Enhanced AEDT Modeling of Aircraft Arrival and Departure Profiles, Volume 2: Research Report (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 11-65
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 11... ...
11 3 Research Results Results from each task conducted during this research effort are included in the following sections. Industry Review Findings An Industry Review was conducted to assess current practice regarding how aircraft arrival and departure profiles are modeled in the Integrated Noise Model (INM)
|
From page 12... ...
12 Integrated Routing System (NIRS) model; with AEDT, it is now available for use in airport noise studies as well.
|
From page 13... ...
13 Traffic Controllers are also interviewed to determine the "standard" flight procedures in use at an airport (headings, turns, holds, etc.)
|
From page 14... ...
14 In addition to the checklist, information on the procedure for submittal of this information is detailed in the 2009 memo AEE and Airports Coordination Policy for Non-Standard Modeling Procedures and Methodology. This memo details the procedures for the submittal of a Profile Review Checklist.
|
From page 15... ...
15 Meetings with FAA and SAE International In late 2014 and early 2015, the research team conducted meetings with the following groups: FAA Office of Environment and Energy, Noise Division (AEE-100) FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Planning and Environmental Division (APP-400)
|
From page 16... ...
16 Hoyle Tanner Landrum & Brown URS/AECOM VHB Wyle Laboratories A survey was developed by the research team to guide the discussions held in the interviews. There were 14 questions in the survey, each designed to engage the interviewee in a discussion about their experience customizing profiles for various types of noise modeling projects.
|
From page 17... ...
17 5. What was the main reason/motivation for customization (e.g., sponsor, public, legal, technical, etc.)
|
From page 18... ...
18 Question Count of Responses+ 7. Of the custom profiles that were built, what percent would you estimate were departures and what percent were arrivals and what percent were touch-and go?
|
From page 19... ...
19 Analysis of Practitioner Interviews There are a number of motivators for expending time and resources on custom profile modeling. Most often, the decision to customize profiles originates from a technical need (e.g., radar data show a clear difference between standard profiles and actual profiles)
|
From page 20... ...
20 Industry Review Conclusions The Industry Review documents the current approaches to INM and AEDT arrival and departure profile modeling. The research team interviewed practitioners experienced with airport noise modeling and also met with key industry stakeholders.
|
From page 21... ...
21 Process This effort consisted of four basic phases: acquisition and manipulation of trajectory data, profile grouping and creation, candidate profile evaluation, and prioritization of candidate profiles. We followed an iterative process that allowed the grouping and profile creation methodology to be revised as shortcomings became apparent during the process.
|
From page 22... ...
22 Data Selection The main data source used to identify common profiles that are not currently represented in AEDT was historical trajectory data, specifically radar data from the Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS)
|
From page 23... ...
23 The PDARS USAMERGE data set has no coverage for Honolulu International (HNL) ; therefore, the airport is not represented in this project.
|
From page 24... ...
24 are 3 system databases that get installed as a part of the standard AEDT 2a SP2 installation: (1) AIRPORT, containing a global set of airport data, (2)
|
From page 25... ...
25 Each aircraft type in AEDT has a different number of stage lengths available according to its range. In most cases, approach profiles are only defined for stage length 1 as it is assumed that most airplanes only carry enough fuel to get them to their destination, in addition to emergency reserves.
|
From page 26... ...
26 PDARS Trajectory Manipulation The first task was to filter the PDARS data based on two criteria. The first criterion was a check that both the origin and destination airports are known.
|
From page 27... ...
