text stringlengths 0 120k |
|---|
IntroductionThe Center-Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Automation System (CTAS) is a set of tools developed to help air traffic controllers manage complex air traffic flows to reduce delays and increase safety [1].These tools, known also as CTAS client applications, rely on the Trajectory Synthesizer (TS) [3,4... |
BADA-CTAS IntegrationCTAS TS with support for BADA will be referenced in this TM as "CTAS/BADA TS".The term "CTAS TS" will refer to CTAS/BADA TS using only "native" CTAS APM, which is functionally equivalent to the "original" CTAS TS without support for BADA APM.CTAS TS is a faster-than-real-time trajectory predictor t... |
Validation Tools and MethodsThe goals of validation are two-fold.First of all, it should be confirmed that implementation of BADA APM in CTAS/BADA TS is correct by comparison with benchmark data, provided by Eurocontrol in the form of "Performance Table Data" (PTD) files (see [7] and Appendix B).Next, it should be exam... |
CTAS/BADA TS Software ValidationImplementation of BADA APM in CTAS/BADA TS was validated using the PTD validation tool with benchmark PTD files as of the 5th of May 2011.This validation was performed only for BADA "exact" speeds and constant weight, since the PTD files were generated for these conditionsThe following t... |
Evaluation of CTAS/BADA TSBADA documentation [7] already allows certain variability in some elements of BADA APM.For example, a user can choose to use full or reduced climb power, standard descent or expedited descent with spoilers, and so on.Implementation of BADA APM in CTAS/BADA TS further extends this variability.H... |
Fort Worth Center (ZFW), 3 daysThe TrackComparer tool, briefly described in previous section, was used to compare radar track data with predictions obtained using CTAS/BADA TS for different BADA variants for 3 days of traffic from Feb 23 to Feb 25 of 2011 in Fort Worth Center (ZFW).Tables 3 and4 summarize the performan... |
Los Angeles Center (ZLA), 1 dayUsing the same methodology, the radar track data for 1 day of traffic in Los Angeles center (ZLA) were compared with CTAS TS and BADA Hybrid Hold predictions.Table 5 summarizes results obtained from these comparisons: For this center BADA does not have clear advantages over CTAS in terms ... |
Denver Center (ZDV), 5 daysThis sub-section discusses the performance of the BADA Hybrid Hold variant against CTAS APM for January 31 st through February 4 th 2011 in Denver Center.This time period was characterized by variable weather, including days with rain and snow, low ceilings, and strong winds.Therefore, it was... |
Aircraft TypeFigure 39.Most frequent aircraft types in Denver centerFigures 40 and41 show uneven results for altitude errors, with BADA being substantially more accurate for several aircraft types (CRJ7, E170, B190, BE20, C750, MD82, BE9L), and CTAS much more accurate for other aircraft types (CRJ2, C560, C56X, E120, L... |
ConclusionThe BADA performance and operational model was integrated into the CTAS TS, the core computational engine of CTAS software.The integrated CTAS/BADA TS software incorporated all possible variants of the BADA model, along with the native CTAS model.The CTAS/BADA TS software was thoroughly validated by compariso... |
Appendix BExample of the BADA PerformanceThese requirements motivated the design of container class APMDef, encapsulating CTAS and BADA APMs in abstract model definition interfaces, such as ADragDef, AThrustDef, etc., as shown in Figure1.Here "[CTAS TS]" denotes any classes of "original" CTAS TS reused in CTAS/BADA TS ... |
Figure 1 .1Figure 1.CTAS/BADA TS Class Diagram |
Figure 2 .2Figure 2. Horizontal Trajectory Prediction Metrics |
compared with Figures 27 and 30 for BADA Base case with nominal weight.This can be explained by inverse dependency of ROCD, and hence the altitude, on aircraft weight, making the altitude errors less sensitive to weight when the weight increases.Using the BADA reduced climb power further reduces this sensitivity as can... |
