NASA/TM–2012–216051

Integrating the Base of Aircraft Data

(BADA) in CTAS Trajectory

Synthesizer

Michael Abramson

University of California, Santa Cruz, California

Kareem Ali

University of California, Santa Cruz, California

September 2012
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated

to the advancement of aeronautics and space

science. The NASA scientific and technical

information (STI) program plays a key part

in helping NASA maintain this important

role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the

auspices of the Agency Chief Information

Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for

archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI.

The NASA STI Program provides access to

the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database

and its public interface, the NASA Technical

Report Server, thus providing one of the

largest collection of aeronautical and space

science STI in the world. Results are

published in both non-NASA channels and

by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series,

which includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of

completed research or a major significant

phase of research that present the results

of NASA programs and include extensive

data or theoretical analysis. Includes

compilations of significant scientific and

technical data and information deemed to

be of continuing reference value. NASA

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal

professional papers, but having less

stringent limitations on manuscript length

and extent of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM.

Scientific and technical findings that are

preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g.,

quick release reports, working papers, and

bibliographies that contain minimal

annotation. Does not contain extensive

analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and

technical findings by NASA-sponsored

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.

Collected papers from scientific and

technical conferences, symposia, seminars,

or other meetings sponsored or

co-sponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

technical, or historical information from

NASA programs, projects, and missions,

often concerned with subjects having

substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific

and technical material pertinent to

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating

custom thesauri, building customized

databases, and organizing and publishing

research results.

For more information about the NASA STI

Program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help

Desk at 443-757-5803

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

443-757-5802

• Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320
NASA/TM–2012–216051

Integrating the Base of Aircraft Data

(BADA) in CTAS Trajectory

Synthesizer

Michael Abramson

University of California, Santa Cruz, California

Kareem Ali

University of California, Santa Cruz, California

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California 94035-1000

September 2012
The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not

constitute an offical endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

443-757-5802
Abstract

The Center-Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Automation System (CTAS), developed

at NASA Ames Research Center for assisting controllers in the management and control of air traffic

in the extended terminal area, supports the modeling of more than four hundred aircraft types.

However, 90% of them are supported indirectly by mapping them to one of a relatively few aircraft

types for which CTAS has detailed drag and engine thrust models. On the other hand, the Base of

Aircraft Data (BADA), developed and maintained by Eurocontrol, supports more than 300 aircraft

types, about one third of which are directly supported, i.e. they have validated performance data.

All these data were made available for CTAS by integrating BADA version 3.8 into CTAS Trajectory

Synthesizer (TS). Several validation tools were developed and used to validate the integrated code

and to evaluate the accuracy of trajectory predictions generated using CTAS “native” and BADA

Aircraft Performance Models (APM) comparing them with radar track data. Results of these

comparisons indicate that the two models have different strengths and weaknesses. The BADA

APM can improve the accuracy of CTAS predictions at least for some aircraft types, especially

small aircraft, and for some flight phases, especially climb.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

A306 Airbus A300B4-600

APM Aircraft Performance Model

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center

ATR72 Alenia ATR-72

B190 Beechcraft 1900

B733 Boeing 737-300

B737 Boeing 737-700

B738 Boeing 737-800

B752 Boeing 757-200

BADA Base of Aircraft DAta

BADA TS CTAS TS using any elements of BADA APM

BE20 Beechcraft Super King Air 200

BE36 Beechcraft Bonanza Model 36

BE40 Beechjet 400/T-1 Jayhawk

BE9L Beechcraft King Air 90

C182 Cessna 182 Skylane

C560 Cessna Citation V

C56X Cessna Citation Excel/560XL

C750 Cessna Citation X

CAS Calibrated Air Speed

CRJ2 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-200

CRJ7 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-700

CRJ9 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-900

CTAS Center-TRACON Automation System

CTAS/BADA TS CTAS TS with support for BADA APM

CTAS TS CTAS Trajectory Synthesizer with CTAS APM

1
E120 Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia

E135 Embraer ERJ-135

E145 Embraer ERJ-145

E170 Embraer E-170

ETA Estimated Time of Arrival

H25B Raytheon BAe-125-700/800

HCS Host Computer System

IBST Interval-Based Sampling Technique

LJ35 Learjet 35

MD82 McDonnell Douglas MD-82

MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-83

PC12 Pilatus PC-12 Spectre

PTD Performance Table Data

ROCD Rate of Climb or Descent

RUC Rapid Update Cycle

SA Separation Assurance

SR22 Cirrus SR-22

TAS True Air Speed

TOC Top of Climb

TOD Top of Descent

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control

TS Trajectory Synthesizer

ZDV Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC)

ZFW Fort Worth ARTCC

ZLA Los Angeles ARTCC

1 Introduction

The Center-Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Automation System (CTAS) is a set

of tools developed to help air traffic controllers manage complex air traffic flows to reduce delays

and increase safety [1]. These tools, known also as CTAS client applications, rely on the Trajectory

Synthesizer (TS) [3, 4] as the core computational engine for generating accurate predictions of 4Dtrajectories using the detailed aircraft performance characteristics, weather data, and data from the

Host Computer System (HCS). TS outputs predicted aircraft position, altitude, and performance

parameters, such as drag, thrust, weight, Rate of Climb or Descent (ROCD), and fuel consumption,

as a function of time.

CTAS currently supports more than four hundred aircraft types, but about 90% of them are

supported indirectly by mapping to aircraft types with known drag and engine thrust models.

Obtaining the detailed performance data for more aircraft types from manufacturers and validating

them may be problematic and time-consuming. Besides that, previous research validating the

accuracy of CTAS TS (see [5] and [6]) was limited to certain centers and aircraft types, and the

overall accuracy of CTAS predictions remained largely unknown.

On the other hand, the Base of Aircraft DATA (BADA) supports more than 300 aircraft types,

including about a hundred aircraft types with extensively validated performance data. BADA is an

2
Aircraft Performance Model (APM) developed and maintained by Eurocontrol and available free

of charge. This model is documented in the BADA User Manual [7]. The complementary “Base of

Aircraft DATA (BADA) Aircraft Performance Modelling Report” [8] provides further definition of

BADA parameters.

Note that BADA documentation [7] does not always make a clear distinction between the physical and operational components. For instance, BADA thrust model blends together the physical

parameters, such as maximum engine thrust, and operational considerations like the flight configuration or using reduced climb power. Note also that BADA does not include any official software

implementation, but it provides the data that can be used to verify correctness of any software that

implements the BADA APM.

The main potential advantage of using BADA is that it directly supports more aircraft types in

comparison with CTAS and may provide more accurate aircraft parameters for some aircraft types

currently supported by CTAS. Besides that, some elements of the BADA operational model, such

as default speeds and the use of reduced climb power, may be based on more realistic assumptions.

Another important benefit of using BADA is that it is maintained by Eurocontrol and it is expected

to be regularly updated and improved over time.

To take full advantage of these benefits, BADA APM was integrated in CTAS TS to augment the

“native” CTAS APM for aircraft types not supported by CTAS or having the better models in

BADA. A set of validation tools was developed and used to judge the accuracy of BADA APM and

CTAS APM by comparing trajectory predictions built using both performance models to radar

track and other reference data.

