INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES FOR INCREASING OF THE AIRPORT RUNWAY CAPACITY

1
INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES FOR INCREASING OF THE
AIRPORT RUNWAY CAPACITY

• Dr Milan JanicSenior Researcher Research
  Programme Leader Delft University of
  TechnologyThe Netherlands Email
  janic_at_otb.tudelft.nl

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
2 The system of parallel runways (2) Degree
of dependency U.S. IFR/IMC
Independent with PRM
8
2 The system of parallel runways (3) Cases
in the U.S.
9
2 The system of parallel runways (4) Cases
in the U.S.
10
2 The system of parallel runways (5) Cases
in the U.S.
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 -
  3500 ft V - 6 nm
• The Simultaneous Offset IndependentApproach
  (SOIA/PRM) C -
  1600 ft V - 4 nm
• The baseline IFR Approach C - 0 ft
  V - 0.1 nm
• Innovative procedures
• The FAA/NASA TACEC (2020) C 0 ft
  V - 0.1 nm
• High Approach Landing System/Dual Landing
  Threshold (HALS/DLT)
• or Staggered Approach
  C 0 ft V - 0.1 nm
• Steeper Approach (SAP) C 0 ft V -
  0.1 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)

15
3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel
runways (3c) Current procedures

• The Baseline IFR Approach

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

• HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach

k
Hik0
i
1700ft
Sik0
?
?
17
3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel
runways (4b) Innovative procedures

• HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach

Runway lighting system
Source (OPTIMAL, EUROCONTROL, 2005)
18
3 Approach procedures to dependent parallel
runways (5a) Innovative procedures

• Steeper Approach (SAP)

19
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 (30- 50 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

• Sequence ij longitudinal separation
• Sequences ik and kl diagonal or vertical
  separation

Horizontal plane
25
4 Modelling the capacity of dependent parallel
runways (5)

• The model for arrivals basic geometry

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 RWY2atij/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
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 distanced 1700 ft (518 m)
• RWY 26L 2500 m for landings
• Staggered distancez 1500 m
• RWY 18 4500m only
• for take-offs

30
5 Application of the model (2a)
HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS

• Input Frankfurt airport fleet characteristics

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)
? 2 nm
H( .) 1000 ft
Lateral/diagonal
Vertical
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 gt
18
b) HALS/DLT vs ILS Baseline (A380 10)
Capacity gt 27
34
5 Application of the model (6a)
HALS/DLT vs Baseline ILS
Results Frankfurt airport

• HALS/DLT (A380 10) Capacity lt 6 -25

35
5 Application of the model (1b)
Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS
Input San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
- geometry of runways

• Two pairs of parallel runways 1 L/R and 28
  L/R(1L/28R 3600 m1R/28L 3200 m)
• Separation distanced 750 ft (229m)

36
5 Application of the model (2b)
Steeper Approach (SAP) vs Baseline ILS
Input SFO - Fleet characteristics
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)
Vertical H(.) 1000 ft
Lateral/diagonal as in a)
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 gt 27
• SAP - Scenario 2 Landing capacity gt 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