Merging arrival flows without heading instructions Bruno Favennec, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Merging arrival flows without heading instructions

Bruno Favennec, Eric Hoffman, François Vergne, Karim Zeghal, EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Ludovic Boursier, Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne, France Aymeric Trzmiel, Steria Transport Division, France ATM seminar, July 2007

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

2

Merging of arrival flows with open loop radar vectors

Paris CDG, 2002, source: ADP

Efficient and flexible

But…

Highly demanding as it

imposes rapid decisions for the controller and time-critical execution by the flight crew Consequences

Peaks of workload High frequency occupancy Lack of anticipation Difficulty to optimise vertical

profiles and to contain the dispersion of trajectories

3

Merging of arrival flows with Precision Area Navigation

Use of area navigation (RNAV,

P-RNAV) to revisit the merging

• f arrival flows

Definition of new route

structures, e.g. “trombones”

Merging achieved through route

modification But…

4

Limitations

“... at high traffic loads, the controllers inevitably revert to radar vectoring in order to maximise capacity.”

EUROCONTROL TMA2010+ Business Case for an Arrival Manager with PRNAV in Terminal Airspace Operations (AMAN-P)

“The main disadvantage of RNAV procedures is that they reduce the flexibility that radar vectoring affords the controller and experience has shown that, without the help of a very advanced arrival manager, controllers tend to revert to radar vectoring during the peak periods”.

EUROCONTROL Guidance Material for the Design of Terminal Procedures for Area Navigation, Edition 3.0, March 2003

5

Examples

EDDF - 14/06/2007 (17:00-20:00) EDDF - 14/06/2007 (7:00-10:00)

Source: stanlytrack.dfs.de/stanlytrack/stanlytrackEDDF.jnlp

6

Motivation

Key points Maintain flexibility to be able to expedite or delay aircraft Keep aircraft on Flight Management System trajectory Maximise runway throughput When investigating airborne spacing (ASAS), a specific method

and route structure was defined to expedite or delay aircraft in the terminal area

Can we now apply this method and the route structure without

airborne spacing…?

7

Principles

Merge point Sequencing legs (vertically separated) Envelope of possible paths

We created a merge point

with legs at a constant distance for path shortening

• r stretching

Merging is achieved through

“direct-to” instructions to the merge point

8

FL120 FL100 Merge point Sequencing legs

10NM

9

Series of experiments

A series of small-scale experiments to perform an initial

assessment of feasibility, benefits and limits

Experimental conditions

High traffic load (36 to 40 arrivals per hour with 20% heavy) Various wind conditions (no, moderate and strong) Various airspace configurations (two, three and four entry points) Various configurations of legs (same or opposite direction, parallel or non

parallel)

Various geometries of legs (straight segments, segments approximating

concentric arcs, with or without intermediate points)

Initial measurement of benefits with today’s method (open loop

vectors) as baseline (2 x 3 runs)

10

Airspace (baseline)

SUDOK OKRIX PONTY FAF SIMON TAMOT CODYN

SIMON FL100 PONTY FL080 ILS 4000

Holding SUDOK: FL100 / 140 1 min / 220 kt

065° 330°

Holding PONTY: FL080 / 140 1 min / 220 kt

Two frequencies: approach controller (APC) and final director (FIN)

11

Airspace (point merge)

LOMAN MOTAR SUDOK OKRIX NADOR PONTY FAF SIMON TOLAD TAMOT CODYN FL080 FL100

SIMON/TOLAD FL100 MOTAR/NADOR FL080 ILS 4000

Holding PONTY: FL080 / 140 1 min / 220 kt Holding SUDOK: FL100 / 140 1 min / 220 kt

Two frequencies: approach controller (APC) and final director (FIN)

12

Density of instructions

1 16

BOKET FAF PONTY SIMON SUDOK TAMOT

Baseline

1 16

BOKET FAF LOMAN MOTAR NADOR PONTY SIMON SUDOK TAMOT TOLAD

Point merge

13

Geographical distribution of instructions

Approach controller Distance to reference point (NM)

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Final director Baseline Number of instructions

20 40 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Level Speed Heading Direct

Final director

20 40 60

Approach controller Point merge

14

Number of instructions

20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of instructions Baseline Point merge Baseline Point merge Final director Approach controller

Level Speed Heading Direct

15

Number of instructions per aircraft

Number of instructions 5 10 Heading Direct Speed Level All Point merge Baseline

16

Frequency occupancy

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Final director Frequency occupancy Point merge Baseline Approach controller

17

Spacing on final

Min for 95% Max for 95% Mean-STD Mean+STD Mean Max Min

Spacing at final appraoch fix (NM) 2 3 4 5 6 7 Baseline Point merge

18

Trajectories

Vectors M3 TMA Triangle M3 TMA

Similar distance and time flown: 70 NM during 18 minutes on average

Baseline Point merge

19

Descent profiles

20 40 60 80 100 120 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Altitude in feet (*100) Distance to final approach fix (NM)

Mean Std dev

Baseline

Mean Std dev

Point merge

20

Configurations tested (1/2)

Straight sequencing legs Segmented sequencing legs 3 flows, with 2 sequencing legs of same direction Dissociated sequencing legs

Merge point Merge point Common point

21

Configurations tested (2/2)

IAF 2 FAF IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4 IAF 2 FAF IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4 IAF 2 FAF IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4 IAF 2 FAF IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4

IAF 2 FAF1 IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4 FAF2 IAF 2 FAF1 IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4 FAF2

22

23

24

Summary

Method found comfortable, safe and accurate, even under high traffic load,

although less flexible than open loop vectors

Predictability and anticipation increased, workload and communications reduced Open loop radar vectors no longer used and aircraft remained on lateral

navigation mode

Final approach spacing as accurate as today Descent profiles improved (potential for continuous descent from FL100) Flow of traffic more orderly with a contained and predefined dispersion of

trajectories

All these elements should contribute to improve safety No specific airborne functions or ground tools are required initially, except

P-RNAV capabilities

25

Conclusion

The “point merge” method

Maintains flexibility to be able to expedite or delay aircraft Keeps aircraft on Flight Management System trajectory Maximises runway throughput

26

In perspective

The “point merge” method is

A transition towards extensive use of P-RNAV A sound foundation to support further developments such as

continuous descent (CDA) and target time of arrival (4D)

A step to the implementation of airborne spacing (ASAS)