Software design for BADA-CTAS Integration is presented in Section 2 of this TM. Section 3 describes the tools developed to validate the correctness of software implementation and the accuracy

of BADA APM in comparison with CTAS APM. Section 4 briefly describes the results of software

validation. Section 5 describes the results of evaluation of CTAS TS with “native” CTAS and

integrated BADA model for various aircraft types and operational parameters. The TM is concluded with Section 6, summarizing the main findings. The Appendix includes examples of BADA

Operation Performance Files (OPF) and Performance Table Data (PTD) files.

2 BADA-CTAS Integration

CTAS TS with support for BADA will be referenced in this TM as “CTAS/BADA TS”. The term

“CTAS TS” will refer to CTAS/BADA TS using only “native” CTAS APM, which is functionally

equivalent to the “original” CTAS TS without support for BADA APM.

CTAS TS is a faster-than-real-time trajectory predictor that can be called for every radar track

hit, or every 12 seconds, for each of thousands flights managed by CTAS tools. So, the main design

requirement was to minimize performance penalty introduced by adding support for both CTAS

and BADA models. Also, it was desirable to minimize CTAS TS code changes, to separate clearly

the BADA-specific code from the rest of CTAS TS, and to make new code consistent with existing

CTAS TS infrastructure.

These requirements motivated the design of container class APMDef, encapsulating CTAS and

3
BADA APMs in abstract model definition interfaces, such as ADragDef, AThrustDef, etc., as

shown in Figure 1. Here “[CTAS TS]” denotes any classes of “original” CTAS TS reused in

CTAS/BADA TS code. In particular, VSFixed is the base CTAS TS class for all vertical solution

classes, and DragModel and ThrustModel are the existing CTAS TS classes modeling drag and

engine thrust. Each model definition interface member variable in APMDef class, such as mDragDef

and mThrustDef, is instantiated only once to CTAS or BADA implementation in constructors of

corresponding Model Definition subclasses for each aircraft type based on BADA configuration

files. Hence, extending CTAS TS for BADA APM does not introduce any performance penalty in

run time.

Figure 1. CTAS/BADA TS Class Diagram

Our implementation of CTAS/BADA TS fully supports BADA APM with additional features and

extensions listed below:

4
• Easy switch between CTAS “native” and BADA APM by changes in user-defined configuration files;

• BADA can be used for specific aircraft types or for all aircraft types;

• Each element of BADA APM (drag model, thrust model, speed profile, etc.) can be turned

on/off and tested separately;

• Some parameters of BADA APM, such as aircraft weight, can be specified as aircraft-specific

user-defined values;

• The weight of aircraft can be specified as a constant or variable. In the latter case, the weight

is calculated as a function of time based on fuel consumption as described in [9];

• BADA thrust model was extended to allow the variable power settings to control the engine

thrust in response on client speed requests, such as speed advisories for trial planning. Specifically, the maximum climb power is used for acceleration, and the BADA idle-thrust is used

for deceleration in any flight phase;

• Fuel consumption is always based on instantaneous thrust value, even if it deviates from

nominal BADA thrust due to client requests;

• Speed profile can be defined as CTAS, BADA “exact” with nominal BADA speeds defined

in [7], and BADA “hybrid” with BADA speeds that can be updated by speed requests from

CTAS client applications;

• Some BADA options defined as “global” in [7], such as reduced climb power or expedited

descent, can be defined as aircraft-specific in CTAS/BADA TS.

This rich functionality is controlled by two BADA-CTAS Configuration Files, loaded by CTAS at

startup time:

• data sources, which specifies the available data sources (currently CTAS and BADA 3.8, but

other versions of BADA can be added later);

• aircraft data sources, which defines the additional options for each element (sub-model) of

APM.

If BADA APM is requested, the following BADA Input Files will be used (see [7] for details):

• SYNONYM.NEW: the ICAO codes and prefixes for files with aircraft-specific data;

• BADA.GPF - Global Parameters Files, containing the values for BADA global parameters;

• OPF files - Operation Performance Files (one file for each aircraft type, see Appendix A);

• APF files - Airline Procedures Files (one file for each aircraft type).

Typical operation of CTAS/BADA TS includes three steps:

1. Read BADA-CTAS configuration files;

2. Read CTAS common aircraft data files and BADA data files, and use the data from configuration files to instantiate CTAS or BADA implementations for each APM element;

3. Generate trajectories using CTAS and/or BADA APM as defined in configuration files.

The trajectories generated by CTAS/BADA TS may be saved in archive files for further analysis

and comparisons with radar track and other benchmark data using validation tools described in

next section.

5
3 Validation Tools and Methods

The goals of validation are two-fold. First of all, it should be confirmed that implementation of

BADA APM in CTAS/BADA TS is correct by comparison with benchmark data, provided by

Eurocontrol in the form of “Performance Table Data” (PTD) files (see [7] and Appendix B). Next,

it should be examined how the usage of BADA APM will help improve CTAS. This second goal

can be accomplished by running CTAS/BADA TS with CTAS APM and BADA APM side by side

and comparing their predictions to each other and to radar track data.

For a first goal, the PTD validation tool was developed to validate the implementation of BADA

APM by reporting how closely the results produced by the current version of CTAS/BADA TS

match the reference data from PTD files. For these comparisons linear interpolation on the TS

output is used to get data at flight levels, specified in BADA PTD files.

For a second goal, namely, validation of CTAS APM and BADA APM, a number of other tools

was created. Two of them are briefly considered in this section:

1. TrackComparer tool

2. CmSimTrackComparer tool

TrackComparer tool uses methodology similar to what was described in [6]. It combines three

different analysis techniques:

• Systematic analysis - Comparison of every predicted position with actual track data, and of

predictions against each other, provided that data can be compared for a specified minimum

time or path distance. This analysis generates systematic error statistics for all aircraft types,

but it does not reflect the evolution of error along track.

• Interval-based sampling technique (IBST) - Samples track data and predictions at

regular intervals along the track, as described in [10].

• Separation assurance trajectory accuracy algorithm (SA analysis) - Computes metrics at a specific lookahead time starting at (user-defined) climb and descending altitudes. SA

analysis is a truncated variant of IBST that computes metrics for only one (first) prediction

for each track. This makes it less computationally expensive than IBST, at the cost of a

reduced size of data set.

The tool requires the following inputs:

• Cm sim file, generated by CTAS using HCS data. It contains flight plans, flight plan amendments, and radar tracks.

• Trajectory archive files for trajectories generated by CTAS/BADA TS. These files are used

for comparison with track data.

CmSimTrackComparer tool was originally developed for comparing CTAS/BADA TS predictions

against track data for idle-thrust descents with controlled cruise and descent speeds that were

recorded for Denver arrivals in 2009, studied in [11]. The tool can also be useful for other CTAS

data analysis/validation tasks.

6
It combines the following functions:

• automatically generate requests to TS from radar track data;

• invoke TS for each request;

• compare generated predictions against tracks.

In contrast to TrackComparer, CmSimTrackComparer has only one required input, a cm sim file,

that makes possible to run it without running CTAS. Optional input text files can be used to limit

analysis to particular flights and to specify estimated values for descent speeds and aircraft weights.

On the other hand, CmSimTrackComparer compares track data to predictions generated using

only one APM, either CTAS or BADA, while TrackComparer can simultaneously compare CTAS

predictions to track data, BADA predictions to track data, and BADA predictions to CTAS predictions.

