LHR D4 -1 London Heathrow Concept of Operations - Europa

C.R. Hampson

NATS

01 August 2009

LHR D4-1 London Heathrow Concept of Operations

01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 2/67

D4-1 | London Heathrow Concept of

Operations (CONOPS) Environmentally Responsible Air Transport (ERAT)

NATS

Corporate & Technical Centre (CTC)

4000 Parkway

Whiteley

Fareham

Hampshire

United Kingdom

Tel. +44 (0)1489 615831

Fax +44 TBC

E-mail: [email protected]

Author:

C.R. Hampson

Hampshire, August 2009


Name Organisation Date of issue Version

John Bentley NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Mark Green NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Tony Heron NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Henry Larden NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Ruth Marshall NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Chris Porter NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Scott Speigal NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

Kathy Wood NATS 01/08/2009 1.0

ALL ERAT Consortium 01/08/2009 1.0

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Textual Description

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

AMAN Arrival Manager

APV BARO Approach with Vertical Guidance (Barometric)

ARP Airfield Reference Point

ATCO Air Traffic Controller

ATM Air Traffic Management

BIG Biggin Hill VOR (Hold)

BNN Bovingdon VOR (Hold)

CDA Continuous Descent Approach

CTA Controlled Time of Arrival

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

EGLL London Heathrow (ICAO)

E-OCVM European Operational Concept Validation Methodology

EORA Environmentally Optimised RNP Arrivals

ERAT Environmentally Responsible Air Transport

FAF Final Approach Fix

FIN Final Director

FMS Flight Management System

FPA Flight Path Angle

FT (ft) Feet

GA General Aviation

IAF Initial Approach Fix

ILS Instrument Landing System

INT Intermediate Approach Controller

KIAS Knots Indicated Airspeed

KTS (kts) Nautical Miles Per Hour (Knots)

LACC London Area Control Centre (Swanwick)

LAM Lambourne VOR (Hold)

LHR London Heathrow (IATA)

This document has been distributed to:


LNAV Lateral Navigation

MAP Missed Approach Procedure

MCP Mode Control Panel

MSL Minimum Stack Level

MOPS Method of Operations

NAS National Airspace System (NATS)

NM (nm) Nautical Mile

NODE NATS Operational Display Equipment

OCK Ockham VOR (Hold)

OI Operational Improvement (SESAR)

PBN Performance Based Navigation

P-RNAV Precision Area Navigation

RMA Radar Manoeuvring Area

RNP Required Navigational Performance

RT Radio Telephony

RTA Required Time of Arrival

SA Situational Awareness

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SID Standard Instrument Departure

STAR Standard Arrival Route

TC [London] Terminal Control

TCN [London] Terminal Control North

TCS [London] Terminal Control South

TEAM Tactical Enhanced Arrival Mode

TMA Terminal Manoeuvring Area

TOD Top of Descent

VSL Vertical Stack Lists

VNAV Vertical Navigation


Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary .......................................................................... 8 2 Introduction ..................................................................................... 9 2.1 Background & Document Structure .................................................... 9 2.2 Scope ............................................................................................ 9 2.3 ERAT Objectives .............................................................................. 9 2.4 Relationship with SESAR................................................................. 10 2.5 E-OCVM ....................................................................................... 10

3 Key Performance Areas ..................................................................... 11 3.1 Safety ......................................................................................... 11 3.2 Capacity ...................................................................................... 12 3.3 Environment ................................................................................. 12 3.4 Efficiency & Cost Effectiveness ........................................................ 13

4 Current Operations and Limitations .................................................... 15 4.1 London TMA ................................................................................. 15 4.2 Stack Holding ............................................................................... 15 4.3 Arrival Management (AMAN) ........................................................... 16 4.4 Controller Workload ....................................................................... 17 4.5 Flight Crew Workload ..................................................................... 18

5 Concept of Operations ...................................................................... 19 5.1 Performance Based Navigation (PBN) ............................................... 19 5.2 Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) ................................................. 20 5.3 Required Navigation Performance (RNP) ........................................... 21 5.4 Enhanced Arrival Manager (AMAN) 2015 ........................................... 21 5.5 P-RNAV Transition from ALPHA (North) ............................................. 21 5.6 P-RNAV Transition from BRAVO (South) ............................................ 22 5.6.1 ALPHA27R P-RNAV Transition ................................................... 23 5.6.2 BRAVO27R P-RNAV Transition ................................................... 24 5.6.3 ALPHA09L P-RNAV Transition .................................................... 25 5.6.4 BRAVO09L P-RNAV Transition ................................................... 26 5.6.5 ALPHA27R & BRAVO27R (Westerly Operations) ........................... 27 5.6.6 ALPHA09L & BRAVO09L (Easterly Operations) ............................. 28 5.6.7 ALPHA27R & BRAVO27R Urban Exposure (Westerly Operations)..... 29 5.6.8 ALPHA09L & BRAVO09L Urban Exposure (Easterly Operations) ...... 30

5.7 Waypoints ALPHA & BRAVO ............................................................ 31 5.8 Runway Configuration .................................................................... 31 5.9 Operational Evolution ..................................................................... 32

6 Method of Operations ....................................................................... 33 6.1 Normal Operations ........................................................................ 33 6.1.1 Stack Holding ......................................................................... 33 6.1.2 Sequencing (Upwind) .............................................................. 34 6.1.3 Spacing (Downwind) ............................................................... 34 6.1.4 Speed Profile .......................................................................... 35

6.2 Noise Alternation Mode .................................................................. 36 6.3 Roles & Responsibilities .................................................................. 38 6.3.1 TMA NW Controller .................................................................. 38 6.3.2 TMA NE Controller ................................................................... 38


6.3.3 TMA SW Controller .................................................................. 38 6.3.4 TMA SE Controller ................................................................... 38 6.3.5 Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N) .......................... 39 6.3.6 Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S) .......................... 39 6.3.7 Final Director (FIN) ................................................................. 39

6.4 Terminal Control Sectorisation ........................................................ 40 6.4.1 NW Sector ............................................................................. 41 6.4.2 NE Sector .............................................................................. 41 6.4.3 SW Sector ............................................................................. 42 6.4.4 SE Sector .............................................................................. 42 6.4.5 CAPITOL Sector ...................................................................... 42

