Latest revision as of 07:16, 2 February 2021

Abstract

The Federal Aviation Administration's Next Generation Air Transportation System will combine advanced air traffic management technologies, performance-based procedures, and state-of-the-art avionics to maintain efficient operations throughout the entire arrival phase of flight. Flight deck Interval Management (FIM) operations are expected to use sophisticated airborne spacing capabilities to meet precise in-trail spacing from top-of-descent to touchdown. Recent human-in-the-loop simulations by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have found that selection of the assigned spacing goal using the runway schedule can lead to premature interruptions of the FIM operation during periods of high traffic demand. This study compares three methods for calculating the assigned spacing goal for a FIM operation that is also subject to time-based metering constraints. The particular paradigms investigated include: one based upon the desired runway spacing interval, one based upon the desired meter fix spacing interval, and a composite method that combines both intervals. These three paradigms are evaluated for the primary arrival procedures to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport using the entire set of Rapid Update Cycle wind forecasts from 2011. For typical meter fix and runway spacing intervals, the runway- and meter fix-based paradigms exhibit moderate FIM interruption rates due to their inability to consider multiple metering constraints. The addition of larger separation buffers decreases the FIM interruption rate but also significantly reduces the achievable runway throughput. The composite paradigm causes no FIM interruptions, and maintains higher runway throughput more often than the other paradigms. A key implication of the results with respect to time-based metering is that FIM operations using a single assigned spacing goal will not allow reduction of the arrival schedule's excess spacing buffer. Alternative solutions for conducting the FIM operation in a manner more compatible with the arrival schedule are discussed in detail.

Original document

The different versions of the original document can be found in:

• https://zenodo.org/record/1267361 under the license https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/

• https://zenodo.org/record/1267361/files/article.pdf

• http://xplorestaging.ieee.org/ielx7/6950783/6979393/06979406.pdf?arnumber=6979406,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/dasc.2014.6979406 under the license cc0

• http://xplorestaging.ieee.org/ielx7/6950783/6979393/06979550.pdf?arnumber=6979550,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/dasc.2014.6979550

• https://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2014/DASC2014_Robinson.pdf,

https://www.aviationsystems.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2014/DASC2014_Robinson.pdf,

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140017291.pdf,

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140017291,

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6979406,

https://repository.exst.jaxa.jp/dspace/handle/a-is/61681,

http://www.aviationsystems.arc.nasa.gov/publications/2014/DASC2014_Robinson.pdf,

https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2007948351

DOIS: 10.1109/dasc.2014.6979406 10.1109/dasc.2014.6979550