Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future
Download
1 / 42

NAS Operational Analyses and Challenges to Modeling the Future - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 129 Views
  • Uploaded on

NAS Operational Analyses and Challenges to Modeling the Future. Vice President Vicki Cox - Acting. Strategy Office. Performance Analysis Office. Systems Engineering Office. International Office. Technology Development Office. William J. Hughes Technical Center. Aviation

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' NAS Operational Analyses and Challenges to Modeling the Future' - jeremy-baker


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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
Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

NAS Operational Analyses andChallenges to Modeling the Future


Operations planning

Vice President

Vicki Cox - Acting

Strategy

Office

Performance

Analysis

Office

Systems

Engineering

Office

International

Office

Technology

Development

Office

William J.

Hughes

Technical

Center

Aviation

Research

& Development

Office

NAS

Weather

Office

Operational

Evolution

Plan

Office

Business Outlook

Strategy Development

& Analysis

Forecasts &

Operations Analysis

Operations Planning


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

ATO-P Strategic Analysis

Capability

NAS Strategy Simulator

ATO-P Forecast Tool

ATO NAS Performance Tools

ACES/NASPAC/etc

ATO Strategy and NAS Performance


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

Why have Trajectory Based Forecast?

  • Keeps lots of O.R. analysts in business!

  • Drives focus on flows and en route constraints

  • Helps revenue estimates


Annual nas traffic change
Annual NAS Traffic Change

  • Traffic increased 5.9% from CY00 to CY05.


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

Center % Traffic Change CY00-CY05

20%

18%

15%

13%

12%

12%

11%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

% Change

6%

6%

5%

5%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

-1%

-2%

-3%

-5%

ZTL

ZID

ZLA

ZJX

ZAB

ZAN

ZAU

ZLC

ZSE

ZDV

ZDC

ZHU

ZKC

ZOA

ZNY

ZOB

ZBW

ZFW

ZMA

ZME

ZMP

Center Level Changes


User class changes

User Class % Change CY00-CY05

13%

9.73%

9.06%

8%

3.40%

1.79%

3%

%Change

-2%

-7%

-8.91%

-12%

GA JET

GA Piston

GA Turbo

Total GA

Commercial

User Class Changes


Regional carrier changes

Regional vs. Other Commercial Traffic

% ChangeCY00-CY05

55%

46.91%

45%

35%

% Change

25%

15%

5%

-1.93%

-5%

Regional Carriers

Other Commercial

Regional Carrier Changes



Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

Independence Air at ZDC

Total ZDC Operations

350000

330000

310000

290000

270000

Independence

Air

Operations

250000

230000

210000

190000

170000

Jul-00

Jul-01

Jul-02

Jul-03

Jul-04

Jul-05

Oct-00

Oct-01

Oct-02

Oct-03

Oct-04

Oct-05

Apr-00

Apr-01

Apr-02

Apr-03

Apr-04

Apr-05

Jan-00

Jan-01

Jan-02

Jan-03

Jan-04

Jan-05

Jan-06


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

Flight Level Workload Changes

Traffic By Altitude

(CY00-CY05)

120%

110%

100%

80%

60%

% Change

40%

20%

15%

20%

0%

-1%

-20%

LOW_ATL

HIGH_ALT

SUPER_HIGH

TOTAL HIGH

Low: <280 High: >= 280 and <= 390 Super High: >390


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

% Change CY’00-CY’05

Low Altitude Workload Changes(By Center)


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

% Change CY’00-CY’05

High Altitude Workload Changes(By Center)


Why have seasonal forecasting
Why have Seasonal Forecasting? 20

  • Demand

    • Seasonal schedules

    • Peak vs. Low traffic months

    • Seasonal impacts on workload

  • Operational Constraints

    • Seasonal constraints

    • NAS delay procedures


Seasonal schedules

Winter 20

Spring

Break

Spring

Break

Summer

Summer

Seasonal Schedules

Data: MIA (ASPM)


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

% Difference in Traffic Volume CY05 20

(Peak Month vs. Low Month)

70%

60%

60%

56%

50%

39%

40%

33%

% Difference

31%

30%

27%

25%

22%

21%

21%

20%

19%

17%

20%

16%

16%

16%

16%

15%

15%

14%

13%

10%

0%

ZID

ZJX

ZTL

ZSE

ZMP

ZME

ZLC

ZDC

ZHU

ZKC

ZOB

ZAN

ZDV

ZNY

ZAU

ZLA

ZFW

ZAB

ZMA

ZOA

ZBW

Peak vs. Low Traffic Volume


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

ZMA vs. ZMP Operations 20

200000

180000

160000

140000

Operations

120000

100000

80000

60000

Jan-00

Jan-01

Jan-02

Jan-03

Jan-04

Jan-05

Jan-06

Sep-00

Sep-01

Sep-02

Sep-03

Sep-04

Sep-05

May-00

May-01

May-02

May-03

May-04

May-05

Seasonal Impacts on Workload


Importance of seasonal forecasting
Importance of Seasonal Forecasting 20

  • Demand

    • Seasonal schedules

    • Peak vs. Low traffic months

    • Seasonal impacts on workload

  • Operational Constraints

    • Seasonal constraints

    • NAS delay procedures


Seasonal change in constraints

% Late Flights OEP35 20

35%

30%

25%

Late Flights (%)

