Improving ATC Efficiency through an Implementation of a Multi Sector Planner Position

Transcription

1 Improving ATC Efficiency through an Implementation of a Multi Sector Planner Position Almira Williams, Mark D. Rodgers, Stéphane Mondoloni CSSI, Inc., Washington, DC, USA Diana Liang FAA, Washington, DC, USA 7 th USA/Europe ATM R&D Seminar July 2007

2 Summary Objective Determine if the efficiency of using limited ATC resources can be improved by introduction of a Multi Sector Planner (MSP) position Improvement in efficiency: percent difference in ATC controller positions needed under the current ATC and the MSP scenarios Approach Parametric analysis based on empirical data Monitor Alert Parameters (MAP) used as a simple approximation of traffic complexity and workload requirements Focus The U.S. CONUS centers Atlanta ARTCC: limitations due to center area configurations 2

3 Current ATC Staffing Sector1 MAP1 R + D Sector3 MAP3 R + D R+D Sector2 MAP2 R + D R+D Unwritten Rule of Thumb Expected max sector load < X% of MAP R Expected max sector load X% of MAP R&D 3

4 ATC Staffing with MSP %MAP Utilized 100% Y X R & D controllers MSP Controller Supporting Several (3) R-controllers R controller only 1 2 Number of Controllers MAP Numerical trigger used to point out that sector efficiency may be degraded during a specific period of time Current ATC scenarios Each sector is controlled by at least R-side controller D-side is introduced if sector loads are forecasted to exceed max %MAP utilized of level X MSP scenarios Each sector is controlled by at least R-side controller MSP controller is introduced if max sector loads are forecasted to exceed %MAP utilized of level X, but not exceed level Y 4

5 Data Empirical Data CONUS sector data Source: Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) Geographic layout and altitude coverage Sector MAP values Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZTL ARTCC) Area configurations based on controller certification Area configuration MAP values Traffic Data Derived Data Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) Sector pierces, transition times and max instantaneous loads for 15min intervals Inter-sector flows Busiest 4-hr periods for each center (highest max and avg loads) 5

6 CONUS Centers & Sectors 6

7 Atlanta ARTCC (ZTL) 7

8 ZTL High Alt. Sectors ZTL32: FL ZTL33: FL ZTL34: FL

9 Efficiency Improvement Potential Function of the number and the distribution of the sectors with predicted %MAP between levels X and Y MSP areas chosen by combining adjacent sectors with Primary Objective: High(est) number of boundary crossings, and Secondary Objective: Highest improvement in efficiency ZTL32: FL R+D ATC MSP Improvement ZTL34: FL positions/0% 0 positions/0% position/20% positions/33% ZTL33: FL Other potential benefit mechanisms were not considered 9

10 Results: Number of MSP Areas Avg. Number of MSP Areas Level X 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 0 30% 50% 70% 90% Level Y Range X \ Y 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% % % % % % 0-5 S.D. X \ Y 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% % % % %

11 Results: Efficiency Improvement Avg. Efficiency Improvement 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Level X 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 50% 70% 90% Level Y 11

12 Results: Efficiency Improvement (cont.) Range X \ Y 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% % % % % % % 40% % % % % % 50% % % % % 60% % % % 70% % % 80% % S.D. X \ Y 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% 2.0% 3.1% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 4.3% 40% 1.1% 2.7% 3.1% 3.7% 5.3% 50% 1.5% 2.4% 3.6% 5.4% 60% 2.0% 3.9% 6.1% 70% 2.2% 4.8% 80% 2.8% 26% 22% 22% 25% 24% 24% 23% 22% 27% 22% 12

13 Results: Avg. Number of Sector Boundary Crossings within MSP Area Avg. Number of Sector Boundary Crossings within MSP Area Level X 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 0 30% 50% 70% 90% Level Y Range X \ Y 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% % % % % % S.D. X \ Y 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 30% % % % % %

14 Results: Efficiency Improvement Limitations due to Area Configurations 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Level X 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 50% 70% 90% Level Y 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 14 ZTL w/o Area Considerations: Efficiency Improvement ZTL w/ Area Considerations: Efficiency Improvement 0% Level X 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 30% 50% 70% 90% Level Y

15 Conclusions Simple methodology for investigating improvement potential in the efficiency of using limited ATC resources Yes, significant improvement potential was demonstrated (however...) Further research Sensitivity of outcomes to traffic volume Realistic values for the levels X and Y Should %MAP be replaced by a better estimate of workload limitations Is there a better metric to use instead? Can %MAP or such better metric be observed across all (three) sectors as opposed to within the individual sectors? How do the adopted MSP operational procedures, information displays, DST and training impact the assumptions used in this study? 15

16 16