markus hantschke (tu dresden – now with lh systems) urban ... · markus hantschke (tu dresden –...

Measurements of the quality of Traffic Orientation Schemes regarding flight plan efficiency

Markus Hantschke (TU Dresden – now with LH Systems)Urban Weisshaar (LH Systems)

http://marketing.ebase.dlh.de/bilderdb/index.php?page=pix_folder&folder=aviation&foldergroup=

Eighth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2009)Marcus Hantschke & Urban Weißhaar

30 Juni 2009 Chart 1

Agenda

Flight plan optimisation with Lido OC

Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management (ATFCM) in Europe

Dynamic flight planning through consideration of Traffic Flow Restrictions

Measurement of the quality of the European Traffic Orientation Scheme (RAD)



Focal point of flight dispatch activities is the flight path optimization

Optimization with respect to:

minimum timeminimum fuel carriedminimum cost

fuel costequipment costdelay and offload costcrew cost ...

... taking into account schedule constraints

Airline's Cost Philosophy

Analysis

OffloadCost

ATCCharges

FuelCost

CrewCost

AircraftCost

DelayCost



Station-management

Manpower-Planning

FlightScheduling

PairingConstruct.

RosterGeneration

OperationsControl

CrewControl

CrewInformation

Mainten.Control

SlotRestrictions

AIP/NAVData

ScheduleData

OPSData

AircraftStatus

CommercialInfo

ATCCharges

FlightCrew

Notam

W&BData

Weather

LoadData

T/OPerformance

TrafficRights

FlowRestrictions

Lido OCInfluencing parameter to flight path optimization



Departure Destination

Considered Segments during Optimisation



Horizontal Optimisation

TO_WPT FROM_WPT CostABC

DEPDEPDEP

212523

AA

EB

5240

CG 45BB

EF

4953

GG

FJ

7379

EE

KH

8475

FF

HI

7067

II

LM

9685

HL 86JM 119KO 117KL 109MQ 115LP 118QDEST 134OP 136PDEST 130

WorklistDijekstra algorithm

DEP DEST

16

40

19

12

19J

28

34

I1417

O3325

Q30

P32F

2428

D

E

1931

G22

A

B

C

2125

23

H

K

35

26 L

M18

29

1.) Selection of segments for current from- waypoint

2.) Calculation of costs for selected segments

3.) Entering calculated datasets into worklist

4.) Selection of best dataset from worklist

5.) To- waypoint of best dataset becomes from- waypoint



Departure DestinationWaypoint

FL350

FL310

FL280

FL260

FL240

FL220

Maximum flightlevel

Optimum flightlevel

Estimated T/O- weight

kgGWGW Landcalculated 20≤−

If

=> profile optimized!

Vertical Optimization



Agenda







Overview about Traffic Flow Management Procedures



Basic principles of Traffic Flow Restrictions

Traffic Flow Restrictions organise a system of major traffic flows through congested areas.

Traffic Flow Restrictions are routeing requirements designed to make the most effective use of ATC capacity.

Traffic Flow Restrictions define restrictions on routes, through specified areas. Aircraft operators planning flights through these areas must flight/plan in accordance with these route restrictions.

Traffic Flow Restrictions may guarantee an optimum traffic flow.



Basic principles of Traffic Flow Restrictions

Conditions like Departure / Destination / Via Waypoints including logical operators….

… inducing different types of dependencies (“and” / “or”) Careful interpretation needed



Agenda







Implementation of Traffic Flow Restrictions in Lido OC

TFR restriction : segment A – E ONLY AVAILABLE VIA waypoint O

Optimised & legal routing between Departure - Destination is determined during calculation.



