Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review

Transcription

1 Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review Report and Recommendations In partnership with: Bo Redeborn Graham Lake an company

2 Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review Authors Nick Boud, Katie Mathias, Bo Redeborn, Graham Lake Produced by Helios Produced for NAV CANADA Helios contact Nick Boud Version Final Date of release 18th September 2017 Document reference P2271D011

3 About the Review Team & Helios The review is led by Nick Boud of Helios, and is supported by Bo Redeborn, Graham Lake, and Katie Mathias. Helios is the aviation consultancy of Egis, focusing on air traffic management and airports, with a worldwide reputation for excellence and integrity. Helios specialises in performance improvement for large and complex airports, and has supported some of the world s most complex convoluted airports. Work encompasses airfield and ATM performance; runway capacity and resilience optimisation; airside simulations; business planning; economic appraisals; procurement support; safety and risk management; and regulatory policy. Nick Boud, a Principal Consultant at Helios, is a highly experienced aviation and transport planning consultant with 25 years broad airport planning, analysis and consultancy experience. He has spent 13 years working within BAA, the former UK airport operating group, and 12 years as a consultant delivering a range of aviation and airport projects. Bo Redeborn brings extensive experience and understanding of air traffic control as well as global provisions for aviation, having previously served as Principle Director of Air Traffic Management for EUROCONTROL. Graham Lake, who had previously served as Director General of the Civil Air Navigation Service Organisation, also brings extensive experience and understanding of air traffic control, aviation policy and aviation environmental developments. Katie Mathias, a Consultant at Helios, has supported the review team throughout the study and has had a pivotal role in coordinating activities and composing the final report. P3

4 foreword Nick Boud Bo Redeborn Graham Lake Aircraft noise is an issue for almost all major airports around the world, Toronto is no different. There have been issues of noise related disturbance from aircraft departing from, and arriving at, Toronto Pearson International Airport, reported by local communities and community groups. Following these reports, NAV CANADA announced that they would appoint an independent body to undertake a review of the airspace, to establish whether additional aviation noise mitigations could be identified. Helios, with the support of Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, were contracted in July 2016 to undertake this review. The review team, comprised of Nick Boud of Helios, Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, is independent of NAV CANADA and has been tasked to provide a wholly independent professional analysis and report. The review team was asked to determine whether all reasonable actions to reduce aircraft noise disturbance are being taken with respect to the design and operation of the Toronto area airspace. The review has included an analysis of documentation and data; the development of a comprehensive understanding of the principal perspectives identified and; the identification of, and engagement with, key stakeholders, including residents. Additional evidence was gathered through site and familiarisation visits. The identification of potential options to improve the present reported situation has included suggestions from all the established stakeholders, community groups, and individuals, together with a review of the techniques and policies used elsewhere in Canada and overseas. The independent review has stemmed from NAV CANADA s assessment that more can be done to meet the concerns of local communities about noise from departures and arrivals. That assessment has been borne out by the findings of the review. It has emerged that there is scope for improvement of the present situation through the utilisation of several established techniques, and through closer collaboration on noise issues between stakeholders. More can and should be done. Full cooperation has been provided to the review team by NAV CANADA, GTAA, Transport Canada, and airlines, for which we express our sincere appreciation and thanks. The review team has been struck by the positive and constructive inputs to the study by all those involved, and it is our strong hope and belief that this report will provide a basis on which all concerned can move forward in that spirit to deliver a significantly better situation for the residents living close to the Airport s flight paths. Finally, thanks are due to the many individuals and organisations that have contributed their views to permit the development of these findings and recommendations. P4

5 Executive summary In February 2012, NAV CANADA implemented a large-scale change to the airspace over the geographic area from Windsor, through Toronto, to Montreal. Included within this airspace change were adjustments to the arrival and departure procedures for Toronto Pearson. An element of the overall airspace change involved an update to the local arrival and departure flight procedures associated with Toronto Pearson. One particular change was the re-location of an arrival flight path, known as the South downwind, by one Nautical Mile (NM) to the south of its previous position, to be compliant with regulatory requirements. In 2014, an update of the Canadian Aviation Regulations removed the possibility of retaining the original derogation, and hence the option to return the South downwind to its previous position. It is important to recognise that people s reaction to and perception of aircraft noise is a complex matter for any airport; Toronto Pearson is no different. The routes and altitude flown by aircraft, and how those aircraft are flown, have a direct impact on the effects of aircraft noise. The routes and altitudes are a product of the airspace design and its operational management. Since Toronto and the wider area has one of the highest population densities within Canada, it is understandable that aircraft noise will be a particular issue here. Civil Aviation operates within a highly organised regime throughout the world. In Canada as elsewhere, this comprises; Government policies and strategies, regulations, airport and aircraft operation and, airspace management and operation. To ensure a consistent, safe and harmonised implementation, changes proposed for the Canadian air transport system at a national level are required to respect and reflect the policies and guidance developed and agreed by States (including Canada) at a global level through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Toronto Pearson is the largest and busiest airport in Canada and is operated by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA). Like all large airports in developed countries, the management and mitigation of aircraft noise is a key consideration for local communities; the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is no exception. In 2015 the GTAA and NAV CANADA undertook a review of community suggestions for initiatives that would help mitigate the impact of aviation noise. GTAA and NAV CANADA identified six of these initiatives as feasible, and undertook further investigation. After two years, only one of these six initiatives has been implemented, this pace of change has been noted by residents, although significant development of the remaining initiatives has been observed since the commencement of this review. In the spring of 2016, NAV CANADA announced that they would appoint an independent body to undertake a review of the airspace plan for Toronto Pearson, to establish whether additional aviation noise mitigations could be identified. Helios, with the support of Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, were contracted in July 2016 to undertake this review. P5

6 EXEcutive summary Community feedback The review team, whilst undertaking this review, has engaged with a range of stakeholders, and has held ten open public meetings. The following complaints have been distilled from our community meetings and from the hundreds of s received from community members and stakeholders. Flights are too loud, too low and too frequent. Flight paths have been designed to achieve efficiency and typically not to minimise the impact to communities overflown; with a lack of consideration to keeping flights over Lake Ontario. Flights are not fairly distributed across all the runways meaning some communities carry an unfair burden of noise and there is no compensation for those communities. Too many noisy flights at night and the definition of night restricted hours (00:30 to 06:30) is unrepresentative of when people are attempting to sleep. Departures are turning too low in the same location too frequently. The Airbus A320 family of aircraft create an annoying high-pitched whine at times during descent. The GTAA s noise management programme is ineffective. The complaint system and procedure is futile and the statistics produced are misleading; the WebTrak system is perceived as inaccurate; and the Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC) is perceived to be unproductive, powerless, biased and reluctant to change. GTAA and NAV CANADA do not listen or take action over noise disruption, particularly since the airspace change in February 2012 and there was a severe lack of consultation during the airspace change process. There is no acknowledgement of the health impacts from aviation activities. The airport has been allowed to expand too much and the number of flights need to be reduced. One of the concerns often expressed by community members to the review team was that flights on arrival routes have become more concentrated, i.e. the lateral dispersal left and right of the designated flight path has reduced since the airspace change. The arrival flight procedures pre- and post- the change are designed to the same navigational standards, so this will not have impacted the concentration. To address this concern, more detailed analysis of the lateral concentration on the South downwind to runways 06L / 06R and 24L / 24R has been completed. P6

7 EXEcutive summary The results show that whilst the overall width of the lateral dispersion has not changed, there has been some increased concentration within 150m either side of the Standard Arrival Route (STAR) centreline. A change within 150m either side of the centreline will only have a marginal impact on the noise experienced at ground level; a far greater lateral shift is required to generate a distinguishable difference. Guiding principles The review has identified and considered a number of additional noise mitigation actions to address concerns raised by community members. To assist in reviewing the mitigations, it is beneficial to establish a set of guiding principles: Not to compromise operational safety. Not to reduce the capacity of the airport or the airspace. To prioritise mitigations that reduce noise at its source. If noise can t be reduced at source then prioritise noise abatement that will reduce the amount of noise reaching the ground and impacting communities. To identify opportunities for noise relief and respite. To avoid moving noise between communities on a long-term basis purely to appease one or more communities. Not to make a judgement on a mitigation where there is a significant socio-political decision to be taken. To look forward for better solutions rather than backwards at temporary or partial mitigations. To be cognisant of the boundaries of Canadian airspace and not to assume any right to impact airspace outside of Canada. P7

8 EXEcutive summary P8 Strategic objectives In undertaking this review, the team has identified four strategic objectives they consider that NAV CANADA could adopt and strive to achieve. The mitigations we examine and the conclusions and recommendations we make support the achievement of these objectives. Get / keep aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible to minimise the noise that reaches the ground. Manage the arrival flow, sequence and separation of flights through Time Based Operations (TBO) as this would facilitate the elimination of downwinds, whilst reducing noise and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Maximise the use of Low Power Low Drag (LPLD) Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), as these are normally the quietest approach an aircraft can make. Set clear guidance as to when noise should be prioritised over GHG emissions below 8,000ft Above Ground Level (AGL). Currently, NAV CANADA has a corporate mission to reduce the environmental footprint of the aviation industry, encompassing both noise and GHG emissions. There are circumstances where the reduction of noise and GHG emissions go hand in hand, equally there are occasions where they don t and thus a balance should be found. Mitigations The mitigations recommended by the review team are grouped according to ICAO s Balanced Approach, as defined in the report. Reducing noise at source Airbus A320 Of relevance to Toronto arrivals, is the known noise issue associated with the Airbus A320 family of single aisle aircraft. This is often described as a high-pitched whine, and is generated by the Fuel Over Pressure Protector (FOPP) cavities under the wings. The whine is audible under the approach of these aircraft, normally between 7NM and 15NM from touchdown. About 18% of all arrivals at Toronto are A320 family aircraft. Air Canada is the largest operator of Airbus A320 series aircraft at Toronto, and at the time of writing, has 73 such aircraft in its active fleet. Airbus, the aircraft manufacturer, has developed a modification to address this noise phenomenon, and report that it will deliver an improvement of up to 9dB; this is almost a halving of the volume perceived by the human ear.

9 EXEcutive summary The A320 whine is recognised by many residents and organisations reporting to the review, who in turn report that they have also sought to understand why the characteristic has been allowed to persist for so long by the relevant authorities. This review recommends that: Recommendation 1A: NAV CANADA should formally write to Transport Canada requesting them to consider establishment of a sunset date of December 31st 2020 for the operation, in Canada, of Airbus A320 series aircraft without the Fuel Over Pressure Protector cavity vortex generator noise modification. Recommendation 1B: As an indication of GTAA s and NAV CANADA s commitment to noise reduction, and a tangible indication to local communities that the noise impact of the airport is taken seriously and; to incentivise an accelerated noise modification by all airlines using A320 family aircraft at Toronto; NAV CANADA should formally approach the GTAA about the establishment of an earlier sunset date for unmodified Airbus A320 family aircraft using the airport, such as two years after publication of this report. With an appropriate noise penalty applied for non-compliant aircraft immediately thereafter, if lawful within the GTAA s or NAV CANADA s charging regimes. Land-use planning NAV CANADA have no accountability or responsibility for land-use planning or zoning, therefore land-use planning falls outside the scope of this review. Even so, international and Canadian airspace design criteria require the designer to consider safety, fly-ability, and terrain / obstacle clearance; the criterion does not however, provide direction on the consideration of the land-use overflown. In accordance with the new voluntary Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol, noise issues must be handled at local level. NAV CANADA have made active progress towards ensuring that consideration of the land-use is undertaken for all flight path changes that occur within a Terminal Control Area. P9

10 EXEcutive summary Noise abatement operational procedures Descent management Noise experienced by communities can be reduced if aircraft descent is managed with a noise reduction objective. To achieve a quieter descent, the pilot must use low engine power and minimise drag for as long as is safe, as well as staying as high as possible for as long as possible. Two techniques that are effective at reducing the noise on approach include CDO and LPLD. Efficient, low noise approaches at Toronto Pearson are currently difficult to achieve because: There is inadequate communication and understanding of expectations between pilots and air traffic controllers in relation to the management of descent and the descent clearances given, particularly regarding provision of descent information or guidance. There is a waypoint on the South downwind that currently requires aircraft to be at exactly 3,000ft Above Sea Level, to serve the high / low separation objective. As this altitude requirement is part of the published procedure it is effective 24 hours a day, although it is only needed when the high / low operation is in use which is currently about eight hours a day. Pilot and air traffic controller collaboration The provision of Air Traffic Control (ATC) services and the operation of an aircraft, are both rule based and heavily regulated activities, with prescribed procedure based operations. Even so, with standard radio phraseology and published flight procedures, there is still room for individual interpretation and application giving rise to potentially sub-optimal outcomes for noise. To achieve a safe approach while minimising noise, a pilot requires descent information from ATC to help reach the desired altitude and speed at the right time. Improved communication and collaboration is often a function of increasing awareness and understanding each has for the others workload and objectives; such a philosophy has been used successfully by other airports and countries. P10

11 EXEcutive summary This review recommends that: Recommendation 2A: NAV CANADA, the major Toronto Pearson airlines (Air Canada, Rouge, WestJet and Jazz), the National Airline Council of Canada, the GTAA, and possibly the Canadian Airports Council and Transport Canada, should form an Industry Noise Management Board. Recommendation 2B: The Industry Noise Management Board should develop a cross industry Code of Conduct that facilitates the reduction of arrival and departure noise through improvements in aircraft operation and air traffic control management at Toronto Pearson. Low Power - Low Drag and Continuous Descent Operations LPLD is achieved when an aircraft maintains a clean configuration for as long as safely possible, i.e. delaying the deployment of flaps, slats, undercarriage and air brakes. A cleaner configuration generally requires lower engine thrust. An aircraft conducting a LPLD approach will generate less engine and less airframe noise. A study conducted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) concluded that a noise reduction of up to 5dB is possible if the flaps and landing gear on an aircraft are operated and deployed correctly. As a comparison and to put it into context a 3dB reduction is perceivable by the human ear; much less than 3dB is not noticeable by the majority of people. CDO and LPLD are often used in conjunction. CDO is intended to keep aircraft higher for as long as possible, and is acknowledged as being a leading potential technique for the mitigation of aircraft noise and GHG emissions on approach to an airport. CDO is achieved when an arriving aircraft descends from altitude and avoids prolonged level flight, thus navigating a smoother descent profile. A study conducted by the UK CAA concluded that a noise reduction of 2.5 to 5dB can be achieved by implementing CDO. Noise benefits are most significant over distances from touchdown of 10 to 20NM. One of the most important requirements for successful CDO operation is being able to provide the pilot with an accurate estimate of descent expectations, so that descent and speed planning can be optimised to support delivery of CDO. P11

12 EXEcutive summary Reduced landing flap Most aircraft are certificated with two or more landing flap settings. The full landing setting, which sets the flaps at their maximum angle, also produces maximum drag and allows the aircraft to fly at the slowest speed, reducing runway occupancy time and the reliance on reverse thrust. Reduced landing flap settings set the flap angle to less than their maximum, resulting in lower drag and thereby requiring less engine power during approach, thus resulting in less noise being emitted. Reduced landing flap can result in noise reductions of 0.5 to 1.5dB very close to the airport. This review recommends that: Recommendation 2C: The Industry Noise Management Board should develop an agreed definition of Continuous Descent Operation (CDO) and guidance on achieving low power - low drag CDOs. Recommendation 2D: The Industry Noise Management Board should evaluate whether landing with reduced flap is safe to operate at Toronto Pearson, and to provide guidance on how to achieve this if proven acceptable. Recommendation 2E: NAV CANADA should publish at least quarterly, the percentage of arrival flights achieving Continuous Descent Operation compliance at Toronto Pearson. Recommendation 2F: NAV CANADA should benchmark, on an annual basis, Continuous Descent Operation achievement by airlines at Toronto Pearson against a baseline of current performance and a targeted annual performance improvement. P12 Performance Based Navigation Performance Based Navigation (PBN) improves the accuracy, repeatability and precision of flight paths. This has advantages which include: more efficient use of airspace through route placement; opportunities to mitigate noise impacts; predictability of track miles and descent profiles; and improved fuel efficiency and reduced GHG emissions. Equally, the aviation industry and communities have now recognised that there are potential drawbacks connected with use of PBN routes at lower altitudes. The increase in navigational performance accuracy means that the variable lateral dispersion of aircraft using conventional, non PBN, navigation has reduced.

13 EXEcutive summary Removal of high / low operation Independent simultaneous parallel operations involve two aircraft which approach or depart from parallel runways at the same time. Parallel arrivals and departures are managed so that the ICAO required separation from neighbouring aircraft is preserved. NAV CANADA achieve the separation by maintaining a 1,000ft altitude differential between the two simultaneous arrivals until they are established on their final approach track; this is known as the high / low procedure. Swapping the high and low sides over, such that the low side is associated with the North downwind, is currently constrained by the procedures and controller tools provided, and does not enable the optimisation of capacity on the dedicated arrivals runway accessed from the South downwind. ICAO have proposed changes to their requirements for simultaneous operations. One of the changes being proposed affects when an arrival is considered to be established on its final approach track, which is key to when the 1,000ft vertical separation utilised within the high / low procedure can be ceased. The new procedure being proposed is termed Established on Required Navigational Performance (RNP) Authorization Required (AR). Established on RNP AR will not only yield a benefit in the fact that during simultaneous parallel arrivals, aircraft on the South downwind will no longer have to level at 3,000ft ASL prior to commencing their base leg, but the length of both the North and South downwinds will also reduce. One drawback to RNP AR operations is the concentrated flight track; NAV CANADA will need to consider this carefully when designing RNP AR procedures for Toronto Pearson. This review recommends that: Recommendation 3A: NAV CANADA should design Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required procedures that can reduce the need for a high / low operation, taking due consideration of the location of the tracks, and proceed to consultation to facilitate implementation as soon as is practicable. Recommendation 3B: NAV CANADA should maximise the use of the Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR) procedure to incentivise those airlines not already capable of RNP AR to invest, as the RNP AR approach route will offer airlines a more fuel efficient arrival route. P13

14 EXEcutive summary New RNAV approach route An RNAV approach (APCH) route provides an exact profile in terms of the lateral, vertical and speed that an aircraft follows through the air. If an RNAV APCH route is designed as a CDO then every aircraft that flies the route will follow exactly the same CDO. This level of predictability assists descent management, and thus simplifies and improves the achievement of CDOs and LPLD operations. The point at which an aircraft is instructed to leave the downwind and commence its base leg varies as air traffic control tactically sequence the flow of inbound aircraft. This hampers a pilot s ability to operate a LPLD CDO, often resulting in an increase in level segment flying at low altitudes. A new RNAV APCH route that encompasses the base turn and final approach, starting from a designated point on the downwind, could be built for each of the downwind legs that service Toronto Pearson. The RNAV APCH could yield a significant benefit in that aircraft could be at least 1,000ft above their present altitudes in the downwind position; this would be expected to deliver over a 3dB reduction in noise perceived at ground level; a noticeable reduction. For runway capacity reasons, use of such an RNAV APCH route would only be practical during periods of lower traffic flow. The communities under the RNAV base leg segment will experience either a reduction (due to potentially moderate increases in altitude) or, an equivalent volume of noise as today. These communities would experience a potentially increased regularity of aircraft passing overhead during periods when the RNAV APCH route is used. This review recommends that: Recommendation 3C: NAV CANADA should develop at least one Area Navigation Continuous Descent Operation route from each downwind Standard Arrival Route to the nearest parallel runway, to improve the use and delivery of Continuous Descent Operations and increase the average height of approaching aircraft during low-traffic times. P14

15 EXEcutive summary Slightly steeper glide path Increasing the angle at which aircraft fly the final approach track to the runway can reduce the impact of noise during the final approach phase. Airports that have investigated and implemented slightly steeper glide paths have used a 3.2 glide path to stay within the aircraft s certification specification. At 8NM prior to touch down, a 0.2 steeper glide path angle would result in an aircraft being 170ft higher than its existing height at this distance from the runway. Frankfurt airport has conducted a study which shows that the impact of noise on the ground is small, approximately dB. Although the noise impact is small and implementation is not straight forward, any reduction in noise does contribute to the overall aggregate noise mitigation. Recommendation 4A: The Industry Noise Management Board should consider 3.2 RNAV approaches, with a controlled evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of changing the glide path angle at Toronto Pearson. A two-segment approach An alternative concept to a slightly steeper approach is a two-segment approach. A two-segment approach adopts an intermediate approach phase flown at a steeper angle, before transitioning back to a standard 3 approach. This would potentially provide noise benefits further out during the approach, without affecting the final approach phase. A series of proof of concept trials conducted at London Heathrow led to the concern that airport capacity could be significantly affected due to increased wake turbulence, and issues were raised which concluded that not all aircraft were able to safely complete two-segment approaches. The review team concludes that a two-segment approach should not be considered by NAV CANADA due to safety and capacity concerns. P15

16 EXEcutive summary Runway alternation Runway alternation is a method used to provide relief and / or predictable respite to communities positioned underneath runway centrelines and existing arrival and departure flight paths. The focus of relief tends to be on those communities that experience regular and near continuous noise. Providing relief to one community implies impacting another. It is therefore appropriate to involve communities and their elected officials in the consideration of what constitutes fair and equitable relief; the GTAA during Summer 2017 have commenced this debate with GTA communities. The opportunity to implement runway alternation, at Toronto Pearson, primarily occurs during non-peak traffic periods when all arrival and departure traffic can be managed by operating on two or even one runway; these periods will reduce as the airport gets busier. Runway alternation is not expected to require modification or change to the existing airspace structure or flight procedures at Toronto Pearson, hence implementation prospects are potentially quicker. Runway alternation could cause a change to the existing pattern of flight operations and the footprint of aircraft noise contours, therefore public consultation is required before it can be implemented as a noise management policy. In addition, the impact on the Airport Operating Area (AOA) must be assessed. This review recommends that: Recommendation 5A: NAV CANADA should wait to understand and reflect on the output of the GTAA s current public engagement activities, that include the Residents Reference Panel, and the upcoming consultation on weekend runway alternation; prior to determining whether to proceed to operate runway alternation when traffic levels permit. P16

17 EXEcutive summary Displaced landing thresholds Another practical method of mitigating the impact of aircraft noise is the displacement of airport runway thresholds from the extremity of the runway surface end to a location further down the runway. Displacing runway thresholds allow aircraft to fly at higher altitudes as they pass over communities located near the airport, thereby lowering noise on the ground. The displacement of thresholds will not make a significant difference to the noise impact as the glide path is 3o, and therefore it must move a long distance horizontally to make a large difference in height, e.g. a 1,900ft (580m) displacement of the landing threshold down the runway would increase the height of the aircraft by about 100ft. This review concludes displacement of the thresholds for Toronto Pearson s existing runways is not an effective mitigation. P17

18 EXEcutive summary Moving the South downwind over the lake To move the South downwind over the lake would mean moving it at least 2NM, possibly more, off the shoreline to ensure that the noise isn t moved from the existing downwind communities to the lake front communities. Due to this requirement, the downwind would be at least 11NM displaced from the runway centreline (9NM displacement to reach the shore of Lake Ontario and 2NM displacement off the shoreline), compared to the current 5NM displacement. Due to the tactical nature of operations at Toronto Pearson, moving the South downwind 11NM from the final approach potentially increases the challenge for air traffic controllers to predict when to initiate the base leg turn, whilst achieving the appropriate spacing from the aircraft ahead. The task for a controller can be compared to hitting a moving target; the closer you are to the target, the easier it is. If the South downwind was located over the lake, aircraft would be expected to fly an extended, level altitude base turn (at 3,000ft ASL) over residential areas towards the final approach, increasing noise for many who did not previously experience it. A level base turn for 11NM or more would require significant engine thrust to maintain altitude, generating additional noise and increased GHG emissions. One consequence of moving the South downwind is the increased scope for operation of continuous climb departures. Aircraft with insufficient climb performance will in fact stay lower for longer until they have cleared the arrival flight path, before continuing their climb. With advances in aircraft and ATM systems, it may be possible in the future for pilots and air traffic controllers to achieve a level of timing precision to enable efficient operation of a downwind segment over Lake Ontario, or in fact, remove the need for a downwind at all. This review concludes that in today s aviation industry, with the current technology available, moving the South downwind over Lake Ontario is not currently a viable option. In the future, the use of new technologies and procedures may justify a re-design of the Toronto airspace, with an opportunity to minimise the use of, or possibly remove the need for, the downwind segment. P18

19 EXEcutive summary Multiple downwind legs Multiple downwind legs could theoretically be used to provide relief to communities located underneath the dominant, most frequently used downwind legs. Additional downwind leg(s) can follow the same trajectory as the original, but be separated from it by sufficient lateral distance to make a significant reduction in noise for the residents under the original route. There are several significant negative impacts to consider, as indicated below: New communities would be impacted by noise. Loss of capacity. Increased training requirements for air traffic controllers. Reduced safety due to increased human factor mistakes. No relief for communities under the base leg. This review concludes that in today s aviation industry, with the current technology available, using multiple flight paths is not a viable option. P19

20 EXEcutive summary Reduced downwind usage To reduce aircraft arriving from the south and flying along the South downwind, controllers often cut the corners of the radar vectored circuit, introducing shorter and more direct routings. A relatively small change to the use of existing airspace is necessary to increase the flexibility for air traffic controllers to apply these short-cut procedures, by giving a direct heading to a point on the downwinds. The short-cuts could be linked with the RNAV APCHs recommended above. The use of this concept is contingent on suitable traffic levels; if traffic volumes increase, the use of short-cuts will diminish. This review recommends that: Recommendation 6A: NAV CANADA should continue to utilise short-cuts over Lake Ontario on an ad-hoc basis and should seek to promote their use, to reduce downwind usage when traffic permits. The combination of short-cuts over the lake to join the new Area Navigation approach routes recommended in 3C will facilitate low power - low drag and Continuous Descent Operation. The implementation of the new Area Navigation approaches will be subject to consultation in accordance with the protocol. Reduced dependency on downwinds Currently, NAV CANADA tends to use the downwind segments with tromboning to achieve most of the flow, sequencing and separation of arrival flights. Alternative or supplementary mechanisms to downwinds that this review has considered and evaluated are: Holding stacks Point Merge Arrival Manager Time Based Operations P20

21 EXEcutive summary Holding stacks Stacking is purely a method for queuing aircraft awaiting a landing position, thereby introducing delay into their landing time. You can liken a holding stack to a waiting room. The benefits and draw-backs of stacks are: Benefits More fuel efficient compared to low-level extended downwinds. Reduced number of occasions when the downwind would be extended. Draw-backs Increased track miles to reach stacks for some flights. Remaining requirement to conduct further sequencing and separation of flights via tactical vectoring. A complete re-design of the Toronto Terminal Control Area airspace. This review concludes that holding stacks are not an effective solution to implement at Toronto Pearson. The drawbacks identified do not warrant the benefits that may follow. Instead, the review team recommends that NAV CANADA s time, effort and money be focused on achieving best practice in Time Based Operations that can deliver greater benefits for communities, airlines, airports and NAV CANADA, in Toronto and across other parts of Canada. As defined in our guiding principles, where it is achievable, the review team recommends looking to future concepts rather than implementing older concepts. P21

22 EXEcutive summary Point merge Point merge is a systemised method that enables air traffic controllers to sequence and space inbound aircraft onto the final approach using an adapted sequencing procedure to reduce the need for radar vectoring. One of the key operational benefits of point merge is that at any point, the aircraft are equally distant from a merge point, easing the ability to sequence and space arrivals and thus increasing controller flexibility to establish an efficient arrivals sequence. The concentration of aircraft on one consistent route, from the merge point to the final approach track, has been reported by communities elsewhere as a disadvantage, unless unpopulated areas are used for the final inbound route from the merge point. One of the reasons why the length of the current downwinds extend at busy times of the day is that NAV CANADA sometimes prioritise straight-in arrivals over arrivals on the downwinds. A single point merge concept, which would not remove the downwinds but could re-address the balance between downwind arrivals and straight in arrivals should deliver: A reduction in the number of times that the downwind is extended; this reduces the frequency of aircraft over-flying some communities and therefore reduces the noise impact of Toronto Pearson arrivals. A greater chance of being able to operate a LPLD CDO approach, when not operating the high / low procedure, as there is a reduced chance of an extended level segment on the downwind. Within the Toronto airspace, the introduction of a twin point merge system to feed the parallel arrival runways would have both positive and negative consequences. Additionally, there has been no international research, as far as we can establish, as to the feasibility of a twin point merge system with simultaneous parallel arrivals, nor with the quantity of traffic that Toronto Pearson experiences today or is forecast to handle in the future. The time to completely redesign the Toronto Terminal Control Area airspace to encompass twin point merge systems would be expected to take several years given the complexity of the airspace and the number of Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and STARs. Once designed the evaluation, validation and implementation would be a significant undertaking which is expected to extend the timescales still further. P22

23 EXEcutive summary This review concludes that whilst a twin point merge solution for Toronto Pearson may be theoretically possible, it is not an appropriate solution. Time, effort and investment would be better focused on other mitigations, in particular the development of an effective Time Based Operation. This review recommends that: Recommendation 7A: NAV CANADA should investigate and evaluate the operational, environmental, financial and societal impacts, of a single point merge solution for straight-in arrivals at Toronto Pearson. P23

