Lelystad Departure Route Analysis

Transcription

1 Lelystad Departure Route Analysis As per an by Ms. M. de Groot, CEO Teuge Airport in the Netherlands, dated 8 September 2017, EUROCONTROL NM OPL has been requested to analyse a design proposal for a departure route from Lelystad Airport. For the planned future operations at Lelystad Airport in April 2019, an alternative departure route has been designed. This paper presents a detailed analysis of the operational and tactical aspects of this departure route. The paper also presents an assessment of environmental impact in terms of distance and time saving and the consequences in terms of reduced fuel burn, CO 2 and NO x emissions. EUROCONTROL SAAM (System for air traffic Assignment and Analysis at a Macroscopic level Version 4.11) was used to perform the analyses presented in this paper. As stated in the Aldersadvies, the following conditions have been laid down for the design of Lelystad arrival and departure routes: Overfly the old land at 6000 feet Avoid population clusters No interference with Schiphol traffic No influence on Military Mission Effectiveness. This paper presents an evaluation of the above mentioned conditions. In addition, the environmental impact has been assessed by comparing two alternatives as well as the impact of vertical constraints. Description of alternatives B+ and B++ The departure route that is under evaluation in this paper is known as the B++ alternative. It is based largely on the previously defined B+ alternative but has a modified routing after the initial turn towards the East. The assessments performed for this paper are limited to the comparison of the B++ alternative with the B+ alternative. Ideally, a full evaluation of all arrival and departure routes should be made, including a review of the EHAM arrival and departure routes. 15 September 2017 Page 1/11 Classification:TLP : Green

2 Lelystad Departure RWY23 alternative B+ as proposed in the letter by the Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 12 September September 2017 Page 2/11 Classification:TLP : Green

3 Lelystad Departure RWY23 alternative B++ 15 September 2017 Page 3/11 Classification:TLP : Green

4 The procedure of the so called B++ alternative has been described as follows. Departing traffic RWY 23 should initially climb to 2000 feet. After Knardijk climb to 3000 feet. After a waypoint 2,8 NM after Knardijk start to climb to FL060. Maximum bank angle has been set to 25 degrees. The Procedure Design Gradient has been set to 7% for the climb from 3000 feet to FL060 in order to overfly the old land at 6000 feet. Towards Ede, traffic has to stay at FL060 until passing Ede. After RENDI the climb can continue without further restriction. Towards Arnhem, traffic has to stay at FL060 until ELPAT where it can climb to FL090. After ARNEM the climb can continue without further restriction. Assessment of prescribed conditions Overfly the old land at 6000 feet To validate if the B++ alternative lives up to the first condition of the Aldersadvies, a model has been built using SAAM. The model has taken the ICAO Standard Atmosphere into account. The profile has been calculated with nominal performance of a B738 aircraft from EHLE to LGAV. As can be seen from the picture below, FL060 is reached just before passing LETP3 (Turning Point 3). The prescribed gradient of 7% is feasible for the envisaged aircraft types operating from Lelystad (Boeing 737 series and Airbus 320 family). Examples of such a gradient exist across Europe where similar restrictions are applied for airports with similar traffic patterns (EBLG, EPKT, and EGLC). The prescribed gradient will ensure that the first condition of the Aldersadvies will be met. 15 September 2017 Page 4/11 Classification:TLP : Green

