1
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Energy
Demand
+
+
Burning Fossil
Fuels
Greenhouse Gas
Effect/ Emissions
+
+
Population
Climate Change
Any significant change in the
measures of the climate
Temperature
Precipitation
Storms
Floods
Impacts
Droughts
3
Source: [1] Department of Ecology. State of Washington.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/whatis.html
+
increase
Global
Temperature
How does Aviation relate to Climate Change?
Aviation’s Contribution
to Global Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (GHG)
Aviation’s Contribution
to Global CO2 Emissions
Now
Future (2050)
3%
5-6%
2%
3-4%
Why is aviation’s share of emissions growing?
Air Travel Demand  2% Annual Air Traffic Growth CO2 Emissions
4
Source: [2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/av-en.pdf
 Increase
 Leads to
Global Responses
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
• Sets standards and regulations for 191 state members
– The goal: Carbon neutral growth from aviation by 2020
Aviation’s net carbon footprint in any given year below the
baseline of the selected year (2005)
Kyoto Protocol
• Environmental treaty by the United Nations addressing the issue
of climate change caused by GHG emissions through Emissions
Trading
5
Source: [3] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
Who is responsible?
• Industry operated by multiple enterprises:
Air Navigation Service Providers
Airlines
Airports
• The industry needs to address its share unselfishly to
minimize the impacts on climate change
• Corporate Responsibility: Corporations setting and
implementing core values with positive impacts on
communities and the society
6
Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)
• Organization that separates aircraft on the ground
or in-flight depending on their assigned airspace
• Government owned (e.g. in US, FAA) or privatized
(e.g. in UK, NATS)
• Emphasis on safety, capacity, customer-focused
service and environmental responsibility
• Oversees Air Traffic Control
• Controls the flight transit time (influences aircraft
fuel burn and emissions)
Flight Transit Time  Fuel Burn CO2 Emissions
7
Sources: [4] SKYBRARY
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Air_Navigation_Service_Provider
[5] Air Transport Action Group
http://www.enviro.aero/AirNavigationServiceProviders.aspx
 Increase
 Leads to
National Air Traffic Services
(NATS)
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
• ANSP for UK
• Private
• Motivated to improve its
performance (Needs to renew its
contract every couple of years)
• Developed a corporate
responsibility metric called 3Dimensional Efficiency metric
(3Di)
• Achieved 1% reduction in CO2
emissions per flight since 2009
• ANSP for US
• Government
• Lack of motivation to improve
performance (government
monopoly = no incentive)
• Committed to develop
performance measures with the
industry, but still in early stages
with no action plan or timeline
• No measurable steps in
reduction of emissions from enroute flights
8
Sources: [6] U.S. Government Accountability Office http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-629
[7] NATS Corporate Responsibility Report 2012
http://www.nats.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/NATSCorporateResponsibilityReport2012.pdf
3-Dimensional Metric (3Di)
• Estimates the amount of CO2 emissions produced in the actual
routes flown by the aircraft and compares it to the amount
produced if the route flown is Great Circle Distance
 Great Circle Distance is the shortest path between two points (most
direct route)
• Measure performance of en-route operations and set targets
for improvement (Environmental goals)
9
Source:[8] NATS Fuel Efficiency Metric.
http://www.nats.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/fuelEfficiencyMetric.pdf
Great Circle
Actual Route
How can the FAA increase its Performance?
• Airlines file their own flight plans, but do not have many options
• The solution is user-preferred and wind optimal routes
• What’s the problem?
