Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byEarl Thedford Modified over 2 years ago

1
1 INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES FOR INCREASING OF THE AIRPORT RUNWAY CAPACITY Dr Milan Janic Senior Researcher & Research Programme Leader Delft University of Technology The Netherlands

2
2 Contents 1 Introduction 2 The system of parallel runways 3 Procedures to approaching dependent parallel runways 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways 5 Application of the model 6 Qualitative evaluation 7 Conclusions 8 The lessons learnt

3
3 1 Introduction (1) Factors influencing the airport capacity: The number and configuration of runways The number and configuration of runways The ATC separation rules; The ATC separation rules; Technologies for navigation, surveillance, traffic management, communications, and information; Technologies for navigation, surveillance, traffic management, communications, and information; Mix of the aircraft wake-vortex categories & arrival/departure speeds; Mix of the aircraft wake-vortex categories & arrival/departure speeds; Proportions of the arrival/departure demand; Proportions of the arrival/departure demand; The ATC tactics of sequencing particular aircraft categories (FCFS, priorities); The ATC tactics of sequencing particular aircraft categories (FCFS, priorities); Other economic and environmental/social constraints. Other economic and environmental/social constraints.

4
4 The number of runways depends on the airport size; i.e. the volume of traffic and the available land, and vice versa; The number of runways depends on the airport size; i.e. the volume of traffic and the available land, and vice versa; Configuration of runways depends on the metrological conditions (wind, visibility) given the airport annual utilisation rate of nearly 100%; Configuration of runways depends on the metrological conditions (wind, visibility) given the airport annual utilisation rate of nearly 100%; The runway system can consist of a single, two or more parallel, intersecting, and converging/diverging runways, and their combinations. The runway system can consist of a single, two or more parallel, intersecting, and converging/diverging runways, and their combinations. 1 Introduction (2)

5
5 Technologies to increase the runway capacity: Air traffic flow management tools (CTAS, Integrated Arrival and Departure Manager); Air traffic flow management tools (CTAS, Integrated Arrival and Departure Manager); Air Traffic surveillance equipment (RADAR, PRM – Precision Runway Monitor); Air Traffic surveillance equipment (RADAR, PRM – Precision Runway Monitor); Improved and innovative avionics (FMS 4D RNAV, WAAS, AILS, TCAS, LVLASO, GPS. ADS-B, CDTI); Improved and innovative avionics (FMS 4D RNAV, WAAS, AILS, TCAS, LVLASO, GPS. ADS-B, CDTI); Distributed air/ground solutions (Combinations of ADS-B, TCAS, Distributed air/ground solutions (Combinations of ADS-B, TCAS, Free Flight devices) Free Flight devices) 1 Introduction (3)

6
6 runways : Configuration of parallel runways : Closely spaced (700 – 2499 ft); Closely spaced (700 – 2499 ft); Intermediate spaced (2500 – 4299 ft); Intermediate spaced (2500 – 4299 ft); Far spaced ( 4300 ft); Far spaced ( 4300 ft); Statistics: U.S. busiest airports: 28 pairs of closely parallel runways 28 pairs of closely spaced parallel runways 10 pairs of intermediate spaced parallel runways 10 pairs of intermediate spaced parallel runways 28 pairs of far spaced parallel runways 28 pairs of far spaced parallel runways Statistics: European busiest airports: Frankfurt– 1 pair of closely spaced (parallel) runways; Frankfurt– 1 pair of closely spaced (parallel) runways; London Heathrow– 1 pair of far spaced parallel runways; London Heathrow– 1 pair of far spaced parallel runways; Paris Charles de Gaulle– 2 pairs of far spaced parallel runways; Paris Charles de Gaulle– 2 pairs of far spaced parallel runways; Amsterdam Schiphol– 3 pairs of far spaced parallel runways. Amsterdam Schiphol– 3 pairs of far spaced parallel runways. 2 The system of parallel runways (1) Diversity

