ip-20 review of the effectiveness of branching uprs from pacots track 2 electronic navigation...

IP-20Review of the Effectiveness of Branching

UPRs from PACOTS Track 2

Electronic Navigation Research Institute

The IPACG meeting 40, Sep. 2014, Washington D. C.


IntroductionComputer Simulation’s (IPACG38/39)

South Branching UPRs from PACOTS Track 2 Trade-off between flight on ideal altitude, and time-

of-flight shortening effect

Effective Course

2

Trade-off

A Less Effect in the South Branching Model(50% RNP4 Capability)

Non-ideal altitude


RNP 4 installation rate-Whole Oceanic ATC Area (Fukuoka FIR)

3


RNP 4 installation rate-Flight heading NA (Fukuoka FIR)

In June of 2014, RNP4 installation rate was 80% in destination to North American flights.

4


UPRs or Random Flights

• More UPRs or Random flights at Track2 south side than north side

• 40%~50% non PACOTS for Hawaii

5

2012/Jan

2012/May

2013/Jan

2013/Mar

2013/May

2013/Jul

2014/Jan

2014/May

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

North of Track2

2012/Jan

2012/May

2013/Jan

2013/Mar

2013/May

2013/Jul

2014/Jan

2014/May

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Track2 or South

2012/Jan

2012/May

2013/Jan

2013/Mar

2013/May

2013/Jul

2014/Jan

2014/May

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

For Hawaii

Average 10% Average 17% Average 46%

One week each month, total 28daysEast bound flights cross FIR BDY between 0700Z~2100Z


Further experiment for IPACG/40• Optimal cruising altitude is assigned by great use of 30/30

separation, Even if there is traffic concentration.• PACOTS Track 2 becomes the boundary, the procedure to

determine PACOTS Track 2 is important.

Further experiment was executed

80% of RNP4 capability ScenarioNorth Branch Track generating process

Priority Trk3

Priority Trk2

Priority Trk1

Trk1Trk2Trk3

Track 1, 2, 3 have a same gateway Three pattern Track 2

6


Simulation Conditions• THREE patterns

– Pattern “W1” Priority Track 1– Pattern “W2” Priority Track 2– Pattern “W3” Priority Track 3

Trk 2

Trk 2

Priority Trk3

Priority Trk2

Priority Trk1

• TWO Models– Model N Baseline– Model B Branch Southward and

Northward from PACOTS Track 2

• 152 flights, 80% of RNP4 PANC KDFW KSEA KSFO KLAX

RNP4 31 28 23 17 22

RNAV10 12 4 7 1 7

TOTAL 43 32 30 18 29

7


Results 1

W1 W2 W385,500

85,550

85,600

85,650

85,700

85,750 total Time

B N

min

ute

s

W1 W2 W331,950,000 32,000,000 32,050,000 32,100,000 32,150,000 32,200,000 32,250,000 32,300,000

total FuelB N

lb• When PACOTS Tracks are generated to priority on Track2, good effect

balance in flight time and fuel consumption.• longer time and more fuel in Model N (Most Cases)• Large difference between Model N and Model B in fuel consumption

(“W2”, “W3”)8

Total Flight Time Total Fuel Consumption

*Since each flight tracks were created by Minimum Time Track (MTT), shorter flight time not necessarily compare to low fuel consumptions.


Results 2

• 20%~25% of flights changed their cruising altitude• “W1” lowest numbers• The most of change width is 1,000feet lower• Almost no differences between Model B and Model N

9

Change Width(Feet

)2,000 1,000 -1,000 -2,000 -3,000 -4,000 TOTAL

W1-B 2 4 27 3 0 0 36W1-N 1 3 27 4 0 0 35W2-B 1 5 30 4 0 0 40W2-N 1 5 32 3 0 0 41W3-B 1 5 32 3 0 0 41W3-N 1 3 32 4 0 3 43

Number of Altitude Change and Change Width

Altitude change means flights were not able to fly at an ideal altitude.


Results 3

W1 W2 W3Destination Altitude

ChangeFlight Time

Fuel Consumption

Altitude Change

Flight Time

Fuel Consumption

Altitude Change

Flight Time

Fuel Consumption

North Branch

+ 0.0 73 0 0.3 2,593 + 1.8 1,874

South Branch

0 -0.2 -29 0 0.0 11 0 0.4 164

ALL* 0 -0.1 21 0 0.1 1,058 + 0.9 815

10

Performance Differences (Model N – Model B) per Flight

• “+” symbolizes altitude change of Model B is higher than that of Model N

• “North Branch”Flights destination to KDFW and KSEA

• “South Branch”Flights destination to KSFO and KLAX

South Branch indicates a less benefit same result as previous study

North Branch indicates higher benefits Model B have large benefits (dark orange background), even though no difference or

high altitude change (“W2” and “W3”)

*ALL is a weighted average of the flight number


Traffic Concentration

11

”FREE” ; UPRs without any restrictionsNumber of combination traffic existing within 35NM and 1,000feet

FREE W1_N W1_B W2_N W2_B W3_N W3_B30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Number of Traffic within 35NM/1,000feet

Traffic concentration was occurred, but the effect

comes out by the heavy use of 30/30


SUMMARY• Totally, any pattern has fuel consumption

benefit by branching UPRs, especially North Branch

(South Branch has small effect or negative effect)

• Traffic concentration was generated by the branching UPRs, but the effect comes out by the heavy use of 30/30

12

Effective Course

Non-Ideal Altitude

ip-20 review of the effectiveness of branching uprs from pacots track 2 electronic navigation...

Documents