Figure 3 .Figure 4 .Figure 5 .Figure 6 .Figure 8 .Figure 9 .Figure 13 .34568913Figure 3.Most frequent aircraft types for Fort Worth center |
Figure 36 .36Figure 36.Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in Los Angeles center |
Figure 40 .40Figure 40.Mean of mean altitude errors in Denver center |
Figure 43 .43Figure 43.Boeing 757-200 BADA Base Case idle descent: ground speed |
Table 1 .1PTD Comparison TolerancesParameterToleranceTrue Air Speed (TAS)5 knotsCalibrated Air Speed (CAS) 5 knotsMach0.1Thrust1000 NewtonsDrag1000 NewtonsROCD100 feet per minute1: |
Table 2 .2BADA APM variantsCTAS speedsBase case, but CTAS speed profileHybrid HoldBase case, but BADA hybrid hold speed profileIncreased WeightBase case, but weight ratio = 110% (10% above "default" weight)Reduced WeightBase case, but weight ratio = 90% (10% below "default" weight)Maximum Climb ThrustBase case, but wit... |
Table 3 .3Mean altitude errors (ft) for CTAS/BADA TSTest caseComparisonAbs Max Mean Abs Mean MaxMinStd DevBase CaseCTAS vs. Track 25592 BADA vs. Track 25834-267 -176938 89925592 -21308 1932 25834 -21308 1874CTAS SpeedsCTAS vs. Track 22831 BADA vs. Track 24782-281 -223867 84622831 -19415 1835 24782 -19415 1808Hybrid Hol... |
Table 4 .4Mean along-track errors (nmi) for CTAS/BADA TSTest caseComparisonAbs Max Mean Abs Mean Max MinStd DevBase CaseCTAS vs. Track 129.87 BADA vs. Track 129.860.2 0.12.7 2.6145.47 -129.87 4.73 45.47 -129.86 4.52CTAS SpeedsCTAS vs. Track 129.71 BADA vs. Track 129.730.61 0.772.43 2.3545.48 -129.71 4 45.48 -129.73 3.8... |
Table 5 .5Mean altitude and along-track errors for BADA Hybrid Hold for Los Angeles centerError typeComparisonAbs Max Mean Abs Mean MaxMinStd DevAltitude (ft)CTAS vs. Track 25960 BADA vs. Track 25598797 8631966 196322475 -25960 3507 19756 -25598 3492Along-trackCTAS vs. Track 122.473.667.3554.26 -122.47 8.9(nm)BADA vs. ... |
Table 66summarizes the comparison results for Denver center: |
Table 6 .6Mean altitude and along-track errors for BADA Hybrid Hold for Denver centerError typeComparisonAbs Max Mean Abs Mean MaxMinStd DevAltitude (ft)CTAS vs. Track 22156 BADA vs. Track 23969-52 -64524 53422156 -17490 1383 23969 -17688 1414Along-trackCTAS vs. Track 138.231.763.42105.46 -138.23 4.84(nm)BADA vs. Track... |
Table 7 .7Mean altitude errors (ft), path-based correlationsTest caseAbs Max Mean Abs Mean MaxMinStd DevCTAS TS11667-19250511667 -5113760BADA Hybrid Hold 11528-43356311528 -10608 759BADA Base Case10276-960101410276 -5987815 |
Table 8 .8Mean altitude errors (ft), time-based correlationsTest caseAbs Max Mean Abs Mean MaxMinStd DevCTAS TS21426-42784621426 -45271158BADA Hybrid Hold 21515-67393021515 -13799 1136BADA Base Case20981-632109920981 -54041330 |
BADA is found to be most beneficial in climb, especially with the BADA Reduced Weight variant.•Typically BADA is much more accurate than CTAS in predicting Top Of Climb (TOC) for the most prevalent aircraft types.• When compared with CTAS, BADA has slightly worse performance in descent, especially for• Both CTAS and BA... |
Table Data FileDataNot all columns in the following table are shown due to a page width limitation.High mass CLIMBS================FL[-] T[K] p[Pa] rho[kg/m3] a[m/s] TAS[kt] CAS[kt]M[-] mass[kg] Thrust[N] Drag[N]0 288 1013251.22534079.0079.000.12110612285515 287 995081.20734079.5879.000.121106120855110 286 977171.19033... |
AcknowledgmentsThis work would not have been possible without help and support from many people.We especially want to express our gratitude to Karen Cate for her guidance, to Hassan Eslami for continuous support and encouragement, to Martin Brown for contributions in data analysis and development of validation tools, t... |
Design of Center-TRACON Automation System |
HErzberger |
TJDavis |
SMGreen |
Proceedings of the AGARD Guidance and Control Panel 56th Symposium on Machine Intelligence in Air-Traffic Management |
the AGARD Guidance and Control Panel 56th Symposium on Machine Intelligence in Air-Traffic ManagementBerlin, GDR |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.