EP2324448A2

EP2324448A2 - Airport control device and method for controlling flight operations at an airport

Info

Publication number: EP2324448A2
Application number: EP09777967A
Authority: EP
Inventors: Florian Piekert; Yves GÜNTHER; Hendrik Stilke; Birgit Gehrken
Original assignee: Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft und Raumfahrt eV
Current assignee: Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft und Raumfahrt eV
Priority date: 2008-09-05
Filing date: 2009-08-19
Publication date: 2011-05-25
Also published as: WO2010025825A3; WO2010025825A2; DE102008045861A1; DE102008045861B4

Abstract

The invention relates to an airport control device (1) having a central database (2) comprising a plurality of control data relevant to flight processing, and having a plurality of computer-aided subscriber devices (TOP) connected to the central database (2), each configured for planning and controlling a specialized partial process of flight processing, and having at least one analysis unit for analyzing the future traffic situation at the airport, considering control parameters related at least to a partial process of flight processing and desired by a subscriber device (TOP), and the control data present in the database (2). The subscriber devices (TOP) are further configured for analyzing desired control parameters using the at least one analysis unit, and for computer-aided negotiation of each of the desired control parameters, such that planning suggestions for flight processing that can be analyzed can be modified, accepted, or declined by the subscribed subscriber devices (TOP) by changing control parameters in an iterative process by means of the at least one analysis unit.

Description

Airport control apparatus and method for controlling air traffic at an airport

The invention relates to an airport control device having a central database containing a plurality of relevant control data for the processes associated with the execution of a flight and having a plurality of computer-aided subscriber devices connected to the central database, which are each set up for planning and controlling a specialized flight processing sub-process , and at least one analysis unit for analyzing the future traffic situation at the airport, taking into account control parameters, which are requested by a subscriber device, and the control data contained in the database, at least relating to a subprocess of the flight processing.

The invention further relates to a method for controlling the operation of an airport with such an airport control device.

The steady increase in air traffic creates a need for improved control of the resources needed for flight handling, such as aircraft and airport operations. The aim of the control is to ensure that the required and available resources are better coordinated with each other. This coordination is highly complex due to the variety of technical systems and the diverse technical and economic consequences of changing control parameters. In addition, the interests of each participant in the air traffic, which are largely independent organizations, are often divergent. The flow of flight processing is therefore significantly influenced by selfish interests of individual participants, such as airline operators, air navigation service providers, service and maintenance companies and possibly also the passengers. It is to be expected that the major European airports in particular will be a bottleneck in air traffic management. Even today, these airports are operating close to their capacity limit, so that capacity-reducing events, such as changing weather conditions, leads to large drops in the average punctuality of flight movements. This results in passenger dissatisfaction, increased airline costs, and reduced traffic safety from additional nearby airport aircraft due to queues.

The air traffic control conventionally takes place with hierarchically organized computer network systems. Between the networked computerized interconnection systems of the various air traffic control centers, the airport operators, the airline operators and the airline service provider, such as airlines. Catering, fuel supply, maintenance, etc. are now defined interfaces that are used for data exchange for air traffic planning and control.

Y. Günther, A. Inard, B. Werther, M. Bonnier, G. Spies, A. Marsden, M. Temme, D. Böhme, R. Lane and H. Niederstrasser: Total Airport Management (Operational Concept & Logical Architecture), Version 1.0, Eurocontrol and DLR, Paris / Braunschweig, 2006 describes a future-oriented technical concept for the control of airports, in which an interactive, tactical and strategic planning is to be performed by the functional units involved in the flight handling process , The process is supported by real-time data exchange and a decision-making process through interaction between the actors and different functional units.

EP 1 428 195 B1 discloses a method for temporally managing a flight of a plurality of aircraft against a specified system resource by an aviation system. The procedure is based on specified data and operational objectives of the aircraft and the system resource. The specific The associated data and operating targets are collected and stored and processed at certain start times for the purpose of predicting a first time of arrival of an approach mark for each aircraft. Furthermore, objective functions are specified which are used to optimize the approach mark times.

DE 10 2004 060 237 discloses a method for pre-tactical air traffic planning in connection with a joint negotiation of decisions by the participants involved in the flight handling. Computer network systems are designed to make predictions about the impact of aviation control actions on the control decisions sent to the subordinate computerized interconnected systems and corrective control signals and requests for control decisions communicated to the superordinated computerized interconnection systems. Using such predictions, it is possible for each process owner to simulate the impact of control decisions on the process controlled by the process owner in the handling of air traffic.

GB 2 430 278 A discloses a global neural network for resolving conflicts in flight handling. The network communicates decision-supporting information directly to the pilot, pilots, airline operators and airport operators.

