NextGen: New Technology for Improved Noise Mitigation Efforts: DFW RNAV Departure Procedures DFW International Airport Sandy Lancaster, Manager Noise Compatibility October 13, 2008
OUTLINE About DFW Airport What Led to RNAV Departure Procedures at DFW How RNAV Was Implemented by FAA Operational Effects What Is Working Well What Issues, If Any Community Effects What Is Working Well What Issues, If Any 2
ABOUT DFW DFW is the 3 rd busiest airport in the World DFW ranks 7 th in the world in terms of annual passengers DFW has over 18,000 acres of land (larger than the island of Manhattan) Seven runways! 279 VFR Ops per Hour Highest in US Five Passenger terminals 155 Gates 20 Passenger Airlines serving DFW 20 Cargo Airlines; International growing at 11% annually Enough capacity to last until 2020 without building any more infrastructure 9,000 Acres of pristine, undeveloped land DFW Airport is situated halfway between its owner cities of Dallas and Fort Worth but is not contiguous to either city. 3
DFW S NOISE HISTORY Before Airport was built, North Central Texas Council of Governments commissioned a study in 1971 to create a noise contour forecasting noise exposure with 1985 level operations. Noise Contour and Draft Land Use Ordinance was promulgated to DFW s surrounding cities to control land use in flight corridors. Cities adopted and most still use TODAY! IMPLEMENTING RNAV DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AT DFW AIRPORT 4
EIS & New Runways In the late 1980s, DFW updated its Airport Development Plan, which projected a need for two new north/south runways one on DFW s east side and one on the west. DFW completed an Environmental Impact Statement in 1992 and received approval from the FAA to build the two new runways conditioned on Specified Mitigation. DFW built the East Runway which opened in 1996. There was much controversy and lawsuits on the EIS and proposed runways that was eventually resolved in the mid-1990s. The West Runway has yet to be built. Proposed West Runway Area of Required Mitigation for East Runway Proposed East Runway 5
East-Side Mitigation Program DFW was required to provide mitigation to those in the 65 DNL noise contour or higher because of the proposed runway. Before DFW could open its 7 th runway (17L/35R), the majority of the mitigation program phases had to be complete. Mitigation for approximately 1,700 parcels which consisted of: Acquisition of over 500 parcels in the 70 DNL (mandatory and voluntary) Sound insulation of 23 parcels (apartments, churches, and schools), and Acquisition of easements and additional compensation of 1,200 parcels in 65 DNL. 6
Other Approved Projects from the EIS: Expansion of Class B Airspace Metroplex Air Traffic System (MATS) Plan Airspace Redesign Approved in 1992; Implemented in 1996. Doubled Airspace Capacity by enabling aircraft to fly parallel arrival routes into DFW, regardless of weather. MAJOR AIRSPACE CHANGE went unnoticed by communities as it was dwarfed by the controversy over the two proposed new runways. 7
Other Approved Projects from the EIS: Expanded Runway Headings Expanded Runway Departure Headings and Waiver Increased options for Departure Throughput FAA did not adopt the additional fanned headings Existing Headings Expanded Headings 8
Pre-RNAV Departure Procedures IMPLEMENTING RNAV DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AT DFW AIRPORT 120 o 130 o Jets departures were spaced at 1.5 minute intervals (at a minimum) to ensure requisite separation in trail. Departing Jets turned to initial assigned headings shortly after take off, often before reaching the departure end of the runway. 155 o The initial headings were flown for 5 nautical miles or more before the jets were allowed to turn on course. 174 o ~ 5 n.m. Slower turboprop aircraft were given early turnouts to keep them clear of the faster jet traffic. Excerpt from Runway Use Plan 170 o Actual flight tracks from May 26, 2004 Subsequent ground tracks vary depending on various factors including wind. 9
RNAV Drivers: Transition from Turboprops to Jets TP s 27% TP s 5% Between 1999 and 2004, airlines replaced turboprop aircraft with Regional Jets. As jets must fly for five miles before turning, the effect was an increase in the volume of traffic on the jet corridors. Jets 73% May 1999 Jets 95% May 2004 ---- Jets ---- Turboprops ---- Props 10
RNAV DRIVERS Departure delays increased DFW Airport again called upon the FAA to implement the Expanded Fanned Headings Conventional procedures and current waivers limited FAA s ability to use the expanded headings. FAA turned to RNAV for an effective solution 11
RNAV DEVELOPMENT Local Air Traffic Control reviewed do s/don t s from other RNAV airports i.e. Las Vegas Worked closely with airlines in design SIDS linked to departure gates route assignment based on destination. Tested procedures in simulators Refined through multiple flight testing scenarios. DFW RNAV Departures are NOT Noise Abatement Procedures.. 98 EAST GATE RNAV DEPARTURES AUGUST 9, 2005 1100Z-1700Z N 12
