Presentation on theme: "INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES FOR INCREASING OF THE AIRPORT RUNWAY CAPACITY"— Presentation transcript:
1INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES FOR INCREASING OF THE AIRPORT RUNWAY CAPACITY Dr Milan Janic Senior Researcher & Research Programme Leader Delft University of Technology The Netherlands
2Contents 1 Introduction 2 The system of parallel runways 3 Procedures to approaching dependent parallel runways4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways5 Application of the model6 Qualitative evaluation7 Conclusions8 The lessons learnt
31 Introduction (1) Factors influencing the airport capacity: The number and configuration of runwaysThe ATC separation rules;Technologies for navigation, surveillance, traffic management, communications, and information;Mix of the aircraft wake-vortex categories & arrival/departure speeds;Proportions of the arrival/departure demand;The ATC tactics of sequencing particular aircraft categories (FCFS, priorities);Other economic and environmental/social constraints.
41 Introduction (2)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%;The runway system can consist of a single, two or more parallel, intersecting, and converging/diverging runways, and their combinations.
51 Introduction (3) Technologies to increase the runway capacity: Air traffic flow management tools (CTAS, Integrated Arrival and Departure Manager);Air Traffic surveillance equipment (RADAR, PRM – Precision Runway Monitor);Improved and innovative avionics (FMS 4D RNAV, WAAS, AILS, TCAS, LVLASO, GPS. ADS-B, CDTI);Distributed air/ground solutions (Combinations of ADS-B, TCAS,Free Flight devices)
62 The system of parallel runways (1) Diversity Configuration of parallel runways:Closely spaced (700 – 2499 ft);Intermediate spaced (2500 – 4299 ft);Far spaced ( ≥ 4300 ft);Statistics: U.S. busiest airports:28 pairs of closely spaced parallel runways10 pairs of intermediate spaced parallel runways28 pairs of far spaced parallel runwaysStatistics: European busiest airports:Frankfurt – 1 pair of closely spaced (parallel) runways;London Heathrow – 1 pair 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.
7Separation between runway centrelines (ft) 2 The system of parallel runways (2) Degree of dependency U.S. IFR/IMCSeparation between runway centrelines (ft)Arr-ArrDep-DepArr-DepDep-Arr700 – 2499Like single runwayArrival clearsthe runwaysDeparture clears2500 – 3399Dependent: Lateral -diagonal separationIndependent3400 – 4299Dependent: - Lateral/diagonal separation – without PRM;4300Independent –with PRM
82 The system of parallel runways (3) Cases in the U.S. 1000ft1000fttATL – Atlanta Hartsfield InternationalBOS – Boston Logan International1200ft
9DFW – Dallas-Fort Worth International LAX – Los Angeles International 2 The system of parallel runways (4) Cases in the U.S.1200ftDFW – Dallas-Fort Worth International700ftLAX – Los Angeles International
10SFO – San Francisco International 2 The system of parallel runways (5) Cases in the U.S.750ftSFO – San Francisco International
113 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (1) The problem 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.
123 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (2) Current procedures: Weather minima:VFR (Paired) Approach C ft; V nmThe Simultaneous Offset Independent Approach (SOIA/PRM) C ft; V nmThe baseline IFR Approach C ft; V nmInnovative procedures:The FAA/NASA TACEC (2020) C: 0 ft ; V nmHigh Approach Landing System/ Dual Landing Threshold (HALS/DLT)or Staggered Approach C: 0 ft ; V nmSteeper Approach (SAP) C: 0 ft ; V nm
133 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3a) Current procedures VFR (paired) approach
143 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3b) Current procedures The Simultaneous Offset (SOIA/PRM) Independent Approach (and partially TACEC)Blunder zoneMaximum crosswind27R27LDSZik = (d/W)vkjliWSafe Zone SZikkik
15Minimum in–trail separation 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3c) Current proceduresThe Baseline IFR ApproachikSik0Maximum crosswindMinimum in–trail separation27R27LkjiBlunder zone
163 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4a) Innovative procedures HALS/DLT or Staggered ApproachkHik0i1700ftSik0
17Runway lighting system 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4b) Innovative proceduresHALS/DLT or Staggered ApproachRunway lighting systemSource (OPTIMAL, EUROCONTROL, 2005)
18Increasing of the vertical separation Hik0 in time if: 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (5a) Innovative proceduresSteeper Approach (SAP)Sik0< 4300 ftkiHik0kiIncreasing of the vertical separation Hik0 in time if:vi > vk sink/sin ik > I
19(Source: Airliner World, 2006) 3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (5b) Innovative proceduresBaseline ILS vs Steeper Approach (SAP)ILS Glide Slope 5.5°ILS Glide Slope 3°(Source: Airliner World, 2006)
203 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4a) Innovative procedures Currently certificated aircraft fleet for SAPDe Havilland DHC-6, - 8 (STOL - Short Take- Off and Landing);Cessna Citation, Embraer ERJ 135, 170;Airbus A319.Certificaation should provide:The aircraft capability to use a range of GS angles ( or 60);Certainly increase in the approach speed to compensate higher descent speed and consequent increase in the wake vortex.
214 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (1) The concept and definition:The maximum number of aircraft operations accommodated during given period of time (1 or ¼ ofan 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);Simulation models (SIMMOD, TAAM, Airport Machine).
224 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (2) Objectives:Developing the dedicated analytical model for ILS baseline, HALS/DLT, and SAP;Carrying out the sensitivity analysis with respect to the most influencing factors.
234 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (3) Assumptions: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 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;Only the certificated aircraft can perform SAP;The aircraft appear at particular parts of the runway system when the ATC expects them.