5 Avoid population clusters The second condition of the Aldersadvies relates to populated areas and noise abatement. The comparison between alternatives B+ and B++ has already been stated in a third party report (Adecs Airinfra). The methodology used in this report appears to be correct and the results appear plausible. It is therefore deemed unnecessary to repeat the analysis for this paper. Interference with Schiphol traffic Civil and Military Sectors It would appear that interference with Schiphol traffic is impossible in either alternative. At some stage arriving aircraft for EHLE have to be taken off a common trajectory with EHAM arrivals. Vice versa, EHLE departures will have to join a common trajectory with EHAM departures at some stage. Because of the presence of Schiphol TMA1, departing traffic from EHLE RWY 23 will initially climb to 2000 feet. This is in line with the current day situation. After passing Knardijk, the climb to 3000 feet is initiated. Next, the aircraft enter Nieuw Milligen TMA B where they climb to FL060. Nieuw Milligen TMA B would also be responsible to split the traffic over two flows. The aircraft are then transferred to Nieuw Milligen TMA E where they would be allowed to climb to FL090. The flow going in the direction of Arnhem would then climb normally into Amsterdam Sector 2E. The flow going in the direction of Ede would proceed from Nieuw Milligen TMA E to Nieuw Milligen TMA D before climbing into Amsterdam Sector 3. Both alternatives B+ and B++ avoid interaction with TMA sectors until after Ede and Arnhem. At roughly these positions, the FL restrictions are lifted, allowing the EHLE departures to climb into the Amsterdam ACC Sectors and. These restrictions are kept identical for B+ and B++ resulting in exactly the same profiles after Ede and Arnhem. It should be noted that Amsterdam Sector 2 starts at FL95 over Arnhem. This allows the EHLE departures to climb to FL090 earlier than suggested. In alternative B+, this point would be reached after approximately 50 track miles. For alternative B++ this point would be reached after approximately 40 track miles. This difference is further evaluated in the section on Environmental Impact. The letter from the Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu acknowledges this and proposes slight modifications of alternative B+. These changes have been taken into account in this analysis. The updated proposal B+ is now segregated from EHR9 (Harskamp). With the restrictions as they are currently presented at FL060, merging departing traffic from EHLE with departing traffic from EHAM will add only marginally to the workload of controllers in Amsterdam Sectors 2 and 3. The EHLE departures will be significantly lower than the 15 September 2017 Page 5/11 Classification:TLP : Green

6 EHAM departures, giving ATC enough space vertically to solve potential conflicts. The relatively low profiles require the development of coordination procedures with neighbouring ACCs in the Lower Airspace (Belgocontrol and DFS) as well as in the upper Airspace (Maastricht UAC) as the merge of the EHLE and EHAM traffic will be done outside the Amsterdam FIR. With identical vertical constraints at the same waypoints, there will however be no difference between the effects of both alternatives B+ and B++. Compatibility Schiphol TMA, SIDs, STARs AIP Netherlands AD2 EHAM STAR, 17 August 2017 From the currently published set of EHAM standard arrivals, the NORKU and REKKEN arrivals interact with the EHLE departures from alternative B+. In this situation, EHLE departures are almost aligned, with the trajectory OSKUR ARTIP, but will be flying in opposite direction and climbing to FL060. With the arrivals to EHAM normally at FL100, this may cause Short Term Conflict Alerts in Amsterdam Sector 2. This situation also prevents the EHLE departures from receiving a tactical clearance for an early climb beyond FL September 2017 Page 6/11 Classification:TLP : Green

7 AIP Netherlands AD2 EHAM SID Overview, 22 June 2017 The EHAM standard departures will procedurally be above the EHLE departures where they cross and merge in Amsterdam Sector 2. EHAM departures to NYKER-ELPAT-ARNEM and IVLUT-RENDI-EDUPO are affected. However, as the EHAM departures should be significantly higher by this time, a false Short Term Conflict Alert is unlikely. The crossing will have to be monitored by ATC. There appears to be no difference in this situation between alternatives B+ and B September 2017 Page 7/11 Classification:TLP : Green

8 No influence on Military Mission Effectiveness As indicated in the sector sequence above, Nieuw Milligen TMA B, E and D are affected by the described departure flows. This will increase the workload for these sectors unless an agreement with LVNL can be reached for these aircraft to remain under control by LVNL. A similar agreement is already in place for specific flows through Nieuw Milligen TMA D. In this case, the increase in workload will be shifted to the respected Amsterdam Sectors 2 and 3. The following restricted areas interact with the design of alternatives B+ and B++: EHR3 (Oldebroek), GND-3000ft, H24 Prohibited EHR3A (Oldebroek), 3000 ft-fl185, Gun firing on working days during prescribed hours, vertical limits may be changed by NOTAM EHR9 (Harskamp), GND-5900 ft, Gun firing on working days during prescribed hours, vertical limits may be changed by NOTAM TRA80 (Deelen Hoog), 3000 ft-fl065, AMC manageable area for military exercises on working days during prescribed hours, activation published by NOTAM Alternative B+ appears to be designed around EHR3(A), making it impossible to turn South at the most ideal location and therefore leading to extra track miles. Further down, the trajectory is designed to circumnavigate EHR9. This is a necessary step as the area is defined up to 5900 ft. Depending on the QNH; aircraft operating at FL060 could be below 5900 ft. If the QNH is below 1010 hpa, the area would be penetrated. TRA80 is defined up to FL065 so it might be penetrated. If the FL090 restriction is applied in the area of Apeldoorn, this can be avoided. A coordination procedure would be advisable. Alternative B++ avoids EHR3A and EHR9 as well. TRA80 can also be avoided if the FL090 restriction is applied where the trajectories to Ede and Arnhem split. All areas mentioned above are operated from the ground which means there is no impact on Military Mission Effectiveness in these areas. The additional traffic from both alternatives B+ and B++ in Nieuw Milligen TMA B, E and D may affect Military Mission Effectiveness in case of significant Military traffic already present in these sectors. To avoid, EHLE departing traffic could be allowed into the Amsterdam Sector 2 earlier. 15 September 2017 Page 8/11 Classification:TLP : Green