7
7 Separation between runway centrelines (ft) Arr-ArrDep-DepArr-DepDep-Arr 700 – 2499 Like single runway Arrival clears the runways Departure clears the runways 2500 – 3399 Dependent: Lateral -diagonal separation IndependentIndependentIndependent 3400 – 4299 Dependent: - Lateral/diagonal separation – without PRM; IndependentIndependentIndependent IndependentIndependentIndependentIndependent Independent – with PRM 2 The system of parallel runways (2) Degree of dependency U.S. IFR/IMC

8
8 BOS – Boston Logan International 1200ft 2 The system of parallel runways (3) Cases in the U.S. 1000ft 1000ft t ATL – Atlanta Hartsfield International

9
9 2 The system of parallel runways (4) Cases in the U.S. 1200ft DFW – Dallas-Fort Worth International 700ft LAX – Los Angeles International

10
10 750ft SFO – San Francisco International 2 The system of parallel runways (5) Cases in the U.S.

11
11 The traffic dependency on the runways is caused by the in-trail wake-vortex generated and moving behind the aircraft and between the final approach paths of both runways by crosswind; The traffic dependency on the runways is caused by the in-trail wake-vortex generated and moving behind the aircraft and between the final approach paths of both runways by crosswind; Mitigating impacts of the wake-vortex implies reducing of the current ATC IFR separation rules between aircraft, thus the degree of the runway and traffic dependency, and consequently increasing of the system capacity. Mitigating impacts of the wake-vortex implies reducing of the current ATC IFR separation rules between aircraft, thus the degree of the runway and traffic dependency, and consequently increasing of the system capacity. 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (1) The problem

12
12 Current procedures: Weather minima: VFR (Paired) Approach C ft; V - 6 nm VFR (Paired) Approach C ft; V - 6 nm The Simultaneous Offset Independent Approach (SOIA/PRM) C ft; V - 4 nm The Simultaneous Offset Independent Approach (SOIA/PRM) C ft; V - 4 nm The baseline IFR Approach C - 0 ft; V nm The baseline IFR Approach C - 0 ft; V nm Innovative procedures: The FAA/NASA TACEC (2020) C: 0 ft ; V nm The FAA/NASA TACEC (2020) C: 0 ft ; V nm High Approach Landing System/ Dual Landing Threshold (HALS/DLT) High Approach Landing System/ Dual Landing Threshold (HALS/DLT) or Staggered Approach C: 0 ft ; V nm or Staggered Approach C: 0 ft ; V nm Steeper Approach (SAP) C: 0 ft ; V nm Steeper Approach (SAP) C: 0 ft ; V nm 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (2)

13
13 VFR (paired) approach VFR (paired) approach 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3a) Current procedures

14
14 The Simultaneous Offset (SOIA/PRM) Independent Approach (and partially TACEC) The Simultaneous Offset (SOIA/PRM) Independent Approach (and partially TACEC) 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3b) Current procedures

15
15 The Baseline IFR Approach The Baseline IFR Approach 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3c) Current procedures i k S ik 0

16
16 HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4a) Innovative procedures 1700ft i k S ik 0 H ik 0

17
17 HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach Source (OPTIMAL, EUROCONTROL, 2005) Runway l ighting system 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4b) Innovative procedures

18
18 Steeper Approach (SAP) Steeper Approach (SAP) 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (5a) Innovative procedures S ik 0 < 4300 ft k i H ik 0 k i Increasing of the vertical separation H ik 0 in time if: v i > v k sin k /sin i k > I

19
19 Baseline ILS vs Steeper Approach (SAP) Baseline ILS vs Steeper Approach (SAP) ILS Glide Slope ILS Glide Slope 3° ILS Glide Slope ILS Glide Slope 5.5° (Source: Airliner World, 2006) 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (5b) Innovative procedures

20
20 Currently certificated aircraft fleet for SAP De Havilland DHC-6, - 8 (STOL - Short Take- Off and Landing); De Havilland DHC-6, - 8 (STOL - Short Take- Off and Landing); Cessna Citation, Embraer ERJ 135, 170; Cessna Citation, Embraer ERJ 135, 170; Airbus A319. Airbus A Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4a) Innovative procedures Certificaation should provide: The aircraft capability to use a range of GS angles ( or 6 0 ); The aircraft capability to use a range of GS angles ( or 6 0 ); Certainly increase in the approach speed to compensate higher descent speed and consequent increase in the wake vortex. Certainly increase in the approach speed to compensate higher descent speed and consequent increase in the wake vortex.