Both TrackComparer and CmSimTrackComparer tools use the metrics defined in [10]:

along-track error (time-correlated):

ΔATt = U· V

V(1)

along-track error (path-correlated):

ΔATp = tp − tt (2)

cross-track error (time-correlated):

ΔCT = U× V

V(3)

altitude error:

Δh = ht − hp (4)

where t is a time, h is an altitude, and the subcripts p and t designate the path-based and timebased correlations. The vectors Uand Vare based on the position of aircraft denoted as AC and

a trajectory segment between the points T J1 and T J2 as shown on Figure 2.

All metrics, except for the along-track error for the path distance correlation, have the characteristic

that the predicted trajectory is subtracted from the reference (or track). For BADA predictions

compared against CTAS, the reference is always the CTAS prediction.

Besides these metrics, TrackComparer calculates the metrics for “events,” such as the Top of Climb

(TOC), the Top of Descent (TOD), and the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA). In this study the

Top of Climb is defined as the end of the longest procedural climb in the flight or prediction, and the

Top of Descent is defined as the start of the longest procedural descent in the flight or prediction.

A procedural climb is defined as a non-decreasing sequence of altitudes with at least one strictly

increasing sequence of altitudes, and procedural descent as a non-increasing sequence of altitudes

with at least one strictly decreasing sequence of altitudes.

For arriving flights, CTAS makes a clear distinction between Center predictions originating in the

ARTCC and ending at the meterfix, and TRACON predictions within the TRACON. Consequently,

the metrics for ETA are defined differently for these two classes of predictions. For a Center

7
Figure 2. Horizontal Trajectory Prediction Metrics

prediction, the ETA is the time when the track or prediction reaches the Center-TRACON boundary

(the meterfix), while for a TRACON prediction the ETA is based on the end of trajectory.

For each comparison (e.g. for each prediction-reference pair) the maximum, minimum, mean, and

absolute mean errors are calculated and stored in SQL-lite database. Then the maximum, mean,

minimum, and standard deviation are calculated over each of these metrics separately for CTAS vs.

Track, BADA vs. Track, and BADA vs. CTAS comparisons. For example, the “mean of absolute

mean errors” is the mean of absolute mean errors for all predictions. Other metrics used in this

TM are defined similarly.

4 CTAS/BADA TS Software Validation

Implementation of BADA APM in CTAS/BADA TS was validated using the PTD validation tool

with benchmark PTD files as of the 5th of May 2011. This validation was performed only for

BADA “exact” speeds and constant weight, since the PTD files were generated for these conditions

The following two metrics were considered: a trajectory success rate, and a comparison success

rate. The trajectory success rate is defined as a percentage of trajectories successfully generated by

CTAS/BADA TS to all trajectory requests. CTAS/BADA TS may fail to generate trajectories for

certain requests because of unrealistic constraints or aircraft performance data or due to limitations

imposed by implementation of TS computational algorithms.

Over all considered aircraft types, e.g. all types for which the BADA provided the PTD files, the

PTD validation gives 99.8% trajectory success rate.

The comparison success rate is defined as a percentage of successful comparisons to all comparisons.

Comparison is considered successful if the mean absolute errors for all trajectory parameters are

less than the specified tolerances listed in Table 1:

8
Table 1. PTD Comparison Tolerances

Parameter Tolerance

True Air Speed (TAS) 5 knots

Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) 5 knots

Mach 0.1

Thrust 1000 Newtons

Drag 1000 Newtons

ROCD 100 feet per minute

With these tolerances a comparison success rate with the PTD reference was 78.3%. The majority of failed comparisons were due to thrust or ROCD. These failures occurred because “the

PTF/PTD files do not take into account the flight envelope limitations”, as the BADA support

group acknowledged responding on request by the authors of this TM. Therefore, the tables in

BADA PTD files include the data up to the maximum altitudes with a negative rate of climb

indicating that aircraft cannot climb up to that altitudes. CTAS TS copes with this situation by

increasing thrust to achieve a minimum energy rate required for climb, while ROCD is calculated

from the Newton’s equation of motion and can never be negative in climb. Therefore, the BADA

implementation in CTAS/BADA TS disagrees with BADA PTD reference for conditions that are

not physically possible.

Increasing the thrust tolerance to 2000 Newtons and the ROCD tolerance to 200 feet per minute

resulted in an increased comparison success rate of 90.5%. All remaining failures were due to failed

comparisons in drag. All data in BADA PTD files are expressed on the coarse grid as functions of

the flight level (FL) (see Appendix B). Hence, comparisons of CTAS/BADA TS results against the

PTD data require interpolation between this coarse grid and the the grid used by CTAS/BADA

TS. The lift coefficient, and hence the drag, appear to be especially sensitive to these interpolation

errors. Other parameters, such as altitude and CAS, were not affected by these errors.

5 Evaluation of CTAS/BADA TS

BADA documentation [7] already allows certain variability in some elements of BADA APM. For

example, a user can choose to use full or reduced climb power, standard descent or expedited descent

with spoilers, and so on. Implementation of BADA APM in CTAS/BADA TS further extends this

variability. Hence, any discussion of CTAS/BADA TS evaluation results requires specification of

“the variant” of BADA APM used.

First, the definitions of CTAS and BADA speed profiles should be considered. CTAS TS uses

aircraft-specific default speeds, but they can be updated from client speed requests and the initial speed from track. On another hand, BADA User Manual, [7], defines aircraft-specific speeds

for all flight phases, which will be called the “BADA exact” speed profile. In addition to this,

CTAS/BADA TS supports the “BADA hybrid” speed profile, defined as BADA exact speeds, replaced when necessary with speeds requested by CTAS clients. A variant of “BADA hybrid” speed

profile, which will be referred in this TM as “BADA hybrid hold,” holds initial speeds as CTAS TS

does. Therefore, the “BADA hybrid hold” speed profile is similar to CTAS speed profile, except

9
the definition of default speeds: the BADA “exact” speeds from [7] are used as default speeds for

BADA, while for CTAS the default speeds are explicitly specified for each aircraft type.

Next, the “default” initial aircraft weight should be defined, which is based on BADA reference

weight, corrected to account for a starting point of aircraft. CTAS TS does not have access to

flight history before the first prediction point, so the method of initial weight correction based on

estimated fuel burn, suggested in [12] and [13], could not be used. Therefore, a more practical,

although less accurate, correction technique was necessary. This technique used heuristics, taking

into account a starting point of aircraft. Effectively, these heuristics ensured that the initial weight

gradually approached the BADA maximum weight at the beginning of climb, and the “landing

weight”, defined as BADA empty weight increased by 20%, at the end of descent. The code also

ensured that the actual aircraft weight could not fall below the “landing weight”.

BADA Base case can be defined as follows:

1. BADA thrust model;

2. BADA drag model;

3. BADA weight model that implies the weight starting from “default” initial weight and changing as a function of consumed fuel;

4. Reduced climb power, which will give more realistic climb profile than the maximum thrust

does (see [7], p.24);

5. BADA “exact” speed profile (requests are ignored);

6. BADA model limits (trajectories assumed invalid if BADA limits are violated).

Therefore, the BADA Base case can be seen as the most “authentic” implementation of [7]. All

other BADA test cases are built upon the BADA Base case as shown in Table 2. Examining these

cases allows to study the effects of extensions of BADA APM and, to some degree, the effects of

uncertanties in speeds, weight, thrust, and drag.

