POST-IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT REVIEW RNAV STAR updates and RNP AR approaches at Halifax Stanfield International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 November 2017 The information and diagrams contained in this report are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be used for navigation.
Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose... 3 2.0 Background... 3 3.0 Usage Summary... 3 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Noise Monitoring... 7 4.1 Sample of overflights at the Enfield monitor 7 4.2 Sample of overflights at the East Hants monitor 8 4.3 Examples of non-aviation noise events 8 5.0 Community Feedback... 8 6.0 Review Conclusions... 9 2
1.0 Purpose This review examines the implementation of updated Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) and new Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR) instrument procedures at Halifax Stanfield International Airport (YHZ). In doing so, the review looks at operational usage, community feedback, and environmental and noise impacts of the new procedures implemented on November 10, 2016. The six-month period from November 10, 2016 to May 10, 2017 was examined. 2.0 Background Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) are part of a family of technologies known as Performance Based Navigation (PBN) that lever the capabilities of modern flight management systems and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) for safer and more efficient navigation. Together, they are a significant piece of the technology tool kit being utilized to meet commitments made by the global aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The shift towards PBN is also part of an ICAO-recommended approach to streamlining global navigation methods. In summer 2016, NAV CANADA proposed that the RNAV STAR structure be updated and that new RNP AR arrival procedures to runways 05, 14, 23 and 32 be implemented at YHZ. A consultation process was conducted in accordance with the industry s Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. The consultation process, which ran from July 29, 2016 to September 12, 2016, included briefings to elected officials and the airport s noise consultative committee, hosting of community open house events in two locations and use of a survey mechanism to enable the public to provide direct comment. Following the consultation process, it was recommended that the changes be implemented as proposed in November 2016. NAV CANADA committed to following up on the implementation with a review of the first sixth months of RNP operation. For background on the full scope of the airspace project and related consultation process please review the Public Engagement Report. 3.0 Usage Summary The primary change to RNAV approaches consisted of a small adjustment to the final approach fixes for respective runways, bringing them closer (roughly 1 nm) to the airport. A new Standard Terminal Arrival Route was added to the overall structure to improve how traffic was managed across the region. The overall utilization of RNP was expected to represent a relatively small proportion of overall traffic due to both equipage levels and the sequencing requirements of traffic at a busy airport. During consultation, it was stated that the percentage of aircraft equipped to utilize RNP procedures was anticipated to start at approximately 22 percent of aircraft. However, it was also acknowledged that a smaller portion would be granted an RNP approach as a result of sequencing requirements and pilots electing to employ other types of approaches. Between November 10, 2016 and May 10, 2017, approximately 600 1 RNP approaches were flown to YHZ. The daily average of RNP approaches completed was less than five approaches per day. Over 1 Counts developed by NAV CANADA Operational Analysis. 3
Figure 2 - Pre- and Post-Implementation Flight Tracks Runway 14 time, the portion of the aircraft fleet equipped and certified for RNP will increase. A runway-by-runway usage analysis follows. Note: Maps depict traffic on given pre- and post-implementation days where each respective runway was in use. Day to day patterns will vary based on aircraft types, runway usage, wind direction and the manner of operation by pilots and air traffic controllers. Some maps may not depict all flight paths with traffic as flown due to low usage of some approaches. Operations to runways other than the one being examined have been omitted for clarity. For an overview of all flight paths view the Public Engagement Report. 3.1 Runway 05 Figure 1 below compares 24-hour samples of traffic as flown on a day prior to implementation against a day of traffic post implementation when runway 05 was in use. The turquoise lines show flight tracks prior to the change while the blue represent a day of tracks post-implementation. The main change that can be seen is a shifting of the base leg closer to the airport. As projected, traffic continues to be distributed across the region prior to lining up on final approach. Figure 1 - Pre- and Post-Implementation Flight Tracks Runway 05 The yellow tracks show the RNP approaches as flown. As expected, RNP approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 41 RNP approaches to runway 05 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. 3.2 Runway 14 Figure 2 below compares 24-hour samples of traffic on a day prior to implementation against a day of traffic post implementation when runway 14 was in use. The turquoise lines show flight tracks prior to the change while the blue represent a day of tracks post-implementation. The main change that can be seen is a shifting of the base leg closer to the airport. Traffic continues to be distributed across the region prior to lining up on final approach and continues to overfly areas that could observe aircraft prior to the changes being implemented. The yellow tracks show the RNP approaches, 4