US 2005/0090969 A1 also describes a system and a method for controlling airport operations. The system has decision-support tools to improve the exchange of information between the independent flight participants. For this purpose, decision-supporting databases of the airline operators as well as a central database of decision-making by the airport operator are envisaged. Based on this, it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved airport control device and a method for controlling the flight operations at an airport, allowing for the negotiation of control parameters between the subscribers, taking into account the different interests without the need for a basic central decision authority, the one for the individual and the entirety ensures acceptable flight handling.

The object is achieved with the airport control device of the type mentioned above in that the subscriber devices are further configured to analyze each desired control parameters using the at least one analysis unit and the computer-assisted negotiation of the respective desired control parameters such that in an iterative process using the at least one Analysis unit analyzable planning proposals for the flight handling of participating subscriber facilities by modifying control parameters are modifiable, acceptable or deniable.

It is proposed, in an iterative process, to provide the planning proposals for flight handling desired by the individual subscriber facilities and determined by control parameters for the analysis with the aid of at least one analysis unit, so that the concerned participants can each clarify the effects of the planning proposals. In an automated computerized compound system, the control parameters can then be modified, accepted or rejected by the participants. This provides a transparent, iterative negotiation process of the control parameters that are relevant for the flight handling with regard to the effects for all participants.

Preferably, at least one subscriber device for modulating the negotiation of control parameters by other subscriber devices is set up in such a way that computer-aided planning software capable of compromising Proposals can be displayed to the participating subscriber facilities and control parameters can be defined as binding by the moderator subscriber device.

Since the negotiation process is characterized by the egoistic interests of the individual participants, it is thus proposed that at least one subscriber device be provided for modulating the negotiation of control parameters. This moderator user equipment has, in contrast to central control equipment of the airport operator, primarily the task of moderating the independent negotiation process between the participants and not to control centrally by instruction. Due to the analyzability of the planning proposals, there is the possibility that computer-aided planning proposals proposed by the moderator user device can be displayed to the participating user devices, whereby the participating user devices can transparently recognize the advantages and disadvantages of the planning proposals on the basis of the analysis results. Only in the event that the subscriber facilities themselves do not agree, the moderator user equipment can also set control parameters as binding and withdraw from the disposition process of the individual participants.

This provides a technical system for supporting computerized negotiation using any negotiation protocol over any number of airport parameters and airport processes in an airport control center to control the airport.

In this context, it should be noted that the flight handling is a complex technical process in which different functions intermesh, such as the control of the aircraft by the pilot, the parent traffic management by the pilots, the technical equipment of the aircraft on the ground, such as refueling , the passenger handling etc. The airport controller is capable of managing the control parameters and processes necessary for the operational control of an airport. The individual participants (stakeholders) involved in the flight processing are able to carry out the changes or specifications that they deem necessary for the setting of the control parameters and processes. The airport control facility evaluates the inputs and predicts the expected traffic development of the airport. If a participant is satisfied with their parameter settings and the results derived from them, they can incorporate these attitudes into the negotiation process as a possible suggestion. Other participants are now able to analyze these proposals and, where appropriate, to discuss alternative proposals, thus optimally aligning the decision-making process with the objectives. The airport control device is set up in such a way that it automatically administers the procedure of the negotiation procedure on which the respective negotiation protocol is based. During the negotiation process, each participant's planning proposal is forwarded to all other involved stakeholders. These have the option of modifying the planning proposal so that it can be forwarded as a new planning proposal in an iterative process until an acceptable compromise has finally been found. The negotiation process is accompanied by the moderator instance, which can intervene in disputes and, if necessary, bring about a decision.

It is particularly advantageous if the at least one analysis unit is set up to determine benefit factors that each reflect the subscriber-related benefit of an analyzed planning proposal for a subscriber. The subscriber facilities are then set up to negotiate the planning proposals depending on the benefit factors and a total benefit factor for the overall process. Thus, an optimization of the flight handling is achieved depending on the individual benefit and the overall benefit, whereby the impact on planning proposals can be made transparent on the basis of the individual benefit factors and the overall benefit factor. The selfish interests of the individual participants can advantageously be influenced by rating points in order to achieve a result that is in line with the overall interests in flight handling. As a result, the subscriber devices are preferably set up to negotiate the planning proposals as a function of evaluation points of individual subscriber devices, wherein the subscriber devices are assigned evaluation points which are modified as a function of their compromise behavior during the negotiation of planning proposals.

In this way, a reward and punishment system is created, which rewards a compromising behavior of the participants and a selfish, uncompromising behavior of participants is punished. When implementing planning proposals, a participant with a high rating score will be able to assert their interests rather than a participant with low rating points. The evaluation points thus serve to prioritize the planning proposals or the control parameters of the individual participants contained therein.