24 EXEcutive summary Arrival Manager and Time Based Operation One of the challenges facing air traffic controllers at Toronto Pearson is the lack of capability of the controller support tools currently used by NAV CANADA to automatically predict, manage and regulate the flow of arriving flights. If the sequence and timing of arrivals could be systemically managed, consistently to within a few seconds, there would be much less need for intervention by controllers and their use of downwinds and tromboning techniques. To help mitigate these peaks and troughs, Arrival Manager (AMAN) systems have been developed and deployed in Europe and elsewhere. These tools are primarily designed to provide automated sequencing support for air traffic controllers handling arriving traffic, through the prediction of the remaining time to touch-down and provision of guidance on speed controls for inbound flights. TBO involves, through increased collaboration, the ability to more accurately predict when a flight will reach a particular way point and when it will land. Once an Extended AMAN (an Extended AMAN has a greater horizon on influence on the arrival time of a flight than AMAN systems) and TBO are implemented, there will be an opportunity to re-assess further noise reducing options, such as moving the downwind segment over Lake Ontario or removing downwinds altogether. This review recommends that: Recommendation 8A: NAV CANADA should implement as soon as practical an integrated extended arrivals manager to provide automatic sequencing support to air traffic controllers, and arrival planning for pilots. Recommendation 8B: NAV CANADA should implement a programme to continually stretch the horizon of influence and accuracy of an extend arrivals manager tool s output through refinement of the input data and the heuristics used within the tool. Recommendation 8C: NAV CANADA should invest in the development of Time Based Operations within Canadian airspace as well as international research and development activities with the strategic objective to achieve full Trajectory Based Operations. P24

25 EXEcutive summary Complex arrival routes A regular question throughout the public engagement period of this review, encompassed why flights are directed over heavily populated areas instead of being directed along unpopulated areas and highways. Over the coming years, the percentage of aircraft equipped with, and pilots qualified to fly, Required Navigational Performance procedures will increase, and thus the ability to achieve greater complexity and throughput should also increase. In the opinion of the review team, flight paths directed around and between residential areas, snaking along busy highways, railways or industrial corridors during periods of high traffic throughput, are still a significant number of years away. This review concludes that the aviation industry does not currently have the capability to operate the type of complex approaches, in busy and complicated airspace, that would be required to address the communities request to fly along unpopulated corridors and busy transport routes. Runway and airspace demand management Being able to manage the demand for the runway and airspace can lead to reduced noise impacts for communities. NAV CANADA does not have a direct ability to influence the airline flight schedules accepted by the GTAA. Air Traffic Management providers have a tactical tool to assist with on-the-day demand management in the form of flow management. A further mechanism defined by ICAO intended to ensure efficient use of airport and airspace capacity is Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM). Being able to manage demand and achieve predictability and stability in the flow of aircraft, should reduce delays and delay induced noise. P25

26 EXEcutive summary Night restricted hours At Toronto Pearson, airlines are allowed to board their aircraft, push-back from the terminals and taxi to the runway holding areas from 06:00 local time. Inbound early morning flights to Toronto Pearson typically start to arrive in the local airspace from 06:15 or shortly thereafter. There is a degree of commercial competition between airlines to be the first departure or arrival on routes with strong competition. The effect of these two operational practices are: Arrival aircraft holding over the GTA, generating noise and emitting GHGs needlessly before 06:30. Aircraft are sat on the ground at Toronto Pearson waiting for departure, generating noise and emissions. NAV CANADA have to operate the Triple runway operation at 06:30 as a means to deliver maximum capacity and clear the back-log of aircraft. On-time performance for arrivals and departures needs to become a priority for the airlines, GTAA, and NAV CANADA as it will reduce noise and emissions as well as saving all stakeholders time and money. The review team acknowledges community concern about noise early in the morning, and highlights that NAV CANADA, GTAA and airlines should seek to find an alternative way to manage the period between 06:00 and 07:00. The review team conclude that smoothing the demand without reducing the number of flights in the period 06:00 to 07:00 to provide relief, should be investigated by the Industry Noise Management Board; along with a wider discussion of how best to manage the demand to reduce noise. P26

27 EXEcutive summary P27 Conclusions This independent review has undertaken an in-depth investigation of the various views expressed by communities experiencing noise from aircraft using Toronto Pearson International Airport. The review has also analysed existing and currently planned enhancements to the air traffic management infrastructure, airspace, and procedures used to manage aircraft operating in the Toronto area. Consideration has been given to the provisions established by ICAO, and the framework of the Global Air Navigation Plan. Lessons learned from noise management programs in place at comparable international airports have also been taken into account in the analysis of the Toronto Pearson airspace operation, and in the development of the courses of action proposed in this report. In undertaking this review, the team has developed recommendations that are expected to be able to deliver distinguishable noise reduction benefits that align with our terms of reference and guiding principles. Nevertheless, the review team are aware that some expectations of the community members currently disturbed by noise, may not be fully addressed through the recommendations provided. However, the recommendations, if adopted, will provide a basis through which progress can be measured and reported, and will allow issues needing further work to be identified resulting in the development of further mitigating actions. While this review does not constitute consultation or communication as defined within the voluntary Airspace Change Communication and Consultation Protocol, several recommendations made within the review will be subject to further consultation as defined in the protocol if, and when, NAV CANADA elect to progress the recommendations. The review team is confident that the aviation noise environment, related to the operation of Toronto Pearson, can be improved further for residents by adopting these proposed recommendations, without negatively impacting the future capacity of the airport. Some of the recommendations will take advantage of periods of lower traffic demand. The noise mitigation techniques proposed by the review and as noted, will need to be adapted as the systems and technology available is developed. Correspondingly, the impact of growing traffic levels at the airport will also need to be considered. These are examples of the issues that the proposed Industry Noise Management Board could usefully monitor and progress. The review has led us to conclude that there are real opportunities to alleviate significantly the noise issues from Toronto Pearson flights which has given rise to so many complaints and concerns. These opportunities can be realised to the full only if all the parties involved work together in new and more effective means of cooperation. We urge everyone involved to agree a programme of action as a matter of urgency and to implement those actions in the same spirit.

28 1 Preface 1.1 February 2012 airspace change 1.2 Community complaints and issues 2 Stakeholders 2.1 International Civil Aviation Organisation 2.2 Transport Canada 2.3 Health Canada 2.4 NAV CANADA 2.5 Greater Toronto Airport Authority 2.6 Airlines and other aircraft operators 2.7 Municipalities and other levels of Government 2.8 Community groups 3 Background 3.1 Air transport and aircraft noise in a global context ICAO Balanced Approach 3.2 Airspace management in a Canadian context Airspace change Greater Toronto Area airspace 4 Terms of reference for the review 5 Methodology 6 Guiding principles 6.1 Operational safety 6.2 Capacity 6.3 Noise at source 6.4 Noise reaching the ground 6.5 Relief and respite 6.6 Moving noise 6.7 Stakeholder consultation 6.8 Looking to the future 6.9 The Canadian Border 7 Strategic objectives 8 Six noise mitigation initiatives 9 Airport and airspace operation P28

29 9.1 Toronto Pearson International Airport Operating times Traffic patterns Runways Runway operating modes 9.2 Aircraft types 9.3 Airspace operation Tromboning Independent simultaneous parallel operations High / low operation Why the high / low cannot be swapped 9.4 Aircraft operation Climb and descent profiles Departure climb profiles Arrivals descent profile Visual approaches and departures 9.5 February 2012 airspace change Standard instrument departure routes Standard instrument arrival routes Flight path usage Arrivals Departures Lateral dispertion on arrival routes Vertical dispersal on arrival routes 10 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Reducing noise at source Airbus A Land-use planning and management Flight path design 10.4 Noise abatement operational procedures Descent management Pilot and air traffic controller collaboration P29

30 Low Power - Low Drag and Continuous Descent Operations Reduced landing flap Performance Based Navigation Removal of high / low operation New RNAV approach route Slightly steeper glide path A two-segment approach Runway alternation Displaced landing thresholds Moving the South downwind over the lake Multiple downwind legs Reduced downwind usage Reduced dependency on downwinds Holding stacks Point merge Arrival Manager and Time Based Operation Complex arrival routes 10.5 Runway and airspace demand management Night restricted hours 11 Summary of conclusions and recommendations Annexes A Community complaints and causal issues B Open Public Meetings C Noise Exposure Forecast And Projection C.1 Noise Exposure Forecast C.2 Noise Exposure Projection D Toronto Pearson arrival movement rates E Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E.1 Standard instrument departure routes E.2 Standard instrument arrival routes F Lateral and vertical dispersal of aircraft on the South downwind G Runway Alternation Options G.1 Relief for communities under the final approach & initial climb P30

31 G.2 Relief for communities under the North and South downwind segments G.3 Further runway alternation options H Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales I Aviation terms and concepts I.1 Introduction I.2 Runway nomenclature I.3 Runway extended centreline I.4 Airfield Traffic Pattern I.5 Flight path centreline I.6 Vectoring I.7 Standard Instrument Departures & Standard Arrival Routes I.8 Waypoints I.9 Sequencing I.10 Holding stacks I.11 Separation I.12 Compression I.13 Performance Based Navigation I.13.1 Area Navigation I.13.2 Required Navigational Performance I.14 Mixed mode runway I.15 Final Approach Track I.16 Air traffic control I.17 Displacement of sound I.18 Causes of aircraft noise I.19 Aircraft energy management I.20 Descent Management I.20.1 Continuous Descent Operations I.20.2 Low Power Low Drag I.20.3 Reduced landing flap I.21 Clean aircraft configuration J Technical Procedures J.1 High / low operation P31

32 list of figures Figure 1. ICAO Balanced Approach Figure 2. GTA airports Figure 3. Annual movement and passenger growth 2006 to 2016 Figure 4. Average Toronto Pearson aircraft movements per clock hour for an average July day in 2016 Figure 5. Average Toronto Pearson aircraft movements per 15 minute period for an average July day in 2016 Figure 6. Toronto Pearson runway layout and orientation Figure 7. Examples of typical runway operating modes Figure 8. Typical arrival flight patterns to runways 05, 06l or 06r Figure 9. Independent simultaneous parallel approach separation requirements Figure 10. Independent simultaneous parallel departure divergence requirement Figure 11. Establishment of 3,000ft and 4,000ft altitudes during the high / low operation Figure 12. Establishment on ILS at set altitudes prior to glide path interception Figure 13. Additional time and distance to sequence arrivals onto the final approach Figure 14. Altitude profiles comparing NADP1 and NADP2 procedures Figure 15. Illustrative NADP 1 vs 2 noise footprints Figure 16. Sample of departure climb profiles Figure 17. Sample of arrival descent profiles Figure 18. Departure routes from runways 23, 24L and 24R Figure 19. Pre- and post-february 2012 arrival routes to runways 05, 06L and 06R Figure 20. Pre- and post-february 2012 arrival routes to runways 23, 24L and 24R Figure 21. Change in utilisation of arrival flight paths, July 2010 vs July 2016 Figure 22. Change in utilisation of departure flight paths July 2010 vs July 2016 Figure 23. Location of lateral and vertical dispersion analysis gates Figure 24. History of ICAO Noise Certification requirements Figure 25. The principle of a Continuous Descent Operation Figure 26. Established on RNP AR Figure 27. The principle of a new RNAV approach route Figure 28. Slightly steeper glide path Figure 29. Two-segment approach Figure 30. Moving the South downwind over the lake Figure 31. Multiple arrival flight paths at Toronto Pearson P32

33 list of figures Figure 32. Short-cut over the lake to reduce South downwind usage converging routes Figure 33. World-wide point merge development sites Figure 34. Principle of point merge Figure 35. Twin point merge systems feeding independent parallel runways Figure 36. Conceptual single point merge system to aid flow management, sequencing and separation of straight-in arrivals. Figure 37. Departure routes from runways 23, 24L and 24R Figure 38. Departure routes from runways 05, 06L and 06R Figure 39. Departure routes from runways 33L and 33R Figure 40. Arrival routes to runways 05, 06L or 06R Figure 41. Arrival routes to runways 23, 24L and 24R Figure 42. Arrival routes to runways 15L and 15R Figure 43. Arrival routes to runways 33L and 33R Figure 44. Lateral and vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 Figure 45. Lateral dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 Figure 46. Probability density functions of the lateral dispersal on the south downwind to runway 24 Figure 47. Vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 Figure 48. Lateral and vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 Figure 49. Lateral dispersal on the south downwind to runway 06 Figure 50. Probability density functions of the lateral dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 Figure 51. Vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Runway alternation for providing relief under the final approach and the initial climb Runway alternation for providing relief under the North and South downwinds Location of intersection between South downwind and East downwind Potential runway alternation option option a Potential runway alternation option option b Potential runway alternation option option c Potential runway alternation option option d Runway nomenclature Runway extended centreline P33

34 list of figures Figure 61. Airfield traffic pattern Figure 62. Aircraft vectoring Figure 63. The principle of stacking Figure 64. The principle of RNAV and RNP Figure 65. Instrument Landing System Figure 66. Example of an ATM screen for Toronto Figure 67. Change in on-track noise level due to lateral displacement as a function of aircraft altitude Figure 68. Noise benefit of Continuous Descent Operation for one aircraft type (Boeing 777) Figure 69. Noise benefit of good-practice landing gear deployment for one aircraft type (Boeing 777) Figure 70. Noise benefit of reduced landing flap for one aircraft type (Boeing 777) Figure 71. Clean aircraft configuration, wing components Figure 72. Example of why the high / low cannot be swapped P34

35 list of tables Table 1. ICAO s Balanced Approach: Responsible parties Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Summary of existing six noise mitigation initiatives Toronto Pearson Night-flight budget Noise related operating restrictions at Toronto Pearson Summary of recommendation: A320 whine Summary of recommendation: Pilot and controller collaboration Summary of recommendation: Low power low drag and continuous descent operations Summary of recommendation: Removal of high / low operation Summary of recommendation: New RNAV approach route Summary of recommendation: Slightly steeper glide path Summary of recommendation: Runway alternation Summary of recommendation: Reduced downwind usage Benefits and draw-backs of holding stacks Summary of recommendation: Point merge Summary of recommendation: Arrival Manager and Time Based Operations Summary of recommendations and conclusions Noise related complaints and issues raised by community members Open public meetings Toronto Pearson arrival movement rates Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales TERPS and PAN-Ops nomenclature of equivalent PBN operations P35

36 abbreviations & glossary AGL Above Ground Level A standard measurement in feet of the elevation or altitude of an aircraft in reference to the local surface of the earth. AMAN Arrival Manager AMAN systems are designed to provide automated sequencing support for air traffic controllers handling traffic arriving at an airport. An AMAN continuously calculates arrival sequences and time of flights, taking account of the locally defined arrivals capacity, the required spacing for flights arriving to the runway, and other important criteria. ANS Air Navigation Service Provision of Air Traffic Management, communications, navigation and surveillance, search and rescue, and meteorological services for air navigation. ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider Is a public or a private legal entity providing Air Navigation Services. AOA Airport Operating Area Toronto Pearson Airport has a defined area known as the Airport Operating Area which is based on a noise contour (NEF 30) within which no noise sensitive buildings (e.g. residential properties) should be built. APCH Approach Is the action of coming near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time. ASL Above Sea Level A standard measurement in feet of the elevation or altitude of a location or aircraft in reference to a historic mean sea level. Sometimes referred to as Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). ATC Air Traffic Control A service provided by ground-based controllers who direct aircraft on the ground and through controlled airspace, and can provide advisory services to aircraft in non-controlled airspace. Also see Annex I.16. ATM Air Traffic Management Air Traffic Management primarily consists of three distinct activities, Air Traffic Control, Air Traffic Flow Management and Aeronautical Information Services. CAA Civil Aviation Authority The UK CAA is a statutory corporation which oversees and regulates all aspects of civil aviation. CAP Civil Aviation Publication CAP is usually followed by a number, and is the name / identity given to a policy or publication designed to provide guidance and instruction on civil aviation rules and regulation. These are issued by the UK CAA. P36

37 abbreviations & glossary CARs Canadian Aviation Regulations Federal regulations respecting aviation and activities relating to aeronautics. CAT Category There are three categories of Instrument Landing System: CAT I, CAT II and CATIII. A-CDM Airport Collaborative Decision Making A-CDM aims at improving the overall efficiency of airport operations by optimising the use of resources and improving the predictability of events. It focuses especially on aircraft turn-round and pre-departure sequencing processes. CDO Continuous Descent Operation Continuous Descent Operation also known as Continuous Descent Approach (CDA), is a method by which aircraft approach airports prior to landing. It is designed to reduce fuel consumption and noise compared to other conventional descents. Instead of approaching an airport in a stair-step fashion, throttling down and requesting permission to descend to each new (lower) altitude, CDO allows for a smooth, constant-angle descent to landing. CENAC Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee A GTAA forum for discussion between community constituents and the GTAA about matters relating to the mitigation of aircraft noise in the community, and the operation of Toronto Pearson International Airport in an environmentally responsible manner. db Decibel A unit used to measure the intensity of a sound. EUROCONTROL FAA FMS FOPP EUROCONTROL Federal Aviation Administration Flight Management System Fuel Over Pressure Protector Is a European intergovernmental organisation with 41 Member and 2 Comprehensive Agreement States. EUROCONTROL are committed to building, together with neighbouring States, a Single European Sky that will deliver ATM performance required for the twenty-first century and beyond. The FAA is the US national authority with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation. A specialised computer system located in the cockpit of an aircraft, which automates a wide variety of in-flight tasks including management of a flight plan. A FOPP is located on the under-surface of the A320 wing, and responsible for causing a high-pitched whine when air rushes across it. P37

38 abbreviations & glossary ft Feet Imperial measurement of distance. GBAS Ground-Based Augmentation System A GBAS Landing System (or GLS) is a GNSS-dependent alternative to ILS which uses a single GBAS airport ground station to transmit corrected GNSS data to suitably-equipped aircraft to enable them to fly a precision approach with much greater flexibility. GHG Greenhouse gases Gas in the atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range; a fundamental contributor to global warming. Aircraft engines emit water vapour, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides which are some of the primary greenhouse gases in Earth s atmosphere. GLS GBAS Landing System See GBAS. GNSS GTA Global Navigation Satellite System Greater Toronto Area The term GNSS is given to a worldwide position, velocity, and time determination system, that includes one or more satellite constellations, receivers, and system integrity monitoring, augmented as necessary to support the required navigation performance for the actual phase of operation. Defined as the central city of Toronto, and the four regional municipalities that surround it: Durham, Halton, Peel, and York. GTAA Greater Toronto Airports Authority The operator of Toronto Pearson International Airport. IATA ICAO IFR ILS International Air Transport Association International Civil Aviation Organisation Instrument Flight Rules Instrument Landing System IATA is the trade association for the world s airlines, representing some 275 airlines or 83% of total air traffic. IATA support many areas of aviation activity and help formulate industry policy on critical aviation issues. A UN specialized agency, established by States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). When visual references are obscured because of poor weather conditions or during the night, flight visibility is hindered. In these conditions aircraft are operated under IFR, and rely on defined standard procedures which are designed for all aircraft to operate. ILS is a precision runway approach aid based on two radio beams which together provide pilots with both vertical and horizontal guidance during an approach to land. P38

39 abbreviations & glossary IMC Instrument Metrological Conditions IMC are expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling, less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions (VMC). INMB Industry Noise Management Board A new aviation noise management board recommended by this review to work collaboratively to identify and take forward noise mitigations. KPI Key Performance Indicator A KPI is a type of performance measurement which evaluates the success of an organization or of a particular activity in which it engages. LAeq A-weighted equivalent sound level A widely used noise parameter describing a sound level with the same energy content as the varying acoustic signal measured, utilising the A-weighted scale. LPLD Low Power - Low Drag LPLD is achieved when an aircraft maintains a clean configuration for as long as safely possible. An aircraft conducting a LPLD approach will generate less engine and less airframe noise. LUP Land-use planning One of the four elements of the ICAO Balanced Approach. NADP NAV CANADA NEF NEP Noise Abatement Departure Procedure NAV CANADA Noise Exposure Forecast Noise Exposure Projection NADP is a noise abatement procedure which reduces the amount of noise on the ground during aircraft departure. There are two commonly used procedures; NADP1 and NADP2. A privately run, not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system. The NEF system provides a measurement of the actual and forecasted aircraft noise near airports in the short-term. Also see Annex C.1. The NEP projects aircraft movements and other changing variables 10 to 20 years ahead, giving authorities a longer perspective for zoning. Also see Annex C.2. NM Nautical Mile A nautical mile is defined as exactly 1852 metres. OR Operational restrictions One of the four elements of the ICAO Balanced Approach. PANS-ATM Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Air Traffic Management Document produced and published by ICAO setting out international standards and practices for Air Traffic Management. P39

40 abbreviations & glossary PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Aircraft Operations Document produced and published by ICAO setting out international standards and practices for Aircraft Operations. PBN Performance Based Navigation Area navigation based on performance requirements for aircraft operating along an ATS route, on an instrument approach procedure, or in a designated airspace. RN Reducing noise at source One of the four elements of the ICAO Balanced Approach. RNAV Area Navigation RNAV is a method of IFR navigation which allows an aircraft to choose any course within a network of navigation aids or within the limits of a self-contained system capability, or a combination of these. RNAV provides more lateral freedom and thus uses more of the available airspace. Also see Annex I RNP Required Navigational Performance RNP systems allow an aircraft to fly a specific path between two 3D-defined points in space. Also see Annex I RNP AR Required Navigational Performance Authorisation Required RNP AR systems are used in obstacle-rich environments, where a higher level of navigation performance better able to address issues of airport access is required, and more recently have been adopted for improved operational efficiency, particularly at larger airports. The operator must meet additional aircraft and aircrew requirements, and obtain prior operational authorisation from the State regulatory authority before operating. Also see Annex I SARP SID Standards and Recommended Practices Standard Instrument Departure Produced and published by ICAO. A SID route, also known as a departure procedure, is a designated IFR departure route linking the airport or a specified runway with a specified significant waypoint, normally on a designated air traffic services route, at which the en-route phase of a flight commences. Also see Annex I.7. STAR Standard Terminal Arrival Route A STAR is a designated IFR arrival route linking a significant point, normally on an air traffic service route, with a point from which a published instrument approach procedure can be commenced. Also see Annex I.7. P40

41 abbreviations & glossary TBO Time Based Operations Time Based Operations is the first step to achieving the aviation industry s objective of 4D Trajectory-Based Operations, at which point it will be possible to accurately predict the precise position of a flight at any time, as well as when it will land, to within a few seconds. Time Based Operations focus on a pilot working with air traffic controllers to meet a Target time of Arrival through management of speed and route. 4D Trajectory-Based Operations focus on further evolution of flight efficiency and predictability, and consider the available capacity during the flight trajectory planning and management process. TC Transport Canada Federal department responsible for most of the transportation policies, programmes and goals of the Government of Canada. TCA Terminal Control Area A designated area of controlled airspace surrounding a major airport where there is a high volume of traffic. ToD Top of Descent The beginning of an aircraft s descent profile. TERPS UN VFR VMC WHO YYZ United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures United Nations Visual Flight Rules Visual Metrological Conditions World Health Organization Toronto Pearson International Airport Set by the Federal Aviation Authority of the United States of America, setting the criteria for the development of safe instrument flight procedures. An intergovernmental organization tasked to promote international co-operation and to create and maintain international order. VFR are the rules that govern the operation of aircraft in VMC; conditions in which flight solely by visual reference is possible. VMC are the meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling, equal to or better than specified minima. Essentially, the minima are: When above 3,000ft or 1,000ft above terrain, whichever is higher: m horizontally and 1,000ft vertically from cloud; - Flight visibility 5km below 10,000ft and 8km above 10,000 ft. When below 3,000ft or 1,000ft above terrain, whichever is higher: - Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface; - Flight visibility 5km. A specialised agency of the United Nations that is concerned with international public health. IATA airport code for Toronto Pearson International Airport. P41

42 preface 1.1 February 2012 airspace change In February 2012, following an extended design period, NAV CANADA implemented a large-scale change to the airspace over the geographic area from Windsor, through Toronto, to Montreal. Included within this airspace change were adjustments to the arrival and departure procedures for Toronto Pearson. The objective of this airspace change was to enhance the efficiency of operations through the optimisation of airspace design and technology whilst maintaining safety. The overall airspace change was intended to deliver improvements to capacity, efficiency and environmental aspects of the airspace and aircraft operations. One element of the overall airspace change involved an update to the local arrival and departure flight procedures associated with Toronto Pearson. Included in these changes was the re-location of an arrival flight path, known as the South downwind, to the south of Toronto Pearson, to be compliant with regulatory requirements and consistent with global provisions published by ICAO. In 2003, NAV CANADA had been granted a derogation by Transport Canada which allowed them to maintain the Standard Terminal Arrival Route with a 4 Nautical Miles (NM) displacement of the downwind leg from the parallel runway for arriving aircraft. The re-location of this South downwind in February 2012 to a 5NM displacement was to achieve compliance with the design standards in force at the time, and compliance with a new design standard based on US Federal Aviation Authority Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures that NAV CANADA knew would shortly be coming into force within Canadian Aviation Regulations. In 2014 an update of the Canadian Aviation Regulations removed the possibility of obtaining the original derogation, and hence the use of a 4NM displacement. Further details about the airspace change can be found in Section 9.5. Toronto Pearson is the largest and busiest airport in Canada and is operated by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA). Like all large airports in developed countries, the management and mitigation of aircraft noise is a key consideration for local communities; the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is no exception. Aircraft noise complaints have been logged by GTA community members and community lobby groups for a number of years. The displacement by 1NM of the South downwind caused some communities that had reported little aviation noise disturbance previously, to be subject to more frequent and extended periods of aircraft noise, especially during peak periods. The inverse is true for those communities that had previously been under the South downwind. Community members have not only raised the number of noise complaints, but have also complained about the process used by NAV CANADA to conduct, inform and consult with communities ahead of the February 2012 airspace change. 1 P42

43 PREFACE In 2015 the GTAA and NAV CANADA undertook a review of community suggestions for initiatives that would help mitigate the impact of aviation noise. GTAA and NAV CANADA identified six of these initiatives i as feasible, and undertook further investigation. After two years, only one of these six initiatives has been implemented, although significant development of the remaining initiatives has been observed since the commencement of this review. The review team acknowledge that GTAA and NAV CANADA could have progressed the investigation of these six initiatives more expeditiously than they have done to date. We understand that GTAA and NAV CANADA are working towards commencing consultation on four of the remaining initiatives during fall / winter 2017/18. In the spring of 2016, NAV CANADA announced that they would appoint an independent body to undertake a review of the airspace plan for Toronto Pearson, to establish whether additional aviation noise mitigations could be identified. Helios, with the support of Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, were contracted in July 2016 to undertake this review. 1.2 Community complaints and issues The review team, whilst undertaking this review, has engaged with a range of stakeholders, and has held ten open public meetings. Dis-satisfaction with the noise generated by flights arriving and departing at Toronto Pearson isn t new. The review team has concluded, as a result of the feedback obtained, that the level of dis-satisfaction has escalated following NAV CANADA s airspace change in February 2012, with lack of mitigation since, and with the significant growth in traffic. The following complaints have been distilled from our community meetings and from the s received from community members and stakeholders. A more detailed summary of these complaints can be found in Annex A: Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Flight paths have been designed to achieve efficiency and typically not to minimise the impact to communities overflown. Insufficient consideration has been given to keeping flights over Lake Ontario as much as possible. Flights are not fairly distributed across all the runways meaning some communities carry an unfair burden of noise. 1 P43

44 preface Too many noisy flights at night. 1 The night restricted hours (00:30 to 06:30) do not adequately represent night. There is a lack of fairness in the distribution of flights to runways during the preferential runway period 00:00 to 06:30. Departures are turning too low in the same location too frequently. The Airbus A320 family of aircraft create an annoying high-pitched whine at times during descent and no airlines operating A320 family aircraft at Toronto Pearson are doing anything about mitigating the issue. The GTAA s noise complaint system and procedure is ineffective and the statistics produced are misleading. The GTAA s WebTrak system is perceived not to display the actual flight track accurately. The Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee is perceived to be ineffective, powerless, biased and reluctant to change. GTAA and NAV CANADA do not listen or take action over noise disruption, particularly since the airspace change in February Monitoring and reporting noise using the decibel A-weighted metric is under-reporting the actual noise experienced. There is no acknowledgement of the health impacts from aviation activities. NAV CANADA is not accountable to anyone, or targeted or incentivised in relation to minimising noise. The GTAA is unaccountable for reducing the noise impact of airport operations. There is no compensation for those communities that experience aviation noise. The airport has been allowed to expand too much and the number of flights need to be reduced. There is a lack of community engagement in the airspace change process 1. 1 There has been no airspace change in the GTA since the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol was published so communities are basing their assessment of the engagement and consultation activities associated with the 2012 airspace change. P44

45 Stakeholders It is important to understand which stakeholders are involved in the management and mitigation of aircraft noise in Canada. This section provides a high-level summary of roles and responsibilities of key parties, before we move on to look at the context of aircraft noise from a global and national perspective. 2.1 International Civil Aviation Organisation The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is an agency of the United Nations (UN) and was created to promote the safe and standardised development of international civil aviation. ICAO provides the framework that permits the Convention s 191 member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. These SARPs and policies are used by ICAO member States to ensure that their local civil aviation operations and regulations conform to global norms. ICAO endorses the concept of a Balanced Approach (see Section 3.1.1) to aircraft noise management. 2.2 Transport Canada Transport Canada (TC) is the regulator of aviation in Canada. Its role is to develop transportation policies and legislation that provide for a high level of safety and security and supports a successful, stable aviation sector in Canada. Their responsibilities with regards to noise include reviewing, approving, and publishing new proposed noise control measures at airports, as well as conducting investigations of suspected violations to published Noise Abatement Procedures. TC administers the aircraft noise standards, working with third parties such as Health Canada, NAV CANADA and ICAO. TC establishes noise and emissions standards and is responsible for setting the criteria that governs flight path design. The Canadian Criteria for the Development of Instrument Procedures is based on the United States Federal Aviation Authority s (FAA) Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) ii. TC must also review and approve any new or proposed changes to Noise Abatement Procedures at Canadian airports. TC supports iii the formation of noise management committees at each airport, which may include representatives from air operators, airport tenants, civic and citizen representatives, and / or elected officials. At major airports, such as Toronto Pearson, TC provides a representative to sit as part of the noise management committee. The committee at Toronto Pearson is the Community Environment & Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC). 2 P45

