Progress to NextGen. Avoided Delay Metric. Federal Aviation Administration

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Progress to NextGen. Avoided Delay Metric. Federal Aviation Administration"

Arron Cole
5 years ago
Views:

1 Progress to NextGen Avoided Delay Metric Presented to: NAS Performance Workshop By: Dan Murphy Date:

2 Metrics Needs NextGen plans for 2025 OEP focused on the mid-term NextGen near-term benefits 2

3 Jan-07 Scheduled Block Time 3 2 Avg Scheduled Blocktime (TTM*) May-05 Sep-05 Jan-06 May-06 Sep-06 Jan-05 Performance Metric (minutes) -3 Jan-00 May-00 Sep-00 Jan-01 May-01 Sep-01 Jan-02 May-02 Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03 Jan-04 May-04 Sep-04

4 Total Delay Measure Schedule Delay Airlines compensate for routine system delays. Modeling Total System Delay Allows us to know full range of delays and where they occur. Total Delay = Gate Delay + Taxi-out Delay + Airborne Delay + Taxi-in Delay 4

5 Day-by-Day NAS Model of Delay ASPM55 Airports, FY2006 F it A ctu a l Total Delay (minutes) /1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 5

6 Capacity Improvements by 2015 Runways at OEP airports in OEP PHL, SEA, IAD Runways at OEP airports not in OEP ORD, FLL Non-OEP Runways Several FACT56 airports not in OEP plan new runways OEP procedural improvements TMA, RNAV, PRM, SOIA Assumed at OEP35 airports only Yield 10% arrival capacity improvement 6

7 Base Delay Projections Delay per Flight (minutes) /1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 Delays projected using ATO Network Forecasts Assumes weather in 2012 and 2016 the same as 2006 Projections assume no capacity improvements 7

8 Delay Projections with NextGen Delay per Flight (minutes) /1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 Delays projected using ATO Network Forecasts Assumes weather in 2012 and 2016 the same as 2006 Projections assume capacity improvements in FACT2 analysis 8

9 Annual Delay Increase B a se F A C T C a p a citie s Delay per Flight (minutes)

10 Avoided Delay 25 Delay Savings per Flight (minutes)

11 Calculation of Metric Use model to compute average delay with and without NextGen improvements Delays calculated with actual demand Difference in modeled delays is avoided delay Could use percentage reduction in delay rather than delay itself 11

12 Target Setting 20 Average Delay (minutes) Target Projected Without NextGen Projected With NextGen

13 Target Setting Risk 20% 18% 16% 14% Traffic Growth 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Projected Demand Actual Demand

14 Target Setting Risk 20 Average Delay (minutes) Without NextGen Projected Without Without NextGen NextGen Projected With With NextGen Series

15 Historical Example: ASPM55 Airports Average Total Delay per Flight Minutes of Delay per Flight Calendar Year * Source: ASPM flight data. * 2007 includes data through July. 15

16 Target Setting Risks Projected delays depend upon projected demand Demand may not materialize Delays depend upon where demand occurs Overall growth projections may be accurate Growth projections are less accurate at airport level Delays at constrained airports very sensitive to demand Targets must be conservative 16

17 Issues Projections require: FACT 2 capacity assumptions Timeline of NextGen capacity improvements Target setting must be conservative Use low end of predicted growth range for key airports (e.g. ORD) NextGen initiatives lack detail What is capacity impact of each initiative? 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) Feasibility Analysis

Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) Feasibility Analysis David De Smedt Eurocontrol Greg McDonald, Jesper Bronsvoort Airservices Australia ATM Seminar 2013, Chicago U.S.A. Drivers for RTA The SESAR ATM Master