Furthermore, it is advantageous if the subscriber facilities are set up to negotiate planning goals and priority weights for the planning goals to be taken into account in the negotiation of planning proposals. Thus, not only the planning proposals required for the flight handling are negotiated between the participants, but also the planning objectives and priority weights to be used in the selection of the control parameters. These may differ for the individual participants due to their different individual interests with the result that each participant makes a different optimization of the control parameters. By prior negotiation of common pia- objectives and priority weights are counteracted by selfish interests and a common basis for decision-making is found.

Accordingly, the object is achieved by the method for controlling the flight operation at an airport with the features of claims 6 to 9.

The invention will be explained in more detail with reference to an embodiment with the accompanying drawings. Show it:

Figure 1 - Block diagram of an airport control device for

Control of flight operations at an airport;

Figure 2 - flowchart of the method for controlling the flight operation at an airport.

FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of an airport control device 1 for controlling flight operations at an airport, which has a central database 2 with flight operating plans AOP stored there as well as copies AOP-C of flight operating plans. The flight operation plans AOP contain the control parameters necessary for controlling the technical operation of the flight operation including the associated control processes. On the one hand, these are the control parameters necessary for the control of the individual aircraft at the airport, such as the assignment of service times of airport resources, as well as the control parameters necessary for the handling of the aircraft and their passengers.

Overall, with such a well-known airport operating plan of the complex technical process of flight handling, in which a large number of participants are involved, which also partly belong to each other from different organizations, are coordinated and controlled.

TOP # 1, TOP # 2, ... TOP #n participating in the flight handling have the possibility of accessing AOP-C of the flight operation plans AOP via a data network 3 in order to not only read them out but as a suggestion for changes to the flight operations plan AOP by adapting control parameters in the flight operations plan AOP to communicate to TOP participants in order to negotiate an optimized AOP flight plan.

On the database 2 have more control and control devices 4a, 4b access that fulfill different tasks. With the aid of these guidance and control units 4a, 4b, the database 2 can e.g. be supplied with up-to-date data on the condition of the airport and the surrounding area necessary for the production of a flight operations plan AOP. Such state data can be, for example, current approach times of aircraft, weather data, runway clearances and runway closures, etc. The access of the control and monitoring units 4a, 4b to the database 2 via a data communication network. 5

For the facilitation of the negotiation of a flight operations plan AOP among the participants TOP # 1, TOP # 2, ... TOP #n a moderator subscriber unit TOP MOD is provided, which finally activates a negotiated flight operations plan AOP as a higher-level unit and releases it as binding.

FIG. 2 shows a flowchart of the method for controlling the flight operation at the airport using the airport control device 1 outlined in FIG.

If at least one of the subscriber devices TOP # 1, TOP # 2,... TOP #n recognizes a problem in the execution of the valid flight operation plan AOP or a change of the same makes sense for optimizing the flight operation plan AOP, the subscriber device TOP in a Step a) started a negotiation process.

In step b), the relevant subscriber devices TOP # 1, TOP # 2, TOP #n are started as to whether these subscriber devices TOP want to participate in the negotiation process. The moderator user equipment TOP MOD sets in a step c) a time to which the subscriber equipment TOP must have agreed on an acceptable modified flight operation plan AOP.

In a step d), the individual subscriber devices TOP # 1, TOP # 2, TOP #n decide whether they want to participate in the negotiation process. If they do not want to attend, then the procedure for these subscribers TOP is over. Otherwise, in a step e), access to the common database 2 makes it possible to access the information necessary for negotiating the flight schedules AOP.

In a step f1), f2), ... fn) the individual subscriber devices TOP # 1, TOP # 2, TOP #n now have a possibility by analyzing the future traffic situation at the airport when changing control parameters, the effects on the individual participants TOP to test any changes that may have been made.

The individual subscriber devices then decide in a step gl), g2) and gn) whether the proposed change fed into the database 2 by the initiator in step gl) is acceptable Qa) or not (no). If the proposal is unacceptable, the subscriber equipment TOP will transmit to the database 2 a better counterproposal prepared during the analysis as a copy AOP-C of a flight operations plan AOP (step h)).

In the event that the negotiation time set by the moderator user equipment TOP-MOD in step c) has expired (step i)) or the alternative proposal of the flight operation plan AOP has been accepted by all participants, an activation of the flight operation plan AOP takes place in step j) by the moderator user equipment TOP-MOD, so that this negotiated flight operation plan AOP is now valid and the negotiation process has ended. Otherwise, the moderator user device TOP-MOD in step k) examines the status of the decisions by the subscriber devices TOP and in an analysis of the future traffic situation at the airport the alternatives proposed in step h) with regard to the effects on the overall process are examined. In the event that the moderator participant device TOP-MOD does not have a better proposal, the current proposal will continue to be used as a basis and the negotiation process will continue iteratively. If, however, the moderator user device TOP-MOD concludes in step I) that there is a better and more negotiable solution, then in step m) the new proposed solution is made the current solution by being stored in the database 2 and the negotiation process is terminated Based on this alternative proposal of the moderator user equipment TOP-MOD iteratively continued.