27 AEDT Aircraft Type Aircraft Description BEC58P Beechcraft 58P Baron C130 Lockheed C-130 Hercules CL601 Bombardier Challenger 601 CNA172 Cessna 172 Skyhawk CNA182 Cessna 182 Skylane CNA441 Cessna 441 Conquest II CNA500 Cessna 500 Citation I CNA510 Cessna 510 Citation Mustang CNA525C Cessna 525 Citation Jet CNA55B Cessna 550 Citation Bravo CNA680 Cessna 680 Sovereign CNA750 Cessna 750 Citation X DC1030 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 DC3 Douglas DC3 DC870 McDonnell Douglas DC-8-70 DC910 McDonnell Douglas Tanker 910 DC93LW McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 DHC6 de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter DHC8 De Havilland Canada Dash 8 - Q400 DHC830 De Havilland Canada Dash 8 - DHC-8-300 DO328 Dornier 328-100 ECLIPSE500 Eclipse 500 EMB120 Embraer EMB120 Brasilia EMB145 Embraer ERJ 145 FAL20 Dassault Falcon 20 GII Grumman Gulfstream II GIIB Grumman Gulfstream IIB GIV Grumman Gulfstream IV GV Grumman Gulfstream V IA1125 IAI Astra 1125 KC135 Boeing KC-135A Stratotanker KC135R Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker LEAR25 Bombardier Learjet 25 LEAR35 Bombardier Learjet 35 MD11GE McDonnell Douglas MD-11 MD9025 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 Once the PDARS operations with insufficient or non-matching data were removed, there were a total of 319,945 operations to be further processed. This remaining set of operations had their trajectory converted into a two-dimensional representation of the trajectory based on cumulative ground track distance and altitude.
|
From page 28... ...
28 trajectories close to the runway, any and all ground roll or taxi track points were identified and removed. TRACON radar data, including that from PDARS, is often erratic close to the ground for various reasons.
|
From page 29... ...
29 before translating the track so that the final track point is at the runway end. The figure shows that the slopes of the section of the original PDARS trajectory (yellow line)
|
From page 30... ...
30 considered to not have a level-off. If a radar trajectory's longest level segment is between 1 and 3 NM, the track was excluded from the analysis.
|
From page 31... ...
31 the candidate trajectory is above or below the baseline trajectory is not taken into consideration in the trajectory score. Frequency of Profile in PDARS Data The second factor that was used to evaluate candidate profiles was the frequency of which that particular profile appeared in the PDARS data.
|
From page 32... ...
32 It was during this step that it was realized that the LP aircraft class was composed of only one aircraft type (Douglas DC3, "DC3") with few counts.
|
From page 33... ...
33 Exhibit 3-4 Creating an Aircraft Class Averaged Track The third step was concerned with providing AEDT an aircraft type to model the aircraft class average track representing the candidate profile. This step was necessary because AEDT requires an aircraft type to be specified in order to model an operation.
|
From page 34... ...
34 After the representative aircraft type was chosen, a trajectory score for each aircraft class average track was generated by computing an average of the trajectory scores of the average tracks that comprised the aircraft class average track. Although the trajectory score is not actually computed between the aircraft class average track and the baseline profile, it still represents a metric to describe the similarity of the two profiles.
|
From page 35... ...
35 from 500 ft. increments to 1,000 ft.
|
From page 36... ...
36 Table 3-7 Iteration #2 – Ranges & Counts of Distance of Level-off Operation Type Aircraft Class Distance of LevelOff (NM) Count Arrival Heavy Jet 3 to 9 384 10 to 19 382 20 to 29 255 30 to 39 141 40 and up 86 Large Jet 3 to 9 567 10 to 19 592 20 to 29 457 30 to 39 303 40 to 49 187 50 to 59 107 60 to 69 64 70 and up 66 Large Turbo 3 to 9 120 10 to 19 162 20 to 29 159 30 to 39 126 40 to 49 108 50 to 59 87 60 to 69 61 70 and up 56 Small Jet 3 to 9 279 10 to 19 272 20 to 29 151 30 to 39 77 40 and up 65 Small Prop 0 to 20 18 21 to 40 19 41 to 60 19 61 to 80 11 81 and up 44 Small Turbo 3 to 9 67 10 to 19 78 20 to 29 66 30 to 39 47 40 to 49 33 50 to 59 29 60 to 69 17 70 and up 25 Departure Heavy Jet 3 to 9 345 10 to 19 145 20 and up 24 Large Jet 3t o 9 521 10 to 19 287 20 to 29 73 30 and up 53 Large Turbo 3 to 9 39 10 to 19 33 20 to 29 29 30 to 39 20
|
From page 37... ...
37 Operation Type Aircraft Class Distance of LevelOff (NM) Count 40 and up 41 Small Jet 3 to 9 74 10 to 19 40 20 and up 36 Small Prop 0 to 20 14 21 to 40 25 41 to 60 20 61 to 80 18 81 and up 37 Small Turbo 3 to 9 32 10 to 19 24 20 to 29 17 30 to 39 12 40 to 49 12 50 to 59 10 60 to 69 9 70 and up 12 This same analysis was done for the length of the primary level-off.
|
From page 38... ...
