Maximizing airborne delay at no extra fuel cost by means of linear holding

Abstract

This paper introduces a linear holding strategy based on prior works on cruise speed reduction, aimed at performing airborne delay at no extra fuel cost, as a complementary strategy to current ground and airborne holding strategies. Firstly, the equivalent speed concept is extended to climb and descent phases through an analysis of fuel consumption and speed from aircraft performance data. This gives an insight of the feasibility to implement the concept, differentiating the case where the cruise flight level initially requested is kept and the case where it can be changed before departure in order to maximize the linear holding time. Illustrative examples are given, where typical flights are simulated using an optimal trajectory generation tool where linear holding is maximized while keeping constant the initially planned fuel. Finally, the effects of linear holding are thoroughly assessed in terms of the vertical trajectory profiles, range of feasible speed intervals and trade-offs between fuel and time. Results show that the airborne delay increases significantly with nearly 3-fold time for short-haul flights and 2-fold for mid-hauls to the cases in prior works.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Linear Holding for Airspace Flow Programs: A Case Study on Delay Absorption and Recovery

“…8 that with regards to delay absorption, the differences between various extra fuel are quite small when the allowances lower or equal than 10%. However, this does not imply that the LH time has no relation with the amount of extra fuel included (see the maximum LH that can be realized at certain fuel consumptions in [10]).…”

“…More recently, an novel approach using advanced aircraft trajectory optimization techniques was adopted to extend this linear holding strategy to the whole flight (i.e. also accounting for climbs and descents) [10], [11].…”

Generalized Method of Modeling Minute‐in‐Trail Strategy for Air Traffic Flow Management

“…for j ⟵ 1 to SC do (10) MIN_COST � INF; (11) m max � min(j, total_cap); (12) for m ⟵ 0 to m max do (13) if (j − m) > T imb • K i n then (14) Continue; (15) end if (16) if (19) end if (20) end for (21) V j i � MIN_COST; (22) end for (23) end for (24) //backtrack output results (25)…”

“…(3) //set the first T imb − 1 of array to 1, which corresponds to a solution; (4) for i ⟵ 0 to T imb − 1 do (5) index[i] � 1; (6) end for (7) Store the solution according to the values of array index[ ]; (8) while has Done (index, N, T imb ) do (9) for i ⟵ 0 to N + 1 do (10) //find the first 1-0 combination and change it to 0-1 combination; (11) if index[i] � � 1 and index[i] � � 0 then (12) index[i] � 0; (13) index[i] � 1; (14) Store the solution from index[ ]; (15) //move 1 of the left of 0-1 combination to the left of array; (16) int count � 0; (17) for j ⟵ 0 to i do (18) if index[j] � � 1 then (19) index[j] � 0; (20) index[count++] � 1; (21) end if (22) end for (23) end if (24) break; (25) end for (26) end while ALGORITHM 2: 0-1 combination algorithm for COR i . where Cost g and L g are the delay cost and air traffic control load if corridor COR g uses the strategy that node u represents.…”

“…e second way is to regulate the traffic flow by using the traffic management initiatives (TMIs) [8], such that the limited capacity can be used efficiently and the impact of unavoidable delays would be reduced [9]. And, the TMIs can be classified into two categories: (1) strategic actions, which are the strategies that taken before the aircraft has been taken off, including ground delay program [10], ground stop [11], airspace flow program [12], minute-in-trail or miles-in-trail [13], and Collaborative Trajectory Options Program [14] and (2) tactical actions, which are the strategies that taken after the aircraft is airborne, consisting of rerouting [15], speed adjustment, airborne holding [16], and fix balancing.…”