AIRSPACE IMPACTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING

Transcription

1 2017 AIRPORT PLANNING & NEPA WORKSHOP AIRSPACE IMPACTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING Planning Session 3: Up in the Air: Flight Procedures, Part 77, TERPS, and Other Airspace Considerations in Planning Greg Albjerg VP, National Aviation Planning Leader, HNTB Fellow HNTB Corporation

2 Where are we going? Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

3 Agenda What is Airspace How is Airspace evolving How does Airspace affect airport planning NextGen and how it all fits together Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

4 What is Airspace? FAR Part 77 surfaces Airport planning/design related surfaces (AC150/ A) TERPS (US Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures Order C) Other FAR requirements (Example One Engine Inoperative Requirements (OEI)) Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

5 FAR Part 77 Surface dimensions vary based upon size/characteristics of airport Anything that penetrates one of these surfaces is an obstacle but not necessarily a hazard Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

6 Runway Threshold Placement AC 150/5300 3A Surface for runway threshold placement Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

7 Example of TERPS Surfaces Surfaces are very complex Surface dimensions vary on type of approach and type of aircraft This depicts a nonprecision RNAV approach Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

8 FAR Part 25 OEI Requirements Will be covered by Bill Yingling Very important but has not typically been a focus of airport planning Actual requirements are very complicated but representative simple surfaces can be used effectively (IE 62.5:1) Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

9 IAH 3D Airspace Surface Types Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

10 IAH 3D Composite Airspace Elevations Only (100' Intervals) Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

11 How Is Airspace Evolving? Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

12 Legacy Approaches Used Ground NAVAIDs Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

13 NextGen Approaches Uses Area Navigation (RNAV) (Not Tied To Ground) Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

14 What is RNAV and RNP? How are they different from each other? Area Navigation (RNAV) has been around a long time Includes Inertial Navigation, GPS, Special VOR/DME and others Need to be designed to the lowest common denominator Required Navigation Performance (RNP) is fairly new (it is one type of RNAV) Can be provided by other than GPS, but multiple WAAS GPS receivers are an excellent way Can be designed for a specified tolerance i.e. RNP 0.1 Can design curved approach and departure paths Proven technology Note: RNP is one type of PBN (Performance Based Navigation). However, PBN can be applied to RNAV as well. Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

15 What About WAAS? Wide area augmentation system (for GPS) Provides enhanced precision for GPS WAAS GPS is one other subset of RNAV RNP is specified in terms of precision I.E. RNP 0.3 WAAS allows a lower (more precise) RNP value, assuming aircraft and crew can also be certified to lower value Most Legacy Airline Aircraft Are Not Equipped With WAAS Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

16 RNAV Versus RNP Traditional RNAV TERPS Surface Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

17 RNAV Versus RNP Image is approach chart for Palmer, Alaska Final approach leg is 4.3 nautical miles long This was shortest length possible with early GPS technology

18 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

19 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

20 Approach to Palmer, Alaska Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

21 RNAV Versus RNP TERPS RNP TERPS Surface Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

22 RNAV Versus RNP TERPS RNAV TERPS Surface Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

23 RNAV Versus RNP TERPS Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

24 How Does RNP Provide Advantages for an Airport or Pilot? Precision of RNP flight path advantages Better approach minimums at obstacle challenged airports Significant fuel savings and reduction in greenhouse gases Greater airspace capacity due to tight flight paths Potential noise mitigation enhancements Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

25 How Does Airspace Affect Airport Planning? Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

26 Airspace Obstacle Environment Affects Runway Location and Capacity Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

27 Airspace Affects Viability of Runways and Instrument Approaches Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

28 Airspace Affects Viability of Runways and Instrument Approaches Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

29 How Can PBN/NextGen Help? PBN Provides for tighter navigation ADS B provides more accurate surveillance than RADAR Allows more routes to be fit in a chunk of airspace We need to protect those chunks Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

30 NextGen and how it all works Will walk through an RNP Approach to DCA from the pilot s perspective Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

31 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

32 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

33 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

34 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

35 Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

36 Thanks! Questions answered after the session Airport NEPA & Planning Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

37 FAA NAS PBN Strategy Relationship to airport planning and development Federal Aviation Administration <Audience>

38 Key Topics PBN basics, fleet equipage, and strategy FAA Navigation Services including published approach procedures Relationship to airport development Federal Aviation Administration 38

39 Alaska Airlines RNP Approach into Juneau Courtesy Alaska Airlines Federal Aviation Administration 39

40 PBN today and tomorrow PBN delivers benefits to users of the NAS every day: Airlines fly more efficient routes to get passengers faster to their destinations while burning less fuel and producing fewer aircraft exhaust emissions Safe, reliable access to GA airports with vertical guidance during poor weather is a regular operation Going Forward: Today, we can tell you with a good degree of accuracy where an aircraft is right now But when NextGen is fully implemented, we are going to be able to tell you with a great deal of accuracy where it will be at any point in time along the way to its destination This will have a tremendous impact on our ability to manage traffic efficiently, through transition to a time-based system of strategic management Federal Aviation Administration 40

41 PBN: RNAV and RNP RNAV: Area Navigation RNP: Required Navigation Performance Federal Aviation Administration 41

42 Access: Relative IAP minima Most PBN approaches will have multiple lines of minima published RNP AR LNAV VNAV Cat I Cat II/III LNAV: Lateral Navigation VNAV: Vertical Navigation LPV: Localizer Performance Vertical LP: charted where LPV is N/A RNP: Required Navigation Performance AR: Authorization Required WAAS: Wide Area Augmentation System GBAS: Ground-Based Augmentation System GLS: GBAS Landing System EFVS: Enhanced Flight Vision System ILS, EFVS, or future GBAS ILS, GLS, and LPV Federal Aviation Administration 42

43 Avionics Fleet Equipage: Who can fly what procedure? Majority of the fleet has some type of PBN equipage, but the type of equipage varies For GA, focus is on IFR fleet that makes regular use of IFR system, rather than VFR fleet does not fly IFR ~92% IFR GA fleet is WAAS/LPV equipped General trends:** General aviation favors WAAS/LPV equipage for IFR Air carriers favor RNP **trend; ~90% not Air absolute Carrier rule fleet is RNP 0.3 equipped PBN avionics equipage in the fleet is a necessary consideration when evaluating navigation services (i.e., access) Federal Aviation Administration 43

44 Air Carrier 121 Fleet has diverse and increasingly capable equipage LNAV Further resources: Federal Aviation Administration 44

45 Strategic Goals for Transitioning to a PBN-Centric NAS Daily operation with PBN throughout the NAS, using the right procedure to meet the need Identification of the key navigation capabilities that will be available in the NAS over the next 15 years Aligned to NPIAS Shift to time and speed-based air traffic management (TBFM) Deliver and use resilient navigation services (GPS backup) Enable lower visibility access Expectations for evolution of aircraft operator fleet capabilities Federal Aviation Administration 45

46 Navigation Services Overview 1) All qualified instrument runway ends in the NAS: LPV (or LP), LNAV, VNAV as an essential level of navigation service Hybrid: RNP>ILS Top 10+ and nearby L/M Hubs S/N Hubs GA-Nat/Reg GA-Loc/Bsc All Instrument runway ends 2) RNP is charted where beneficial: right procedure to meet the need 3) ILS network is mature and is not the focus for new development All Instrument runway ends All Instrument runway ends Order governs process; RNP procedures require ATO benefit analysis right procedure to meet the need Merging and spacing pause No change Federal Aviation Administration 46

47 EoR: Established on RNP at DEN Federal Aviation Administration 47

48 What happens during a GPS outage? Navigation Strategy: VOR and ILS Minimum Operating Networks During GPS outage: Pilots fly above 5000 AGL to receive VOR coverage ILS available at safe landing airports within 100 miles Or in a few remote areas, a VOR approach Minimum Operating Network (MON) Intent is to right-size the ground-based NAVAID networks to provide an alternate means of navigation in case of GPS outage VOR drawdown effort is ongoing per 2016 FRN and Order process WAAS reliability is 99.7%+ but outages can happen (e.g., military testing) Future phase: DME/DME as additional backup for RNAV Federal Aviation Administration 48