46 Stakeholders 2 TC provides guidance for land-use planning authorities on the noise levels that are compatible with residential areas iv. It uses the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) system, which encompasses a summation of noise from all aircraft operating in an area, the number of times a disturbance occurs, and the daily distribution of noise events. Further details on the NEF and Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) modelling tool can be found in Annex C. TC discourages residential and other non-compatible land uses in areas exposed to greater than NEF 30 (NEF 25 at new aerodromes). However, significant annoyance is often reported by individuals living in areas where noise falls below this threshold. Nothing in this review is intended to modify existing land-use planning policy. 2.3 Health Canada Health Canada provides advice to the public and regulatory authorities, such as TC, on the health effects of aircraft noise. This enables TC to consider the health risks when decisions are being made that affect community exposure to aircraft noise. Health Canada s scientists continue to assess the potential health effects of aircraft by v : conducting their own research on the stress responses to aircraft noise; tracking and assessing scientific papers by other experts in this field; and participating in the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, which takes place every three years. 2.4 NAV CANADA NAV CANADA is Canada s Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) responsible for the air traffic management (ATM) and operation, and information services in Canadian airspace and international airspace delegated to Canadian control. NAV CANADA s services include air traffic control (ATC); airport advisory and flight information services; and aeronautical information which includes airspace and flight procedure design, publication and operation. NAV CANADA delivers it remit in compliance with the TC Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) vi. NAV CANADA is responsible for the safe co-ordination and the efficient movement of aircraft; and for planning and managing airspace, including flight paths and airways used by airlines. Major facilities operated by NAV CANADA include control towers, area control centres, flight information centres and flight service stations. In addition, the company operates and maintains navigation and approach aids and equipment. P46

47 Stakeholders Greater Toronto Airport Authority The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) is the airport operator of Lester B. Pearson International Airport (frequently shortened to Toronto Airport, Pearson Airport, Toronto Pearson or simply Pearson). Toronto Pearson handled 44.3 million passengers on 456,563 flights (419,166 related to the passenger terminals and 37,370 other flights) in 2016, which represents increases of 8.0% and 2.8% respectively on the previous year. In 2016 the airport was ranked 32nd in the world in terms of passenger numbers, and 15th vii with regards to the number of flights. The global air passenger market is forecast to grow and this equally applies to Toronto Pearson in terms of the number of aircraft movements and total passengers. This review has been provided with the GTAA s forecasts of traffic growth and has noted that there is a risk, if the growth projections develop as forecast, that some of the recommendations made in this review, which rely on periods of lower traffic levels, will be time limited in their effectiveness. Canada s largest airports were commercialised or transferred to private operation under the Government of Canada s National Airport Policy starting in the 1990s. Today, most major commercial airports in Canada are operated by local airport authorities in most cases, non-share capital corporations with full responsibility for managing airport operations. Canada s airports are responsible for managing their facilities and runways in ways that ensure safe operations and support the ongoing demand for air services, including responding to the region s demands for aviation services. In many cases, airports have been assigned the responsibility for noise management, which includes responding to community concerns, noise monitoring, and developing Noise Abatement Procedures for their airport which have to be approved by TC viii. The GTAA was granted a 60-year Ground Lease ix by TC for the operation and management of Toronto Pearson in One requirement of the Ground Lease is to establish and maintain a noise management committee (Ground Lease section ). Other Ground Lease requirements include an Environment Management Plan (Ground Lease 37.16) and a Community Consultative Committee (Ground Lease section 9.04). The GTAA has established CENAC to provide a forum where the public can openly discuss and ask questions about environmental-related issues, including noise at Toronto Pearson. The committee meets at least four times per year and is open to members of the public. The committee is comprised of elected representatives and residents from the cities of Brampton, Mississauga, and Toronto, as well as the regions of Halton, York, and Durham. P47

48 Stakeholders 2.6 Airlines and other aircraft operators Airlines and other aircraft operators are responsible for conducting their operations in accordance with TC regulations and published Noise Abatement Procedures. Airline and air operator subject matter experts are actively involved in working groups and teams that support improvements to aviation safety and efficiency, through the responsible development of performance based navigation and airspace design. 2.7 Municipalities and other levels of Government The role of municipalities is to ensure compatible development occurs around the airport through the development and exercise of land-use planning controls. The Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing provides policy direction to municipal governments regarding planning and compatible land-use, including that in the vicinity of airports. Planning is delegated to local towns and cities that may or may not choose to follow the guidelines, based upon their own local priorities. 2.8 Community groups A sector of stakeholders that have an important perspective in context of aviation noise are community members that are impacted by the noise from aircraft using Toronto Pearson. Some individuals participate in campaign groups, organised as community groups that seek to understand the causes of the disturbance and to achieve changes that they consider are necessary. The role of these groups generally is to make sure that the voices of their members are heard by the institutions and politicians that can enact change. Within this study we have engaged with and heard from a number of community noise groups concerned with the noise associated with Toronto Pearson. This also includes rate payer associations and homeowner associations, all of whom are engaged, interested and concerned with aviation noise within their own communities and the wider Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These groups include: Alderwood Airplane Noise Group Better Flight Paths Group Don Mills Residents Inc. Leaside Property Owners Association Inc. Markland Wood Homeowners Association North Leasiders Association Residents Air Noise Group Toronto Aviation Noise Group 2 P48

49 BaCKGROUND Air transport and aircraft noise in a global context The regulatory provisions of ICAO are the guiding principles and standards for all international civil aviation. There are just over 1400 x commercial airlines operating worldwide flying more than 26,000 xi commercial aircraft, large and small, that move 3.5 xi billion passengers annually through airspace. This is managed by 173 xi ANSP s between 3,883 xi airports with scheduled commercial flights. While aviation delivers positive global social and economic benefits, aviation noise has an impact on local communities which negatively influences public perceptions of the air transport industry. In 2015 Canada was ranked 12th xi in the world in terms of air passenger numbers. Any changes proposed for the Canadian air transport system at a national level are required to respect and reflect the policies and guidance developed and agreed by States (including Canada) at a global level to ensure consistent, safe and harmonised implementation. Air transport and airports are national economic infrastructure assets which provide economic and societal benefits globally. Not only do they provide jobs locally, but the connections created between cities and markets generate benefits through enabling foreign direct investment, business clusters, specialisation and other spill-over impacts on an economy s productive capacity xii. Balancing the economic and societal benefits of these assets, with the negative effects of aircraft noise disturbance requires careful consideration, compromise and collaborative planning. P49

50 BaCKGROUND Figure 1. ICAO Balanced Approach ICAO Balanced Approach Canada is one of the 191 nations that are members of ICAO. For the management of aircraft noise, ICAO encourages a Balanced Approach xiii. The elements that form the principles and structure of the Balanced Approach are expanded below and shown in Figure 1: Reducing noise at source - regulated through ICAO, a means of progressive tightening of aircraft noise certification standards xiv. The previous ICAO Annex 16 xv, Chapter 4 standard for new aircraft took effect in 2006, and the current Chapter 14 standard applies to new aircraft from 2017 (see Section 10.2). Land-use planning and management - to ensure that inappropriate new development is discouraged or prohibited around airports. Noise abatement operational procedures - steps taken by airport operators, pilots and air traffic controllers to minimise the noise nuisance from overflights, for example, the use (where feasible) of Low Power-Low Drag (LPLD) (see Section ) operations. Operating restrictions - measures that limit the access of aircraft to airports, such as night restrictions or the phased withdrawal of noisier aircraft types. The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that environmental noise can have health effects on those exposed xvi. The main sources of environmental noise are road, rail, aviation, industry, construction, public work, recreation and the general neighbourhood around us. A further report by the WHO Europe xvii, looked more specifically at the health effects of night noise and provides guidance to States for the development of future legislation and policy action in the area of assessment, and control of night noise exposure. 3 P50

51 BaCKGROUND 3 Table 1 defines ICAO s four principles and designates responsibility of each one to the organisation(s) responsible for managing each element of the Balanced Approach. As illustrated, Noise Abatement Operational Procedures is the only element of the Balanced Approach which falls within the remit of NAV CANADA. Table 1. ICAO s Balanced Approach: Responsible parties ICAO Balanced Approach Action Responsible Party Reduction of noise at source Engine & airframe noise Land use planning & management Definition of compatible land-use zones and ongoing management to protect gains made as aircraft become quieter and previously significantly impacted areas reduce. Noise abatement operational procedures The management of airspace design, aircraft operations and runway utilisation to mitigate noise pollution. Operating restrictions Legal and voluntary restrictions on aviation operations. - Manufacturers - Airlines - Federal & municipal Governments - ANSP (NAV CANADA) - Airlines - Airport operators - TC - Local and national authorities - Airport operators 3.2 Airspace management in a Canadian context The routes and altitudes flown can have a direct impact on the levels of aircraft noise experienced by those on the ground, as does airspace structure, route design and the proximity of other airports. ICAO has defined and adopted a globally harmonised airspace upgrade programme as part of the wider Global Air Navigation Plan xviii. The Global Air Navigation Plan is advanced through ICAO s Aviation System Block Upgrades xix concept with the goal of implementing performance improvements at both the regional and national level. P51 NAV CANADA has developed a plan for the future: Charting the future The Air navigation system plan xx. The activities within NAV CANADA s plan are mapped to the objectives and timescales of the ICAO Aviation System Block Upgrades. Additionally, Canada has a Performance Based Navigation (PBN) State Plan Canada xxi published by TC that requires NAV CANADA to modernise its airspace. NAV CANADA has published a PBN Operational Plan which outlines its approach and implementation goals.

52 BaCKGROUND Airspace change The accountability for the design of Canadian civil airspace and flight procedures is assigned to NAV CANADA under the Civil Air Navigation Services (ANS) Commercialization Act xxii. The design and adaptation of airspace is governed by the CARs, in particular Part VIII Air Navigation Services vi. However, airlines, airports and NAV CANADA all have a role to play when airspace changes are contemplated and / or implemented. In June 2015, as a consequence of how the 2012 airspace change had been conducted and to signal an industry-wide commitment to open and transparent engagement with stakeholders and communities, NAV CANADA and the Canadian Airports Council signed and published Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol xxiii. The purpose of the protocol is to set out the approach to engagement, the value placed on that engagement, and the methods of consultation to be used. The protocol applies to changes in arrival and departure instrument procedures at airports with more than 60,000 annual Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) movements. The principles describing when the protocol should be applied, are covered in Section 4.1 of the protocol document. The review team understand that, since inception, the protocol has been applied by NAV CANADA in relation to multiple airspace changes and that NAV CANADA have even applied it at airports that do not have sufficient movements to fall within the scope of the protocol e.g. St. John s, Newfoundland and Labrador. It has not however, been applied in the GTA since the 2012 airspace change as there have been no additional airspace modifications since this time. This review does not constitute consultation or communication as defined within the protocol, hence several recommendations made within this review will be subject to further consultation as defined in the protocol if, and when, NAV CANADA elect to progress the recommendations. 3 P52

53 BaCKGROUND Greater Toronto Area airspace GTA airspace is complex and often busy due not only to traffic using Toronto Pearson, the busiest airport in Canada, but also due to the proximity and use of several other airports serving a wide range of airspace users. The proximity of the US border further complicates airspace management in the area. Figure 2 illustrates the proximity of GTA airports. Figure 2. GTA airports P53

54 Terms of reference for the review The review team developed a draft terms of reference for the review that was presented to and discussed with community members and organisational stakeholders in September Following a feedback period, the final terms of reference were published in November 2016 and are included below: The purpose of the review is to consider whether all reasonable actions to reduce aircraft noise disturbance are being taken with respect to the design and operation of the Toronto area airspace. The scope of the review will be arrival and departure operations below 8,000 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) related to Toronto Pearson airport. The review will specifically take account of: Best practice from comparable airports that could be applied to reduce the noise impact of aircraft operations. Other operational opportunities to reduce noise either through ATM practices, flight path design or aircraft operating practices, including measures to enhance the achievement of Continuous Descent Operations (CDOs). The six existing Noise Mitigation Initiatives being pursued by the GTAA and NAV CANADA. The review will develop conclusions and, where necessary, will recommend actions to be undertaken by NAV CANADA. Any recommendations developed will be consistent with national policies and global aviation provisions, such that; safety will not be compromised; and the current and foreseeable (up to 10 years) airport capacity is not reduced. The review team will meet with the local communities, Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC), NAV CANADA, GTAA, Transport Canada (TC), airlines and other concerned stakeholders in the conduct of the review. 4 P54

55 Methodology When NAV CANADA announced that a review was to be undertaken, one of the fundamental aspects was that the third party conducting the review had to be independent of NAV CANADA, the GTAA or other aviation stakeholders. To achieve this, NAV CANADA appointed Helios; a UK based aviation consultancy with experience in aviation noise, ATM and consultation. The review has been conducted and this report has been prepared by Helios, in partnership with Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake. As a review team, there has been full autonomy in developing the structure and approach for the review; NAV CANADA has provided the funding to conduct the review and made its personnel available for interview by the review team. The review approach contained four tasks: Task 1 Set the terms of reference Task 2 Understand the issues Task 3 Investigate mitigations Task 4 Develop a report containing conclusions and recommendations Public and stakeholder consultation meetings were included within tasks 1 to 3 and a final presentation of the recommendations within task 4. In addition to this, the review team developed a website which was used to distribute information, provide project updates, and advertise public engagement events. A private address was also created to encourage direct engagement between GTA residents and the review team. Following an increase in interest in the review, generated by the change of traffic distribution during maintenance works on runway 05 / 23 at Toronto Pearson in April and May of 2017, NAV CANADA asked Helios to reopen community engagement until the end of May Community engagement through the private address had previously closed at the end of March. The impact of this change was to delay the final presentation of the review s recommendations until September As part of Tasks 1 to 3, the review team conducted ten open public meetings. A list of the open public meetings can be found in Annex B. 5 P55

56 Guiding principles 6 The purpose of this review was to identify if all reasonable actions to address and mitigate noise were being taken. The review has identified and considered a number of additional noise mitigation actions. To assist in reviewing the mitigations it is beneficial to establish a set of guiding principles. A couple of these principles were clearly stated in the terms of reference for this review, whilst the others have developed during the progression of the review. It is important to note that balancing the economic and societal benefits of air transport, with the negative effects of aircraft noise disturbance requires careful consideration, compromise and collaboration. 6.1 Operational safety The primary function of ATC is to prevent collisions and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic. NAV CANADA is one of the world s leading ATM service providers with an excellent safety record. Safety is the number one priority for NAV CANADA; society depends on the sustained safety of air travel in Canadian airspace and globally. ATC in Canada and elsewhere, still relies heavily on the cognitive ability of individuals despite the significant developments in technology and systems. The advancement of technology within ATM, aircraft operation and management, and navigation systems, is likely to increase the automation of ATM, reducing the need for controller interventions. The evolution and introduction of these new systems and services requires international coordination and planning to assure its consistent and safe adoption by aircraft operators around the world. The number of aircraft that an air traffic controller is able to safely and expeditiously manage in their allocated block of airspace, is a function of the procedures and support tools available for use by the controller, and the complexity of the airspace and traffic mix. This includes departures, arrivals, overflights, mixed speeds and, whether aircraft are in level flight or changing altitude. A consistent, predictable and standard operation presents fewer operating risks and presents a lower risk of compromised safety. As additional flight routes, operating modes and operating restrictions are introduced, the level of complexity can increase and repetition and predictability can reduce, thus the relative work load for the air traffic controller can increase as a result. The preparation of safety cases for each of the noise mitigations identified by this review is beyond the scope of the terms of reference. Nevertheless, such safety assurance processes may be required before some of the recommendations of this report can be implemented. Guiding principle: Not to compromise operational safety. P56

57 Guiding principles Capacity There are two primary elements to the capacity of an airport operation: the capacity of the airport ground infrastructure, including runways, parking gates, terminals to handle the aircraft, passengers, baggage, and freight; and the ability of the airspace to consistently and safely process the demand from arriving and departing aircraft at the necessary rate. This review is focused on the capacity of the airspace and the capacity of the runways to handle the arrival and departure demand; it is not assessing the ability of the remaining airport infrastructure to efficiently process the traffic. To manage demand, the GTAA currently sets an airline flight schedule planning limit of 90 movements per hour 2 and a limit of 25 movements in each quarter hour. These voluntary limits restrict the number of flights planned for any hour. The value of 90 is partially dictated by the fact that it is best practice for an airport to balance the demand against the capacity of its most constrained facility. One of the constraints the GTAA considers is the prospect of limited runway capacity arising from required use of the north / south runway directions (runways 15R / 15L and 33R / 33L see Figure 6 and Annex I.2), which have a lower capacity than the three east / west runways. On any individual day, the normal fluctuation in arrival and departure flight demand can routinely create short-term traffic demand peaks of up to 120 movements per hour. To support such movement rates without introducing delay to flights, NAV CANADA has to ensure that use of the available arrival and departure runway slots are optimised. Guiding principle: Not to reduce the capacity of the airport or the airspace. 2 Clock hour is from 00 minutes to 59 minutes. In practice, the number of flights schedule between 15 minutes past the hour and 14 minutes past the following hour may exceed 90 even though the total in each respective clock hour is less than or equal to 90. P57

58 Guiding principles Noise at source The best way to mitigate noise disturbance is to reduce the amount of noise produced. The ICAO Balanced Approach to the management of aircraft noise, and the review team responsible for this study, consider such mitigation techniques as a fundamental component of a successful strategy. The stakeholders most able to influence the production of noise at source are the aircraft manufacturers and airlines through the aircraft design criteria, and the noise performance certification standards set down by ICAO. Guiding principle: To prioritise over all others, mitigations that reduce noise at its source. 6.4 Noise reaching the ground In addition to reducing the noise at source, the impact of noise can be reduced by reducing the amount of noise that reaches the ground. An effective way to reduce the amount of aircraft noise that reaches the ground is to increase the altitude of the aircraft. Furthermore, operating techniques also play a role in reducing the noise reaching the ground. NAV CANADA has a role in reducing noise through enabling arriving and departing aircraft to operate in ways that minimise noise. The quietest operations are those that typically require the least amount of engine power, and through the minimisation of drag from aircraft flaps and the under-carriage. Guiding principle: If noise can t be reduced at source then prioritise noise abatement that will reduce the amount of noise reaching the ground and impacting communities. 6.5 Relief and respite Relief and respite are similar in that they both offer potentially important, practical and effective options for mitigating the continuum of aviation noise disturbance. Firstly, as there are no specific agreed guidelines or definitions, it is necessary to explain the meaning of these terms from the perspective of this review. Working definitions used within this report are: P58

59 Guiding principles 6 Relief is a temporary break or reduction in aviation noise. Respite is relief that is pre-planned and has been communicated in advance to affected communities. There is always a caveat with respite in that weather and / or operational perturbations can cause the tactical need to deviate from the published schedule. Respite and relief do not reduce the actual noise produced nor how much of it reaches the ground, hence mitigations that deliver respite and / or relief are of lower significance than mitigations which reduce the noise at source and the noise that reaches the ground. Guiding principle: To identify opportunities for noise relief and respite. 6.6 Moving noise Moving the distribution of noise from one community to another community tends to cause an increase in community members who believe that the change is unfair, even if the change is for a temporary period. If there is a reason to change the distribution of the noise disturbance to provide; short-term periods of respite for those who experience a greater proportion of the noise; increase safety; comply with new air navigation regulations; or undertake airport or navigational equipment maintenance; then it is possible to explain and justify the change. However, if moving the noise from community A to community B on a long-term or permanent basis is just to appease community A, then overall there is no solution or no noise mitigation. All change creates winners and losers, such is the intractable nature of noise management. Guiding principal: To avoid moving noise between communities on a long-term basis purely to appease one or more communities. P59

60 Guiding principles Stakeholder consultation Some of the mitigations that this review has considered involve making a judgement on what is a fair and equitable noise mitigation. There is no definition of what is fair and equitable, experience shows that reaching consensus on fairness is extremely difficult to achieve when discussing aviation noise. Views expressed, especially by communities, are inevitably subjective and localised. For instance, is it fair and equitable to: Minimise the total number of people affected? Maximise the opportunities to provide relief? Minimise the number of newly affected? Disperse flights such that everyone experiences a fair share of the total noise disturbance? The maintenance works to runway 05 / 23 at Toronto Pearson in April and May 2017 and the consequent temporary re-distribution of flights, has highlighted that different communities have different opinions in relation to what is fair and equitable and whether relief through noise sharing is tolerable. The GTAA are currently exploring, through various community engagement activities including their Residents Reference Panel, what the general views of GTA residents are in relation to future airport growth and how to manage the impact of aviation responsibly. The review team understand that these activities are to support the GTAA in identifying principles to consider when making decisions about fair and equitable noise mitigation. Where there is a subjective balance, such as what is fair and equitable in the benefit and impact of a potential mitigation, this review is not in a position to make the judgement as to what the decision should be. Our view is that where there is a socio-political decision to be made, there needs to be involvement of communities, elected officials and aviation stakeholder organisations. Guidance should also be sought from government policy where and if applicable. Additionally, if new communities are to be affected then this decision has to be made following appropriate consultation, in line with the Airspace Change Communication and Consultation Protocol xxiii, and is not a judgement the review team can, should or will make. Guiding principle: Not to make a judgement on a mitigation where there is a significant socio-political decision to be taken. P60

61 Guiding principles Looking to the future Some of the mitigations that this review has considered focus on future developments in the ATM industry, and look towards reduction of noise rather than swapping existing procedures with alternatives which may move the noise over new communities or share the noise amongst communities. Where permanent noise reduction can be achieved in the longer term through developments in ATM technology, rather than partial mitigation in the short-term, it is the opinion of the review team that moving forwards is a better option than moving back. Guiding principle: To look forward for better solutions rather than backwards at temporary or partial mitigations. 6.9 The Canadian border It is important to note that the remit of Canadian authorities extends to the Canadian Border. Because the US Border and hence US jurisdiction, lies only a few kilometres from the southern shore of Toronto, some of the mitigations that this review has considered are restricted somewhat by the related limit of Canadian jurisdiction; NAV CANADA s remit stops at the Canadian-US border. Mitigations which utilise airspace over Lake Ontario must take this aspect into consideration. Guiding principal: To be cognisant of the boundaries of Canadian airspace and not to assume any right to impact airspace outside of Canada. P61

62 Strategic objectives In undertaking this review the team has identified a number of strategic objectives that they feel NAV CANADA should adopt and strive to achieve. The mitigations we examine in Section 10 and the conclusions and recommendations we make within that section support the achievement of these objectives. Some objectives will be dependent on multiple recommendations being implemented whilst others will take time whilst the technology and associated operating protocols are developed. Get / keep aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible One way to minimise the ground level effect of over flights is to keep the aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible. The achievement of this will require initiatives such as; removal of the 3,000ft hard anchor altitude on the South downwind; promoting continuous climb and continuous descent operations; greater collaboration in descent management between pilots and air traffic controllers, supported by the provision of more precise information to aircrew to enable them to optimise their descent. Manage the arrival flow, sequence and separation of flights through Time Based Operations Currently air traffic controllers rely on tactical vectoring (see Annex I.6), holding stacks (see Annex I.10), tromboning (see Section 9.3.1) or point merge (see Section ) as means to sequence aircraft and effectively manage separation on final approach. When air traffic controllers and pilots are able to manage the arrival time of aircraft close to the destination airport to within a few seconds, then all flights could land without any need for use of airborne holding or other sequencing methods, i.e. this would facilitate the elimination of downwinds, whilst reducing noise and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Maximise the use of Low Power Low Drag Continuous Descent Operations A LPLD CDO is normally the quietest approach an aircraft can make and therefore maximising the number of flights that achieve it is a key objective in minimising noise. In addition, it is the most fuel efficient approach. Set clear guidance as to when noise should be prioritised over GHG emissions below 8,000ft Currently, NAV CANADA has a corporate mission to reduce the environmental footprint of the aviation industry, encompassing both noise and GHG emissions. There are circumstances where the reduction of noise and GHG emissions go hand in hand, equally there are occasions where they don t and thus a balance should be found. This could be achieved by adopting the following objectives: 7 P62

63 To minimise the noise impact on densely populated communities from flights below 4,000ft AGL. In the airspace from 4,000ft (AGL) to 8,000ft (AGL), the priority should be on minimising noise if the route is over densely populated communities, but NAV CANADA may also balance the need for an efficient flow of aircraft that minimises emissions. In airspace above 8,000ft (AGL), NAV CANADA should minimise aircraft emissions. 8 Six noise mitigation initiatives In 2015 the GTAA and NAV CANADA, with the input of selected community representatives, identified a number of initiatives that could help mitigate the impact of aviation noise. The GTAA and NAV CANADA selected six of these initiatives i for investigation and possible implementation. In the terms of reference (see Section 4) for this review it is noted that we would take account of the existing six noise mitigation initiatives being pursued by the GTAA and NAV CANADA. This section provides an overview and update on these six initiatives. Table 2. Summary of existing six noise mitigation initiatives Initiative Overview 1. New approaches for nighttime operations During busy daytime periods, the safe management of air traffic necessitates certain restrictions. However, when traffic volumes are lighter at night and single runway operations are being used, there are options to improve flight paths and descent profiles that could reduce the impact of noise. Lead organisation: NAV CANADA Status: Noise modelling of options is complete and public consultation is expected to commence in fall / winter 2017/ New departure procedures for night-time operations There are opportunities to alter night-time departure procedures during lower traffic volume periods when only one runway is in use for departures. Increasing the altitude achieved before aircraft turns are permitted may deliver noise benefits for those under the departure flight path. Lead organisation: NAV CANADA Status: Noise modelling is complete and public consultation is expected to commence in fall / winter 2017/18. P63

64 Six noise mitigation initiatives Initiative Overview 8 3. Increase downwind arrival speeds Changing the published speeds on the downwind portion of the arrival flight path from 200 knots to 210 knots may reduce noise in some areas of the city by increasing the number of aircraft that can remain in a clean configuration (see Annex I.21). At 200 knots, aircraft flaps must be engaged to increase lift, however increased thrust is also required to counter the increased drag from the flaps. At 210 knots, aircraft altitude can be maintained with less flaps, on some aircraft types, and thus less additional thrust is required. Lead organisation: NAV CANADA Status: Implemented on 27th April Use new technology to reduce the need for low altitude levelling by arriving aircraft Aircraft arriving at parallel runways at Toronto Pearson, require a level portion of flight in the descent of each aircraft to ensure safe separation (see Section ). There are noise impacts associated with power increases necessary to achieve low altitude level flight. Air traffic control investment in new technologies such as Required Navigational Performance (RNP), could reduce the need for these level portions within flight profiles, and permit quieter, continuous descent operations. Lead organisation: NAV CANADA Status: NAV CANADA is studying the potential use of new technologies, and is working to create new separation standards to reduce the need for low altitude level segments. On the 3rd August 2017 ICAO published a letter to its 191 member States inviting comments on proposals for the amendment of Procedures for Air Navigation Services, ATM (PANS-ATM) xxiv and Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), Volumes I and II xxv relating to lateral separation and parallel operations. If the above ICAO proposal is adopted, which is probable but not certain, then in due course NAV CANADA will be able to incorporate a new ATM procedure, termed Established on Required Navigational Performance Authorisation Required (RNP AR) (see Annex I.13.2). This new separation standard will offer an alternative to the current high / low procedure utilised for simultaneous parallel arrivals (see Section 9.3.2). The review team consider this a major step forward and acknowledge that NAV CANADA has been, and is contributing to the development of this important change. P64

65 Six noise mitigation initiatives Initiative Overview 8 5. Weekend runway alternation Current traffic volumes on Saturdays and Sunday mornings tend to be lower than other days of the week. This could facilitate runway alternation on weekends. Alternating runways could provide periods of weekend respite from noise for impacted communities. This is only being considered currently for the period May to October inclusive, as extreme weather conditions during the winter are considered unpredictable and would impact the availability of runways. Lead organisation: GTAA Status: Following a competitive tendering exercise Helios were contracted in January 2017 by the GTAA to undertake modelling of runway selection criteria and aviation noise as part of the evaluation of this initiative. The GTAA are planning a public consultation, commencing later in fall / winter 2017/ Review of a preferential runway system Preferential runways exist to ensure that aircraft landing and departing overnight impact the fewest people. Since the original specification of the preferential runways over 20 years ago, the urban development of the GTA has been significant, hence this initiative is to consider if the current preferential runways are the most appropriate. Lead organisation: GTAA Status: GTAA have contracted Helios, in conjunction with initiative 5, to review the continued appropriateness of the existing night-time preferential runways to ensure they meet the stated objectives. The GTAA are planning a public consultation, commencing later in fall / winter 2017/18. The review team believes that it is unfortunate that GTAA and NAV CANADA did not progress the investigation of these six noise mitigation initiatives with a greater priority than appears to have been the case; the delay has added to the communities frustrations and lack of faith in the aviation industry s willingness to do the right thing at the right time. Significant development on several initiatives has been observed since the commencement of this review, with consultation on initiatives 1,2,5, and 6 anticipated to commence in fall / winter 2017/18. P65

