POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW

Transcription

1 POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW RNAV STAR updates and RNP AR approaches at Edmonton International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 January 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 Sound Monitoring Sample of overflights at the north monitor Sample of overflights at the east monitor Sample of overflights at the west monitor Examples of non-aviation sound 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 Edmonton International Airport (YEG). In doing so, the review looks at operational usage, community feedback, and environmental and sound impacts of the new procedures implemented on March 2, The six-month period from March 2, 2017, to September 2, 2017, 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 fall 2016, NAV CANADA proposed that new RNP AR arrival procedures to runways 02, 12, 20, and 30 be implemented at YEG. Approaches would replace existing private approaches published by one of the airlines that use YEG, 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 October 17, 2016, to December 2, 2016, included briefings to elected officials and the airport s noise consultative committee, hosting of five 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 March 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. 3.0 Usage Summary The utilization of RNP at YEG 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 procedures was anticipated to start at approximately 23 per cent of aircraft. However, it was also acknowledged that a smaller portion would be granted a RNP approach as a result of sequencing requirements, and pilots electing to employ other types of approaches. Between March 2, 2017, and September 2, 2017, approximately 3,600 1 RNP approaches were flown to YEG, which is equivalent to just over 10 per cent of all arrivals during this time period. The daily average of RNP approaches completed was approximately 20 approaches per day. Over time, the portion of the aircraft fleet equipped and certified for RNP will increase. A runway-by-runway usage analysis follows. Note: Maps depict traffic on post-implementation days where each respective runway was in use with RNP 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 1 RNP counts developed by NAV CANADA Operational Analysis. 3

4 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. 3.1 Runway 02 Figure 1 shows a 24-hour sample of traffic as flown on a day subsequent to implementation when runway 02 was in use. The turquoise lines show all non-rnp 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 procedures allow aircraft to join the final approach closer to the airport. RNP approaches for runway 02 largely avoid residentially populated areas. As expected, RNP approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 310 RNP approaches to runway 02 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. 3.2 Runway 12 Figure 1: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 02 Figure 2 shows a 24-hour sample of traffic as flown on a day subsequent to implementation when runway 12 was in use. The turquoise lines show all non-rnp 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 procedures allow aircraft to turn off the downwind leg sooner, joining the final approach closer to the airport when compared to a standard approach. RNP Figure 2 - Pre- and Post-Implementation Flight Tracks Runway 05 approaches for runway 12 were configured to keep those on the left-hand approaches (from the east and northeast) at higher altitudes and amongst the existing traffic distribution. The right-hand approaches (from the west and south) were specifically designed to avoid direct overflight over Devon. Figure 2: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 12 to runway 12 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. As expected, RNP approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 1,355 RNP approaches 4

5 3.3 Runway 20 Figure 3 shows a 24-hour sample of traffic as flown on a day where runway 20 handled the majority of arrivals. The turquoise lines show all non-rnp 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 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 amongst those using a visual approach or being vectored. Use of the RNP helps avoid direct overflight of Beaumont (compared to a visual) and provides fewer track miles over Edmonton residential areas (compared to a Figure 3: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 20 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 approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 735 RNP approaches to runway 20 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. 3.4 Runway 30 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 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 procedures allow aircraft to turn off the downwind leg sooner, joining the final approach closer to the airport when compared to 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 approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 1,208 RNP approaches to runway 30 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. Figure 4: 24-hour traffic sample for runway 30 5

6 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Sound Monitoring The reduction in fuel burn resulting from the new structure is significant. Savings associated only with RNP usage during the six month period are estimated to be equivalent to greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 330 metric tons 2. This is a result of estimate fuel burn savings of 129,000 litres over the review period. As RNP 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 sound monitoring to further quantify decibel levels associated with aircraft operations. Sound monitoring was contracted to an Edmonton-based environmental services company named All-Tech. The placement of monitors was determined in consultation with the Edmonton International Airport Authority. Residential areas where the new structure may be noticeable or where public feedback was received were targeted. Monitors were located to the west near Devon, to the north near the Terwillegar area of Edmonton, and to the east near Beaumont. Figure 5: sound monitoring locations Monitors were placed in the communities over several days in December 2017 with the goal of catching a day of operation. Sound events were then correlated with specific RNP operations to provide a highly accurate indication sound levels associated with overflight while identifying other aircraft sound events not associated with RNP approaches. 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. 6