49 PBN benefits at Airports Today, RNAV approaches provide the most common mechanism for precise, safe, vertically guided approaches at thousands of airports 1,550 ILS 2,300+ Airports with LPV/LP and no ILS 3,200+ Runway Ends with LPV/LP and no ILS LPV Yes, criteria but what are about equivalent the unequipped to ILS in TERPS aircraft today that fly IFR? Because The strategy RNAV can here be is implemented that we re at costeffectively the tipping at point; an airport, there we are can broad establish and IFPs maturing at many more FAA/industry airports discussions than could ever on be afforded future equipage with more of costly air carrier ILS fleet But in the interim, this is also why the existing ILS network will remain and we re not yet pursuing a systemic pulldown 92% GA fleet that flies IFR is WAAS/LPV equipped AIP favors RNAV first rather than ILS Federal Aviation Administration 49

50 What does this mean for airport planning and development? ALP considerations: Navigation strategy is for vertically guided LPV approach to all qualified instrument runway ends (agreed to by ATO/ARP/sponsor) and charting LNAV/VNAV; but not visual runways Notional ILS on ALP for future development: not supportable at other than large/medium hub airport Is the on-airport VOR on the discontinuance list published in FRN, thus freeing up potential real estate? GBAS (non-fed) plans at large/medium hub airport? Additional considerations: Access: do users need RNP or is LNAV/VNAV/LPV adequate? Normal requirements for approach lights (BCA) and alignment with airport design standards apply to get lower minima Establishing safe and reliable approach access is the goal; not per se all improvements need for the best possible minima Federal Aviation Administration 50

51 PBN Summary for Airport Planning FAA goal is to have vertically guided PBN approaches to all qualified instrument runways in the NAS PBN access to GA airports is real and growing, with more ~2.5x more access via LPV than ILS GA fleet that regularly flies IFR is highly equipped for RNAV procedures; Air carrier fleet equipage is more complex but is increasingly highly capable Planned VOR and ILS minimum operating network, and DME/DME, provides for backup navigation in case of GPS outage FAA PBN Strategy provides framework for PBN-centric NAS, with alignment to NPIAS airport categories Federal Aviation Administration 51

52 Airport Planning and NEPA Workshop Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Process Planning Session 3: Up in the Air: Flight Procedures, Part 77, TERPS, and Other Airspace Considerations in Planning Presented to: By: Date: Multiple Industries Kerryaine Yarber-Hiller, Specialist, Obstruction Evaluation Group November 30, 2017

53 Overview FAA Form , Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Who has to file and why Verification Responders Responder s responsibilities Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14 Part 77 Evaluation Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or Traffic Pattern Airspace (TPA) Evaluation Negotiations, mitigation, public notice Determinations Petitions Federal Aviation Administration 53

54 Notice of Construction or Alteration Who must file for Aeronautical Study? CFR 14, Part 77 vs Notice Criteria Tool Federal Aviation Administration 54

55 Part 77.9 Construction or Alteration Notice If requested by the FAA or if you propose any of the following types of construction or alteration, you must file notice with the FAA if: (a) Any construction or alteration that is more than 200 feet above ground level (AGL) at its site. (b) Any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at any of the following slopes for all public use airports/heliports: (1) 100-to-1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of an airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length. (2) 50-to-1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of an airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length. (3) 25-to-1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 ft. from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport. (c) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects of a height which if adjusted upward by the following, would exceed a standard of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section: (1) 17 feet for an Interstate Highway part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, (2) 15 feet for any other public roadway, (3) 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, (4) 23 feet for a railroad, (5) An amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it for a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned. (d) Any construction or alteration on all public use airports and heliports. Federal Aviation Administration 55

56 OE/AAA Website (oeaaa.faa.gov) Federal Aviation Administration 56

57 Notice Criteria Tool Screening tool using Notice Criteria based on Part 77.9 and the business rules of each office. Must use coordinates in degrees, minutes, seconds, format NAD83. If it is traverse way, select appropriate option for upward adjustment. Much more stringent by incorporating responders business rules. Federal Aviation Administration 57

58 Part 77 Penetrations Part 77 obstruction standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study. Studies are conducted in order to determine if the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations and airspace. While part 77 obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including public circularization, these obstruction standards do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds certain obstruction standards of part 77 is in itself not sufficient grounds for issuance of a determination of hazard to air navigation. Federal Aviation Administration 58

59 OEG Process - Verification Verify coordinates / site elevation Compare survey data If existing, compare digital obstacle file and add FCC number Ensure frequencies and effective radiated power are included When errors, discrepancies, or lack of information is discovered, coordinates with sponsor using electronic Request for Additional Information letters. Ensure marking and/or lighting preferences are included Verify submission includes sufficient information to allow each division or service area office to accomplish its specialized portion of the obstruction evaluation as subject matter experts When the submission passes verification and there are no unresolved issues, evaluation by other divisions is initiated. Federal Aviation Administration 59

