profile. Cruise altitude is FL 300 initially, the best altitude for the aircraft initial cruise weight. 20 The relationship between open and closed trajectories and conformance monitoring in ground automation must be explored through research. As the aircraft enters an open trajectory, the conformance parameters need to change if alerting is to continue. Joint Planning and Development Office 53
Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) Study Team Report Merging into an overhead stream of traffic is dependent on time performance, arriving at the right time to allow the merge and sustain separation. This merge will happen as the aircraft climbs above FL 300. Once established in cruise at FL 300, the aircraft intent downlink information shows the ETA at the arrival meter still acceptable to the ANSP, resulting in no action. The flight crew reviews FMS pages and concludes that a cruise climb to FL 370 would be very beneficial for fuel burn. This is discussed with airline operations, which agrees to request a cruise climb from the ANSP. The ANSP needs to know if the merge time is still on target relative to other traffic. Negotiation completed, the ANSP sends a change in the 4DT to the aircraft, who accepts, loads, and executes the change. At execution, a data link message confirms the action and closes the trajectory for conformance monitoring. After the cruise climb has begun, the flight crew uses “what if” capabilities in the FMS using a secondary route capability. The ETA has moved far enough that the ANSP cannot now accept, so they request a CTA at the arrival meter point that meets the ANSP’s needs. The crew verifies that they can comply and are cleared to initiate the cruise climb with the addition of the CTA at the arrival meter point, which reduces the benefit of the cruise climb and trades efficiency for conformance with the time requirement. The cruise climb function in the FMS produces locations and times at which the aircraft will reach each higher flight level as it climbs toward its final cruise altitude, so that ATC can verify that no conflicts arise with overhead routes/traffic. It is unlikely that the cruise climb would match the altitude of overhead crossing traffic at the exact location of the overhead route, but that needs verification. As the flight progresses, after the merge point to join the traffic stream, weather necessitates a re-routing of the profile, along with a necessary compression of the flows. The ANSP uplinks a change to the lateral route with tighter RNP values (moving from RNP 2 to RNP 1) on the segments of the reroute to allow for closer parallel route spacing for other aircraft. The flight crew accepts the change and a new profile (4DT) is downlinked with revisions to TOD and OPD (OI-0309) due to both the reroute and the higher final altitude from cruise climb. The ANSP verifies that the planned route does not conflict with others in the same destination. As TOD nears, the ANSP’s traffic flow management unit determines and publishes that demand at IAD exceeds a given threshold, indicating that VCSPR operations will be invoked at the 750-feet parallel runway spacing over a given time window. Sunset 123, originating from MIA, is arriving from the south, as is Transcon 1324. Sunset 123 and Transcon 1324 are both equipped for VCSPR operations. Thirty minutes prior to Transcon 1324 and Sunset 123 arriving at their arrival meter points (just prior to TOD), IAD terminal TBO arrival management automation determines that if Transcon 1324 arrives later, both aircraft will arrive within an acceptable one-minute window and their FAS have enough similarity for VCSPR pairing. The ANSP uplinks a 4DT flight object request to Transcon 1324. Transcon 1324 cannot slow far enough to make that late of an arrival, and downlinks UNABLE RTA (early), so the ANSP opens the trajectory lateral window to allow Transcon 1324 to do a lateral offset maneuver to consume time. The Transcon 1324 crew selects an offset within the window that will allow them to lose enough time through the lateral path stretching (extra time to reach the offset and equal extra time to return to parent path) to make the requested arrival meter point CTA. IAD is currently controlling Sunset 123, and uplinks a 4DT request to the flight crew that consists of similar information as Transcon but assigns Sunset as VCSPR leader, who review and downlink acceptance of VCSPR operation. The 4DT may contain more than one CTA (i.e., at arrival metering Joint Planning and Development Office 54
Page 1 and 2:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 3 and 4:
Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) S
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) S
Page 61: Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) S
Page 71 and 72: 15.0 Phoenix To Bozeman Scenario Tr
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145:
Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) O
show all

Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) - Joint Planning and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?