Enhanced AEDT Modeling of Aircraft Arrival and Departure Profiles, Volume 1: Guidance (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 14-40
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 14... ...
Page 14 Modeling Method Selection Process Figure 4 presents a flow chart that illustrates the analysis and decision-making process that can be used to select which of the profile modeling methods currently available in AEDT, and those that were developed during this ACRP project, should be used for a given modeling situation. This serves as a general guideline only.
|
From page 15... ...
Page 15 1) Segregate profile altitude (and speed, if available)
|
From page 16... ...
Page 16 Developing a Strategy Due to the resources and large amounts of information (radar data, procedure definitions, etc.) necessary to conduct profile analysis, it is useful to first develop an analysis strategy.
|
From page 17... ...
Page 17 elements important to the study at hand such as airport operations during different weather conditions and different seasons. This section will outline an example by generating a single target arrival and a single target departure trajectory using historical radar data obtained for Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (KCLE)
|
From page 18... ...
Page 18 Figure 6. Grouped Radar Data Based on Common Characteristics It can be observed from Figure 6 that when radar data is grouped based on common characteristics, it can be further divided into sub-groups based on various combinations of lateral and altitude profile groups.
|
From page 19... ...
Page 19 Figure 8. Sub-Group of Radar Data Based on Altitude Profile Similarities Figure 8 displays similar altitude profiles, especially the level off at an altitude of 10,000 feet.
|
From page 20... ...
Page 20 Figure 10. Representative Trajectory of Sub-Group of Radar Data (Altitude Profile View)
|
From page 21... ...
Page 21 Figure 11. BOSSS TWO Arrival Procedure Plate There are many options to creating the altitude profile of the target trajectory, which are demonstrated in Section 4.5.
|
From page 22... ...
Page 22 It is important to note that real-world flights can deviate from these waypoints and altitude constraints based on Air Traffic Control (ATC) instructions.
|
From page 23... ...
Page 23 Option #1 – Existing AEDT Standard Procedures AEDT comes pre-packaged with various approach and departure altitude profiles, of which a subset are the default profiles to be used when modeling an associated combination of operation type, aircraft type, and stage length. Option #1 is to simply select the existing standard procedure that best matches the target trajectory.
|
From page 24... ...
Page 24 Figure 13. Option #1 - Approach Note that in Figure 13 the altitude profile diverges at 3,000 feet AFE between the target trajectory and the default AEDT approach profile.
|
From page 25... ...
Page 25 Figure 14. Option #1 - Departure Note that in Figure 14 the altitude profile diverges around 2,000 feet AFE between the target trajectory and the standard AEDT departure procedure's altitude profile.
|
From page 26... ...
Page 26 Usage To utilize Option #2 to model a given target trajectory, a user can review the newly developed altitude profiles for the given track, select the most appropriate altitude profile, and associate the air operation(s) to the selected profile.
|
From page 27... ...
Page 27 The lines in Figure 16 display the departure example input track altitude profile compared to other available altitude profiles. Figure 16.
|
From page 28... ...
Page 28 SS08 1158.6 SS09 1632.5 SS10 416.9 SS11 537.2 SS12 357.2 Similarly, Table 6 presents the trajectory scores when applied to the departure example. The altitude profiles with the lowest scores (FF43, SS41, and SS44)
|
From page 29... ...
Page 29 To modify an existing standard procedure to better match our example target departure trajectory, a user would identify the best matching standard procedure, and in the case of the 737-700 decide how they would like to alter the second acceleration segment in the standard procedure to better match the target. They would specify the desired initial altitude for that acceleration step, the desired acceleration segment length, and the desired rate of climb.
|
From page 30... ...
Page 30 Figure 18. Option #3 - Departure Option #4 – Altitude Controls Option #4 utilizes the altitude control functionality in AEDT.
|
From page 31... ...
Page 31 the track and are associated with an altitude. Null controls function as if no controls are present for the track segment to which they are attached.
|
From page 32... ...
Page 32 It can be observed that the target and output altitude profiles are very similar when using Option #4 in this case. Also, note that the input and output track have very similar track distances.
|
From page 33... ...
Page 33 When there is a need to generate many customized procedures these factors may make this option impractical for even the most expert users. Usage To generate a new, fully customized flight procedure a user could choose from several starting points and follow different methods.
|
From page 34... ...
Page 34 Figure 22. Option #5 - Departure Note in Figure 22 how similar the input and output altitude profiles are for this example.
|
From page 35... ...
Page 35 Figure 23. Fuel Burn Comparison - Approach Similarly, Figure 24 shows the fuel burn results for the example departure input track for each of the five modeling options.
|
From page 36... ...
Page 36 Figure 24. Fuel Burn Comparison - Departure A user would not typically make this comparison during the modeling process because it would require performing all five options.
|
From page 37... ...
Page 37 PMNV 0.02 0 0.21 0.02 0 0 PMSO 0.01 0 0.07 0.01 0 0 PMFO 0.08 0 0.83 0.08 0 0 CO2 1293.78 3149.71 4495.22 5538.62 3081.43 4134.66 H20 507.26 1234.93 1762.47 2171.56 1208.16 1621.1 SOx 0.53 1.29 1.84 2.27 1.26 1.69 PM 2.5 0.11 0 1.11 0.1 0 0 Notes: CO – Carbon Monoxide HC – Hydrocarbon TOG – Total Organic Gas VOC – Volatile Organic Compound NMHC – Non-Methane Hydrocarbon NOx – Nitrogen Oxide Table 8. Approach Emissions Percentage Difference to Standard Profile Option % difference to Standard #2 (SS07)
|
From page 38... ...
Page 38 CO2 2930.87 4082.14 3247.05 4234.12 2897.72 3805.3 3152.78 H20 1149.12 1600.51 1273.09 1660.1 1136.13 1491.97 1236.13 SOx 1.2 1.67 1.33 1.73 1.19 1.56 1.29 PM 2.5 0.57 0.87 0.46 0.86 0.51 0.76 0.58 Notes: CO – Carbon Monoxide HC – Hydrocarbon TOG – Total Organic Gas VOC – Volatile Organic Compound NMHC – Non-Methane Hydrocarbon NOx – Nitrogen Oxide Table 10. Departure Emissions Percentage Difference to Standard Profile Option # % difference to Standard #2 (FF43)
|
From page 39... ...
Page 39 Figure 25. Noise Comparison - Approach Figure 26 presents the SEL noise results for the example departure target trajectory for receptors placed every two nautical miles along the ground track for each of the altitude profile modeling options (note that the vertical axis scale starts at 45 dB)
|
From page 40... ...
Page 40 Figure 26. Noise Comparison - Departure It is up to the AEDT user and the specifies of their study purpose, sensitivity, available input data, and potential impact on their results to determine which of the 5 modeling options is the best choice for a particular flight operation or set of operations from a noise perspective.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.