7 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 sound measurements. Figure 5 shows the location of sound monitors while figure 6 shows a photo of one of the sound monitoring installations used. The following tables provide an overview of decibel levels using LAmax. They include RNP approaches (highlighted in light blue) as well as other aircraft overflight events. LAmax represents the maximum sound level reached during an overflight event. Average monitored decibel levels are within a 5 dba range of those modeled. Individual Figure 6: Sound monitor installation used in Beaumont, Alberta sound levels for similar operations can vary based of a number of factors such as aircraft atmospheric conditions, wind dispersion, aircraft type and flight profile management in relation to wind conditions. While the sample size is small, measurements indicate that aircraft flying on a continuous descent RNP profile are quieter on average compared to those navigating using more conventional approach methods. Overall, RNP approaches were on average 2.5 dba lower than non-rnp approaches 4.1 Sample of Overflights at the North Monitor Time (Local) AC Type Altitude (ft.) Movement Lateral Distance from Monitor (M) LAMax (dba) 12/11/2017 7:50:59 CL Arrival /11/ :59:00 BE Arrival /11/ :54:07 B RNP Arrival /11/ :15:37 PC Arrival /11/ :43:59 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :46:26 BE Arrival /14/ :53:18 JS Arrival /14/ :07:42 JS Arrival /14/ :16:00 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :35:15 D Arrival /14/ :14:16 B RNP Arrival /14/ :16:55 BE Arrival

8 12/14/ :44:12 Q RNP to /14/ :16:16 B Arrival Sample of Overflights at the East Monitor Time (Local) AC Type Altitude (ft.) Movement Lateral Distance from Monitor (M) LAMax (dba) 12/11/ :26:02 DH8C 5758 Arrival /11/ :36:54 CRJ Arrival /11/ :52:25 DH8C 6464 Arrival /11/ :15:34 DH8C 4025 Arrival /11/ :01:00 B RNP Arrival /11/ :44:18 Q RNP Arrival /11/ :00:00 CL Arrival /11/ :30:10 E50P 4720 Arrival /11/ :22:42 C Arrival /11/ :38:28 DH8C 5505 Arrival /11/ :58:12 DH8C 5087 Arrival /14/ :54:13 B Arrival /14/ :28:53 Q Arrival /14/ :37:46 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :03:45 C25a 5236 Arrival /14/ :38:58 SW Arrival /14/ :29:58 Q Arrival /14/ :23:27 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :56:28 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :52:28 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :22:48 B Arrival /14/ :53:22 B Arrival /14/ :20:47 PA Arrival Sample of Overflights at the West Monitor Time (Local) AC Type Altitude (ft.) Movement Lateral Distance from Monitor (M) LAMax (dba) 12/11/ :23:57 A Arrival /11/ :53:56 q Arrival /11/ :22:19 DH8C 4981 Arrival /11/ :02:59 Q Arrival /11/ :07:00 B RNP Arrival /11/ :23:05 B RNP Arrival /11/ :00:58 A Arrival /11/ :12:19 B RNP Arrival /11/ :09:20 B RNP Arrival

9 12/11/ :38:02 B RNP Arrival /14/ :59:33 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :03:49 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :06:43 B RNP Arrival /14/ :01:20 Q Arrival /14/ :16:07 Q Arrival /14/ :30:36 D Arrival /14/ :53:32 B RNP Arrival /14/ :54:10 C Arrival /14/ :03:16 Q RNP Arrival /14/ :28:03 Q Arrival /14/ :16:04 B RNP Arrival /14/ :16:09 B RNP Arrival /14/ :20:25 B RNP Arrival /14/ :24:21 B Arrival /14/ :58:15 BE Arrival /14/ :15:52 B RNP Arrival /14/ :23:16 B RNP Arrival /14/ :45:38 Q Arrival /14/ :59:00 D Arrival /14/ :10:54 Q Arrival /14/ :30:11 B RNP Arrival Examples of Non-Aviation Sound 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 Edmonton International Airport Authority confirmed that there have been no complaints specifically associated with the implementation of RNP. 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 March 2017 implementation. Sound monitoring confirms that decibel levels are within close range of those that were modeled and communicated during the consultation phase. The lack of 9

10 community concerns show that the changes have resulted in very little negative impact to communities as it relates to sound from aviation. 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