66 Airport and airspace operation 9.1 Toronto Pearson International Airport Operating times 9 Table 3. Toronto Pearson: Night-flight budget Period Nov Oct 2015 Nov Oct 2016 Nov Oct 2017 night-flight budget actual nighttime movements 15,871 14,778 16,923 14,889 18,204 - Toronto Pearson is open to flights 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Each day is split into two defined periods: Day Period 06:30 to 00:29 local time Night Restricted Period 00:30 to 06:29 local time 3 The GTAA has an annual limit on the number of movements that can operate within the night restricted period. The annual movement limit and actual night movement totals is shown in Table 3 for the last two years. There is an agreement between the GTAA and TC that allows the annual night movement limit to increase based on the annual passenger growth in the preceding year. For example, 2016 saw an 8% increase in passenger numbers, hence the restricted number of night flights in 2017 increased by 8%, whilst total movements in 2016 increased by only 2.8%. As far as the review team is aware, Toronto Pearson is the only airport that uses this mechanism for determining the annual night flight quota, but Toronto Pearson is not the only airport that is able to grow their night flight quota. Toronto Pearson places noise related restrictions on different aircraft types, as summarised in Table 4. Additionally, aircraft that meet ICAO Annex 16 XV Chapter 3 noise requirements or quieter aircraft operating at night on a scheduled or repetitive basis must obtain an exemption or extension. Exemptions are for aircraft scheduled to operate at night, whilst extensions are for aircraft scheduled within normal airport hours ( local), which are then delayed on the day of operation due to weather, mechanical, security or ATC delays, thus leading to night time operation. Table 4. Noise related operating restrictions at Toronto Pearson Aircraft (noise certification type) restricted hours (local time) - arrivals and departures type of restriction 3 Night preference runways are applicable between 00:00 and 06:29, whilst the night movement restriction period is from 00:30 to 06:29. P66 No Chapter number assigned Chapter 2 aircraft Chapter 3 aircraft All other Chapters Not allowed to operate Exemption or extension required to operate

67 Airport and airspace operation NAV CANADA provides the ANS at Toronto Pearson. NAV CANADA is obliged to provide ATC services in accordance with airport operating hours and traffic demands Traffic patterns Traffic at an airport is typically measured in terms of passenger throughput, number of aircraft movements, and tonnage of cargo; it is the number of aircraft movements that is important in relation to noise. Figure 3 illustrates the annual aircraft and passenger movements at Toronto Pearson from 2006 to 2016; the fall in traffic in 2009 would have been primarily due to the world economic crisis that started in Between 2008 and 2016 total movements have grown by 6%, whilst between 2014 and 2016 there has been a 5% growth in total movements. Note that passenger growth in the last few years has been over 6% whilst movement growth has been less than 2% on average. 9 Movements (Thousands) % 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% Passengers (Millions) % 6% 3% 0% -3% -6% 400-6% 24-9% Movements Annual % change Movements Annual % change Figure 3. Annual movement and passenger growth 2006 to 2016 The GTAA are forecasting continued annual growth in movements, although recent forecasts have not yet been published. For 2035 the GTAA has forecast million passengers per annum, which is nearly twice 2016 passenger throughput. Movements will not double by 2035 as passenger growth is invariably faster than movement growth; airlines manage to gradually increase the percentage of seats filled per flight, and replace smaller aircraft with larger aircraft. This review has noted that movement growth is forecast to be less than half that of passenger growth. P67

68 Airport and airspace operation While the annual total number of movements is an important metric necessary to quantify the extent of the potential noise disturbance, it is the hour by hour variation in traffic density and distribution patterns that have variable impacts on specific communities. It is only through a full understanding of these elements that viable and effective relief and respite measures can be identified. Figure 4 and Figure 5 provide the hourly and 15 minute period pattern of traffic across an average July day in Figure 4 illustrates a drop off in hourly movements between 08:00 and 14:00 with the bottom of the trough being at 11:00. Of note in Figure 5 is the spike in traffic in the period 06:30 to 06:45 when there are 27 movements, split 16 arrivals and 11 departures; in the whole hour between 06:00 and 07:00 there are only 53 movements. This spike presents an operational challenge to NAV CANADA each morning, and limits the option to alternate runways in this period to provide respite across communities (see Section ). If the traffic is analysed in shorter time slices, such as 5 or 10 minutes, then further demand volatility is apparent Movements per clock hour Movements per 15 minutes :00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02:30 03:00 03:30 04:00 04:30 05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30 Time of Day (Local) Arrivals Departures Figure 4. Average Toronto Pearson aircraft movements per clock hour for an average July day in 2016 Time of Day (Local) Arrivals Departures Figure 5. Average Toronto Pearson aircraft movements per 15 minute period for an average July day in 2016 P68

69 Airport and airspace operation Runways Toronto Pearson has five runways; the layout and orientation is displayed in Figure 6. An explanation of how runways are referenced / numbered is included in Annex I.2. 9 P69 Figure 6. Toronto Pearson runway layout and orientation

70 Airport and airspace operation L 06R 06L 06R Single 15R 33L 15R 33L Dual 15L 15L 33R 33R R 24L 24R 24L Figure 7. Examples of typical runway operating modes Land 1, Depart 1 06L 06R 06L 06R 15R 33L 15R 33L 15L Triple 15L 33R 33R R 24L 24R 24L Runway operating modes With five runways potentially available for use at Toronto Pearson, there are many different configurations of operating modes that can be envisioned. The throughput metric achieved for each runway is reported as the total number of departures and arrivals per hour, and can be influenced by different factors including; the mix of arrival and departure flights; the combination of flight routings; the aircraft type mix; meteorological conditions; and the demand for runway capacity. The routine modes of runway operation used by NAV CANADA at Toronto are explained below and an example of each is illustrated in Figure 7. The movement rates for all runway modes under different metrological conditions is provided in Annex D. Single mode One runway is used as a mixed-mode runway, supporting a mix of aircraft arrivals and aircraft departures (see Annex I.14). Land 1 / Depart 1 Two runways are used simultaneously, one for arrivals and one for departures. Dual mode In this case two parallel runways are used simultaneously and independently, with both runways being operated in mixed-mode configuration (see Annex I.14). The runway pairs used for dual mode are normally 05 and 06L or 06R, or 23 and 24L or 24R. Because the two parallel runways are used simultaneously and independently, to ensure provision of safe separation minima with the currently applied ATC procedures and controller tools, it is usually necessary to operate the high / low procedure for arrivals, and to utilise diverging tracks for departures (see Section 9.3.2). Dual mode operations are not possible on 15/33s as the lateral separation between the runways is less than the required 1035m. Triple mode As the name suggests, three runways are used in this configuration. The first runway is operated as a mixed-mode runway, this is always runway 05 / 23 at Toronto Pearson. The second runway is used only for arrival flights, typically runway 06R / 24L. With the third runway being used only for departure flights, typically runway 06L / 24R. Due to the proximity of runways 06L / 24R and 06R / 24L, (approximately 300m apart) these runways are classified as dependant runways meaning the operation of one can directly influence and restrict the safe operation of the other. The most efficient method of managing this dependency is to use one of the pair for arrivals and the other for departures. This configuration optimises the available runway capacity and simplifies the management of the operation. Hence, when the triple mode is in operation, the mixed-mode runway must be runway 05 / 23, if 06R / 24L and 06L / 24R are to be operated independently. As there are two parallel, simultaneous and independent arrival and departure streams, it is currently necessary to operate high / low formation for arrivals, and diverging tracks for departure (see Section 9.3.2). 9 P70

71 Airport and airspace operation NAV CANADA typically operate the triple runway mode during peak traffic periods which are currently: the first hour of the day Monday to Friday, following the restricted night period (i.e. 06:30-07:30); from early to mid-afternoon until mid to late evening Monday to Friday; and mid-afternoon until mid to late evening on a Sunday. The other operating modes are used tactically subject to the demand, weather and availability of runways. 9.2 Aircraft types Toronto Pearson has a wide variety of aircraft types within its fleet mix, ranging from some of the smaller short-haul turbo-prop commuter aircraft and jets with as few as 18 seats, to the largest long-haul passenger aircraft, the Airbus A380 with over 500 seats. In % of all movements were wide-body aircraft and nearly 17.5% of aircraft movements were turbo-props. However, the general trend at Toronto Pearson is towards, larger aircraft. The GTAA are forecasting a growth in the proportion of wide-body aircraft to circa 20% by The mix of small and large aircraft types increases the complexity of ATC operations and reduces operational flexibility for controllers and the airport. Varied operating speeds and wake vortex characteristics require that separation distances between aircraft vary significantly within the traffic pattern (see Annex I.11 and I.12). The provision and assurance of minimum separation distances between these different aircraft types can imply greater controller (and pilot) workload and reduced system capacity. The mix of aircraft types will vary and change each year, as airlines adapt and upgrade the size and route allocations of their fleets. The ability to influence airline selection of aircraft types is very limited. Some airports use differential charging mechanisms to encourage the use of quieter aircraft, or to dis-incentivise use of smaller aircraft. For example, the Airbus A320 family aircraft are known to produce a high-pitched whine, generated by the Fuel Over Pressure Protector (FOPP) cavities under the wings (also see Section ). A modification is available that eliminates the whine characteristic. London s Gatwick airport has implemented a charging scheme for unmodified Airbus A320 family aircraft, that will be applied from 1st January 2018 xxvi. 9 P71

72 Airport and airspace operation 9.3 Airspace operation Tromboning In Figure 8, the Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) (shown in blue) do not connect all the way to the ends of the arrival runways 05, 06L or 06R; the reason for this is that the aircraft entering the Toronto Terminal Control Area (TCA) are not necessarily in the optimal sequence (see Annex I.9) for landing, or correctly spaced. Air traffic controllers currently have the responsibility for tactically sequencing arriving aircraft, using altitude, heading and speed instructions to establish a safe and efficient arrival sequence. 9 Figure 8. Typical arrival flight patterns to runways 05, 06L or 06R P72

73 Airport and airspace operation This sequence is achieved today by use of radar surveillance of the aircraft position and trajectory, as well as radio communication with the pilots. Those aircraft approaching from the west in Figure 8 are sometimes given priority in the arrival sequence, to avoid the use of complex delay methods. Aircraft that are approaching from the north, east or south utilise either of the downwind legs (see Annex I.4) north or south of the airport. The approach of these flights can be extended along the downwind leg during busy periods, delaying the point at which the pilot is instructed to make the turn to head back towards the airport and land. Aircraft are tactically turned from either of the North or South downwind legs as illustrated in Figure 8. The straight segment of the downwind combined with the 90 base leg and then the 90 turn to the final approach track towards the runway, creates a flight path similar in shape to that of a trombone slide. Hence, using the variability in the length of the downwind to extend or shorten the flight path to ensure optimised spacing, is often referred to as tromboning Independent simultaneous parallel operations Independent simultaneous parallel operations involve two aircraft which approach or depart from parallel runways at the same time. Parallel arrivals and departures are managed so that the required separation from neighbouring aircraft is preserved. The standard separation between arriving aircraft is either 1,000ft vertically or 3NM horizontally (i.e. 3NM radar separation). This is an international standard set by ICAO xxvii. Figure 9 illustrate a 3NM radar separation between two aircraft which are at the same altitude (aircraft A and B). This staggered separation spans from the rear of the leading aircraft to the front of the trailing aircraft, and must be maintained until both aircraft are established on the final approach track. At most airports, an Instrument Landing System (ILS) is used to help navigate aircraft on the final approach track safely to the runway touchdown point (see Annex I.15). Figure 9 also illustrates a 1,000ft vertical separation between two aircraft approaching parallel runways but with less than 3NM radar separation (aircraft C and D). Vertical separation must be maintained until the aircraft at the lower altitude is established on the final approach track. Once established, the aircraft at the higher altitude can begin its descent. Note that vertical separation must always be employed if a 3NM radar separation cannot be achieved, prior to both flights being established on their respective final approach track. P73

74 Airport and airspace operation Overhead view Runway Runway A 3NM radar separation until established on the ILS B Extended centreline C D ILS beam ILS beam 9 Equivalent side view ILS glide path 5000ft 4000ft 3000ft A B C D 1000ft vertical separation until established on the ILS Runway Runway Runway 2500ft or more Runway centreline Departure tracks Figure 10. Independent simultaneous parallel departure divergence requirement 15 or more Figure 9. Independent simultaneous parallel approach separation requirements Separation of parallel departures are managed differently to arrivals. Departing aircraft diverge on take-off so that they move away from one another whilst gaining altitude. This is achieved by immediately turning away from the extended runway centreline by a defined track angle after take-off. ICAO states that departure tracks should diverge by at least 15 immediately after take-off if the spacing between the two runway centrelines is between 2,500-5,000 feet 4. NAV CANADA, following trials to confirm acceptable divergence, have implemented a 10 divergence on parallel departures. An exemption to the CARs was issued by TC to allow a 10 divergence. A suitable surveillance radar must be available to perform independent simultaneous parallel departures. Figure 10 illustrates the principle of independent simultaneous parallel departures. 4 ICAO have proposed that a 10 divergence is appropriate for PBN departures; the review team understand that this proposal is currently with the 191 ICAO member States for comment. P74

75 Airport and airspace operation G 6 A Low side established on localiser course at 3,000ft (aircraft 4) before high side can start to descend from 4,000ft (aircraft D) 1 Figure 11. Establishment of 3,000ft and 4,000ft altitudes during the high / low operation F 5 High side established at 4,000ft on North downwind 2 E 4 B D 3 Low side established at 3,000ft on South downwind C High side executes base leg at 4,000ft Low side executes base leg at 3,000ft High / low operation Approach controllers at Toronto Pearson and elsewhere, among their obligations, are required to ensure safe separation between aircraft (see Annex I.11 and I.12) and organise a safe and expeditious arrival sequence. At Toronto Pearson, NAV CANADA use a high / low procedure to achieve these objectives during simultaneous parallel arrival operations. When these parallel operations are in use, aircraft approach Toronto Pearson simultaneously from both the North and South downwinds. Aircraft fly past the airport before completing the 90 base leg turn and final approach turn, to fly back towards the airport and the final approach track, as depicted in Figure 8. As the two arrivals conduct their respective base leg turns, they converge towards each other reducing their lateral separation, requiring them to transition to vertical separation at some point before the lateral minima of 3NM is reached. NAV CANADA currently require aircraft on the low side to be at 3,000ft Above Sea Level (ASL) and aircraft on the high side at 4,000ft ASL or above before commencing the base leg, hence the minimum 1,000ft vertical separation is established prior to the convergence manoeuvres, see Figure 11. In Toronto, the standard 3 glide path is at 3,000ft ASL and 4,000ft ASL (2,400ft AGL and 3,400ft AGL) approximately 7.5NM and 10.7NM prior to touchdown, respectively. During high / low operations both aircraft must be established on the ILS at their respective heights prior to intercepting the glide path, as shown in Figure 12; this causes the downwinds to be extended further than would be the case for a single aircraft arrival. 9 3 o glide path Both aircraft are established on the ILS one at 4,000ft ASL and the other at 3,000ft, ALS, although neither has reached the 3 o glide path and commenced their final descents. ILS vertical guidance Altitude ASL 5000ft 4000ft 3000ft Runway 7.5NM 10.7NM 13.8NM P75 Figure 12. Establishment on ILS at set altitudes prior to glide path interception

76 Airport and airspace operation 3,000ft Joining point Time and distance available to the air traffic controller for sequencing if you have to engage the ILS at or above 4,000ft. 4,000ft Joining point 5,000ft Joining point Additional time and distance available to the air traffic controller for sequencing if you can join from 3,000ft ASL. Figure 13. Additional time and distance to sequence arrivals onto the final approach Why the high / low cannot be swapped At Toronto Pearson, the low side is allocated to aircraft using the South downwind to runways 06R or 24L during the Triple runway operating mode (see Section 9.1.4). When the Triple runway operation is in use one of the two southern runways is always the dedicated arrival runway, whilst the other is used for departures (see Figure 7). Conversely, the arrivals high side is allocated to aircraft approaching from the North downwind, to facilitate arrivals onto the mixed-mode runway 05 / 23. Accordingly, the operational requirement at Toronto is the achievement of a high / low vertical separation, before aircraft turn towards each other onto the base leg. Aircraft on the low segment shall be established at 3,000ft prior to the execution of convergence turn, while the high (northerly) aircraft shall be at 4,000ft or above prior to executing the opposing base turn. To maximise the arrival rate to a runway, it is also desirable to ensure that the aircraft on the final approach are spaced with the minimum safe longitudinal separation (one aircraft following another) and to eliminate where possible the occurrence of any empty slots (or gaps) in the arrival sequence for that runway. With the present procedures and controller support tools, the greater the time and / or distance an air traffic controller has to accurately sequence and space aircraft on to the final approach path, the lower the risk of losing arrival capacity and extending arrival flight times. Sophisticated tools and procedures (supporting Time Based Operations (TBO)) are available and in use at some busy airports elsewhere; these can provide the approach control with other means of optimising the approach sequence. 9 Swapping the high and low sides over, such that the low side is associated with the mixed mode runway, is currently constrained by the procedures and controller tools provided, and does not enable the optimisation of capacity on the dedicated arrivals runway. This is explained and illustrated in Annex J.1. P76

77 Airport and airspace operation 9.4 Aircraft operation Climb and descent profiles Departure climb profile 9 Altitude Climb thrust + 10 to 20 kts Accelerate to flaps up speed and retract flaps Accelerate to flaps up speed and retract flaps Take-off Thrust V to 20 kts Distance from airport NADP 2 NADP 1 Revert to normal climb speed and thrust Figure 14. Altitude profiles comparing NADP1 and NADP2 procedures 3,000ft AGL 800ft AGL ICAO recommends a maximum of two different Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) per airport. Toronto Pearson complies with this recommendation and adopts the two default NADPs suggested by ICAO: Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 1 (NADP1) reduces noise around and over the departure end of a runway; the main objective of this procedure is to gain height as a priority over forward acceleration. Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 2 (NADP2) reduces noise over the areas more distant from the runway end; this procedure prioritises increasing forward speed over height gain. Figure 14 provides a graphical representation of the climb profiles for NADP1 and 2. Figure 15, produced by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), illustrates the relatively small variations in the sound footprints for NADP1 and NADP2 for a single aircraft type. Lower take-off weight Thrust cutback As the differences are relatively small and are location specific to the built environment close to the airport, this review is not recommending a preference for either. Maximum take-off weight Thrust cutback NADP 2 Acceleration NADP 1 Acceleration Both procedures only apply to the initial climb up to 3,000ft AGL (3,600ft ASL). Once above 3,000ft AGL, a pilot ideally wants to continue uninterrupted climb until reaching the en-route altitude, as this is the most efficient operation and one of the quietest for a departing aircraft. Footprint levels drawn at 5dB intervals NADP 2: 1,000 ft thrust reduction, 1,000 ft acceleration NADP 1: 1,000 ft thrust reduction, 3,000 ft acceleration Figure 15. Illustrative NADP 1 vs 2 noise footprints xxviii Some of the departure routes from Toronto Pearson have to pass through an arrival flight path, which requires the arrival and departure aircraft to be separated vertically. If there is not sufficient distance and time for departing aircraft to climb over an arrival route, it is normal practice to limit the maximum altitude of the departure so it can safely pass underneath the arrivals. In Toronto, this ceiling altitude for departures is 7,000ft ASL, whilst the arrivals are not allowed below 8,000ft ASL until after the crossing point. Where possible, NAV CANADA controllers will allow departing aircraft to climb continuously, and at times when the arrival route is not in use, departures are cleared to continue to climb and pass unrestricted through the arrival corridor. P77

78 Airport and airspace operation Figure 16 illustrates a small sample of current departure climb profiles out of Toronto Pearson. Flight 5 (green) in Figure 16 illustrates the effect of the climb restriction, because the aircraft levelled off at 7,000ft ASL (6400ft AGL) and remained at this altitude until it had safely passed below the inbound traffic 1000ft above it. Flights 1, 4 and 6 (blue) show no levelling off, which indicates that the aircraft were able to achieve an unrestricted continuous climb. Note that the vertical scale on the graph in Figure 16 references AGL altitude. To convert this into ASL altitude in the Toronto area, it is necessary to add approximately 600ft to this figure (the approximate elevation of Toronto ASL). The horizontal axis indicates the time in seconds from departure. Some profiles end sooner than others; these shorter profiles indicate flights that left the area of analysis more quickly, either via a shorter route or at higher speed. 9 Figure 16. Sample of departure climb profiles P78

79 Airport and airspace operation Arrivals descent profile Figure 17 provides examples of current descent profiles into Toronto Pearson. The vertical axis displays the altitude of the aircraft as AGL (add approximately 600ft for ASL) and the horizontal axis displays time in seconds since the aircraft entered the area of analysis. It is clear from Figure 17 that CDOs are not currently flown by all flights; some descent profiles contain extended level segments. The review has received reports, and has verified that some Toronto Pearson arrivals operate with extended low altitude level segments. It is the opinion of the review team that operations which can create unnecessary noise disturbance can and should be avoided in normal operation, other than to the extent of what is currently required for high / low as explained in Section Figure 17. Sample of arrival descent profiles P79

80 Airport and airspace operation Visual approaches and departures It is possible and fairly straightforward, in defined and suitable weather conditions, to fly a plane solely by reference to outside visual cues for navigation. When operation of an aircraft under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) is not permitted, because the visual cues outside the aircraft are obscured by weather (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) or darkness, IFR must be used. These rules rely on defined standard procedures which are designed to allow all aircraft to safely operate. ATC can give pilots permission to operate with visual separation within controlled airspace if the weather meets specific criteria; this is standard international practice in some countries. In Toronto, especially in the summer, the excellent visibility, clear skies and stable weather allows visual procedures to be used for a significant proportion of the time. Visual procedures can apply equally to arrival and departure flights. When operating under visual procedures a pilot is responsible for the provision of separation of their aircraft from other traffic and obstacles. The pilot, when flying visually, does not necessarily have to follow defined instrument flight paths and can make their own decisions on when to turn to intercept the final approach track or when to start their take-off run after the proceeding departure. Visual Flight Procedures generally facilitate increased airspace capacity and runway movement rates as well as reducing the workload on the controller. 9.5 February 2012 airspace change In February 2012, NAV CANADA implemented a major airspace change that affected procedures at Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and the en-route airways in the Windsor - Toronto - Montreal airspace corridor. The objective of the overall change was to enhance the efficiency of operations through the optimisation of airspace design and technology whilst maintaining safety. The change was successful in delivering improvements to the safety, efficiency and environmental aspects of the airspace and aircraft operations. One element of the overall airspace change involved an update to the local arrival and departure flight procedures associated with Toronto Pearson. In particular the re-location of an arrival flight path to the south of Toronto Pearson, to be compliant with regulatory requirements and consistent with global provisions published by ICAO. In 2003, NAV CANADA was granted a derogation by TC which allowed them to maintain the STAR with a 4NM displacement of the downwind leg. The re-location of the South downwind in February 2012 to a 5NM displacement was to both achieve compliance with the design standards in force at the time, and a new design standard based on US FAA TERPS ii that NAV CANADA knew would shortly come into force within CARs vi. 9 P80

81 Airport and airspace operation In 2014 an update of the CARs removed the possibility of retaining the derogation and hence the possibility to return to a 4NM displacement. To be compliant with the Canadian regulatory standards, a minimum distance for an Area Navigation (RNAV) STAR (see Annex I.13.1 and I.7) is 4.8NM. Other related local Toronto airspace changes included: An increase in the number of entry points from 4 to 5 for Toronto Pearson arrivals into the Toronto TCA. A new arrival route from the east over Pickering (labelled in Figure 19 and Figure 20) to balance the arrival flows from a new en-route airway, which formed part of the wider airspace change. New SIDS (see Section for further details). The review has reviewed the design calculations for the procedure against both the CARs vi, and the PANS-OPS xxv and Required Navigation Performance Authorization Authorisation Required (RNP AR) Procedure Design Manual xxix. The review team agreed that one of the largest negative consequences from moving the South downwind by 1NM in February 2012 was the impact of aviation noise on new communities. The review team does not feel that sufficient efforts were made by NAV CANADA to engage and consult with communities about the lower altitude airspace changes included within the February 2012 change. However, the review team acknowledge that, the Canadian aviation industry s voluntary Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol xxiii published in June 2015, and since applied by NAV CANADA in multiple cities, has already led to material improvements. 9 P81

82 Airport and airspace operation Standard instrument departure routes Prior to February 2012, departures climbed to either 1,100ft ASL or 3,600ft ASL before turning, depending on the aircraft type and runway used, and were then directed to airway fixes located some distance away from the airport; in effect there were no SIDs. Today departures from Toronto Pearson still have the same requirement to fly to either 1,100ft or 3,600ft before turning, but are then directed to Standard Instrument Departure routes (SIDs) that commence relatively close to the airport. Figure 18 displays the post airspace change SIDs, whilst Section and Figure 22 show the change in airspace usage by departure flights pre- and post-february 2012.Note that the new SIDs post-february 2012 were implemented in two phases due to delays in securing the corresponding airspace changes in the US. The eastbound and northbound SIDs were implemented in February 2012, whilst the westbound and southbound SIDs were implemented the following year. 9 The departure routes for Toronto Pearson vary depending on the type of aircraft, the runway used and the aircraft s destination. Today, the initial departure procedure requires the aircraft to climb straight ahead to an altitude of 3,600ft ASL. For some small light jets 5, when departing from runways 05, 06L, 06R, 23, 24L or 24R, it is only necessary to climb to 1,100ft ASL before turning; this procedure is known as the Early Turn procedure. Based upon the specified departure turn criteria, on reaching 3,600ft or 1,100ft, the aircraft is directed by ATC to follow vectors (compass headings - see Annex I.6), speed and altitude requirements. The controller directs the pilot to the start fix of one of the SIDs (see Annex I.7). Figure 18 shows the jet and turbo-prop SIDs for flights from runways 23, 24L and 24R. Figures for other runway directions are included in Annex E.1. 5 Aircraft type codes: CRJ1, CRJ2, E135, E145, E45X, J328, CL60, C250, GLEX, GLF4 and GLF5. P82

83 Airport and airspace operation The need to introduce SID routings that commence closer to the airport is related to: Increasing the flight track predictability while reducing the pilot and controller intervention workload involved with each departure. Standardisation reduces the risk of errors and consequent safety risk. Ensuring flight track distances are efficient by having defined routes rather than tactical vectors, thereby avoiding excess track mileage and the related GHG emissions. More efficient use of the limited airspace capacity through use of defined trajectories. 9 Figure 18. Departure routes from runways 23, 24L and 24R P83

84 Airport and airspace operation Standard instrument arrival routes Aircraft approaching Toronto Pearson are directed to one of five airspace entry locations into the Toronto TCA, from where the aircraft follow a defined route known as a STAR (see Annex I.7). Figures for all runway directions are shown in Annex E.2. Figure 19 and Figure 20 illustrate the pre- and post-february 2012 arrival routes. 9 Figure 19. Pre- and post-february 2012 arrival routes to runways 05, 06L and 06R P84

85 Airport and airspace operation 9 Figure 20. Pre- and post-february 2012 arrival routes to runways 23, 24L and 24R P85

86 Airport and airspace operation Flight path usage To understand the impact of the flight path changes made in 2012, analysis has been undertaken utilising data from July 2010 and July July was selected as a typical busy month. We were unable to use July 2011, as the airport was undertaking runway maintenance work, therefore the pattern of operations was not regarded as representative, so July 2010 was selected as a suitable proxy. The analysis was conducted in a way as to identify where the number of flights in 2010 differed by more than 10 flights, over a 24 hour period, from the number of flights in To achieve this analysis, a virtual grid was used with cells that were 500m by 500m in size. The cells are visible as coloured squares in Figure 21 and Figure Arrivals Figure 21 below shows the absolute change in arrival flight path utilisation between 2010 and 2016 for an average July day. P86 Figure 21. Change in utilisation of arrival flight paths, July 2010 vs July 2016

87 Airport and airspace operation The square cells that are pale orange through dark red, in Figure 21, show where there were more arrival flights on an average July day in 2016 compared to an average July day in Similarly, the square cells that are pale blue through dark blue show where there were more arrival flights for an average July day in 2010 compared to an average July day in Only cells where the difference in the number of flights on an average July day is equal to 10 or more, are shown. It is clear to see the historical location of the South downwind leg, pre-february 2012, illustrated by the long diagonal blue line running North-East to South-West and parallel with the lake shore. The post-february 2012 airspace change, with the South downwind depicted in orange / red, is just to the right of its former location. A small change to the track of the STAR that crosses over Lake Ontario can also be seen clearly; blue cells indicate the location pre-february 2012; red and orange cells depict the current location. Where a flight path has not changed, the growth in number of flights between 2010 and 2016 will cause the cells to be coloured orange through to red. The North downwind was not moved; it shows as orange cells, with no blue squares, this is due to the increase in number of flights in the analysis period. Other than for the South downwind, there are very few areas where the position of the 2016 flight paths, over land, differ measurably from those operated in More detail is provided in Section Departures The change in utilisation of departure flight paths is illustrated below in Figure 22; using the same colour key as in Figure 21 above. There are very few areas where the image shows changes in the volume of departure flights between 2010 and 2016 (the cells are generally quite pale in colour). The cells that appear as an extension of the runways (runways 05/23 and 06/24 Left & Right) can primarily be explained by the increase in the number of flights in 2016 compared to In 2012, a small track adjustment was made to ensure that there was a minimum of 10 degrees divergence between parallel departures. The new diverging routes can be seen clearly on departure runway 23 in Figure 22, where the departure flight path in 2016 (red cells) is angled by eight degrees to the right of the departure flight path in 2010 (blue cells). The divergence which can be seen from the southern runway, depicted by orange cells, is two degrees. In other areas depicted by orange cells, new RNAV departure routes (introduced in 2012 and 2013) have consequently increased the departure flight concentration. This is a result of both natural growth in the number of flights between 2010 and 2016, and because RNAV routes are precisely defined and flown by aircraft with a high level of precision. P87

