Transcript A Phased Approach to Increase Airport Capacity Through

A Phased Approach to Increase Airport
Capacity Through Safe Reduction of
Existing Wake Turbulence Constraints
ATM 2003 23-27 June 2003
Dr. Anand D. Mundra, Wayne W. Cooper, Benjamin S. Levy,
Clark R. Lunsford, Arthur P. Smith and Jeffrey A. Tittsworth from
MITRE
Steven Lang from the FAA
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
F064-B03026
Wake Turbulence Program
•
Supports OEP - AW-5: Maintain Optimum Runway Usage at
Airports with CSPRs
– AW-5.1: Support Simultaneous CSPR Approaches
– AW-5.2: Wake Turbulence R&D for Enhanced CSPR
Operations
– AW-5.3: Along Track Separation (ATS) in Reduced
Visibility
Arrival Capacity Benefits fom Keeping Both CSPR
Runways Open In IMC
(currently single runway ops in IMC)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Modified 2500 ft Rule
Threshold Stagger
SOIA
BOS CLE PHL STL LAX SEA SFO
2
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Early Indications Verified by Structured
Analysis
• Preliminary SFO studies indicated CSPRs were real
opportunity to reduce wake constraints and increase
capacity
– Parallel approach strategies can be developed that assure wake
mitigation
– Initial assessment of 28 months of wake data shows near-threshold
lateral transport from large and small aircraft is much less than 2500
ft.
• CAASD, MITLL and group pursued a structured analysis of
candidate solutions and airports
– 25+ candidate procedures at 35 top delayed airports
– Findings supported the early indications to focus on CSPRs
3
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Candidate Procedure and Airport Selection
Process
Identify
Candidate
Procedures
Operational
Considerations
Formulate
Detailed
Procedure Rules
Simulate
Theoretical
Capacity
Increase
Identify
Candidate
Airports
4
Refine
Procedure
and Airport
List
Selected
Procedures
and Airports
Simulate
Benefit with
Historical
Demand
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Monte Carlo Capacity Simulation
Traffic Distribution
by Weight Class
for Airport
Detailed Procedure
Separation Rules
Landing
Speed Distribution
by Weight Class
Run Simulation
Experiment
Control Parameters
Distribution of
Spacing Precision
5
Runway Pair and
Approach Geometry
Iterate to
Produce Required
Number of Experiments
Tabulate
Experiment
Throughput
Calculate
Throughput
Mean
and Standard
Deviation
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Output from Selection Process
• Near-term solution: modified CSPR 2500 ft. rule
• Mid-term solution: Wind-dependent CSPR departure
procedure
• Long-term solution: NASA’s Wake Vortex Avoidance
System (WakeVAS) applied to CSPR and single
runway arrivals and departures
6
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Implications of Proposed Change to
Current 2500 ft. Rule
For an airport with runways separated by at least 1000 ft.:
CSPR Adjacent In-Trail Spacing (nmi.): Current Rule
Trailing
Leading
Small
Large
B757
Heavy
Small
2.5/3
2.5/3
2.5/3
2.5/3
Large
wv
2.5/3
2.5/3
2.5/3
B757
wv
wv
wv
wv
Heavy
wv
wv
wv
wv
•
•
•
•
7
Proposed Near-Term Concept: Runway Separation
>= 1000 ft.
Trailing on Adjacent Approach
Leading
Small
Large
B757
Heavy
Small
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Large
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
B757
wv
wv
wv
wv
Heavy
wv
wv
wv
wv
Minimum of 1.5 nm stagger between flights on adjacent parallel
approaches to mitigate collision risk
No change to in-trail separation behind Heavies and 757s on adjacent
parallel approach
No change to any current in-trail separation standards for flights on same
approach
New procedure could potentially be used down to Cat I ceiling/visibility
minima
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Simulated Capacity Increase for Proposed
Change (aircraft/hr)
Airport
% Small
% Large
% B757
% Heavy
Runway Spacing
Min Arrival Separation
Candidate Near-Term
Procedure Capacity Benefit
•
•
•
•
8
BOS
17.9%
67.1%
8.5%
6.5%
1500
3.0
CLE
8.1%
90.7%
0.1%
1.1%
1500
3.0
DTW
4.4%
82.6%
10.9%
2.1%
2000
2.5
EWR
3.5%
78.3%
12.0%
6.3%
900
2.5
LAX
18.0%
57.2%
12.4%
12.4%
700
2.5
PHL
28.1%
62.9%
5.6%
3.3%
1400
2.5
SEA
9.9%
78.1%
6.9%
5.1%
800
2.5
SFO
23.1%
49.5%
15.5%
11.9%
750
3.0
STL
8.4%
84.6%
6.0%
1.0%
1300
2.5
11.8
15.9
10.0
0.3
1.4
11.4
0.7
2.1
11.4
Capacity benefit is in additional arrival slots available per hour during
conditions when only current alternative is a single runway IFR
approach operation
Wakes not a factor behind Large aircraft for trailing aircraft on parallel
approach spaced 1000 ft. or more laterally from leader
Wakes not a factor behind Small aircraft for trailing aircraft on parallel
approach spaced 700 ft. or more laterally from leader
Simulations currently assume dedicated arrival operation
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Upcoming Activities Supporting Near-Term
Solution
• Instrumenting STL with wake sensors to determine lateral
bounds of wake transport by aircraft category
• Completion of SFO SOIA analysis and implications on
modified 2500 ft. rule
• Flight Standards safety analyses for 1.5 NM staggered
– Collision risk analysis
– Wake vortex safety analysis
• Air traffic control (ATC) feasibility: Being addressed via
Human In The Loop experimentation with controllers
• Pilot, controller and other stakeholder issues addressed
through WakeNet USA
9
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Implications of SFO Wake Data
• 28 months of In Ground Effect (IGE) data analyzed
–
–
–
–
–
About 1 qtr million vortices from Large aircraft
Vortices correlated with ASOS data
Full range of crosswind components being analyzed
Wake data being correlated with ceiling/visibility
Transport time used to approximate 1.5 NM (45 sec) and 2.5 NM ( 75
sec) in trail
– Initial indications are very positive of the near-term goal (modified 2500
ft rule) being achievable
• Approximately 2,000 flights tracked Out of Ground Effect (OGE)
– Confirms wakes transport with the wind
– Greatest transport observed for wakes that descended
10
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
STL Near-Term Concept Human In The
Loop Experiments At CAASD ATM Lab
• Simulate feeder and final terminal approach positions
• Run multiple experiments with differing spacing for departures
• Get controller feedback related to perceived workload
Terminal
• Show pilot community how procedures will work in
practice
• Look at Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) use
during procedure
• Pilot workload issues
Cockpit
Tower
• Simulate local controller release of departures between arrivals
• Investigate issues with single vs. dual departure operation under
various demand conditions
11
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
STL Departures
Wind Direction
1300-ft
•Under current rules a Large departing 30L must
wait three minutes after Heavy departs 30R since it
is considered an intersection takeoff
•In this situation, the wake is obviously not a factor
and no waiting should be required
30L
1500-ft
30R
12
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Wind-Dependent CSPR Departures
• Operational experience suggests weather systems set
up near airports and provide predictable crosswinds
that last for a day or more
• These crosswinds may be strong and predictable
enough to allow independent departures on the
upwind runway
• Mid-term effort will investigate the following questions
– Do crosswinds occur with sufficient strength, predictability
and duration to ensure safety?
– Do they occur often enough at the peak departure times to
provide benefit?
– At what airports?
– What are the operational requirements?
– Can a solution be designed to meet those requirements?
13
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Simulated Capacity Increase for Mid-Term
Departure Procedure (aircraft/hr)
Hourly Capacity Increase
25
20
15
10
5
0
BOS CLE DFW DTW IAH
LAX MEM PHL
SEA SFO STL
Airport
• Benefits increase with percentage of Heavy aircraft (e.g., LAX, SFO)
• Benefit increases where intersection departures are no longer needed (e.g., STL 12L as upwind)
• Benefits based on departures-only simulation on CSPRs
• Airport capacity benefits based on tools and approach used for near-term (described earlier)
14
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Wake USA Participants
ATB
AFS
CAASD
ATP
AUA
MITLL
AOZ
Boeing
NWRA
AAR
FAA
Volpe
NATCA
NASA
Pilot Unions
FAA and DOT
NASA
FFRDC
Union
Industry
LMI
CTI
15
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Wake Turbulence Terminal Procedure
Development Timeline
Timeline
2004
2006
2010
2020
Near-Term CSPR
Procedures: SOIA, 2500
ft. rule (FAA)
Mid-term:Wind-Dependent CSPR
Departures (FAA/NASA)
Long-term:
Active Wake Avoidance Solution (Primarily NASA)
International Coordination: European/FAA/NASA Action Plan
Wake Alleviation (NASA Only)
16
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Backup Slides
17
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
1.5 NM Staggered Approaches at STL
5 or 6-NM to Lead Aircraft in Next Group
for Departures or After a Heavy/757
12L
1300 Feet
Separation
12R
Within Group Spacing
is at least 1.5 NM, but
no more than 2.5 NM
18
Stagger
3500 Feet
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
CSPR Pairs (700 ft to 2499 ft.) with
Current or Planned Simultaneous Use
Current or
Apt
Apt
Runway Pair A Intended Use of
Indx Code
Airport Name
(1st/2nd)
Pair A
2
1 DTW
Detroit
3C/3R
D (intend)
2 BOS
Boston
4L/4R
A, D
3 MCO
Orlando
18L/18R
A, D (2002 data)
4 PHL
Philadelphia
8/9L
D
5 STL
St. Louis
12L/12R
A, D
1
6 CLE
Cleveland
5W/5R
A, D (intend)
7 DFW
Dallas-Ft. Worth 17C/17R
D
7 DFW
Dallas-Ft. Worth 18L/18R
D
8 IAH
Houston-Inter.
15L/15R
D
9 MEM
Memphis
18C/18L
A, D
3
10 MDW Chicago-Midway 4L/4R
A, D
11 PHX
Phoenix
7L/7R
A, D
12 SEA
Seattle
16L/16R
A, D
10 MDW Chicago-Midway 13L/13C
13 SFO
San Francisco
10L/10R
13 SFO
San Francisco
1L/1R
D
14 LAX
Los Angeles
6L/6R
14 LAX
Los Angeles
7L/7R
19
Runway
Pair B
(1st/2nd)
21C/21L
22R/22L
36R/36L
26/27R
30R/30L
23W/23L
35C/35L
36R/36L
33R/33L
36C/36R
22R/22L
25R/25L
34R/34L
31R/31C
28R/28L
19R/19L
24R/24L
25R/25L
1st
2nd
Current or
CL
Runway Runway
Intended Use of Spacing Service Length Length
Pair B
(ft.)
Date
(ft.)
(ft.)
D (intend)
2,000 Current
8,500
10,000
D
1,500 Current
7,861
10,005
A, D (2002 data )
1,500 Current
12,005
12,004
A
1,500 Current
5,000
9,500
A, D
1,300 Current
9,003
11,019
A, D (intend)
1,241 2003
9,000
8,999
D
1,200 Current
11,388
13,401
1,200 Current
11,388
11,388
1,000 Current
12,001
6,038
A, D
926 Current
11,120
9,000
A, D
920 Current
5,509
6,446
800 Current
10,300
7,800
A, D
800 Current
11,900
9,425
D
775 Current
5,142
6,522
A
750 Current
11,870
10,600
A
750 Current
7,501
8,901
A
700 Current
8,925
10,285
A, D
700 Current
12,091
11,096
1
Current CLE runway is 6/24, but the 2001 FAA Aviation Capacity Enhancement (ACE) plan documents it as 5R/23L. CLE is included in the
list as discussions with the facility have indicated their intent to use the future CSPR both for simultaneous arrivals and departures.
2
DTW is included in the list as the facility has indicated that it would be desirable to use the CSPR simultaneously for departures, although it
does not currently use them in this way.
3
MDW is included on the list, as a CSPR is listed as being in simultaneous use for both arrivals and departures, although the called rates
indicate a single approach and departure stream.
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Current FAA Final Approach Spacing
Rules for Parallel Runways
Independent approaches during visual approaches for runway center
lines separated by 700 ft. or more
S
7
S
L
>=
0
3
6
9
12
15 18 21 24 27
30 nmi.
700 ft.
L
L
L
H
S
Visual approaches
15.0 total nmi. to land 7 aircraft in example
1.5 nmi. staggered when visual approaches can not be conducted
(IMC and Marginal VMC) and runway center lines are separated by
2500 ft. or more
S
7
S
L
>=
3
6
9
12
15 18 21 24 27
30 nmi.
2500 ft. 0
L
L
L
H
S
18.5 total nmi. to land 7 aircraft in example
Below visual
conditions
2.5 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 nmi. staggered when visual approaches can not be
conducted (IMC and Marginal VMC) and runway center lines are
separated by less than 2500 ft.
S
7
S
L
<
3
6
9
12
15 18 21 24 27
30 nmi.
2500 ft. 0
L
L
L
H
S
Below visual
conditions
29.0 total nmi. to land 7 aircraft in example
20
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Potential Change in Current 2500 ft. Rule
for Dependent Parallel Approaches
Min Runway CL Separation For 1.5 nmi. Diagonal
Separation: Current Rule
Trailing on Adjacent Approach
Leading
Small
Large
B757
Heavy
Small
2500
2500
2500
2500
Large
2500
2500
2500
2500
B757
2500
2500
2500
2500
Heavy
2500
2500
2500
2500
Min Runway CL Separation For 1.5 nmi. Diagonal
Separation: Proposed Change
Trailing on Adjacent Approach
Leading
Small
Large
B757
Heavy
Small
1000
1000
1000
1000
Large
1000
1000
1000
1000
B757
2500
2500
2500
2500
Heavy
2500
2500
2500
2500
• Current rule treats all leading aircraft the same regardless of
weight class
• Proposed concept treats each weight class based on its worst case
lateral wake transport
21
© 2003 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.