7 References ..................................................................................... 43 8 Appendices ..................................................................................... 44 8.1 Use Cases .................................................................................... 44 8.1.1 Smoothed & Metered Flow Delivery (AMAN) ................................ 44 8.1.2 Establish Sequence ................................................................. 45 8.1.3 Maintain Sequence .................................................................. 46 8.1.4 Re-sequencing Missed Approach ................................................ 47 8.1.5 Handling non-equipped aircraft ................................................. 48 8.1.6 Adverse Weather Conditions (CB Activity) ................................... 49 8.1.7 Temporary Runway Closure ...................................................... 50

8.2 Mapping of ERAT Heathrow concept elements against SESAR Operational

Improvements (OIs)................................................................................ 52 8.3 E-OCVM Concept Validation Methodology Overview ............................ 55 8.4 HEART1A Design Evolution ............................................................. 56 8.4.1 HEART1A Generic Concept (25nm) ............................................ 57 8.4.2 HEART1A Generic Concept (15nm) ............................................ 58 8.4.3 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090508 (Westerly Overview) .......... 59 8.4.4 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090508 (Easterly Overview) ........... 60 8.4.5 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090603 (Westerly Overview) .......... 61 8.4.6 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090603 (Easterly Overview) ........... 62 8.4.7 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090720 (Westerly Overview) ..... 63 8.4.8 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090720 (Easterly Overview) ...... 64 8.4.9 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090722 (Westerly Overview) ..... 65 8.4.10 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090722 (Easterly Overview) ...... 66


1 Executive Summary

The Environmentally Responsible Air Transport project has been tasked

with identifying, selecting, developing and assessing operational concepts

that offer environmental benefits delivery within the 2015 timeframe.

London Heathrow, the subject of this document, has been selected as the

airport of focus for the high density, high complexity reference case

assessment.

The ERAT Concept of Operations for London Heathrow describes an

innovative queue management concept based on:

• High level airborne holding

• Closed Loop, systemised arrival transitions

The proposed concept aims to deliver benefits to both arrival and

departure traffic into and out of London Heathrow. However, whilst the

concept itself is a queue management concept within the terminal arrival

phase, the primary benefits are realised in the departure phase of flight.

In present day operations, the existing low level holds at London Heathrow

severely restrict the departing aircraft’s ability to achieve an optimal climb

profile. The location and vertical extent of the existing holds serve as a

blocker to departing traffic resulting in departing aircraft flying significant

portions of level flight underneath the holds in order to achieve vertical

separation from arriving aircraft. The proposed Concept of Operations

targets the removal of these blockers to enable unconstrained, continuous

climb departure profiles.


2 Introduction

2.1 Background & Document Structure

This document has been written to meet Project Deliverable D4-2 Concept

of Operations for LHR and represents the main output of NATS’

contribution to Work Package 4.

Information pertaining to Roles & Responsibilities and Sectorisation are

subject to substantial changes in future versions of this document. Internal

Task 4.4 documentation as it relates to ATC Procedures in support of Work

Package 6 activities will be used to supplement these sections.

Whilst the designs to be simulated have become largely stable, the

ongoing work in Task 4.4 means that drawings, where included, cannot be

guaranteed to represent the latest iteration of the design for real-time

simulation in Task 6.3.

The structure of the document follows the project template in terms of

format, and so far as is possible, style.

This document is uncontrolled when printed.

2.2 Scope

This document sets out a high level view of the operational context of the

ERAT London Heathrow Concept of Operations. At the high level, the

Concept does not provide the exhaustive detail that might be expected of

an Operational Scenarios and Environment Description (OSED) document,

but describes the key elements and functions of a dynamic and innovative

Queue Management concept conceived for future deployment within a high

density, high complexity terminal environment. It is restricted to:

• The Operational Concept; which defines the high level structure of

the operation complete with the associated concept objectives and

intended benefits as they relate to identified Key Performance

Areas (KPA).

• The Method of Operations (MOPS); which defines the significant

interactions between all affected actors and stakeholders. The

MOPS provides a description of the operation.

2.3 ERAT Objectives

“The ERAT project aims to identify operational initiatives, develop concept

elements, integrate them and validate a concept of operations that reduce


the environmental impact of the air transport operation in all phases of

flight in the extended terminal area.”1

2.4 Relationship with SESAR

The SESAR Concept of Operations (D3) is predicated upon a shift from

today’s airspace-based ATM environment to a future trajectory-based ATM

environment. The ERAT Concept of Operations is wholly aligned to the

trajectory-based principles upon which SESAR is based. The ERAT Concept

for London Heathrow is a queue management concept based on

systemized route structures within the TMA.

Appendix 8.2 details a mapping of ERAT concept elements against SESAR

Operational Improvements (OIs).

2.5 E-OCVM

The European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM) has

been adopted by all consortium partners within the ERAT project and

thereby forms the basis of the approach to completing this document. E-

OCVM processes are more explicitly deployed within supporting

documentation such as project deliverable D5-1, ‘Experimental Plan LHR’2.

Appendix 8.3 provides an overview of the Concept Validation Lifecycle

which was used in LHR4 to complete this document.

Figure 1 – E-OCVM Validation Phases

1 Project Plan (Amendment to D0-1) Version 2.0. M.Portier, To70. Nov 2007. 2 D5-1 Experimental Plan LHR Version 1.0, H. Larden, NATS. Aug 2009.


3 Key Performance Areas

The following section gives an overview of the relationship between the

described Concept of Operations and targeted Key Performance Areas

(KPA). More thorough and detailed information regarding the KPA trade-off

methodology and associated work can be found in ERAT Work Package 2

(WP2) project documentation.

3.1 Safety

The Concept of Operations for London Heathrow should allow for no

reduction in the baseline safety index. The following safety benefits relate

to:

Enhanced Situational Awareness

The pre-defined P-RNAV vertical and lateral paths will deliver increased

predictability of aircraft performance for both Air Traffic Controllers and

Flight Crew. Predictability is a key element in establishing and maintaining

robust levels of Situational Awareness (SA).

