Download presentation

Published byEarl Thedford Modified over 3 years ago

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
**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
**1 Introduction (1) Factors influencing the airport capacity:**

The number and configuration of runways The 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.

4
1 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.

5
**1 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)

6
**2 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 runways 10 pairs of intermediate spaced parallel runways 28 pairs of far spaced parallel runways Statistics: 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.

7
**Separation between runway centrelines (ft)**

2 The system of parallel runways (2) Degree of dependency U.S. IFR/IMC Separation between runway centrelines (ft) Arr-Arr Dep-Dep Arr-Dep Dep-Arr 700 – 2499 Like single runway Arrival clears the runways Departure clears 2500 – 3399 Dependent: Lateral -diagonal separation Independent 3400 – 4299 Dependent: - Lateral/diagonal separation – without PRM; 4300 Independent –with PRM

8
**2 The system of parallel runways (3) Cases in the U.S.**

1000ft 1000ftt ATL – Atlanta Hartsfield International BOS – Boston Logan International 1200ft

9
**DFW – Dallas-Fort Worth International LAX – Los Angeles International**

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

10
**SFO – San Francisco International**

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

11
**3 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.

12
**3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (2)**

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

13
**3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3a) Current procedures**

VFR (paired) approach

14
**3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3b) Current procedures**

The Simultaneous Offset (SOIA/PRM) Independent Approach (and partially TACEC) Blunder zone Maximum crosswind 27R 27L D SZik = (d/W)vk j l i W Safe Zone SZik k ik

15
**Minimum in–trail separation**

3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (3c) Current procedures The Baseline IFR Approach i k Sik0 Maximum crosswind Minimum in–trail separation 27R 27L k j i Blunder zone

16
**3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4a) Innovative procedures**

HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach k Hik0 i 1700ft Sik0

17
**Runway lighting system**

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

18
**Increasing of the vertical separation Hik0 in time if:**

3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (5a) Innovative procedures Steeper Approach (SAP) Sik0 < 4300 ft k i Hik0 k i Increasing of the vertical separation Hik0 in time if: vi > vk sink/sin i k > I

19
**(Source: Airliner World, 2006)**

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

20
**3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel runways (4a) Innovative procedures**

Currently certificated aircraft fleet for SAP De 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.

21
**4 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 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). State of the art of modelling: Analytical models (Blumstein, Haris, Janic, Tosic); Simulation models (SIMMOD, TAAM, Airport Machine).

22
**4 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.

23
**4 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.

24
**4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (4)**

The model for arrivals – basic geometry RWY 1 RWY 2 TI/J Tk i j EI/J k Ek d k z I, J lIJ(*) SIk0 SkJ0 EI, EJ, Ek - final approach gate of aircraft i, j and k, respectively T I/J, Tk 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 lIJ(*) initial longitudinal ATC separation rules between aircraft i and j SIk0, SkJ initial longitudinal “spacing” between aircraft ik and kj, respectively Ik kJ Sequence ij – longitudinal separation Sequences ik and kl –diagonal or vertical separation Horizontal plane

25
**Vertical plane – SAP (F-S-S)**

4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (5) The model for arrivals – basic geometry ZLH zLH SIk0 Low - i High - k A B TL Runway(s) TH H HL= Ltg EI/L L C Hij0 HHL0 SkJ0 E F D Low - j TL,TH k i/j E1/ij i H0ik L/i H/k Runway(s) k k-i/j j Vertical plane - HALS/DLT (S-F-F) Vertical plane – SAP (F-S-S)

26
**4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (6)**

The model for arrivals – basic formulas: The inter-arrival times at the threshold of RWY1 and RWY2 atij/k = atik + atkj and atkl/j = atkj + atjl uij, uik, ukj, ujl are the control variables

27
**4 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 kjl The average inter-arrival times at RWY1 and RWY2 The ultimate arrival capacity of RWY1 and RWY2