21
21 The concept and definition: The maximum number of aircraft operations accommodated during given period of time (1 or ¼ of The maximum number of aircraft operations accommodated during given period of time (1 or ¼ of an hour) under conditions of constant demand for service; (VMC (VFR) and/or IMC (IFR) at the US and only IMC (VFR) at European airports). an hour) under conditions of constant demand for service; (VMC (VFR) and/or IMC (IFR) at the US and only IMC (VFR) at European airports). State of the art of modelling: Analytical models (Blumstein, Haris, Janic, Tosic); Analytical models (Blumstein, Haris, Janic, Tosic); Simulation models (SIMMOD, TAAM, Airport Machine). Simulation models (SIMMOD, TAAM, Airport Machine). 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (1)

22
22 Objectives: Developing the dedicated analytical model for ILS baseline, HALS/DLT, and SAP; Developing the dedicated analytical model for ILS baseline, HALS/DLT, and SAP; Carrying out the sensitivity analysis with respect to the most influencing factors. Carrying out the sensitivity analysis with respect to the most influencing factors. 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (2)

23
23 Assumptions: The geometry of parallel runways is known; The geometry of parallel runways is known; The runways operate according to given degree of dependency – the arriving aircraft use ILS (Instrumental Landing System); The runways operate according to given degree of dependency – the arriving aircraft use ILS (Instrumental Landing System); The ATC applies longitudinal, lateral-diagonal, and vertical distance-based separation rules between arriving and time-based separation rules between departing aircraft; The ATC applies longitudinal, lateral-diagonal, and vertical distance-based separation rules between arriving and time-based separation rules between departing aircraft; Successive operations are carried out alternatively on each runway; Successive operations are carried out alternatively on each runway; Only the certificated aircraft can perform SAP; Only the certificated aircraft can perform SAP; The aircraft appear at particular parts of the runway system when the ATC expects them. The aircraft appear at particular parts of the runway system when the ATC expects them. 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (3)

24
24 The model for arrivals – basic geometry RWY 1 RWY 2 T I/J TkTk i j E I/J k EkEk d k z I, J l IJ ( * ) S Ik 0 S kJ 0 E I, E J, E k - final approach gate of aircraft i, j and k, respectively T I/J, T k - landing threshold of aircraft i, j and k, respectively I, J, k - length of common approach path of aircraft i, j and k, respectively d - spacing between RWY 1 and RWY 2 l IJ (*) - initial longitudinal ATC separation rules between aircraft i and j S Ik 0, S kJ 0 - initial longitudinal spacing between aircraft ik and kj, respectively Ik kJ Horizontal plane Sequence ij – longitudinal separation Sequence ij – longitudinal separation Sequences ik and kl – diagonal or vertical separation Sequences ik and kl – diagonal or vertical separation 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (4)

25
25 The model for arrivals – basic geometry Vertical plane - HALS/DLT (S-F-F)Vertical plane – SAP (F-S-S) Z LH zLHzLH S Ik 0 Low - i High - k A B TLTL Runway(s) THTH H H L = L tg E I/L L C H ij 0 H HL 0 S kJ 0 zLHzLH E F D Low - j T L,T H k i/j E 1/ij i H 0 ik L/i H/k Runway(s) k k - i/j j H 0 ik 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (5)

26
26 The model for arrivals – basic formulas: The inter-arrival times at the threshold The inter-arrival times at the threshold of RWY1 and RWY2 a t ij/k = a t ik + a t kj and a t kl/j = a t kj + a t jl of RWY1 and RWY2 a t ij/k = a t ik + a t kj and a t kl/j = a t kj + a t jl u ij, u ik, u kj, u jl are the control variables u ij, u ik, u kj, u jl are the control variables 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (6)

27
27 The model for arrivals – basic formulas: The probability of occurrence of strings of aircraft types ikj and kjl The average inter-arrival times at RWY1 and RWY2 The ultimate arrival capacity of RWY1 and RWY2 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (7)