38 Operation Type Aircraft Class Distance From Airport To Level-off (NM) Count 66 and up 38 Small Jet 0 to 4 47 5 to 14 224 15 to 24 249 25 to 34 195 35 to 44 90 45 and up 39 Small Prop 0 to 4 9 5 to 14 36 15 to 30 25 30 to 50 30 51 and up 11 Small Turbo 0 to 4 23 5 to 14 78 15 to 24 84 25 to 34 77 35 to 44 58 45 and up 42 Departure Heavy Jet 0 to 8 80 9 to 18 307 19 to 28 114 29 and up 13 Large Jet 0 to 8 204 9 to 18 511 19 to 28 198 29 and up 21 Large Turbo 0 to 6 18 7 to 16 57 17 to 26 53 27 to 36 21 37 and up 13 Small Jet 0 to 7 33 8 to 14 75 15 to 24 37 25 and up 5 Small Prop 0 to 9 15 10 to 24 60 25 to 40 28 41 and up 11 Small Turbo 0 to 7 11 8 to 14 41 15 to 24 46 25 and up 30 After these changes were implemented, the number of trajectories removed from the dataset due to their longest level segment being between 1 and 3 NM slightly decreased from 20,530 to 20,439 for Iteration #2.
|
From page 39... ...
39 for Iteration #1 for creating an average track. Each average track was given a unique key based on the new set of parameters being used to define a candidate profile.
|
From page 40... ...
40 3.2.6.2.2 Shortcomings of Iteration #2 There were two shortcomings of the process used in Iteration #2: first, the level-off analysis extended past the altitude in which baseline approach profiles exist and second, using an average of trajectory scores to be the trajectory score of the aircraft class average track was a biased representation of that metric. When analyzing radar trajectories for level-offs, the analysis ended at 10,000 ft.
|
From page 41... ...
41 Exhibit 3-6 Averaging Trajectory Scores Using a trajectory score that is constructed based on averaging the trajectory scores of component parts is inaccurate. A trajectory score must be computed between the aircraft class average track and the analogous baseline profile in order to accurately measure the differences between profiles.
|
From page 42... ...
42 Table 3-9 Iteration #3 – Ranges & Counts of Distance of Level-off (Arrivals Only) Operation Type Aircraft Class Distance of Leveloff (NM)
|
From page 43... ...
43 Operation Type Aircraft Class Distance From Airport To Level-off (NM) Count Large Turbo 0 to 5 49 6 to 15 105 16 to 25 84 26 to 35 64 36 and up 35 Small Jet 0 to 4 46 5 to 14 177 15 to 24 143 25 to 34 67 35 and up 9 Small Prop 0 to 20 40 21 and up 24 Small Turbo 0 to 5 24 6 to 15 49 16 to 25 34 26 and up 13 After the level-off data was re-calculated, average tracks were generated for each candidate profile totaling to 2,731 average approach tracks.
|
From page 44... ...