88 Airport and airspace operation These RNAV departure routes are located almost exclusively over rural areas or over the lake. The flight paths in 2010 were highly dispersed so the vast majority of the analysis cells contained less than 10 flights so do not appear within Figure Figure 22. Change in utilisation of departure flight paths July 2010 vs July Lateral dispersion on arrival routes One of the concerns often expressed by community members to the review team was that flights on arrival routes have become more concentrated, i.e. the lateral dispersal left and right of the designated flight path has reduced since the airspace change. The globally mandated navigational design standard used to design and specify the pre- and post-february 2012 airspace change STARs, is RNAV; so there has been no change in navigation standards. During the period from pre-february 2012 to today, progressively more aircraft have become equipped to operate RNAV procedures as airlines have upgraded and replaced older aircraft. P88

89 Airport and airspace operation From Figure 21 it can be noted how the image demonstrates that the South downwind was 2 to 3 cells wide in 2010 and remains 2 to 3 cells wide in 2016, remembering that each cell is 500m by 500m. This visually indicates that there is little or no difference in the overall lateral dispersion of flights on the flight paths. This review has conducted more detailed analysis of the lateral concentration on the South downwind to runways 06L / 06R and 24L / 24R. The analysis utilised radar data from July 2010 and July 2016 and included all flights within 500m either side of the STAR centreline, at the location of four gates shown in Figure 23. The detailed results of the analysis are included in Annex F. 9 Figure 23. Location of lateral and vertical dispersion analysis gates P89

90 Airport and airspace operation Whilst the overall width of the lateral dispersion has not changed. The analysis indicates that there has been some increased concentration within 150m either side of the STAR centreline. A change within 150m either side of the centreline will only have a marginal impact on the noise experienced at ground level; a far greater lateral shift is required to generate a distinguishable difference. 9 Analysis conducted by the UK CAA, modelling the change in noise based on lateral shifts of flight paths at different altitudes, indicates that an aircraft would need to be lower than 2000ft and shifted laterally by greater than 500m to just make a perceptible difference in the noise experienced on the ground, (see Annex I.17). Those community members directly under the current STAR were 1NM (1,852m) away from the previous STAR (pre-february 2012), which is sufficient distance to make a substantial change in the noise experienced. Another factor that has changed between 2012 and today are the number of flights; the frequency of flights passing overhead has increased, thus reducing the time between noise events Vertical dispersal on arrival routes In a similar context to lateral concentration there have been claims made that aircraft are flying lower than they did prior to the airspace change. Again, this review has undertaken analysis of the arrival altitudes flown at the four gates shown in Figure 23. There are some small differences in the altitudes but not sufficient to make a noticeable difference in the noise experienced on the ground. More detailed results of the analysis are included in Annex F. P90

91 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10.1 Introduction The mitigations recommended by the review team are grouped according to ICAO s Balanced Approach, as defined in Section Each recommendation is followed by a summary table identifying the following factors: 1) Timeline for implementation a. Short-term (S): up to 18 months 6 b. Medium term (M): 18 to 36 months c. Long-term (L): over 36 months 2) Whether it affects arrival or departure flights 3) Whether it provides noise reduction or relief A summary table can be found in Section 11, detailing all the recommendations Reducing noise at source The most significant potential noise reductions can be achieved through enhancement in airframe and engine manufacture. The following chart (Figure 24) demonstrates how aircraft noise regulation by ICAO has helped push aircraft and engine manufactures to continually seek quieter technologies. All new aircraft submitted for noise certification on or after 31st December 2017 will have to be compliant with ICAO s Annex 16 xv, Chapter 14 noise requirements It must be acknowledged that any short-term change subject to external influences such as statutory requirements, third party publication approval, or consultation (in line with the consultation protocol), for example, may incur delay outside of NAV CANADA s control. P91 Figure 24. History of ICAO Noise Certification requirements

92 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Airbus A320 Of relevance to Toronto arrivals, is the known noise issue associated with the Airbus A320 family of single aisle aircraft. This is often described as a high-pitched whine, and is generated by the FOPP cavities under the wings. We understand that this phenomenon was first identified in Los Angeles in The whine is audible under the approach of these aircraft, normally between 7NM and 15NM from touchdown, and is therefore directly pertinent to the Toronto arrivals review. About 18% of all arrivals at Toronto are A320 family aircraft. Air Canada is the largest operator of Airbus A320 series aircraft at Toronto, and at the time of writing, has 73 such aircraft in its active fleet. Airbus, the aircraft manufacturer, has developed a modification to address this noise phenomenon, and report that it will deliver an improvement of up to 9dB on a standard CDO (see Section ). Some airlines have voluntarily fitted the modification kit 7 whilst some airports have incentivised airlines through the introduction of charging schemes, one such example is Gatwick airport xxvi. The cost of the modification kit varies and typically depends on the service contract that the airline has with Airbus, but estimates place the cost at between $3,000 and $30,000 per aircraft. The time to install the kit is understood to be approximately 7 man hours and can be achieved overnight without having to re-locate the aircraft to a maintenance hangar. This characteristic has been recognised by many residents and organisations reporting to the review, who in turn report that they have also sought to understand why the characteristic has been allowed to persist for so long by the relevant authorities. This review recommends that: 10 Recommendation 1A: NAV CANADA should formally write to Transport Canada requesting them to consider establishment of a sunset date of December 31st 2020 for the operation, in Canada, of Airbus A320 series aircraft without the Fuel Over Pressure Protector cavity vortex generator noise modification. 7 It must be acknowledged that any short-term change subject to external influences such as statutory requirements, third party publication approval, or consultation (in line with the consultation protocol), for example, may incur delay outside of NAV CANADA s control. P92 Recommendation 1B: As an indication of GTAA s and NAV CANADA s commitment to noise reduction, and a tangible indication to local communities that the noise impact of the airport is taken seriously and; to incentivise an accelerated noise modification by all airlines using A320 family aircraft at Toronto; NAV CANADA should formally approach the GTAA about the establishment of an earlier sunset date for unmodified Airbus A320 family aircraft using the airport, such as two years after publication of this report. With an appropriate noise penalty applied for non-compliant aircraft immediately thereafter, if lawful within the GTAA s or NAV CANADA s charging regimes.

93 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10 Table 5. Summary of recommendation: A320 whine ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 1A 1B 10.3 Land-use planning and management Flight path design The accountability for setting the guidance for land-use planning resides with TC and the Provincial Government, whilst the municipalities have the accountability for setting the land-use zoning. NAV CANADA have no accountability or responsibility for land-use planning or zoning, thus this falls outside the scope of this review. International and Canadian airspace design criteria require the designer to consider safety, fly-ability, and terrain / obstacle clearance. This criterion does not however, provide direction on the consideration of the land-use overflown. In accordance with the new voluntary Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol xxiii, noise issues must be handled at local level. NAV CANADA have made active progress towards ensuring that an evaluation of the land-use is undertaken for all flight path changes that occur within a TCA. It is important to note that noise management practises at one airport are often not applicable at another airport due to the differences in the region and nature of aircraft operations. P93

94 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10.4 Noise abatement operational procedures Descent management Noise experienced by communities can be reduced if aircraft descent is managed with a noise reduction objective. To achieve a quieter descent, the pilot must use low engine power and minimise drag for as long as is safe, as well as staying as high as possible for as long as possible. Two techniques that are effective at reducing the noise on approach include CDO and LPLD. 10 Efficient, low noise approaches at Toronto Pearson are currently difficult to achieve because: There is inadequate communication and understanding of expectations between pilots and air traffic controllers in relation to the management of descent and the descent clearances given, particularly regarding provision of descent information or guidance. A pilot may be cleared by ATC to descend to a particular altitude, e.g. 3,000ft, some 20NM ahead of when the controller needs the aircraft to be at that altitude. The pilot, not knowing when ATC require the aircraft to be at the instructed altitude, sometimes descends earlier than necessary. Descent guidance could take the form of track miles to touchdown, time to touchdown, altitude at waypoint, or location of the base turn, for example. Such guidance is one of the outcomes of an effective TBO. There is a waypoint on the South downwind that currently requires aircraft to be at exactly 3,000ft ASL, to serve the high / low separation objective. This restriction is termed the 3,000ft hard anchor altitude Pilot and air traffic controller collaboration The provision of ATC services and the operation of an aircraft, are both rule based and heavily regulated activities, with prescribed procedure based operations. Even so, with standard radio phraseology and published flight procedures, there is still room for individual interpretation and application giving rise to potentially sub-optimal outcomes for noise. During descent, a pilot is focused on reducing the flight s altitude and speed through the careful management of the aircraft s energy. Air traffic controllers are required to: 7 It must be acknowledged that any short-term change subject to external influences such as statutory requirements, third party publication approval, or consultation (in line with the consultation protocol), for example, may incur delay outside of NAV CANADA s control. P94 ensure aircraft are appropriately separated from each other; achieve a safe and expeditious sequence of arrivals and / or departures.

95 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise To achieve a safe approach while minimising noise, a pilot requires descent information from ATC to help reach the desired altitude and speed at the right time. ATC at Toronto Pearson provide clearance to the required altitude and speed, but not necessarily an accurate indication of when this must be achieved. There are a number of other areas where changes in the manner that pilots and air traffic controllers communicate, and the associated procedures used, could lead to environmental and operational improvements. Improved communication and collaboration is often a function of increasing awareness and understanding each has for the others workload and objectives; such a philosophy has been used successfully by other airports and countries xxx. 10 This review recommends that: Recommendation 2A: NAV CANADA, the major Toronto Pearson airlines (Air Canada, Rouge, WestJet and Jazz), the National Airline Council of Canada, the GTAA, and possibly the Canadian Airports Council and TC, should form an Industry Noise Management Board. Recommendation 2B: Industry Noise Management Board should develop a cross industry Code of Conduct that facilitates the reduction of arrival and departure noise through improvements in aircraft operation and air traffic control management at Toronto Pearson. Table 6. Summary of recommendation: Pilot and controller collaboration ID timescale mode noise 2A s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 2B P95

96 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise >= 3000ft ASL Runway 3 o glide path Intersecting glide path Low power glide Altitude gain Thrust in the level segment Continuous descent approach Step-down descent Figure 25. The principle of a Continuous Descent Operation Low Power - Low Drag and Continuous Descent Operations LPLD is achieved when an aircraft maintains a clean configuration for as long as safely possible. Drag devices include flaps, slats, undercarriage and air brakes (see Annex I.19). These, when deployed, increase aircraft drag and hence cause more air resistance, slowing the aircraft whilst creating more noise. A cleaner configuration generally requires lower engine thrust; effectively, less effort is required from the engines to push against the drag of a clean aircraft. An aircraft conducting a LPLD approach will generate less engine and less airframe noise. A study conducted by the UK CAA concluded that a noise reduction of up to 5dB is possible if the flaps and landing gear on an aircraft are operated and deployed correctly xxxi (see Annex I.20.2). CDO and LPLD are often used in conjunction. The CDO concept is widely discussed in noise policy and in best practise guides. CDO is intended to keep aircraft higher for as long as possible, and is acknowledged as being a leading potential technique for the mitigation of aircraft noise and GHG emissions on approach to an airport. Figure 25 illustrates the principle of a CDO. During a conventional step-down approach, an aircraft advances towards an airport via a series of extended level segments. To descend, the pilot utilises flaps and / or speed brakes (see Annex I.19) to increase drag and slow the aircraft, and therefore increase the rate of descent. When the aircraft levels out, the pilot applies power to maintain the assigned altitude and speed until he is granted permission from the controller to descend to the next (lower) altitude. At lower altitudes, typically below 8,000ft, the additional thrust used by the pilot significantly increases the noise impact on communities. CDO is achieved when an arriving aircraft descends from altitude and avoids prolonged level flight, thus navigating a smoother descent profile. To achieve this, when given descent clearance by ATC, a pilot will descend at the rate judged to be best suited to the achievement of continuous descent, based upon either the track distance to go or a location at which the altitude is to be reached, whilst meeting ATC speed control and aircraft performance requirements. During a CDO, an aircraft tends to stay higher at most stages of the descent compared to a conventional approach. This type of descent generally requires less power than a conventional step approach. However, depending on several variable parameters, particularly aircraft weight / load, some flights will require use of additional speed reduction techniques on approach to the airport when following a continuous descent profile. For one such technique, the aircraft will level out, effectively gliding at idle engine power, until the speed has sufficiently decayed. These level segments are used to slow the aircraft to the required speed without having to increase drag (and noise) through the use of flaps, speed breaks or undercarriage. Once the optimal speed is achieved, the aircraft will continue to descend towards the airport. This is noise efficient CDO practise. 10 P96

97 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise A study conducted by the UK CAA concluded that a noise reduction of 2.5 to 5dB can be achieved by implementing CDO. Noise benefits are most significant over distances from touchdown of 10 to 20NM xxxi (see Annex I.20.1). An ideal CDO is one which commences from Top of Descent (ToD) and ends at touchdown, however, the reality of the situation is that airspace congestion and operational limitations don t always allow for this. The aspirational continuous descent from cruise level to touchdown requires sophisticated airspace management systems and traffic management techniques to be applied. The 3,000ft ASL anchor altitude waypoint used to achieve separation at Toronto Pearson, hinders the delivery of CDO s. One of the strategic objectives identified in Section 7 is the removal of this particular waypoint as this would facilitate CDO operation, and aircraft wouldn t be restricted to achieving 3,000ft altitude sooner than otherwise may be required. Furthermore, the introduction of alternative mechanisms to ensure separation of aircraft during simultaneous parallel arrivals, that enable improved delivery of CDO, is desirable (see Section ). It is important to note that for as long as the high / low procedure remains in place during simultaneous parallel arrival operation, the low side may not be able to achieve CDO. One of the most important requirements for successful CDO operation is being able to provide the pilot with an accurate estimate of descent expectations, so that descent and speed planning can be optimised to support delivery of CDO. The current operation and procedures used at Toronto Pearson inhibits the necessary degree of predictability, and hence limits the implementation and operation of CDO. During the consultation process, pilots voiced their concerns about the lack of predictability in current arrival operations at Toronto Pearson, which hinders them from efficiently managing their descent and de-acceleration in a manner which generates the least noise. Increasing communication and collaboration between pilots and controllers, through an initiative such as the Code of Conduct (Recommendation 2B) along with ATM tools and technology to provide more accurate descent information, will support the adoption of CDO (see Section ). 10 P97

98 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Reduced landing flap Most aircraft are certificated with two or more landing flap settings. The full landing setting, which sets the flaps at their maximum angle, also produces their maximum drag and allows the aircraft to fly at the slowest speed, reducing runway occupancy time and reliance on reverse thrust. Reduced landing flap settings set the flap angle to less than their maximum, resulting in lower drag thereby requiring less engine power during approach, thus resulting in less noise being emitted. 10 Reduced landing flap requires the approach to be flown at higher speeds, and therefore increases the touchdown speed, which can lead to increased brake wear, increased use of reverse thrust and increased or decreased runway occupancy time (depending on the location of runway rapid exit taxiways). However, it also reduces fuel burn and engine emissions and reduces stress on the flap system leading to maintenance savings for some aircraft. As a consequence, reduced landing flap is a widely adopted technique by many operators, where it is safe to do so, and some airports recommend this in their noise abatement procedures. Reduced landing flap can result in noise reductions of 0.5 to 1.5dB very close to the airport xxxi (see Annex I.20.3). This review recommends that: Recommendation 2C: The Industry Noise Management Board should develop an agreed definition of Continuous Descent Operation (CDO) and guidance on achieving low power - low drag CDOs. Recommendation 2D: The Industry Noise Management Board should evaluate whether landing with reduced flap is safe to operate at Toronto Pearson, and to provide guidance on how to achieve this if proven acceptable. Recommendation 2E: NAV CANADA should publish at least quarterly, the percentage of arrival flights achieving Continuous Descent Operation compliance at Toronto Pearson. Recommendation 2F: NAV CANADA should benchmark, on an annual basis, Continuous Descent Operation achievement by airlines at Toronto Pearson against a baseline of current performance and a targeted annual performance improvement. P98

99 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10 Table 7. Summary of recommendation: low power - low drag and continuous descent operations ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 2C 2D 2E 2F Performance Based Navigation It is important to note at this stage that there are two standards which are widely used to define approach operations at an airport; ICAO s PANS-Ops xxv, and the FAA s TERPS ii. This report generally uses the Canadian nomenclature (TERPS-based criteria) for definition of operations and procedures (see Annex I.13 for further details). PBN encompasses two types of navigation specifications; RNAV and RNP, (see Annex I.13.1 and I.13.2). NAV CANADA in the Toronto TCA currently utilises RNAV STARs and SIDs, and is developing further RNAV routes as part of their ongoing work to reduce the impact on communities of night flights. PBN improves the accuracy, repeatability and precision of flight paths. This has advantages which include: more efficient use of airspace through route placement; opportunities to mitigate noise impacts; predictability of track miles and descent profiles; and improved fuel efficiency and reduced GHG emissions. Equally, the aviation industry and communities have now recognised that there are potential drawbacks connected with use of PBN routes at lower altitudes. The increase in navigational performance accuracy means that the variable lateral dispersion of aircraft using conventional, non PBN, navigation has reduced. The effect is an increase in concentration of aircraft around flight path centrelines. P99

100 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Removal of high / low operation 10 Within Section 8, noise mitigation initiative 4 Use of new technology to reduce the need for low altitude levelling by arrival aircraft, it is stated that ICAO have proposed changes to their requirements for simultaneous operations. One of the changes being proposed affects when an arrival is considered to be established on its final approach track, which is key to when the 1,000ft vertical separation utilised within the high / low procedure can be ceased. The new procedure being proposed is termed Established on RNP AR, and Figure 26 displays conceptually how it could work. Step 1 Aircraft established on RNP AR final approach track Step 2 Aircraft established on RNP AR final approach track A Aircraft established on localiser course at or above 3,000ft. Greater than 3NM radar separation between the aircraft A B B Aircraft no longer anchored at 3,000ft and could be 1,000ft to 1,500ft higher than with the high / low operation C Aircraft descends during the base leg, conducting an LPLD approach C Step 3 Step 4 Less than 3NM radar separation between the aircraft and no vertical separation as both established on final approach track A A No loss of separation at any stage and no use of vertical separation. B Aircraft established on localiser course at or above 3,000ft. C B C Figure 26. Established on RNP AR P100

101 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Established on RNP AR will not only yield a benefit in the fact that during simultaneous parallel arrivals, aircraft on the South downwind will no longer have to level at 3,000ft ASL prior to commencing their base leg, but the length of both the North and South downwinds will also reduce. In Figure 26 above, aircraft A can join the extended runway centreline at a much closer distance, e.g. 4NM, than if it was conducting an ILS approach. Aircraft C in Figure 26, no longer needs to fly a significant distance along the downwind as it does with the high / low procedure, (see Section ), as it can commence its turn as soon as aircraft A is established on its final approach track. Reducing the length of both downwinds and being able to increase the altitude of both flights will reduce the noise impacts. One drawback to RNP AR operations is the concentrated flight track; NAV CANADA will need to consider this carefully when designing RNP AR procedures for Toronto Pearson. This review recommends that: 10 Recommendation 3A: NAV CANADA should design Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required procedures that can reduce the need for a high / low operation, taking due consideration of the location of the tracks, and proceed to consultation to facilitate implementation as soon as is practicable. Recommendation 3B: NAV CANADA should maximise the use of the Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required procedure to incentivise those airlines not already capable of RNP AR to invest, as the RNP AR approach route will offer airlines a more fuel efficient arrival route. Table 8. Summary of recommendation: Removal of high / low operation ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 3A 3B P101

102 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 05 06L 06R 15R 33L 15L 33R 23 24R 24L Existing RNAV STAR Final Approach Track Tactical vectored base-leg South downwind Figure 27. The principle of a new RNAV approach route New RNAV approach route New RNAV approach route An RNAV approach (APCH) route provides an exact profile in terms of the lateral, vertical and speed that an aircraft follows through the air (see Annex I.13.2). If an RNAV APCH route is designed as a CDO then every aircraft that flies the route will follow exactly the same CDO. This level of predictability assists descent management, and thus simplifies and improves the achievement of CDOs and LPLD operations. As explained in Section the point at which an aircraft is instructed to leave the downwind and commence its base leg will vary as the air traffic controller tactically sequences the flow of inbound aircraft. This variability makes it more difficult for air traffic controllers to provide accurate information to pilots about track distance to go or when to expect their base turn. Consequently, this hampers a pilot s ability to operate a LPLD CDO, often resulting in an increase in level segment flying at low altitudes. Figure 27 shows a potential new RNAV APCH route that encompasses the base turn and final approach. The dashed lines in Figure 27 indicate the existing RNAV STAR and examples of several tactically vectored base turns. Such an RNAV APCH route could be built for each of the downwind legs that service Toronto Pearson. The fact that the RNAV APCH route is a precise route means that the altitude at every point can be predetermined and procedurally assured for both the pilot and controller. Additionally, if the RNAV APCH route is designed as a CDO, then the aircraft could still be descending throughout the base turn, enabling design of a higher initial starting altitude for the base leg than is usual in today s operation. This higher initial point would result in an increased altitude along the length of the downwind leg, providing a predictable and sustained noise reduction. The increased altitude could move aircraft at least 1,000ft above the present altitudes in the downwind position, which would be expected to deliver over a 3dB reduction in noise perceived at ground level; a noticeable reduction. For runway capacity reasons, use of such an RNAV APCH route would only be practical during periods of lower traffic flow, i.e. non-peak periods when capacity management, sequencing and separation through tromboning (see Section 9.3.1) is not required. It is important to note that the development of a new RNAV APCH route, such as that shown in Figure 27, is more likely to concentrate the traffic flow in the off-peak period, contrary to the current distribution achieved by tromboning. The communities under the RNAV base leg segment will experience either a reduction (due to potentially moderate increases in altitude, as outlined above) or, an equivalent volume of noise as today. The communities would also experience a potentially increased regularity of aircraft passing overhead during periods when the RNAV APCH route is used. 10 P102

103 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise This review recommends that: Recommendation 3C: NAV CANADA should develop at least one Area Navigation Continuous Descent Operation route from each downwind Standard Arrival Route to the nearest parallel runway, to improve the use and delivery of Continuous Descent Operations and increase the average height of approaching aircraft during low-traffic times. 10 Table 9. Summary of recommendation: New RNAV approach route ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 3C Runway The approach to some airports require a steeper glide path to account for clearance of obstacles. Aircraft that operate at these locations typically have to be re-certified for these a typical conditions. P103 8NM Figure 28. Slightly steeper glide path Glide path 170ft 2547ft Slightly steeper glide path Increasing the angle at which aircraft fly the final approach track to the runway can reduce the impact of noise during the final approach phase. ICAO s standard ILS glide path angle is 3.0 and the ICAO aircraft certification process requires aircraft to be certified to fly up to , although some aircraft types are constrained to only 3.15 approaches. Airports that have investigated and implemented slightly steeper glide paths have used a 3.2 glide path to stay within the aircraft s certification specification. Increasing the glide path angle very marginally reduces aircraft noise by keeping aircraft higher at each point of the final approach, as visible in Figure 28. An approach with a glide path angle of between 3 and 3.2 has become known as a slightly steeper approach. The opportunity to increase the glide path angle is only small, 3.0 to 3.2 (i.e. by a maximum of 0.2 ). At 8NM prior to touch down, a 0.2 steeper glide path angle would result in an aircraft being 170ft higher than its existing height at this distance from the runway. Frankfurt airport has conducted a study which shows that the impact of noise on the ground is small, approximately dB (typically 3dB is a distinguishable difference by the human ear), when increasing the glide path by 0.2. Heathrow Airport, in the UK, have conducted flight trials which were successful, demonstrating no impact on the daily operation, whilst exposing local residents to less noise xxxii.

104 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Heathrow airport trialled an RNAV 3.2 approach procedure between September 2015 and March Although the trial was successful and was found to have no adverse impact on daily operations, unlike ILS approaches the RNAV procedure is sensitive to temperature, and operating the trial during winter reduced the approach angle actually flown, from 3.2 to Because temperatures above 15 C will lead to angles above 3.2, the UK CAA requested further trials to be completed. As a result, the airport commenced a further 3.2 trial on 25 May 2017 to assess the effect of warmer temperatures on the approach angle flown during the summer months. The end of the trial is currently planned for 11 October 2017 xxxi. In addition to a minimal noise impact, increasing the glide path angle has some practical implementation challenges. The options available include: Re-calibration of the existing ILS to 3.2, although not all airlines support slightly steeper approach operations. Pilots may need additional training, and in poor weather conditions there is a preference to return to 3.0. Installation of a second ILS, calibrating one to 3.2 and the other to 3.0, although the review team are not aware of any airport that has taken this approach due to the risk of interference between the two ILS signals or errors by on-board systems or the flight crew. Use of barometric vertical guidance to determine the glide path. By being barometric based, the vertical guidance and therefore the slope angle is related to, and dependant on, air pressure, which results in variability of the actual angle flown when high or low air pressure systems are present. The variability can result in an approach angle greater than 3.25 or less than 3.0. Use of a Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) Landing System (GLS) to enable aircraft to fly a precision route with much greater flexibility than an ILS. This Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) dependant system requires a GBAS airport ground station to transmit corrected GNSS data to a suitablyequipped aircraft. Some airports are looking at installing a GLS, however, it is currently not certified for use in low visibility conditions. 10 Although the noise impact is small and implementation is not straight forward, any reduction in noise does contribute to the overall aggregate noise mitigation. Recommendation 4A: The Industry Noise Management Board should consider 3.2 Area Navigation approaches, with a controlled evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of changing the glide path angle at Toronto Pearson. Table 10. Summary of recommendation: Slightly steeper glide path ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 4A P104

105 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Runway 3.0 In 2014 British Airways provided flight simulator access and worked with the UK CAA to address and consider issues associated with the concept, specifically the technical feasibility, environmental benefits, airport capacity impacts, and the scalability of the concept. This work culminated in a series of proof of concept flights using Boeing 777 aircraft at Heathrow airport in late 2014 and early Flight crews reported that workload associated with the procedure was not dissimilar to standard approaches. ATC feedback was positive, although it was noted that the procedure could be challenging to implement in periods of high flow rate (due to the increased wake turbulence separation required for an aircraft following on a standard 3 approach), leading to the concern that airport capacity could be significantly affected; a further study would be required to understand the nature of that impact. A number of issues were raised which concluded that not all aircraft were able to safely complete two-segment approaches xxxi. Glide slope Figure 29. Two-segment approach A two-segment approach An alternative concept to a slightly steeper approach is a two-segment approach. A two-segment approach adopts an intermediate approach phase flown at a steeper angle, before transitioning back to a standard 3 approach, as visible in Figure 29. This would potentially provide noise benefits further out during the approach, without affecting the final approach phase. The review team concludes that a two-segment approach should not be considered by NAV CANADA due to safety and capacity concerns Runway alternation Runway alternation is a method used to provide relief and / or predictable respite to communities positioned underneath runway centrelines and existing arrival and departure flight paths. The focus of relief tends to be on those communities that experience regular and near continuous noise. Providing relief to one community implies impacting another. It is therefore appropriate to involve communities and their elected officials in the consideration of what constitutes fair and equitable relief; the GTAA during Summer 2017 have commenced this debate with GTA communities. The delivery of relief is contingent on the ability of the airport to flexibly operate using different runways and flight directions while sustaining and supporting the levels of demand. The opportunity to implement runway alternation, at Toronto Pearson, primarily occurs during non-peak traffic periods when all arrival and departure traffic can be managed by operating on two or even one runway; these periods will reduce as the airport gets busier. The GTAA are in the process of pursuing initiative 5 of the 6 noise mitigation initiatives (see Section 8) designed to help reduce the impact of aviation noise; weekend runway alternation. The GTAA are due to begin their consultation on weekend runway alternation with communities in fall / winter 2017/18. It is important to note that runway alternation is more complex than just switching from runway to runway when demand allows. At any given time, the choice of runway and flight direction must take account of a number of factors, for example: Aircraft operation in most circumstances will require landing and take-off to be conducted into the wind. Wind direction and weather conditions have a significant influence on flight patterns and the actual operation that the airport can safely achieve. 10 P105

106 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Winds aloft, typically above 2,000ft in Toronto, can differ substantially to winds at ground level causing the runway choice to be biased to mitigating the effects of winds aloft rather than surface wind. This aspect is particularly pertinent for ground speed management of arriving aircraft. Traffic density; increased traffic levels create increased complexity and reduced flexibility. Other airport factors such as airfield maintenance, weather conditions and runway breaking efficiency (lower when the runway is wet or icy). The review team has assessed the opportunities for runway alternation at Toronto Pearson and have identified two perspectives: relief for those that live under the final approach and initial climb segments; and relief for those under the downwind segments. Runway alternation is not expected to require modification or change to the existing airspace structure or flight procedures at Toronto Pearson, hence implementation prospects are potentially quicker. Runway alternation could cause a change to the existing pattern of flight operations and the footprint of aircraft noise contours, therefore public consultation is required before it can be implemented as a noise management policy. In addition, the impact on the Airport Operating Area (AOA) must be assessed. This review recommends that: 10 Recommendation 5A: NAV CANADA should wait to understand and reflect on the output of the GTAA s current public engagement activities, that include the Residents Reference Panel, and the upcoming consultation on weekend runway alternation; prior to determining whether to proceed to operate runway alternation when traffic levels permit. Table 11. Summary of recommendation: Runway alternation ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 5A P106

