To enable arriving aircraft to fly optimized descents computed by the flight management system (FMS) in congested airspace, ground automation must accurately predict descent trajectories. To support development of the trajectory predictor and its uncertainty models, commercial flights executed idle-thrust descents at a specified descent speed, and the recorded data included the specified descent speed profile, aircraft weight, and the winds entered into the FMS as well as the radar data. The FMS computed the intended descent path assuming idle thrust after top of descent (TOD), and the controllers and pilots then endeavored to allow the FMS to fly the descent to the meter fix with minimal human intervention. The horizontal flight path, cruise and meter fix altitudes, and actual TOD location were extracted from the radar data. Using approximately 70 descents each in Boeing 757 and Airbus 319/320 aircraft, multiple regression estimated TOD location as a linear function of the available predictive factors. The cruise and meter fix altitudes, descent speed, and wind clearly improve goodness of fit. The aircraft weight improves fit for the Airbus descents but not for the B757. Except for a few statistical outliers, the residuals have absolute value less than 5 nmi. Thus, these predictive factors adequately explain the TOD location, which indicates the data do not include excessive noise.

To enable arriving aircraft to fly optimized descents computed by the flight management system (FMS) in congested airspace, ground automation must accurately predict descent trajectories. To support development of the predictor and its uncertainty models, descents from cruise to the meter fix were executed using vertical navigation in a B737-700 simulator and a B777-200 simulator, both with commercial FMSs. For both aircraft types, the FMS computed the intended descent path for a specified speed profile assuming idle thrust after top of descent (TOD), and then it controlled the avionics without human intervention. The test matrix varied aircraft weight, descent speed, and wind conditions. The first analysis in this paper determined the effect of the test matrix parameters on the FMS computation of TOD location, and it compared the results to those for the current ground predictor in the Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA). The second analysis was similar but considered the time to fly a specified distance to the meter fix. The effects of the test matrix variables together with the accuracy requirements for the predictor will determine the allowable error for the predictor inputs. For the B737, the EDA prediction of meter fix crossing time agreed well with the FMS; but its prediction of TOD location probably was not sufficiently accurate to enable idle-thrust descents in congested airspace, even though the FMS and EDA gave similar shapes for TOD location as a function of the test matrix variables. For the B777, the FMS and EDA gave different shapes for the TOD location function, and the EDA prediction of the TOD location is not accurate enough to fully enable the concept. Furthermore, the differences between the FMS and EDA predictions of meter fix crossing time for the B777 indicated that at least one of them was not sufficiently accurate.

To enable arriving aircraft to fly optimized descents computed by the flight management system (FMS) in congested airspace, ground automation must accurately predict descent trajectories. To support development of the predictor and its uncertainty models, descents from cruise to the meter fix were executed in a B737-700 simulator with a commercial FMS using vertical navigation. The FMS computed the intended descent path for a specified speed profile assuming idle thrust after top of descent (TOD), and then it controlled the avionics without human intervention. The test matrix varied aircraft weight, descent speed, and wind conditions. The first analysis in this paper determined the effect of the test matrix parameters on the FMS computation of TOD. Increasing weight by 10,000 lb moved TOD about 4.5 nmi farther from the meter fix, increasing alongtrack wind by 25 kt moved it about 4.6 nmi farther away, and varying the descent speed from 250 KCAS to 320 KCAS moved the TOD about 25 nmi. The execution of the descents was analyzed by comparing simulator state data to the specified speed profile and to the FMS predictions. The FMS generally flew its predicted three-dimensional trajectory accurately, with altitude error less than 200 ft. It engaged the throttle if the speed dropped 15 KCAS below the target speed but allowed the speed to increase arbitrarily above the target unless it reached a performance limit. In the runs with descent speed too slow but correct wind conditions, the FMS meter fix arrival time prediction error was as large as 37 sec. Along-track wind error of 25 kt resulted in a meter fix arrival time error of roughly 30 sec if the target descent speed was met. The data from this analysis are used to estimate accuracy requirements for the ground automation system.

To enable arriving aircraft to fly optimized descents computed by the flight management system (FMS) in congested airspace, ground automation must accurately predict descent trajectories. To support development of the trajectory predictor and its error models, commercial flights executed idle-thrust descents, and the recorded data includes the target speed profile and FMS intent trajectories. The FMS computes the intended descent path assuming idle thrust after top of descent (TOD), and any intervention by the controllers that alters the FMS execution of the descent is recorded so that such flights are discarded from the analysis. The horizontal flight path, cruise and meter fix altitudes, and actual TOD location are extracted from the radar data. Using more than 60 descents in Boeing 777 aircraft, the actual speeds are compared to the intended descent speed profile. In addition, three aspects of the accuracy of the FMS intent trajectory are analyzed: the meter fix crossing time, the TOD location, and the altitude at the meter fix. The actual TOD location is within 5 nmi of the intent location for over 95% of the descents. Roughly 90% of the time, the airspeed is within 0.01 of the target Mach number and within 10 KCAS of the target descent CAS, but the meter fix crossing time is only within 50 sec of the time computed by the FMS. Overall, the aircraft seem to be executing the descents as intended by the designers of the onboard automation.