Note that only the BADA Base case can be considered as a “nominal” case, for which the BADA

APM was validated by the Eurocontrol. All other cases are “off-nominal” models that require

additional validation by comparisons of predicted trajectories against track data as described in

this section.

All comparisons were made using BADA version 3.8 and RUC weather files with 40km grid for

corresponding days and locations.

Table 2. BADA APM variants

CTAS speeds Base case, but CTAS speed profile

Hybrid Hold Base case, but BADA hybrid hold speed profile

Increased Weight Base case, but weight ratio = 110% (10% above “default” weight)

Reduced Weight Base case, but weight ratio = 90% (10% below “default” weight)

Maximum Climb Thrust Base case, but without reduced climb power

Expedited Descent Base case, but with expedited descent

Reduced Climb and Descent Maximum climb thrust, but with expedited descent

10
5.1 Fort Worth Center (ZFW), 3 days

The TrackComparer tool, briefly described in previous section, was used to compare radar track

data with predictions obtained using CTAS/BADA TS for different BADA variants for 3 days of

traffic from Feb 23 to Feb 25 of 2011 in Fort Worth Center (ZFW).

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the performance of CTAS and various BADA variants for time-based

correlations. Each row in these tables includes the averaged (over all predictions) absolute values

of maximal errors, mean errors, absolute values of mean errors, maximal errors, minimal errors,

and standard deviations of metrics defined in Section 3.

As can be seen from Tables 3 and 4, all BADA variants perform as well or slightly better than

CTAS in terms of altitude and along-track errors. However, the differences between BADA and

CTAS and between different BADA variants in mean of absolute mean errors do not exceed a few

percent of error magnitudes, except for BADA Hybrid Hold variant that shows the most noticeable

advantage over CTAS in terms of mean of absolute mean along-track errors.

The differences between CTAS and BADA become more pronounced when plotted for specific

aircraft types and flight phases. Note that the aircraft-type-specific data on all histograms are

shown in the order of decreasing aircraft-type frequency from the left to the right, so the data for

most frequent aircraft types always appear on the left side.

All plots below for along-track and altitude errors are given for time-based correlations. The plots

for cross-track errors are not included, since these errors were found to be practically the same for

BADA and CTAS. This should be expected since the cross-track errors are mostly related to intent

and flight plan amendments, and so they are not sensitive to a particular APM.

Table 3. Mean altitude errors (ft) for CTAS/BADA TS

Test case Comparison Abs Max Mean Abs Mean Max Min Std Dev

Base Case CTAS vs. Track 25592 -267 938 25592 -21308 1932

BADA vs. Track 25834 -176 899 25834 -21308 1874

CTAS Speeds CTAS vs. Track 22831 -281 867 22831 -19415 1835

BADA vs. Track 24782 -223 846 24782 -19415 1808

Hybrid Hold CTAS vs. Track 24506 -280 898 24506 -19763 1882

BADA vs. Track 25109 -213 866 25109 -19763 1837

Increased

Weight

CTAS vs. Track 25592 -267 927 25592 -19415 1917

BADA vs. Track 25834 -173 883 25834 -21170 1851

Reduced Weight CTAS vs. Track 27250 -97 1095 27250 -19763 2245

BADA vs. Track 27250 -96 1083 27250 -19763 2228

Maximum

Climb Thrust

CTAS vs. Track 25592 -263 923 25592 -21308 1916

BADA vs. Track 25834 -196 891 25834 -21308 1867

Expedited

Descent

CTAS vs. Track 25592 -267 937 25592 -21308 1932

BADA vs. Track 25834 -238 903 25834 -21308 1874

Reduced Climb

and Descent

CTAS vs. Track 25479 -267 927 25479 -19943 1922

BADA vs. Track 25834 -264 898 25834 -21170 1867

11
Table 4. Mean along-track errors (nmi) for CTAS/BADA TS

Test case Comparison Abs Max Mean Abs Mean Max Min Std Dev

Base Case CTAS vs. Track 129.87 0.2 2.7 45.47 -129.87 4.73

BADA vs. Track 129.86 0.1 2.61 45.47 -129.86 4.52

CTAS Speeds CTAS vs. Track 129.71 0.61 2.43 45.48 -129.71 4

BADA vs. Track 129.73 0.77 2.35 45.48 -129.73 3.81

Hybrid Hold CTAS vs. Track 129.71 0.38 2.55 45.48 -129.71 4.22

BADA vs. Track 129.73 0.49 2.2 45.48 -129.73 3.59

Increased

Weight

CTAS vs. Track 129.87 0.17 2.7 45.47 -129.87 4.68

BADA vs. Track 131.32 -0.03 2.78 45.47 -131.32 4.63

Reduced Weight CTAS vs. Track 129.87 -0.07 3.09 45.47 -129.87 5.62

BADA vs. Track 129.86 -0.19 3.05 45.47 -129.86 5.52

Maximum

Climb Thrust

CTAS vs. Track 129.87 0.19 2.73 45.47 -129.87 4.85

BADA vs. Track 129.86 0.05 2.65 45.47 -129.86 4.65

Expedited

Descent

CTAS vs. Track 129.87 0.18 2.7 45.48 -129.87 4.7

BADA vs. Track 129.86 0.04 2.66 45.48 -129.86 4.52

Reduced Climb

and Descent

CTAS vs. Track 129.87 0.2 2.7 45.48 -129.87 4.68

BADA vs. Track 131.32 -0.03 2.8 45.48 -131.32 4.64

Figure 3 shows the most frequently observed aircraft types for Fort Worth Center in comparisons

between CTAS and BADA Base case.

Figures 4 and 5 show that overall mean altitude error distributions for all flight phases together

are similar for CTAS and BADA.

However, Figure 6 indicates that BADA APM may reduce the bias in altitude predictions when

compared with CTAS APM because of lower mean of mean altitude errors for 20 of 40 aircraft

types and for 6 of 10 most frequent aircraft types. Furthermore, as can be seen from Figure 7,

BADA may significantly improve the altitude prediction accuracy of CTAS TS for certain aircraft

types, such as CRJ7, CRJ9, BE9L, and E145.

Figure 8 shows that using BADA Base case may also help reduce the bias in the along-track error

for several aircraft types, including A320, B737, B738, B752, CRJ7, CRJ9, and E145. This may

indicate that BADA “exact” speeds can be more realistic than the default CTAS speeds.

The event errors are plotted on Figures 9 through 14. These results show an improvement in the

TOC time accuracy and generally similar results for TOD time accuracy. The results for ETA

indicate that BADA APM may perform slightly better in predicting arrival times for many aircraft

types, but for certain aircraft types (E135, BE40, BE36, C182) the BADA ETA errors are much

higher when compared with CTAS.