Noise Affects of RNAV FAA requested DFW s help with NEPA requirements; DFW developed noise contours with and without RNAV Airport developed before/after RNAV contours to determine course of action: EA or Cat-X. No significant impacts with RNAV. FAA instead used data to prepare written re-evaluation of previous NEPA work. With RNAV Without RNAV 13
Communicating RNAV to the Community No requirement for public communication but DFW chose to brief local cities. FAA and DFW Noise Staff conducted briefings to cities as they desired, i.e. city staff only, city council, both. One City, Coppell, wanted Council briefed and local reporter picked up on story. Negative Headlines about Procedures went to local Coppell residents Announcing the then proposed start date of October 12, 2004. 14
Community Response: Announced Date vs. Actual Start Date 24 Complaints received week of Oct 12, 2004: Date RNAV expected to start by Coppell Residents per newspaper article. [Coppell in blue]. Eight Complaints from week of actual start date of Nov. 1, 2004: The 3 Coppell complaints of Nov. 1 were not related to departures. 15
RNAV Issues: Loss of Separation RNAV flew for 2.5 days. Issues arose with track compliance by some aircraft resulting in a loss of required separation for aircraft on parallel tracks. There were also issues with separation criteria between RNAV and non-rnav. FAA had to suspend, redesign, and resubmit for publishing. Revised procedures began September 5, 2005. Variability of turn radius between 5 mile turn and 8 mile turn resulted in loss of required 3-mile separation for aircraft on parallel tracks. 16
Redesigned RNAV Before and After RNAV Flight Corridors RNAV DEPATURE ROUTES CONVENTIONAL DEPATURE ROUTES 17
RNAV Departures - Precision Flight Paths IMPLEMENTING RNAV DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AT DFW AIRPORT 5.0 Miles RNAV Departures 1.6 Miles 354 o 354 o 1.3 Miles Conventional Departures 340 o 010 o Width of RNAV Course.25-.30 Miles Wide with 150-250 departing jets within the corridor. 18
Before and After RNAV Track Density NON-RNAV DEPATURES IMPLEMENTING RNAV DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AT DFW AIRPORT RNAV DEPATURES 19
RNAV Operational Effects What Works Well 14% Increased Departure Throughput: Turbojet flows increased from 2 to 4 Aircraft departing at <1.5 min. intervals. 95% of Fleet equipped Precise, consistent flight patterns Reduced Frequency Congestion More direct routing Enhances capability to segregate aircraft by route; less in trail 20
RNAV Operational Effects Issues Related to Increased Track Distance PRE-RNAV ROUTE TO SOLDO FIX RNAV procedures are published routes with built-in separation with other RNAV routes; In four specific cases, it lengthens the routes over conventional SIDS; To reduce flight time/fuel burn, FAA often vectors RNAV aircraft if there is no other aircraft on the parallel track. RNAV ROUTE TO SOLDO FIX Before RNAV, Aircraft flew an initial heading for 5 miles and then turned and were vectored to their departure gate 21
RNAV Operation Effects American Airlines Proposed Solution Proposed Route Existing Route 22
RNAV Operational Effects Issues Related to Flexibility During Weather 23
RNAV Operational Effects Issues Related to Flexibility During Weather 24
RNAV Community Effects Issues with Proximity of RNAV Corridors in NE Conventional Departure Tracks RNAV Departure Tracks 25
RNAV Community Effects Issues with Proximity of RNAV Corridors in SE Conventional Departure Tracks RNAV Departure Tracks 26
RNAV Noise Effects What Worked Well Advanced Notification of Community Leaders and Continued Transparency Enhanced Acceptance of Procedural Change Reduced Population Exposed in 65 DNL by 22% (mostly in multi-family) Substantially Reduced Areas of Overflights Areas where noise increased were less than FAA Thresholds Complaints Continued to Decline 27
DFW Noise Complaint Trends Today ay IMPLEMENTING RNAV DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AT DFW AIRPORT RNAV Implemented: September 2005 2008 Complaints Year To Date = Only 82 (as of Oct. 10, 2008) 28
Summary RNAV Departure Procedures has greatly enhanced FAA s ability to optimize DFW s airfield and the DFW Airspace. RNAV could have been a very controversial implementation. RNAV s acceptance by the local communities is believed to be the direct result of good relations forged with local cities in the mid-1990s and continually nurtured today. DFW expects to incorporate RNAV or RNP into its arrival procedures in the future as part of the NextGen Evolution. 29
Thank You! FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: SANDY LANCASTER slancaster@dfwairport.com PHONE: 972-973-5573