PowerPoint

Outcome of Analysis of Branching UPRs from PACOTS Track 2Japan Civil Aviation Bureau and Electronic Navigation Research InstituteIPACG/39, 5-6 February 2014, Fukuoka, JapanIntroductionThe User Preferred Route (UPR) of PACOTS Track 2 the only eastbound track without an alternative UPR.To avoid problems with extreme complex route constructions caused by crossing/converging with PACOTS Track 1 or 3.In the IPACG/38 meeting, computer simulation were executed under relaxation of restriction, allowed Track 2 UPR only to branch south ward from PACOTS Track 2 and is not permitted to re-converge to avoid route complexity.The result showed, the relaxation model show positive benefits of fuel consumption totally.However, it remains concerns that the traffic concentration at PACOTS Track 2 entrance gate disrupts a flight with optimal altitude.Increasing RNP4 aircraft ratio Numbers were counted from east-bound flights to P*, C* and K*UPRRNP4RNP4

3Computer SimulationFlight ScenarioDeparture AirportDestination AirportNoJapanKLAX8Asian countriesKLAX15JapanKSFO5Asian countriesKSFO9TOTAL37RNP4 ratio IPACG/38 44% IPACG/39 59%City PairsFlight ScheduleGenerated based on actual Flight Plan1537RNP44Model ABaseline case that includes the current restriction to avoid PACOTS Track 2 by at least 50 NM

Model BAllows Track 2 UPRs only to branch southward from PACOTS Track 2 and are not permitted to re-converge

Computer SimulationWind DataPACOTS Track 2Entrance GateNo2012/1/8SEALSDay12012/2/1LEPKIDay22012/4/4EMRONDay32012/7/30KALNADay42012/8/22KALNADay52012/8/29EMRONDay62012/10/7KALNADay72012/11/16EMRONDay82013/1/20SEALSDay92013/1/24LEPKIDay102013/1/25EMRONDay112013/1/31SEALSDay122013/2/5KALNADay132013/3/7LEPKIDay142013/4/15KALNADay152013/6/6EMRONDay16Route NetworksTwo different modelTrk 2Trk 216PACOTS

APACOTS250NMBPACOTS25Computer SimulationATC SimulationAfter conflict detection on the generated UPRs, conflicts were solved. Conflicts were resolved mainly by changing altitude.The rule for selecting which aircraft of a conflicting pair changed altitude to resolve a conflict was the same for both model cases.

Pseud Controller resolve conflictsA/C 1FL350A/C 2FL350A/C 1FL340A/C 2FL350CNF6ResultAverage of differences per flight Model B Model ANegative values indicate an average flight of Model B operate with less fuel burn, flight distance and flight time than Model ATotally, 0.3minutes, 112lbs and 76NM reduction.BAB16NM1127Result58% of flight showed the nearly same fuel consumption between Model A and B8% of flight had penalty in Model B34% of flight had positive benefit in Model BIndividual flight8% penalty58% same fuel consumption34% positive benefitB8Another SimulationAnother SimulationSome operators use PACOTS tracks instead of UPRs. We therefore carried out simulations in which half of the flights used PACOTS tracks and half used UPRs.PACOTS

Track2UPRAssumption KLAX flight 10 flightsTrack3 13 flightsUPR KSFO flight 8 flightsTrack2 6 flightsUPRLess effectiveness than in the case in which all flights fly with UPRs.Totally, 0.2minutes, 27lbs and 43NM reduction.UPRUPRPACOTSUPRPACOTSUPRB9Total effectTrade-off of flight on ideal altitude and time-of-flight shortening effect of the branch.Discussion

Model AModel BTime-of-flight shortening effectPenalty (flight in non-ideal altitude) caused by traffic concentration10Model AModel B(Branch)138292(208)DiscussionBranching point from PACOTS Track 2Traffic number at PACOTS Track 2 gate-way (of 592 flights)Model B altitude as compared with the Model A, at 160EHigher19Same alt.542Lower31(of 592 flights)PACOTS222292208150E150WE BAB1954231B11Day2 1130Z 170W

Model BTrack 2Track 3DiscussionMerging that occurs after the branch

12The results show benefit of time, fuel consumption and distance totally in the branching UPR from PACOTS Track 2.In the case that some aircraft fly with PACOTS, the benefits were small compared with the case all flight with UPR.UPR flights have some effect, but branching effect is not so much.Conclusion