9 Environmental Impact The SAAM software allows a detailed comparison of the alternatives in respect of distance flown, time duration, fuel burn, CO 2 and NO x emissions. For this analysis, a typical traffic sample was chosen consisting of B737, B738 and A321 aircraft. City pair connections from current EHAM departures to popular holiday destinations in Southern Europe were chosen. The traffic sample was then modified to simulate departures from EHLE, using the trajectories proposed in alternatives B+ and B++. Various comparisons have been made to evaluate the differences between the two alternatives. The tables below show average values per flight. Comparison B+ B++ both with altitude and level restrictions The trajectory proposed in alternative B++ is shorter than the trajectory in alternative B+; Aircraft spend less time at FL060 resulting in a significant reduction in fuel burn and related emissions. Length (NM) Time (min) Fuel (kg) CO 2 (kg) NO x (kg) -10,63-2,14-76,52-241,80-0,89 Comparison B++ with and without restrictions (average per flight) Effects of altitude and FL restrictions B++ The effects of the altitude and FL restrictions can be measured by simulating traffic with these restrictions and comparing them directly with simulated unconstrained traffic. For alternative B++, these effects are as follows. Length (NM) Time (min) Fuel (kg) CO 2 (kg) NO x (kg) 0,00-6,50-22,53-71,18-0,01 15 September 2017 Page 9/11 Classification:TLP : Green

10 Effects of altitude and FL restrictions B+ In alternative B+, the effects of the proposed altitude and FL restrictions are as follows. Length (NM) Time (min) Fuel (kg) CO 2 (kg) NO x (kg) 0,00-7,20-45,06-142,39-0,22 The effects of the vertical constraints are more penalising in alternative B+ than in alternative B++ Conclusion Alternative B++ appears to solve some of the shortcomings of alternative B+. At the same time, critical areas that are overflown in alternative B+ are avoided in alternative B++: larger populated areas, nature reserves as well as Teuge airport. Without having full visibility of the other EHLE departure and arrival routes it is not possible to come to a full conclusion regarding the preference for alternative B+ or B++. It would appear however that it would be worth to investigate the alternative B++ further. EUROCONTROL NM is ready to support the ongoing design process on short notice. Furthermore, it is advisable in an airspace design process to design the trajectories first and build the airspace (TMA, ACC sectors) accordingly. It is understood however that the proposed routes are an intermediate solution and that a larger reorganisation of the airspace will follow at a later stage. Contact Persons Manager: Razvan Bucuriou Network Manager Directorate/Network Strategy & Development razvan.bucuroiu@eurocontrol.int Author: Stefan Gerris Network Manager Directorate/Network Operations Management/Operations Planning/Airspace Design stefan.gerris@eurocontrol.int 15 September 2017 Page 10/11 Classification:TLP : Green

11 Reference Documentation Memo Omgevingsdienst Veluwe Ijssel, 6 September 2017 Milieuconsequenties vliegroute B++ Lelystad Airport Notitie Adecs Airinfra, 24 August 2017 Eerste resultaten alternatieve startroute Lelystad Airport Letter by Ministerie van infrastructuur en Milieu, 12 September 2017 IenM/BSK-2017/ Report for LVNL by Helios, 6 September 2017 Preparation Support for Lelystad Airport Consultation AIP Netherlands, Air Traffic Control the Netherlands, 17 August September 2017 Page 11/11 Classification:TLP : Green