1 · Understand the design
Overview connects the phase peak and terminal share. Processors owns provided counts and rates. Routes shows the 60:40 split; Level plans shows the shared security bank as a schematic.
AEROPLANNER PRO / Client worked case / About 15 minutes
The departure peak.
One thousand passengers. Two entry routes. One shared security bank. Should the airport developer add lanes, spread the peak or commission a more detailed study?
Synthetic planning example · Browser Python engine 5.0.1 · No operational airport data
Start with a safe copy. In the workspace, choose Save project file to preserve any current work. Then choose Open project file and select the downloaded example. It replaces the project in this browser; reopen your saved file when finished. Inputs and confirmations in this example are solely for demonstration.
A bounded design decision
The example sends 60% of departing passengers through four check-in desks at 200 passengers/hour each and 40% through two bag-drop positions at 300 passengers/hour each. Both routes merge at four security lanes, each assumed to serve 250 passengers/hour. All values are illustrative project assumptions, not recommended airport design rates.
2 · Compare the pressure
Assessment lets you edit the four 15-minute arrival weights, demand multiplier, wait target and outages. Run each alternative and issue a validation record before changing inputs.
3 · Hand over a decision
Records retains every issued result. Download the decision brief, record JSON and project file so the review can be repeated with its assumptions and ownership intact.
Run three alternatives
In Assessment, choose Network — confirmed routes (2), a 10-minute wait target and no outages. Enter each row below, select Run assessment, then Issue validation record. Move out of edited fields to apply changes.
| Alternative | Demand factor | Four 15-minute weights | Expected security queue | Expected security wait |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced peak | 1 | 1,1,1,1 | 0 passengers | 0 minutes |
| Bunched peak | 1 | 0.1,0.4,0.4,0.1 | 200 passengers | 12 minutes |
| 25% growth, bunched | 1.25 | 0.1,0.4,0.4,0.1 | 300 passengers | 18 minutes |
Values are maximum interval-end queue and the engine's queue/rate wait estimate, not average or percentile passenger waits. All three cases eventually clear within the model's two-hour drainage window after the peak hour. A zero residual queue does not mean the peak meets the wait target.
Revise the design, keep the evidence
- In Processors, change SEC from four to six units. The example uses the terminal specialist role; choose Confirm only to acknowledge the synthetic change.
- Open Records and select Rerun their saved scenarios. Each earlier record stays unchanged and links to its new result.
- For the bunched 1× case, run again in Assessment. Six security lanes remove the security queue in this model; check-in still reaches 80 queued passengers and a 6-minute wait. Review feeder bottlenecks before treating added security as the complete solution.
- Try a complete SEC outage in Assessment. The model retains 1,000 passengers queued and reports an undefined wait when no service is available. This represents the entire security bank unavailable, not a single lane outage.
The alternative adds two lanes to the provided design. This example does not price them or verify space, staffing, screening technology, baggage systems, accessibility or operational resilience.
A useful review deliverable
In Records, select Download decision brief. The portable HTML brief compares issued scenarios, flags affected or superseded evidence, records reviewers and hashes, and lists unresolved actions. Open it in a browser and print to PDF when needed. Keep Export records (JSON) and Save project file beside it.
Ask the planning lead to confirm demand and phasing, the operator to validate service rates, the terminal specialist to verify routes and geometry, and the sponsor to record the selected alternative and next review date in Decide.
What these results establish
This is a deterministic, 15-minute fluid queue calculation with route-conserving flow through shared processors. Service is allocated proportionally, not by individual passenger priority. Walking delays, stochastic service variation and operational data feeds are not connected. Link capacities are comparisons; they do not throttle flow.
No licensed standards pack or airport drawing is included. Programme requirements remain unassessed until authorised standards and project evidence are supplied. Engine decisions are planning-screen outcomes, not a design approval or compliance certificate.
← AEROPLANNER PRO capabilities · Source and integration boundaries