Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam

Transcription

1 Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam VFE workshop Andrew Burke - Michael Glen - Sam Peeters NATS Heathrow Airport EUROCONTROL/PRU 26 November 2018

2 Climb & descent London Heathrow Case study London Heathrow 2

3 Choice for this case study Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 3

4 Heathrow Airport Case study London Heathrow 4

5 Average time flown level per flight Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 5

6 Average time flown level per flight Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 6

7 Median CDO/CCO altitude Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 7

8 Median CDO/CCO altitude - Eurocontrol Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 8

9 Share of CDO/CCO flights - Eurocontrol Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 9

10 Share of CDO/CCO flights Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 10

11 Total level time per altitude band Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 11

12 Lateral plot (arrivals) Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 12

13 Lateral plot (departures) Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow 13

14 London TMA Case study London Heathrow 14

15 Impacting factors (Climb/descent) CDO operations facilitated H24 from FL70 minimum (7,000ft), measured from 6,000ft ATC provides accurate distance to go to facilitate as many CDOs as possible Lowest tactical altitude of the stacks is FL80 (8,000ft) Downwind leg at c.fl70 (7,000ft) for all arrivals, extended downwind legs for runways 09L & 09R No major airspace update since 40 years Third runway foreseen mid-2020 s with major airspace structure update Changes done in consultation with many stakeholders AMAN and XMAN in cooperation with Brest, Reims, Prestwick, Shannon and MUAC ACCs Enhanced Time Based Separation with ORD & RECAT EU (arrivals and departures) Departures stay below arrivals in downwind and the holding stacks Number of movements slightly lower during winter, c.1300 per day Influence of flights into/from other London airports, Birmingham Manchester, Amsterdam & Brussels, RAD constraints and Letters of Agreement or Standing Agreements with neighbouring States Below 7,000 feet, more environmental focus put on noise than on fuel Case study London Heathrow 15

16 CCO/CDO An Airport s Perspective London Heathrow UK AIP EGLL AD2.21 Noise Abatement Procedures For monitoring purposes, a descent will be deemed to have been continuous provided that no segment of level flight longer than 2.5 nautical miles (nm) occurs below 6000 ft QNH and level flight is interpreted as any segment of flight having a height change of not more than 50 ft over a track distance of 2 nm or more, as recorded in the airport Noise and track-keeping system. Challenges and Opportunities Airspace hasn t changed much since the 1960 s Operating circa 1300 movements per day Arrival routes interact with departures Four holding stacks Close proximity to 4 other major UK airports (KK, SS, GW & LC) Heathrow monitors airline performance and works with partners to drive performance Heathrow has a world leading regime of performance monitoring and tracking Airspace modernisation through FASI-S and airspace modernisation as a result of R3 may present further benefits Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 16

17 Example of Best Practice On a quarterly basis, Heathrow ranks the top 50 airlines based on performance metrics Each airline is given a weighted score based on how it has performed according to the metrics CDA carries one of the heaviest weightings along with track keeping This is a flagship and ground breaking scheme with interest from airports around the world EL AL OMAN Saudi SIA Turkish Heathrow Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 17

18 Heathrow Arrival Tracks Hold to Runway Case study London Heathrow 18

19 En-route London Heathrow-Amsterdam Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 19

20 Choice for this case study Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 20

21 RAD constraints (EGLL-EHAM) EG4047 London Group to EH** via VABIK Not above FL235 H24 EG4066 EGTTFIR to EB**, EH**, Paris Group via KOK Not above FL295 H24 EG4118 London Group (except EGLC/MC/SC/SS/TO) to EHAM via REDFA Not above FL275 H24 This traffic will still be transferred to Amsterdam at max FL240, but will now be able to file up to FL270 in Sector 12 EGTT12CLN Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 21

22 Maximum altitudes (EGLL-EHAM) Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 22

23 Vertical trajectories (EGLL-EHAM) Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 23

24 3Di FLOSYS Trajectory (EGLL Early Morning) NATS Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 24

25 FLOSYS Trajectory (EGLL-EHAM) NATS Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 25

26 Total vertical flight inefficiency (EGLL-EHAM) AIRAC 1808: 2,726,290 feet Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 26

27 Vertical flight inefficiency per flight (EGLL-EHAM) AIRAC 1808: 6,913 feet/flight Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 27

28 RAD constraints (EHAM-EGLL) EGEH4002 EHAM to Farnborough Group, London Group, EGBJ/HH/HI/VA/VN Not above FL245 H24 Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 28

29 Maximum altitudes (EHAM-EGLL) Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 29

30 Vertical trajectories (EHAM-EGLL) Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 30

31 FLOSYS trajectories (EHAM-EGLL) NATS Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 31

32 Total vertical flight inefficiency (EHAM-EGLL) AIRAC 1808: 2,294,050 feet Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 32

33 Vertical flight inefficiency per flight (EHAM-EGLL) AIRAC 1808: 5,913 feet/flight Eurocontrol Data Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 33

34 Impacting factors (En-route) LVNL reviews RAD constraints on a regular basis RAD constraints not necessary for LVNL, but they are for NATS and MUAC Trade-off between vertical flight efficiency and capacity Vertical separation from traffic flows above the EGLL-EHAM flights Maximum capacity achieved with current traffic volumes Restriction needed H24 (otherwise parabolic flights without cruise phase (NATS & MUAC)) Standing Level Agreement between NATS and LVNL: handover at FL230/240 Historically, the constraints have been there already Despite capacity increase, constraints still needed since traffic has increased Some airspace changes done to accommodate for changing traffic flows (in consultation with stakeholders) Minimum cruise phase of ±5 minutes necessary to avoid parabolic flights (EGLL-EHAM flights have cruise phase of ±10 minutes) Length of the cruise phase impacted by BPK departure (flights kept low for quite some time) and by early speed reduction when approaching EHAM Case study London Heathrow-Amsterdam 34

35 Stakeholder actions London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 35

36 Capacity vs. Efficiency Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 36

37 Actions taken Swanwick Airspace Improvement Programme (SAIP) AD-5 Current Westbound Routes NATS Data Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 37

38 Actions taken Swanwick Airspace Improvement Programme (SAIP) AD-5 Future Westbound Routes NATS Data Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 38

39 Actions taken Swanwick Airspace Improvement Programme (SAIP) AD-5 Current Eastbound Routes NATS Data Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 39

40 Actions taken Swanwick Airspace Improvement Programme (SAIP) AD-5 Future Eastbound Routes NATS Data Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 40

41 Actions to be taken Stakeholder Low hanging fruit More labour intensive work ANSP 3Di Awareness Airspace and route changes Airport Awareness Infrastructure and CDM Airlines Best Practice Investment in aircraft Hawthorne effect noun: the alteration of behaviour by the subjects of a study due to their awareness of being observed Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 41

42 Best practices Continuous Descent Operations Continuous Climb Operations Intelligent Approach - etbs Proactive controlling Collaborative working to deliver tactical improvements to flight track and profiles Feedback Pilots & Controllers Monitoring and Reporting Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 42

43 Conclusions Capacity can come at the cost of Efficiency Study conducted in some of the worlds busiest airspace Compare UK/Europe with New York Area which is more efficient? A level of acceptance from all airspace users Airspace change a key driver to enhance flight efficiency Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 43

44 Thank you for your attention! Case study London Heathrow & London Heathrow-Amsterdam 44