Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Air Traffic Flow”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

310 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Reducing Departure Delays for Adjacent Center Airports using Time-Based Flow Management Scheduler: Checkbox On or Off?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has enhanced the Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) scheduling tool with a "Checkbox ON" vs. "OFF" function which allows Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) to make room in a crowded arrival stream for a departure. When scheduling a departure, having the checkbox ON can delay the Scheduled Times of Arrivals (STAs) of the airborne flights upstream of the TBFM freeze horizons and can compress these flights to their minimum required spacing, thereby creating a slot for a departure. Hence, having the checkbox ON can reduce the frequent ground delays of aircraft departing near high volume airports but can increase delays for airborne arrivals. A Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation compared arrival and departure delays to Newark Airport (EWR) with the checkbox ON vs. OFF as the default position. Three other conditions in this HITL involved various National Airspace System (NAS)-wide approaches for timely delivery of aircraft to the TBFM region. These conditions were: Baseline, using current Mile-in-Trail (MIT) spacing restrictions; Integrated Demand Management (IDM), where all aircraft were given departure times (Expect Departure Clearance Times, or EDCTs), ultimately based on the EWR Airport Arrival Rate; and IDM plus Required Time of Arrival (RTA), a flight deck tool which allowed some aircraft to meet a controlled time of arrival to the TBFM area more precisely. Results showed that the checkbox tool was powerful: with the checkbox ON, departure delays decreased and airborne delays increased, as predicted. However, assuming that the cost ratio of a minute of airborne delay to a minute of departure delay is in the range of 1.2 to 3, as commonly indicated by the literature, checkbox ON and checkbox OFF conditions showed approximately equal total delay costs, i.e., the cost of delays in the air balanced the cost of the delay on the ground. The three scheduling conditions also had approximately equal total delay costs, although a simulation artifact may have reduced the delays in the Baseline condition. In the debrief following the simulation, the TMCs concluded that the checkbox should be used flexibly depending on the current delay situation, and suggested modifications to the checkbox tool which would help them use it in this way, along with enhanced training. The relatively similar total cost of both checkbox default options in this simulation indicates that this might be a fruitful approach, and replace the necessity to have the checkbox rigidly set to either ON or OFF.

departure delay↗
NASA NTRS2023

Analysis of Strategic Conflict Management Approaches as Applied to Simulated UAM Operations

This report presents the results of a comparison analysis of candidate Strategic Conflict Management (SCM) strategies as applied to Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. The SCM strategies investigated included: no SCM, resource scheduling (RS), resource flow rates (FR), area-based flow rates (AR), and conflict detection and resolution (CR). The study evaluated each strategy against the same 3 levels of flight demand in a representative airspace construct for the Dallas/Fort Worth region. The study also accounted for different levels of uncertainty in operational planning and equivalent levels of trajectory following error. In the analysis, we compared the SCM strategies’ effectiveness in reducing the need for the tactical conflict management layer to act and looked at the metrics of unmitigated losses-of-separation (LOS), flight delays imposed by strategic planning, and throughput of the overall airspace. The study results indicated that the CR strategy was the most effective at reducing LOS and percentage of flights with LOS, even in the presence of trajectory error when uncertainty is accounted for in planning. Thus, if the objective is to reduce the number of actions that the tactical conflict management layer will have to take, in terms of conflicts that may need to be resolved, CR is the strategy to use. The FR strategy was found to be the worst at reducing LOS and percentage of flights with LOS. Thus, it is not very effective at reducing the actions required by a tactical conflict management layer. In the airspace tested, the demand was high enough to produce unacceptable levels of flight delay and reductions of throughput when the SCM strategies were implemented. This was especially evident at the higher levels of trajectory uncertainty and error. The need to account for expected levels of uncertainty becomes more and more important as the demand level increases and as the level of trajectory error increases. This is because the likelihood of flights with LOS increases as the density of operations increases and as the level of trajectory error increases. Accounting for uncertainty in the SCM strategies improves the strategy effectiveness with respect to LOS but increases delays and reduces throughput. Thus, there is a tradeoff between scalability and allowable levels of uncertainty. That is, we can implement an air traffic management construct that allows high levels of uncertainty, but we can expect that same system to have limits on scalability that may be evident even at small demand levels, such as those used in this study. Therefore, the results in this study indicate that an air traffic system should attempt to implement mechanisms appropriate for reducing uncertainty where possible in order to increase the chances for scalability. And this increased level of predictability of operations needs to be balanced with mechanisms for ensuring flexibility when operational conditions and plans need to change, even though those types of changes should be the exception rather than the rule under normal conditions. The study also introduced a trade space that could serve as a mechanism for selecting the appropriate SCM strategy in a trade-off between uncertainty and error, mean flight delay, and the LOS metrics (which this study equates to the potential for tactical conflict management actions). The optimal solution for a given airspace, demand level, and other factors, could likely be a combination of SCM strategies, although this study only compared the use of a single SCM strategy at a time. The CR strategy appeared to have the best opportunity for scalability by limiting the number of potential tactical actions to nearly zero.

