Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 – Current...

July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG

WP1 – Current situation analysis – Airspace perspective

Béatrice Raynaud & Eric Vallauri(Sofréavia)

CARE/ASAS Action

FALBALA ProjectDissemination Forum – 8th July 2004


WP1 scope and objectives

To identify relevant arrival traffic patterns, and typical

traffic situations, in the investigated TMAs: Paris TMA

London TMA

Frankfurt TMA

Using European radar data recordings, as well as Meteorological Aerodrome Reports (METARs) and

Aeronautical Information Publications (AIPs)

To perform qualitative and quantitative analysis of

traffic patterns extracted from radar data


Data, method and tools


Different sources of radar

data for each environment: French en-route and

Paris TMA data (CENA)

UK en-route and London TMA data (NATS)

Frankfurt TMA data (DFS)

Maastricht radar data(EUROCONTROL Maastricht) – Only used by WP2 analysis

European radar data recordings

About one month of radar

data for each environment


Initial radar data processing

Radar data conversion into a common (MADREC) format

Selection of the tracks of interest in each radar coverage,

i.e. the arrival and departures flights at various airports: Tracks that have plots below FL50

No tracks too short (i.e. less than 30 plots),

No tracks related to Non Altitude Reporting (NAR) traffic,

No tracks that do not go above FL10 and

No tracks that do not go below FL50

Specific processing for the French mono-radar data to re-

associate tracks that enter the radar silence cone


METAR data processing

To get the most important weather parameters for the

whole recording period and for each airport of interest: Paris Charles De Gaulle, Paris Orly, Le Bourget, London Heathrow,

Gatwick, Stansted and Frankfurt

Wind Visibility

(and weather

phenomena)

Ceiling QNH


AIP data processing

Semi-automatic AIP

scanning, parsing and

translation into

ARINC424 format: Runway characteristics

Standard Arrival Routes (STARs)

RNAV arrival routes

Initial and final approach procedures


Traffic patterns processing

Specific radar data processing to determine which AIP

procedure best matches to each radar track

XML file from AIP

Validation display

Radar data split per procedure

Statistical tools

Traffic analysis

%

Radar data Xtraj map from XML


Traffic patterns analysis

Assessment of the typical traffic characteristics in TMA

and Extended-TMA: Traffic demand and main arrival flows in TMA?

Actual use of STARs and approach procedures?

Use of radar vectoring in TMA and Extented-TMA?

Use of holding patterns in TMA and Extented-TMA?

Runway use at main airports?

Ordering of aircraft in the landing sequences in TMA?

Spacing between successive aircraft in arrival sequences?

Qualitative assessment on a few selected days, as well as

some quantitative assessment over the period of radar data


Paris TMA


Paris TMA - Arrival flows

Distinct arrival flows to

main Paris airports

LFPO ArrivalsLFPG Arrivals

Separate analysis of: Paris Charles de Gaulle

(LFPG)

Paris Orly (LFPO)

Insight to: Le Bourget (LFPB)


Paris TMA and Extended -TMA

Two approach control

units in charge of Paris

TMA: Paris CDG Approach

Paris Orly Approach

Paris Area Control Centre

(CRNA/N) in charge of

arrival sectors in E-TMA

Paris CDG

Paris Orly

Paris CDG

Paris Orly

~80 NM ~240 NM


IAF

IAF IAF

Paris Orly

IAF

IAF

Paris CDG

IAF

IAF

IAF

Paris airports characteristics (1)

LFPG: 4 main IAFs further out the

airport

2 pairs of close parallel runways

LFPO: 3 IAFs further out the airport

3 converging runways

Legend:Jet aircraft arrival flowsTurbo-propeller arrival flows

~20 NM


LFPG and LFPB: Very close airports

Same IAFs

Distinct altitudes at same IAF

Paris airports characteristics (2)

Triple parallel approaches

(westerly configuration)

Paris CDG

Le Bourget

~6 NM

Departures

Arrivals


Paris TMA – Use of runways

LFPG : Runways used in specialised

mode (in the south)