244 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (4) The model for arrivals – basic geometryRWY 1RWY 2TI/JTkijEI/JkEkdkzI, JlIJ(*)SIk0SkJ0EI, EJ, Ek - final approach gate of aircraft i, j and k, respectivelyT I/J, Tk landing threshold of aircraft i, j and k, respectivelyI, J, k length of common approach path of aircraft i, j and k, respectivelyd spacing between RWY 1 and RWY 2lIJ(*) initial longitudinal ATC separation rules between aircraft i and jSIk0, SkJ initial longitudinal “spacing” between aircraft ik and kj, respectivelyIkkJSequence ij – longitudinal separationSequences ik and kl –diagonal or vertical separationHorizontal plane
25Vertical plane – SAP (F-S-S) 4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (5)The model for arrivals – basic geometryZLHzLHSIk0Low - iHigh - kABTLRunway(s)THHHL= LtgEI/LLCHij0HHL0SkJ0EFDLow - jTL,THki/jE1/ijiH0ikL/iH/kRunway(s)kk-i/jjVertical plane - HALS/DLT (S-F-F)Vertical plane – SAP (F-S-S)
264 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (6) The model for arrivals – basic formulas:The inter-arrival times at the thresholdof RWY1 and RWY2 atij/k = atik + atkj and atkl/j = atkj + atjluij, uik, ukj, ujl are the control variables
274 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (7) The model for arrivals – basic formulas:The probability of occurrence of strings of aircraft types ikj and kjlThe average inter-arrival times at RWY1 and RWY2The ultimate arrival capacity of RWY1 and RWY2
284 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (8) Mixed operationsRealising (m) departures between the arrivals kjProbability of occurrence of the gap between the successive paired arrivals ik and jl is pdmThe capacityDeparturesThe inter-departure times:The average inter-departure time:The departure capacity:
29Passenger Terminal complex Cargo Terminal complex 5 Application of the model (1a)HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILSInput: Frankfurt airport- geometry of runwaysTwo parallel runways – 4000m (07 L/R and 25 L/R) for landings and take-offs;Separation distance: d = 1700 ft (518 m)RWY 26L – 2500 m for landings;Staggered distance: z = 1500 mRWY 18 – 4500m onlyfor take-offs;25R25L26L07L07RApronPassenger Terminal complex18Cargo Terminal complexRunwaysTaxiwaysNew runwayPreferred landing directionPreferred take-off direction
30RWY landing occupancy time (s) 5 Application of the model (2a)HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILSInput: Frankfurt airport – fleet characteristicsA/C CategoryTypeProportion(%)Approach speed (kts)RWY landing occupancy time (s)Super HeavyA3801015060HeavyA ; A330; A340; B767 B777; B747140LargeB737; A320, 321s13055SmallATR42,72; Avrojet; Dash82011045
315 Application of the model (3a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILSInput: Frankfurt airport - The ATC separation rulesa) Arrivals (nm)b) Departures (min)A/C Sequence i/jSuperHeavy(A380)LargeSmallHeavy (A380)6810453A/C Sequence i/jSuperHeavy(A380)LargeSmallHeavy (A380)231.50.75– Lateral/diagonal: = 2 nm– Vertical:H( .) = 1000 ft
325 Application of the model (4a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILSInput: Frankfurt airport- Scenario of using runwaysRWY 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).
335 Application of the model (5a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILSResults: Frankfurt airporta) HALS/DLT vs ILS BaselineCapacity: > 18 %b) HALS/DLT vs ILS Baseline(A380 –10%) Capacity: > 27%
345 Application of the model (6a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILSResults: Frankfurt airportHALS/DLT (A380 – 10%) Capacity: < %
355 Application of the model (1b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILSInput: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) - geometry of runways1L1R28R28LNArrivalsDeparturesTwo 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)
36RWY landing occupancy time (s) 5 Application of the model (2b)Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILSInput: SFO - Fleet characteristicsA/C CategoryTypeProportion(%)Approach speed (kts)RWY landing occupancy time (s)HeavyA ; A330; A340; B767 B777; B7472215050B757-19140LargeB737; A320, 321s;52130SmallATR42,72; AvroRJ; Dash8712040
375 Application of the model (3b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILSInput: SFO – The ATC separation rulesa) Arrivals (nm)b) Departures (min)A/C Sequence i/jHeavyB757LargeSmall4562.5A/C Sequence i/jHeavyB757LargeSmall1.521– Lateral/diagonal – as in a)– Vertical: H(.) = 1000 ft
385 Application of the model (4b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILSInput: SFO – Scenario(s) of using runwaysThe pair of runways 28 L/R is used exclusively for landings;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);All except heavy aircraft can perform SAP (Scenario 2);The ATC tactics is FIFO (First-In-First-Out).
395 Application of the model (5b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILSResults: SFO airportSAP vs ILS IMC baseline:SAP - Scenario 1 Landing capacity > 27%SAP - Scenario 2 Landing capacity > 83 %
406 Qualitative evaluation (1) The HALS/DLTSafety:Environment:Standard vertical and in-trail wake-vortex separation;Switching between RWY lighting system modes;Insufficient length of RWY with DLTShifting noise contours towards the airport;Neutrality regarding extra fuel burn and air pollution.Requirements:Wake vortex warning system;Additional ILS for DLT
416 Qualitative evaluation (2) The SAPSafety:Requirements:Not standardised procedure;DH altitude need to be redefined due to the higher descent speed;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).Two pairs of ILS or GNSS per runway;Aircraft certification (might be very expensive);Pilots’ training.Environment:Could contribute to reducing noise due to the higher flight paths.
427 ConclusionsThe 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 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)
438 The lessons learntThe wake-vortex remains the main barrier to increasing of the airport runway capacity;The remaining questions are: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)?;Should the vehicles – aircraft become more active part of the game – the airports and ATC have already done a lot??