发表机构
The University of Texas at Austin（德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究针对终端机动区到达调度与下降路径设计分离的问题，提出四维调度器协同优化，通过仿真评估验证，可在不同场景下显著降低机队燃油消耗。
AI 中文摘要
终端到达调度与下降程序设计在现有文献中基本是分开研究的：调度模型将每架飞机简化为飞行时间并给出目标着陆时间，而燃油高效的下降程序则是在给定调度的情况下逐架飞机设计，尽管两者都决定了到达飞机在最终进近前何处吸收延误。现有方案无法权衡较慢、更早构型的下降与水平航迹英里数，时间上高效的调度可能燃油成本高昂，且自主或减员运行需要一套地面自动化系统和飞行管理系统均能接受的单一轨迹计划。为填补这一空白，我们提出一种四维终端到达调度器，在一次决策中选择每架飞机的横向路径延伸段、下滑道捕获距离以及襟翼展开触发速度。我们采用考虑风的反向规划和六自由度正向仿真离线评估所有候选怠速推力下降，该仿真返回下降时间、燃油消耗、最小航迹长度和稳定进近可行性；滚动时域调度器在尾流间隔约束和观测到的入口风条件下，为每架飞机确定一个经验证的下降方案和一个延伸段。两项亚特兰大终端空域案例研究量化了该方案的效益：在自由下降环境的非饱和状态下，协同优化的连续下降可节省机队约15%的燃油，延迟减速则可节省约23%；在公开的6条8L跑道到达流量下，规定的高度下限消除了31%的设计网格，使上述节省分别降至9%-10%和20%-21%。我们还发现，风可使单架飞机的下降燃油量变动34%-81%，但仅解释机队燃油方差的最多4%，因为特定飞机的风效应在场景中会相互抵消。
英文摘要
Terminal arrival scheduling and descent procedure design are studied in two largely separate literatures. Scheduling models reduce each aircraft to a travel time and deliver target landing times, and fuel-efficient descent procedures are designed one aircraft at a time with the schedule taken as given, although both decide where an arriving aircraft absorbs delay before final approach. Existing formulations therefore cannot trade a slower, earlier-configuring descent against level track miles, a schedule that is efficient in time can be expensive in fuel, and autonomous or reduced-crew operations will need a single trajectory plan that ground automation and the flight management system both accept. To close this gap, we propose a four-dimensional terminal arrival scheduler that selects each aircraft's lateral path extension, glideslope-capture distance, and flap-deployment trigger speeds in one decision. We evaluate every candidate idle-thrust descent offline with a wind-aware backward plan and a six-degree-of-freedom forward simulation that returns descent time, fuel burn, minimum track length, and stabilized-approach feasibility, and a rolling-horizon scheduler commits one verified descent and one extension per aircraft under wake-separation constraints and observed entry winds. Two Atlanta terminal airspace case studies quantify the benefit. We show that co-optimized continuous descents save about 15\% of fleet fuel below saturation in a free-descent environment and that delayed deceleration saves about 23\%, while on the six published Runway 8L arrival flows the charted altitude floors remove 31\% of the design lattice and reduce the savings to 9--10\% and 20--21\%, respectively. We also find that wind moves single-aircraft descent fuel by 34--81\% yet explains at most 4\% of fleet fuel variance, because aircraft-specific wind effects average out across a scenario.