44 Trajectory Metric Frequency Total Count of Profiles In Optype/Aircraft Class ID Candidate Profile Key Score Rank Count Rank 3 A-B763-HJ-1-4000-20to29-14to23 1,870.5 18 41 29 95 4 A-B763-HJ-1-4000-20to29-5to13 1,855.1 20 156 14 95 5 A-B763-HJ-1-5000-20to29-24to33 1,890.9 17 29 33 95 6 A-B764-HJ-1-5000-30to39-14to23 2,182.5 6 10 45 95 7 A-B737-LJ-1-2000-20to29-5to14 2,210.6 15 67 50 136 8 A-B737-LJ-1-4000-40to49-5to14 2,249.1 12 30 64 136 9 A-B738-LJ-1-5000-30to39-15to24 2,046.5 29 77 45 136 10 A-E145-LJ-1-3000-20to29-5to14 1,925.7 46 948 15 136 11 A-E145-LJ-1-3000-40to49-5to14 2,372.5 8 27 67 136 12 A-E145-LJ-1-3000-50andup-5to14 2,500.8 5 24 70 136 13 A-C130-LT-1-3000-50andup-6to15 2,751.3 2 12 54 106 14 A-DH8A-LT-1-4000-10to19-16to25 2,017.2 51 311 6 106 15 A-DH8A-LT-1-4000-40to49-16to25 2,405.3 16 26 39 106 16 A-DH8A-LT-1-5000-40to49-16to25 2,377.7 21 31 34 106 17 A-DH8A-LT-1-5000-40to49-6to15 2,429.2 14 16 44 106 18 A-DH8A-LT-1-5000-50andup-16to25 2,484.4 8 28 37 106 19 A-C550-SJ-1-2000-30andup-5to14 2,529.3 2 10 34 76 20 A-C680-SJ-1-3000-20to29-5to14 2,037.2 17 36 15 76 21 A-C680-SJ-1-3000-30andup-5to14 2,101.1 14 20 22 76 22 A-C750-SJ-1-3000-20to29-15to24 2,170.3 11 14 30 76 23 A-C750-SJ-1-3000-30andup-15to24 2,386.2 5 10 34 76 24 A-C750-SJ-1-4000-20to29-5to14 1,833.5 24 24 18 76 25 A-BE58-SP-1-5000-61andup-21andup 2,608.6 11 9 8 33 26 A-BE58-SP-1-6000-61andup-21andup 2,512.7 14 16 4 33 27 A-C172-SP-1-4000-61andup-0to20 2,563.8 12 6 13 33 28 A-C172-SP-1-5000-61andup-0to20 2,729.1 3 5 16 33 29 A-C182-SP-1-3000-61andup-0to20 2,640.1 7 7 9 33 30 A-C182-SP-1-4000-0to20-0to20 2,492.4 16 13 6 33 31 A-B190-ST-1-2000-3to9-6to15 1,792.4 22 94 9 61 32 A-B190-ST-1-5000-3to9-16to25 1,766.6 24 61 11 61 33 A-E120-ST-1-4000-10to19-6to15 1,704.0 26 185 5 61 34 A-E120-ST-1-6000-30to39-16to25 2,227.5 7 28 19 61 35 A-E120-ST-1-6000-40andup-16to25 2,063.1 11 99 8 61 36 A-E120-ST-1-6000-40andup-26andup 2,377.3 5 34 17 61 37 D-B763-HJ-5-4000-3to9-9to18 1,867.9 52 32 26 224 38 D-B763-HJ-5-5000-3to9-9to18 1,839.7 54 108 10 224 39 D-B763-HJ-5-7000-3to9-9to18 1,979.3 33 17 36 224
|
From page 45... ...
45 Trajectory Metric Frequency Total Count of Profiles In Optype/Aircraft Class ID Candidate Profile Key Score Rank Count Rank 40 D-B763-HJ-6-4000-3to9-9to18 1,925.1 44 58 12 224 41 D-B737-LJ-2-2000-3to9-0to8 2,617.6 9 38 57 254 42 D-B737-LJ-2-5000-3to9-9to18 1,959.9 65 458 8 254 43 D-B738-LJ-2-4000-3to9-9to18 2,012.1 58 165 19 254 44 D-B738-LJ-3-9000-3to9-19to28 2,091.8 46 122 25 254 45 D-C130-LT-2-NoLVL-NULL-NULL 3,220.8 1 14 9 101 46 D-DH8A-LT-1-5000-40andup-7to16 2,275.8 27 16 6 101 47 D-DH8C-LT-1-4000-10to19-7to16 2,228.4 32 18 5 101 48 D-DH8C-LT-1-8000-40andup-37andup 2,482.5 16 12 14 101 49 D-C25B-SJ-1-3000-20andup-8to14 3,065.9 5 5 11 54 50 D-C680-SJ-1-2000-20andup-0to7 3,433.3 2 3 20 54 51 D-C750-SJ-1-10000-3to9-8to14 2,523.1 9 5 11 54 52 D-LJ35-SJ-1-4000-3to9-0to7 1,981.9 16 10 5 54 53 D-BE58-SP-1-7000-81andup-25to40 2,114.7 19 7 6 74 54 D-C182-SP-1-4000-21to40-0to9 1,965.7 21 7 6 74 55 D-C182-SP-1-4000-81andup-10to24 2,357.7 10 3 21 74 56 D-C182-SP-1-5000-21to40-10to24 2,221.2 13 6 13 74 57 D-B190-ST-2-NoLVL-NULL-NULL 4,032.0 1 5 32 106 58 D-E120-ST-1-8000-30to39-15to24 2,574.6 17 29 10 106 59 D-E120-ST-1-8000-40to49-15to24 2,508.9 21 127 2 106 60 D-E120-ST-1-9000-50to59-15to24 2,378.1 27 108 3 106 Table 3-12 Candidate Profile Aircraft Types Aircraft Type AEDT Aircraft Type Aircraft Description B190 1900D Raytheon Beechcraft 1900-D B737 737700 Boeing 737-700 Series B738 737800 Boeing 737-800 Series B753 757RR Boeing 757-200 Series B763 767300 Boeing 767-300 Series B764 767300 Boeing 767-300 Series BE58 BEC58P Beechcraft 58P Baron C130 C130 Lockheed C-130 Hercules C172 CNA172 Cessna 172 Skyhawk C182 CNA182 Cessna 182 Skylane C25B CNA525C Cessna 525 CitationJet
|
From page 46... ...
