Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Nancy M Smith.
NASA's Integrated Demand Management research activity developed a concept for a novel use of the FAA's Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) decision support software to support airspace capacity-limited arrival operations involving Time Based Flow Management (TBFM). This document provides a detailed, graphical description of the concept.
The Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) is a new NextGen function that resides within the FAA’s Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) software. CTOP was designed to be used in the United States’ national airspace to control the distribution of air traffic demand, both temporally and geographically, through a set of Flow Constrained Areas (FCAs). Each FCA is assigned capacity values that represent an estimated upper limit of manageable demand, and CTOP controls to that capacity by using Expect Departure Clearance Time (EDCT) air traffic control clearances, and/or rerouting flights to an alternate FCA or out of the CTOP completely. CTOP’s decisions about which control options best meet system and user needs are based on the Trajectory Options Set (TOS) submitted by airline operators for each flight. The FCA Balancing Algorithm (FBA) described in this document is a proposed decision support capability that generates CTOP capacity entries for FCAs controlling traffic to a common downstream constraint. The FBA provides an equitable distribution of impact, and addresses the added complexity of assigning FCA capacity values for this specific type of use case, greatly simplifying the FAA air traffic manager’s task.
This report provides a comprehensive description of the Integrated Demand Management concept. Motivation: NASA’s Integrated Demand Management (IDM) research explores the idea that, under certain conditions, time-based flow management (TBFM) arrival operations can benefit from the coordinated use of a strategic traffic management initiative (TMI) to “precondition” the inbound demand. The research was motivated by the observation that TBFM was usually turned off during convective weather, even in facilities where it was routinely used. Our hypothesis was that strategic adjustments to the inbound traffic so that it provided a better match to the off-nominal changes in capacity observed during these conditions could enable TBFM scheduling to continue to provide effective support for arrival traffic management. Concept: IDM proposes that a TMI (e.g., a Collaborative Trajectory Options Program, or CTOP) be used to adjust the rate and/or geographic distribution across flows of the traffic inbound to a high-demand, TBFM-managed airport before that traffic reaches the TBFM planning horizon. After this strategic preconditioning, TBFM can then tactically fine-tune the demand to deliver a well-managed, orderly feed to the destination airport. Coordinated use of these two flow management capabilities is intended to improve system performance in terms of: • Equity of ground delay assignment, avoiding excessive ground delay for TBFM-scheduled departures, without penalizing longer flights; • Throughput, by distributing traffic to maximize use of available capacity; • Predictability for operators, providing advance notice about the impact on individual flights; • Increased flexibility, supporting operator mitigation strategies such as slot swapping or trajectory options; • Efficiency of flight operations, using ground delay more effectively and reducing airborne delay. The operational description in this document highlights how the IDM concept builds upon already existing tools and procedures, and also indicates where tool enhancements could facilitate conduct of IDM operations. However, enhanced tools are not a requirement for concept introduction. In fact, initial deployment that focused on training procedures and rationale for coordinated use of TFMS and TBFM, without changes to existing tools, might be a simpler way to introduce and to familiarize traffic managers with the idea of preconditioning. The concept and procedures described in this document can hopefully provide useful guidance for introduction of IDM into field operations..
NASA has developed the Integrated Demand Management (IDM) concept over a five-year long project lifespan. During that time period, IDM researchers, both at NASA and outside organizations funded by NASA, published approximately forty conference papers and other technical publications associated with the IDM concept. In this document, these publications are cited and annotated for their content and their relevance to the IDM concept development.
NASA's Integrated Demand Management research activity developed a concept for a novel use of the FAA's Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) decision support software to support a particular type of traffic management use case. The research team used an emulation of CTOP software to prototype and test the concept, and developed several enhancements to the CTOP user interface that were well received by the stakeholder community. This document provides a detailed description of these enhancements and their operation that could be used to support their incorporation into the official CTOP software.
A workshop at NASA Ames Research Center was held with airline industry stakeholders to demonstrate the impact of using Trajectory Options Sets (TOSs) during a Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) for severe weather operations. The demonstration was conducted using apart-task Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation of the Integrated Demand Management (IDM) concept, which is an air traffic management method that uses CTOP to deliver preconditioned traffic to the Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) region. The demonstration addressed the following research objectives: first, determine who receives a greater benefit, TOS-participating or TOS-excluded airlines? Second, determine which method of trajectory selection yields a better solution, human/manual selection or automation? Finally, obtain feedback from stakeholders on their impression of the concept and recommendations for future work. The results showed that TOS-participating airlines received greater benefit in terms of total ground delay, ground delay savings, number of reroute options, and additional flight time, compared to TOS-excluded airlines. However, this result was dependent on the situational context, such as the number and location of flights. We found that all airlines benefitted when just a subset of airlines submitted TOS, but the greatest benefit went to the TOS-participating airlines. These benefits to the TOS-participating airlines were diminished as the number of TOS-participants in the system increased. Therefore, there was an “early-adopter” effect that suggested airlines could benefit by becoming the first to equip TOS without causing unfair disadvantages to those who do not equip TOS. In addition, we found that manual selection of trajectory options performed similarly to CTOP, but the CTOP solution was more efficient in terms of number of reroutes, additional flight time, and average ground delay for rerouted flights. Feedback from the stakeholders was solicited, and their overall impressions of the demonstrations were positive. They remarked that CTOP could do a better job than current day solutions, and they thought airlines could benefit from continuing to develop TOS capabilities.
Integrated Demand Management (IDM), is a NASA developed Traffic Flow Management (TFM) concept that uses Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP) to precondition traffic flows into the Time Based Flow Management (TBFM) region, helping traffic planners manage imbalances between demand and capacity in the National Airspace (NAS). A workshop held at NASA was conducted to demonstrate how individual airlines can be impacted by using Trajectory Options Sets (TOS) during IDM operations. A primary concern that was specifically addressed in a part-task Human-in-the-Loop simulation was who received the greater benefit, TOS participating or non-TOS participating airlines? The results showed that TOS participating airlines received greater benefit in terms of ground delay, number of reroute options, and additional flight time, than non-TOS participating airlines. However, this result was dependent on the number and location of flights. Therefore, it was advantageous for airlines to equip TOS. In addition, we found that non-TOS participating airlines also benefitted from other airlines participating in TOS, because the total system-wide ground delay was reduced as more TOS were introduced into the system. The evidence suggests that the benefits were distributed fairly, and there were no unfair disadvantages for airlines who did not equip TOS.