Modeling Next Gen with systemwide Modeler Pete Kuzminski

Modeling Next. Gen with systemwide. Modeler Pete Kuzminski Stéphane Mondoloni, Ph. D January 2010 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

This is the copyright work of The MITRE Corporation and was produced for the U. S. Government under Contract Number DTFA 01 -01 -C-00001 and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System Clause 3. 5 -13, Rights in Data-General, Alt. III and Alt. IV (Oct. 1996). No other use other than that granted to the U. S. Government, or to those acting on behalf of the U. S. Government, under that Clause is authorized without the express written permission of The MITRE Corporation. For further information, please contact The MITRE Corporation, Contract Office, 7515 Colshire Drive, Mc. Lean, VA 22102, (703) 983 -6000. The contents of this material reflect the views of the author and/or the Director of the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Department of Transportation (DOT). Neither the FAA nor the DOT makes any warranty or guarantee, or promise, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of the views expressed herein. 2010 The MITRE Corporation. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this document, or to allow others to do so, for “Government Purposes Only”. For Release to All FAA. This document has been approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 2 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Uses of systemwide. Modeler to Model the NAS Operations Analysis Average Annual Delay per Flight* (min) Benefits Estimation 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Fiscal Year • Next. Gen operational improvements • Future airspace bottlenecks • Data communications • Traffic management initiatives • New runways • Airspace design 3 • … and more © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

CAASD’s System-wide Analysis Capabilities base future • Base scenarios data-driven • Future scenarios grown via scenario projection, linking/trimming, generation airframe routing algorithms • 30+ sample days per treatment • Future airspace/routes • Typically 300 -600 runs • 1 -2 days runtime • Fast-time simulation at flight-level • 5 -10 minute runtime operational improvement abstraction 4 systemwide. Modeler experimentation visualization and analysis • Database-based • Visualization package • Measurement tools • Operational concept definition, benefits mechanism identification and quantification, model parameterization • NAS EA → operational scenarios → influence diagrams • Some higher resolution modeling for airports and sectors © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

systemwide. Modeler Approach Flights • Start with initial trajectories and airframe assignments • Change plans to respect constraints • Delay • Swap airframe • Cancellation • Re-route (research) plans Resources • Characterize use by a flight • Monitor flight plans/progress • Anticipate resource condition, e. g. , occupancy plans constraints • For each resource we model • Formulate response • Issue constraints to flights • Most influential resources – Use (and load in aggregate) – Airports – Acceptable use/load (e. g. , capacity) – Sectors – Anticipation of use/load – Airframes – Response 5 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Recent Improvements to systemwide. Modeler 6 © 2010 2009 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. Document. F 066 -B 10 -004 Number Here

Airport Runway Congestion Model • Use is landing/takeoff; load is throughput • Acceptable load is throughput over short time periods – Proxy configuration for each weather condition • Tactical response is queueing • Strategic response is selection of operating point and called rates Tactical Model simulation runway layout runway usage interface fleet mix weather • Monitors departure queue and anticipated traffic • Will call Arrival Acceptance Rate (AAR) to thin arrival stream if departure delays unacceptable aux 7 Departures queue, taking off spaced at rate feasible wrt imminent arrivals Demand Management rules separations and requirements libraries Arrivals queue, landing spaced at max rate runway. Simulator systemwide. Modeler © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Arrival Flow Management Model • To place realistic loads on TRACONs and en route sectors, systemwide. Modeler distributes delay absorption for airport arrival congestion • Maintains anticipated landing schedule; respects AAR • Solves for node passage times (including pushback and landing) – Limits delays in arrival TRACON, between airborne nodes, and in air before merge structure • Ground delay modeled • minimum spacing over nodes (including AAR) • limits to delay absorption between nodes • planned passage times Node detection in pre-processing 8 scheduling algorithm spacing definition algorithm • Spacing definition algorithm used to endogenously define in -trail restrictions over nodes © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

En Route Sector Congestion Model flight-attributable workload new old flight workload Entry lookahead Entry Exit t t Exit anon. workload t sector workload threshold t delayed entry • Upon entering sector, flight plans delay absorption • Generally plans to take fair share in each sector o “Fair” by relative increase in transit times • Ability to absorb delay adjustable by sector-pair 9 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Representing Operational Improvements in systemwide. Modeler 10 © 2009 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. Document Number Here

Decisions, decisions… Many improvements with implementation decisions & architectural alternatives. Many candidate decisions to equip Images: source FAA 11 Transformational Programs Aircraft Equipage ADS-B RNAV/RNP © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. SWIM VNAV Document. F 066 -B 10 -004 Number Here