 Current structure of the US airspace
 Current Policies
 Workload of Air Traffic Controllers
• Air Traffic Controllers: resolve conflicts that occur between aircraft in a
given area (sector) to maintain safety
• Conflicts are violation of separation standards
10
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Primary
Stakeholder
Air Navigation Service Provider
Air Traffic
Controllers
Provide safe separation of traffic in the National Airspace System (NAS)
Air Traffic Flow
Managers
Safety of aircraft , ensure available capacity is used efficiently and approve flight plans
Stakeholder
Main Objectives
Tensions
Airlines
Increasing revenue, reducing cost especially on
fuel and safety of their aircrafts to maintain
reputation
Airlines want to fly on the most direct routes to save
on fuel and increase revenue
BUT
The ANSP cannot give preferential treatment to one
airline over another
Government
Regulators
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Safety, Efficiency/Performance
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Protect human health and the environment
• Department of Energy (DOE)
Address energy and environmental issues
Government Regulators want to increase performance
while maintaining safety
BUT
The ANSP does not have the incentive to do so
Citizens &
Climate Change
Advocates
12
•
Safety and Environment (reduce the effects that
cause climate change and global warming)
Citizens and CEC advocates want to see climate
changes being addressed
BUT
ANSP has no incentive to do so
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
13
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Problem Statement
• Increase in emissions accompanying growth in demand for air travel
will prevent achievement of goals for emissions reduction
• FAA (ANSP) has the opportunity to improve its en-route operations
with regard to environmental decisions
• FAA (ANSP) has no system in place to monitor emissions produced in
its airspace, measure performance in delivering en-route traffic
operations, and evaluate alternatives to reduce emissions(GAO, 2009)
14
Source: [2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/av-en.pdf
[7] U.S. Government Accountability Office http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-629
The Gap (USA)
Projected Growth of Aviation vs. Carbon Neutral Growth
Emissions (%)
Projected Emissions Growth vs. Year
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
No Action (2050)
Gap
100 %
Current Gap
(2013)
Year
Projected Growth
15
Carbon Neutral Growth
Source: [9] Air Transport Action Group
http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=838
Carbon
Neutral
Growth
(2050)
Need Statement
• Need to provide the FAA with a Decision Support Tool to
estimate emissions produced, track their performance and make
changes that will give the airlines more options when filing flight
plans
• Need for analysis of alternatives to improve the ANSP’s
performance in regard to environmental decisions from en-route
flights.
16
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
17
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Scope
• ANSP’s operations within the
climb, cruise and descent
cycle (CCD) in the US
• Domestic commercial, air
taxi, and business flights
cruising at an altitude of 18k
ft. and above (class A
airspace)
• Single day of traffic (January
17th, 2011) provided by the
project sponsor
18
Climb, Cruise and Descent Cycle (CCD)
Any activities that occurs above 3000 ft. which comprises:
• Climb: Operation of increasing altitude for aircraft (most fuel
burn occurs)
• Cruise: Level portion of aircraft travel (most efficient phase of
flight)
• Descent: Aircraft decreasing altitude before landing
19
System Requirements
• The system shall account for aviation related emissions within the
Climb/Cruise/Descent cycle (CCD)
• The system shall incorporate the amount of CO2 emissions from
aircraft in the CCD cycle given the Enhanced Traffic Management
System (ETMS) data
• The system shall provide a basis for comparing alternative flight plans
with respect to CO2 emissions
• The system shall provide a basis for setting performance targets
20
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
21
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Baseline Emissions vs. Distance Flown
Average Emissions (MT)
Short
Medium
Semi-Long
Transcontinental
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Distance Flown (Nm)
Average Emissions per Flight / 1000
22
Average Emissions per Nautical Mile Flown
Flight Division (Distances)
23
Less than
500 nm
500-999 nm
1000-1500 nm
Greater than
1500 nm
Short Distance
Flights
Medium
Distance Flights
Semi-Long
Distance Flights
Transcontinental
Flights
Transit Time, Fuel, and Emissions per Distance
Category (Baseline)
16000
14000
12000
Total
