Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 252, Issue 2, pp 435–453 | Cite as

Lessons from building an automated pre-departure sequencer for airports

  • Daniel Karapetyan
  • Jason A. D. Atkin
  • Andrew J. Parkes
  • Juan Castro-Gutierrez
Article
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

Commercial airports are under increasing pressure to comply with the Eurocontrol collaborative decision making (CDM) initiative, to ensure that information is passed between stakeholders, integrate automated decision support or make predictions. These systems can also aid effective operations beyond the airport by communicating scheduling decisions to other relevant parties, such as Eurocontrol, for passing on to downstream airports and enabling overall airspace improvements. One of the major CDM components is aimed at producing the target take-off times and target startup-approval times, i.e. scheduling when the aircraft should push back from the gates and start their engines and when they will take off. For medium-sized airports, a common choice for this is a “pre-departure sequencer” (PDS). In this paper, we describe the design and requirements challenges which arose during our development of a PDS system for medium sized international airports. Firstly, the scheduling problem is highly dynamic and event driven. Secondly, it is important to end-users that the system be predictable and, as far as possible, transparent in its operation, with decisions that can be explained. Thirdly, users can override decisions, and this information has to be taken into account. Finally, it is important that the system is as fair as possible for all users of the airport, and the interpretation of this is considered here. Together, these factors have influenced the design of the PDS system which has been built to work within an existing large system which is being used at many airports.

Keywords

Automated decision support Scheduling Aviation  Airport ground operations Modelling user preferences Collaborative decision making 

References

  1. Atkin, J. A. D. (2008). On-line decision support for take-off runway scheduling at London Heathrow airport. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  2. Atkin, J. A. D., Burke, E. K., Greenwood, J. S., & Reeson, D. (2007). Hybrid meta-heuristics to aid runway scheduling at London Heathrow airport. Transportation Science, 41(1), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkin, J. A. D., Burke, E. K., Greenwood, J. S., & Reeson, D. (2008). On-line decision support for take-off runway scheduling with uncertain taxi times at London Heathrow airport. The Journal of Scheduling, 11(5), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkin, J. A. D., Burke, E. K., & Greenwood, J. S. (2010a). The TSAT allocation system at London Heathrow: The relationship between slot compliance, throughput and equity. Public Transport, 2(3), 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkin, J. A. D., Burke, E. K., & Ravizza, S. (2010). The airport ground movement problem: Past and current research and future directions. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on research in air transportation (ICRAT 2010) (pp. 131–138). Budapest: Hungary.Google Scholar
  6. Atkin, J. A. D., De Maere, G., Burke, E. K., & Greenwood, J. S. (2013). Addressing the pushback time allocation problem at Heathrow airport. Transportation Science, 47(4), 584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balakrishnan, H., & Chandran, B. G. (2010). Algorithms for scheduling runway operations under constrained position shifting. Operations Research, 58(6), 1650–1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beasley, J. E., Krishnamoorthy, M., Sharaiha, Y. M., & Abramson, D. (2000). Scheduling aircraft landings—The static case. Transportation Science, 34, 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beasley, J. E., Sonander, J., & Havelock, P. (2001). Scheduling aircraft landings at London Heathrow using a population heuristic. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52, 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beasley, J. E., Krishnamoorthy, M., Sharaiha, Y. M., & Abramson, D. (2004). Displacement problem and dynamically scheduling aircraft landings. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 55(1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennell, J., Mesgarpour, M., & Potts, C. (2011). Airport runway scheduling. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 9, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bianco, L., Dell’Olmo, P., & Giordani, S. (1999). Minimizing total completion time subject to release dates and sequence-dependent processing times. Annals of Operations Research, 86, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolander, M. A. (2000). Scheduling and control strategies for the departure problem in air traffic control. PhD thesis, University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  14. Dear, R. G., & Sherif, Y. S. (1989). The dynamic scheduling of aircraft in high density terminal areas. Microelectronics and Reliability, 29(5), 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delair Air Traffic Systems. (2013). DARTS, arrival and departure management. http://www.delair.de/darts.html?file=tl_files/delair/pdf/departure%20manager.pdf. Last accessed July 2015.
  16. Dorndorf, U., Drexl, A., Nikulin, Y., & Pesch, E. (2007). Flight gate scheduling: State-of-the-art and recent developments. Omega, 35(3), 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ernst, A. T., Krishnamoorthy, M., & Storer, R. H. (1999). Heuristic and exact algorithms for scheduling aircraft landings. Networks, 34, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EUROCONTROL, ACIEurope. (2010). A-CDM airport collaborative decision making. Brochure. http://www.euro-cdm.org/library/cdm_brochure.pdf.
  19. München, F. (2006). Airport CDM at Munich airport. http://www.euro-cdm.org/library/eurocontrol/tf12/tf12_cdm_status_munich.pdf. Last accessed July 2015.
  20. Newell, G. (1979). Airport capacity and delays. Transportation Science, 13(3), 201–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Psaraftis, H. N. (1990). A dynamic programming approach for sequencing groups of identical jobs. Operations Research, 28, 1347–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SESAR Joint Undertaking. (2004). Basic DMAN operational service and environment definition (OSED). http://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/solutions/4_DMAN_baseline_OSED.pdf. Last accessed July 2015.
  23. Trivizas, D. A. (1998). Optimal scheduling with maximum position shift (MPS) constraints: A runway scheduling application. Journal of Navigation, 51, 250–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wu, C., & Caves, R. (2002). Research review of air traffic management. Transport Reviews, 22, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Karapetyan
    • 1
  • Jason A. D. Atkin
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Parkes
    • 1
  • Juan Castro-Gutierrez
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations