Jv
J. van Beek
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Mitigating Uncertainty in an Extended-Arrival Manager Environment
Evaluating Pop-Up Flight Mitigation Strategies Using Stochastic Uncertainty Models
Extended Arrival Management (E-AMAN) enables earlier sequencing and upstream delay absorption by extending the freeze horizon, but increases exposure to prediction uncertainty and pop-up flights, which can degrade planning stability. This study presents the BlueSky AMAN Simulator (BAMS) and evaluates how stochastic uncertainty and pop-up mitigation strategies affect E-AMAN performance at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.
Paired Monte-Carlo experiments are performed for freeze horizons of 14, 20, and 25 minutes under stochastic take-off, departure-route, and en-route uncertainty. Multiple mitigation strategies are evaluated, including Back-of-the-Line (BOL) scheduling, delayed-slot scheduling, and enabling planning at take-off.
The results show a clear trade-off between earlier planning and stability. Pop-up flights primarily drive sequence disruptions, while trajectory prediction uncertainty mainly increases temporal instability through repeated Expected Approach Time (EAT) revisions. Among the evaluated strategies, BOL scheduling at a 20-minute freeze horizon provides a balance between stability and delay performance, while longer horizons show diminishing returns due to uncertainty propagation. In addition, planning at take-off is shown to improve performance in both current and extended AMAN operations.
The findings indicate that feasible E-AMAN implementation at Schiphol requires either reduced uncertainty or stability-preserving scheduling strategies. ...
Paired Monte-Carlo experiments are performed for freeze horizons of 14, 20, and 25 minutes under stochastic take-off, departure-route, and en-route uncertainty. Multiple mitigation strategies are evaluated, including Back-of-the-Line (BOL) scheduling, delayed-slot scheduling, and enabling planning at take-off.
The results show a clear trade-off between earlier planning and stability. Pop-up flights primarily drive sequence disruptions, while trajectory prediction uncertainty mainly increases temporal instability through repeated Expected Approach Time (EAT) revisions. Among the evaluated strategies, BOL scheduling at a 20-minute freeze horizon provides a balance between stability and delay performance, while longer horizons show diminishing returns due to uncertainty propagation. In addition, planning at take-off is shown to improve performance in both current and extended AMAN operations.
The findings indicate that feasible E-AMAN implementation at Schiphol requires either reduced uncertainty or stability-preserving scheduling strategies. ...
Extended Arrival Management (E-AMAN) enables earlier sequencing and upstream delay absorption by extending the freeze horizon, but increases exposure to prediction uncertainty and pop-up flights, which can degrade planning stability. This study presents the BlueSky AMAN Simulator (BAMS) and evaluates how stochastic uncertainty and pop-up mitigation strategies affect E-AMAN performance at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.
Paired Monte-Carlo experiments are performed for freeze horizons of 14, 20, and 25 minutes under stochastic take-off, departure-route, and en-route uncertainty. Multiple mitigation strategies are evaluated, including Back-of-the-Line (BOL) scheduling, delayed-slot scheduling, and enabling planning at take-off.
The results show a clear trade-off between earlier planning and stability. Pop-up flights primarily drive sequence disruptions, while trajectory prediction uncertainty mainly increases temporal instability through repeated Expected Approach Time (EAT) revisions. Among the evaluated strategies, BOL scheduling at a 20-minute freeze horizon provides a balance between stability and delay performance, while longer horizons show diminishing returns due to uncertainty propagation. In addition, planning at take-off is shown to improve performance in both current and extended AMAN operations.
The findings indicate that feasible E-AMAN implementation at Schiphol requires either reduced uncertainty or stability-preserving scheduling strategies.
Paired Monte-Carlo experiments are performed for freeze horizons of 14, 20, and 25 minutes under stochastic take-off, departure-route, and en-route uncertainty. Multiple mitigation strategies are evaluated, including Back-of-the-Line (BOL) scheduling, delayed-slot scheduling, and enabling planning at take-off.
The results show a clear trade-off between earlier planning and stability. Pop-up flights primarily drive sequence disruptions, while trajectory prediction uncertainty mainly increases temporal instability through repeated Expected Approach Time (EAT) revisions. Among the evaluated strategies, BOL scheduling at a 20-minute freeze horizon provides a balance between stability and delay performance, while longer horizons show diminishing returns due to uncertainty propagation. In addition, planning at take-off is shown to improve performance in both current and extended AMAN operations.
The findings indicate that feasible E-AMAN implementation at Schiphol requires either reduced uncertainty or stability-preserving scheduling strategies.
Bachelor thesis
(2020)
-
J. van Beek, Sasho Ivanov, J.M.L. Malfliet, Manuel Martin, M. Rebosolan, R.T. van Rooijen, P.S. Schön, G. Tzanetos Alevras, Tobias Veselka, M.R. Vroom, J. Sinke, D. Giannopoulos, S.S. Tambe