Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ...
Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ... Air Traffic Management Concept Baseline Definition - The Boeing ...
3.3.9 National Flow Management 3.3.9.1 Planning for Operator Efficiency and Overload Protection As illustrated in Figure 3.2, efficiency and overload protection are the dual objectives of flight and flow planning. The figure also illustrates how the system operation goes from a plan to execution, through a sequence of functions that must be coordinated to form a seamless and effective operation. Figure 3.2 illustrates how information and control authority flows through the system, and when considering overall system flow management it is crucial to maintain a whole system view to ensure a sound system design. 3.3.9.2 Time Horizons and Coordination Flow planning is fundamentally concerned with balancing the need to plan ahead against the inherent uncertainty in predicting the future. From the aircraft’s point of view there are two distinct periods involved in the flight: • The period before departure, used for planning, checking and loading, subject to considerable uncertainty, but a wide range of decision options is available. • The period while airborne, where safe flight is the primary concern, uncertainty level is low, and only a limited range of decision options remain. Correspondingly, for flow managers to work effectively with flight planners, they should have a wide range of routing and scheduling options available for aircraft prior to departure, and it is reasonable to assume that this implies the function is at the national level. However, as soon as the aircraft is ready for push-back, and can be fit into a departure sequence, the primary concern of the corresponding flow planning function must be safe flight. There is still a need to replan flows to accommodate in-flight operational uncertainty, but immediate flight safety must always be the priority. The NAS currently operates its central flow planning function with a large level of uncertainty due to lack of real-time schedule updates from Official Airline Guide (OAG) operators, and no predictive knowledge of any other flight plans. This leads to poor overload protection, i.e. strains the separation assurance resources, and also leads to periods of poor capacity utilization whith resources at times idle. Section 3.3.9.3 discusses the requirements to achieve performance improvements through more complete real-time data flow. Section 3.3.9.4 discusses the efficiency gains that may be achievable through collaborative decision making during the flight planning phase. The problem of accommodating in-flight operational uncertainty through replanning involves the following primary question: • What is the extent of the replanning need (flight and hub optimization, and disturbances due to weather, aircraft emergency, conflict resolution, etc.), after the information flow and decision making structure at the national level have been optimized 40
The answer to this question is likely to vary, primarily due to weather phenomena, and so the system may need to accommodate dynamically a range of options: • A large level of replanning need implies a flow management mechanism with a larger scope (time and space), i.e. closer to a national or regional level. This might be caused by major weather phenomena moving through the system. • A limited need for replanning could be handled in a more distributed manner, i.e. at facility or sector level. This is likely to be the ‘normal day’ scenario, when severe weather is not a factor. The frequency of occurrence, associated operational costs, or safety implications of these options should determine the emphasis in the eventual system design. Section 8.3 discusses the research efforts needed to perform the high level trades involved in the overall flow management strategy. 3.3.9.3 Information Flow The thrust of the current initiative to improve information flow between users and the central flow management facility is focused on the following four areas, as described in the operational concept document for ATM-AOC information exchange (RTCA, 1997): • Current operators, with published OAG schedules, will provide real-time schedule updates to central flow, including flight cancellations, diversions and other decisions made by the operator in response to major disruptions. • Central flow management will include more users in the gate-hold program, in an effort to reduce the uncertainty associated with non-OAG traffic demand in the system. • Common weather forecast information will be made available for all users and flow managers, in an effort to build consensus on traffic initiatives. • NAS status information will be made available to users, to the extent to which it affects traffic flow through the system. 3.3.9.4 Collaborative Decision Making This initiative, as described in the RTCA Task Force 3 Report on Free Flight (1995), is focused on giving system users more freedom to make decisions in response to traffic flow restrictions. This is essential to reduce the cost of major disruptions in system throughput. The primary components of the initiative are: • Users manage response to delay, after an overall delay allocation from central flow. This involves the user allocating arrival/departure time to individual aircraft in their fleet, or opting to re-route around congestion areas. 41
- 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 and 46: traffic situation as it currently a
- Page 47 and 48: • It is probable that the process
- Page 49 and 50: 3.3. Event-based trajectory deviati
- Page 51: egion takes on the order of years t
- 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
- Page 97 and 98: ASR/SSR Radar Mosaic Based (Host) T
- Page 99 and 100: Another group of users which can be
- Page 101 and 102: and human factor elements in all fo
<strong>The</strong> answer to this question is likely to vary, primarily due to weather phenomena, and so<br />
the system may need to accommodate dynamically a range of options:<br />
• A large level of replanning need implies a flow management mechanism with a larger<br />
scope (time and space), i.e. closer to a national or regional level. This might be caused<br />
by major weather phenomena moving through the system.<br />
• A limited need for replanning could be handled in a more distributed manner, i.e. at<br />
facility or sector level. This is likely to be the ‘normal day’ scenario, when severe<br />
weather is not a factor.<br />
<strong>The</strong> frequency of occurrence, associated operational costs, or safety implications of these<br />
options should determine the emphasis in the eventual system design. Section 8.3<br />
discusses the research efforts needed to perform the high level trades involved in the<br />
overall flow management strategy.<br />
3.3.9.3 Information Flow<br />
<strong>The</strong> thrust of the current initiative to improve information flow between users and the<br />
central flow management facility is focused on the following four areas, as described in the<br />
operational concept document for ATM-AOC information exchange (RTCA, 1997):<br />
• Current operators, with published OAG schedules, will provide real-time schedule<br />
updates to central flow, including flight cancellations, diversions and other decisions<br />
made by the operator in response to major disruptions.<br />
• Central flow management will include more users in the gate-hold program, in an<br />
effort to reduce the uncertainty associated with non-OAG traffic demand in the<br />
system.<br />
• Common weather forecast information will be made available for all users and flow<br />
managers, in an effort to build consensus on traffic initiatives.<br />
• NAS status information will be made available to users, to the extent to which it<br />
affects traffic flow through the system.<br />
3.3.9.4 Collaborative Decision Making<br />
This initiative, as described in the RTCA Task Force 3 Report on Free Flight (1995), is<br />
focused on giving system users more freedom to make decisions in response to traffic flow<br />
restrictions. This is essential to reduce the cost of major disruptions in system throughput.<br />
<strong>The</strong> primary components of the initiative are:<br />
• Users manage response to delay, after an overall delay allocation from central flow.<br />
This involves the user allocating arrival/departure time to individual aircraft in their<br />
fleet, or opting to re-route around congestion areas.<br />
41
Change language