46 Aircraft Type AEDT Aircraft Type Aircraft Description C550 CNA55B Cessna 550 Citation II C680 CNA680 Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign C750 CNA750 Cessna 750 Citation X DH8A DHC8 De Havilland Canada Dash 8 - Q400 DH8C DHC830 De Havilland Canada Dash 8 - DHC-8-300 E120 EMB120 Embraer EMB120 Brasilia E145 EMB145 Embraer ERJ 145 LJ35 LEAR35 Bombardier Learjet 35 After the candidate profiles were prioritized, the six worst ranked approach profiles and four worst ranked departure profiles for each aircraft class were modeled using AEDT's altitude controls functionality at the completion of Iteration #1, #2, and #3. For all three iterations, the trajectory, fuel burn, and noise values were calculated for each candidate profile.
|
From page 47... ...
47 ID Candidate Profile Key Percent Change in Fuel Burn from Baseline 18 A-DH8A-LT-1-5000-50andup-16to25 8.1% 19 A-C550-SJ-1-2000-30andup-5to14 29.4% 20 A-C680-SJ-1-3000-20to29-5to14 20.9% 21 A-C680-SJ-1-3000-30andup-5to14 14.2% 22 A-C750-SJ-1-3000-20to29-15to24 20.8% 23 A-C750-SJ-1-3000-30andup-15to24 20.1% 24 A-C750-SJ-1-4000-20to29-5to14 -5.5% 25 A-BE58-SP-1-5000-61andup-21andup 21.6% 26 A-BE58-SP-1-6000-61andup-21andup 6.8% 27 A-C172-SP-1-4000-61andup-0to20 9.5% 28 A-C172-SP-1-5000-61andup-0to20 28.4% 29 A-C182-SP-1-3000-61andup-0to20 33.0% 30 A-C182-SP-1-4000-0to20-0to20 20.5% 31 A-B190-ST-1-2000-3to9-6to15 1.6% 32 A-B190-ST-1-5000-3to9-16to25 -1.3% 33 A-E120-ST-1-4000-10to19-6to15 -0.6% 34 A-E120-ST-1-6000-30to39-16to25 1.2% 35 A-E120-ST-1-6000-40andup-16to25 -1.6% 36 A-E120-ST-1-6000-40andup-26andup 0.1% 37 D-B763-HJ-5-4000-3to9-9to18 -8.2% 38 D-B763-HJ-5-5000-3to9-9to18 -0.8% 39 D-B763-HJ-5-7000-3to9-9to18 50.3% 40 D-B763-HJ-6-4000-3to9-9to18 -1.4% 41 D-B737-LJ-2-2000-3to9-0to8 1.6% 42 D-B737-LJ-2-5000-3to9-9to18 -0.4% 43 D-B738-LJ-2-4000-3to9-9to18 -2.9% 44 D-B738-LJ-3-9000-3to9-19to28 5.4% 45 D-C130-LT-2-NoLVL-NULL-NULL -9.2% 46 D-DH8A-LT-1-5000-40andup-7to16 27.9% 47 D-DH8C-LT-1-4000-10to19-7to16 49.3% 48 D-DH8C-LT-1-8000-40andup-37andup 0.9% 49 D-C25B-SJ-1-3000-20andup-8to14 -5.4% 50 D-C680-SJ-1-2000-20andup-0to7 4.9% 51 D-C750-SJ-1-10000-3to9-8to14 0.3% 52 D-LJ35-SJ-1-4000-3to9-0to7 -13.5% 53 D-BE58-SP-1-7000-81andup-25to40 3.3% 54 D-C182-SP-1-4000-21to40-0to9 1.4% 55 D-C182-SP-1-4000-81andup-10to24 3.7% 56 D-C182-SP-1-5000-21to40-10to24 3.6% 57 D-B190-ST-2-NoLVL-NULL-NULL -50.3% 58 D-E120-ST-1-8000-30to39-15to24 -2.7%
|
From page 48... ...
