Current practice of separation delivery at major European airports ATM R&D Seminar, June 2015, Lisbon

Current practice of separation delivery at major European airports ATM R&D Seminar, June 2015, Lisbon Gerben van Baren (NLR) vanbaren@nlr.nl Catherine Chalon Morgan (Eurocontrol) Vincent Treve (Eurocontrol) vincent.treve@eurocontrol.int

Contents Congested airports Supporting tool Reduced separation concepts Current practice? Understanding by data analysis Forecast capability

Contents Congested airports Supporting tool Reduced separation concepts Current practice? Understanding by data analysis Forecast capability

Incentive for the project Analysing summer period 2012, 6 airports were congested in the sense of operating at 80% or more of their capacity for more than 3 hours per days. This is expected to grow to 30 airport in 2035... however through bilateral discussion with airport, it appears that today many more airports have constrained peak hours (<3h) during which runway capacity is either a source of delay OR a limitation to business development.

Incentive for the project For congested runway (during peak hours), separations are primarily imposed by ICAO wake turbulence separations MTOM 7T 7T < MTOM <136T MTOM 136T Light Medium Heavy

Incentive for the project For congested runway (during peak hours), separations are usually primarily imposed by ICAO wake turbulence separations but not only, for example: Complex constraints may be applied for departure clearance resulting from simultaneous arrival and departure on CSPR MTOM 7T Landing and take-off North Runways at LFPG

Incentive for the project For congested runway (during peak hours), separations are usually primarily imposed by ICAO wake turbulence separations but not only, for example: A gap may need to be created in an approach sequence during mix-mode operations MTOM 7T Mix-mode in LOWW

Incentive for the project For congested runway (during peak hours), separations are usually primarily imposed by ICAO wake turbulence separations but not only, for example: A gap may need to be created in an approach sequence during mix-mode operations MTOM 7T Mix-mode in LOWW

Contents Congested airports Supporting tool Reduced separation concepts Current practice? Understanding by data analysis Forecast capability

Today, these separations are applied without a controller support tool

SESAR-1 SESAR-2020 Existing solution tomorrow with more advanced separation optimisation concepts deployed, this may become more complex CSPR Operations Mixed Mode Ops RECAT-EU Enhanced Procedures Time Based Separation Pairwise Separation Weather Dependant Separation Runway Occupancy Time

SESAR-1 SESAR-2020 Existing solution CSPR Operations Integration of these concepts shall be transparent for the controllers Mixed Mode Ops RECAT-EU Enhanced Procedures Time Based Separation Pairwise Separation Weather Dependant Separation Runway Occupancy Time

SESAR-1 SESAR-2020 Existing solution CSPR Operations Integration of these concepts shall be transparent for the controllers and supported by an integration system Mixed Mode Ops Leading Optimised Runway Delivery RECAT-EU LORD Enhanced Procedures Time Based Separation Pairwise Separation Weather Dependant Separation Runway Occupancy Time

How should the tool work? CSPR Operations T1 All solutions define optimised time separations from different perspectives Mixed Mode Ops RECAT-EU T2 T3 T4 Time Based Separation LORD T5 T6 Pairwise Separation T7 T8 Weather Dependant Separation Runway Occupancy Time Enhanced Procedures

How should the tool work? CSPR Operations T1 Since all minima shall be respected, only the most constraining one is considered by the ORD Tool: Mixed Mode Ops RECAT-EU T2 T3 T4 Time Based Separation LORD T5 T6 Pairwise Separation Time separation = max ( [T1,T2,,Tn] ) T7 T8 Weather Dependant Separation Runway Occupancy Time Enhanced Procedures

How should the tool work? The time separation is converted into Final Target Distance Time separation Final Target Distance 16

Final Target Distance Final (FTD) Target indicator Distance (FTD) indicator of the LORD of the ORD Tool 17

How should it work? Optimum separation delivery also requires efficient anticipation of the compression effect caused by aircraft speed reduction in final approach phase EZY475A M 025 160 A319 IBE652R H 015 160 A343 18

How should it work? Optimum separation delivery also requires efficient anticipation of the compression effect caused by aircraft speed reduction in final approach phase EZY475A M 021 160 A319 IBE652R H 011 140 A343 19

How should it work? Optimum separation delivery also requires efficient anticipation of the compression effect caused by aircraft speed reduction in final approach phase EZY475A M 019 160 A319 IBE652R H 009 135 A343 20

How should it work? Optimum separation delivery also requires efficient anticipation of the compression effect caused by aircraft speed reduction in final approach phase EZY475A M 015 160 A319 IBE652R H 005 135 A343 21

How should it work? Optimum separation delivery also requires efficient anticipation of the compression effect caused by aircraft speed reduction in final approach phase EZY475A M 025 160 A319 Initial Target Distance Final Target Distance IBE652R H 015 160 A343 22

How should it work? The LORD also provides the controller with an Initial Target Indicator (ITD). This second chevron defines the separation on the glide that will permit delivering the minimum separation at threshold Final Target Distance (FTD) Initial Target Distance (ITD) 23

Contents Congested airports Supporting tool Reduced separation concepts Current practice? Understanding by data analysis Forecast capability