Strategic Conflict Management↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Stochastic Scheduler for Integrated Arrival, Departure and Surface Operations in Los Angeles

In terminal airspace, integrating arrivals, departures, and surface operations with competing resources provides the potential of improving operational efficiency by removing barriers between different operations. This work develops a centralized stochastic scheduler for operations in a terminal area including airborne and surface operations using Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm and Monte Carlo simulations. The scheduler handles completing resources between different flows, such as runway allocations, runway crossing, departure fixes, and other interaction way points between arrivals and departures. Meanwhile, the scheduler also takes time-varied uncertainties into account when optimizing schedules. The scheduler is run sequentially to identify the best and robust schedule for the next planning window. Resulting schedules decide the routes, speed or delays, and runway assignments with separation constraints at mergingdiverging waypoints in the air and crossing and separations on runways. The Los Angels terminal area was used as an example. The implementation of this stochastic scheduler for integrated arrival, departure and surface operations is completed. And several preliminary runs are finished for over 1,200 flights in LAX in a typical day. Sensitivity studies on various planning window sizes are presented, which shows that trade-off exits between planning window size and achievable minimum delay. Preliminary results on runway usage are also presented in this abstract. Because arrivals on the outer runways have to be followed by crossings on the inner runways, algorithmic runway allocation prefers inner runways for arrivals and outer runways for departures. More results will be presented in the final paper. And current terminal arrival and departure procedures based on first-come-first-serve procedure will also be set up and used as a baseline for comparison.

integrated scheduler↗
NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project KDP-C Review

The topics discussed are the UAS-NAS project life-cycle and ARMD thrust flow down, as well as the UAS environments and how we operate in those environments. NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards, CA, is leading a project designed to help integrate unmanned air vehicles into the world around us. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project, or UAS in the NAS, will contribute capabilities designed to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS. The project falls under the Integrated Systems Research Program office managed at NASA Headquarters by the agency's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. NASA's four aeronautics research centers - Armstrong, Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Glenn Research Center - are part of the technology development project. With the use and diversity of unmanned aircraft growing rapidly, new uses for these vehicles are constantly being considered. Unmanned aircraft promise new ways of increasing efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing safety and saving lives 460265main_ED10-0132-16_full.jpg Unmanned aircraft systems such as NASA's Global Hawks (above) and Predator B named Ikhana (below), along with numerous other unmanned aircraft systems large and small, are the prime focus of the UAS in the NAS effort to integrate them into the national airspace. Credits: NASA Photos 710580main_ED07-0243-37_full.jpg The UAS in the NAS project envisions performance-based routine access to all segments of the national airspace for all unmanned aircraft system classes, once all safety-related and technical barriers are overcome. The project will provide critical data to such key stakeholders and customers as the Federal Aviation Administration and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) by conducting integrated, relevant system-level tests to adequately address safety and operational challenges of national airspace access by unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. In the process, the project will work with other key stakeholders to define necessary deliverables and products to help enable such access. Within the project, NASA is focusing on five sub-projects. These five focus areas include assurance of safe separation of unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft when flying in the national airspace; safety-critical command and control systems and radio frequencies to enable safe operation of UAS; human factors issues for ground control stations; airworthiness certification standards for UAS avionics and integrated tests and evaluation designed to determine the viability of emerging UAS technology. Five Focus Areas of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project Separation Assurance Provide an assessment of how planned Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) separation assurance systems, with different functional allocations, perform for UAS in mixed operations with manned aircraft Assess the applicability to UAS and the performance of NASA NextGen separation assurance systems in flight tests with realistic latencies and uncertain trajectories Assess functional allocations ranging from today's ground-based, controller-provided aircraft separation to fully autonomous airborne self-separation Communications Develop data and rationale to obtain appropriate frequency spectrum allocations to enable safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Develop and validate candidate secure safety-critical command and control system/subsystem test equipment for UAS that complies with UAS international/national frequency regulations, standards and recommended practices and minimum operational and aviation system performance standards for UAS Perform analysis to support recommendations for integration of safety-critical command and control systems and air traffic control communications to ensure safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Human Systems Integration Develop a research test bed and database to provide data and proof of concept for GCS - ground control station - operations in the NAS Coordinate with standards organizations to develop human-factors guidelines for GCS operation in the NAS Certification Define a UAS classification scheme and approach to determining Federal Aviation Regulation airworthiness requirements applicable to all UAS digital avionics Provide hazard and risk-related data to support development of type design criteria and best development practices Integrated Tests and Evaluation Integrate and test mature concepts from technical elements to demonstrate and test viability Evaluate the performance of technology development in a relevant environment (full-mission, human-in-the-loop simulations and flight tests)

outreach↗