POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW

Transcription

1 POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW RNAV STAR updates and RNP AR approaches at Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 November 2018 The information and diagrams contained in this report are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be used for navigation.

2 Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose Background Usage Summary Runway Runway Runway Runway Environmental Impacts and Noise Monitoring Sample of Overflights at the South Monitor Sample of Overflights at the Northeast Monitor Examples of Non-Aviation Noise Events Community Feedback Review Conclusions

3 1.0 Purpose This review examines the implementation of new Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR) instrument procedures at Winnipeg James Armstrong International Airport (CYWG). In doing so, the review looks at operational usage, community feedback, and environmental and noise impacts of the new procedures implemented on October 12, The six-month period from October 12, 2017 to April 12, 2018, was examined. 2.0 Background Required Navigation Performance (RNP) is part of a family of technologies known as Performance Based Navigation (PBN) that lever the capabilities of modern flight management systems and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) for safer and more efficient navigation. Together, these significant technology tools are being used to meet commitments made by the global aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The shift towards PBN is also part of an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommended approach to streamline global navigation methods. In winter 2017, NAV CANADA proposed that new public RNP AR arrival procedures to Runways 13/31 and 18/36 be implemented at CYWG. These new approaches would replace existing private approaches published by one of the airlines that use CYWG, making them more accessible to appropriately equipped aircraft. A consultation process was conducted in accordance with the industry s Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. The consultation process, which ran from February 15, 2017 to April 10, 2017, included briefings to elected officials and the airport s community consultative committee, hosting of three community open house events, and use of a survey mechanism to enable the public to provide direct comment. Following the consultation process, it was recommended that the changes be implemented as proposed in October NAV CANADA committed to following up on the implementation with a review of the first sixth months of RNP operation. For background on the full scope of the airspace project and related consultation process please review the Public Engagement Report. 3

4 3.0 Usage Summary Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport is Manitoba s busiest airport and the country s 7 th busiest airport by the number of annual passengers, which surpassed the 4 million mark in Each year, the airport receives approximately 58,000 commercial arrivals. The airspace around CYWG is busy and complex, with a mix of commercial, general aviation (smaller aircraft such as Cessnas), helicopter and military training operations across the region. The utilization of RNP AR procedures at CYWG was expected to represent a relatively small proportion of overall traffic due to both equipage levels and the sequencing requirements of traffic at a busy airport. During the consultation process, NAV CANADA estimated that the percentage of aircraft equipped to utilize RNP AR procedures was anticipated to start at approximately 20 per cent of aircraft. However, it was also acknowledged that a smaller portion would be granted a RNP AR approach as a result of sequencing requirements, and pilots electing to employ other types of approaches. Between October 12, 2017, and February 8, 2018, approximately RNP AR approaches were flown to CCYWG. The daily average of RNP approaches completed was approximately five approaches per day. Over time, the portion of the aircraft fleet equipped and certified for RNP will increase as reflected in the recent implementation. For example, utilization steadily grew over the October and February period with RNP AR approaches starting at 198 in January, climbing to 216 in October and continuing to rise to 303 in November. A runway-by-runway usage analysis follows. Note: Maps depict traffic on post-implementation days where each respective runway was in use with RNP AR approaches. Overall day-to-day patterns will vary based on aircraft types, runway usage, wind direction, and the manner of operation by pilots and air traffic controllers. Operations to runways other than the one being examined have been omitted for clarity. For all runways the sample day selected was a day where each respective runway received an above average proportion of arrivals. For an overview of all flight paths view the Public Engagement Report. 1 RNP counts developed by NAV CANADA Operational Analysis. 4