Figures 15 through 17 show the IBST analysis results for climb prediction errors expressed as a

function of look-ahead time, which is defined as the time interval between the sample time and

the future time at which the prediction is made. The plots indicate that BADA may help improve

the altitude prediction accuracy in climbs. This can be seen from the fact that the mean altitude

12
error remains essentially flat along the track, and the mean absolute and standard deviation of

altitude error are lower than in CTAS for the whole range of look-ahead times. At the same time,

in descents BADA underperforms in the interval-based sampling results for mean, mean absolute

and standard deviation of altitude error, shown on Figures 18 through 20.

Note that the graphs do not start from zero errors because of the logic of the IBST that does not

use the track position as the initial position for comparisons between track and predicted points.

Instead, the IBST selects a first (most recent) eligible prediction for each track that might be

generated some time before a sample point (see [10]). This time difference can be especially large

if some predictions after the “first eligible prediction” fail.

It is instructive to look at results for the TRACON area only, e.g. excluding en-route predictions.

In the TRACON CTAS TS generates predictions only for arriving flights. Modeling of TRACON

trajectories is challenging since the arriving aircraft changes its altitude and speed in wide limits,

makes frequent turns, uses variable thrust, and deploys flaps, spoilers, and the landing gear affecting

the drag. CTAS TS copes with these challenges using the kinematic modeling specifically taylored

for arrivals [2]. In contrast, BADA APM is kinetic for all flight phases, including the terminal

approach and landing.

Figure 21 shows most frequent aircraft types with more than 10 flights for subset of flights including

TRACON arrivals only. As can be seen from comparison to Figure 3, restricting the data set to

the TRACON arrivals results in different most frequent aircraft types, with increased gap between

MD82 and other aircraft and significantly reduced fraction of B737. These changes are not unexpected since CTAS is Center-specific, and the flights through particular ARTCC to other Centers

can be performed by different airlines using different aircraft.

Figures 22 and 23 show that BADA may reduce the altitude bias for several most frequent aircraft

types in the TRACON, although the mean of absolute mean altitude errors remains roughly the

same as in CTAS TS. This finding may not hold for all TRACONs in all Centers, but it is still

significant since it proves that BADA kinetic model can outperform the kinematic model, used by

CTAS TS in TRACON, [2].

All results discussed so far were obtained using the BADA Base case. The BADA Hybrid Hold

variant performs similarly, but in the TRACON it reduces the values of mean of mean altitude

errors for almost all most frequent aircraft types (except most of Boeing aircraft types), as shown

in Figure 24.

The improvement over BADA Base case in TRACON area can be attributed to the fact that

in BADA Hybrid Hold case the BADA default speeds can be changed by client requests. This

advantage becomes even more apparent from comparisons with Denver 2009 descent data (see

section 5.4 below). For this reason, for other centers the BADA Hybrid Hold variant was used

rather than the BADA Base case.

The BADA Expedited Descent variant achieves even more reductions in altitude errors in the

TRACON. As can be seen from Figure 25 the mean of mean altitude errors is significantly lower

then in CTAS TS for most aircraft types including MD82, MD83, B752, E135 and E145. However,

for some aircraft types the mean of mean altitude errors is much larger, as in the case of B733 and

B737.

13
The plots for BADA reduced and increased weight variants, shown in Figures 26 through 31 compared with results for BADA Base case with nominal weight in Figures 6 and 7, demonstrate the

effect of weight uncertainty on prediction accuracy in climb. Again, these plots show the different

ordering of aircraft types, because some flights can fly over the center and so the most frequent

aircraft types for departing flights are not necessarily the same as for all flights.

The reduced weight variant (Figures 26 and 29) shows a very good improvement over the BADA

Base case in climbs. We can see that in contrast to the BADA Base case, the reduced weight

variant performs better than CTAS, rather than worse, for the mean of mean altitude errors for

MD82, MD83, E135, B738, and B737 aircraft types. The mean of absolute mean altitude errors

have also improved for many aircraft types.

The effect of increased weight in climb is less pronounced as can be seen from Figures 28 and 31

compared with Figures 27 and 30 for BADA Base case with nominal weight. This can be explained

by inverse dependency of ROCD, and hence the altitude, on aircraft weight, making the altitude

errors less sensitive to weight when the weight increases. Using the BADA reduced climb power

further reduces this sensitivity as can be seen from equations (3.8-1) and (3.8-2) in [7].

It can be noted that CTAS default aircraft weights can also be adjusted to reduce errors of CTAS

APM, although this is beyond the scope of this study.

One especially interesting BADA variant is the BADA with CTAS speeds since its comparison with

CTAS APM allows to study separately the effect of the aircraft performance model for the same

speed profile. It is clear from Figures 32 and 33 that the BADA with CTAS speeds reduced the

altitude errors for most frequent aircraft types, except CRJ7 and CRJ9.

Aircraft Type

Figure 3. Most frequent aircraft types for Fort Worth center

14
Altitude Error (ft)

Figure 4. Overall mean altitude error, CTAS distribution

Altitude Error (ft)

Figure 5. Overall mean altitude error, BADA distribution

15
Aircraft Type

Figure 6. Mean of mean altitude errors

Aircraft Type

Figure 7. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors

16
Aircraft Type

Figure 8. Mean of mean along-track errors

Aircraft Type

Figure 9. Events, Mean of mean TOC time errors

17
Aircraft Type

Figure 10. Events, Mean of absolute mean TOC time errors

Aircraft Type

Figure 11. Events, Mean of mean TOD time errors

18
Aircraft Type

Figure 12. Events, Mean of absolute mean TOD time errors

Aircraft Type

Figure 13. Events, Mean of mean ETA time errors

19
Aircraft Type

Figure 14. Events, Mean of absolute mean ETA time errors

Look-ahead time (minutes)

Figure 15. Interval-based sampling, mean altitude error during climb

20
Look-ahead time (minutes)

Figure 16. Interval-based sampling, mean absolute altitude error during climb

Look-ahead time (minutes)

Figure 17. Interval-based sampling, standard deviation of altitude error during climb

21
Look-ahead time (minutes)

Figure 18. Interval-based sampling, mean altitude error during descent

Look-ahead time (minutes)

Figure 19. Interval-based sampling, mean absolute altitude error during descent

22
Look-ahead time (minutes)

Figure 20. Interval-based sampling, standard deviation of altitude error during descent

Aircraft Type

Figure 21. Most frequent aircraft types for samples with more than 10 flights in TRACON

23
Aircraft Type

Figure 22. Mean of mean altitude errors, TRACON only

Aircraft Type

Figure 23. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors, TRACON only

24
Aircraft Type

Figure 24. Mean of mean altitude errors for BADA Hybrid Hold, TRACON only

Aircraft Type

Figure 25. Mean of mean altitude errors for BADA Expedited Descent, TRACON only

25
Aircraft Type

Figure 26. Mean of mean altitude errors in climb, BADA Reduced Weight

Aircraft Type

Figure 27. Mean of mean altitude errors in climb, BADA Nominal Weight

26
Aircraft Type

Figure 28. Mean of mean altitude errors in climb, BADA Increased Weight

Aircraft Type

Figure 29. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in climb, BADA Reduced Weight

27
Aircraft Type

Figure 30. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in climb, BADA Nominal Weight

Aircraft Type

Figure 31. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in climb, BADA Increased Weight

28
Aircraft Type

Figure 32. Mean of mean altitude errors for BADA with CTAS speeds

Aircraft Type

Figure 33. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors for BADA with CTAS speeds

29
Moreover, for aircraft types with largest altitude errors in CTAS, such as E145, E135, BE20, and

BE9L, the BADA with CTAS speeds yields substantially better accuracy. These results demonstrate

that the BADA APM is superior for the vast majority of aircraft types, and especially for smaller

aircraft types, such as E145 and E135. At the same time, comparison of these plots with Figures

6 and 7 does not show significant advantage of using BADA speeds (e.g. Base case variant) over

CTAS speeds in terms of altitude accuracy.