Modeling Performance Impact of Decisions 40 Independent decisions 1 trillion possible outcomes…start modeling! 12 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Evaluating Alternatives Documented in NAS EA • OV-6 c • OV-5 Used to develop High-level Operational Requirements Define, Refine, Decompose Operational Concept Benefit Mechanisms “Functional Clusters” Documented in Consistent with Influence Diagrams Down-selection Reduced Influence Diagrams & Timeline Influence Diagrams Determine feasible alternative evolution paths Analysis & Quantification Estimate the service provider and user life-cycle costs Assess the benefit performance of alternatives 13 Down-selection Timelines Analysis & Quantification Discussion focuses here Used to develop Coordinated, iterative Consistent © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Influence Diagrams – The Basics • Four types of nodes† used: – Decision Node – Metric Decision Metric – Random Variable – Key Performance Area KPA Key Performance Areas (11) from ICAO • Influences described with arrows • Arrows with dotted lines prevent “cycles” Plant Locust. Resistant Crops Crop Yield Likelihood of Locusts 14 †Different tools use different symbols © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Next. Gen Example Fleet-mix Capacity Number of par. runways <2500 feet apart WTMD Inter-departure spacing – parallel runways Departure Capacity Taxi Delays Favorable wind conditions • Use to obtain agreement on single mechanism • Provides line-of-sight with interim metrics • Transparent linkages to corresponding costing elements 15 Predictability Schedule Predictability Operating Costs Gate-togate time Fuel Consumed Efficiency Emissions Environment © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Dependencies & Shared Benefits • Multiple factors influence the same mechanisms Number of restrictions Lateral precision Route Density Trajectory prediction accuracy Many decisions can lead to same impact on interim measures 16 Visualize Dependencies Number of aircraft tactical maneuvers … Efficiency Resolution lookahead time Metering Planning Accuracy Along-track predictability Arrival Flow Gaps Some paths provide additional mechanisms © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Each “Influence” requires modeling E. g. FMS Offsets Controller Workload Sector Capacity Number of aircraft flow maneuvers Offset resolutions En Route Delay Fuel Consumed Emissions 17 Gate-to-gate time Airline Schedule Predictability Costs © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

FMS Route Offsets Time/Fuel • Quantification – From assumptions: 6. 4 NMI additional for lead – Trailing aircraft saves time, but likely incurs a fuel penalty (from operating at cost index > 0) • Could add many smaller influences 45º X 8 NMI Change in Fuel (Wf) and time (T) of trailing aircraft 18 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

FMS Route Offsets Time/Fuel (cont’d) Sample Aircraft Types Total Conflicts Speed Distribution Compute Implied CI: 60% of Conflicts† ~N(450, 18) Sample: Number of Overtaking VFAST Number of beneficial options (50%) VSLOW Duration Distribution Only consider circumstances where cost to lead < benefit to trailing Average benefit equivalent to X lbs of fuel per event Applies in 30% of all conflicts (60%*50%) Benefit of 0. 3 X lbs per conflict From Bilimoria, K. , D. , Methodology for the Performance Evaluation of a Conflict Probe, J. of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 3, May-June 2001 † 19 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Linked Benefit Mechanism Influence Diagrams (In Progress) CATM, Wx, Airspace RNAV/RNP, TMA Arrival/Departure Surface En Route 20 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Parameter Setting - Example • Influence diagrams documents parameter setting in systemwide. Modeler Model the influence Use of RTA Other things Trajectory Prediction Accuracy Number of aircraft conflict maneuvers . . . Further influences Establish Metrics & Relationships Affects systemwide. Modeler Parameters 21 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Accuracy Affects Conflicts Look-ahead • Detect using 5 NMI + Buffer • Buffer selected to get very few missed alerts† at 5 minutes • Begin responding to alerts at a look-ahead > 5 minutes • False alerts* result in additional conflict resolution workload • Applied Monte Carlo simulation to obtain buffers • With radar-level accuracy, required buffer = 3 NMI Look-ahead ‡ Increasing buffer *False alerts = A detected conflict at a specified look-ahead that does not result in loss of separation †Missed alert = A loss of separation that is not detected at a specified look-ahead time ‡ Monte-Carlo compared against: Bilimoria, K. D. , Lee, H. Q. , Properties of Air Traffic Conflicts for Free and Structured Routing, AIAA-2001 -4051, GN&C Conference, Montreal, PQ, August, 2001 22 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

RTA – Improves Prediction Accuracy Wind variability† Aircraft dynamics Design choice Only controls to time as approach RTA point, speed limited, infrequent speed target changes Mondoloni, S. , A multiple-scale model of wind-prediction uncertainty and application to trajectory prediction, AIAA-20067807, ATIO 2006, Wichita, KS † 23 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Improved Conflict Detection (based on Monte Carlo Simulation) • ADS-B Improves over radar (better current speed estimation & position error) • RTA Improves further through closed-loop control † False Alert Rate † Validated 24 against FAA-2007 -29305 -0012. 1 (supporting material to NPRM for ADS-B out) © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

Summary Operational Concept Benefits Mechanisms Benefits Quantification s. M Parameter s. M Setting • Improving both models and analysis process – Improving and expanding modeling features of systemwide. Modeler – Applying a structured process from concept to simulations – Improves capturing of benefit dependencies – Process reflects benefit and costs dependencies 25 © 2010 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. F 066 -B 10 -004

26