To ensure that air traffic demand does not exceed airport and airspace capacities, traffic management restrictions, such as delaying aircraft on the ground, assigning them different routes and metering them in the airspace, are implemented. To reduce the delays resulting from these restrictions, revising the partitioning of airspace has been proposed to distribute capacity to yield a more efficient airspace configuration. The capacity of an airspace partition, commonly referred to as a sector, is limited by the number of flights that an air traffic controller can safely manage within the sector. Where viable, re-partitioning of the airspace distributes the flights over more efficient sectors and reduces individual sector demand. This increases the overall airspace efficiency, but requires additional resources in some sectors in terms of controllers and equipment, which is undesirable. This study examines the tradeoff of the number of sectors designed for a specified amount of traffic in a clear-weather day and the delays needed for accommodating the traffic demand. Results show that most of the delays are caused by airport arrival and departure capacity constraints. Some delays caused by airspace capacity constraints can be eliminated by re-partitioning the airspace. Analyses show that about 360 high-altitude sectors, which are approximately today's operational number of sectors of 373, are adequate for delays to be driven solely by airport capacity constraints for the current daily air traffic demand. For a marginal increase of 15 seconds of average delay, the number of sectors can be reduced to 283. In addition, simulations of traffic growths of 15% and 20% with forecasted airport capacities in the years 2018 and 2025 show that delays will continue to be governed by airport capacities. In clear-weather days, for small increases in traffic demand, increasing sector capacities will have almost no effect on delays.
A study analyzing the economic cost and benefit impacts of different flight routing methods in the National Airspace System is presented. It compares wind-optimal routes and filed flight routes for 365 days of traffic, from 2005 to 2007, in class A airspace. Routing differences are measured by flight time, fuel burn, sector loading, conflict counts, and airport arrival rates. From the results, wind-optimal routes exhibit an average per-flight time saving of 2.7 min and an average fuel saving of 210 lb, compared to filed flight routes. In addition, the airport arrival rates at the top 73 U.S. domestic airports do not show notable differences between wind-optimal routing and filed flight routing. The study shows an average of 29% fewer conflicts. Finally, wind-optimal routes have, at most, one high-altitude sector with increased sector workload than filed flight routes at any time instance.
A study analyzing the economic and safety impacts of different flight routing methods in the National Airspace System is presented. It compares filed flight routes, wind-optimal routes, and great-circle routes. Routing differences are measured by flight time, fuel burn, sector count, and number of conflicts. Wind-optimal routes exhibit on average approximately one percent less flight time and fuel burn than filed flight routes. In addition, they produce an average of 13 less conflicts in Class A airspace (18,000 feet and above). All three routing methods are qualitatively equivalent in terms of sector count distribution. These results agree with earlier studies, which investigated some combinations of these types of routes and metrics. The contribution of this paper is that it consistently compares the three routing methods across the United States using the four metrics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.