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Short
Medium
Long
Transcontinental
Distance Categories (Nm)
Frequency (# of Flights)
24
Emissions Produced (MT) / 10
Time (Hrs)
Alternative Routes
The Aim is to reduce the flight transit time, fuel consumed, and
emissions produced to increase the ANSP’s performance
I. Status Quo ( Airway Routes for all flights)
II. Near Wind Optimal Routes (NWORs) for:
A1: Transcontinental Flights
A2: Semi-Long Distance Flights
A3: Medium Distance Flights
A4: Small Distance Flights
Combinations of Alternatives
Where NWORs are Great Circle Distance Routes with wind effects
25
Alternative Configuration
Run
Configuration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Baseline
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1 &2
A1 &3
A1 &4
A2 &3
A2 &4
A3 &4
A2 &3
A 1, 2 & 4
A 1, 3 & 4
A 2, 3 & 4
A 1, 2, 3 & 4
Alternatives
A1
A2
A3
A4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Near Wind Optimal Routes for:
A1 = Transcontinental, A2 = Semi-Long, A3 = Medium, A4 = Short Flights
26
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
27
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Simulation
Decision Support Tool
Method of Analysis
Model Equations
Design of Experiment
Aircraft Emissions Decision Support Tool (AEDST) :
• Designed as a deterministic model using C++, to calculate the distance flown, total
transit time, fuel consumed, and CO2 emissions produced from en-route flights
Purpose
• Estimate the amount of CO2 emissions produced from en-route flights
• Assist the FAA in tracking their performance, and use that information to provide
the airlines with more options (shorter, more optimal routes) when filing flight
plans
Users
• Primary Users:
 Air Traffic Flow Managers
 FAA Policy Office
• Secondary Users:
 Airline Dispatchers
28
Simulation
Decision Support Tool
Method of Analysis
Model Equations
Design of Experiment
Model Assumptions
• Nominal fuel consumption for aircraft at all phases of flight (Dependent on
BADA Files Performance Files)
Study Assumptions
• The Great Circle Distance Routes have the same wind conditions as the
Airway Routes (Unavailability of Wind Data)
29
Simulation
Decision Support Tool
30
Method of Analysis
Model Equations
Design of Experiment
Simulation
Decision Support Tool
Method of Analysis
Distance Flown
Model Equations
a = sin²(Δφ/2) + cos(φ1).cos(φ2).sin²(Δλ/2)
c = 2.arctan2(√a, √(1−a))
D = R. Σc
Transit Time
t = Σ time records (i to n)
Design of Experiment
φ = Latitude
λ = Longitude
R = Radius of Earth (Nm)
D= Distance Flown (Nm)
t= Total Transit Flight Time
i to n= number of records
Fuel Consumption
f = Fuel Consumption (Metric Tons)
TSFC = Fuel Burn per Unit Time (Metric Tons/min)
t = Time of Flight (min)
Emissions Produced
E = CO2 Emissions Produced (Metric Tons)
Emissions Index (EI) = 3.16 (Jet Fuel Type A)
f = Fuel Consumption (Metric Tons)
f =TSFC × t
E = EI × f
31
Source: [10] Aviation Environment Emissions & Noise
http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST460/AviationEnvironment_LectureNotes.pdf
[11] Nojoumi, H. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of Hydrogen and Kerosene-fueled Aircraft
Propulsion." Sciencedirect. http://144.206.159.178/ft/492/606114/12578882.pdf
Simulation
Decision Support Tool
X
X
Method of Analysis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Model Equations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Origin
X
X
Design of Experiment
X
X
X
X
Destination
Airway Route
GCD Route
Wind Pattern
Equations for Wind Implementation to GCD Routes
V'=V+W
V ' = True Airspeed (Knots)
V = Ground Speed (Knots)
W = Wind Speed (Knots)
32
t' = S / V ‘
t' = NWOR Transit Time (Minutes)
S = Distance Flown (Nm)
V ' = True Airspeed (Knots)
Simulation
33
Simulation
Decision Support Tool
Method of Analysis
Model Equations
Design of Experiment
Output
Alternative
Baseline
NWORs for Short, Medium and Semi
Long Flights
NWORs for Medium Flights
……..
34
Flight Category Emissions from Flights in each
Distance Category
(Metric Tons)
Transcontinental
Semi-Long
Medium
Short
Transcontinental
Semi-Long
Medium
Short
Transcontinental
Semi-Long
Medium
Short
70121
56333
90702
40016
70121
44992
65829
26703
70121
56333
65829
40016
……..
……..
……..
……..
……..
……..
Total Emissions
(Metric Tons)
ATC Workload
(Number of
Conflicts between
Flights)
257172
32432
207645
31626
232300
30751
……..
……..
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
35
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Verification and Validation of Results
FACET Fuel
Burn Output:
AEDST Output:
36
FID
Distance Flown (Nm)
Fuel Consumed (MT)
A20110117607205
2250
49000 lbs = 22.2 MT
A20110117629142
2350
28000 lbs =12.7 MT
FID
Distance Flown (Nm)
Fuel Consumed (MT)
20110117607205
2221
22.4
20110117629142
2327
12.4
% Reduction
25
Reduction in Time, Fuel and Emissions vs.