5.2 Los Angeles Center (ZLA), 1 day

Using the same methodology, the radar track data for 1 day of traffic in Los Angeles center (ZLA)

were compared with CTAS TS and BADA Hybrid Hold predictions.

Table 5 summarizes results obtained from these comparisons:

Table 5. Mean altitude and along-track errors for BADA Hybrid Hold for Los Angeles center

Error type Comparison Abs Max Mean Abs Mean Max Min Std Dev

Altitude (ft) CTAS vs. Track 25960 797 1966 22475 -25960 3507

BADA vs. Track 25598 863 1963 19756 -25598 3492

Along-track

(nm)

CTAS vs. Track 122.47 3.66 7.35 54.26 -122.47 8.9

BADA vs. Track 125.94 3.83 6.73 51.59 -125.94 8.37

For this center BADA does not have clear advantages over CTAS in terms of altitude and alongtrack errors. This can be partially explained by the different aircraft type decomposition with most

frequent aircraft type B737 rather than MD82, as evident from Figure 34.

The results plotted on Figures 35 and 36 show that for this center BADA clearly outperforms CTAS

in terms of altitude errors for A319, CRJ7, and CRJ9.

In TRACON area, BADA altitude errors are much lower in comparison with CTAS only for two

aircraft types - A319 and CRJ2, and consistently higher for all other aircraft as becomes apparent

from Figures 37 and 38.

30
Aircraft Type

Figure 34. Most frequent aircraft types for samples with more than 10 flights in Los Angeles center

Aircraft Type

Figure 35. Mean of mean altitude errors in Los Angeles center

31
Aircraft Type

Figure 36. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in Los Angeles center

Aircraft Type

Figure 37. Mean of mean altitude errors in Los Angeles center, TRACON only

32
Aircraft Type

Figure 38. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in Los Angeles center, TRACON only

5.3 Denver Center (ZDV), 5 days

This sub-section discusses the performance of the BADA Hybrid Hold variant against CTAS APM

for January 31st through February 4th 2011 in Denver Center. This time period was characterized

by variable weather, including days with rain and snow, low ceilings, and strong winds. Therefore,

it was important to verify whether the comparison results for these conditions are consistent with

results for two other centers presented above.

Table 6 summarizes the comparison results for Denver center:

Table 6. Mean altitude and along-track errors for BADA Hybrid Hold for Denver center

Error type Comparison Abs Max Mean Abs Mean Max Min Std Dev

Altitude (ft) CTAS vs. Track 22156 -52 524 22156 -17490 1383

BADA vs. Track 23969 -64 534 23969 -17688 1414

Along-track

(nm)

CTAS vs. Track 138.23 1.76 3.42 105.46 -138.23 4.84

BADA vs. Track 138.38 2.02 3.22 105.46 -138.38 4.37

Clearly for this center BADA does not have any advantages over CTAS in terms of altitude errors,

and it shows only minor improvements in terms of along-track errors.

33
Once again, Figure 39 shows a different type decomposition; the most frequently observed aircraft

types were the B737, A320, B752, and A319.

Aircraft Type

Figure 39. Most frequent aircraft types in Denver center

Figures 40 and 41 show uneven results for altitude errors, with BADA being substantially more

accurate for several aircraft types (CRJ7, E170, B190, BE20, C750, MD82, BE9L), and CTAS

much more accurate for other aircraft types (CRJ2, C560, C56X, E120, LJ35). However, the

overall BADA performance is affected by the fact that BADA is a little less accurate for the four

aircraft types most frequently observed in Denver center: B737, A320, B752, and A319.

It is interesting to note that BADA is much more accurate than CTAS in predicting TOC for the

vast majority of the most frequently observed aircraft types. This is consistent with results for

Los Angeles Center and for several BADA variants for Fort Worth Center as well (compare, for

instance, Figure 9 with Figure 42).

34
Aircraft Type

Figure 40. Mean of mean altitude errors in Denver center

Aircraft Type

Figure 41. Mean of absolute mean altitude errors in Denver center

35
Aircraft Type

Figure 42. Mean of absolute mean TOC time errors in Denver center

5.4 Off-nominal conditions, Denver 2009

We could have seen already from comparison between Figures 24 and 22 that the BADA Hybrid

Hold variant showed a similar or even better performance than the BADA Base case. This finding

could be seen as an indirect evidence of relative insensitivity of BADA accuracy to limited deviations

from nominal BADA speeds, allowed by BADA Hybrid Hold speed profile.

However, it was desirable to study the effect of off-nominal speeds for better controlled conditions

with reduced uncertainty in aircraft weight, speed, and pilot intent. This was done by utilizing

the data collected in Denver in 2009, which included descending flights performed according to

predefined descent profiles. The data set for Denver-2009 included, in addition to cm sim files

with radar tracks, the weather Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) files, the data for advisory descent

speeds and, for some flights, the actual descent weights. This is the same data set that was used

in study [11].

We used for this analysis the CmSimTrackComparer tool, which generated the predictions and

calculated their errors for all tracks from cm sim files for the filtered set of flights. Filtering was

necessary for two reasons:

• The flights with missing/inconsistent data, e.g. all flights not listed in the input files given

to us for Denver-2009 data set, had to be excluded,

• CmSimTrackComparer does not parse the route from the flight plan, so the flights with

cross-track error exceeding 10 nm were filtered out in order to analyze only the flights close

36
to direct-to routes.

After this filtering our analysis included more than 40 thousand predictions for 256 flights.

Tables 7 and 8 summarize the comparison results for path- and time-based correlations:

Table 7. Mean altitude errors (ft), path-based correlations

Test case Abs Max Mean Abs Mean Max Min Std Dev

CTAS TS 11667 -192 505 11667 -5113 760

BADA Hybrid Hold 11528 -433 563 11528 -10608 759

BADA Base Case 10276 -960 1014 10276 -5987 815

Table 8. Mean altitude errors (ft), time-based correlations

Test case Abs Max Mean Abs Mean Max Min Std Dev

CTAS TS 21426 -427 846 21426 -4527 1158

BADA Hybrid Hold 21515 -673 930 21515 -13799 1136

BADA Base Case 20981 -632 1099 20981 -5404 1330

As can be seen from these tables, the altitude errors for time-based correlations are significantly

higher than for path-based correlations. This is not surprising because location and altitude of

the final prediction point in our analysis were determined from the meterfix position and crossing

altitude, while the meterfix crossing time was affected by along-track errors.

However, even for path-based correlations the BADA Base case is substantially less accurate than

CTAS or BADA Hybrid Hold. This is explained by the fact that ignoring the commanded descent,

descent and control speeds results in inaccurate TOD positions and hence in large altitude errors.

This can be illustrated by plots for one flight of Boeing 757-200 aircraft, shown on Figures 43 and

44.