The moderator subscriber unit TOP-MOD has the option, through the step j), of determining, by the step j) and the steps k), l) and m), control parameters as binding and these either in the sequence of steps k), l) and m) as a guideline in the iterative negotiation process or to fix it in the form of a binding flight operations plan AOP.

In the joint negotiation of flight plans AOP usually the selfish individual interests of the subscriber units TOP come into play. The selection of optimized control parameters and the approval of modified flight plans AOP-C can be based on benefit factors, which reflect the benefit of an analyzed planning proposal for a participant. A further benefit factor can be provided for the overall benefit of the complex technical process, which is preferably monitored by the moderator user equipment TOP-MOD.

In spite of the fundamental individual interests, the individual participant institutions TOP should be able to agree to compromise solutions. evaluation points that reflect the compromise behavior of the individual participant facilities TOP in the past. A participant with, for example, a high score score due to a proactive behavior that was very willing to compromise in the past can use (consume) score points to weight a change request of control parameters higher than requests for change from other participants. Thus, by agreeing on control parameters that are not so optimal for them, but still acceptable, subscribers can improve the score score to enforce a critical negotiation solution that is not optimal for the other participants or the overall process, such as the much-preferred aircraft clearance or the possibility of early landing in front of other on-hold aircraft.

An increase in the score point number can also take place if there are an early initiation of changes to the flight operations plan AOP. This is a reward that the Fugabwicklung is not disturbed by short-term control changes that are desired by the individual participants TOP and the associated participants or may even be necessary for the settlement.

Claims

claims

Airport control device (1) with a central database (2) containing a plurality of relevant control data for the processes associated with the execution of a flight and with a plurality of with the central database (2) connected computerized subscriber equipment (TOP), each for Planning and control of a specialized sub-process of flight handling are set up, and with at least one analysis unit for analyzing the future traffic situation at the airport, taking into account at least one sub-process of flight handling related control parameters that are desired by a subscriber device (TOP), and in the database containing control data, characterized in that the subscriber devices (TOP) continue to analyze each desired control parameters using the at least one analysis unit and the computer-aided negotiation of the respective desired control are configured such that in an iterative process using the at least one analysis unit analyzable planning proposals for the flight handling of participating subscriber equipment (TOP) by modifying control parameters are modifiable, acceptable or denied.

2. airport control device (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one subscriber device (TOP-MOD) for moderation of the negotiation of control parameters by other subscriber devices (TOP) is set up such that computer-aided compromise planning proposals to the participating subscriber facilities (TOP) can be displayed and Control parameters by the moderator user equipment (TOP-MOD) are defined as binding.

3. Airport control device (1) according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that at least one analysis unit for determining benefit factors, each participant-based reflect the benefit of an analyzed planning proposal for a participant is set up, the subscriber facilities (TOP) for negotiating the planning proposals depending on the benefit factors and a total benefit factor for the overall process.

4. airport control device (1) according to claim 3, characterized in that the subscriber facilities (TOP) are set up to negotiate the planning proposals depending on rating points of individual subscriber facilities (TOP), the subscriber facilities (TOP) are assigned evaluation points, depending on their compromise behavior the valuation point levels are modified when negotiating planning proposals.

5. Airport control device (1) according to one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the subscriber facilities (TOP) are set up to negotiate planning goals and priority weights for the planning objectives to be considered in the negotiation of planning proposals.

6. A method for controlling the flight operation at an airport with an airport control device (1) according to one of the preceding claims, characterized by an iterative negotiation process of control parameters for the processes associated with the execution of a flight by participating in the flight handling units using computer-aided subscriber facilities (TOP) , whereby the participants in the negotiation (TOP), at least with regard to their respective sub-process of flight handling, analyze the future traffic situation at the airport, taking into account Consideration of at least one sub-process of flight handling related control parameters that are desired by a user equipment (TOP), and in a database (2) containing control data and a modification of the control parameters and a subsequent analysis is carried out until one of all subscriber devices ( TOP) accepted compromise planning proposal is present.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that moderated by a moderator-subscriber device (TOP-MOD), the negotiation of the control parameters by computer-aided template compromise planning proposals and / or binding for all participants determination of control parameters.

8. The method of claim 6 or 7, characterized by determining utility factors, each reflecting the subscriber-related benefits of an analyzed planning proposal for a participant, and negotiation of the planning proposals by the subscriber facilities (TOP) depending on the benefit factors and a total benefit factor for the overall process of flight arrangements.

9. The method according to claim 8, characterized by negotiation of the planning proposals depending on rating points of individual subscriber facilities (TOP), the rating points of the subscriber facilities (TOP) depending on the support behavior of the subscriber facilities (TOP) are modified in the negotiation of planning proposals.