Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ...
Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ... Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ...
Figure 3.7 illustrates how intervention rate, intervention and detection combine in an overall separation assurance function, and lists the performance factors involved in each component. Nakamura and Schwab (1996) propose a framework where the performance of each of these fundamental factors is combined in an overall Required System Performance parameter, which is then directly related to a minimum allowable separation between aircraft. The navigation function performance has been formalized through the definition of Required Navigation Performance, as described in the RTCA Special Committee 181 document DO-236 (RTCA, 1997). RNP includes a definition of accuracy, integrity and availability levels, which are functions of navigation sensors and their sources, cockpit-crew interface design and pilot performance. To compose an overall performance index (RSP) for the separation assurance function, consideration must be given to Required Communication Performance (RCP) and Required Monitoring Performance (RMP), along with an additional potential metric relating to the performance of the traffic planning function that manages intervention rate. Resource-Constrained Effective Theoretical Effective Resource-Constrained Intervention Rate Intervention Detection RNP, RMP, RCP RMP, RCP RMP Display Weather Medium-Term Intent Data Controller Comm: g/g Pilot Flow Rates Airspace Complexity Sensor Display Short-Term Intent Controller Comm: a/g Pilot Closure Rate Sensor Display Controller Pilot Required Element Performance RxP = f (sensors, decision support, human) Required System Performance sets the Separation Standard RSP = g ( RCP, RMP, RNP ) Figure 3.7 Separation Standard and Performance Factors The operational concept presented in this report is centered on needed increases in NAS capacity to accommodate the predicted growth in traffic demand through 2015. The system operational enhancements that make up the concept are centered around changes in the performance of the separation assurance and navigation functions depicted in Figure 3.7, since these are the primary influences on system capacity. The phasing that is suggested in Section 3.3, and described in Section 6.2, is one where the intervention rate performance is worked first, then the intervention performance, and finally the core detection function. The rationale for this phasing is twofold: • There is capacity to be gained by reducing the spacing buffers inserted in today’s operation above the minimum separation standard, to account for uncertainty in sector traffic planning. 34
• It is probable that the process of reducing separation standards from current radar separations will be slow, and a great many interrelated factors will have to be worked. Sections 4 and 5 detail the human factors and technology performance issues involved in the system development process, and Section 8 contains a list of the primary research topics that the team has identified to support this concept. 3.3 A Functional View of the Proposed Concept 3.3.1 Airspace Characteristics: High Vs. Low Traffic Density The operational concept presented here treats traffic density as the characteristic that determines what operational improvements are suggested for a particular airspace. Given that this concept is primarily concerned with capacity improvements, high density airspace is the primary concern here. Based on the discussion in Section 3.1.2 regarding capacity and routing flexibility, it will be assumed here that throughput has priority, and that flexibility will be allowed to the extent that it does not detract from full utilization of system capacity. Low density airspace allows more flexibility to optimize operator efficiency, and thus the concept includes operational improvements to this end. If it is found to be necessary to restrict traffic flexibility to maintain acceptable throughput, then this must be the overriding concern. Traffic density in the NAS is highest in terminal areas around large airports, or where many airports are located in close proximity. Most en route airspace in the NAS can be considered low density from the point of view of installed CNS technologies. There are, however, areas such as the northeast corridor that have very high density en route traffic, complicated by climbing and descending traffic to airports below. Sections 3.3.2-8 detail the operational improvements proposed in this concept for the range of airspace density found in the CONUS. 3.3.2 Throughput in Dense Terminal Airspace For dense terminal airspace, capacity and throughput are the primary concern, and the discussion in Section 3.2 is the basis for the concept. The operational enhancements that are proposed in this concept are as follows, prioritized in the order in which they are presented: 1. Reduce intervention rate, and the associated spacing buffers applied above the basic separation minimum. This will be achieved through the following improvements: 1.1. Precision 4-dimensional (3-D space, plus time) guidance and navigation, based on area navigation (RNAV) capability, vertical guidance and a common and accurate time source. This will effect an improvement in trajectory planning and conformance by suitably equipped aircraft, and thus contribute to a lower intervention rate. 1.2. Precision sequencing and spacing of arriving and departing aircraft through improvements in the sector and/or facility planning functions. Inherent in 35
- Page 1 and 2: Air Traffic Management Concept Base
- Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary This report prese
- Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents 1 Introduction...