It is interesting to note that the BADA Hybrid Hold model performs almost as well as the CTAS

model, with the mean absolute altitude error and standard deviation of altitude error being slightly

larger. This can be explained by noting that the advised descent and initial Mach do not differ

much from the BADA recommended speeds, hence the altitude profile becomes more accurate.

This can be observed from the plots shown on Figures 45 and 46 for the same flight.

Further analysis is required to determine if BADA accuracy will suffer for off-nominal conditions.

These limited results indicate that the performance of BADA APM in idle descents may be similar

or slightly worse in comparison with CTAS APM for advised speeds that do not differ significantly

from the BADA advised speeds.

37
Figure 43. Boeing 757-200 BADA Base Case idle descent: ground speed

Figure 44. Boeing 757-200 BADA Base Case idle descent: altitude

38
Figure 45. Boeing 757-200 BADA Hybrid Hold idle descent: ground speed

Figure 46. Boeing 757-200 BADA Hybrid Hold idle descent: altitude

39
6 Conclusion

The BADA performance and operational model was integrated into the CTAS TS, the core computational engine of CTAS software. The integrated CTAS/BADA TS software incorporated all

possible variants of the BADA model, along with the native CTAS model. The CTAS/BADA TS

software was thoroughly validated by comparison of predictions for the BADA Base case with the

BADA PTD file reference and other available benchmark data.

To assess the accuracy of CTAS/BADA TS for different variants of BADA APM, several validation

tools for interval-based sampling and systematic analysis were developed and used to perform the

analysis for three different centers, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and Denver, and for several BADA

variants over Fort Worth center.

The following observations can be made from these comparisons:

• In general, some BADA variants perform as well or slightly better than CTAS in terms of

altitude and along-track errors.

• Cross-track errors are mostly related to intent errors and flight plan amendments, so they

remain practically the same for BADA and CTAS.

• Overall the differences between BADA and CTAS in terms of mean of absolute mean errors

are relatively small (a few percent of error magnitudes) and statistically insignificant.

• There is no one BADA variant that would improve performance for all flight phases and all

aircraft types.

• BADA has more accurate models for many aircraft types, such as AT72, BE20, BE36, BE9L,

CRJ7, E145, PC12, and SR22. These are mostly small or regional aircraft.

• CTAS has more accurate models for A319, A320, B190, B733, B737, B738, C182, C56X, and

E120. Most notably these aircraft types include large commercial aircraft from Airbus and

Boeing.

• Both CTAS and BADA have good models for several aircraft types - A306, B752, C750,

CRJ2, CRJ9, E135, E170, H25B, MD82, and MD83, including popular McDonnell Douglas,

Embraer, and Canadair aircraft.

• BADA is found to be most beneficial in climb, especially with the BADA Reduced Weight

variant.

• Typically BADA is much more accurate than CTAS in predicting Top Of Climb (TOC) for

the most prevalent aircraft types.

• When compared with CTAS, BADA has slightly worse performance in descent, especially for

Boeing aircraft types that have very good models in CTAS. However, BADA performance for

descents can be improved by using the BADA Hybrid Hold variant with speeds responding to

client requests, or the BADA Expedited Descent reducing the altitude errors for most aircraft

types in the TRACON.

• Most BADA variants fail more frequently than CTAS, mainly due to inconsistency in definition of maximum operating altitude in BADA, where it is defined as aircraft-specific, and in

CTAS TS, where the value of 60, 000 ft is used for all aircraft types.

Our performance metrics did not include fuel consumption. It is known that the BADA fuel

consumption model works well in cruise, but does not perform in climb and descent as accurately

compared with cruise (see [14]).

40
The analysis of BADA off-nominal performance with controlled cruise and descent speeds confirmed

that

• the BADA Base Case was substantially less accurate for descents than CTAS;

• the BADA Hybrid Hold variant performed almost as well as CTAS TS did.

Finally, on the basis of this limited analysis we can conclude that using BADA APM with “hybrid

hold” speed profile and expedited descent can improve the accuracy of CTAS for small and regional

aircraft types. More substantial improvement in prediction accuracy can be expected using adaptive

estimation of aircraft parameters, such as speed and weight, from historical track data for each

flight.

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without help and support from many people. We especially

want to express our gratitude to Karen Cate for her guidance, to Hassan Eslami for continuous

support and encouragement, to Martin Brown for contributions in data analysis and development

of validation tools, to Alan Lee and Steven Chan for invaluable help in studying the existing CTAS

TS code, to Gano Chatterji and Gilbert Wu for valuable discussions, to Jinn-Hwei Cheng for all

her help with check-ins and ClearCase issues, to Pat O’Neal for assistance with data analysis for

Denver-2009, and to Laurel Stell for providing data sets for Denver-2009.

References

1. Erzberger, H., Davis, T. J., Green, S. M., Design of Center-TRACON Automation System,

Proceedings of the AGARD Guidance and Control Panel 56th Symposium on Machine Intelligence

in Air-Traffic Management, Berlin, GDR, 1993, pp. 52-1 - 14.

2. Slattery, R. A., Terminal Area Trajectory Synthesis for Air Traffic Control Automation, Proceedings of the 1995 American Control Conference, Seattle, WA, 1995, pp. 1206-1210.

3. Slattery, R. A., and Zhao, Y., Trajectory Synthesis for Air Traffic Automation, Journal of

Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 2, March-April 1997, pp. 232-238.

4. Lee, A. G., Bouyssounouse, X., Murphy, J. R., The Trajectory Synthesizer Generalized Profile

Interface, 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Fort

Worth, TX, 13-15 Sep. 2010.

5. Chan, W., Bach, R., Walton, J., Improving and Validating CTAS Performance Models, AIAA2000-4476, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, 14-17

August 2000.

6. Gong, C, and McNally, D., A Methodology for Automated Trajectory Prediction Analysis, AIAA2004-4788, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Providence, RI, 16-19 Aug.

2004.

41
7. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, User Manual for the Base of Aircraft DATA (BADA) Revision

3.8, EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 2010-003, 2010.

8. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, Base of Aircraft DATA (BADA) Aircraft Performance Modelling Report, EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 2009-009, 2009.

9. Oaks, R. D., Ryan, H. F., Paglione, M. Prototype Implementation and Concept Validation of a

4-D Trajectory Fuel Burn Model Application, AIAA 2010-8164, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and

Control Conference, Toronto, Ontario Canada, 2010.

10. Paglione, M and Oaks, R. Implementation and Metrics for a Trajectory Prediction Validation

Methodology, AIAA-2007-6517, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Hilton

Head, SC, 2007.

11. Stell, L., Predictability of Top of Descent Location for Operational Idle-Thrust Descents, 10th

AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Fort Worth, TX,

13-15 Sep. 2010.

12. Lee, H and Chatterji, G. B. Closed Form Takeoff Weight Estimation Model for Air Transportation Simulation, AIAA 2010-9156, 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations

(ATIO) Conference, Fort Worth, TX, 13-15 Sep. 2010.

13. Chatterji, G. B. Fuel Burn Estimation Using Real Track Data, AIAA-2011-6881, 11th AIAA

Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Virginia Beach, VA, 20-22

Sep. 2011.