48 ID Candidate Profile Key Percent Change in Fuel Burn from Baseline 59 D-E120-ST-1-8000-40to49-15to24 -2.8% 60 D-E120-ST-1-9000-50to59-15to24 -3.0% The fuel burn changes between the baseline and candidate profiles vary widely in both the positive and negative direction as a function of the specific differences between the profiles. The majority of the differences are quite significant, indicating that there is a meaningful difference between the baseline and candidate profiles.
|
From page 49... ...
49 level normalized to a 1 second period, relative to reference sound pressure level. In lay terms, LAMAX is the loudest noise registered at that receptor and SEL is the total amount of noise energy registered at that receptor averaged over time.
|
From page 50... ...
50 Distance of Receptor from Runway End (NM) ID 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 37 -0.1 -0.2 -2.6 -4.4 -4.3 1.7 -9.5 -16.2 -22.6 -26.9 38 -1.6 -2.7 -3.3 -4.6 -5.8 -6.9 1.8 -15.1 -23.6 -30.5 39 -9.5 -11.2 -12.7 -11.3 -10.3 -10.1 -10.6 -18.2 -25.6 -32.7 40 0.6 0.6 -0.5 -3.1 -5.3 2.5 -8.7 -9.1 -16.0 -23.1 41 -3.0 -0.5 -9.2 -9.5 -9.0 -10.3 -17.8 -23.4 -27.3 -31.6 42 -3.8 1.3 -4.1 -5.7 -7.3 -9.2 -19.9 -25.6 -29.5 -32.5 43 -1.8 -2.6 -3.9 -5.7 -5.3 -7.2 -14.8 -22.0 -26.6 -30.0 44 -6.2 -5.9 -6.0 -5.6 -5.1 -5.2 -6.5 -14.7 -21.3 -26.2 45 -0.3 0.4 2.0 2.8 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.7 5.7 46 -10.7 -12.5 -13.0 -13.4 -14.1 -7.2 -6.6 -16.7 -17.1 -22.0 47 -8.8 -10.3 -10.4 -11.0 -11.9 -4.4 -5.5 -6.5 -7.4 -8.2 48 -3.0 -4.4 -4.1 -4.8 -5.5 -5.5 -5.8 -6.0 -5.8 -5.9 49 -7.3 -6.6 -10.1 -12.2 -2.6 -4.8 -12.2 -23.2 -31.2 -37.1 50 -3.6 -7.7 -5.5 0.3 -2.5 -4.8 -6.6 -16.7 -15.3 -26.2 51 7.6 6.7 7.9 7.6 5.7 4.1 3.5 3.3 4.5 3.4 52 -0.1 -0.2 10.9 -5.8 -4.9 -10.3 -10.0 -16.3 -26.1 -33.2 53 -7.3 -7.2 -7.5 -7.0 -7.3 -7.3 -7.3 -7.2 -7.1 -7.0 54 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 1.7 0.5 15.0 14.0 7.7 -3.1 55 -3.0 -2.3 -1.9 -1.6 -2.7 -0.4 9.2 7.9 -6.1 -6.6 56 -11.1 -10.4 -10.1 -9.4 -8.7 -8.6 -8.9 -9.5 -9.6 -9.9 57 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 58 -5.3 -5.1 -4.9 -4.4 -4.4 -11.4 -17.6 -22.6 -26.5 -24.4 59 -5.2 -5.1 -4.7 -4.1 -4.1 -11.1 -17.4 -22.4 -25.7 -22.2 60 -4.7 -4.6 -4.3 -3.8 -3.8 -10.8 -17.2 -22.1 -26.0 -24.5 As with fuel burn, there were significant differences between the noise calculated by AEDT for the baseline and candidate profiles.
|
From page 51... ...