The Optimised Runway Delivery study Objective: Baseline the current practices for separation application throughout Europe Understand factors causing variability and compression Demonstrate there are today means for going below minima To put the SESAR concepts into the right perspective New concepts should not be more stringent than current ops Activities/inputs: Visits to ATC centers Questionnaire, interviews with APP/TWR controllers Analysis of radar track data & weather data

Involved airports/ansps Paris Charles de Gaulle/ DSNA Milan Malpensa/ ENAV Barcelona El Prat/ AENA Vienna Schwechat/ Austro Control London Heathrow/ NATS London Gatwick/ NATS 26

Distribution of tasks between controllers Final controller / director: Glide slope interception Max 6-8 a/c on frequency Initial controller and/or Intermediate/ feeder: Coordination with adjacent sectors Holding pattern Set up the sequence Localizer interception course Tower/ runway controller: Monitors separation Initiate go-around when necessary Landing clearance Max 4 a/c on frequency 27

Distinction between transfer of communication and transfer of control Transfer of communication: Usually earlier than transfer of control, between 10 and 6 NM before THR Usually silent hand-over Airport specific: hand-over results in blinking label and needs to be acknowledged by TWR Transfer of control: At 4, 6 or 8 NM before THR When at 8 NM: TWR has radar rating 28

Application of speed control 180 kts 29

Separation minima Radar separation Minimum Radar Separation Default = 3.0 NM Special procedures allow 2.5 NM...... within last 12 NM, and following a/c has same or less WTC... within 18 NM, and provided runway braking action satisfies specified conditions... within 20 NM, in certain conditions (vis > 10km, clouds > 1500 ft, headwind > 10 kt, braking action good) Wake separation ICAO scheme UK scheme Airport specific exceptions Visual separation

C525 H25B C650 B190 DH8A E135 E145 CRJ9 E170 RJ85 AT72 F70 DH8D GLF5 F100 E190 B734 F50 MD82 A320 A321 A318 A319 B738 B739 B752 B753 A310 A306 B764 MD11 A333 A343 B777 B744 A380 Wake turbulence categories & separation minima ICAO SUPER HEAVY MEDIUM LIGHT UK SUPER HEAVY UM LOWER MEDIUM SMALL LIGHT ICAO Super Heavy Medium Light Super 6 7 8 Heavy 4 5 6 Medium 5 Light UK Super Heavy Upper Medium Lower Medium Small Super 4 6 7 7 7 8 Heavy 4 4 5 5 6 7 Upper Medium Lower Medium Light 3 4 4 6 3 5 Small 3 4 Light Examples of airport specific exceptions: B757 is Heavy when leader 6 NM for turbo prop followers +1 NM when ATR72 is follower +1 NM when B777 is leader

Visual separation minima Distinctions made: Visual by tower runway controller Visual by flight crew Still under IFR (not a visual approach) Under specific conditions: Weather permitting Day-time Vis > 8000 ft Cloud ceiling > 4000 ft Aircraft established on LOC Example supporting tool Indicator visible for APP to be switched on by TWR when visual separation is possible

Contents Congested airports Supporting tool Reduced separation concepts Current practice? Understanding by data analysis Forecast capability

Analysis of flight track and weather data Combination of radar/ads-b data and METAR weather data Focus on busy operational hours Selection criterion: 3 or more aircraft in a row within 10 NM About 50,000 flights selected for analysis Analysis of: Ground speed Distance and time separation Spacing buffer = actual distance spacing reference separation minimum Considering: Headwind Aircraft type / Wake turbulence categories Airport / runway Final Approach Point (FAP) Visibility

What do we look at? EZY475A M 025 160 A319 Separation = minimum + buffer IBE652R H 015 160 A343 Speed profile follower Compression of separation EZY475A M 019 160 A319 At 8 NM Speed profile leader IBE652R H 009 135 A343 At 0 NM 35

Ground speed profiles

Final Approach Speed

Spacing buffer results Spacing buffer decreases because of compression Close to threshold buffer on average 0.5 NM Fraction below minima, justified by e.g., visual separation

Spacing buffer results

Spacing buffer results Considerable fraction with spacing buffer less than 0 NM Not necessarily infringements! Justified by other means (e.g., visual) separation

Spacing buffer results, effect of headwind Spacing buffer Ground Speed Time separation

Compression of spacing buffer

Compression of spacing buffer

Lessons learned Variability in speed is accounted for in spacing buffer Variability because of aircraft, airport, and weather dependencies Compression of separation distance: Dependent on speed control before 4 DME After 4DME sensitive to traffic mix Spacing buffer at threshold on average 0.5 NM There are means for relieving radar separation, e.g., visual separation For more efficient spacing, capability to predict aircraft performance and to support ATC required -> LORD

What s next: Capability for forecast of aircraft performance The time separation is converted into Final Target Distance by using multi-factor modelling of aircraft speed profile Time separation Wind Final Target Distance Ac Type Airline Traffic pressure 45

What s next: Capability for forecast of aircraft performance Aircraft speed profile models are developed and calibrated using extensive radar data data from several European airports Model Data 100,000+ radar tracks analysed 46

Demo Please contact us if you would like to see the animation at vanbaren@nlr.nl or vincent.treve@eurocontrol.int

Questions?