Transcript finalr~1.ppt

PROJECT FINAL REPORT
DSES-6620 Spring 2002
Airport Approach Simulation
Scott Munro
Precision vs. Non-Precision Approach
Overview
Simulation of IFR Approach at
Small Commercial Airport
Object: Assess the Benefit of
Non-Precision vs. Precision
Approach
Metrics of Interest:
- Number of Landings
- Number of Diverts
- Average Delay
Precision vs. Non-Precision Approach
Instrument Approach
Allows Aircraft to Land in
Weather which Precludes VFR
Flight
Operates based on RF
equipment which provide:
- Course (VOR, ILS Localizer)
- Range (DME)
- Glide slope (ILS)
- Position (Marker Beacon)
Non-Precision Approach Description
Non-Precision Approach
VOR Rwy 2
Course via VOR Radial
Range via DME
Limits
- Visibility: 1 mile
- Minimum Descent Alt: 380 ft
Precision Approach Description
Precision Approach
ILS Rwy 2
Course via ILS Localizer
Range via DME
Glide Slope
Limits
- Visibility: 3/4 mile
- Minimum Descent Alt: 257 ft
Simulation Methodology
The following elements must be considered…
Element
Impact
Approach Procedure
Time and weather required to successfully
execute the approach. Time required to
execute the missed approach procedure.
Air Traffic Control
Minimum separation between aircraft, and
aircraft arrival rate.
Federal Aviation Regulations
Fuel on board for each aircraft on an
instrument flight plan.
Weather
Current ceilings, visibility, and winds at any
given time during the simulation.
Aircraft Performance
Approach speeds, landing distances and
maximum crosswind limits for landing.
Weather
US National Climatic Data Center Surface Weather Observations
Over 10000 hours of Weather Observations Used
Application “weather.exe” Created to Decode SWO’s and Build
Weather Database
Model Weather Database
- Visibility
- Ceilings
- Wind Speed and Direction
Weather
Wind Speed vs Run Hour
25
Out of Limits
Wind Speed (kt)
20
15
10
5
0
Jan-01
Feb-01
Mar-01
Apr-01
May-01
Jun-01
Jul-01
Time
Aug-01
Sep-01
Oct-01
Nov-01
Dec-01
Aircraft Performance
Piper PA-28
Single Engine Fixed Gear
Landing Performance
- w/ Head Wind
- w/ Tail Wind
Maximum Crosswinds
Speed
- 70 KIAS Approach
- 63 KIAS Final
- 90 KIAS Missed Approach
Air Traffic Control and FAR
Air Traffic Control
Maintain IFR Separation Between Aircraft
3 nm or 2.0 minutes at 90 knots
Federal Aviation Regulations – Fuel Requirements
Fly to the Destination Airport, then…
Fly to the Alternate Airport, then…
Fly 45 minutes longer
Air Traffic Control and FAR
Air Traffic Control
Maintain IFR Separation Between Aircraft
3 nm or 2.0 minutes at 90 knots
Federal Aviation Regulations – Fuel Requirements
Fly to the Destination Airport, then…
Fly to the Alternate Airport, then…
Fly 45 minutes longer
Approach Model
Approach Model
Weather Data Playback via UpdateWeather()
IFR Separation via Single Capacity Queue Segments
Fuel via FuelRemaining Entity Attribute
Transit Time via Triangular Distribution
Results
Approach Type
VOR
ILS
Parameter
Landings
Divert to Alternate Airport
Missed Approached
148353
12342
387
151375
9320
332
Change
3022
-3022
-55
% Change
2.0%
-24.5%
-14.2%
Table 1 – Total Airport Approach Performance
Parameter (per hour)
Landings
Divert to Alternate Airport
Missed Approached
Approach Type
VOR
ILS
13.85
1.15
0.036
14.13
0.87
0.031
Change
0.28
-0.28
-0.005
% Change
2.0%
-24.5%
-14.2%
Table 2 – Airport Approach Performance Per Hour
Average Non-Precision Approach Delay : 4.43 minutes
Average Precision Approach Delay
: 3.55 minutes