Only one runway used either for landings and take-offs (in the north)

LFPO : Converging runways used in

specialised mode

27L

27R

26L

26R

09R

09L

08R

08L

Departures

Arrivals

06

26

08

20

02

24

Departures

Arrivals


Paris - Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA)

Limited use of the

Standard Arrival Routes

(STAR)IAF IAF

IAF

IAF

IAF

IAF

Use of direct routing and

radar vectoring towards

IAFs

Holding patterns not

typically used (under

nominal conditions)


56104

5357

0

10

20

30

<5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11

11-12

12-13

13-14

14-15

>15(NM)

BALOD OMAKO LORTA MERUE

0

10

20

30

<5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11

11-12

12-13

13-14

14-15

>15(NM)

ODRAN MOLEK69 66

Paris TMA – Aircraft spacing at the IAFs

LFPG: Distinct distribution in the

south (one main IAF)

Similar (and larger) distribution for two IAFs in the north

LFPO: Similar (and large) distribution

at two main IAFs

Either longitudinal, vertical or lateral separation at IAF

Influence of the traffic demand over the spacing at IAF


Radar vectoring area

Pseudo

downwind

legs

Radar vectoring area

Pseudo

downwind leg

Paris TMA – Use of radar vectoring

LFPG: LFPO:

Actual over-fly of the IAFs depending runway proximity

“Comb”- like

vectoring

“Comb”- like

vectoring

“Trombone”-

like vectoring

“Trombone”-

like vectoring

Both large “trombone” and “comb”- like traffic patterns


0

20

40

60

80

<60

70-7

990

-99

110-

119

130-

139

150-

159

170-

179

190-

199

210-

219

230-

239

(s)

26L 26R 27L 27R

0

20

40

60

80

<60

70-79

90-99

110-1

19

130-1

39

150-1

59

170-1

79

190-1

99

210-2

19

230-2

39

(s)

20 24 26

Paris TMA – Aircraft spacing at the runway

LFPG: Large distribution in the north

Tighter distribution in the south

LFPO: Large distribution (medium

traffic density)

Influence of the runway use over the spacing at runway

Specialised

runwayNon-specialised

runway

Specialised

runway


London TMA


London TMA

Several close airports with

significant level of traffic

Heathrow

Stansted

Gatwick

London City

Luton

Descending aircraft

Climbing aircraft

Level aircraft

Study of: London Heathrow (EGLL)

London Gatwick (EGKK)~45 NM~45 NM

~25 NM~25 NM


LTMA - Arrival flows

Distinct arrival flows to

EGLL and EGKK

EGLL arrivals

EGKK arrivals Independent analysis of

each airport


LTMA - Airspace and airport characteristics

EGLL: 4 IAFs close to the airfield

2 parallel runways

EGKK: 3 IAFs in the South close to

the airfield

1 single runway

EGLL

BNN

LAM

BIG OCK

~10 NM

~22 NM

EGKK FAF

FAF

WILLO

ASTRA

TIMBA

~20 NM~10 NM


LTMA – Use of runways

EGLL: Parallel runways used in

specialised mode

EGKK: One runway used for arrivals

and departures

Departures

Arrivals

Departures Arrivals


LTMA - Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA)

EGLL: Direct routing and radar

vectoring to the IAFs

EGKK: Radar vectoring to some

converging points

WaypointIAF

Waypoint

Radar vectoring

IAFIAF

IAF

IAF


LTMA – Use of holding patterns

Seldom used in EGKK but

typically used in EGLL

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0 1 2 3 >=4

LAM BIG BNN OCK

Mean distribution of orbits in holding patterns

for arrivals flying over an IAF (EGLL)


LTMA – Use of IAFs

EGLL: High use Holding patterns

EGKK: Limited use Radar vectoring

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

TIMBA WILLO ASTRA None

Arrival flow breakdown per IAF

(both landing configurations)