5 3.1 Runway 13 Runway 13 receives approximately 15 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. It is frequently used in conjunction with runways 18 and 36. Figure 1 shows a 24-hour sample of traffic as flown on a day subsequent to implementation when Runway 13 was in use. The turquoise lines show all non- RNP flight tracks while the blue represents those flight tracks where an RNP AR approach was utilized. The Figure 1: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 13 main change that can be observed is that the RNP AR procedures allow aircraft to join the final approach closer to the airport. RNP approaches for Runway 13 largely avoid residentially populated areas. As expected, RNP AR approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 26 RNP AR approaches to Runway 13 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. The implemented approaches are located among existing traffic patterns and at comparable altitudes. Aircraft not equipped for RNP AR continue to approach the airport using RNAV standard arrivals as well as visual approaches. 3.2 Runway 31 Runway 31 receives approximately 28 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. It is frequently used in conjunction with runways 18 and 36. Figure 2: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 31 Figure 2 shows a 24-hour sample of traffic as flown on a day subsequent to implementation when runway 31 was in use. The turquoise lines show all non-rnp AR flight tracks while the blue represents those flight tracks where an RNP AR approach was utilized. The main change that can be observed is that the addition of a flight path from the north that overflies the eastern part of Winnipeg. While the flight path is located 5

6 among existing flight patterns, a portion will fly the new downwind leg which flies over low population density areas. As expected, RNP AR approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 167 RNP approaches to runway 31 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. 3.3 Runway 18 Runway 18 receives approximately 30 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. It is frequently used in conjunction with runways 13 and 31. Figure 3 shows a 24-hour sample of traffic as flown on a day where Runway 18 handled the majority of arrivals. The turquoise lines show all non-rnp AR flight tracks while the blue represents those flight tracks where an RNP AR approach was utilized. The main change that can be observed is that the RNP AR procedures allow aircraft to turn off the downwind leg sooner, joining the final approach closer to the airport when compared to a standard approach but Figure 3: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 18 amongst those using a visual approach or being vectored. As projected, traffic continues to be distributed across the region prior to lining up on final approach and continues to overfly areas that could observe aircraft prior to the changes being implemented. As a result, the RNP AR transitions from the west and northwest avoid densely populated areas. From the northeast, the flight path overflies populated areas in the same location as today while aircraft from the east will be in a slightly different location; however, the volume is expected to be low initially at approximately 300 flights/year. A total of 530 RNP AR approaches to Runway 18 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. 6

7 3.4 Runway 36 Runway 36 receives approximately 27 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. It is frequently used in conjunction with Runways 13 and 31. Figure 4 compares two 24- hour samples of traffic as flown on a day where Runway 30 handled the bulk of arrivals. The turquoise lines show all non-rnp AR flight tracks while the blue represents those flight tracks where an RNP approach was utilized. The main change that can be observed is that the RNP AR procedures allow aircraft to turn off the downwind leg sooner, joining the final approach closer to the airport when compared to Figure 4: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 36 a standard approach. As projected, traffic continues to be distributed across the region prior to lining up on final approach and continues to overfly areas that could observe aircraft prior to the changes being implemented. As expected, RNP AR approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 233 RNP AR approaches to runway 36 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. 7

8 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Noise Monitoring The reduction in fuel burn resulting from the new airspace structure is significant. Savings associated only with RNP AR procedure usage during the six-month period are estimated to be equivalent to greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 75 metric tons 2. As RNP AR equipage and usage grows, environmental benefits in terms of reduced fuel burn and associated greenhouse gas emissions will also grow. As part of the post-implementation review process, NAV CANADA also undertook noise monitoring to further quantify noise impacts of aircraft operations. Noise monitoring was contracted to a Winnipeg - based environmental services company named Industrial Technology Centre (ITC). The placement of monitors was determined in consultation with the Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport Authority. Areas where there were some flight path changes near residential areas were targeted; the northeast monitor targeted Runway 18 operations as it receives approximately 30 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis, while the monitor to the south targeted RNP AR procedure arcs to Runways 31 and 36. Monitors were located in two areas in Winnipeg, one in a southern location near the Munroe West community and the other in a northeast location in Parc La Salle. Figure 5: noise monitoring locations Monitors were placed in the communities over several days in July 2018 with the goal of catching a day of operation. Noise events were then correlated with specific RNP AR operations to provide a highly accurate indication of noise levels associated with overflight while identifying other aircraft noise events not associated with RNP AR approaches. The data was captured using Brüel and Kjӕr Model 2250 Type 1 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. Type 1 sound level meters are highly accurate instruments for environmental noise measurements. 2 Based on reduced track miles from new RNP procedures only (the delta between previous GNSS approaches and new RNP procedures) and does not include GHG reductions associated with continuous descent or resulting from improvements to non-rnp approaches. Estimate produced by NAV CANADA Operational Analysis. 8