107 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise This review has identified a number of runway alternation options for Land 1, Depart 1 runway operations, which are included in Annex G. From the options identified the review has concluded there are six operable options that provide relief to those communities living under the final approach and initial climb phases of flights. Similarly, there are 6 options that provide relief to the majority of the communities under the North and South downwinds; although the communities that live under the point where the East and West downinds intersect with the South downwind will unfortunately no benefit from the relief. There are two further options that the review has concluded are not viable due to the fact they are deemed less safe Displaced landing thresholds Another practical method of mitigating the impact of aircraft noise is the displacement of airport runway thresholds from the extremity of the runway surface end to a location further down the runway. Displacing runway thresholds allow aircraft to fly at higher altitudes as they pass over communities located near the airport, thereby lowering noise on the ground. Runway thresholds have been displaced for many years, traditionally to increase the clearance between approaching aircraft and obstacles, such as tall buildings, communication masts, and terrain located near the airport. ICAO prescribes the following criteria: The practice of using a displaced runway threshold as a noise abatement measure shall not be employed unless aircraft noise is significantly reduced by such use and the runway length remaining is safe and sufficient for all operational requirements xxxiii. Assessments against the ICAO criteria are very site-specific and evaluation should be done on a case-by-case basis. A displaced threshold, whilst providing noise benefits, could have potential impacts on capacity, runway and airport infrastructure, operational resilience, air quality and of course its cost effectiveness would need to be considered. Unless suitable exit taxiways already exist or are created, the ground roll may be extended affecting runway occupancy time and capacity. Alternatively, if greater braking and/or reverse thrust is used to slow sufficiently to use an existing exit, this may lead to additional air quality emissions, albeit displaced away from the airport boundary, and might also lead to increased ground noise. The displacement of thresholds will not make a significant difference to the noise impact as the glide path is 3 o, and therefore it must move a long distance horizontally to make a large difference in height, e.g. a 1,900ft (580m) displacement of the landing threshold down the runway would increase the height of the aircraft by about 100ft. This review therefore concludes displacement of the thresholds for Toronto Pearson s existing runways is not an effective mitigation. P107

108 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Moving the South downwind over the lake The current airspace at Toronto Pearson locates the South downwind 5NM from the runway centreline which is the minimum distance as explained in Section The downwind plays a critical role in the ability to sequence flights for arrival, as previously discussed in this review. During low traffic periods, this process is relatively straightforward to operate as the spacing between aircraft is not as critical as the runway capacity does not need to be maximised. However, during busy periods, it is necessary for controllers to achieve the minimum safe spacing between aircraft so that the runway can handle inbound flights without creating delays. 10 Key Existing STAR STAR using the Lake Example departure routes Extended runway centreline Shoreline Example departure routes >7000ft Current operation requires that departing aircraft must hold at 7000ft below the existing arrival path at this point. Some departures will no longer have to hold at 7000ft if arrivals approach via a south downwind over the lake (at <6000ft). Departures can climb at a continuous rate, and pass over the downwind at a higher altitude. P108 Figure 30. Moving the South downwind over the lake

109 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Figure 30 illustrates the existing South downwind, a virtual downwind over the lake, and some example departure routes. The existing South downwind lies 5NM from the runway centreline. To move the South downwind over the lake would mean moving it at least 2NM (approximately 3.7km), possibly more, off the shoreline to ensure that the noise isn t moved from the existing downwind communities to the lake front communities. Sound can propagate (travel) over water more easily than it does over land as there is routinely less attenuation, hence the need to go a minimum of 2NM offshore to prevent noise reaching shoreline communities. Due to this requirement, the proposed downwind would lie a minimum of 11NM from the runway centreline, which is significantly further than it is today. Due to the tactical nature of operations at Toronto Pearson, moving the South downwind a minimum of 11NM from the final approach potentially increases the challenge for air traffic controllers to predict when to initiate the base leg turn (see Annex I.4) and onto the final approach track, whilst achieving the appropriate spacing from the aircraft ahead. It is important to note that the aircraft approaching from the east and west must also be taken into consideration, as these must be integrated with the aircraft approaching from the South downwind. Once an aircraft is on the final approach, there is very limited opportunity to vary aircraft speed to reduce or extend the separation between consecutive aircraft. A slot within a stream of aircraft on approach can easily be lost if the controller doesn t instruct the pilot to turn in time or the pilot doesn t initiate the turn promptly, potentially affecting the arrival capacity. The task for a controller can be compared to hitting a moving target; the closer you are to the target, the easier it is. Moving the downwind more than twice as far away makes it much harder for the controller to sequence the aircraft efficiently and ensure the necessary separation. One option to assist in managing a downwind spaced by 11NM is to implement one or two PBN routes from the downwind to the final approach track. The disadvantage of this is that it would create a concentrated flight path over new communities, and there would be less dispersal of traffic in the base leg than there is today. 10 When independent simultaneous parallel arrivals are in operation on runways 23 and 24, or 05 and 06, it is currently necessary to ensure a 1,000ft vertical separation between flights on the North and South downwind. This is explained in Section The ability to remove the need for vertical separation may be possible in the future (see Section ). P109

110 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise The Hong Kong operation handled 412,000 aircraft movements, approximately 10% less than Toronto Pearson and 70.5 million passengers, nearly 60% more than Toronto Pearson, in It can therefore be deduced that Hong Kong must have larger aircraft on average, which it does as international long-haul wide-body aircraft are a much greater proportion of the overall traffic. Overall Hong Kong has a much more homogeneous aircraft fleet. Hong Kong has implemented a fully integrated Arrival Manager (AMAN) tool, which NAV CANADA doesn t have but is recommend in Section The integrated AMAN allows Hong Kong controllers to manage the timely flow of arrivals and the sequence. The Hong Kong approach uses defined routes from the downwind to the arrival runway because: Concentration of noise is far less of a concern as most of the base leg and final approach is over water. Hong Kong are not using the downwind for sequencing flights, this has typically been achieved before aircraft reach the downwind. All arrival aircraft fly the same downwind. Hong Kong controllers do not need to integrate two different traffic flows onto the final approach for the same runway. For the reasons described above, Hong Kong is a simpler case than Toronto and the same solution would not be expected to work in Toronto. Hong Kong has also implemented low level (4,500ft) holding circuits on the approach as these are over water and away from populations; this allows final adjustments to be made to sequencing and separation if necessary. If the South downwind was moved over the lake, vertical separation would remain when a radar separation of 3NM cannot be achieved. It is considered best practice to achieve the vertical separation before turning the aircraft onto converging base leg flight paths; as is the case in Figure 11. If the South downwind was located over the lake, aircraft would be expected to fly an extended, level altitude base turn (at 3,000ft) over residential areas towards the final approach, increasing noise for many who did not previously experience it. A level base turn for 11NM or more would require significant engine thrust to maintain altitude, generating excessive additional noise and increased GHG emissions. One consequence of moving the South downwind is the increased scope for operation of continuous climb departures. Aircraft are typically already at 7,000ft before crossing the shoreline, hence if the South downwind was positioned over the lake it would be possible for some aircraft to continuously climb and pass over the arrival flight path at a higher altitude. There would be no requirement to hold the aircraft at 7,000ft resulting in them being higher over some communities and crossing the shoreline at more than 7,000ft. However, not all aircraft will be able to achieve a continuous climb; this depends on an aircraft s performance and its ability to achieve altitude over a defined distance. Aircraft with insufficient climb performance will in fact stay lower for longer until they have cleared the arrival flight path, before continuing their climb. To establish whether any airport had resolved the ATC challenges of having a downwind spaced by 11NM, the review team investigated 20 international airports. Most airports were found to operate downwinds that were laterally displaced from the arrival runway by 4 to 7.5NM. One airport, Hong Kong International, was found to operate with a downwind space of 12NM due to the presence of high terrain immediately south of the airport. With advances in aircraft and ATM systems, it may be possible in the future for pilots and air traffic controllers to achieve a level of timing precision to enable efficient operation of a downwind segment over Lake Ontario, or in fact, remove the need for a downwind at all. The development required for this is captured in recommendations 8A/B/C described in Section This review concludes that in today s aviation industry, with the current technology available, moving the South downwind over the lake is not currently a viable option. In the future, the use of new technologies and procedures may justify a re-design of the Toronto airspace, with an opportunity to minimise the use of, or possibly remove the need for, the downwind segment. This should be pursued under recommendation 8A/B/C. 10 P110

111 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Multiple downwind legs Multiple downwind legs could theoretically be used to provide relief to communities located underneath the dominant, most frequently used downwind legs. Additional downwind leg(s) can follow the same trajectory as the original, but be separated from it by sufficient lateral distance to make a significant reduction in noise for the residents under the original route. This review has assumed that a significant reduction is halving the original volume, which approximates to a 10dB reduction (see Annex I.17). The level of sound perceived by the human ear is subjective, and changes with height and / or lateral displacement of the source. The UK CAA conducted a theoretical study to identify the level of noise from different horizontal shifts in flight path at different altitudes (see Annex I.17). The UK CAA study identified that at 3,000ft, for a 10dB reduction in noise for communities located underneath a flight path, the flight path must be shifted 2km laterally away from its original position (and the communities below it). At 5000ft, this lateral shift increases to 3km to achieve a 10dB reduction in noise. Theoretically, multiple downwind leg rotation could be managed to satisfy a desired pattern of respite. For example, Toronto Pearson s dominant downwind arrival flight path may be varied every season, six months, year, etc. depending on the capabilities of ATC and the feasibility of moving the flight path. Figure 31 illustrates an approach to the provision of multiple downwind legs, and notes the reduction in noise when moving from one flight path to the next. 10 At 5000ft altitude, a 3km shift from flight path A to flight path B will give a 10dB reduction in noise to communities under flight path A, as well as a 10dB increase to communities under flights paths B & C A 5NM 6Km 3Km B C 2Km 4Km As the aircraft descends to 3000ft, the distance between the flight paths also reduces. At 3000ft altitude, a 2km shift from flight path A to flight path B will give a 10dB reduction in noise to communities under flight path A, as well as a 10dB increase to communities under flight paths B & C P111 Figure 31. Multiple arrival flight paths at Toronto Pearson

112 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise The option in Figure 31 presents three different downwind legs which span approximately 4-6km laterally. In the example above, flight path A is assumed to be the existing flight path. Therefore, when flight paths B or C are utilised instead of A, aircraft will overfly communities that previously experienced significantly less aircraft noise, or communities that experienced no aircraft noise. Multiple downwind legs deliver relief to communities who are under the existing flight path, flight path A in our example, by sharing the noise with neighbouring communities. It is assumed that only a single flight path from the available multiple flight paths, A, B or C, would ever be in operation at any one time, this: Enables continued use of tromboning (see Section 9.3.1) to optimise the flow, sequence and separation of flights from the downwind onto the final approach track. Reduces concerns that pilots or controllers could use the wrong flight path, potentially causing loss of separation between aircraft. The fact that tromboning would still be used means that those underneath the base leg, (see Annexe I.4) would not experience relief from aviation noise, although in general the noise is less concentrated than that generated along the downwind. There are issues with rotating flight paths frequently and also in-frequently. Training and familiarity are primary considerations when flight paths are rotated less frequently i.e. once every quarter or less often; whereas risk of human error may increase if flight paths were rotated too frequently. When the South downwind was re-located in February 2012, NAV CANADA reported that it took up to six months for all air traffic controllers to become as accustomed and efficient, in terms of maximising airspace and runway capacity, with the new alignment as they had with the previous. A prolonged period of reduced efficiency each time a flight path is rotated would not be considered sustainable, irrespective of the rotation timetable. Aircraft approaching Toronto from the South are advised of their arrival STAR by the US air traffic controllers, due to the close proximity of the US boarder to Toronto. If there was frequent rotation of multiple downwind options, required coordination with the FAA could prove challenging. Although multiple flight paths could offer relief to communities through noise sharing, if the concept of noise sharing is acceptable, there are several significant negative impacts to consider, as indicated below: 10 P112

113 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise New communities would be impacted by noise - By moving the flight path away from the existing flight path, new communities which once weren t impacted by aviation noise, would be. Capacity - Moving the downwind further from the runway makes it challenging for ATC to sequence aircraft onto the final approach track in the most efficient manner, and thus more arrival slots per hour will be missed, as explained in Section Training - Due to high traffic and low margin for error, it is essential that ATC are fully equipped and trained to manage the operation of multiple flightpaths. When flight paths are rotated there is margin for error, resulting in training challenges for both existing and, to a greater extent, student controllers. Safety - Rotating flight paths can implicate safety, i.e. a pilot may approach the airport using the wrong STAR which could be catastrophic, or a controller could issue incorrect instructions. Communities under the base leg - There would be little or no relief for communities located under the base leg segment of the arrival path. Furthermore, the base leg is flown at 3,000ft therefore, as the base leg lengthens with widening of the downwind, new communities would be impacted by noise from low altitude aircraft. 10 This review concludes that in today s aviation industry, with the current technology available, using multiple flight paths is not a viable option. In the future, the use of new technologies and procedures may justify a re-design of the Toronto airspace, with an opportunity to minimise the use of, or possibly remove the need for, the downwind segment. This should be pursued under recommendation 8A/B/C. P113

114 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise P Reduced downwind usage The downwind segment is a phase of flight common to some arrival procedures at most airports. The segment is used as a tool to optimise the arrival sequencing to deliver the tactical runway capacity needed, whatever runway configuration is in use. This is in part, because the timely regulation, metering, flow and sequencing of aircraft has not been achieved through use of Time based tools (see Section ) prior to the aircraft entering the approach phase. Removing the downwind segments is not expected to be an option in the current radar based tactical sequencing operation at Toronto Pearson. During non-peak periods, when traffic demand is lower, alternative operations can be introduced to reduce the volume of traffic using the downwind segments. To reduce aircraft arriving from the south and flying along the South downwind, controllers often cut the corners of the radar vectored circuit, introducing shorter and more direct routings, as shown by the pale blue lines in Figure 32. This is currently an ad-hoc operation which is used to improve efficiency during non-peak periods. A similar short-cut operation is utilised for flights from the North approaching the North downwind. A relatively small change to the use of existing airspace is necessary to increase the flexibility for air traffic controllers to apply these short-cut procedures, by giving a direct heading to a point on the downwinds. The benefits of such an operation are expected to be higher on the southern side of the airport due to the higher population densities. On the southern side of the airport, such an operation will ensure that aircraft operate over the lake for a larger portion of their approach, reducing the quantity of traffic on large parts of the downwind. Direct routes over the lake could be linked with RNAV APCHs, as discussed and recommended in Section Note, the altitude at which aircraft fly must be sufficient to permit safe separation and efficient operation for aircraft using Billy Bishop Airport. This operation may offer an added benefit for some departures, i.e. those departing runway 24L or 24R and turning towards the east. In today s operation, aircraft that depart using this route must not exceed an altitude of 7,000ft ASL, and must maintain this until they have passed below the existing STARs. Subject to traffic, they are then instructed to continue to climb to their en-route altitude. If short-cut procedures are implemented, departing aircraft will have a greater distance in which to climb, prior to crossing the arrival traffic which approaches over the lake from Niagara. This should reduce the need for departures to level off at 7,000ft ASL and will facilitate a continuous climb operation, permitting departures to safely pass over the arrivals rather than below, as illustrated in Figure 32. This mechanism could improve the number of continuous climb departures, reducing the impact of departure noise. 10

115 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise It is important to note that some aircraft might not be able to achieve a continuous climb departure. Continuous climb is dependent on the performance of an aircraft, the weather, take-off weight and its ability to achieve altitude over a defined distance. Aircraft with insufficient climb performance will in fact stay lower for longer (i.e. hold at 7,000ft) until they have cleared the arrival flight path, before continuing their climb. Figure 32 indicates that some communities are likely to experience increased occurrences of aviation noise, if this short-cut operating concept is adopted. The altitude of aircraft passing overhead of these communities is a function of their precise location i.e. aircraft will be higher closer to the shoreline and descend as they head inland. Aircraft should be operating a LPLD CDO, generating less noise on the ground than is experienced today on the downwind segments. The use of this concept is contingent on suitable traffic levels; if traffic volumes increase, the use of short-cuts will diminish. However, it is important to note that leading airlines are investing in larger aircraft, which means that whilst passenger numbers are growing, the number of aircraft movements will increase at a slower rate. As referenced above, reducing the usage of the South downwind offers relief to densely populated communities positioned underneath the existing STAR. However, it is important to note that this dispersal will move noise between communities. Without undertaking a separate noise modelling study, the change in total population affected and the population change within specific decibel bands e.g dB, 50 55dB. 10 Key Existing STAR Direct route over the Lake Extended runway centreline Shoreline Example departure routes Newly affected communities Aircraft can join the downwind via different waypoints. Aircraft must continue along the downwind until instructed by ATC to turn onto the base leg towards final approach. Newly affected communities. Aircraft will fly above Billy Bishop Airport traffic. Some aircraft will no longer have to hold at 7000ft to fly below the arrival path at this point. They can climb at a continuous rate, and pass over the new arrival paths (in light blue) at a higher altitude. P115 Figure 32. Short-cut over the lake to reduce South downwind usage converging routes

116 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise A-weighted equivalent sound level (LAeq), cannot be estimated. It is also possible for aircraft to join the downwind via a different waypoint, to avoid concentration over the same communities. In this instance, an aircraft would join the downwind and continue along it as in today s operation, until instructed by ATC to turn onto the base leg towards final approach. Figure 32 illustrates new routes converging at way points along the downwind. This review recommends that: 10 Recommendation 6A: NAV CANADA should continue to utilise short-cuts over Lake Ontario on an ad-hoc basis and should seek to promote their use, to reduce downwind usage when traffic permits. The combination of short-cuts over the lake to join the new Area Navigation approach routes recommended in 3C will facilitate low power - low drag and Continuous Descent Operation. The implementation of the new Area Navigation approaches will be subject to consultation in accordance with the protocol. Table 12. Summary of recommendation: Reduced downwind usage ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 6A P Reduced dependency on downwinds Currently, NAV CANADA tends to use the downwind segments with tromboning to achieve most of the flow, sequencing and separation of arrival flights. While this is a common international practice, some airports utilise holds or tactical vectoring to regulate the flow of aircraft before they join a downwind. Some measures can remove the downwind segment entirely. Alternative or supplementary mechanisms to downwinds that this review has considered and evaluated are: Holding stacks Point Merge Arrival Manager Time Based Operations (TBO)

117 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Holding stacks The basic concept of stacking or holding is explained in Annex I.10. Stacking is purely a method for queuing aircraft awaiting a landing position, thereby introducing delay into their landing time. You can liken a holding stack to a waiting room. Stacks deliver a similar outcome to tactical vectoring; however stacks require significantly less airspace. Air traffic controllers use holding stacks to smooth out the arrival flow of aircraft as well as efficiently organise the arrivals. Once the aircraft are instructed to leave the holding stack, they are directed by air traffic controllers to the final approach for landing. The controllers sequence the planes from all active stacks into the relevant number of streams of traffic that match the number of active landing runways, and guide them safely until the pilot has established the aircraft on the final approach track. Holding stacks do not remove the need altogether for controller intervention. Air traffic controllers still need to do some tactical vectoring of aircraft that have left the stack, or to utilise a facility such as downwinds to achieve the final optimal sequencing and spacing. NAV CANADA utilise holding stacks during abnormal operations, such as fog or thunder storms, when the arrival capacity has been reduced, often at relatively short notice. Likewise, NAV CANADA also utilise tactical vectoring, on some occasions, prior to an arrival flight reaching a downwind, to aid with the management of the arrival flow, sequencing and separation. To avoid flights having to incur excessive additional track miles to reach a holding stack, and to efficiently accommodate and sequence the number of flights, Toronto Pearson is likely to require four active stacks. This is similar to the operation used at London Heathrow which has a similar number of flights per annum, less runways and more limited operating hours. The benefits and draw-backs of stacks are described on the following page: 10 P117

118 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Table 13. Benefits and draw-backs of holding stacks benefits More fuel efficient to incur a delay in a stack than at low altitude and at a slow speed on a downwind, assuming similar time is spent on/in both Less occasions when the downwind is extended (tromboning see Section 9.3.1) as a means to absorb short-term spikes in arrival demand draw-backs In routing to and from the stack, some flights incur an increase in track miles, thereby burning additional fuel and emitting more GHG There is still a requirement to conduct further sequencing and spacing of flights upon leaving the stacks Re-design of the Toronto TCA airspace to introduce holding stacks, and development of associated STARs. 10 This review concludes that holding stacks are not an effective solution to implement at Toronto Pearson. The drawbacks identified do not warrant the benefits that may follow. Instead, the review team recommends that NAV CANADA s time, effort and money be focused on achieving best practice in Time Based Operations that can deliver greater benefits for communities, airlines, airports and NAV CANADA, in Toronto and across other parts of Canada. As defined in our guiding principles (see Section 6), where it is achievable, the review team recommends looking to future concepts rather than implementing older concepts Point merge A point merge is a systemised method that enables air traffic controllers to sequence and space inbound aircraft onto the final approach using an adapted sequencing procedure to reduce the need for radar vectoring. Point merge is still relatively new as an ATM tool, so far successful implementations have been at airports unlike Toronto Pearson, because they operate with only a single arrival runway at any one time; Figure 33 indicates the airports that have implemented point merge so far. P118

119 Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10 The point merge procedure is illustrated in Figure 34, and is based on having inbound aircraft fly along two published sequencing arcs until they, depending on other traffic, are cleared directly to the merge point. One of the key operational benefits of point merge is that at any point along the arc, the aircraft are equally distant from the merge point, easing the ability to sequence and space arrivals and thus increasing controller flexibility to establish an efficient arrivals sequence. The air traffic controller will instruct the pilot to route direct to the merge point safe in the knowledge that for each aircraft, there is a consistent distance and time to reach that merge point. The use of point merge could in theory remove the need for using tromboning for sequencing, and therefore the need for a downwind. Norway - ENZV, ENBR & ENVA 2014 Ireland - EIDW 2012 UK - EGLC 2016 France - ELFFF 2013 Norway - ENGM 2011 Germany - EDDV 2014 Germany - EDDP 2015 South Korea - RKSI 2012 Spain - GCFV & GCRR 2014 Nigeria - DNMM 2014 Point Merge Deployment Status Figure 33. World-wide point merge development sitesxxxiv P119 Malaysia - WMKK 2014 Deployement site(s)

120 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Initial Approach Fix 1 Equidistant sequencing arcs, one at 9,000ft and the other at 10,000ft. Shown here as displaced as normally they would be stacked one above the other Merge Point Sequencing arcs The point merge arc does not have to be aligned with the runway, as in Figure 34, instead it can be located some distance away from the runway s extended centre line. From the merge point, aircraft normally fly a single precision route to the runway, meaning concentration of flights from the merge point to the runway. The point merge arc can also be at any angle to the merge point, as shown in Figure 35. One of the original benefits assigned to point merge was that a single route from the merge point to the runway would reduce the dispersal of flights over a wider area, thereby reducing the number of communities affected. In practice, the concentration of aircraft on one consistent route has been reported by communities elsewhere as a disadvantage, unless unpopulated areas are used for the final inbound route from the merge point. EUROCONTROL have defined multiple configurations of point merge arcs for single and two runway operations xxxv. Figure 34 demonstrates a single point merge system with two entry points and Figure 35 is an example showing twin point merge systems, with four entry points in total, servicing two independent runways. 10 Aircraft direct to merge point Efficient continuous descent Initial Approach Fix 2 Initial Approach Fix 1 Initial Approach Fix 2 Figure 34. Principle of point merge Final Approach Fix 1 Final Approach Fix 2 Merge points at different altitudes to ensure minimum 1,000ft vertical separation between converging flights Initial Approach Fix 3 Initial Approach Fix 4 Figure 35. Twin point merge systems feeding independent parallel runways P120

121 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise One of the reasons why the length of the downwinds extend at busy times of the day is that NAV CANADA sometimes prioritise straight-in arrivals over arrivals on the downwinds. This is because there is no set mechanism to hold or delay straight-in arrivals. A single point merge concept, which would not remove the downwinds but could re-address the priority that is currently given to straight in arrivals, is shown in Figure 36. By re-addressing the balance between downwind arrivals and straight in arrivals there should be: A reduction in the number of times that the downwind is extended; this reduces the frequency of aircraft over-flying some communities and therefore reduces the noise impact of Toronto Pearson arrivals. A greater chance of being able to operate a LPLD CDO approach as there is a reduced chance of an extended level segment on the downwind. A point merge system, such as that in Figure 36, is unlikely to significantly affect new populations as the merge point would be geographically close to the existing straight in STAR end points, and at a similar altitude (5,000ft ASL). 10 P121 Figure 36. Conceptual single point merge system to aid flow management, sequencing and separation of straight-in arrivals.

122 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Within the Toronto airspace, the introduction of a twin point merge system to feed the parallel arrival runways would have both positive and negative consequences, as outlined below: Positive consequences Removal of the downwind legs and the need for tromboning resulting in the removal of arrival flight noise over residential communities currently impacted. Sequencing arcs may be positioned at specific altitudes and / or geographical locations to reduce the impact of arrival noise on communities, although this may not necessarily be feasible in Toronto. Supports the achievement of CDO and LPLD approach operations. Negative consequences Inability to remove the high / low operation via the introduction of the Established on RNP AR that is discussed in Section Concentrated low level (3,000ft and 4,000ft) flight paths from the merge point to the extended runway centreline over residential communities due to the fact that the merge points for a twin system are likely to be placed several miles away from the extended centrelines for both runways due to the need to adequate space the arcs. The concentrated portions would be longer if the sequencing arcs are positioned further from the airport. The concentration of the traffic as it descends towards the merge point does not contribute to the alleviation of the noise disturbance, particularly as by this stage the altitudes of the aircraft will be below 6,000ft. Would impact communities that are not affected by aviation noise today. We have not been able to identify a location for the twin point merge arcs that would not significantly impact new communities. Increased flying distance, resulting in potentially significant increase in fuel burn and GHG emissions. Increased flight times due to the increased distances, which would potentially impact airline schedules, flight connections and aircraft fleet utilisation. In addition, there has been no international research, as far as we can establish, as to the feasibility of a twin point merge system with simultaneous parallel arrivals, nor with the quantity of traffic that Toronto Pearson experiences today or is forecast to handle in the future. 10 P122

123 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise To develop a twin point merge system would require a full re-design of the Toronto airspace, probably affecting every arrival and departure route; this would be expected to take several years given the complexity of the airspace and the number of SIDs and STARs. Once designed the evaluation, validation and implementation would be a significant undertaking which is expected to extend the timescales still further. Point merge should not be seen as the ultimate objective for the management of arrival aircraft flow, sequencing and separation; this is trajectory-based operations which is a further development beyond TBO which is described in Section Point merge is an interim technique, whilst the industry refines trajectory-based operations to the point where the precise location of a flight can be predicted to within a few seconds, and ultimately the arrival flow and sequence can be planned hours ahead, even before a flight takes-off. 10 This review concludes that whilst a twin point merge solution for Toronto Pearson may be theoretically possible, it is not an appropriate solution. Time, effort and investment would be better focused on other mitigations, in particular the development of an effective Time Based Operation (see Section ). This review therefore recommends that: Recommendation 7A: NAV CANADA should investigate and evaluate the operational, environmental, financial and societal impacts, of a single point merge solution for straight-in arrivals at Toronto Pearson. Table 14. Summary of recommendation: Point merge ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 7A P123

124 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise P Arrival Manager and Time Based Operation One of the challenges facing air traffic controllers at Toronto Pearson is the lack of capability of the controller support tools currently used by NAV CANADA to automatically predict, manage and regulate the flow of arriving flights. This operating characteristic, which is a routine feature at many large airports, currently leads to significant short-term (5 to 15 minute) peaks and troughs in the aircraft arrival flow, which consequently requires tactical intervention by air traffic controllers to ensure an efficient operation. This irregular nature of arrival traffic flow is managed by controllers at Toronto Pearson into an efficient sequence via tromboning (see Section 9.3.1), which is a fundamental air traffic management tool for air traffic controllers. If the sequence and timing of arrivals could be systemically managed, consistently to within a few seconds, there would be much less need for intervention by controllers and their use of downwinds and tromboning techniques, or a need for other delay tools such as holding stacks or point merge operations. To help mitigate these peaks and troughs, Arrival Manager (AMAN) systems have been developed and deployed in Europe and elsewhere to improve arrival flow management. These tools are primarily designed to provide automated sequencing support for air traffic controllers handling arriving traffic. An AMAN continuously calculates optimum arrival sequences and expected landing times for flights, taking into account the locally defined arrivals capacity, the required spacing for flights, and other relevant criteria. TBO involves, through increased collaboration, the ability to more accurately predict when a flight will reach a particular way point and when it will land. Europe has conducted TBO trials, for instance in the form of target time of arrival. As part of these trials, pilots were given a defined arrival time to apply to the aircraft flight management system, which then manages the flight to achieve the specified arrival time. These systems have been proven in operational use. London s Heathrow Airport was one of the first to implement an AMAN tool in 2009 xxxvi. In 2015, Heathrow fully implemented a cross border AMAN system which applies speed controls to arrival flights up to 350NM away from Heathrow. Europe has mandated as part of the Single European Sky, the implementation of an Extended AMAN at 25 of Europe s busiest airports by 2024; this implementation will facilitate aircraft speed controls up to 500NM prior to landing to meet required arrival times generated by TBO systems. Extended AMAN is also featured in the Aviation System Block Upgrades xix, which is the ATM modernisation framework defined by ICAO as the Global Air Navigation Plan xviii. The current issue of the downwind being extended at Toronto Pearson, when it is busy or when there are short spikes in the flow of arrival flights, could be partly mitigated by the implementation of an Extended AMAN system. Its deployment would also complement a point merge system, as discussed in Section Point merge would allow absorption of any delay not able to be accommodated by the Extended AMAN tool for instance during peak periods. 10