28
**4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel runways (8)**

Mixed operations Realising (m) departures between the arrivals kj Probability of occurrence of the gap between the successive paired arrivals ik and jl is pdm The capacity Departures The inter-departure times: The average inter-departure time: The departure capacity:

29
**Passenger Terminal complex Cargo Terminal complex**

5 Application of the model (1a) 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; Separation distance: d = 1700 ft (518 m) RWY 26L – 2500 m for landings; Staggered distance: z = 1500 m RWY 18 – 4500m only for take-offs; 25R 25L 26L 07L 07R Apron Passenger Terminal complex 18 Cargo Terminal complex Runways Taxiways New runway Preferred landing direction Preferred take-off direction

30
**RWY landing occupancy time (s)**

5 Application of the model (2a) HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS Input: Frankfurt airport – fleet characteristics A/C Category Type Proportion (%) Approach speed (kts) RWY landing occupancy time (s) Super Heavy A380 10 150 60 Heavy A ; A330; A340; B767 B777; B747 140 Large B737; A320, 321s 130 55 Small ATR42,72; Avrojet; Dash8 20 110 45

31
**5 Application of the model (3a)**

HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS Input: Frankfurt airport - The ATC separation rules a) Arrivals (nm) b) Departures (min) A/C Sequence i/j Super Heavy (A380) Large Small Heavy (A380) 6 8 10 4 5 3 A/C Sequence i/j Super Heavy (A380) Large Small Heavy (A380) 2 3 1.5 0.75 – Lateral/diagonal: = 2 nm – Vertical: H( .) = 1000 ft

32
**5 Application of the model (4a)**

HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS 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).

33
**5 Application of the model (5a)**

HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS Results: Frankfurt airport a) HALS/DLT vs ILS Baseline Capacity: > 18 % b) HALS/DLT vs ILS Baseline (A380 –10%) Capacity: > 27%

34
**5 Application of the model (6a)**

HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS Results: Frankfurt airport HALS/DLT (A380 – 10%) Capacity: < %

35
**5 Application of the model (1b)**

Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS Input: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) - geometry of runways 1L 1R 28R 28L N Arrivals Departures 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)

36
**RWY landing occupancy time (s)**

5 Application of the model (2b) Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS Input: SFO - Fleet characteristics A/C Category Type Proportion (%) Approach speed (kts) RWY landing occupancy time (s) Heavy A ; A330; A340; B767 B777; B747 22 150 50 B757 - 19 140 Large B737; A320, 321s; 52 130 Small ATR42,72; AvroRJ; Dash8 7 120 40

37
**5 Application of the model (3b)**

Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS Input: SFO – The ATC separation rules a) Arrivals (nm) b) Departures (min) A/C Sequence i/j Heavy B757 Large Small 4 5 6 2.5 A/C Sequence i/j Heavy B757 Large Small 1.5 2 1 – Lateral/diagonal – as in a) – Vertical: H(.) = 1000 ft

38
**5 Application of the model (4b)**

Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS Input: SFO – Scenario(s) of using runways The 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).

39
**5 Application of the model (5b)**

Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS Results: SFO airport SAP vs ILS IMC baseline: SAP - Scenario 1 Landing capacity > 27% SAP - Scenario 2 Landing capacity > 83 %

40
**6 Qualitative evaluation (1)**

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

41
**6 Qualitative evaluation (2)**

The SAP Safety: 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.

42
7 Conclusions 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 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)

43
8 The lessons learnt The 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??

44
**Thank you for your attention**

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

Airside Capacity Enhancement

Airside Capacity Enhancement

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Mba ppt on business cycles View ppt on apple tv Ppt on web browser in java Ppt on centering prayer Ppt on instrument landing systems Micro display ppt on tv Ppt on high voltage testing of transformer Ppt on measuring central venous pressure Ppt on polynomials and coordinate geometry pdf Ppt on articles of association uk