2019
DOI: 10.2514/1.g003964
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integrated Surface–Airspace Model of Airport Departures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These figures show a good match between the predictions and observed values. A similar match is also observed for CLT[20]. Average taxi-out time (July 10, 2017) (c) Taxi-out time distribution (14,100 flights) Comparison between model predictions and data for CDG.…”
supporting
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These figures show a good match between the predictions and observed values. A similar match is also observed for CLT[20]. Average taxi-out time (July 10, 2017) (c) Taxi-out time distribution (14,100 flights) Comparison between model predictions and data for CDG.…”
supporting
confidence: 71%
“…The queue length can be predicted by integrating the dynamics forward in time with appropriate server parameters and pushback rate. The wait times of aircraft entering the queue are determined using the predictions of queue length and time-varying mean service rates [20]. The taxi-out time is then determined as the sum of the unimpeded gate-to-runway time plus the waiting time in the queue.…”
Section: Queuing Network Model Of Cdgmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The taxi-in process in CLT-NF is represented as follows: flights landing on the leftmost runway (36L) pass through a runway crossing queue and a taxi-in ramp queue, whereas flights landing on one of the other runways just pass through the taxi-in ramp queue. The service rate of the taxi-out ramp server is modeled as a function of the taxi-in ramp queue length, and vice versa (Badrinath, Li, and Balakrishnan 2018). The three queuing network models (EWR-SF, DFW-SF and CLT-NF) correspond to a progression of complexity, going from a single runway queue to two runway queues, and finally multiple runway and ramp queues.…”
Section: Queuing Network Models Of Ewr Dfw and Cltmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the US, airlines are now encouraged to publish EOBT information for their flights, and they are expected to dynamically update each of them until the flight pushes back from the gate (FAA Surface CDM Team 2012). The dynamic updates are intended to make the EOBT more complex queuing network models may be needed for airports that have several points of congestion or multiple departure runways (Badrinath, Li, and Balakrishnan 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%