Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:09:13.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simple Models for Airport Delays During Transition to a Trajectory-Based Air Traffic System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2009

Peter Brooker
Peter Brooker*
Affiliation:
(Aviation Consultant)
*
(Email: p_brooker@btopenworld.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is now widely recognised that a paradigm shift in air traffic control concepts is needed. This requires state-of-the-art innovative technologies, making much better use of the information in the air traffic management (ATM) system. These paradigm shifts go under the names of NextGen in the USA and SESAR in Europe, which inter alia will make dramatic changes to the nature of airport operations. A vital part of moving from an existing system to a new paradigm is the operational implications of the transition process. There would be business incentives for early aircraft fitment, it is generally safer to introduce new technologies gradually, and researchers are already proposing potential transition steps to the new system. Simple queuing theory models are used to establish rough quantitative estimates of the impact of the transition to a more efficient time-based – four-dimensional (4D) – navigational and ATM system. Such models are approximate, but they do offer insight into the broad implications of system change and its significant features. 4D-equipped aircraft in essence have a contract with the airport runway – they would be required to turn up at a very precise time – and, in return, they would get priority over any other aircraft waiting for use of the runway. The main operational feature examined here is the queuing delays affecting non-4D-equipped arrivals. These get a reasonable service if the proportion of 4D-equipped aircraft is low, but this can deteriorate markedly for high proportions, and be economically unviable. Preventative measures would be to limit the additional growth of 4D-equipped flights and/or to modify their contracts to provide sufficient space for the non-4D-equipped flights to operate without excessive delays. There is a potential for non-Poisson models, for which there is little in the literature, and for more complex models, e.g. grouping a succession of 4D-equipped aircraft as a batch.

Keywords

SESARATMAirportDelays
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 555 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adan, I. J. B. F. and Resing, J. A. C. (2002). Lecture Notes Queueing Theory, Eindhoven, University of Technology. http://www.win.tue.nl/_iadan/queueing.pdf.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, D., Rhodes, Colonel D., Andrews, M., Roberts, D., Hallowell, S., Baker, D., Burleson, C., Howell, J. and Anderegg, A. (2006). U.S Vision for 2025 Air Transportation. Journal of Air Traffic Control, January–March, 15–20. www.jpdo.aero/pdf/vision_2025_air_trans.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ball, M., Barnhart, C., Nemhauser, G. and Odoni, A. (2006). Air Transportation: Handbook of Operations Research and Management Science: Transportation, Barnhart, C. and Laporte, G., eds, Elsevier, Amsterdam. http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/mball/ball_papers/ball-barnhart-nemhauser-odoni.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ballin, M. G., Williams, D. H., Allen, B. D. and Palmer, M. T. (2008). Prototype Flight Management Capabilities to explore Temporal RNP Concepts. 27th Digital Avionics Systems Conference. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080043675_2008043422.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. E. (1949). Operational Research into air traffic control. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society. 53(466), 965–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentnall, A. R. and Cheng, R. C. H. (2009). Some effects of aircraft arrival sequence algorithms. To appear in the Journal of the Operational Research Society.Google Scholar
Brooker, P. (2002) Airport Safety, Capacity and Investment. SurTech Conference, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Eurocontrol (2006). Airport CDM Operational Concept Document. Edition 3.0. http://www.euro-cdm.org/library/cdm_ocd.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eurocontrol (2007). Standard Inputs for Eurocontrol Cost Benefit Analyses: 2007 Edition. http://www.eurocontrol.int/ecosoc/gallery/content/public/documents/CBA%20examples/Standard%20Values%202007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eurocontrol PRC [Performance Review Commission] (2008) Performance Review Report covering the calendar year 2007 (PRR 2007). http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/PRR_2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Guadagni, G., Ndreca, S., Scoppola, B. (2008). Queueing system with pre-scheduled random arrivals. University of Virginia Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4472Google Scholar
Haraldsdottir, A., Scharl, J., Berge, M. E., Schoemig, E. G., Coats, M. L. (2007). Arrival Management with Required Navigation Performance and 3D Paths. 7th USA – Europe. ATM R&D Seminar. http://atm2003.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/7th-seminar-barcelona-spain-july-2007/papers/paper_147Google Scholar
Kleinrock, L. (1965). A conservation law for a wide class of queueing disciplines. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. 12(2), 181–192.Google Scholar
Ky, P. and Miaillier, B. (2006). SESAR: towards the new generation of air traffic management systems in Europe. Journal of Air Traffic Control, January–March, http://www.jpdo.gov/library/SESAR.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morris, K. M. (2004). The Airline Approach to Noise Mitigation with Particular Reference to Continuous Descent Approach Procedures. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics. 26(2), 70–79.Google Scholar
Takagi, H. and Takahashi, Y. (1991). Priority queues with batch Poisson arrivals. Operations Research Letters. 10, 225–232.Google Scholar
Wichman, K. D., Lindberg, L. G. V. and Kilchert, L., Bleeker, O. F. (2003). Europe's Emerging Trajectory-Based ATM Environment. 22nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Indianapolis, USA. http://www.avtech.aero/dokument/AVTECH_DASC22paperV05_1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wu, C-L. (2005). Inherent delays and operational reliability of airline schedules. Journal of Air Transport Management. 11(4), 273–282.Google Scholar
Young, R. A. (2008). Examination of Air Transportation Trip Time Variability. PhD Thesis. University of Nevada Los Vegas. http://faculty.unlv.edu/youngr/document_folder/UNLV_PhD_Variability_2008.pdfGoogle Scholar