For Air Traffic Controllers – ATCOs will benefit from enhanced situational

awareness with respect to both an individual aircraft’s performance and to

the management of the wider ATC environment.

For Flight Crew – Flight Crew will benefit from enhanced situational

awareness from the closed loop P-RNAV approach environment. Not only

will Flight Crew have complete knowledge of the aircraft’s intended

trajectory, but the ability to fly the initial approach in LNAV/VNAV coupled

mode will free up cognitive capacity for supporting tasks.

Reduced Workload

For Air Traffic Controllers – The shift from a wholly tactical vectoring

environment to one predicated on the use of systemized P-RNAV routes

within the TMA will deliver considerable reductions in controller workload.

Specifically, RT transmissions are expected to reduce in number as a

consequence of this change.

For Flight Crew – Section 4.5 describes some of the workload issues

associated with today’s method of operation, one based almost exclusively

upon tactical vectoring. The move to systemized routes structures within

the TMA where aircraft fly the profile in fully automated flight will lead to a

substantial reduction on flight crew workload. The concept works towards

the ‘Sterile cockpit below FL100’ guidance advocated by Flight Crew.

The concept is configurable to future developments such as RNP. For

instance, where aircraft equipage levels pass a certain ratio of RNP

equipped aircraft it may be desirable to use RNP in place of P-RNAV to


define the vertical and lateral profiles and associated performance and

conformance criteria. With respect to the latter, any future shift from P-

RNAV to RNP would allow for additional safety benefits such as increased

containment in the vertical and lateral paths to be delivered.

3.2 Capacity

The following Key Performance criteria as the Concept of Operations

relates to capacity are:

Runway Capacity

Whilst the proposed concept for London Heathrow does not explicitly target

capacity gains, it should be recognized that the concept should allow for no

reduction in baseline (2009) capacity. London Heathrow is a capacity

constrained airport with the runway resource scheduled at approximately

98% available throughput. It is therefore fundamental that the concept

maintains this rate and allows for no degradation in runway throughput or

overall system capacity.

TMA Capacity

It is expected that increased movements to and from London’s four other

major airports will result in a noticeable increase of TMA traffic levels in

2015. The concept will therefore be required to successfully accommodate

this growth.

Radio Telephony (RT) Capacity

It is expected that the high number of RT transmissions characteristic of a

tactical vectoring environment will be significantly reduced, thereby

releasing valuable RT capacity.

3.3 Environment

The ERAT Concept of Operations for London Heathrow is primarily driven

by targeted Environment Key Performance Areas. The primary benefits as

they relate to the Environment KPA are:

Efficient and optimized climb profiles (continuous climb)

The provision of less contrained, perhaps even optimal and uninterupted

departure climb profiles is the main environmental driver behind the ERAT

Concept of Operations for London Heathrow. Presently, aircraft departing

on Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) from Heathrow are restricted to

6000ft on the initial climb. This is due to a prohibitive Minimim Stack Level

(MSL) of the conflicting inner holding stacks being set at FL70 (dependent

on barometric pressure). The removal of the existing low-level inner

holding stacks removes this blocker.


The two new holding fixes are located in such a position (close in), and at

such a height (high up) so as not to be in conflict with aircraft departing on

Heathrow SIDs. As such, departing aircraft are able to realise far improved

departure profiles than is presently the case. Validation activities within

Task 6.3 will quantify and assess this improvement.

Efficient and optimized descent profiles (CDAs)

The concept of holding ‘higher up’ and ‘closer in’ to the arriving airport is

expected to facilitate improved climb profiles for aircraft departing from

the reference case airport. However, in addition to the main departure

benefits, arriving aircraft are expected to benefit from more efficiently

optimised descent profiles. The P-RNAV transitions are designed to enable

optimal Coninuous Descent Approaches (CDAs) to be flown in a safe and

consistent manner.

Both efficient and optimised climb and descent profiles are expected to

deliver reductions in fuel burn and the associated emissions and noise

factors. These are summarised as follows:

Reduced fuel burn & associated emissions

Aircraft are expected to experience reduced fuel burn as a result of:

• Optimised departure profiles

• Optimised descent profiles, to include Continuous Descent

Approaches

• Airborne holding at higher levels

• Reduced airborne holding

Reduced noise

Noise benefits are expected to be delivered as a result of:

• Optimised departure profiles

• Optimised descent profiles, to include Continuous Descent

Approaches

• Airborne holding at higher levels

• Reduced airborne holding

3.4 Efficiency & Cost Effectiveness

The Concept of Operations for London Heathrow aims to deliver the

following efficiency and cost effectiveness benefits:

Improved flight efficiency


The concept will enable arriving aircraft to fly the approach in fully

automated flight (LNAV/VNAV coupled) leading to more efficient flight

profiles. The closed loop P-RNAV environment maximizes use of onboard

navigation systems and allows for the execution of the most optimal flight

profiles.

The amount of airborne holding is expected to reduce over present day

levels. Whilst a certain amount of holding is required to maintain the

reservoir of aircraft available to the Approach Controllers, an overall

reduction in stack holding is expected.


4 Current Operations and Limitations

It should be noted that a broader and more detailed account of the current

operation at London Heathrow is provided in Reference Case document D2-

4. The following section is intended to aid readability of the document and

to describe the context within which the ERAT Concept of Operations for

London Heathrow should be considered.

4.1 London TMA

The London Terminal Maneuvering Area (TMA) can be characterised as

being representative of a very high density, extremely high complexity

terminal environment. The number of airports, the complexity of the

interactions between arriving and departing traffic flows, coupled with the

sheer volume of traffic levels, combine to make the London TMA a

challenging environment in which to successfully implement new concepts.

The London TMA has five major airports; London Heathrow, London

Gatwick, London Stansted, London Luton and London City. In addition, it

contains other important airfields such as Farnborough, Biggin Hill and RAF

Northolt which, owing to their specific operational requirements, add

further complexity. A number of General Aviation (GA) airfields such as

Blackbushe, White Waltham and North Weald, and a host of high density

helicopter activity, further add to the mix. Lastly, regional airports such as

Southampton, although lying outside the TMA, have a major impact on

operations owing to the relative geography and close proximity to the TMA.