60 Responders & Responsibility Each agency, office or organizations protect their piece of the aviation pie. Federal Aviation Administration 60

61 FAA JO L, Responsibility Air Traffic personnel must FPT personnel must Regional Flight Standards personnel must Technical Operations Services must Military personnel are responsible for evaluating Participation by all responding offices is key in accomplishing the FAA s prime objective, which is to conduct obstruction evaluation studies to ensure the safety of air navigation, and the efficient utilization of navigable airspace by aircraft. Other applicable FAA offices or services may be requested to provide an evaluation of the structure on a case-by-case basis. Federal Aviation Administration 61

62 Once in EVAL Status Federal Aviation Administration 62

63 CFR 14, Part 77 Evaluation Federal Aviation Administration 63

64 Traffic Pattern Airspace Federal Aviation Administration 64

65 Notice of Presumed Hazard A Notice of Presumed Hazard is issued if the structure exceeds obstruction standards and/or has an adverse effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities and resolution or further study is necessary to fully determine the extent of the adverse effect. -The NPH facilitates negotiation airspace -Informs sponsor of the initial findings If negotiation is successful, and resolution is achieved, or further study is completed, an appropriate subsequent determination should be issued. Federal Aviation Administration 65

66 Air Traffic Obstruction Evaluation Group Identifies when negotiations are necessary Conduct negotiations with the sponsor - May be done with assistance from other division/service area office personnel when their subject expertise is required (i.e., cases of electromagnetic interference) Identifies when circularization is necessary Conducts circularization when required Evaluates all valid aeronautical comments received as a result of circularization Issues determinations Types of determinations Does Not Exceed (DNE) Exceeds But Okay (EBO) Determination of No Hazard (DNH) Structure exceeds obstruction standards, but does not result in a substantial adverse effect Must include standards exceeded, effects, cumulative impact, and information/comments received from circularization Determination of Hazard (DOH) If the structure would have or has a substantial adverse effect Negotiations have been unsuccessful eliminating the effect Determinations may require Advisory statements submitted to OEG for inclusion in the determination from a division responder to notify sponsors of potential issues Federal Aviation Administration 66

67 Petitions Determinations are Subject to Petition Determination of No Hazard (DNH) Determination of Hazard (DOH) The determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA 30 days from issued date. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Room 423, Washington, DC, The determination becomes final 40 days from issued date unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, the determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding a petition, please contact Airspace Regulations and ATC Procedures Group via telephone, or facsimile, Federal Aviation Administration 67

68 Recap Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Who has to file and why Verification Responders Responder s Responsibilities CFR 14 Part 77 Evaluation VFR or TPA Evaluation Negotiations, Mitigation, Public Notice Determinations Petitions Federal Aviation Administration 68

69 QUESTIONS Federal Aviation Administration 69

70 2017 AIRPORT PLANNING & NEPA WORKSHOP OEI Airline Challenges Planning Session 3 William (Bill) Yingling Sr. Engineer JetBlue Operations Research & Engineering william.yingling@jetblue.com

71 Overview Why is OEI obstacle analysis needed and what is it? Why do airlines need obstacle data from airports? Why aren t TERPS departure surfaces good enough? What can airports do to help airlines with OEI obstacle data? Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

72 Why is OEI obstacle analysis needed? Airlines are required to restrict takeoff weights to allow for an engine failure with every departure. (CFR Title 14 Part , , EASA OPS 1.495) Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

73 What is OEI obstacle analysis? AC describes obstacle accountability areas for OEI takeoff analysis. Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

74 Why aren t TERPS departure surfaces good enough? AC defines departure obstacle splays. Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

75 What can airports do to help airlines with obstacle data? Open a dialog with the Operations Engineering departments of the airlines serving your airport! We can help you protect your airspace! Airlines can help to define departure corridors for OEI obstacle accountability areas. There can be a large financial impact to obstacles that do not penetrate TERPS surfaces. Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA

76 Questions or Comments? My Contact info Thank You!!! Airport Planning & NEPA Workshop Nov. 29 Dec. 01, 2017 Arlington, VA