125 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Once Extended AMAN and TBO are implemented, there will be an opportunity to re-assess further noise reduction options, such as moving the downwind segment over the lake or removing downwinds altogether. A large proportion of Toronto Pearson s traffic enters Canadian airspace from the US where it is under the control of the FAA. It is acknowledged that this may make Extended AMAN benefits harder to realise for these flights, as the time period in Canadian airspace is limited. To gain full benefits for all flights would require additional collaboration with the FAA and the support of FAA controllers. The review team are optimistic that such collaboration can be achieved but acknowledge that it may be subject to the different priorities of the FAA. To gain additional benefits from AMAN, Toronto Pearson s flight schedule should be reviewed to help ensure that it is able to support the arrivals optimisation required. This is a task that could be taken on by the Industry Noise Management Board (INMB) described in recommendation 2A. This review recommends that: 10 Recommendation 8A: NAV CANADA should implement as soon as practical an integrated extended arrivals manager to provide automatic sequencing support to air traffic controllers, and arrival planning for pilots. Recommendation 8B: NAV CANADA should implement a programme to continually stretch the horizon of influence and accuracy of an extend arrivals manager tool s output through refinement of the input data and the heuristics used within the tool. Recommendation 8C: NAV CANADA should invest in the development of Time Based Operations within Canadian airspace as well as international research and development activities with the strategic objective to achieve full Trajectory Based Operations. Table 15. Summary of recommendation: Arrival manager and time based operations ID timescale mode noise s m l arrivals departures reduction relief 8A 8B 8C P125

126 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Complex arrival routes A regular question throughout the public engagement period of this review, encompassed why flights are directed over heavily populated areas instead of being directed along unpopulated areas and highways. The simple answer is that whilst current navigation technology can be very precise, the industry is not at a stage where complex routes with multiple turns whilst climbing or descending during the critical flight stages of departure and arrival are possible with a sufficient throughput capacity. In Section this review considered the use of PBN approaches to achieve the removal of the high / low operation and to increase LPLD and CDO approaches. In both these case the flight paths are likely to be relatively simple with one, possibly two, sweeping curves. Over the coming years, the percentage of aircraft equipped with, and pilots qualified to fly, RNP procedures will increase, and the ability to achieve greater complexity and throughput should increase. In the opinion of the review team, flight paths directed around and between residential areas, snaking along busy highways, railways or industrial corridors during periods of high throughput capacity, are still a significant number of years away. This review believes that NAV CANADA are taking the appropriate courses of action in seeking to use PBN procedures in special circumstances such as: to reduce the impact of night time arrival flights when traffic levels are low; to avoid the need for the high / low operation, when conducting independent simultaneous parallel arrivals; and for facilitating increased LPLD and CDO operations, over communities that are currently affected by noise. 10 This review concludes that the aviation industry does not currently have the capability to operate the type of complex approaches, in busy and complicated airspace, that would be required to address the communities request to fly along unpopulated corridors and busy transport routes. P126

127 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise 10.5 Runway and airspace demand management Being able to manage the demand for the runway and airspace can lead to reduced noise impacts for communities as discussed earlier, in terms of TBO and arrival management. NAV CANADA does not have a direct ability to influence the airline flight schedules accepted by the GTAA, or the airport operating hours set by GTAA. Airlines do have a responsibility to operate, as closely as practicable, to their assigned schedule times. On-time performance for arrivals and departures needs to become a priority for the GTAA, airlines and NAV CANADA. Airline scheduling and airport slot coordination is a strategic demand management tool intended to reduce the bunching of flights that naturally occurs at major hubs such a Toronto Pearson. ATM providers have a tactical tool to assist with on-the-day demand management in the form of flow management. In Europe, EUROCONTROL operates a Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) that regulates the tactical demand on airspace sectors and airports. This is particularly useful in regulating flights approaching the airport from overseas, but is also applicable for domestic flights. Each European airport and ATC sector has a published maximum capacity. When capacity is forecast to be exceeded, measures are taken by the CFMU to smooth the traffic flow. The aim is to use capacity effectively, keeping the average delay as low as possible, while ensuring capacity is not exceeded or safety compromised. NAV CANADA could implement a flow control procedure for Toronto Pearson that requires all flights to obtain an arrival slot before push-back from their origin. A further mechanism defined in the ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan xviii intended to ensure efficient use of airport and airspace capacity is Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM), itself part of System Wide Information Management. A-CDM aims at improving the overall efficiency of airport operations by optimising the use of resources and improving the predictability of events through integrated coordination and collaboration among all relevant airport stakeholders. A-CDM focuses especially on aircraft turn-round (the process of preparing an aircraft after its arrival ready for its next departure) and pre-departure sequencing processes. A-CDM introduces a concept called target time of operation, which helps all stakeholders manage their inputs and allows the air traffic provider to better manage the demand. Being able to manage demand and achieve predictability and stability in the flow of aircraft, should reduce delays and delay induced noise. 10 P127

128 Options for reduction and mitigation of noise Night restricted hours As set out in Section Toronto Pearson has a restriction on the number of night movements between 00:30 and 06:30 local time. In the morning, airlines are allowed to board their aircraft, push-back from the terminals and taxi to the runway holding areas from 06:00 local time. Inbound early morning flights to Toronto Pearson typically start to arrive in the local airspace from 06:15 or shortly thereafter. There is a degree of commercial competition between airlines to be the first departure or arrival on routes with strong competition. The effect of these two operational practices are: Arrival aircraft holding over the GTA, generating noise and emitting GHGs needlessly before 06:30. Aircraft are sat on the ground at Toronto Pearson waiting for departure, generating noise and emissions. NAV CANADA have to operate the Triple runway operation at 06:30 (see Section 9.1.4) as a means to deliver maximum capacity and clear the back-log of aircraft. If the rush for arrivals and departures could be managed, such that demand required only a Land 1, Depart 1 runway operating mode (see Section 9.1.4), then the opportunities to share the noise in the early morning would be far greater. The review team acknowledges community concern about noise early in the morning, and highlights that NAV CANADA, GTAA and airlines should seek to find an alternative way to manage the period between 06:00 and 07:00. A solution is not straightforward and a number of elements, potentially including night restricted hours, scheduling limits, airspace flow management, A-CDM and better on-time performance management, may be required. 10 The review team conclude that smoothing the demand without reducing the number of flights in the period 06:00 to 07:00 to provide relief, should be investigated by the Industry Noise Management Board along with a wider discussion of how best to manage the demand to reduce noise. P128

129 Summary of conclusions and recommendations In undertaking this review, the team has tried to develop recommendations that can deliver distinguishable noise reduction benefits that align with our terms of reference and guiding principles set out in Section 6. The review team are cognisant that expectations of all the community members disturbed by noise may not be met through the recommendations provided. Toronto Pearson is one of the top 20 busiest airports in the world, and delivers significant economic and societal benefits for city, region, province, and Canada as a whole. Balancing these benefits with the negative effects of aircraft noise disturbance is extremely difficult, particularly as the negative effects are not necessarily felt by those that benefit. Movement of the South downwind in February 2012, by NAV CANADA, had an unfortunate consequence of impacting a large number of residents that previously had suffered little or no aircraft noise disturbance; the inverse is true for those communities located under the preceding South downwind. The Canadian airspace design regulations have been reviewed, along with the regulation change in 2014 that removes the possibility of obtaining the original derogation, and hence the use of a 4NM displacement. Analysis of the lateral and vertical concentration of flight paths flown pre- and post-february 2012 shows minimal difference in distribution; insufficient enough to create a distinguishable difference in the noise experienced on the ground. However, the 1NM change in downwind position has had a substantial impact on the noise environment. This review does not constitute consultation or communication as defined within the voluntary Airspace Change Communication and Consultation Protocol xxiii, hence several recommendations made within this review will be subject to further consultation as defined in the protocol if, and when, NAV CANADA elect to progress the recommendations. The review team is confident that the aviation noise environment, related to the operation of Toronto Pearson, can be mitigated further without impacting the future capacity of the airport. Some of the recommendations rely on periods of lower traffic demand; it is acknowledged that these will be time limited by the future growth of the airport. Table 16 summarises all the mitigations, conclusions and recommendations made by the review team, and aligns each mitigation alongside some of the community complaint(s) it addresses. Further details on the community complaints can be found in Annex A. 11 P129

130 Summary of conclusions and recommendations Table 16. Summary of recommendations and conclusions 11 mitigation community complaints addressed Recommendations and Conclusions Airbus A320 whine The Airbus A320 family of aircraft create an annoying high-pitched whine at times during descent. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should formally write to Transport Canada requesting them to consider establishment of a sunset date of December 31st 2020 for the operation, in Canada, of Airbus A320 series aircraft without the Fuel Over Pressure Protector cavity vortex generator noise modification. Recommendation: As an indication of GTAA s and NAV CANADA s commitment to noise reduction, and a tangible indication to local communities that the noise impact of the airport is taken seriously and; to incentivise an accelerated noise modification by all airlines using A320 family aircraft at Toronto; NAV CANADA should formally approach the GTAA about the establishment of an earlier sunset date for unmodified Airbus A320 family aircraft using the airport, such as two years after publication of this report. With an appropriate noise penalty applied for non-compliant aircraft immediately thereafter, if lawful within the GTAA s or NAV CANADA s charging regimes. Recommendation: NAV CANADA, the major Toronto Pearson airlines (Air Canada, Rouge, WestJet and Jazz), the National Airline Council of Canada, the GTAA, and possibly the Canadian Airports Council and Transport Canada, should form an Industry Noise Management Board (INMB). Improve descent management Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Lack of predictability in current arrival operations. Pilots are unable to efficiently manage their descent and de-acceleration in a manner that generates the least noise. Recommendation: The Industry Noise Management Board should develop a cross industry Code of Conduct that facilitates the reduction of arrival and departure noise through improvements in aircraft operation and air traffic control management at Toronto Pearson. Recommendation: The Industry Noise Management Board should develop an agreed definition of Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) and guidance on achieving low power - low drag CDOs. Recommendation: The Industry Noise Management Board should evaluate whether landing with reduced flap is safe to operate at Toronto Pearson, and to provide guidance on how to achieve this if proven acceptable. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should publish at least quarterly, the percentage of arrival flights achieving Continuous Descent Operations compliance at Toronto Pearson. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should benchmark, on an annual basis, Continuous Descent Operations achievement by airlines at Toronto Pearson against a baseline of current performance and a targeted annual performance improvement. Performance Based Navigation Recommendation: NAV CANADA should design Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required procedures that can reduce the need for a high / low operation, taking due consideration of the location of the tracks, and proceed to consultation to facilitate implementation as soon as is practicable. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should maximise the use of the Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR) procedure to incentivise those airlines not already capable of RNP AR to invest, as the RNP AR approach route will offer airlines a more fuel efficient arrival route. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should develop at least one Area Navigation Continuous Descent Operation route from each downwind Standard Arrival Route to the nearest parallel runway, to improve the use and delivery of Continuous Descent Operations and increase the average height of approaching aircraft during low-traffic times. P130

131 Summary of conclusions and recommendations 11 mitigation community complaints addressed Recommendations and Conclusions Slightly steeper glide path Runway alternation Displaced landing threshold Moving the South downwind over the lake Multiple downwind legs Reduced downwind usage Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Flights are not fairly distributed across all the runways meaning some communities carry what they believe is an un-fair burden of noise. GTAA and NAV CANADA do not listen or take action over noise disruption, particularly since the airspace change in February Insufficient consideration has been given to keeping flights over Lake Ontario as much as possible. Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Insufficient consideration has been given to keeping flights over Lake Ontario as much as possible. Departures are turning too low in the same location too frequently. Recommendation: The Industry Noise Management Board should consider 3.2 Area Navigation approaches, with a controlled evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of changing the glide path angle at Toronto Pearson. Conclusion: The review team concludes that a two-segment approach should not be considered by NAV CANADA due to safety and capacity concerns. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should wait to understand and reflect on the output of the GTAA s current public engagement activities, that include the Residents Reference Panel, and the upcoming consultation on weekend runway alternation; prior to determining whether to proceed to operate runway alternation when traffic levels permit. Conclusion: The review team identified 6 options to provide relief for communities positioned under the final approach for arrivals and the initial climb for departures, when traffic volumes permit. Conclusion: The review team identified 4 options to provide relief to most communities positioned under the North and South downwinds, when traffic permits. Note that communities positioned under intersections of the East and West downwinds with the North and South downwinds may not experience relief with these options. Conclusion: The review team identified 4 ad ditional options for runway alternation; 2 of which are considered operable with safe management and implementation, and 2 of which considered inoperable due to implications on safety. Conclusion: The displacement of thresholds will not make a significant difference to the noise impact as the glide path is 3 o, and therefore it must move a long distance horizontally to make a large difference in height, e.g. a 1,900ft (580m)displacement of the landing threshold down the runway would increase the height of the aircraft by about 100ft. This review therefore concludes displacement of the thresholds for Toronto Pearson s existing runways is not an effective mitigation. Conclusion: This review concludes that in today s aviation industry, with the current technology available, moving the South downwind over the lake is not currently a viable option. In the future, the use of new technologies and procedures may justify a re-design of the Toronto airspace, with an opportunity to minimise the use of, or possibly remove the need for, the downwind segment. This should be pursued under recommendation 8A/B/C. Conclusion: This review concludes that in today s aviation industry, with the current technology available, using multiple flight paths is not a viable option. In the future, the use of new technologies and procedures may justify a re-design of the Toronto airspace, with an opportunity to minimise the use of, or possibly remove the need for, the downwind segment. This should be pursued under recommendation 8A/B/C. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should continue to utilise short-cuts over Lake Ontario on an ad-hoc basis and seek to promote their use, to reduce downwind usage when traffic permits. The combination of short-cuts over the lake to join the new Area Navigation approach routes recommended in 3C will facilitate low power - low drag and Continuous Descent Operation. The implementation of the new Area Navigation approaches will be subject to consultation in accordance with the protocol. P131

132 Summary of conclusions and recommendations 11 mitigation community complaints addressed Recommendations and Conclusions Conclusion: This review concludes that holding stacks are not an effective solution to implement at Toronto Pearson. The drawbacks identified do not warrant the benefit that may follow. Instead, the review team recommends that NAV CANADA s time, effort and money be focused on achieving best practice in Time Based Operations that can deliver greater benefits for communities, airlines, airports and NAV CANADA, in Toronto and across other parts of Canada. As defined in our guiding principles (see Section 6), where it is achievable, the review team recommends looking to future concepts rather than implementing older concepts. Reduced dependency on downwinds Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Conclusion: This review concludes that whilst a twin point merge solution for Toronto Pearson may be theoretically possible, it is not an appropriate solution. Time, effort and investment would be better focused on other mitigations, in particular the development of an effective Time Based Operation (see Section ). Recommendation: NAV CANADA should investigate and evaluate the operational, environmental, financial and societal impacts, of a single point merge solution for straight-in arrivals at Toronto Pearson. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should implement as soon as practical an integrated Extended Arrival Manager to provide automatic sequencing support to air traffic controllers, and arrival planning for pilots. Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Lack of predictability in current arrival operations. Pilots are unable to efficiently manage their descent and de-acceleration in a manner that generates the least noise. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should implement a programme to continually stretch the horizon of influence and accuracy of an Extend Arrival Manager tool s output through refinement of the input data and the heuristics used within the tool. Recommendation: NAV CANADA should invest in the development of Time Based Operations within Canadian airspace as well as international research and development activities with the strategic objective to achieve full Trajectory Based Operations. Complex arrival routes Conclusion: This review concludes that the aviation industry does not currently have the capability to operate the type of complex approaches, in busy and complicated airspace, that would be required to address the communities request to fly along unpopulated corridors and busy transport routes. Night restricted hours Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. Too many noisy flights at night. Conclusion: The review team conclude that smoothing the demand without reducing the number of flights in the period 06:00 to 07:00 to provide relief, should be investigated by the Industry Noise Management Board; along with a wider discussion of how best to manage the demand to reduce noise. P132

133 Annexes P133

134 ANNEXES Table 17. Noise related complaints and issues raised by community members Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation Pilots are unable to optimise their arrival flight profile and energy management (see Annex I.19) to minimise the noise they generate, due to a lack of collaboration and cohesion in the management of the approach by the pilot and controller. In scope Improved collaboration between pilot and controller through the development of an INMB and a Code of Conduct (see Section ). The rate of arrival flights entering Toronto airspace fluctuates greatly creating very short peaks and troughs in demand. To smooth the flow and meet the capacity of the arrival runway(s), air traffic controllers use a combination of tactical vectoring, and extension of the downwind flown. In scope Possible future use of point merge (see Section ) could provide an alternative sequencing tool. Long-term developments in AMAN tools and TBO will improve the predictability of track miles to go and time of arrival of an aircraft, thus stabilising the arrival sequencing process and reducing traffic peaks and troughs (see Section ). Flights are too loud, too low, too frequent. The downwind is used during periods of lower traffic demand, when it could be avoided for some flights. In scope Short-cuts over the lake may be utilised to reduce downwind usage during periods of low traffic (see Section ). Some SID routes limit an aircraft s altitude to 7,000ft (ASL) until the departing aircraft has passed under the arrival flight path. In scope Short-cuts over the lake may allow an increase in opportunities to provide departure flights with continuous climb clearances. (see Section ). There is no protocol during the day (06:30 to 00:00) to provide a fairer balance of runway usage. In scope Runway alternation provides respite to communities located under the final approach, initial climb, and North / South downwinds (see Section ). Inconsistency between scheduling and noise operating restrictions has generated a spike in demand that requires the use of simultaneous independent parallel arrivals. In scope Potentially changes in the night restricted hours, scheduling limits and possibly introduce target times of operation may smooth the traffic in the period 06:00 to 07:00 (see Section ). P134

135 ANNEXES Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation International and Canadian airspace design criteria require the designer to consider safety, fly-ability and terrain / obstacle clearance. The design criteria do not provide direction on the consideration of land-use overflown. Out of scope In accordance with the new Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol, noise issues must be handled at local level. NAV CANADA have made active progress towards ensuring that an evaluation of the land-use is undertaken for all flight path changes that occur within a TCA. N/A Flight paths have not been designed to minimise the communities overflown. The land-use planning guidance set by TC and municipal bodies does not adequately reflect the attitudes to aviation noise that exist in society; property has been developed in residential zoned areas that are under existing flight paths and in areas with a NEF value of 30 or more. Out of scope The accountability for setting the guidance for land-use planning resides with TC whilst the municipalities and local governments have the accountability for setting the land-use zoning. N/A NAV CANADA have no accountability or responsibility for land-use planning or zoning. Insufficient consideration has been given to keeping flights over Lake Ontario as much as possible. It is difficult for non-air traffic management experts to understand all of the aspects necessary to make an informed assessment of what is achievable. Communities have witnessed arrival flights being vectored over the lake and commencing their base leg turn without using, or only using a short section of, the South downwind. Hence the view forms that flights arriving over the lake do not need to use the downwind. In scope In scope Moving the South downwind over the lake in today s aviation industry with current technology, is not a viable option. In the future, the use of new technology and procedures may justify the re-design of Toronto airspace, with the opportunity to minimise or possibly remove the use of downwinds altogether (see Section ). Short-cuts over the lake may be utilised to reduce downwind usage during periods of low traffic (see Section ). P135

136 ANNEXES Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation The layout of the five runways with three orientated North-East / South-West (runways 23-05, 24L-06R and 24R-06L) and two orientated North / South (runways 15L-33R and 15R-33L) does not provide a balance of capacity in each direction. Out of scope The GTAA is responsible for the strategic development of Toronto Pearson infrastructure. N/A Flights are not fairly distributed across all the runways meaning some communities carry what they believe is an unfair burden of noise. Assurances given by TC, prior to the formation of the GTAA, to some communities that runway 33L / 15R would only be used when dictated by safety or due to the non-availability of another runway. There are no stated preferences other than for night (00:00 to 06:30) as to which runways should be used for what operations. Out of scope It is not within NAV CANADA s remit to develop runway preference protocols. Out of scope It is not within NAV CANADA s remit to develop runway preference protocols. N/A N/A Runway alternation is not a practice that is typically employed by NAV CANADA other than when the weather or availability of airport infrastructure dictates. In scope Runway alternation provides respite to communities located under the final approach, initial climb, and North / South downwinds (see Section ). Too many noisy flights at night. There is currently only a single airspace design for Toronto Pearson arrivals and departures. Opportunities to implement more noise friendly routes during very lower traffic periods have been ignored in the past. International and Canadian airspace design criteria do not require a designer to distinguish which routes may be achievable at different times of day. In scope Out of scope Canadian airspace design criteria are set by TC and not NAV CANADA. Two of the six initiatives agreed prior to the establishment of this review are developing alternative night flight paths (see Section 8). N/A The night restricted hours (00:30 to 06:30) do not adequately represent night. The Restricted Hours 9 relating to ICAO s Annex 16 xv Volume 1, chapter 3, for certified aircraft or equivalent, do not match the periods when the majority of the population typically sleep. Out of scope The accountability for defining the noise operating restrictions and the hours they relate to lies with the TC. NAV CANADA only has responsibility for the publication of the noise operating restrictions in the appropriate Aerodrome Information Publication, and for the tactical implementation of the restrictions. N/A 9 GTAA have set the following noise operating restrictions: All non-noise certificated jet aircraft between 20:00 and 08:00; all ICAO Annex 16xv Volume 1 Chapter 2 between 00:00 and 07:00; all ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 chapter 3 aircraft and all other aircraft between 00:30 to 06:30. P136

137 ANNEXES Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation There is a lack of fairness in the distribution of flights to runways during the preferential runway period 00:00 to 06:30. There are designated runways that are prohibited for use during the period 00:00 to 06:30; which in effect prioritises the use of the remaining runways. Out of scope The night preference runways are currently being reviewed as part of Noise Mitigation Initiative #5 (see Section 8). It is too early to conclude what the outcome of the review will be. The night preference runways are specified by TC and not NAV CANADA. N/A Departures are turning too low in the same location too frequently. In 2012 and 2013, new Terminal RNAV SIDs starting at 7,000ft ASL were introduced which has provided a focal point at the start of each SID. Prior to this time all departures were on vectors or airways within the Terminal Area. The height at which flights are allowed to turn after take-off has not been changed. In scope Short-cuts over the lake may allow an increase in opportunities to provide departure flights with continuous climb clearances. (see Section ). The Airbus A320 family of aircraft create an annoying high-pitched whine at times during descent. The noise is caused by air passing over circular vent holes under the wing FOPP, similar to wind blowing over the top of an empty or partially empty bottle but on a much larger scale. These annoying wailing tones can be heard on the ground and adds an extra 2-11dB of noise. Out of scope Technically this issue is not something that NAV CANADA can resolve as they cannot mandate modification to aircraft. However due to this one issue having a dramatic influence on the noise produced by this family of aircraft, the review team have included it within this report. NAV CANADA should request for TC to set a sunset date for the operation of Airbus 320 series without the FOPP cavity vortex generator noise modification. An appropriate noise penalty should be applied for non-compliant aircraft (see Section ). The GTAA s noise complaint system and procedure is ineffective and the statistics produced are misleading. The word complaint means that something is unacceptable or unsatisfactory. Society has a general expectation that complaints will result in the situation being resolved or a mitigating action being taken to reduce the impact or frequency of occurrence of the original cause of the complaint. An aircraft creating noise that an individual finds unacceptable or unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the aircraft has deviated from the designated flight path or that the pilot has flown the aircraft in a manner that is considered unsafe or un-professional; hence there is no corrective action or mitigation. Out of scope The responsibility for providing a facility to log and analyse noise complaints was assigned to the GTAA by TC. NAV CANADA has no statutory duty to provide a noise complaint service. N/A If a complaint results in no change then it is typical behaviour for an individual to consider the complaint process as broken, and to see no benefit in spending time raising further complaints. P137

138 ANNEXES Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation The complaint system requires an individual to log an individual complaint against an individual aircraft; when in fact the complainant would like to complain about the general flight path / procedure. A complaint represents one dis-satisfied individual; there is no means to identify how many other individuals at the same property / house also felt that the noise was unacceptable. Out of scope The responsibility for providing a facility to log and analyse noise complaints was assigned to the GTAA by TC. NAV CANADA has no statutory duty to provide a noise complaint service. N/A The GTAA s WebTrak system is perceived not to display the actual flight track accurately. A number of simplifying assumptions have been made to make the display of the data to the general public practical in real time. Data showing the current situation has not been subject to any clean up and auditing. For example, aircraft tracks may look rougher when displayed on the day in question. Furthermore, some data sources are only available on a post-event basis. These data feeds supplement the real-time data once nightly processing has occurred. There will be differences or corrections when nightly processing is done and the data has been reloaded into WebTrak. The historical data will always be more accurate than the live data. Out of scope NAV CANADA is not involved in the provision or accuracy of the WebTrak facility. N/A The Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC) is perceived to be ineffective, powerless, biased and reluctant to change. CENAC is chaired by the GTAA which causes some to question the decisions, and actions made by the committee. Communities are unaware of any actions CENAC have taken that have made any positive impact on the aviation noise they experience. Out of scope NAV CANADA support the functioning of CENAC as a technical member but they are not a voting member of the committee so have limited ability to influence the Terms of Reference for the committee. Out of scope NAV CANADA are not accountable for setting the agenda or decisions made by CENAC. N/A N/A CENAC do not have a mandate to enforce change as they are only an advisory committee to the GTAA management. Out of scope NAV CANADA are not accountable for setting the agenda or decisions made by CENAC. N/A P138

139 ANNEXES Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation GTAA and NAV CANADA do not listen or take action over noise disruption, particularly since the airspace change in February The communities are unable to identify a change that has been made since February 2012 that has delivered a reduction in the noise experienced by any GTA communities. i.e. after two years, only one of the six Noise Mitigation Initiatives agreed in 2015 has been implemented (during April 2017). Communities perceive that the GTAA and NAV CANADA put the economic and commercial aspects of the aviation industry and their own organisations ahead of noise. In scope Not in scope An examination of the corporate governance was not part of the agreed scope for this review. As far as the review team is aware only one change has been made which is the increase of the speed on the downwind from 200Kts to 210Kts. Preparatory work on the remaining five Noise Mitigations are on-going (see Section 8). N/A Monitoring and reporting noise using the Decibel (db) A-weighted metric is underreporting the actual noise experienced. There are different weightings that seek to correlate objective sound measurements with the subjective human response. The A-weighting curve is used extensively for general purpose noise measurements but the C-weighting correlates better with the human response to high noise levels. A weighted measurement only correlates well with the perceived loudness at low sound levels, so many people object to the general use of this, often supported by regulations, for most noise measurements. Not in scope Investigating which is the most appropriate scale is not aligned with the purpose of this review, which identifies mitigations that will reduce the impacts of noise. International guidance and practice for the measurement of environmental noise, including aviation noise, is based on the A-weighting scale. N/A Low frequency noise, which can disturb many people, is suppressed by A weighted metric measurements. There is no acknowledgement of the health impacts from aviation activities. Community members are fully aware that noise has been linked to impacts on health and well-being. They therefore expect those impacts to be acknowledged and evaluated in their communities. Out of scope Health Canada is the statutory body that is accountable for the health of Canadian citizens and as such, any policy definition or research needs to be instigated by them. N/A NAV CANADA is an independent organisation. Out of scope N/A NAV CANADA are not accountable to anyone, or targeted or incentivised in relation to minimising noise. The Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act made no reference to NAV CANADA mitigating the footprint of aviation on the environment and communities. It is not within the remit of this study to review the governance structure of NAV CANADA. Out of scope It is not within the remit of this study to review duties bestowed on NAV CANADA when it was formed. P139

140 ANNEXES Community complaints and causal issues A complaint causal issues in or out of scope mitigation The GTAA are unaccountable for reducing the noise impact of airport operations. Communities do not see any action by TC to monitor, audit or set targets and actions for the GTAA in relation to noise management. This review is aware the TC audits some of the GTAA s noise management programme. Out of scope It is not within the remit of this study to review duties bestowed on the GTAA or the oversight of these by TC. N/A There is no compensation for those communities that experience aviation noise. Communities are aware that some airport operators or aviation authorities in other jurisdictions provide compensation for the noise disturbance experienced by heavily impacted communities. There are no such policies or voluntary agreements related to noise disturbance or significant increases in aviation noise generated by flights arriving or departing from Toronto Pearson. Out of scope The scope of this review is to identify additional options that may reduce the noise disturbance experienced by communities through changes to air traffic management practices, flight path design, and aircraft operating practices. N/A The airport has been allowed to expand too much and the number of flights need to be reduced. Communities have seen the airport grow dramatically in recent years and have heard the aims of the GTAA to develop into a Mega-hub, yet they have not experienced any changes that have reduced the noise disturbance they experience. Out of scope The growth of traffic at Toronto Pearson is beyond the control of NAV CANADA. Any recommendations made by this review must not detrimentally impact the capacity of the airport or the airspace. N/A There is a lack of community engagement in the airspace change process. The airspace changes made in February 2012 could have been handled more sensitively with greater communication and consultation by NAV CANADA. The GTA has not experienced an airspace change since February 2012, so is unable to evaluate if the industry Airspace Change Communication and Consultation Protocol, published in 2015, will result in improvements in community engagement. Out of scope The airspace change voluntary communication and consultation protocol applies to Toronto Pearson and provides a commitment to involve communities more in the process of airspace change. The remit of this review does not include consideration of the process by which airspace change is managed and consulted. N/A Lack of predictability in current arrival operations. Pilots are unable to efficiently manage their descent and de-acceleration in a manner that generates the least noise. Current technology, tools and procedures available at Toronto Pearson do not support the predictability of time or distance of an aircraft from landing, which makes it difficult for a pilot to manage their descent effectively. Pilots are unable to optimise their arrival flight profile and energy management (see Annex I.19) to minimise the noise they generate, due to a lack of collaboration and cohesion in the management of the approach by the pilot and controller. In scope Long-term developments in AMAN tools and TBO will improve the predictability of track miles to go and time of arrival of an aircraft, thus stabilising the arrival sequencing process and reducing traffic peaks and troughs (see Section ). Improved collaboration between pilot and controller through the development of an Industry Operational Noise Management Board and a Code of Conduct (see Section ). P140