Innovative Queue Management concepts and techniques therefore,

represent a particular challenge when considered within the context of the

London TMA.

4.2 Stack Holding

Stack Holding is extensively used for arriving aircraft at London Heathrow

during all but the very quietest periods. The operation relies upon having a

reservoir of aircraft located within close proximity to the runway.

Currently, London Heathrow uses four holds; Bovingdon (BNN) and

Lambourne (LAM) to the North of the airfield, and Ockham (OCK) and

Biggin Hill (BIG) to the South of the airfield.

“Heathrow is scheduled to a very high rate, approximately 98% of its available

capacity. This results in a movement rate of approximately 84 aircraft per hour.

To facilitate this schedule there is the need to ensure there are aircraft

available for positioning onto the approach sequence all the time. The schedule

is based upon a 10 minute routine holding requirement within the Heathrow

holds.”3

3 M2-4 Reference Case Description London Heathrow 2015, M. Portier (on

behalf of NATS), May 2009.


4.3 Arrival Management (AMAN)

Arrival Management (AMAN) is an ATM process by which arriving flows of

aircraft are optimised in an effort to support existing demand and capacity

balancing processes that comprise Air Traffic Flow & Capacity Management

(ATFCM) and Network Management activities. The need for AMAN is greatest

at highly constrained airport environments.

‘The [BARCO] Arrival Manager (AMAN) is a planning tool that… automatically

provides an optimised arrivals sequence for each airport in the London TMA.’

Presently, the tool has been implemented at London Heathrow, although

London City is set to follow in 2009. ‘It receives inputs of flight data from

NAS which it correlates with radar data from NODE to provide a trajectory

prediction taking into account meteorological data received from COREMET.’4

“The delay is always updated if the flight movements differ from the

predicted trajectory (conformance monitoring). The conformance monitoring

triggers are updated if the flight diverts right or left from its predicted flight

path or flies faster or slower than predicted. For every track update the

reported position is checked against the predicted position at this moment. If

the two differ by more than 5 nm (configurable) a new trajectory calculation

is triggered.” 5

“The major benefit of the AMAN system is that it will provide continuous

information on the sequence and delay for the LTMA airfields. The sequence

calculated by the system will be automatically optimised for vortex wake

spacing. The display of this data will ensure that both LTC and LAC

controllers are aware of the delay and sequence much earlier than with the

current EAT PC and will be able to plan traffic presentation and aircraft speed

restrictions to best present traffic to the next sector. The use of appropriate

speed restrictions will also allow delay to be absorbed in the en-route and

descent phases reducing the amount of airborne holding required. As the

sequence is known much earlier aircraft will arrive at the holding stack in the

optimum order more often than in today’s operation. A 5~10% reduction in

airborne holding is anticipated when AMAN has bedded in.”6

Enhanced AMAN functionality is a fundamental enabler for the proposed

ERAT Concept of Operations for London Heathrow. The reduction in the level

of delay that can be accomodated within the TMA (stack holding) places a

greater dependency on aborbing the required delay through alternative

means, i.e. en-route/linear holding predicted by AMAN and associated Time-

Based metering applications.

4 Arrival Manager (AMAN) Factsheet #1. C. Enright. Oct 2008.

http://natsnet/FutureCentres/includes/AMAN/AMANFactsheet1Oct032008.doc 5 Arrival Manager (AMAN) Factsheet #2. C. Enright. Oct 2008.

http://natsnet/FutureCentres/includes/AMAN/AMANFACTSHEET2Oct242008.doc 6 Arrival Manager (AMAN) Factsheet #3. C. Enright. Dec 2008.

http://natsnet/FutureCentres/includes/AMAN/AMANFACTSHEET01Dec2008.doc


4.4 Controller Workload

The method of ensuring a safe and efficient flow of arriving aircraft at

London Heathrow is heavily based upon the use of tactical ‘open-loop’

vectors being issued to aircraft holding at the four inner holds. Whilst this

method of operations is effective in maintaining the required volume of

[runway] throughput within the system, it is an inherently workload

intensive environment for the controllers.

An example set of controller instructions are provided below. These

instructions are intended to illustrate a representative level of RT workload

currently experienced by London Heathrow approach controllers. In this

example Lambourne (LAM) is given as the hold in use, however the

instructions are broadly comparable of all four inner holds.

It should be noted that the following instructions should not be considered

an exhaustive account of controller interaction in the scenario provided.

Nor should they be considered to be phonetically or procedurally accurate

with regards to terminology and sequence. They are provided merely to

illustrate an indicative level of workload.

1. Upon initial contact with the aircraft, having receipt of the aircraft

call-sign, an instruction to Hold at [typically] LAM, FL100 along

with the current delay (in time) is given e.g. 10 minutes typically.

2. An instruction to Descend to FL90 is given.

3. An instruction to Descend to FL80 is given.

4. An instruction to Leave LAM on Heading XXX at Speed XXX is

given.

5. Upon reaching the exit fix for LAM, Descend to FL70.

6. To turn onto downwind leg, an instruction to Turn left onto

Heading XXX is given. The current QNH is issued along with an

associated altitude descent instruction (Descend 4000ft). A range

check (i.e. distance to touchdown) and appropriate landing runway

information is provided.

7. An instruction to Contact the Final Director (FIN) on frequency

XXX.XX is given.

8. The Final Director provides a range check and reconfirms landing

runway.

9. To turn onto Base Leg, an instruction to Turn right onto Heading

XXX is given. This may be accompanied by a speed instruction to

reduce to 180 KIAS (or as required).

10. To intercept the ILS, an instruction to Fly Heading XXX to intercept

the localiser, Runway XXX is given.

11. An altitude descent instruction may be given; Descend altitude

3000ft (depending on the length of the final).

12. Aircraft calls established on glide-path, ATCO instructs aircraft to

descend on the glide-path.


13. Once required landing sequence is achieved, typically an

instruction to Reduce speed to 160 KIAS until 4nm from

touchdown (4 DME) is given.

14. Once the ATCO is satisfied that the correct aircraft spacing can be

maintained he will instruct the aircraft to Contact Tower frequency

on XXX.XX. This is normally achieved between 7nm and 11nm but

no later than 4nm [from touchdown].

4.5 Flight Crew Workload

The level of workload experienced by flight crew operating into London

Heathrow airport is considerable, and consequently presents many

challenges. The high workload is a product of the existing method of

operations, volume of traffic, complexity of airspace and associated

operating constraints.

One of the main factors contributing to the high workload experienced by

flight crew operating into London Heathrow is the inherent incompatibility

between the strategic flight plan that exists within the Flight Management

System (FMS) and tactical ATC instructions. This incompatibility means

that aircraft will seldom get the opportunity to fly in LNAV or VNAV modes,

and even more rarely are occasions where the two modes can be coupled

in concert.

Flight crew can only realistically accommodate frequent tactical ATC

instructions by flying ‘open-loop’ heading, speed and vertical

speed/altitude intervenes through the Auto-pilot/Auto-flight Mode Control

Panel (MCP) on the glare shield. This results in frequent intervene

commands on the part of the flight crew to manipulate the aircraft’s

trajectory. The nature and frequency of these commands put additional

workload and pressure on the flight crew during what is fundamentally the

most workload intensive part of the flight.

This ‘open-loop’ environment not only increases workload, but decreases

situational awareness (SA). The flight crew can not know the next

waypoint, heading, speed or altitude instruction. The FMS is somewhat

redundant in such an operating environment and can almost be considered

‘out-of-the-loop’. The absence of LNAV and VNAV information further

denies the flight crew of data that would assist in building an accurate SA

picture of the immediate operating environment.


5 Concept of Operations

The proposed queue management concept for London Heathrow is based

on Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures within the Terminal

Manoeuvring Area (TMA). The procedure is a wholly systemised ‘closed-

loop’ environment in which the aircraft are expected to fly in fully

automated flight in accordance with Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV)

conformance criteria.

The over-riding principal of the concept is based on establishing pre-

defined three dimensional (3D) paths within close proximity to the airport,

such that the airspace dimensions of the Radar Manoeuvring Area (RMA)

are significantly reduced from that of today’s operational requirements.

Both the vertical and lateral profile is designed in such a way as to

strategically de-conflict arriving and departing traffic. This allows departing

aircraft to fly a much improved climb profile. Where today departing traffic

is forced to step-climb and is subject to sustained periods of level flight in

order to ensure vertical separation from arriving traffic, this concept will

facilitate improved, perhaps even continuous and unconstrained

(optimised) climb departures.

In order to facilitate optimised profiles for departing traffic, the queue

management concept for arriving traffic is radically altered from today’s

mode of operations. Waypoint ALPHA serves as the Initial Approach Fix

(IAF) for the transition from the north side, whilst waypoint BRAVO serves

as the IAF from the south side. The two IAFs are located at approximately

10nm from the airfield. In addition the minimum level at the IAF is

considerably higher (approximately FL130) than would typically be

expected of an IAF in such close proximity to an airfield. The combination

of a ‘close-in, high up’ IAF means that a relatively elaborate lateral route is

required to accommodate the required descent. As such a certain amount

of manoeuvring is necessary from the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) to the

Final Approach Fix (FAF).

In a nil delay environment, waypoints ALPHA and BRAVO serve simply as

the IAF of the transition. However, it is expected that when deployed at a

capacity constrained airport such as London Heathrow, both IAFs will serve

as holding fixes to accommodate the required airborne holding. The two

stacks will serve to maintain the appropriate pressure to service the

required landing rate.

The following section will describe the constituent concept elements of the

proposed concept.

5.1 Performance Based Navigation (PBN)

The Concept of Operation is based on Performance Based Navigation

principles. The PBN Manual Volume 1 – Concept & Implementation

Guidance can be found at:


http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meetings/perf2007/_PBN%20Manual_W-

Draft%205.1_FINAL%2007MAR2007.pdf7

5.2 Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV)

The ERAT Concept of Operations for London Heathrow is predicated on the

use of systemized route structures within the TMA, where the pre-defined

routes are defined by Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) requirements

criteria.

‘P-RNAV is the aircraft and operator approval requirement that is

introduced for RNAV procedures in ECAC Terminal Airspace. Terminal

Airspace procedures that require P-RNAV approval are designed following

common principles which ensure that procedure design and execution are

fully compatible. Additional to the minimum performance and functional

requirements appropriate for Terminal Airspace RNAV operations, P-RNAV

approval includes navigation data integrity requirements and flight crew

procedures. In other words, P-RNAV allows Terminal Airspace operations

that are consistent in the various ECAC States, based on procedures design

principles and aircraft capabilities that meet the requirement.

In other words, P-RNAV allows Terminal Airspace RNAV operations that are

consistent in the various ECAC States, based on a common set of design

and operation principles, ensuring consistent levels of flight safety. This in

contrast to the current situation, where the variations in RNAV approval

requirements, the variations procedure design and procedure

publication/charting, and the variations in navigation data integrity, have

been recognised to be not without safety implications.

P(recision)-RNAV defines European RNAV operations which satisfy a

required track-keeping accuracy of ±1 NM for at least 95% of the flight

time.

This level of navigation accuracy can be achieved using DME/DME, GPS or

VOR/DME. It can also be maintained for short periods using IRS (the

length of time that a particular IRS can be used to maintain P-RNAV

accuracy without external update is determined at the time of

certification).

The complete P-RNAV aircraft and operator approval requirements are set

out in JAA TGL-10 Rev 1.’8

7 The PBN Manual Volume 1 – Concept & Implementation Guidance RNP Special

Operations Requirements Study Group (RNPSORSG), 07 Mar 2007. 8 Eurocontrol Navigation Domain, P-RNAV, ‘What is P-RNAV’

http://www.ecacnav.com/content.asp?CatID=201


5.3 Required Navigation Performance (RNP)

The proposed concept utilises Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) as a

means of defining the profile from the IAF to the FAF, however the concept

is configurable to accommodate future Required Navigation Performance

(RNP) criteria if desired.

RNP is a means of defining the navigation capability of an aircraft, taking

into account the performance of the avionics, on-board systems and flight

characteristics. RNP is a level of navigation performance expressed in

nautical miles. The RNP value defines the width of the airspace corridor

(tolerance) required for the procedure. The aircraft’s Flight Management

System is used to integrate numerous sources of position data.

5.4 Enhanced Arrival Manager (AMAN) 2015

A fully implemented Enhanced Arrival Manager is a key enabler for the

ERAT Concept of Operations for London Heathrow. The 2015 AMAN system

will deliver a smoothed and metered flow of traffic into the TMA allowing

Heathrow to operate with only two holding stacks.

The AMAN will incorporate Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) functionality to

meter inbound arrival streams to best effect. The IAFs of ALPHA and

BRAVO serve as the metering fix. Ref: Use Case 8.1.1.

5.5 P-RNAV Transition from ALPHA (North)

There is a single P-RNAV transition defined for both Westerly and Easterly

operations giving a total of two transitions from ALPHA. These are:

• ALPHA27R (where the arrivals runway is 27R), and;

• ALPHA09L (where the arrivals runway is 09L)

The transition is comprised of a series of RNAV waypoints forming a three

dimensional (3D) pre-defined RNP path from the Initial Approach Fix (IAF)

to the runway threshold. The first waypoint in the procedure is the IAF

(ALPHA). The transition is defined to P-RNAV requirements.

The profile involves a series of straight legs and turns resulting in an

elaborately shaped transition. The entire profile is contained within a

relatively small area, the Northern, Eastern and Western extremes being

no further than 15nm from the Airfield Reference Point (ARP).

For Westerly operations where Runway 27R is the arrivals runway, the

profile involves an initial South-Westerly heading towards the upwind end

of the airfield. Thereafter the transition turns 180° to position for an

Easterly downwind leg. At approximately 15nm from touchdown the profile

turns onto a Southerly base leg before turning to intercept the extended


centerline and continuing on the required glide-path down to the runway

threshold.

For Easterly operations the profile is essentially reserved, where the

upwind legs are to the West, and the downwind legs to the East.

The descent gradient for ALPHA27R and ALPHA09L is -1.43° FPA or

143ft/nm (2.51%) initially, until turning downwind at FL100/26nm from

FAF, where the remaining portion of the profile gives a descent gradient of

-3.66° FPA or 385ft/nm (6.42%). Section 5.6.5 and 5.6.6 depict the latest

versions of the ALPHA transitions. Charts 5.6.7 and 5.6.8 depict the urban

exposure of the ERAT LL P-RNAV transitions.

5.6 P-RNAV Transition from BRAVO (South)

There is a single P-RNAV transition defined for both Westerly and Easterly

operations giving a total of two transitions from BRAVO. These are:

• BRAVO27R (where the arrivals runway is 27R), and;

• BRAVO09L (where the arrivals runway is 09L)

The transition is comprised of a series of RNAV waypoints forming a three

dimensional (3D) pre-defined RNP path from the Initial Approach Fix (IAF)

to the runway threshold. The first waypoint in the procedure is the IAF

(BRAVO). The transition is defined to P-RNAV requirements.

The profile involves a series of straight legs and turns resulting in an

elaborately shaped transition. The entire profile is contained within a

relatively small area, the Northern, Eastern and Western extremes being

no further than 15nm from the Airfield Reference Point (ARP).

For Westerly operations where Runway 27R is the arrivals runway, the

profile involves an initial North-Westerly heading towards the upwind end

of the airfield. Thereafter the transition turns 180° to position for an

Easterly downwind leg. At approximately 15nm from touchdown the profile

turns onto a Northerly base leg before turning to intercept the extended

centerline and continuing on the required glide-path down to the runway

threshold.

For Easterly operations the profile is essentially reserved, where the

upwind legs are to the West, and the downwind legs to the East.

The descent gradient for BRAVO27R and BRAVO09L is -1.43° FPA or

143ft/nm (2.51%) initially, until turning downwind at FL100/26nm from

FAF, where the remaining portion of the profile gives a descent gradient of

-3.66° FPA or 385ft/nm (6.42%). Charts 5.6.5 and 5.6.6 depict the latest

versions of the BRAVO transitions. Charts 5.6.7 and 5.6.8 depict the urban

exposure of the ERAT LL P-RNAV transitions.

5.6.1 ALPHA27R P-RNAV Transition


5.6.2 BRAVO27R P-RNAV Transition


5.6.3 ALPHA09L P-RNAV Transition


5.6.4 BRAVO09L P-RNAV Transition


5.6.5 ALPHA27R & BRAVO27R (Westerly Operations)


5.6.6 ALPHA09L & BRAVO09L (Easterly Operations)


5.6.7 ALPHA27R & BRAVO27R Urban Exposure (Westerly Operations)


5.6.8 ALPHA09L & BRAVO09L Urban Exposure (Easterly Operations)

5.7 Waypoints ALPHA & BRAVO

Waypoints ALPHA and BRAVO serve as the Initial Approach Fixes (IAF) for

the North and South sides respectfully. The primary function of these

waypoints is to serve as metering fixes for the enhanced Arrival Manager

(AMAN) which will meter aircraft into the TMA. The secondary function of

both waypoints is to accommodate the required levels of airborne holding

to hold aircraft in a stack during periods where a demand/capacity

imbalance exists.

At airports where capacity exceeds demand, such instances will prove to

be the exception rather than the rule; the requirement for stack holding

will only be deployed during periods of temporary AMAN performance

degradation or where operational scenarios such as temporary runway

closures or Low Visibility Procedures (LVP), for example, require limited

levels of airborne holding.

For London Heathrow, where demand regularly exceeds capacity, the

requirement for airborne holding will be required as standard in order to

accommodate the resultant levels of delay. This will be described further in

the Method of Operations.

Waypoint ALPHA exists at FL120 which represents the Minimum Stack

Level (MSL) at which aircraft are permitted to hold. Airborne holding is

accommodated from MSL to FL150 inclusive.

Waypoint BRAVO exists at FL120 which represents the Minimum Stack

Level (MSL) at which aircraft are permitted to hold. Airborne holding is

accommodated from MSL to FL150 inclusive.

5.8 Runway Configuration

London Heathrow will continue to operate in dependent mode within the

ERAT timescales (2015). That is to say, one runway will be used or arrivals

and one runway will be used for departures.

The concept can operate in a noise alternation mode where one of the two

‘lobes’ are used at any one time, resulting in two holds merging to a single

arrival stream serving a single runway. Whilst this mode of operations has

been deemed as unsuitable for the London Heathrow reference case, it

may be appropriate for implementation within lower density terminal and

airport operations.

Tactically Enhanced Arrival Mode (TEAM) operations will be

accommodated. TEAM operations allow for up to six aircraft to be landed

on the departures runway during peak periods of high delay. Full Mixed

Mode is beyond the scope of this project.


5.9 Operational Evolution

The ERAT concept for London Heathrow is adaptable for future operational

developments and must be able to evolve to successfully meet future

requirements. Whilst much of the future London TMA development work

lies outside the scope of this project, the ERAT concept recognizes the

need for future configurability with Mixed Mode, Heathrow Runway 3,

Stansted Runway 2 and the associated portfolio of work within the LTMA

Programme.

The proposed concept lends itself well to accomodating future SESAR Time

Based Operations (TBO) applications such as Enhanced Arrival

Management (AMAN) functionality with integrated Controlled Time of

Arrival (CTA), including Required Time of Arrival (RTA), applications.


6 Method of Operations

The following section describes the method by which the proposed ERAT

Operational Concept will be deployed at London Heathrow, the reference

case high capacity airport considered within the ERAT project. Where the

previous section detailed the constituent concept elements in abstract, the

following describes the specific method, mode and applicability of the

Concept of Operations at London Heathrow.

The Use Cases provided within Appendix 8.1 should be read in concert with

the following section.

6.1 Normal Operations

The Arrival Manager (AMAN) will be expected to deliver a smoothed and

metered flow of traffic from en-route sectors into the TMA. The Initial

Approach Fix (IAF) serves as a metering fix for the inbound stream of

aircraft. The aircraft will cross the IAF and begin the procedure. There are

two IAFs/Holds giving two independent P-RNAV transitions servicing a

single arrivals runway.

In instances where there is no expected delay, aircraft will cross the IAF

and descend on the procedure as defined. The aircraft will be expected to

fly the procedure in fully automated flight, ideally in LNAV/VNAV coupled

mode. The aircraft will respect the defined vertical and lateral constraints

to arrive at the Final Approach Fix (FAF). Whilst the profile delivers aircraft

to the FAF, even in low density traffic situations, the approach controller

will typically take the aircraft off the procedure at an appropriate point

(possible late downwind, early base leg) and issue instructions to intercept

the ILS.

6.1.1 Stack Holding

For highly constrained airports such as London Heathrow, there is expected

to be a requirement for airborne holding as part of normal operations. The

two holds act as reservoirs of aircraft necessary to feed the system and

service the required landing rate.

A metered flow of traffic will arrive into the TMA and proceed to enter one

of the two holds located to the North and South of the airport. It is

expected that each aircraft will be required to complete approximately two

orbits before being released to take up the procedure. The enhanced AMAN

will work to maintain a minimum number of aircraft in the holds; the

minimum number being that required to service the target landing rate at

the time. Vertical Stack Lists (VSL) will be used to support the efficient

management of the stack and subsequent release.

The ALPHA hold to the north of the airport will accommodate airborne

holding from levels FL120 – FL150 inclusive.


The BRAVO hold to the south of the airport will accommodate airborne

holding from levels FL120 – FL150 inclusive.

In non-normal scenarios such as temporary runway closures, where there

exists an extreme demand/capcity imbalance which can not be

accomodated by the primary holding levels alone, emergency holding

levels of FL70 – FL110 inclusive can be activated. In such instances, non-

normal procedures would dictate that departures be restricted to 6000ft on

the SID. Once the runway is re-opened and the imbalance restrored, the

lower (emergency) holding levels would be emptied allowing the SID

restriction to be removed and normal operations resume. See Use Cases

8.1.4 – 8.1.7.

6.1.2 Sequencing (Upwind)

Upon being instructed to take up the appropriate procedure, aircraft will

leave the hold and begin to descend in accordance with the profile unless

otherwise instructed by the approach controller.

In the Heathrow environment, where there exists a need to maintain a

constant pressure on the arrivals runway, each hold will deliver an arrival

stream to the runway by way of a P-RNAV transition. The Approach

Controllers responsible for the ALPHA and BRAVO holds will have

information regarding the other hold and coordinate releases between one

another accordingly. This will ensure that an appropriate number of aircraft

are established on the two transitions to service the required landing rate.

The sequencing task must take account of the two sources of aircraft in the

holds and the subsequent independent transitions delivering to a single

arrivals runway.

6.1.3 Spacing (Downwind)

The two P-RNAV transitions are considered independent of one another,

and as such the immediate spacing task for the controller releasing aircraft

off the holding stack consists primarily of achieving adequate separation

from aircraft on the same P-RNAV transition; this can be longitudinal if

aircraft are fully respecting the defined constraints, or vertical and/or

lateral if the controller intervenes beyond speed control instructions with

tactical vectoring instructions such as headings and vertical speed.

The Intermediate Approach Controller (INT) is responsible for delivering an

appropriately spaced sequence of aircraft from the Hold/IAF to a point on

the downwind leg, where the aircraft are subsequently handed over to the

Final Director (FIN). There are two INT controllers, each handling a single

hold and associated P-RNAV transition.

Where possible the controller will work to achieve the required spacing by

speed control only, allowing the aircraft to respect the vertical and lateral

constraints of the transition. However, it is expected that speed control

alone will be insufficient to achieve target spacing criteria during all but the


quietest of periods. Therefore, controllers will maintain the flexibility to

employ tactical vectors to achieve the required spacing criteria.

Final approach spacing is handled by the Final Director (FIN). The FIN

achieves the required spacing in much the same way as is done in current

day operations. Aircraft are issued appropriate tactical instructions

(primarily heading) to leave the P-RNAV transition and intercept the

Localizer. During busy periods it is likely that the aircraft are received by

the FIN in an open-loop state. Typically, the higher the required landing

rate, the earlier it is expected the aircraft will be required to leave the

transition and receive instructions by way of tactical vectors.

