1 / 12

# Aircraft Sequencing Problem Near Terminal Area - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aircraft Sequencing Problem Near Terminal Area Final Term Project Presentation Sepehr Sarmadi Dec. 10 th 2002 System definition System users & objectives Terminal area: A cylindrical-shaped region with varying radius and altitude centered around an airport. Airlines and passengers

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Aircraft Sequencing Problem Near Terminal Area' - bernad

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Final Term Project Presentation

Dec. 10th 2002

System users & objectives

Terminal area:

A cylindrical-shaped region with varying radius and altitude centered around an airport.

Airlines and passengers

Delay

• Passenger delays

• Crew costs

• Aircraft utilization

• Fuel costs

50 nm

• Air Traffic Controllers

• Safety (time and space separations)

10,000 ft

Size is determined by the range of the airport’s radar and communication coverage.

• Pilots

• Predictable ATC instructions

• Being treated fairly

Final approach

An area where aircraft begins its landing maneuver

Airport managers

Throughput maximization

Runway(s)

• FCFSSE (First Come First Served System Entrance)

• FCFSRW (First Come First Served Runway entrance)

• LLT (minimizing the Last landing Time)

• TPD (minimizing Total Passenger -or flight- Delay)

Aircraft Sequencing Problem (ASP)

Definition

The problem of sequencing aircraft near the terminal area to satisfy some of the “system objectives” stated before

Aircraft Sequencing

Aircraft category &

• Finding the static solution to the scheduling problem at any given time

• Updating the static solution to take into account the arrival of new aircraft

Main challenge:

Both components must be completed in a few seconds as the nature of the real time ASP demands

2

2

4

3

1

3

1

2

5

4

6

3

1

5

6

5

6

ASP, DP approaches (1)

ASP is a special case of the famous Traveling Salesman Problem

TSP in a complete directed graph

Hamilton problem Equivalent to LLT version of ASP

But still DP approaches (or any other combinatorial approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice

• “n” is usually larger than 3 (10-15 velocity classes is normal)

• For every new entrance, the algorithm should be solved again

= 0.002

ASP, DP approaches (2)

DP algorithm solution time for TSP

(non-polynomial)

A time saving technique

classifying arriving aircraft into a few categories (n) generally based on landing velocity and weight

Solution time

For m1=m2=m3=5, n=3, N=15:

Dynamic updating for a simple example* approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice

*Source: Dear, Roger, PhD thesis, MIT, 1976

Min delay and Max throughput strategies fail in practice approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice

• Large solution times, huge number of legitimate permutations to check

• Difficulty in actual determination of the “optimal” solution

• Global shifting of aircraft positions that cannot practically be implemented

• Certain aircraft types might continuously be shifted backwards, causing intolerable delays making no sense to the pilot and to the passengers (note the treatment of aircraft #1 in minimum delay case and aircraft #3 in minimum blockage case)

CPS methodology approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice

The only practical solution to ASP must involve a compromise.

“Constrained Position Shifting” methodology is a very successful compromise.

CPS Limits the maximum number of position shifts (forwards or backwards) with respect to FCFS

• Is computationally practicable, omits many of the previously legitimate permutations

• Avoids “wholesale” updating

• Treats individual aircraft and velocity classes equitably

• Decreases total and average delay

• Increases runway throughput

CPS in practice (1) approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice

Almost all major airports around the world still implement the FCFS strategy to avoid additional controller’s workload

The “CTAS” system in Denver and Dallas/Ft. Worth and the “COMPAS” system in Frankfurt include algorithms for assisting controllers do CPS with a maximum position shift of 1 or 2.

CTAS was conceived and is being prototyped at the NASA Ames Research Center. In 1991 it was chosen by the FAA as the future automation system for the terminal area

COMPAS was developed in the early 1980’s in Germany. One of the project goals was to plan an optimal sequence of the arriving aircraft from different arrival routes to make best use of the existing runway capacity

• Interesting results in the first two weeks of operation: approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice

• Controller acceptance of the runway advisories was 96.9%

• Controllers reported the first week of operations “very positive.”

• Rush periods seemed to last shorter

• An increase in surface traffic was reported

CPS in practice (2)*

On February 15, 1999, the Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST) began sixteen hour per day operational use (covering over 80% of the arrival rushes) at the Dallas/Fort Worth (D/FW) TRACON.

*Source: NASA website

Thank You ! approach) are computationally prohibitive in practice