Alternative Configuration
Maximum reduction = 20 %
20
15
10
14 14 14
Minimum reduction = 1 %
7
5
0
18
17
4
0 0 0
4 4
10 10 10 11
8
5 5
4
6 5
11
10 9
10 10
15 15 15
15 15
21
22
19 19
16 16
11 11 11
6 6
1 1 1
% Reduction in Transit Time
% Reduction in Fuel Consumed
Alternative Configurations
% Reduction in Emissions Produced
Near Wind Optimal Routes for:
A1 = Transcontinental Flights, A2 = Semi-Long Flights, A3 = Medium Flights, A4 = Short Flights
37
20 20
Fuel Cost Savings ($ Millions)
Fuel Cost Savings vs. Alternative
Configuration
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Maximum Savings = $ 16.7M
Minimum Savings = $ 0.9M
Fuel Type A Prices:
1 gallon = $ 31.64
1 Metric ton = $ 1006
Alternative Configuration
Total Airline Fuel Savings ($)
Near Wind Optimal Routes for:
A1 = Transcontinental Flights, A2 = Semi-Long Flights, A3 = Medium Flights, A4 = Short Flights
38
Source: [12] International Air Transport Association IATA.
http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/price-analysis.aspx
Utility Analysis
ANSP Performance
Emissions Produced
(0.55)
• Total Emissions produced
from en-route flights
• Lower = Better
39
ATC Workload
(0.45)
• Number of conflicts that air traffic
controllers have to resolve between
flights
• Lower = Better
Utility Analysis
Rank
Alternative
Configuration
Emissions Produced
(0.55)
ATC Workload
(0.45)
Utility
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A2, 3 & 4
A1, 2, 3 & 4
A1, 2 & 3
A2 & 3
A1, 3 & 4
A1 & 3
A3 & 4
A3
A1, 2 & 4
A2 & 4
A1 & 2
A2
A1 & 4
Baseline
A4
A1
207645
204709
218023
220959
216050
229364
218986
232300
230430
232518
242895
245831
240922
257172
243859
254236
31626
32052
30687
30469
31212
29998
31607
30751
31271
31892
31455
32293
33637
32432
35271
34139
0.83
0.82
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.74
0.71
0.65
0.62
0.55
0.48
0.37
0.31
0.24
0.14
0.13
Near Wind Optimal Routes for:
A1 = Transcontinental Flights, A2 = Semi-Long Flights, A3 = Medium Flights, A4 = Short Flights
40
Sensitivity Analysis
ATC Workload is
weighted higher
than Emissions
Produced
Emissions Produced is weighted
higher than ATC Workload
Near Wind Optimal Routes for:
A1 = Transcontinental Flights, A2 = Semi-Long Flights, A3 = Medium Flights, A4 = Short Flights
41
Utility vs. Fuel Cost Savings
0.90
0.80
A1, & 3
0.70
A3
0.60
Utility
A2, & 3
A2,3, & 4
A1,2, &3
A1,3, &4
A 1,2,3, & 4
A3, & 4
A1, 2, & 4
0.50
A2, & 4
A1, &2
0.40
A2
0.30
A1, & 4
BaseLIne
0.20
0.10
A4
A1
0.00
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
Fuel Cost Savings ($) in Millions
Utility of Alternative
42
$14
$16
$18
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
43
Context & Motivation
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope & System Requirements
Alternative Routes
Simulation
Results & Analysis
Recommendations
Recommendations
• The designed AEDST to be implemented by the ANSP, which
shows the willingness of the FAA ANSP to act responsibly in a
world becoming more aware of aviation’s contribution to
climate change and global warming
• Make necessary policy and airspace structural changes to
support the use of user-preferred and wind optimal flights
• Use NWORs for flights flying a distance less than 1500 nautical
miles (Short, medium and semi-long distance flights)
 Increase the ANSP’s performance in regard to CO2 emissions by 19%
 Provide fuel cost savings of $ 16M
 Reduce the ATC workload by 2.5%
44
Questions?
45
References
[1] Department of Ecology. State of Washington. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/whatis.html
[2] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/av-en.pdf
[3] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
[4] SKYBRARY. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Air_Navigation_Service_Provider
[5] Air Transport Action Group. http://www.enviro.aero/AirNavigationServiceProviders.aspx
[6] U.S. Government Accountability Office http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-629
[7] NATS Corporate Responsibility Report
2012.http://www.nats.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/NATSCorporateResponsibilityReport2012.pdf
[8] NATS Fuel Efficiency Metric. http://www.nats.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/fuelEfficiencyMetric.pdf
[9] Air Transport Action Group. http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=838
[10] Aviation Environment Emissions & Noise. http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST460/AviationEnvironment_LectureNotes.pdf
[11] Nojoumi, H. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of Hydrogen and Kerosene-fueled Aircraft Propulsion."