51 Exhibit 3-8 A-B753-HJ-1-6000-40andup-34andup Trajectory Comparison It can be noted that the input and output trajectories are approximately the same, but not identical. The AEDT altitude control mechanism used here for expediency during the prioritization process attempts to produce an output trajectory that exactly matches the input trajectory within the constraints of the model.
|
From page 52... ...
52 New Profile Development and Validation This effort included developing new AEDT Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) departure and arrival procedures for each aircraft type included in the AEDT FLEET database based on the candidate profiles described in Section 3.3.
|
From page 53... ...
53 Departure Profile Development During the process of developing AEDT Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) departure procedures that match the averaged radar departure profiles, it quickly became evident that, while steps can be designed to ensure that computed profiles conform to the radar profiles, the overall result is not realistic.
|
From page 54... ...
54 a target point, the altitude of that target point marks the actual MTO-thrust limit for the procedure. 3.3.3.1.2 Procedure Generation All departure procedures begin with the standard profile takeoff ground roll step.
|
From page 55... ...
55 altitude profile with respect to the targeted altitude profile. The error is computed as the magnitude of the difference between the target profile distance and the procedure distance, integrated from the bottom to the top.
|
From page 56... ...
56 in aggregate, both for each class of airplanes modeled, and for all airplanes overall. (Appendix E of this document is available at: http://www.trb.org/acrp/ACRPWOD36Materials.aspx .)
|
From page 57... ...
57 The "Wgt" column indicates the average amount by which the generated procedures increased weight from the standard procedure's weight, expressed as a percentage of the aircraft weight range. Some observations: The errors and failure counts in the SS ("standard" thrust, "standard" weight)
|
From page 58... ...
58 to be contained, so to avoid accumulating a lot of speed during shallow target segments, the thrust needs to be too low to reach the steeper targets exactly. When a segment ends at a target altitude before the target's distance, this generally indicates that there was not enough thrust available to fly directly to the target while increasing speed enough to satisfy AEDT's minimum CAS change (0.1 knots)
|
From page 59... ...
59 Exhibit 3-9 757PW Existing Standard and New Departure Procedures Exhibit 3-10 overlays the single existing standard arrival profile for the 757PW AEDT ANP aircraft type along with the new 757PW arrival procedures developed during this research on an altitude versus distance basis to provide a visual overview of the increase in options. In this Exhibit: Existing standard profile is grey.
|
From page 60... ...
60 Exhibit 3-10 757PW Existing Standard and New Arrival Procedures As in AEDT, the procedural profiles and their overall properties produced during this research are defined in one table (the "profiles" table) , and the individual steps composing the procedural profiles are defined in a separate table (the "steps" table)
|
From page 61... ...
61 FLAP_ID: the name of the flap setting to use during the step STEP_TYPE: the type of step THR_TYPE: the type of thrust calculation PARAM1: the first step-type-dependent parameter PARAM2: the second step-type-dependent parameter PARAM3: the third step-type-dependent parameter This is the same way that steps are defined in AEDT. In the case of these profiles, PROF_ID1 is constructed from the level of flexibility allowed in customizing the profile.
|
From page 62... ...
62 New Methods to Customize Profiles The new profiles described in Section 3.3 will provide increased coverage of frequently used real-world flight profiles. However, any finite set of default profiles cannot hope to fully cover the entire range of flown profiles.
|
From page 63... ...
63 The recommended customization treatment for approach profiles, in terms of the calibrated airspeed schedule, is illustrated in the figure below, in terms of the altitude profile. The standard altitude profile is shown in blue, and a sample customized profile is shown in red.
|
From page 64... ...
64 All standard departure procedures in AEDT begin with a takeoff ground roll step. For 71% of them, this is followed by three climb sequences that are separated by two acceleration sequences (a profile structure we will call "TCACAC" for Takeoff, Climb, Accelerate, Climb, Accelerate, Climb)
|
From page 65... ...
65 For TCAC profiles, the first acceleration sequence constitutes acceleration to the maximum CAS. There are two options for a custom acceleration beginning at a target altitude.
|
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.