SOURDINE II EU- 5FW project on Noise Abatement Procedures Overall view Ruud den Boer / Collin Beers Department: ATM & Airports
Study of key elements weighed key elements 4th Framework Programme Definition of noise abatement procedures Existing simulation tools New simulation platform calibration & improvement of models used for the simulation generic rules Assessment of short term NAPs Assessment of medium term NAPs new validated procedures Sourdine I & Sourdine II Tests & measurements in op. environment New tools for pilots and controllers Global validation 5th Framework Programme 2
Objectives of SOURDINE-II Development of new advanced and innovative environmental friendly approach and departure procedures (Timeframe 2015/2020) Development of requirements for enabling ATC and Aircraft technology Balance the results of the various assessments (safety, capacity, noise, emissions, CBA and user acceptance) Development of an implementation plan to migrate from the current situation to the advanced procedures 3
Overview of Sourdine II Duration: 2001-2005 Consortium: NLR (Co-ordinator) Aena Airbus France Eurocontrol Experimental Centre Isdefe INECO SICTA Expert panel: Europe (CAA, Airline, ATS providers, etc) USA (FAA, A/C manufacturer, etc) 4
Overall working method procedure design noise (s.e.s.) procedure selection 5 approach 3 departure user - accept. Expert procedure panel used re-design to gain feedback safety capacity airport noise emissions cost/benefit Validation process control Implementation Plan 5
Conclusions (1/3) Departures Possibilities for significant noise reduction, both close-in (~25% reduction for 65 and 70 Lden contour size) as well as distant (~30% reduction for 55Lden and 40% for 60Lden contour size) Interesting option for further research is procedure with location based (instead of altitude base) thrust cutback Approach procedure II and V: Short/medium-term option for significant noise reduction (50% reduction for 50Lden and 30% for 60Lden contour size) procedure III: Further noise reduction possible, but detailed safety assessment required to investigate 4 degree glideslope effects procedure IV: Not likely to be implemented 6
Conclusions (2/3) Capacity CDA capacity reduction: at saturated airports only (daytime) Capacity reduction during peak hour operations approximately 10% Safety Longitudinal separation problems Problems because of not intercepting the localizer in parallel CDA approaches without 1000ft separation (CDA on both base legs of parallel runways?) Steep approaches 7
Conclusions (3/3) Regulation Standardisation (Airlines) versus Local/national implementation (Airports) Reward Airlines with RNAV/CDA capability (with additional slots/lower landing fees?) User acceptance/workload ATC role shifts from active controlling towards monitoring High acceptation of procedure II from both pilots and controllers Implementation possible when: Sequencing should start in an early stage Controllers need to get hands-on experience concerning the aircraft performance when flying NAPs pilots need to strictly follow the procedure 8
End of presentation WWW.SOURDINE.ORG 9
Selected procedures Approach Procedures (5) Procedure I: Optimised level segment at 3000 ft Procedure II: Basic CDA with 2 initial FPA Procedure III: CDA with 2 initial FPA and increased final glide slope (4º) Procedure IV: CDA with constant speed, variable FPA segment at landing configuration Procedure V: CDA with constant speed, variable FPA segment at intermediate configuration Departure Procedures (3) Procedure 1: ICAO A Procedure 2: SII Optimised Close-in Procedure 3: SII Optimised Distant 10
Selected procedures 11
Sourdine Distant Departure Procedure CUTBACK THRUST GRADUAL THRUST INCREASE 12
Capacity Tools: TAAM and SIMMOD Airports: Schiphol (Amsterdam) Barajas (Madrid) Charles de Gaulle (Paris) Capodichino (Naples) 13
Simulation Results AVERAGE ARRIVAL CAPACITY e.g. Madrid-Barajas ARRIVAL CAPACITY Airport Baseline NAP II NAP III NAP IV NAP V Madrid 78-80 70-72 70-72 68-70 72-74 Paris-CDG 81-83 80-82 80-82 x 80-81 Amsterdam 72-74 69-71 x 59-61 66-68 Naples 31-33 30-32 x 28-30 30-32 14
User acceptance Tools: APERO, GRACE and NARSIM Airports: Schiphol (Amsterdam) 15
Simulator set-up (APERO and GRACE) Configuration change points on ND Energy and vertical deviation indicator on PFD Additional Vertical Display 16
Ghosting tool and Monitoring tool A KLM137 070 070 B738 297 A 297 B738 G IBE341 070 070 A320 280 A MPH738 080 080 B763 280 A A LAT DEV IBE341 070 070 A320 280 FL DEV MPH738 072 080 B763 280 17
User acceptance User acceptance 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Baseline II II-A V procedure ARRIVAL FDR/DCO PILOT 18 1 = com pletely disagree, 6 = completely agree
Conclusions Procedure II (two-degree flight path angle) rather robust for unexpected tailwind. Speed constraints results in a more stable approach for pilots. Controllers should be able to overrule speed constraints. Procedure V has less control options, especially with unexpected tail wind (increased risk of being too high and/or too fast). Pilots consider the configuration change points on the ND as a valuable tool. 19
Conclusions Proposed RNAV routes (including shortcuts) provide enough flexibility Controller role changes from active controlling to monitoring Controller assisted with a monitoring tool Sequencing should start in an early stage: Increased hand-over accuracy between ACC and TMA (30-60 seconds accuracy), assisted by Arrival Manager tool Merging of (RNAV) traffic assisted by ghosting tool 20
Safety assessment identified hazards Identified hazards have been structured into 5 conflict scenarios: 1. Conflict between aircraft merging 2. Conflict between aircraft on same route 3. Conflict between aircraft on parallel ILSs 4. Conflict at turning-in point for ILS 5. Wake vortex encounter 21
Noise and Emission Noise: INM 7 S (developed by FAA & Volpe) A/C performance data Airbus: accurate vertical profile, including configuration changes, thrust and fuel flow (8 aircraft types) Boeing: deduced from INM procedural profiles (4 aircraft types) Multi-configuration NPD - curves: Independent parameters: Thrust Configuration Speed Aircraft types: Airbus: 8 aircraft types Boeing: 4 aircraft types Emission: fuel flow method using ICAO data bank 22
SII baseline vs current practice procedure Sourdine II reference approach procedure provides significant noise reduction compared to typical approach procedures used today 23
Arrivals Lden Contour area of SOURDINE II arrival procedures 200 180 160 sq. Km 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 50 Lden 55 Lden 60 Lden 65 Lden 70 Lden 75 Lden 0 Baseline BAS3000 BAS4000 NAAP2 NAAP3 NAAP4 NAAP5 SII NAPs 24
Arrivals Lden Percentage variation in contour area of SOURDINE II arrival procedures 60 50 40 percentage variation 30 20 10 0-10 -20 Baseline BAS3000 BAS4000 NAAP2 NAAP3 NAAP4 NAAP5 50 Lden 55 Lden 60 Lden 65 Lden 70 Lden -30 75 Lden -40 SII NAPs 25
Departures Lden Contour area of SOURDINE II departure procedures 200 180 160 sq. Km 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 55 Lden 60 Lden 65 Lden 70 Lden 75 Lden 0 Baseline CLOSE_IN DISTANT SII NAPs 26
Departures Lden Percentage variation in contour area of SOURDINE II departure procedures 20,000 10,000 percentage variation 0,000-10,000-20,000-30,000 Baseline CLOSE_IN DISTANT 55 Lden 60 Lden 65 Lden 70 Lden -40,000 75 Lden -50,000 SII NAPs 27