9 Figure 5 shows the location of noise monitors while figure 6 shows a photo of one of the noise monitoring installations used. The following tables provide an overview of decibel levels using LAmax. They include RNP AR approaches (highlighted in light blue) as well as other aircraft overflight events. LAmax represents the maximum noise level reached during an overflight event. Average monitored decibel levels are within a 5 dba range of those modeled. Background noise in the South Winnipeg location run between approximately 25 dba and 50 dba whereas background noise in the Northeast Winnipeg location run between approximately 44 dba and 50 dba. Non-aircraft related noises include weather, birds, talking, road vehicles and lawn maintenance equipment. Figure 6: sound monitoring installation used in southern Winnipeg While the sample size is small, measurements indicate that aircraft flying on a continuous descent RNP AR profile are quieter on average compared to those navigating using more conventional approach methods. 4.1 Sample of Overflights at the South Monitor Time (Local) AC Type Altitude (ft.) Movement Lateral Distance from Monitor (km) LAMax (dba) 7/11/ :08 CRJ Arrival 3.22 km /11/ :45 CRJ Arrival 3.24 km /11/ :42 B RNP Arrival 0.70 km /11/ :20 DH8D 3943 Arrival 1.81 km /11/ :09 DH8C 4015 Arrival 0.24 km /11/ :28 DH8D 3808 RNP Arrival 0.89 km /11/ :53 B RNP Arrival 0.72 km /11/ :17 B RNP Arrival 0.6 km /11/ :02 CRJ Arrival 2.40 km /12/2018 6:32 A Arrival 3.10 km /12/2018 8:26 B RNP Arrival 0.98 km /12/2018 8:31 DH8C 4907 Arrival 3.38 km /12/2018 8:37 B38M 3777 RNP Arrival 0.83 km /12/ :46 DH8D 3808 RNP Arrival 0.88 km /12/ :09 BE RNP Arrival 0.84 km /12/ :53 AT RNP Arrival 0.95 km /13/2018 8:26 B RNP Arrival 0.53 km

10 4.2 Sample of Overflights at the Northeast Monitor Time (Local) AC Type Altitude (ft.) Movement Lateral Distance from Monitor (km) LAMax (dba) 7/19/ :41 DH8A 6880 Arrival 0.52 km /19/ :34 AT Arrival 0.53 km /19/ :50 SW Arrival 2.10 km /19/ :54 DH8C 5443 Arrival 0.11 km /20/2018 9:39 BE Arrival 0.27 km /21/ :39 BE Arrival 0.30 km /21/ :48 B RNP Arrival 1.95 km /21/ :55 DH8D 6838 RNP Arrival 1.20 km /21/ :00 B RNP Arrival 4.71 km /22/ :09 B RNP Arrival 0.50 km /22/ :36 B RNP Arrival 0.64 km /23/2018 6:14 DH8D 6531 RNP Arrival 0.84 km /23/2018 8:26 BE Arrival 0.67 km /23/2018 9:55 AT Arrival 0.59 km Examples of Non-Aviation Noise Events Activity dba Chainsaw 120 Motorcycle (at 25 feet) 90 Freeway (at 50 feet from pavement edge at 10am) 76 Conversation in Restaurant 60 Quiet Suburb Community Feedback The Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport confirmed that there have been no complaints specifically associated with the implementation of RNP AR procedures. NAV CANADA did not receive any complaints or inquiries subsequent to implementation from either residents or public officials. 6.0 Review Conclusions Significant operational and environmental benefits associated with the new arrival structure are being realized. Reductions in flying time of up to three minutes, while relatively small, provide benefits to the flying public. During the review period as well as subsequent to the review period, no community concerns have been associated with the October 2017 implementation. Noise monitoring confirms that noise levels are within close range of those that were modeled and communicated during the consultation phase. The lack of community concerns show that the changes have resulted in very little negative impact to communities as it relates to noise from aviation. The accuracy of noise modeling supports a transparent and accurate advance communications effort. Future changes to the airspace will be subject to the appropriate consultation and/or communication process based on the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. 10