as flown. A total of 24 RNP approaches to runway 14 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. With relatively low traffic quantities of equipped aircraft from the west and low runway 14 usage overall, it is no surprise that the RNP approaches to this runway are the least used. 3.3 Runway 23 Figure 3 below compares two 24-hour samples of traffic as flown. The turquoise flight tracks represent a day of traffic prior to the change while the blue represent a day of tracks post-implementation. The main change that can be seen is a shifting of the base leg closer to the airport, though in an area that experienced overflight before. As projected, traffic continues to be distributed across the region prior to lining up on final approach and continues to overfly areas that could observe aircraft prior to the changes being implemented. Figure 3 - Pre- and Post-Implementation Flight Tracks Runway 23 over the first 180 days after implementation. The yellow tracks show the RNP approaches as flown. As expected, RNP approaches currently represent a small portion of the overall traffic. A total of 260 RNP approaches to runway 23 were flown 3.4 Runway 32 Figure 4 below compares two 24-hour samples as flown for runway 32. The turquoise lines show flight tracks prior to the change while the blue represent a day of tracks post-implementation. The main change that can be seen is a shifting of the base leg closer to the airport, though in an area that experienced overflight before. As projected, traffic continues to be distributed across the region prior to lining up on final approach and continues to overfly areas that could observe aircraft prior to the changes being implemented. The yellow tracks show the location of the RNP approaches, as flown, which are also amongst the existing traffic distribution. A total of Figure 4 - Pre- and Post-Implementation Flight Tracks Runway 32 5
470 RNP approaches to runway 32 were flown over the first 180 days after implementation. Runway 32 sees the greatest RNP usage as the majority of aircraft to Halifax arrive from the west and benefit from a shorter transition when this runway is in use. 6
4.0 Environmental Impacts and Noise Monitoring The reduction in fuel burn resulting from the new structure is significant. Savings associated only with RNP usage during the six month period is estimated to be equivalent to greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 100 metric tons 2. As RNP equipage and usage grows, environmental benefits in terms of reduced fuel burn and associated greenhouse gas emissions will also grow. As part of the post-implementation review process, NAV CANADA also undertook noise monitoring to further quantify noise impacts of aircraft operations. Noise monitoring was contracted to a local environmental services company called All-Tech. The placement of monitors was determined in consultation with the Halifax Stanfield International Airport Authority. Residential areas where the new structure may be noticeable or where public feedback was received were targeted. Monitors were located in Enfield and East Hants targeting operations to runway 23. Monitors were placed in the communities over several days in September with the goal of catching a day of operation. Noise events were then correlated with specific RNP operations to provide a highly accurate indication of noise levels associated with overflight while identifying other noise events not associated with RNP approaches. The data was captured using Brüel and Kjӕr Model 2250 Type 1 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. Type 1 sound level meters are highly accurate instruments for environmental noise measurements. Figure 5 shows the location of noise monitors in relation to the RNP approach from the west (expected to be amongst the more frequently used). The following tables provide an overview of decibel levels, using both LAeq and LAmax, associated with usage of designated RNP arcs. LAmax represents Figure 5 Sound Monitor Locations the maximum noise level reached during an overflight event while LAeq represents a time-averaged decibel level that takes in to account fluctuations in decibel levels over the course of the event. Monitored decibel levels are typically within a 5 dba range of those modeled. 4.1 Sample of overflights at the Enfield monitor September 4, 2017 Time Aircraft Type Altitude LAmax 22:06 B738 4,799 60.2 21:26 B737 4,814 59.7 20:16 BE190 2,815 59.2 18:00 E170 8,159 59.6 17:46 DH8D 6,116 56.8 15:32 B77L 5,096 62.6 14:52 E190 5,095 61.1 2 Based on reduced track miles from new RNP procedures only (the delta between previous GNSS approaches and new RNP procedures) and does not include GHG reductions associated with continuous descent or resulting from improvements to non-rnp approaches. Estimate produced by NAV CANADA Operational Analysis. 7
14:42 DH8D 5,095 62.3 13:34 E190 4,977 62.5 13:04 E145 5,079 61.1 12:26 DH8D 5,047 65.5 11:46 DH8D 5,047 61.0 11:40 DH8D 5,047 62.1 09:56 B737 4,914 67.2 09:36 A321 4,312 69.1 09:28 DH8D 5,015 65.0 = RNP approach Note: At this stage of flight, RNP equipped aircraft are following a similar pattern to those using more traditional navigation methods. 4.2 Sample of overflights* at the East Hants monitor September 8, 2017 Time Aircraft Type Altitude LAmax 20:18 E190 2,629 52.2 18:16 BE30 2,864 59.5 17:24 DH8D 2,253 47.9 16:58 A320 2,666 55.7 16:20 A320 2,769 48.2 15:52 B738 2,856 62.8 15:00 B722 2,453 54.9 13:46 B763 2,241 62.6 = RNP approach *Most aircraft noise events were not directly overhead (with the exception of the RNP approach) and were lined up on final approach 2.5 kilometres east of the monitor location. 4.3 Examples of non-aviation noise events Activity dba Chainsaw 120 Motorcycle (at 25 feet) 90 Freeway (at 50 feet from pavement edge at 10am) 76 Conversation in Restaurant 60 Quiet Suburb 50 8
5.0 Community Feedback The Halifax Stanfield International Airport Authority confirmed that there have been no complaints associated with the implementation of RNP. NAV CANADA did not receive any complaints or inquiries subsequent to implementation from either residents or public officials. 6.0 Review Conclusions Significant operational and environmental benefits associated with the new arrival structure are being realized. Reductions in flying time of up to three minutes, while relatively small, provide benefits to the flying public. During the review period as well as subsequent to the review period, no community concerns have been associated with the November 2016 implementation. Noise monitoring confirms that noise levels are within close range of those that were modeled and discussed during the consultation phase. Both the low community concerns and modeling accuracy reinforce that the changes have resulted in very little negative impact to communities as it relates to noise from aviation. NAV CANADA and the Halifax Stanfield International Airport Authority will continue to monitor and respond to questions related to changes. Future changes to the airspace will be subject to the appropriate consultation and/or communication process based on the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. 9