TIMBA WILLO ASTRA None

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

LAM BIG BNN OCK None

Arrival flow breakdown per IAF


LAM BIG BNN OCK None


LTMA – Use of radar vectoring in TMA

EGLL: “S-shaped” traffic patterns

Merge of flows from the 4 IAFs

EGKK: “S-shaped” traffic patterns

Radar vectoring before the IAF


LTMA – Aircraft spacing at the runway

EGLL: Series of peaks Specialised runways

EGKK: Large distribution Non-specialised runway

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

<60

70-7

9

90-9

9

110-

119

130-

139

150-

159

170-

179

190-

199

210-

219

230-

239

(s)

27L 27R

9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30

26L (dep) 26L (arr)

0

60

120

180

240

9:01 9:33 10:04 10:30 10:58 11:33

(s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

<60

70-7

9

90-9

9

110-

119

130-

139

150-

159

170-

179

190-

199

210-

219

230-

239

(s)

26L


Frankfurt TMA


Frankfurt TMA

Only one airport with

significant level of traffic Frankfurt (EDDF)

Frankfurt

Descending aircraft

Climbing aircraft

Level aircraft

~80 NM~80 NM


EDDF – Airspace and airport characteristics

4 “Clearance Limits”

remote from the airfield

Two types of arrival

procedures: RNAV arrival routes

STARs (2 IAFs per landing configuration)

Three runways: 2 closely-spaced parallel

runways

A third runway

EDDF

ETARU

EPINO

GED

PSA ~40 NM

RNAV & ILS procedures

STAR

MTR

CHA


EDDF – Use of runways

2 closely-spaced parallel

runways (RWY07/25): Arrivals and departures

More departures from RWY07L/25R (dedicated to northbound departures only)

More arrivals on RW25R (westerly configuration) Departures

Arrivals

1 additional runway

(RWY18): Departures only (~60% of total)


EDDF – Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA)

Arrival flights: Direct routing and

Radar vectoring

To: Clearance Limits and

Converging point

Radar vectoring

Converging

point

Clearance

Limit

Clearance

Limits


EDDF – Use of holding patterns

Sometimes used

Mainly in the easterly

configuration

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1 2 3 >=4

GED PSA EPINO ETARU

Mean distribution of orbits in holding patterns

for arrivals flying over a Clearance Limit


EDDF – Use of IAFs and Clearance Limits

No use of IAFs

Clearance Limits often

used

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

ROKIM EPINO

East West

Alternative use of two

points in the west0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

GED PSA ROKIM ETARU NoneGED PSA ROKIM ETARU None

Arrival flow breakdown per converging points



EDDF – Use of radar vectoring in TMA

Two successive mergings

for the three northern

flows

Subsequent merging with

southern flow (“trombone-

like” traffic patterns)

Radar vectoring

Radar vectoring

Northern arrivalsflying towards the

southern downwind leg

Mergings


1

2 3

4 5

6

7 8

9n

9s

10n

10s

11

EDDF – Approaches to the parallel runways

Dependent parallel

runways (separated by

518 m) Staggered approaches

Extensive use of visual clearances


EDDF – Aircraft spacing at the runway

Large distribution Dependent parallel runways

• Interaction between arrivals

Non-specialised runways

• Interaction with departures

0

20

40

60

80

(s)

25L 25R

RW25L

RW25R

6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30

RW25L (arr) RW25R (arr) RW25L (dep) RW25R (dep)


Conclusions

&

Recommendations


WP1 conclusions

Better understanding of the current situation within: Paris TMA

London TMA

Frankfurt TMA

Different strategies applied for each investigated airport to

get maximum benefits from available resources

Operational indicators measured in each environment not

directly comparable


WP1 recommendations

Applicability and benefits of AS applications should be

assessed in relationship with current situation in each

airspace

Traffic demand, airspace and airport characteristics should

be considered when assessing current situation

More in-depth investigation of the current situation should

better support the quantitative assessment of the possible

benefits brought by AS applications


Questions / Discussion

Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 – Current...

Documents

Transcript of Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 – Current...