1.3 Approaches to Mitigating Inefficiencies
Many different programs and solution paths are addressing many different aspects of the problem, and it is easy to be overwhelmed by the complexity, diversity, and apparent overlap of the different perspectives and approaches. At the risk of over-simplification, we have reduced the efforts that are addressing inefficiencies in aircraft routing to two basic classes:
(1) those that propose to eliminate artificial routing constraints and procedures associated with an archaic air traffic control infrastructure (this includes eliminating assigned airways and altitudes, allowing aircraft to “maneuver at will,” and providing aircraft with self-separation authority); and (2) those that propose to improve the process of flight planning and replanning by assuring that decisions and information that support them account for the goals and interests of all stakeholders. The basic assumption of the first approach is that each flight crew would be better able to maximize their aircraft’s efficiency if they have freedom to select and modify their route, while the basic assumption of the second approach is that if the goals, constraints, knowledge, and information “owned” by all stakeholders in the route planning process can be considered simultaneously, routes that are more efficient, from a collective stakeholder perspective, would result. In this context, Table 1 provides a framework which illustrates our approach (Strategic Flight Planning or SFP) in relation to others, both in regard to the approach, problems addressed, and risks.
Table 1. General approaches to route inefficiencies
Approach Program Main problem addressed Risks
Remove procedural . RTCA Free fuel efficiency . Viability of self-constraints from Flight separation flight planning . ATMP . Equipage
.
Flight 2000 . Cost
.
APATH . Loss of predictability for TFM
Improve process of . FANG delays . Communication flight planning & . CDM fuel efficiency links replanning . Equipage
.
APATH
.
ATMP
.
SFP
The approach of the Aircraft Systems and Operations (ASO) element of the NASA AATT program is to develop and evaluate aircraft system concepts and requirements that enable user efficiency and flexibility while avoiding hazards in a Free Flight environment. Free Flight has been simply defined as a safe and efficient operating capability under instrument flight rules in which the operators have the freedom to select their path and speed in real time. Air traffic restrictions are only imposed to ensure separation, to preclude exceeding airport capacity, to prevent unauthorized flight through Special Use Airspace, and to ensure safety of flight (RTCA, 1997). Thus Free Flight is an Air Traffic Management (ATM) solution, with the implicit assumption that if operators can select their path and speed in real time with fewer restrictions, there will be an economic and/or safety benefit. The Air Traffic Management Partnership (ATMP) concept (Lockheed, 1997) further assumes that airborne self-separation is a requirement for operators to be able to reap maximum economic benefits in a Free Flight environment. While these efforts are primarily focused on the first general approach to eliminating routing inefficiencies described above (i.e., Free Flight), the intention is to develop comprehensive solutions. The effort described here focuses on the second approach, and should be complementary to other parts of the ASO element of AATT.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Airborne-Based Conflict Probe(7)
