1. USER-DEFINED RADAR DATA ANALYSIS FAA Headquarters Office of System Safety Washington, DC September 5, 2001 Austin Digital Inc. and Oak Ridge National Laboratory

2. Objectives for Current Phase Connect Event Measurement System (EMS) with larger data set. Integrate EMS with flight track viewer. Integrate ATC elements: (e.g., runways, fixes, sectors). Continue to develop events and measurements relevant to safety analysis. Expand analysis depth. Involve “subject matter experts.”

3. Topics Data/LAX summary FOQA techniques G/A analysis –Characterization –Correlation Summary Future Plans/Issues

4. The Data Set Was Expanded Over the Two-Day 2000 Project Data consists of ~120,000 tracks of PDARS data; –thanks to ASC/NASA/ATAC. Sample period is January - February 2001. Over 90% of the operations involve LAX. ASPM-Aviation System Performance Metrics; –thanks to APO. 13% of day-time landings (0630-2400) were to the east (6/7s); –different from normal on-shore wind patterns.

5. Runway Capture Boxes LAX CONFIGURATION WITH NORTH AND SOUTH COMPLEXES

6. Applying Airline FOQA Tools and Techniques to ATC Data Measure Normal Operations Identify Events Review Individual Events

7. Applying Airline FOQA Tools and Techniques to ATC Data *** Notes Continuation *** Measure Normal Operations Identify Events Review Individual Events

8. Operations by Runway – Normal Configuration 25R 24L 24R 7R 25L 7L 6R 6L midnight 0630

9. “Turning the Boat” 25R 24L 24R 7R 25L 7L 6R 6L midnight 0630

10. Track View – “Turning the Boat” To begin animation, click on image, select ‘animations’ sub-directory on CD, and select ‘turning the boat.avi’ file.

11. Gar picture GO-AROUNDS (G/As) HAVE POTENTIAL SAFETY RELEVANCE AND ALLOW EMS IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS

12. G/A Characterization There are about 160 G/As in the data: –rate is about 2.7/1000 landings; –one per 370 landings. There are many factors: –sequencing, plane not ready (G/A at higher altitudes); –spacing with preceding operations; –correlations with: airport configuration (runway dependence); equipment type; time of day; route.

13. About 40 G/As Have Altitude Greater Than 1750 ft; ATC or Aircraft Landing Readiness are Possible Factors

14. Typical Landing Spacings are ~1.5 min

15. Landing Spacings for ~15-20 are Likely Important one minute Sample Size: 124

16. Example Landing Spacing from Track Viewer To begin animation, click on image, select ‘animations’ sub-directory on CD, and select ‘landing spacing.avi’ file.

17. Example Takeoff Spacing from Track Viewer

18. G/A Due to Takeoff on Runway: No Others Even Close Sample Size: 123

19. G/As = bars landings = diamonds G/As Happen Most on 24/R, 25/L: But There are Even More Landings

20. G/A Rates are Significantly Higher for 6L, 24L, 25R: West Outboards (24R, 25L) are Below Mean

21. G/A Rates are About the Same for All Aircraft Types Sample Size: 126

22. Landings Have High Rates Most of the Day

23. G/As Follow a Similar Pattern: Counts are Relatively Lower for Some Periods 0800

24. G/A Rates are Significantly Lower for 8:00 AM and Early Afternoon/Evening

25. Tacks and waypoint Tracks and Waypoints

26. Controlled Landings are Harder with Larger -g’s: Flight energy has a –kinetic, v 2, component –and potential or altitude component. Aircraft energy divided to time to touchdown provides a rate. velocity altitude time to touch-down at LAX

27. Flights with Large -g’s May Be More Prone to Go- Arounds Extreme Values > 1.5 

28. G/A Rate Increases for > 0.13 -g

29. Example of High Energy Approach with Terrain/Airspace To begin animation, click on image, select ‘animations’ sub-directory on CD, and select ‘terrain and airspace.avi’ file.

30. About 2/3 of the 160 G/As are Correlated with EMS Measures High Altitude:40 Spacing:15-20 High -g’s30-35 Many of the Remainder May Be Associated with Low Usage Runways

31. Summary The EMS has been successfully applied to a ~120,000 flight set of tracks. The radar data has been integrated with other ATC data sources. Go-Arounds have been used as the analysis focus. Results include: –Statistics for airport configurations, runways, etc.; –Those flights with large energy bleed requirements have higher rates; –Those flights with shorter spacings to preceding operations have higher rates. These measures have potential applications to“precursor” evaluations.

32. Future Plans/Issues Ground movement data sources are needed for more detailed runway analyses. Additional data to cover seasonal use patterns. Greater involvement of facility experts. Work on a real problem. Move towards prototype software approach from present proof of concept approach.

33. Principal Points Of Contact FAA ASY Chris Pokorski202-493-4867 chris.pokorski@faa.gov Jack Wojciech202-267-9108 jack.wojciech@faa.gov ORNL Lee Berry865-574-0998 berryla@ornl.gov Simon Rose 865-574-9494 sdr@ornl.gov ADI Thom Mayer512-452-8178 tjm@ausdig.com Ben Prager512-452-8170 bap@ausdig.com