14. Senzig, D., Fleming, G., and Iovinelli, R. Fuel consumption modeling in support of ATM environmental decision-making, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual FAA/EUROCONTROL Air Traffic

Management Research and Development Seminar, Napa, CA, June 29-July 2, 2009.

42
Appendix A

Example of the BADA Operation Performance File

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC P28A__.OPF CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC/

CC /

CC AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE OPERATIONAL FILE /

CC /

CC /

CC File_name: P28A__.OPF /

CC /

CC Creation_date: Apr 30 2002 /

CC /

CC Modification_date: Nov 10 2008 /

CC /

CC /

CC====== Actype ======================================================/

CD P28A__ 1 engines Piston L /

CC Piper PA-28-161 CW with Lycoming-O-320-D3G engines wake /

CC /

CC====== Mass (t) ====================================================/

CC reference minimum maximum max payload mass grad /

CD .10550E+01 .61300E+00 .11060E+01 .33000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC====== Flight envelope =============================================/

CC VMO(KCAS) MMO Max.Alt Hmax temp grad /

CD .12600E+03 .24000E+00 .12000E+05 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC====== Aerodynamics ================================================/

CC Wing Area and Buffet coefficients (SIM) /

CCndrst Surf(m2) Clbo(M=0) k CM16 /

CD 5 .15790E+02 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC Configuration characteristics /

CC n Phase Name Vstall(KCAS) CD0 CD2 unused /

CD 1 CR Clean .50000E+02 .15315E-01 .41587E-01 .00000E+00 /

CD 2 IC Clean .50000E+02 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CD 3 TO Flap25 .48000E+02 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CD 4 AP Flap40 .43000E+02 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CD 5 LD Flap40 .43000E+02 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC Spoiler /

CD 1 RET /

CD 2 EXT .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC Gear /

CD 1 UP /

CD 2 DOWN .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC Brakes /

43
CD 1 OFF /

CD 2 ON .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC====== Engine Thrust ===============================================/

CC Max climb thrust coefficients (SIM) /

CD .11167E+04 .28192E+05 .88240E+04 .00000E+00 .35552E-02 /

CC Desc(low) Desc(high) Desc level Desc(app) Desc(ld) /

CD .16007E+00 .00000E+00 .43850E+04 .16007E+00 .38908E-01 /

CC Desc CAS Desc Mach unused unused unused /

CD .12600E+03 .24000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC====== Fuel Consumption ============================================/

CC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Coefficients /

CD .44515E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC Descent Fuel Flow Coefficients /

CD .30872E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC Cruise Corr. unused unused unused unused /

CD .87274E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 /

CC====== Ground ======================================================/

CC TOL LDL span length unused /

CD .50300E+03 .35400E+03 .10670E+02 .72500E+01 .00000E+00 /

CC====================================================================/

FI /

44
Appendix B

Example of the BADA Performance Table Data File

Not all columns in the following table are shown due to a page width limitation.

BADA PERFORMANCE FILE RESULTS

=============================

=============================

Low mass CLIMBS

===============

FL[-] T[K] p[Pa] rho[kg/m3] a[m/s] TAS[kt] CAS[kt] M[-] mass[kg] Thrust[N] Drag[N]

0 288 101325 1.225 340 72.12 72.12 0.11 736 1239 367

5 287 99508 1.207 340 79.58 79.00 0.12 736 1208 380

10 286 97717 1.190 339 80.16 79.00 0.12 736 1187 380

15 285 95952 1.172 339 80.75 79.00 0.12 736 1167 380

20 284 94213 1.155 338 81.35 79.00 0.12 736 1146 380

30 282 90812 1.121 337 82.57 79.00 0.13 736 1105 380

40 280 87511 1.088 336 83.81 79.00 0.13 736 1064 380

60 276 81200 1.024 333 86.37 79.00 0.13 736 981 380

80 272 75262 0.963 331 89.05 79.00 0.14 736 899 380

100 268 69682 0.905 328 91.86 79.00 0.14 736 817 380

120 264 64441 0.849 326 94.79 79.00 0.15 736 734 380

Medium mass CLIMBS

==================

FL[-] T[K] p[Pa] rho[kg/m3] a[m/s] TAS[kt] CAS[kt] M[-] mass[kg] Thrust[N] Drag[N]

0 288 101325 1.225 340 79.00 79.00 0.12 1055 1228 523

5 287 99508 1.207 340 79.58 79.00 0.12 1055 1208 523

10 286 97717 1.190 339 80.16 79.00 0.12 1055 1187 523

15 285 95952 1.172 339 80.75 79.00 0.12 1055 1167 523

20 284 94213 1.155 338 81.35 79.00 0.12 1055 1146 523

30 282 90812 1.121 337 82.57 79.00 0.13 1055 1105 523

40 280 87511 1.088 336 83.81 79.00 0.13 1055 1064 523

60 276 81200 1.024 333 86.37 79.00 0.13 1055 981 523

80 272 75262 0.963 331 89.05 79.00 0.14 1055 899 523

100 268 69682 0.905 328 91.86 79.00 0.14 1055 817 523

120 264 64441 0.849 326 94.79 79.00 0.15 1055 734 523

45
High mass CLIMBS

================

FL[-] T[K] p[Pa] rho[kg/m3] a[m/s] TAS[kt] CAS[kt] M[-] mass[kg] Thrust[N] Drag[N]

0 288 101325 1.225 340 79.00 79.00 0.12 1106 1228 551

5 287 99508 1.207 340 79.58 79.00 0.12 1106 1208 551

10 286 97717 1.190 339 80.16 79.00 0.12 1106 1187 551

15 285 95952 1.172 339 80.75 79.00 0.12 1106 1167 551

20 284 94213 1.155 338 81.35 79.00 0.12 1106 1146 551

30 282 90812 1.121 337 82.57 79.00 0.13 1106 1105 551

40 280 87511 1.088 336 83.81 79.00 0.13 1106 1064 551

60 276 81200 1.024 333 86.37 79.00 0.13 1106 981 551

80 272 75262 0.963 331 89.05 79.00 0.14 1106 899 551

100 268 69682 0.905 328 91.86 79.00 0.14 1106 817 551

120 264 64441 0.849 326 94.79 79.00 0.15 1106 734 551

Medium mass DESCENTS

====================

FL[-] T[K] p[Pa] rho[kg/m3] a[m/s] TAS[kt] CAS[kt] M[-] mass[kg] Thrust[N] Drag[N]

0 288 101325 1.225 340 60.90 60.90 0.09 1055 49 614

5 287 99508 1.207 340 66.38 65.90 0.10 1055 197 571

10 286 97717 1.190 339 77.02 75.90 0.12 1055 191 528

15 285 95952 1.172 339 128.78 126.00 0.20 1055 180 732

20 284 94213 1.155 338 129.72 126.00 0.20 1055 177 732

30 282 90812 1.121 337 131.65 126.00 0.20 1055 170 731

40 280 87511 1.088 336 133.61 126.00 0.20 1055 164 731

60 276 81200 1.024 333 137.66 126.00 0.21 1055 0 731

80 272 75262 0.963 331 141.90 126.00 0.22 1055 0 730

100 268 69682 0.905 328 146.33 126.00 0.23 1055 0 730

120 264 64441 0.849 326 150.95 126.00 0.24 1055 0 729

TDC stands for (Thrust - Drag) * Cred

46