28
28 Departures The inter-departure times: The inter-departure times: The average inter- departure time: The average inter- departure time: The departure capacity: The departure capacity: Mixed operations Realising (m) departures between the arrivals kj Realising (m) departures between the arrivals kj Probability of occurrence of the gap between the successive paired arrivals ik and jl is p dm Probability of occurrence of the gap between the successive paired arrivals ik and jl is p dm The capacity The capacity 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (8)

29
29 HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS Input: Frankfurt airport- geometry of runways Two parallel runways – 4000m (07 L/R and 25 L/R) for landings and take-offs; Two parallel runways – 4000m (07 L/R and 25 L/R) for landings and take-offs; Separation distance: d = 1700 ft (518 m) Separation distance: d = 1700 ft (518 m) RWY 26L – 2500 m for landings; RWY 26L – 2500 m for landings; Staggered distance: z = 1500 m Staggered distance: z = 1500 m RWY 18 – 4500m only RWY 18 – 4500m only for take-offs; for take-offs; 5 Application of the model (1a) 25R 25L 26L 07L 07R Apron Passenger Terminal complex 18 Cargo Terminal complex Apron Runways Taxiways New runway Preferred landing direction Preferred take-off direction New runway

30
30 Input: Frankfurt airport – fleet characteristics A/C Category TypeProportion(%) Approach speed (kts) RWY landing occupancy time (s) Super Heavy A Heavy A ; A330; A340; B767 B777; B Large B737; A320, 321s Small ATR42,72; Avrojet; Dash Application of the model (2a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS

31
31 Input: Frankfurt airport - The ATC separation rules a) Arrivals (nm)b) Departures (min) – Lateral/diagonal: = 2 nm – Vertical: H (. ) = 1000 ft A/C Sequence i/j SuperHeavy(A380)HeavyLargeSmall Super Heavy (A380) Heavy4456 Large3344 Small3333 A/C Sequence i/j SuperHeavy(A380)HeavyLargeSmallSuper Heavy (A380) 2223 Heavy Large Small Application of the model (3a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS

32
32 Input: Frankfurt airport- Scenario of using runways RWY 25R/L - 26L are used for landings (Baseline ILS and HALS/DLT) and mixed operations; RWY 18 is used exclusively for take-offs; The ATC applies longitudinal, lateral-diagonal and vertical separation rules between landings; The ATC tactics is FIFO (First-In-First-Out). 5 Application of the model (4a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS

33
33 Results: Frankfurt airport a) HALS/DLT vs ILS Baseline Capacity: > 18 % b) HALS/DLT vs ILS Baseline (A380 –10%) Capacity: > 27% 5 Application of the model (5a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS

34
34 HALS/DLT (A380 – 10%) Capacity: < % HALS/DLT (A380 – 10%) Capacity: < % Results: Frankfurt airport 5 Application of the model (6a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS

35
35 Two pairs of parallel runways: 1 L/R and 28 L/R (1L/28R – 3600 m; 1R/28L – 3200 m) Two pairs of parallel runways: 1 L/R and 28 L/R (1L/28R – 3600 m; 1R/28L – 3200 m) Separation distance: d = 750 ft (229m) Separation distance: d = 750 ft (229m) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS Input:San Francisco International Airport (SFO) - geometry of runways 1L 1R 28R 28L N Arrivals Departures 5 Application of the model (1b)

36
36 Input: SFO - Fleet characteristics A/C Category TypeProportion(%) Approach speed (kts) RWY landing occupancy time (s) Heavy A ; A330; A340; B767 B777; B B Large B737; A320, 321s; Small ATR42,72; AvroRJ; Dash Application of the model (2b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS

37
37 Input: SFO – The ATC separation rules a) Arrivals (nm) b) Departures (min) – Lateral/diagonal – as in a) – Vertical: H (. ) = 1000 ft A/C Sequence i/j HeavyB757LargeSmall Heavy4556 B757 B Large Small A/C Sequence i/j HeavyB757LargeSmallHeavy B Large1112 Small Application of the model (3b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS

38
38 The pair of runways 28 L/R is used exclusively for landings; The pair of runways 28 L/R is used exclusively for landings; The runways 1L/1R are used exclusively for taking- offs; The runways 1L/1R are used exclusively for taking- offs; The ATC applies longitudinal, lateral-diagonal and vertical separation rules between landings; Only small aircraft can perform SAP (Scenario 1); Only small aircraft can perform SAP (Scenario 1); All except heavy aircraft can perform SAP (Scenario 2); All except heavy aircraft can perform SAP (Scenario 2); The ATC tactics is FIFO (First-In-First-Out). Input: SFO – Scenario(s) of using runways 5 Application of the model (4b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS

39
39 Results: SFO airport SAP vs ILS IMC baseline: SAP vs ILS IMC baseline: SAP - Scenario 1 Landing capacity > 27% SAP - Scenario 1 Landing capacity > 27% SAP - Scenario 2 Landing capacity SAP - Scenario 2 Landing capacity > 83 % 5 Application of the model (5b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS

40
40 Safety: Standard vertical and in-trail wake-vortex separation; Standard vertical and in-trail wake-vortex separation; Switching between RWY lighting system modes; Switching between RWY lighting system modes; Insufficient length of RWY with DLT Insufficient length of RWY with DLT Requirements: Wake vortex warning system; Wake vortex warning system; Additional ILS for DLT Additional ILS for DLT Environment : Shifting noise contours towards the airport; Shifting noise contours towards the airport; Neutrality regarding extra fuel burn and air pollution. Neutrality regarding extra fuel burn and air pollution. 6 Qualitative evaluation (1) The HALS/DLT

41
41 Safety: Not standardised procedure; Not standardised procedure; DH altitude need to be redefined due to the higher descent speed; DH altitude need to be redefined due to the higher descent speed; ILS GS interception might be affected due to the high aircraft energy; ILS GS interception might be affected due to the high aircraft energy; Switching between the RWY lighting system modes (needs calibration if possible for two ILS GS angles). Switching between the RWY lighting system modes (needs calibration if possible for two ILS GS angles). Requirements: Two pairs of ILS or GNSS per runway; Two pairs of ILS or GNSS per runway; Aircraft certification (might be very expensive); Aircraft certification (might be very expensive); Pilots training. Pilots training. Environment: Could contribute to reducing noise due to the higher flight paths. Could contribute to reducing noise due to the higher flight paths. 6 Qualitative evaluation (2) The SAP

42
42 The HALS/DLT and SAP have potential for increasing of the capacity of closely spaced parallel runways under IMC; The HALS/DLT and SAP have potential for increasing of the capacity of closely spaced parallel runways under IMC; The HALS/DLT does not have the specific requirements except additional ILS and sufficient length of RWY with DLT; The HALS/DLT does not have the specific requirements except additional ILS and sufficient length of RWY with DLT; The SAP requires (maybe rather expensive) certification of aircraft, additional ILSs (GNSS), and pilot training; The SAP requires (maybe rather expensive) certification of aircraft, additional ILSs (GNSS), and pilot training; The capacity model provides good results (HALS/DLT); it should be checked for SAP) The capacity model provides good results (HALS/DLT); it should be checked for SAP) 7 Conclusions

43
43 8 The lessons learnt The wake-vortex remains the main barrier to increasing of the airport runway capacity; The wake-vortex remains the main barrier to increasing of the airport runway capacity; The remaining questions are: The remaining questions are: Why the wakes are considered in one way under VMC and in other under IMC?; Why the wakes are considered in one way under VMC and in other under IMC?; Why the vertical dimension of the airspace has not been considered more frequently to mitigate the wakes problem both in the previous and prospective (future long-term) concepts (TECAC)?; Why the vertical dimension of the airspace has not been considered more frequently to mitigate the wakes problem both in the previous and prospective (future long-term) concepts (TECAC)?; Should the vehicles – aircraft become more active part of the game – the airports and ATC have already done a lot?? Should the vehicles – aircraft become more active part of the game – the airports and ATC have already done a lot??

44
44 Thank you for your attention

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google