Safely Reducing Delays Due to Adverse Terminal Weather

  • James E. Evans
Part of the Transportation Analysis book series (TRANSANALY)


This paper focuses on assessing how much of the $ 3B (US) per year in adverse terminal weather delays is “avoidable” and which Air Traffic Management (ATM) investment options would be most effective in eliminating the delay. We propose that such delay can be modeled as a combination of delays due to two mechanisms: one which is “linear” in terms of the impact of key variables and the other is a nonlinear queuing model. We then consider various options for reducing the delay in the context of these models, with the prime objective being to point out where the greatest opportunities exist for delay reduction. We also make suggestions for better assessing the potential benefits of the various ATM options.


Weather Event Effective Capacity American Meteorological Society Terminal Area Effective Duration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Andrews, J., 1993: Impact of weather event uncertainty upon an optimum ground-holding strategy, Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 1, 59–84.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Boswell, S.B., 1997: Analysis of downstream impacts of air traffic delay, Report ATC-257, M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Clark, D., 1995: Characterizing the cause of low ceiling and visibility at U.S. airports, Sixth Conference on the Aviation Weather System, American Meteorological Society, 325-330.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    DeArmon, J.S., 1992: Analysis and research for traffic flow management, Proc. of 37th Annual Conference of Air Traffic Control Association, Atlantic City, NJ, Air Traffic Control Association, 423-429.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Evans, J.E. and Welch, J.D. 1991: Role of FAA/NWS terminal weather sensors and terminal air traffic automation in providing a vortex advisory service, FAA International Wake Vortex Symposium, Session on Operational Considerations, October 29-31, 1991, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Evans, J. and Clark, D., 1993: Assessment of the benefits for improved terminal weather information, Fifth Conference on Aviation Weather Systems, American Meteorological Society, Vienna, VA USA, 414-416.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Evans, J.E., 1995: Measuring the economic benefit of aviation meteorological products, 14th Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, American Meteorological Society, Paper J-2.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Frolow, I., J. Sinott, and A. Wong, 1989: National airspace system analysis capability: a status report after one year, Proc. of 34th Annual Conference of Air Traffic Control Association, Boston, MA, Air Traffic Control Association.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Hartman, B., 1993: The future of head-up guidance, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic System Magazine, 8, 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Jesuroga, R., 1993a: Using ATMS weather products for air traffic strategic planning, Fifth Conference on Aviation Weather Systems, American Meteorological Society, Vienna, VA USA.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Jesuroga, R., R. Wright, B. Campbell, 1993b: Interactive and functional capability of the FAA’s advanced traffic management system aircraft situation display. Preprints. 9th International Conference on Interactive Information and Processing Systems, Anaheim, CA. 17-22 January 1993, American Meteorological Society, 126-128.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Weber, M. E., M. Wolfson, D. Clark, S. Troxel, A. Madiwale, and J. Andrews, 1991: Weather information requirements for terminal air traffic control automation, Proc. Fourth International Conference of Aviation Weather Systems, Paris, France, June 28, 1991, American Meteorological Society, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • James E. Evans
    • 1
  1. 1.Lincoln LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations