EUROCONTROL...Impacts of the Use of PRNAV in the TMA EUROCONTROL iv 4. SIMMOD STUDY - RESULTS 10 4.1...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE

IMPACTS OF THE USE OF PRNAV IN THE TMA

EEC Note No. 22/97

EEC Task FS0-7EATCHIP Task ASM ET1 ST04

Issued: September 1997

The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency and nopart should be reproduced in any form without the Agency’s permission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.

EUROCONTROL

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Reference:EEC Note 22/97

Security Classification:Unclassified

Originator:EEC - APT(AirPorT Simulations)

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreB.P.15F - 91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CEDEXFRANCETelephone : +33 1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:

Directorate DED4

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B -1130 BRUXELLESTelephone : +32 2 729 9011

TITLE:IMPACTS OF THE USE OF PRNAV IN THE TMA

AuthorsA.R. JoyceJ. WatkinsD. Brady

M.J. Mc Morrow

Date9/97

Pagesiii + 30

Figures19

Tables12

Appendix1

References

EATCHIP TaskSpecification

ASM.ET1 ST04

EEC Task No.FS0-7

Task No. Sponsor Period5/97-9/97

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: Head of APT(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):PRNAV, TARA,TMA,SEATON, INM.

Abstract: The Terminal Applications Task Force (TARA) requested investigation by theEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC), of the impacts of PRNAV SIDS/STARS in the TMAutilising a hypothetical, but representative, single runway airport. Simulations were conducted usingSIMMOD and the Integrated Noise Model (INM) to examine the operational effects. This Note presentsthe findings of that study.

This document has been collated by mechanical means. Should there be missing pages, please report to:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentrePublications Office

B.P. 1591222 - BRETIGNY-SUR-ORGE CEDEX

France

Impacts of the Use of PRNAV in the TMA

EUROCONTROL

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objectives 1

2. METHODOLOGY 2

2.1 SIMMOD Simulator 2

2.2 Noise Modelling - Integrated Noise Model (INM) 2

2.3 Data Description - SIMMOD Study 32.3.1 SEATON AIRPORT - LAYOUT 32.3.2 Arrival / Departure Operations 32.3.3 Displaced Thresholds 32.3.4 Movement Data 42.3.5 Traffic Sample 4

2.4 Study Scenarios 4

2.5 Additional Parameters Introduced 52.5.1 Random Introduction of Traffic 52.5.2 Departures Blocking Departures - Procedures 52.5.3 Arrivals Blocking Departures - Procedures 52.5.4 Arrivals Routed Direct to Final 52.5.5 Iterations 5

2.6 Separation Minima 62.6.1 Longitudinal Separation on Final Approach 62.6.2 Increased Arrival Separation to Facilitate Departures 6

2.7 Data Description - Noise Modelling 62.7.1 Movement Data 62.7.2 Traffic Sample 62.7.3 Study Scenarios 62.7.4 Noise Dispersion Factors 72.7.5 Flight Profiles 72.7.6 Noise Contours 7

3. SIDS AND STARS 8

3.1 STANDARD SIDS/STARS 83.1.1 Runway 08 83.1.2 Runway 26 8

3.2 STANDARD and PRNAV SIDS/STARS 93.2.1 Runway 08 93.2.2 Runway 26 9


EUROCONTROL

iv

4. SIMMOD STUDY - RESULTS 10

4.1 Comparison of the Average Arrival Air Delay 104.1.1 Runway 08 104.1.2 Runway 26 114.1.3 11

4.2 Comparison of the Average Departure Ground Delay 124.2.1 Runway 08 124.2.2 Runway 26 13

4.3 Comparison of Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time 144.3.1 Runway 08 144.3.2 Runway 26 15

4.4 Comparison of Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel Time 164.4.1 Runway 08 164.4.2 Runway 26 17

4.5 SID/STAR Distances within the TMA in Nautical Miles 184.5.1 SID Distances 184.5.2 STAR Distances 18

5. MODELLED NOISE CONTOURS - STUDY RESULTS 19

5.1 Basecase Scenario - RNY 08 19

5.2 65% RNAV Scenario - RNY 08 20


5.4 Basecase Scenario - RNY 26 22



6. CONCLUSIONS 25

6.1 SIMMOD STUDY 25

6.2 INM NOISE STUDY


EUROCONTROL

v

26

7. ANNEX A - SIMMOD DESCRIPTION 28

7.1 How are the end results achieved ? 28

7.2 Input requirements 28

7.3 Output 29

7.4 Simulation Animation 29

7.5 Disadvantages - Limitations 30


EUROCONTROL

1


1. Introduction

1.1 Background

At the inaugural meeting of the Terminal Airspace Applications Task Force (TARA),the UK National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)and British Airways (BA), together with EUROCONTROL, agreed to commencework on defining the benefits of PRNAV Standard Instrument Departures (SIDS)and PRNAV Standard Arrival (STARS) procedures. Following discussion of theanticipated operational, economic, environmental and political advantages of usingRNAV within Terminal Airspace, it was further agreed that EUROCONTROL wouldproduce a concept of operations from the ATM perspective.

At the second meeting of TARA, in December 1996, it was decided to use ahypothethical airport - SEATON - incorporating all of the necessary elements toexamine the impacts of PRNAV on a typical single-runway airport, using fast-timesimulation. Movements of approximately 700 aircraft per day, comprising of astrategic mix of both RNAV and non-RNAV equipped aircraft from both charter andscheduled service elements, was foreseen as a requirement to realistically evaluatethe effects. Subsequent meetings between DED4, NATS, BA and APT at Brétignywould define the required parameters for simulation, and arrange the provision ofthe necessary movement and operational data for incorporation.

1.2 Objectives

This study is to determine the impacts of PRNAV on a typical single-runway airport’sSIDS and STARS. To effect these objectives, Standard SIDS and STARS for thehypothetical airport, SEATON, are compared with PRNAV routeings using simulatedmodels to measure:

• Aircraft Delays• Aircraft Travel Times• Aircraft Travel Distances• Aircraft Noise Contours


EUROCONTROL

2

2. Methodology

To address the objectives of this study, APT performed simulations of operations atthe representative airport - SEATON - using both SIMMOD1, and the IntegratedNoise Model (INM). The following subsections describe the simulation system, thedata used, and provide a brief summary of the simulation scenarios examined inthis study.

2.1 SIMMOD Simulator

EUROCONTROL uses SIMMOD, the FAA’s Airport and Airspace Simulation Modelsoftware, in conjunction with specialised pre- and post-processors, to analyseairspace and airfield systems. SIMMOD models the aircraft movement, both in theair and on the ground, gathering statistics for each element. These statistics areprocessed to produce aircraft travel and delay times, estimates of sector workloadindices and a graphical animation of the simulation.

An examination of sector workload indices was not specified as a requirement forthis study.

In order to quantify the advantages, or otherwise, of the implementation of PRNAVSIDS and STARS at SEATON, SIMMOD was used to investigate changes in thefollowing:

• Aircraft Travel Time• Aircraft Delay Time• Aircraft Flight Distance in the TMA

2.2 Noise Modelling - Integrated Noise Model (INM)

The US Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Office of Environment and Energysupports the assessment of noise impacts by developing and maintaining noiseevaluation models and methodologies. The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model is widelyused by the civil aviation community for evaluating aircraft noise impacts in thevicinity of airports. Since 1978, the FAA has made the INM available to both USand international users. Version 5.1 of the INM, distributed in the Spring of 1997,was used for this study.

INM was used to calculate the estimated noise contours for both the Standard, andthe PRNAV SIDS and STARS. Comparisons of the contours were then used todetermine relative changes resulting from the implementation of PRNAV routes. Thecontours of equivalent Sound Levels (Leq) correspond to an energy summation ofthe aggregate noise environment as measured in A-Weighted Decibel Units (dBA).A-Weighting is applied to the noise energy levels to provide an objective estimationthat more closely corresponds to the subjective level of noise perception.

1 SIMMOD is the US Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport and Airspace Model


EUROCONTROL

3

2.3 Data Description - SIMMOD Study

2.3.1 SEATON AIRPORT - LAYOUT

Figure 1 represents the lay-out of the hypothetical SEATON Airport, as used in thisstudy.

Figure 1.

2.3.2 Arrival / Departure Operations

2.3.2.1 Arrivals - RNY 08B737 and smaller vacate at Twy. DELTA. Larger aircraft vacate at Twy. CHARLIE.

2.3.2.2 Arrivals - RNY 26Small aircraft (ATR 42, ATR 72 and similar) vacate at Twy. ECHO. B737 / B757vacate at Twy. FOXTROT. Larger aircraft vacate at Twys. GOLF and HOTEL.

2.3.2.3 Departures - RNY 08Small aircraft line-up and depart from the Displaced Threshold. Larger aircraft line-up and depart from the original Threshold.

2.3.2.4 Departures - RNY 26Small aircraft line-up and depart from Link CHARLIE. Larger aircraft line-up anddepart from the original Threshold.

2.3.3 Displaced Thresholds

Displaced Thresholds were assumed to be in operation on both Rny 08 and Rny 26.


EUROCONTROL

4

2.3.4 Movement DataBased upon the daily movement figures specified by TARA, and utilising data fromother representative European airports operating at similar traffic levels, a diurnaltraffic flow pattern, considered typical of what would apply at SEATON, wasdeveloped for the simulation. Although the data were based upon validated day-to-day experience it is nevertheless worthy of note that, utilising a single runway, amovement figure of 750 aircraft in 24 hours is extremely high. Such figures areunlikely to be achieved in reality without the judicious application of validatedprocedures by locally experienced Controllers.

2.3.5 Traffic SampleThe traffic sample represented a 24 hour period and consisted of 750 aircraft, 379Arrivals and 371 Departures.

2.4 Study Scenarios

The Study’s six scenarios showing the percentage of total traffic operated on bothStandard and PRNAV SIDS/STARS for each element are illustrated in the Tablebelow. The same traffic sample was used for each runway.

Scenario Flights onStandard Routes

Flights onPRNAV Routes

Std. SIDS & STARSRNY- 08

100% 0%

Std. SIDS/STARS,and 65% RNAVsRNY- 08

35% 65%

Std. SIDS/STARS,and 90% RNAVsRNY- 08

10% 90%

Std. SIDS & STARSRNY 26

100% 0%

Std. SIDS/STARS,and 65% RNAVsRNY-26

35% 65%

Std. SIDS/STARS,and 90% RNAVsRNY-26

10% 90%

Table 1.

Terminal Area Airspace and the airfield up to the parking areas were simulated, butindividual parking stands were not. It was alternatively assumed that there wassufficient gate capacity at SEATON to accommodate all parking requirements.


EUROCONTROL

5

2.5 Additional Parameters Introduced

2.5.1 Random Introduction of TrafficA parameter was set in SIMMOD that allowed each flight to be created randomlywithin a 20-minute window around the scheduled introduction time. In this way,each flight actually appeared at a slightly different time in each iteration, allowing forstochastic variation in the results.

2.5.2 Departures Blocking Departures - ProceduresThe longitudinal time separation required between successive Departures wasvaried between one and five minutes based upon the relative aircraft type andWake Vortex Category of the leading / following aircraft, and clearance of thedeparture track by the preceding aircraft when airborne.

2.5.3 Arrivals Blocking Departures - ProceduresDepartures were blocked by Arrivals at 2.5 n.m. or less from Touchdown.

2.5.4 Arrivals Routed Direct to FinalDuring times of lighter arrival traffic flow, and exactly as would occur in reality insuch circumstances, both RNAV and non-RNAV inbounds were routed directly tofinal approach (simulating Radar Vectors in the case of the latter), thus avoiding theholdstacks. This routeing was applied from 00:01 to 05:00, 12:00 to 15:00, and19:00 to 23:59.

2.5.5 IterationsTen iterations were run for each traffic sample to account for stochastic modellingparameters and to allow for the convergence of the statistical results. These werethen averaged for this Report.


EUROCONTROL

6

2.6 Separation Minima

2.6.1 Longitudinal Separation on Final ApproachThe Longitudinal Distance Separations in the following table were applied betweensuccessive aircraft on Final Approach.

Leading Aircraft Following Aircraft MinimumDistance

HEAVY HEAVY 4 milesMEDIUM or UPPER MEDIUM 5 milesSMALL 6 milesLIGHT 8 miles

UPPER MEDIUM MEDIUM or UPPER MEDIUM 4 milesSMALL 4 milesLIGHT 6 miles

MEDIUM MEDIUM or UPPER MEDIUM 3 milesSMALL 4 milesLIGHT 6 miles

SMALL UPPER MEDIUM, MEDIUM or SMALL 3 milesLIGHT 4 miles

Table 2.

A Minimum Longitudinal Distance Separation of 3 n.m. was effected betweencombinations not listed.

2.6.2 Increased Arrival Separation to Facilitate DeparturesFrom 10:00 to 13:00, the Longitudinal Distance Separation applied to Arrivals wasincreased to 8 n.m., to ensure the realistic injection of Departures into the trafficflow.

2.7 Data Description - Noise Modelling

2.7.1 Movement DataThe Movement Data used was identical to that examined in the SIMMOD study.

2.7.2 Traffic SampleThe study was based upon figures of 379 Arrivals and 371 Departures.

2.7.3 Study ScenariosThe same six scenarios used in the SIMMOD study were examined.


EUROCONTROL

7

2.7.4 Noise Dispersion FactorsDispersion Factors were used to account for inconsistent track-keeping. Thesevaried from 0 (zero) whilst on the runway to a maximum of 2 n.m. on either side ofthe required track (i.e. a total dispersion width of 4 n.m.) when airborne. TheDispersion Factors were only applied to Departures operating on Standard SIDs, itbeing assumed that those aircraft either on final approach, or following PRNAVSIDS/STARS, were capable of accurate track-keeping.

2.7.5 Flight ProfilesStandard INM flight profiles were selected in order to generate the greatest noisepenalty. For Arrivals, the single available profile (corresponding to the low weightapproach for each aircraft type) was used. In the case of Departures, and althoughthere are several profiles available for each aircraft type, the Maximum Take-OffWeight profile was used in all cases, except for the B747 which was RegulatedTake-Off Weight restricted by the runway length available at SEATON. Noisecalculations are affected by aircraft weight since, higher weights demand greaterengine thrust and inevitably produce slower and more protracted climbs.

2.7.6 Noise ContoursThe Noise contours are based upon Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) and representan average noise exposure over a period of 16 hours.


EUROCONTROL

8

3. SIDS and STARS

3.1 STANDARD SIDS/STARS

3.1.1 Runway 08

Figure 2.

3.1.2 Runway 26

Figure 3.

Standard SIDS/STARSRunway 08

Standard SIDS/STARSRunway 26


EUROCONTROL

9

3.2 STANDARD and PRNAV SIDS/STARS

3.2.1 Runway 08

Figure 4.

3.2.2 Runway 26

Figure 5.

Standard and RNAVSIDS/STARSRunway 08

Standard and RNAVSIDS/STARSRunway 26


EUROCONTROL

10

4. SIMMOD Study - Results

The data described under Section 2 of this Report were examined using bothSIMMOD and the Integrated Noise Model (INM). The following subsectionsdetail the results obtained. They are presented in graphical and / or tabularformat as appropriate.

4.1 Comparison of the Average Arrival Air Delay

4.1.1 Runway 08

Table 3 and Figure 6 below compare the Average Arrival Air Delay in minutesdetermined for the three Arrival scenarios modelled with respect to Runway08.

Average Arrival Air Delay in MinutesRunway - 08

STANDARD SIDS/STARS 10.9SIDS/STARS + 65% RNAV 11.6SIDS/STARS + 90% RNAV 11.1

Table 3.

Average Arrival Air Delay - RNY 08

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

STANDARDSIDS/STARS

SIDS/STARS + 65%RNAV

SIDS/STARS + 90%RNAV

Figure 6.

A minimal increase in Average Arrival Air delay as the proportion of RNAVequipped traffic was raised to 65% is indicated. Although the delay wasslightly lower when the proportion of RNAV equipped aircraft was increasedto 90%, the delay differences demonstrated between the three scenariosexamined are unlikely to be of practical operational significance.


EUROCONTROL

11

4.1.2 Runway 26

4.1.3 Table 4 and Figure 7 compare the Average Arrival Air Delay in minutesdetermined for the three Arrival scenarios modelled with respect to Runway26.

Average Arrival Air Delay in MinutesRunway - 26


Table 4.

Average Arrival Air Delay - RNY 26

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

STANDARDSIDS/STARS

SIDS/STARS +6 5 % RNAV


Figure 7.

As was the case with Runway 08, the Average Arrival Delay in respect ofRunway 26 showed a miniscule increase with the introduction of a 65%proportion of RNAV traffic. The delay decreased slightly when the RNAVequipped proportion of traffic was raised to 90%. Again, the changes acrossthe scenario spectrum are not of practical operational significance.


EUROCONTROL

12

4.2 Comparison of the Average Departure Ground Delay

4.2.1 Runway 08

Table 5 and Figure 8 compare the Average Departure Ground Delay inminutes determined for the three Departure scenarios modelled in respect ofRunway 08.

Average Departure Ground Delayin Minutes - Runway 08


Table 5.

Average Departure Ground Delay - RNY 08

0

5

10

15

20

STANDARDSIDS/STARS

SIDS/STARS +65% RNAV


Figure 8.

A slight increase in Average Departure Ground Delay was observed as theRNAV traffic proportion was raised to 65%. This rise was continued, ifsomewhat less steeply, as the proportion was increased to 90%. Thechanges observed are not considered to be of practical operationalsignificance.


EUROCONTROL

13

4.2.2 Runway 26

Table 6 and Figure 9 compare the Average Departure Ground Delay inminutes determined for the three Departure scenarios modelled in respect ofRunway 26.

Average Departure Ground Delayin Minutes - Runway 26

STANDARD SIDS/STARS 29.1 SIDS/STARS + 65% RNAV 19.8 SIDS/STARS + 90% RNAV 19.4

Table 6.

Average Departure Ground Delay - RNY 26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

STANDARDSIDS/STARS



Figure 9.

A considerable decrease in Average Departure Ground Delay was identifiedas the proportion of RNAV traffic in the mix was increased to 65%. This wasdue to the fact that the RNAV SIDS enabled an earlier turn on Track afterdeparture, thereby imposing less delay on subsequent departures byeffectively increasing runway capacity in their regard. It is noteworthy thatincreasing the proportion of RNAV equipped aircraft in the traffic mix to 90%did not materially reduce the delay figures further.


EUROCONTROL

14

4.3 Comparison of Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time

4.3.1 Runway 08

Table 7 and Figure 10 compare the Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time(exclusive of delay) for Runway 08.

Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel TimeRunway 08


Table 7.

Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time - RNY 08

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

StandardSIDS/STARS



Figure 10.

There was a minimal decrease in Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time asthe RNAV equipped traffic proportion was increased, but this is notconsidered to be of practical operational significance.


EUROCONTROL

15

4.3.2 Runway 26

Table 8 and Figure 11 compare the Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time(exclusive of delay) for Runway 26.

Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel TimeRunway - 26


Table 8.

Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time - RNY 26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

StandardSIDS/STARS



Figure 11.

The Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time for Runway 26 remainedvirtually unchanged with increase in the proportion of RNAV equipped aircraftin the traffic samples modelled.


EUROCONTROL

16

4.4 Comparison of Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel ime

4.4.1 Runway 08

Table 9 and Figure 12 compare the Average Departure Elapsed Air TravelTime (exclusive of delay) for Runway 08.

Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel Time Runway 08


Table 9.

Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel Time - RNY 08

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

StandardSIDS/STARS



Figure 12.

The Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel Time for Runway 08 was virtuallyunchanged by the increase in the proportion of RNAV equipped aircraft in thetraffic samples examined.


EUROCONTROL

17

4.4.2 Runway 26

Table 10 and Figure 13 compare the Average Departure Elapsed Air TravelTime (exclusive of delay) for Runway 26.

Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel TimeRunway 26


Table 10.

Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel Time - RNY 26

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

StandardSIDS/STARS



Figure 13.

There was an insignificant decrease in Average Departure Elapsed Air TravelTime as the proportion of RNAV equipped aircraft in the sample wasincreased to 65%. Increasing the RNAV proportion of the traffic mix to 90%produced no change to the 65% RNAV result.


EUROCONTROL

18

4.5 SID/STAR Distances within the TMA in Nautical Miles

4.5.1 SID Distances

Table 11.

In the case of Runway 08, distance differences between Standard and PRNAVSIDS were insignificant. Comparison of SID distances with respect to Runway 26gave mixed results, PRNAV advantages were gained on BOGNA, KENET and SFD.PRNAV distances were observed as being greater on CLN, DVR and LAM.

4.5.2 STAR Distances

STAR Distances within the TMA in Nautical Miles

STAR StandardRNY 08

PRNAVRNY 08

RadarTo FinalRNY 08

PRNAVTo FinalRNY 08

StandardRNY 26

PRNAVRNY 26

RadarTo FinalRNY 26

PRNAVTo FinalRNY 26

ABB 118.3 118.3 118.5 117.3 103.8 104.5 103.0 102.8BAGIN 91.9 91.8 92.1 90.8 77.5 77.4 72.7 67.6

DET 72.0 72.0 61.9 61.9 57.6 57.6 39.4 39.4GIBSO 125.1 124.5 95.8 90.0 128.7 128.1 115.6 113.8

HON 142.4 142.4 98.1 97.5 146.0 146.0 128.2 128.2KATHY 88.5 84.8 59.2 59.6 92.1 88.4 79.0 77.6KENET 97.1 97.1 55.3 55.4 100.7 100.7 82.9 82.9

SAM 81.0 80.3 51.7 44.3 84.6 83.9 71.5 68.5WAL 223.1 223.1 179.7 178.8 226.6 226.6 208.8 208.8

Table 12.

With respect to Runway 08, the differences in STAR Distances were insignificant.However PRNAV positioning to Final did show slight advantages over “RadarVectoring” to Final, particularly in the cases of GIBSO and SAM. In the case ofSTAR Distance differences with respect to Runway 26 there was a slight saving onKATHY. PRNAV positioning to Final had slight advantages on BAGIN, GIBSO,KATHY and SAM.

SID Distances within the TMAin Nautical Miles

SID StandardRNY 08

PRNAVRNY 08

StandardRNY 26

PRNAVRNY 26

BOGNA N/A N/A 64.5 58.8CLN 75.3 N/A 83.1 85.8DVR 57.8 N/A 68.7 72.4

KENET 69.5 70.3 58.0 53.7LAM 45.9 46.0 55.1 58.4SAM 57.9 58.7 44.3 44.2SFD 28.9 28.4 38.3 28.5


EUROCONTROL

19

5. Modelled Noise Contours - Study Results

5.1 Basecase Scenario - RNY 08

Figure 14 represents the Noise Contours obtained with all traffic operating onSTANDARD SIDS/STARS for RNY 08.

FIGURE 14.

The large noise-sensitive area to the North North West of the airport indicatesexposure at the 45 dB level to a considerable degree, and is also slightly affected atthe 50 dB level. The area to the North West suffers no exposure at modelled levels.The area immediately to the North of the Runway is affected at the 45/50/55/60 and65 dB levels. The small area immediately to the West of the Runway indicatesexposure at the 55/60 and 65 dB levels, as might be expected. Approximately halfof the area immediately to the South of the Runway is exposed at the 45/50/55/60and 65 dB levels, the sizes of affected segments at higher dB levels decreasing withproximity to the Runway. The large noise-sensitive area to the East South East ofthe airport is exposed at the 45/50/55 and (marginally) 60 dB levels, while thesmaller area to the South East is affected at the 45 and 50 dB levels. The noise-sensitive area to the South West of the airport has minute exposure at the 45 dBlevel.


EUROCONTROL

20

5.2 65% RNAV Scenario - RNY 08

Figure 15 represents the Noise Contours obtained with 65% of the traffic mixoperating on PRNAV SIDS/STARS for RNY 08.

FIGURE 15.

When compared with the Basecase, the large noise-sensitive area to the NorthNorth West of the airport indicates slightly less exposure at the 45 dB level, and isno longer affected at the 50 dB level. The area to the North West of the airport isslightly affected at the 45 dB level. Impacts upon other noise-sensitive areasdepicted are virtually unchanged.


EUROCONTROL

21



FIGURE 16.

The trend noted in the 65% RNAV case is not maintained, with the increase in thePRNAV proportion of the traffic mix to 90%. The results obtained in each of the twoscenarios are almost identical.


EUROCONTROL

22

5.4 Basecase Scenario - RNY 26

Figure 17 represents the Noise Contours obtained with all aircraft operating onSTANDARD SIDS/STARS for RNY 26.

FIGURE 17.

The large noise-sensitive area to the North of the airport is marginally exposed atthe 45 dB level, while that to the North North West is unaffected at modelled levels.The area immediately to the North of the Runway is exposed at the 50/55 and 60dB levels. The small area immediately to the West North West of the Runway isexposed at the 55/60/65 and 70 dB levels, as might be expected. Approximatelyhalf of the large area immediately to the South of the Runway indicates exposure atthe 45/50/55/60 and 65 dB levels. The remaining noise-sensitive areas depictedare unaffected at modelled levels.


EUROCONTROL

23



FIGURE 18.

The Noise Contours differ considerably from those of the Basecase. There is anindicated increase at the 45 dB level to noise sensitive-areas to the North and NorthWest of the airport. The area immediately to the North of the Runway appears togain some relief at the 55-60 dB levels, but suffers an increase at the 50 dB level.There is also a slight introduction to noise at the 45 dB level. The area immediatelyto the South of the airport shows slightly more exposure at the 45/50/55/60 and 65dB levels. The noise-sensitive area to the South West of the airport indicatesintroduction to exposure at the 45/50 and 55 dB levels. Other noise-sensitive areasdepicted show no obvious change from Basecase contours.


EUROCONTROL

24



Figure 19.

The noise-sensitive area immediately to the North of the airport gains slight relief atthe 50 dB level. Other noise-sensitive areas depicted show results that are virtuallyidentical to the 65% RNAV case for Runway 26.


EUROCONTROL

25

6. Conclusions

6.1 SIMMOD STUDY

In order to assess the impacts of the introduction of PRNAV SIDS/STARS overexisting Standard SIDS/STARS at a typical busy single-runway airport, SIMMODwas used to generate data on Aircraft Delays, Aircraft Travel Times and AircraftTravel Distances in both circumstances, for comparison. Scenarios utilising trafficmixes of 0% , 65% and 90% of PRNAV capable aircraft were examined in respectof each runway, and in each category.

The results presented in Section 4 of this Report indicate that:

• Average Arrival Air Delay increased insignificantly with the introduction of RNAVequipped aircraft to the traffic mix, even at the 90% level, and irrespective of theRunway used.

• Average Departure Ground Delay in respect of Runway 08 increasedinsignificantly with the introduction of RNAV equipped aircraft to the traffic mix,even at the 90% level.

• Average Departure Ground Delay in the case of Runway 26 showed a significantdecrease when the RNAV equipped proportion of traffic was raised to 65%, butincreasing the proportion of the latter to 90% resulted in an almost imperceptibleadditional advantage.

• Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time with respect to Runway 08 decreased byan operationally insignificant amount with increase in the RNAV proportion in thetraffic mix.

• Average Arrival Elapsed Air Travel Time with respect to Runway 26 actuallyincreased minimally with increase in the RNAV proportion in the traffic mix.

• Average Departure Elapsed Air Travel Times for both Runways remained virtuallyunchanged with increase in the RNAV content of the traffic mix.

From the foregoing it will be obvious that the only material advantage indicated bythe SEATON study was a moderate decrease in Average Departure Ground Delaywith respect to the use of PRNAV SIDS/STARS on Runway 26. Since thisadvantage cannot be realised in isolation, it must be concluded that the introductionof PRNAV SIDS/STARS would not be justified on the basis of these results alone. Itis, however, conceivable that impacts of PRNAV, not measured by SIMMOD, mayinfluence arguments for its implementation as a means of accurately navigatingSIDS and STARS, in circumstances other than those examined in this study.


EUROCONTROL

26

6.2 INM NOISE STUDY

The Integrated Noise Model (INM) was used to calculate the estimated noisecontours for both STANDARD and PRNAV SIDS/STARS. Comparisons of thecontours were then made to determine relative changes resulting from theimplementation of the latter, at both 65% and 90% of the traffic mix.

The results presented in Section 5 of this Report indicate that:

• In the case of Runway 08 there was a slight increase in noise at the 45 dB levelin the sensitive area to the North West of the airport, with a compensatorydecrease in the area to the North, upon application of the 65% RNAV proportionto the traffic mix. There was further exposure at the 45 dB level in the area to theNorth West of the airport when the proportion of RNAV traffic was increased to90%, but no further changes were noted.

• In the case of Runway 26, and upon application of the 65% RNAV proportion tothe traffic mix, there was an indicated introduction / increase at the 45 dB level inareas to the North and North West, a slight increase at the 45/50/55/60 and 65dB levels immediately to the South, and at the 45/50 and 55 dB levels to theSouth West. While there was some relief to the noise-sensitive area immediatelyto the North of the Runway at the 55-60 dB levels, an increase in exposure at the50 dB level was nevertheless indicated. Upon application of the 90% RNAVproportion to the traffic mix the area immediately to the North of the airportgained some relief at the 50 dB level, but suffered slightly more exposure at the45 dB level. No detectable changes were noted in the other noise sensitiveareas depicted.

Comparison of the noise contours obtained from the INM Study indicate that, withrespect to Runway 08, the slight gains indicated in the large area to the North ofthe airport were outweighed by an introduction of exposure at the 45 dB level in theareas to the North West and South West.

Assessment of the contours obtained for Runway 26 is somewhat complicated bythe small dB level shifts indicated in noise sensitive areas immediately adjacent tothe airport, where higher noise levels might, in any event, be anticipated. Once thePRNAV capable aircraft element is injected into the traffic mix, an introduction /increase in exposure at the 45 dB level is noted in noise sensitive areas to the Northand North West. Introduction to exposure at the 45 and 50 dB levels in the area tothe South West is also indicated.

Subtle changes in noise levels in the medium to high dB ranges are far lessperceptible than is the introduction of noise, even at low levels, where none hadpreviously been in evidence. It is accordingly considered that the implementation ofPRNAV SIDS/STARS in the circumstances examined, with consequent introductionof noise, even at the lower 45 dB and 50 dB levels, would expose additionalcommunities to discomfort, and is therefore not considered desirable.


EUROCONTROL

27

It is worthy of note that noise contour prediction calculations are essentially highlyairport specific. Results are influenced by such parameters as:

• The nature of surrounding terrain, and the consequent effects upon aircraft flightpaths.

• The location of noise sensitive areas relative to the airport, and to aircraft flightpaths dictated by procedures already in use, or that are under consideration.

• The noise characteristics of aircraft types using the particular airport.• The handling techniques practiced by operators. It follows that, despite the fact that the outcome of the INM evaluations wereperhaps disappointing in the case of SEATON, similar investigations in respect ofother airports could, conceivably, produce encouraging results in terms of noiseexposure.


EUROCONTROL

28

7. ANNEX A - SIMMOD Description

7.1 How are the end results achieved ?The complete air and ground system is represented by a network of points andconnecting segments along which the aircraft “navigate." Along with other pointqualities, an altitude is associated with each point. This altitude is usually derivedfrom free profiles but can be modified to represent, for example, height restrictions,SIDS, STARS, etc.

The simulation module is the core of the SIMMOD system. The module traces the"steps" through time and space of each aircraft defined in the traffic sample fromone point to the next along its route. Potential violations of any of the modelledseparation requirements between two or more aircraft moving towards a given pointare detected and then resolved by adjusting their arrival times at the point.Depending on the importance of this adjustment, the controller action deemed to becausing it is interpreted as either track adjustment, speed control, holding or re-routeing of aircraft. Such specific occurrences as overtaking in the air, shufflingaircraft in the departure queue, as well as many other ATC procedures and actionseither on the aerodrome, in the approach/departure environment or in en-routeairspace can be simulated by careful selection of the input parameters.

7.2 Input requirementsThe SIMMOD input is constructed in a number of files. The validity and correctnessof the input data is crucial for the accuracy and realism of the simulation. TheSIMMOD files constructed contain detailed information regarding:

• Geographical boundaries of airspace and restrictions,

• Geographical boundaries of sectors and restrictions (capacities),

• Points data and restrictions (separation standards),

• Route data and restrictions (separation standards),

• Airfield data and restrictions (aircraft size limitations),

• Aircraft data and restrictions (wake turbulence),

• Scheduling of events (list of flights), and

Weather considerations (reduced Visibility operations


EUROCONTROL

29

7.3 OutputOutput data is produced in a report format which may also be converted into chartsand graphs. The data available from SIMMOD includes:

• Airfields, which includes:1. Runway utilisation,2. Ground delays at gates, holding points or during taxiing, and3. Average times for completing ground movements.

Sectors, which includes:4. Total number of aircraft that crossed the sectors within a specified

time period,5. Maximum number of aircraft in each sector's area of responsibility

at any one time within a specified time period,6. Average flight times for the sectors,7. A workload index for the sectors, and8. Number of aircraft in level flight, climbing or descending for each

sector within a specified time period.• Points, which includes:

9. Rate of traffic flow over points,10. Number of aircraft climbing, descending or in level flight at a

point, and11. Number of potential conflicts that require ATC intervention.

• Routes, which includes:12. Average flight times on each route, and13. Number of aircraft on each route.

7.4 Simulation AnimationIn addition to the output data, the SIMMOD post-processor module produces ananimated high resolution colour display of the simulation. All aircraft can bedisplayed during all stages of flight, or ground movement, following proceduresdefined in the input data.During the animation run various items can be analysed:

• Evolution of a traffic situation and traffic flow,

• A visual check of the simulation's realism,

• Verification that procedures defined for the model do not violate thedefined separation specifications, and

Areas of scheduling congestion can be located.


EUROCONTROL

30

7.5 Disadvantages - LimitationsSIMMOD is designed as a "quick look" simulation tool and has the followinglimitations:

• No resolution of conflicts during a simulation by changing an aircraft'slevel, and

• A global view only, no detail regarding an individual controller oroperating position

EUROCONTROL...Impacts of the Use of PRNAV in the TMA EUROCONTROL iv 4. SIMMOD STUDY - RESULTS 10 4.1...

Documents

Transcript of EUROCONTROL...Impacts of the Use of PRNAV in the TMA EUROCONTROL iv 4. SIMMOD STUDY - RESULTS 10 4.1...