Agenda







Methodology of Measuring the Quality of the RAD

Approach:Minimum Cost Tracks considering restrictions from the RAD (FPLTFR) are compared with Minimum

Cost Tracks not considering restrictions from the RAD (FPLnTFR)

the absolute or relative differences are calculated to indicate the absolute Cost Deviations (dabs) and the relative Cost Deviations (drel) for every flight event i (i= 1...n)

absolute Cost Deviation dabs i = di + TFR - di – TFR [USD]

relative Cost Deviation drel i = di + TFR / di – TFR [%]

The total deviation is calculated based on Cost Deviations from individual flight events

n

absolute Total Cost Deviation Dabs i = Σ dabs i / n [USD]i=1

n

relative Total Cost Deviation Drel i = Σ drel i / n [%]i=1



Methodology of Measuring the Quality of the RAD

Weight factors (gi) can be used to consider importance of city pairs, airports, routes etc. Movements per year and Airport can be used as weight factor

nWeighted absolute Cost Deviation Dabs g= Σ (gi * di) [USD]

i=1

nWeighted relative Cost Deviation Drel g= Σ (gi * di) [%]

i=1



Focus of Analysis / Sample Flights

Randomized sample of 90 European airports

11 Airports from this sample are used for deeper analysisParis Charles De Gaule (LFPG), Frankfurt Rhein/Main (EDDF), London Heathrow (EGLL), Amsterdam Schiphol

(EHAM), Madrid Barajas (LEMD), London Gatwick (EGKK), Brussel National (EBBR), Istanbul Atatürk Intl. (LTBA), Oslo Gardermoen (ENGM), Airport Köln/Bonn (EDDK) and Warsaw Okecie (EPWA)

Each of the 11 airports was used as central departure location to reach every other airport of the sample (“Departure-Star”) and additionally used as central destination from all other airports of the sample (“Destination-Star”)

Period of analysis 29th June to 28th July 2007

Settings of Lido environment:

Aircraft: Airbus A321-200; 75% Payload; 2h Holding FuelWeather: actual weather conditionsRegulations/ Restrictions: actual and all considered



Sample of flights

Calculated routes of the sample*Example: Movements from and to Warsaw are colored in purple

Warsaw[EPWA]



Results – Average Cost Deviations

Average Cost Deviation (not weighted) for the RAD*The following formula Relative Overall Cost Deviation was used

n

Drel i = Σ drel i / n [%]i=1

Drel i= 0,76%

Average Cost Deviation (weighted by movements per Airport) for the RAD*/**The following formula Weighted Relative Overall Cost Deviation was usedThe weight factors are based on annual movements on the respective airport in year2006

n

Drel g= Σ (gi * di) [%]i=1

DRAD= 0,83%* All routes of the sample considered** sample sorted by star-airport; weight factor based on movements 2006



Individual Cost Deviations of “star-airports”

0,28

%

0,44

%

0,60

%

0,63

%

0,66

%

0,68

% 0,78

%

1,01

%

1,04

%

1,08

%

1,09

%

0,00%

0,20%

0,40%

0,60%

0,80%

1,00%

LTB

A

EN

GM

EG

KK

EG

LL

EP

WA

EH

AM

ED

DF

LEM

D

EB

BR

ED

DK

LFP

G

Airport

Cost

Dev

iatio

n

Cost Deviation

Measured Cost Deviations of airport stars (Dep/Dest)



Cost Deviation related to route length*

* All routes of the sample considered** Longest route in the sample Oslo – Pafor (1879NM)

0,21

%

0,90

%

0,93

%

0,98

%

0,58

% 0,65

%

0,59

%

0,58

%

0,58

%

0,58

%

0,42

%

0,37

%

0,20

%

0,00%

0,10%

0,20%

0,30%

0,40%

0,50%

0,60%

0,70%

0,80%

0,90%

1,00%

(0-15

0](15

0-300

](30

0-450

](45

0-600

](60

0-750

](75

0-900

](90

0-105

0](10

50-12

00]

(1200

-1350

](13

50-15

00]

(1500

-1650

](16

50-18

00]

and h

igher

Class of Distance

Cos

t Dev

iatio

n

0-150NM: Only 13% of routes have Cost

Deviation >0,00%Main case: SID touches STAR

150-600NM:35% of Cost Deviation caused by

FL limitations (CPLC)600NM-1500NM:

Cost Deviation only effected by route restrictions

>1500NM:Cost deviation is decreasing

continually down to 0,20%**

Cost Deviation depending on route length



Average route distances for all star-airports

Location of analyzed airports causes different average route distancesThis influence to be removed to compare the quality of the RAD inside the group of analyzed airports

Average route length of analyzed routes for every airport star

1099

890

870

764

721

598

592

591

582

569

563

0

200

400

600

800

1000

EGKK EBBR EDDK LFPG EDDF EHAM EGLL EPWA ENGM LEMD LTBA

Airport [ICAO]

Rou

te D

ista

nce

[NM

]



Specific Cost Deviations of analyzed star-airports

1,04

%

1,08

%

1,09

%

0,78

%

0,68

%

0,60

%

0,63

%

0,66

%

0,44

%

1,01

%

0,28

%

0,98

%

0,98

%

0,98

%

0,98

%

0,98

%

0,98

%

0,58

% 0,65

%

0,65

%

0,65

%

0,58

%

0,00%

0,20%

0,40%

0,60%

0,80%

1,00%

EBBR EDDK LFPG EDDF EHAM EGKK EGLL EPWA ENGM LEMD LTBA

Airport

Cost

Dev

iatio

n

total dependend on route distance

Average Cost Deviations for Analysed Airports*

* Data should be used for further analysis



Differences of specific Cost Deviations of analyzed Airports

-0,10% -0,11%

0,20%

0,30%

-0,01%

0,21%

0,30%

-0,06%

0,38%

-0,05%

-0,36%-0,50%

-0,40%

-0,30%

-0,20%

-0,10%

0,00%

0,10%

0,20%

0,30%

0,40%

0,50%

EBBR EDDK LFPG EDDF EHAM EGKK EGLL EPWA ENGM LEMD LTBA

Airport [ICAO]

Diff

eren

ce o

f Cos

t Dev

iatio

ns [%

]

Differences between Distance Based Cost Deviation and Measured Cost Deviation for Analysed Airports*

*Data should be used for further analysis



Additional effort caused by the RAD in absolute values*

24 27 24 18 9 6 9 6 4 1 1 1 7

608

478

211

128

105

84 65 560

100

200

300

400

500

600

(0-2

5]

(25-

50]

(50-

75]

(75-

100]

(100

-125

]

(125

-150

]

(150

-175

]

(175

-200

]

(200

-225

]

(225

-250

]

(250

-275

]

(275

-300

]

(300

-325

]

(325

-350

]

(350

-375

]

(375

-400

]

(400

-425

]

(425

-450

]

(450

-475

]

(475

-500

]

and

high

erClass of Additional Fuel [kg]

Freq

uenc

y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dis

trib

utio

n

Frequency Distribution

* Results depend on the used aircraft type and the boundary conditions of this analysis

754412276295

183

494

1016

0

200

400

600

800

1000

(0-1

0]

(10-

20]

(20-

30]

(30-

40]

(40-

50]

(50-

60]

(60-

70]

(70-

80]

(80-

90]

(90-

100]

and

high

er

Class of Distances [NM]

Freq

uenc

y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dis

trib

utio

n

Frequency Distribution

60% of cases: additional fuel <25kg95% of cases: additional fuel <225kg(not enough for 5min flight)

50% of cases: additional distance <10NM80% of cases: <20NM95% of cases: <50NM

Distribution and Frequency of Additional Trip Fuel Distribution and Frequency of Route Extension



Contacts

Marcus HantschkeSystem Engineer

Lufthansa Systems Aeronautics GmbHFRA OD/I-FAm Prime Parc 265479 Raunheim

Tel: +49 (0)69 696 56763Fax: +49 (0)69 696 90077

E-Mail: [email protected]

Urban WeißhaarTeamleader Product Development

Lufthansa Systems Aeronautics GmbHFRA OD/DAm Prime Parc 265479 RaunheimGermany

Tel. +49 (0) 69 696 93994Mobil: +49 (151) 58920063Fax +49 (0) 69 696 90077

E-Mail: [email protected]

Thank you for your attention!

markus hantschke (tu dresden – now with lh systems) urban ... · markus hantschke (tu dresden –...

Documents