141 ANNEXES open public meetings B Table 18. Open public meetings Consultation round date location 1st 26th September 2016 Courtyard, 90 Biscayne Crescent, Brampton 1st 27th September 2016 Springhill Suites, 612 Applewood Crescent, Vaughan 1st 28th September 2016 Toronto Marriott, 90 Bloor St E, Toronto 1st 29th September 2016 Holiday Inn, 2525 Wyecroft Rd, Oakville 2nd 1st November 2016 Best Western, 808 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto 2nd 2nd November 2016 Hilton Garden Inn, 2774 South Sheridan Way, Oakville 2nd 3rd November 2016 Best Western, 5825 Dixie Rd, Mississauga 3rd 1st March 2017 Hilton Garden Inn, 1870 Matheson Boulevard, Mississauga 3rd 2nd March 2017 St. Luke s Community Centre, 3114 Dundas, Oakville 3rd 4th March 2017 Novotel North York, 3 Park Home Avenue, North York P141

142 ANNEXES Noise Exposure Forecast and Projection C The tool for calculation of a NEF or NEP is made available by TC for use by aviation planners, to support those responsible for the development of lands adjacent to airports, to implement smart zoning practices, and to properly manage land-use in the vicinity of airports. The NEF and NEP tools are not intended for use by the general public. C.1 Noise Exposure Forecast The NEF system provides a measurement of the actual and forecasted aircraft noise near airports in the short-term. This system factors in the subjective reactions of the human ear to the specific aircraft noise stimulus: loudness, frequency, duration, time of occurrence and tone. This metric predicts a community s response to aircraft noise. TC advise iii : A NEF level greater than 25 is likely to produce some level of annoyance. If the NEF level is above 35, complaints will probably be numerous. This provides municipalities and local governments with a basis for zoning and provides residents with a scenario reflecting expected noise levels. TC recommend against proceeding with new residential development in areas where the NEF exceeds 30. If the development does proceed, TC recommend a detailed noise analysis should be conducted and noise reduction practices should be implemented. In this situation, it is the developer s duty to inform prospective residents of potential noise problems. C.2 Noise Exposure Projection TC recognise that provinces and municipalities require projections beyond five years for land-use planning, if conditions are certain to change over time. For these purposes, the NEP is used. The NEP projects aircraft movements and other changing variables 10 to 20 years ahead, giving authorities a longer perspective for zoning. P142

143 ANNEXES Toronto Pearson arrival movement rates D Table 19. Toronto Pearson arrival movement rates The following depicted rates in the table below are for estimate / planning purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the operational plan and performance. Different runway throughput rates are possible in different metrological conditions. The following table includes three different metrological operating conditions and one ILS category column: Visual operations cloud ceiling greater than 5,000ft and visibility of 6 to 10 statute miles Visual Metrological Conditions (VMC) a cloud ceiling of greater than 2,500ft and visibility greater than 3 statute miles Instrument Metrological Conditions (IMC) a cloud ceiling less than 1,000ft and visibility less than 3 statute miles. CAT II / III are ILS categories used when visibility is significantly reduced. CATII / III operations are only possible on selected runways where the necessary equipment has been installed. During winter storms the typical arrival rates when operating Land 1 / Depart 1 on the east / west runways is If operations are on a single runway then the rate drops to movements per hour. Arrival Runway mode departure runway mode visual operations visual metrological conditions (imc) instrumental metrological conditions (imc) CAT ii / iii 05/06R Triple 05/06L Triple N/A 05 & 06L or 06R Dual 05 & 06L or 06R Dual / notes Primary Arr Rwy 06R / Dep Rwy 06L Mixed mode on Rwy 05. Higher rate possible subject to mix of aircraft, arrival / departure split, wind & weather. Mixed mode on Rwy 05 & 06L or 06R. 05 & 06L or 06R Staggered Dual 05 & 06L or 06R Staggered Dual N/A / Mixed mode on Rwy 05 & 06L or 06R. Parallel approaches are dependent. 05/06L/06R Land 1, Depart other 05/06L/06R Land 1, Depart other / Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. Can be any two of the three runways. 05 or 06L or 06R Single 05 or 06L or 06R Single / 8-9 Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. P143

144 ANNEXES Toronto Pearson arrival movement rates D Arrival Runway mode departure runway mode visual operations visual metrological conditions (imc) instrumental metrological conditions (imc) CAT ii / iii 23/24L Triple 23/24R Triple N/A 23 & 24L or 24R Dual 23 & 24L or 24R Dual N/A notes Primary Arr Rwy 24L / Dep Rwy 24R Mixed mode on Rwy 23. Higher rate possible subject to mix of aircraft, arrival / departure split, wind & weather. Mixed mode on Rwy 23 & 24L or 24R. 23 & 24L or 24R Staggered Dual 23 & 24L or 24R Staggered Dual N/A N/A Mixed mode on Rwy 23 & 24L or 24R. Parallel approaches are dependent. 23/24L/24R Land 1, Depart other 23/24L/24R Land 1, Depart other N/A Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. Can be any two of the three runways. 23 or 24L or 24R Single 23 or 24L or 24R Single N/A Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. 33L & 33L Offload 33R 42* N/A *Requires some arrivals to be offloaded to 33R when departing traffic permits. Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. 33L 33R N/A Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. 33L or 33R Single 33L or 33R Single N/A Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. 15R & 15L Offload 15L 36* N/A *Requires some arrivals to be offloaded to 15L when departing traffic permits. Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. 15L 15R N/A Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. 15L or 15R Single 15L or 15R Single N/A Rates dependant on mix of aircraft types. P144

145 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E.1 Standard instrument departure routes E P145 Figure 37. Departure routes from runways 23, 24L and 24R

146 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E P146 Figure 38. Departure routes from runways 05, 06L and 06R

147 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E P147 Figure 39. Departure routes from runways 33L and 33R

148 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E.2 Standard instrument arrival routes E P148 Figure 40. Arrival routes to runways 05, 06L or 06R

149 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E P149 Figure 41. Arrival routes to runways 23, 24L and 24R

150 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E P150 Figure 42. Arrival routes to runways 15L and 15R

151 ANNEXES Post February 2012 standard arrival and departure routes E P151 Figure 43. Arrivals routes to runways 33L and 33R

152 ANNEXES Lateral and vertical dispersal of aircraft on the South downwind F Figure 44. Lateral and vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 Figure 45. Lateral dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 P152

153 ANNEXES Lateral and vertical dispersal of aircraft on the South downwind F Figure 46. Probability density functions of the lateral dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 Figure 47. Vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 24 P153

154 ANNEXES Lateral and vertical dispersal of aircraft on the South downwind F Figure 48. Lateral and vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 Figure 49. Lateral dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 P154

155 ANNEXES Lateral and vertical dispersal of aircraft on the South downwind F Figure 50. Probability density functions of the lateral dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 Figure 51. Vertical dispersal on the South downwind to runway 06 P155

156 ANNEXES Runway alternation options G G.1 Relief for communities under the final approach and initial climb Figure 52 presents six opportunities which offer relief to communities positioned under the final approach to, and the initial climb from, the runway. Options A to E Options A to E in Figure 52 illustrate how a land 1 runway, depart 1 runway operation can provide relief to different communities under the final approach or initial climb from runways 05 / 23, 06L / 24R and 06R / 24L. Option F Option F in Figure 52 illustrates how a mixed mode operation on a single runway can provide relief to those communities off either ends of runways 06L / 24R and 06R / 24L. Equally, mixed mode operations could be conducted on runway 06L / 24R to provide relief to both ends of runway 05 / 23. Note that communities under the North and South downwind legs do not receive relief from the options above as the arrival and departure paths remain the same. All six options in Figure 52 are considered operationally viable. 15R A 15L Relief R B 15L 23 Relief 05 15R C 15L 23 Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief 05 15R D 15L 23 Relief 05 E 15R 15L 23 Relief 05 15R F 15L 23 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief P156 Figure 52. Runway alternation for providing relief under the final approach and the initial climb

157 ANNEXES Runway alternation options G G.2 Relief for communities under the North and South downwind segments Figure 53 below presents four examples of runway alternation which could offer relief to communities positioned under the final approach and initial climb, as well as for the majority of community members under the North and South downwind segments. Options A and B in Figure 53 use either runway 15L / 15R for arrivals and either 06L / 06R or 24L / 24R for departures. For arrivals on 15L / 15R or 33L / 33R, the East and West downwinds are used, therefore providing relief to communities under most of the North or South downwinds, which are used by a large majority of flights. Communities positioned under either; the final approach to runways 15L / 15R and 33L / 33R, or the East and West downwinds, could experience an increase in aviation noise compared to the current typical pattern of flight path operations. A B Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief 15R 15L Relief Relief Relief 05 15R 15L 23 Relief 06L 06R 33L 33R 24R 24L Relief Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L C Downwind relief Downwind relief D Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief 15R 15L Relief Relief 15R 15L Relief Relief Relief 06L 06R 33L 33R 24R 24L Relief Relief 33L 06L 06R 33R 24R 24L Relief Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief P157 Figure 53. Runway alternation for providing relief under the North and South downwinds

158 ANNEXES Runway alternation options G Where the East and West downwinds traverse the North and South downwinds, some communities would experience over flights from both pairs of downwinds. There are only a couple of intersections where the altitudes of the intersecting downwinds are similar, being where the South downwind intersects the East downwind, as illustrated in Figure 54, and where the South downwind intersects the West downwind. Figure 54. Location of intersection between South downwind and East downwind P158

159 ANNEXES Runway alternation options G G.3 Further runway alternation options The following four runway alternation options entail the operation of intersecting runways, therefore the associated operational risks are increased. Option A Option A, illustrated in Figure 55, presents aircraft approaching over the top of runway 06L / 06R to land on runway 33L, whilst aircraft are departing from runway 06L / 06R. Initial indications are that the arrivals and departures could be operated independently 10. The review team believes that this option is safe during periods of good visibility but would expect NAV CANADA to prepare a safety case prior to its use. Option B Option B, illustrated in Figure 56, presents a similar scenario to option A, with aircraft arriving and departing intersecting runways; landing on runway 15L, whilst aircraft are departing from runway 23. Unlike Option A, the arrival and departure operations would be dependent, as the runways actually intersect and there would not be sufficient vertical clearance between an arrival and departure aircraft, therefore requiring coordination by ATC. The review team believes that this option could be a safe procedure, but would expect NAV CANADA to prepare a safety case prior to a decision on its use. Similar procedures are used at other international airports, although these tend to only have intersecting runways available. Downwind relief Downwind relief 15R 15L Relief Relief 05 15R 15L 23 Relief Relief 06L 06R 33L 33R 24R 24L Relief 06L 06R 33L 33R 24R 24L Relief 10 The review team have estimated that the tallest aircraft, the tail fin of an A380, would not infringe a virtual safety surface, the Precision Instrument Approach surface, for runway 33L arrivals, therefore permitting independent runway operations if 06L is used for departures and 33L for arrivals; although this would have to be checked and confirmed by NAV CANADA and the GTAA. P159 Downwind relief Figure 55. Potential runway alternation option Option A Downwind relief Figure 56. Potential runway alternation option Option B

160 ANNEXES Runway alternation options G Option C Option C, illustrated in Figure 57, presents arrivals on runway 33R and departures on runway 23. This option requires the arriving aircraft to stop and hold short of the intersection with runway 23 / 05; this is not desirable operational practice, particularly when safer alternatives exist. Option D Option D illustrated in Figure 58 designates arrivals on runway 33L and departures on runway 24R / 24L. This option is considered to be potentially unsafe for several reasons and is therefore not recommended by the review team. The risks identified include: Sufficient vertical clearance and separation cannot be assured as the aircraft departing from runway 24R / 24L may be airborne at the point it crosses the inbound path of an arrival to 33L. The jet blast and turbulence from the arriving aircraft may impact the departing aircraft. Downwind relief Downwind relief 05 15R 15L 23 Relief 15R 15L Relief Relief Relief 06L 06R 33L 33R 24R 24L Relief 06L 06R 33L 33R 24R 24L Relief Downwind relief Downwind relief Downwind relief Figure 57. Potential runway alternation option Option C Figure 58. Potential runway alternation option Option D The review team, through learning and experience, conclude that Option A and B are operable, with prominence on safe management and implementation. Options C and D are not considered operable. P160

161 ANNEXES Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales H Table 19 summarises all the mitigations and recommendations made by the review team, and identifies the following factors for each: 1) Timeline for implementation: a. Short-term (S): up to 18 months 11 b. Medium term (M): 18 to 36 months c. Long-term (L): over 36 months 2) Whether it affects arrivals (Arrs) or departures (Deps). 3) Whether it provides noise reduction or relief. 4) Which of ICAO s Balanced Approach elements (see Section 3.1.1) it satisfies: a. Reducing noise at source (RN) b. Land-use planning and management (LUP) c. Noise abatement operational procedures (NAOP) d. Operating restrictions (OR) 11 It must be acknowledged that any short-term change subject to external influences such as statutory requirements, third party publication approval, or consultation (in line with the consultation protocol), for example, may incur delay outside of NAV CANADA s control. P161

162 ANNEXES Table 20. Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales H ID Mitigation recommendation timescale mode noise Icao s balanced approach s m l arrs deps reduction relief rn lup naop or 1A Airbus A320 whine NAV CANADA should formally write to Transport Canada requesting them to consider establishment of a sunset date of December 31st 2020 for the operation, in Canada, of Airbus A320 series aircraft without the Fuel Over Pressure Protector cavity vortex generator noise modification. 1B Airbus A320 whine As an indication of GTAA s and NAV CANADA s commitment to noise reduction, and a tangible indication to local communities that the noise impact of the airport is taken seriously and; to incentivise an accelerated noise modification by all airlines using A320 family aircraft at Toronto; NAV CANADA should formally approach the GTAA about the establishment of an earlier sunset date for unmodified Airbus A320 family aircraft using the airport, such as two years after publication of this report. With an appropriate noise penalty applied for noncompliant aircraft immediately thereafter, if lawful within the GTAA s or NAV CANADA s charging regimes. 2A Improve descent management NAV CANADA, the major Toronto Pearson airlines (Air Canada, Rouge, WestJet and Jazz), the National Airline Council of Canada, the GTAA, and possibly the Canadian Airports Council and Transport Canada, should form an Industry Noise Management Board (INMB). 2B Improve descent management The Industry Noise Management Board should develop a cross industry Code of Conduct that facilitates the reduction of arrival and departure noise through improvements in aircraft operation and air traffic control management at Toronto Pearson. 2C Improve descent management The Industry Noise Management Board should develop an agreed definition of Continuous Descent Operation (CDO) and guidance on achieving low power - low drag CDOs. P162

163 ANNEXES Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales H ID Mitigation recommendation timescale mode noise icao s balanced approach s m l arrs deps reduction relief rn lup naop or 2D 2E 2F 3A 3B Improve descent management Improve descent management Improve descent management Performance Based Navigation Performance Based Navigation The Industry Noise Management Board should evaluate whether landing with reduced flap is safe to operate at Toronto Pearson, and to provide guidance on how to achieve this if proven acceptable. NAV CANADA should publish at least quarterly, the percentage of arrival flights achieving Continuous Descent Operation compliance at Toronto Pearson. NAV CANADA should benchmark, on an annual basis, Continuous Descent Operation achievement by airlines at Toronto Pearson against a baseline of current performance and a targeted annual performance improvement. NAV CANADA should design Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required procedures that can reduce the need for a high / low operation, taking due consideration of the location of the tracks, and proceed to consultation to facilitate implementation as soon as is practicable. NAV CANADA should maximise the use of the Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR) procedure to incentivise those airlines not already capable of RNP AR to invest, as the RNP AR approach route will offer airlines a more fuel efficient arrival route. 3C Performance Based Navigation NAV CANADA should develop at least one Area Navigation Continuous Descent Operation route from each downwind Standard Arrival Route to the nearest parallel runway, to improve the use and delivery of Continuous Descent Operations and increase the average height of approaching aircraft during low-traffic times. 4A Slightly steeper glide path The Industry Noise Management Board should consider 3.2 Area Navigation approaches, with a controlled evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of changing the glide path angle at Toronto Pearson. P163

164 ANNEXES Summary of recommendations with their respective timescales H ID Mitigation recommendation timescale mode noise Icao s balanced approach 5A Runway alternation NAV CANADA should wait to understand and reflect on the output of the GTAA s current public engagement activities, that include the Residents Reference Panel, and the upcoming consultation on weekend runway alternation; prior to determining whether to proceed to operate runway alternation when traffic levels permit. s m l arrs deps reduction relief rn lup naop or 6A Reduced downwind usage NAV CANADA should continue to utilise short-cuts over Lake Ontario on an ad-hoc basis and seek to promote their use, to reduce downwind usage when traffic permits. The combination of short-cuts over the lake to join the new Area Navigation approach routes recommended in 3C will facilitate low power - low drag and Continuous Descent Operations. The implementation of the new Area Navigation approaches will be subject to consultation in accordance with the protocol. 7A Point merge NAV CANADA should investigate and evaluate the operational, environmental, financial and societal impacts, of a single point merge solution for straight-in arrivals at Toronto Pearson. 8A 8B Arrival management and Time Based Operations Arrival management and Time Based Operations NAV CANADA should implement as soon as practical an integrated extended arrivals manager to provide automatic sequencing support to air traffic controllers, and arrival planning for pilots. NAV CANADA should implement a programme to continually stretch the horizon of influence and accuracy of an extend arrivals manager tool s output through refinement of the input data and the heuristics used within the tool. 8C Arrival management and Time Based Operations NAV CANADA should invest in the development of Time Based Operations within Canadian airspace as well as international research and development activities with the strategic objective to achieve full Trajectory Based Operations. P164

165 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.1 Introduction This section explains some aviation terms and concepts used in the report. I.2 Runway nomenclature Runways are usually numbered according to their direction, and are usually assigned a number between 01 and 36 based on the magnetic azimuth (compass bearing) in which it is orientated. For example, a runway numbered 09 points towards the east (90 ), a runway numbered 18 points towards the south (180 ), a runway numbered 27 points towards the west (270 ), and a runway numbered 36 points to the north (360 rather than 0 ). Therefore, if a plane takes off from or lands on runway 09, it would be taking-off towards the east or landing towards the east, in both situations the aircraft is following an easterly heading. If there is more than one runway pointing in the same direction (i.e. parallel runways), each runway is identified by a letter to identify its position. Letters include Left (L), Centre (C) and Right (R), depending on how many parallel runways there are. A runway can normally be used in both directions, and is named for each direction separately. Figure 59 illustrates three runways; two parallel runways and one singular runway. Each runway is numbered differently at each end. For example, runway 33 in one direction is runway 15 in the opposite direction. The two numbers usually differ by 18, and in terms of direction, are separated by N 270 W S 180 E , SW direction, Position: n/a 50, NE direction, Position: n/a 330, NNW direction, Position: Right 330, NNW direction, Position: Left P165 Figure 59. Runway nomenclature

166 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.3 Runway extended centreline The runway centreline is a physical line marked on the surface of the runway which identifies the centre of the runway. The runway extended centreline is a virtual extension of the physical centreline of a runway, displayed on a radar map to the limits of the terminal area. It has a very important use when planning and carrying out the radar vectoring of aircraft for control purposes. Runway centrelines (physical and extended) are illustrated in Figure 60. Runway Extended runway centreline for departure path; displayed on radar map only. Physical runway centreline Extended runway centreline for final approach; displayed on radar map only. Figure 60. Runway extended centreline Crosswind Departure Runway Final Approach Downwind Figure 61. Airfield traffic pattern Base leg I.4 Airfield Traffic Pattern Traffic patterns are typically rectangular in shape, and include the runway which runs along one long edge of the rectangle. Each leg of the traffic pattern has a specific name, indicated below, and are referenced in Figure 61: Downwind: A long flight path parallel to, but in the opposite direction of, the landing runway. This can be flown at level altitude, or can be used to descend. Base leg: A short flight path typically at right angles to the approach and extended centreline of the landing runway. This can be flown either level or descending. Final approach: A descending flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centreline, from the base leg to the landing runway. Departure leg: Climbing flight path along the extended runway centreline which begins at take-off and continues beyond the runway s departure end. Crosswind leg: A short climbing flight path at right angles to the departure end of the runway. This can also be flown at level altitude. P166

167 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.5 Flight path centreline The flight path centreline marks the centre of the designated flight path along which an aircraft navigates. This is an intangible line which is defined by waypoints and beacons, and today, is usually navigated with a high level of precision. I.6 Vectoring Aircraft vectoring is an ANS provided to aircraft by ATC, and is used to achieve separation between aircraft, to aid the navigation of flights, and to guide arriving aircraft to a position from which they can continue their final approach to the runway. It is the controller s responsibility to choose an airfield traffic pattern for the aircraft to fly, composed of specific legs or vectors, and to instruct the pilot to fly specific headings at appropriate times to safely descend the aircraft. Vectoring plays a significant role in the way controllers process traffic. Figure 62 illustrates vectors on the base leg turning to final approach. Runway Final Approach Vectors Downwind Figure 62. Aircraft vectoring P167

168 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.7 Standard Instrument Departures & Standard Arrival Routes When an aircraft flies from airport to airport using IFR, they do so by flying along standard routes marked on published (printed) charts, which act like roads in the sky. These airways allow an aircraft to get from A to B in a controlled and structured manner instead of flying any route they wish. The advantage of this is that once a pilot has declared his/her intended route, air traffic controllers do not need to provide vectors and instructions throughout the journey. A SID route, also known as a departure procedure, is a designated instrument flight rule departure route linking the airport or a specified runway with a specified significant waypoint, normally on a designated air traffic services route, at which the en-route phase of a flight commences. An airport will usually publish standard routes/procedures from its runways to the various routes away from the airport. A STAR is a designated instrument flight rule arrival route linking a significant point, normally on an air traffic service route, with a point from which a published instrument approach procedure can be commenced. As with SIDs, an airport will usually publish standard routes/procedures to its runways from the various routes towards the airport. I.8 Waypoints Waypoints are named points in space which form a route in the sky, along which aircraft navigate. These routes are often composed of both beacons and waypoints. A waypoint is defined by its geographic coordinates, or its bearing and distance from a beacon, and has a name which normally takes the form of a five-letter capitalised word. A waypoint may be a simple named point in space, helping to mark out the route, or it may be associated with existing physical navigational aids, route intersections or fixes. For example, waypoints are often used to indicate a change in direction, speed or altitude along a desired path. I.9 Sequencing Traffic sequencing is an alternative approach to the conventional first-come, first-served rule. It is an important concept used to safely and effectively manage arrival traffic navigating towards an airport. Traffic sequencing can be implemented some distance away from an airport, or can be effected as close as final approach, and can be aided by the operation of different techniques. Examples of these techniques include TBO, stacking/ holding, tromboning and point merge. P168

169 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.10 Holding stacks Stacking (also known as holding) is a technique used at airports to delay aircraft that have arrived at their destination but can t land because of traffic congestion, poor weather, or runway unavailability. This concept can be also used to help sequence aircraft in preparation for arrival at an airport. Several aircraft may be held in a stack at any one time, usually separated vertically by 1,000ft or more. New arrivals will be added to the top of the stack, as instructed by the air traffic controller. Aircraft at the bottom of the stack are taken out and are instructed to make an approach to the airport, after which all the aircraft in the stack move down one level, and so on. The sequence of aircraft can be changed by directing a flight to leave the stack from one of the mid-levels. The stacking process is controlled by air traffic controllers. Some airports may have several stacks, or holding patterns. This usually depends on the direction in which the aircraft approach the airport, which runway is in use, or because of vertical airspace limitations. Figure 63 illustrates the principle of stacking. Stack New arrivals join the top of the stack 1,000ft Runway Final Approach Track Arrivals are pulled from the bottom of the stack P169 Figure 63. The principle of stacking

170 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.11 Separation The distance between two aircraft or between an aircraft and another obstacle (i.e. terrain) is described as separation, and must be maintained to prevent collision. I.12 Compression Air traffic controllers, for instrument approaches, manage the separation distance between two adjacent aircraft during the approach and departure. An aircraft pair (i.e. leading aircraft and that following behind it) flying at different points on the same flight routing may differ in speed, causing separation between the two aircraft to increase or decrease. If the separation distance increases then there is no safety issue, however it does cause loss of capacity. Inversely, if the separation distance is reduced below the minima, then a safety issue has occurred and immediate action is required to restore the necessary separation. In addition to differing aircraft speeds, differing headwind and tailwind conditions at different altitudes need to be considered since these can reduce or increase the groundspeed of one of the aircraft compared to the other, causing the separation distance to expand or compress. Table 21. TERPS and PAN-Ops nomenclature of equivalent PBN operations TERPS RNAV RNAV (GNSS) or RNAV APCH RNAV (RNP) PANS-Ops (ICAO) RNAV RNP APCH (Approach) RNP AR (Authorisation Required) APCH I.13 Performance Based Navigation When describing PBN approaches, it is important to note that there are two standards which are widely used to define approach operations at an airport; ICAO s PANS-Ops xxv and the FAAs TERPS ii. In Canada, TERPS-based criteria are used to define approach operations. Within this report the review team have used the Canadian nomenclature for definition of operations and procedures, however, the table to the left delineates the equivalent operation in PANS-Ops. PBN uses computerised on-board systems and GNSS rather than ground-based navigation aids, to guide aircraft along published routes. Ground-based navigation aids provide relative navigation (i.e. relative to the navigation aids), whereas PBN provides absolute navigation (i.e. the exact position of the aircraft in space in relation to the intended flight path). Flight paths become more accurate, predictable and repeatable with the utilisation of PBN. PBN encompasses two types of navigation specifications; RNAV and RNP. They provide the same accuracy of a flight path over the ground. P170

171 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I Conventional navigation Current ground navigational aids I.13.1 Area Navigation RNAV is a method of IFR navigation which allows an aircraft to choose any course within a network of navigation aids or within the limits of a self-contained system capability, or a combination of these. Figure 64 illustrates the principle of RNAV. RNAV was developed to provide more lateral freedom to use more of the available airspace. This method of navigation does not require a track directly to or from any specific navigation aid, and has three principal applications: A route structure can be organised between any given departure and arrival point to reduce flight distance and traffic separation. ILS beam Airport Aircraft can be flown into TCAs on varied pre-programmed arrival and departure paths to expedite traffic flow. RNAV Limited design flexibility Waypoints Increased airspace efficiency RNP Narrow obstacle clearance areas Seamless continuous descent Constant radius turn Optimised use of airspace Instrument approaches can be developed and certified at certain airports, without local instrument landing aids at that airport. I.13.2 Required Navigational Performance RNP systems differ from RNAV in that they also have an on-board navigation performance monitoring and alerting system. This differs from RNAV, where such a requirement is not necessary. Figure 64 illustrates the principle of RNP. RNP AR (Required Navigational Performance Authorization Required) is a specific version of RNP in which the operator must meet additional aircraft and aircrew requirements, and obtain prior operational authorisation from the State regulatory authority before implementing. RNP AR systems are used in obstacle-rich environments, where a higher level of navigation performance is required. RNP AR procedures can enable approach and departure procedures to be implemented in circumstances where other types of approach and departure procedures are not operationally possible or satisfactory. More recently, RNP AR systems have been adopted for improved operational efficiency, particularly at larger airports. Figure 64. The principle of RNAV and RNP P171

172 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.14 Mixed mode runway A mixed mode runway is defined as a runway which is used for both landings and departures at the same time. The arrivals and departures are interspersed with each other. I.15 Final Approach Track The final approach track is the last leg in an aircraft s approach to landing, when the aircraft is lined up with the runway and descending for landing. At some airports, an ILS is used to help navigate an aircraft on the final approach track safely to the runway. An ILS transmits radio signals in two cone-like beams along part of the final approach track, to aid aircraft arrival. One beam (localiser beam) provides lateral positioning guidance and the second beam (glidepath beam) provides the vertical guidance. Once an aircraft is established on the ILS, it will follow a fixed descent path towards the runway. This is illustrated in Figure 65 below. Lateral guidance from the ILS localiser beam 3000ft Joining point 4000ft Joining point 5000ft Joining point Vertical guidance from the ILS glide path beam 3 o glide path Figure 65. Instrument Landing System P172

173 ANNEXES Aviation terms and concepts I I.16 Air traffic control ATC is a service provided by ground-based controllers who direct aircraft on the ground and through controlled airspace, and can provide advisory services to aircraft in non-controlled airspace. The main purpose of ATC is to prevent collisions, organise air traffic flow, and provide information and other support for pilots. An air traffic controller has access to an ATM system, from which they can gather data about the aircraft in the vicinity and use live streaming to identify the exact location of each aircraft. The ATM visual is black, with coloured lines illustrating flight paths, the airport, airspace blocks and other navigational props. Aircraft figures move around on this screen replicating their position and direction they are heading in real-time. Figure 66 illustrates an example of an ATM screen for Toronto. Note that air traffic controllers are not able to identify specific communities or landmarks as ground maps are not illustrated due to concern that they create too much clutter on the screen. P173 Figure 66. Example of an ATM screen for Toronto