Sciencedirect. http://144.206.159.178/ft/492/606114/12578882.pdf
[12] International Air Transport Association IATA. http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/priceanalysis.aspx
46
Management
WBS
Schedule
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Corporate
Responsibility
Metric for ANSP
PLAN
DESIGN/ANALYSIS
1.0
2.0
Conduct Research
1.1
Context
1.2
Define Problem
1.3
Scope
1.4
Develop & Define
Requirements
1.5
CONOPS
1.6
47
IMPLEMENT
3.0
DELIVERABLES
4.0
MANAGEMENT
5.0
Develop Solutions
2.1
Analyze Tool
3.1
Project Plan
4.1
Develop a Gantt
Chart
5.1
Develop
Tool/Model
2.2
Apply Tool
3.2
Poster
4.2
Weekly Summaries
5.2
Formulate
Goals/Limitations
3.3
IEEE Conference
Paper
4.3
360 Evaluation
5.3
Develop Strategies
3.4
Presentations
4.4
Conferences &
Competitions
4.5
Future Work
Management
WBS
48
Schedule
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Future Work
Management
WBS
Schedule
Conduct Research
Context
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Future Work
Extensive Research
Define Current System
Parameters
Define Current System in Use
Design Analysis
Develop Tool
Develop Alternative Solution
Evaluate Tool
Improve Tool
49
Management
WBS
Schedule
Critical Path
Budget
Budget at Completion (BAC)
$528,940.52
Earned Value (EV)
$457,235.85
Actual Cost (AC)
$466,330.52
Projected Value (PV)
$466,757.51
Cost Variance (CV)
$11,918.31
Schedule Variance (SV)
$44,545.30
Cost Performance Index (CPI)
0.97
Schedule Performance Index (SPI)
0.9
50
Risk
Management
Future Work
Management
WBS
Schedule
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Future Work
Earned Value Over Time Report
Data Earned Value
Data Planned Value
Data AC
600000
500000
Cost
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
WeekWeek
35 Week
37 Q3
39 Total
WeekWeek
42 Week
44 Week
46 Week
48 Week
50 Q4
52 Total
WeekWeek
1
Week
3
Week
5
Week
7 Week
9 Week
11 Q1
13 Total
Week 16
Q3
Q1
2013 Total
2012
2013
51
Management
WBS
Schedule
3
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Future Work
CPI/SPI
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
Index Value
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
CPI
0.6
SPI
0.4
0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Weeks
52
Management
WBS
53
Schedule
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Future Work
Risks
Contingency Plans
Missing a Deadline
Plan ahead of Schedule
Failure to complete simulation on time
Start early on simulation for improvement
"Work during the break"
Failure to verify and validate the results
Sample Hand calculation to compare the
results
Tool doesn’t not satisfy the requirement
Test each requirement while coding and
simulating the tool, and assure each
parameter is satisfied
Management
WBS
Schedule
Critical Path
Budget
Risk
Management
Future Work
• Include 365 days of traffic to measure the real performance of the
FAA ANSP with proper wind data
• Include the airspace sector loading in the air traffic control
workload
54
Stakeholder Interactions
55
Reinforcement Loop
Carbon Neutral Demand Stock Model
(Demand Stock)
(Capacity Stock)
Emissions
LBS C02 per
Flight/Miles
Number of
Flight Miles
Number of
Flights
Ability/Capacity to
Absorb Emissions
Any Stage
Length
Data
Education
Incentive to
Innovate
-
-
56
Remaining Capacity to
Absorb Emissions
Aircraft Type
Increase Cost
Policies
+
Willingness
to Act
Awareness
57
Model & Simulation
Aircraft
Emissions Tool
Method of
Analysis
Model Equations
Model Interface
Design of
Experiment
P1
P2
P3
Haversine Distance Flown:
a = sin²(Δφ/2) + cos(φ1).cos(φ2).sin²(Δλ/2)
c = 2.arctan2(√a, √(1−a))
D = R. Σc = 57.73935 Nm
58
Model & Simulation
Aircraft
Emissions Tool
59
Method of
Analysis
Fuel Consumed
Σf =TSFC × t = 0.5906 Metric Tons
Model Equations
Model Interface
Emissions Produced
ΣE = EI × f = 1.866296 Metric Tons
Design of
Experiment
60
Utility vs. ATC Workload
Utility
Utility vs. ATC Workload
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
29000
A2&3
A1,2,& 3
A 2,3& 4
A1,3,& 4
A1&3
A3
A1,2,3,&4
A3&4
A 1, 2 & 4
A1&2
A2&4
A2
Baseline
30000
A1
A4
31000
32000
33000
34000
Number of Conflicts Between Flights
35000
Utility of Alternative
61
A1&4
36000