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Jul-05

Oct-02

Jan-00

Feb-04

May-01

Seasonal Change in Constraints


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

IMC Operations and Conditions By Season 20

30%

27%

26%

25%

20%

17%

16%

16%

15%

15%

15%

15%

10%

5%

%IMC FLIGHTS

%IMC PERIODS

0%

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

FALL

Seasonal Constraints


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

Convective Weather Index 20

300

250

200

CWI

150

100

50

0

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

FALL

Seasonal Constraints


Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

Modeling Challenges 20

  • Where delay is taken vs. cause of delay

    • - En route congestion

    • Convective weather case

    • Annualizing results

    • Interconnectivity of delay

    • Uncertainty in demand



Nas operational analyses and challenges to modeling the future

OEP35 Gate. Dep. Delay vs. OEP35 Gate Arrival Delay 20

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

Gate vs. Total Delay

  • How much is driven by en route/convective congestion?

18

16

14

Delay (Minutes)

Avg. Gate Dep. Delay

Avg. Gate Arrival Delay

Jan-00

Jan-01

Jan-02

Jan-03

Jan-04

Jan-05

Jan-06

Sep-00

Sep-01

Sep-02

Sep-03

Sep-04

Sep-05

May-00

May-01

May-02

May-03

May-04

May-05



Interconnectivity of delay

MIA Gate Arrival Delay vs. OEP 35 Gate Arrival Delay 20

18

16

MIA Gate Arr Delay

14

OEP35 Gate Arrival Delay

12

10

Delay (Min.)

8

6

4

2

0

-2

Jul-00

Jul-01

Jul-02

Jul-03

Jul-04

Jul-05

Jan-00

Jan-01

Jan-02

Jan-03

Jan-04

Jan-05

Apr-00

Apr-01

Apr-02

Apr-03

Apr-04

Apr-05

Oct-00

Oct-01

Oct-02

Oct-03

Oct-04

Interconnectivity of Delay




Summary
Summary 20

  • Current FAA forecasts provide annual activity levels

  • Current FAA forecasts assume aviation business

  • models stay the same

  • Actual demand varies seasonally, daily, and hourly

  • Aviation industry is fundamentally changing

  • Understanding these changes is essential to preparing for the future



Mainline legacy carriers

Main Line % Change CY00-CY05 20

100%

84%

80%

56%

60%

40%

29%

20%

8%

0%

% Change

0%

-6%

-20%

-12%

-19%

-20%

-26%

-40%

-33%

-40%

-60%

DELTA

United

ALOHA

SPIRIT

ALASKA

MIDWEST

HAWAIIAN

AMERICAN

U.S. Airways

NORTHWEST

CONTINENTAL

Total Mainline

Mainline Legacy Carriers


Low cost carriers
Low Cost Carriers 20

  • Independence Air began flying in 2004.




Fy 2006 category a b operational errors counts rates
FY 2006 Category A&B Operational Errors 20(Counts & Rates)

* FY 2006 Rates may contain estimated activity counts. The Rate is cumulative from month to month




Fy 2006 category a b runway incursions counts rates
FY 2006 Category A&B Runway Incursions 20(Counts & Rates)

* FY 2006 Rates may contain estimated operation counts. The Rate is cumulative from month to month



Oe fy06 critical acquisitions on schedule and budget
OE: FY06 Critical Acquisitions on Schedule and Budget 20

  • FY06 85% Acquisition Target

    • Cost Target: Ensure 85% of major baseline Capital Investment programs are within 10% of budget.

    • Schedule Target: Ensure 85% of major Capital Investment programs meet established activity milestone schedule dates

    • Status

      • Current FY06 Cost targets are within their 10% budget thresholds.

      • 100 % of the 85% Schedule milestones are on schedule.

        • Nine (9) of the 39 Final milestones (23%) have been completed on or ahead of schedule through the December reporting period.

        • Eight Interim milestones (57%) have also been completed through December

      • 39 milestones are being tracked against 31 programs for the FY06 85% Acquisition Goal

      • Fourteen (14) interim milestones are also tracked and not included as part of the 85% Acquisition Performance Goal Metric

      • A total of 53 milestones will be statused each month (the 39 + the 14)


Oe critical acquisitions on schedule and budget
OE: Critical Acquisitions on Schedule and Budget 20

  • Four Final milestones are due in January.