- Page 7 and 8: List of Figures 2.1 System Developm
- Page 9 and 10: Acronyms AAS AATT ACARS ACP ADF ADF
- Page 11 and 12: KIAS LAAS LAHSO LLWAS MAC MCP MDCRS
- Page 13 and 14: 1 Introduction This report presents
- Page 15 and 16: unknown technology, and thus the co
- Page 17 and 18: 2 The NAS ATM System Development Pr
- Page 19 and 20: System Requirements & Objectives Va
- Page 21 and 22: technologies needed for initial tra
- Page 23 and 24: • The goals of various users are
- Page 25 and 26: considerations are key to evaluatin
- Page 27 and 28: Free Flight White Paper on System C
- Page 29 and 30: 4.5 4.3 4 3.7 Current NAS Future NA
- Page 31 and 32: elated component will increase with
- Page 33 and 34: Special Committees. The paper, with
- Page 35 and 36: efficiency-constraints model that i
- Page 37 and 38: • Problem Statement • Alternati
- Page 39 and 40: • The highly peaked nature of air
- Page 41 and 42: • Sector-level flow planning Each
- Page 43 and 44: • Flow managers Figure 3.3 shows
- Page 45: traffic situation as it currently a
- Page 49 and 50: 3.3. Event-based trajectory deviati
- Page 51 and 52: egion takes on the order of years t
- Page 53 and 54: The answer to this question is like
- Page 55 and 56: Flight Schedule Flight Planning Fil
- Page 57 and 58: 4 Human Factors This section addres
- Page 59 and 60: 4.2.3 Human Factors Support For Imp
- Page 61 and 62: “System designers, regulators, an
- Page 63 and 64: arbitrating wherever intents confli
- Page 65 and 66: aircraft-to-aircraft separation res
- Page 67 and 68: 5 Available and Emerging Technology
- Page 69 and 70: function of all the ICPs of element
- Page 71 and 72: A key concept in the definition of
- Page 73 and 74: contrast, the older radars have azi
- Page 75 and 76: Broadcast (ADS-B), V6.0). Individua
- Page 77 and 78: is needed to develop cockpit displa
- Page 79 and 80: ATC Voice Procedures Waypoint Repor
- Page 81 and 82: CPC = Controller Pilot Communicatio
- Page 83 and 84: TWDL = Two-Way Data Link CPDLC = Co
- Page 85 and 86: the ATN ADS specification. This wil
- Page 87 and 88: The airlines and the FAA have recen
- Page 89 and 90: menu associated with the airport of
- Page 91 and 92: 8.0 NM 4.0 NM POPP PLMN 14.0 NM 30.
- Page 93 and 94: The near future will probably see a
- Page 95 and 96: ASR/SSR Radar Terminal Automation S
• It is probable that the process of reducing separation standards from current radar<br />
separations will be slow, and a great many interrelated factors will have to be worked.<br />
Sections 4 and 5 detail the human factors and technology performance issues involved in<br />
the system development process, and Section 8 contains a list of the primary research<br />
topics that the team has identified to support this concept.<br />
3.3 A Functional View of the Proposed <strong>Concept</strong><br />
3.3.1 <strong>Air</strong>space Characteristics: High Vs. Low <strong>Traffic</strong> Density<br />
<strong>The</strong> operational concept presented here treats traffic density as the characteristic that<br />
determines what operational improvements are suggested for a particular airspace. Given<br />
that this concept is primarily concerned with capacity improvements, high density airspace<br />
is the primary concern here. Based on the discussion in Section 3.1.2 regarding capacity<br />
and routing flexibility, it will be assumed here that throughput has priority, and that<br />
flexibility will be allowed to the extent that it does not detract from full utilization of<br />
system capacity. Low density airspace allows more flexibility to optimize operator<br />
efficiency, and thus the concept includes operational improvements to this end. If it is<br />
found to be necessary to restrict traffic flexibility to maintain acceptable throughput, then<br />
this must be the overriding concern.<br />
<strong>Traffic</strong> density in the NAS is highest in terminal areas around large airports, or where<br />
many airports are located in close proximity. Most en route airspace in the NAS can be<br />
considered low density from the point of view of installed CNS technologies. <strong>The</strong>re are,<br />
however, areas such as the northeast corridor that have very high density en route traffic,<br />
complicated by climbing and descending traffic to airports below. Sections 3.3.2-8 detail<br />
the operational improvements proposed in this concept for the range of airspace density<br />
found in the CONUS.<br />
3.3.2 Throughput in Dense Terminal <strong>Air</strong>space<br />
For dense terminal airspace, capacity and throughput are the primary concern, and the<br />
discussion in Section 3.2 is the basis for the concept. <strong>The</strong> operational enhancements that<br />
are proposed in this concept are as follows, prioritized in the order in which they are<br />
presented:<br />
1. Reduce intervention rate, and the associated spacing buffers applied above the<br />
basic separation minimum. This will be achieved through the following<br />
improvements:<br />
1.1. Precision 4-dimensional (3-D space, plus time) guidance and navigation,<br />
based on area navigation (RNAV) capability, vertical guidance and a<br />
common and accurate time source. This will effect an improvement in<br />
trajectory planning and conformance by suitably equipped aircraft, and thus<br />
contribute to a lower intervention rate.<br />
1.2. Precision sequencing and spacing of arriving and departing aircraft through<br />
improvements in the sector and/or facility planning functions. Inherent in<br />
35