6.1.4 Speed Profile

The concept allows for systemized routes to be flown in a fully automated

state, and as such the profile can be defined with vertical, lateral and

speed constraints. Where possible the aircraft should respect the speed

constraints as specified. However, at highly constrained airports such as

London Heathrow it is expected that tactical speed control intervention on

the part of the Approach Controller will be the minimum amount of

intervention required to achieve the required sequencing, spacing and

separation criteria. As such. the P-RNAV transitions will not have an

associated speed profile coded as part of the procedure. Rather, the speed

profile will be provided by, and at the descretion of ATC.

The recommended speed profile has been defined with guidance from

Airbus based upon a desired 2.20° FPA. The latest iteration of the design

for simulation is based on 2.38° FPA. This speed profile will be provided to

controllers as guidance only.

ALPHA27R

ALPHA: 220KIAS

HORSY/AWN18: 180KIAS

27R10: 160KIAS

FAF: As instructed (Vapp – Vref)

BRAVO27R

BRAVO: 220KIAS

PURLY/BWS19: 180KIAS

27R10: 160KIAS


ALPHA09L

ALPHA: 220KIAS

MARLO/AEN18: 180KIAS

09L10: 160KIAS


BRAVO09L

BRAVO: 220KIAS


ARMEY/BES19: 180KIAS

09L10: 160KIAS


It should be noted that further work will be required to assess the broader

fly-ability aspects of the P-RNAV transitions. Post-simulation work with

consortium partners including Lufthansa. This work will serve to better

assess user acceptance criteria on the part of the airlines and other

airspace users.

6.2 Noise Alternation Mode

Early iterations of the concept facilitated a noise abatement mode of

operation, whereby the two transitions laterally merged at a common

merge point and continued downwind on a single transition delivering to

the Final Approach Fix (FAF). This design option was not pursued past an

initial feasibility assessment as it was deemed unrealistic and not

appropriate for deployment at a capacity constrained environment such as

the London Heathrow reference case airport. To be clear, the described

concept does not, in it’s current design, facilitate the following noise

alternation mode of operation.

It is possible that such a design might be applicable to other, less

constrained airports that are able to accommodate a mode of operation

where the affected noise exposure area on the ground is, in effect,

alternated and eleviated of noise from overflying aircraft for a pre-

determined period of time. At such airports, during quieter periods where

the required landing rate allows, a noise alternation mode may be

activated where the operation shifts from supplying two arrival streams to

a single arrival stream. In such cases only one of the transitions is active

downwind of waypoint CHALI / DELTA (dependant on runway direction).

Waypoints CHALI / DELTA serve as a common merge point for the upwind

portions of the two transitions, as illustrated in Figure 2 below.


Figure 2 – Example of Noise Alternation Mode for Westerly operations

Waypoints CHALI and DELTA serve as common merge points when the

system operates in noise alternation mode, utilizing one of the two defined

profiles downwind of the merge point. The common merge point is the fix

by which the two arrival streams, from waypoint ALPHA and waypoint

BRAVO, are sequenced and merged into one arrival stream. The merge

point is therefore the first waypoint shared by the two flows. The merge

points are located approximately 2nm upwind of the airfield, along the

extended centerline of the departures runway.

The act of merging the two arrival streams into one common stream

serves to reduce the noise footprint of arriving aircraft into a single

concentrated path. A noise alternation procedure is defined downwind of

the merge point whereby only one of the two defined paths is active at any

one time.

For London Heathrow, where the runway resource is scheduled near or at

capacity, it is likely that there will be a requirement to utilize both defined

paths at the same time. The two arrival streams are required to service the

required target spacing and throughput.


6.3 Roles & Responsibilities

The following describes the expected roles and responsibilities of the main

Air Traffic Control (ATC) actors within the proposed Concept. Detailed ATC

Procedures for the Concept will be provided in a separate document and

serve as an input to the Heathrow Real-Time Simulation activities in Work

Package (WP) LHR6.

6.3.1 TMA NW Controller

The Terminal Maneuvering Area Controller North-West (TMA NW) is

responsible for the safe and efficient control of air traffic within the North-

West (bandboxed) sector, specifically:

• Managing the upper two levels of the ALPHA hold (FL160 – FL180).

• Managing the delivery of aircraft into the ALPHA hold.

• Coordinating with TMA NE controller regarding delivery of aircraft

into the ALPHA hold.

6.3.2 TMA NE Controller

The Terminal Maneuvering Area Controller North-East (TMA NE) is

responsible for the safe and efficient control of air traffic within the North-

East (bandboxed) sector, specifically:

• Delivery of inbound LL aircraft by Standing Agreement for the

ALPHA hold.

• Coordinating with TMA NW controller regarding delivery of aircraft

into the ALPHA hold.

6.3.3 TMA SW Controller

The Terminal Maneuvering Area Controller South-West (TMA SW) is

responsible for the safe and efficient control of air traffic within the South-

West (bandboxed) sector, specifically:

• Managing the upper two levels of the BRAVO hold (FL150 –

FL170).

• Managing the delivery of aircraft into the BRAVO hold.

• Coordinating with TMA SE controller regarding delivery of aircraft

into the BRAVO hold.

6.3.4 TMA SE Controller

The Terminal Maneuvering Area Controller South-East (TMA SE) is

responsible for the safe and efficient control of air traffic within the South-

East (bandboxed) sector, specifically:

• Delivery of inbound LL aircraft by Standing Agreement for the

BRAVO hold.

• Coordinating with TMA SW controller regarding delivery of aircraft

into the BRAVO hold.


6.3.5 Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)

The Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N) is responsible for the

safe and efficient control of air traffic within Terminal Control North (TCN),

specifically:

• Managing the lower two levels of the ALPHA hold (MSL – FL160).

• Managing the release of aircraft from the ALPHA hold.

• Coordinating with INT S regarding the release of aircraft from the

BRAVO hold.

• Establishing the arrivals sequence for aircraft in the ALPHA hold

(or arriving via the ALPHA IAF.

• Establishing and maintaining the required separation criteria for

aircraft on the Northerly transition.

• Delivering an appropriately spaced sequence of aircraft from the

Hold/IAF to a point late downwind, early base leg, where the

aircraft are handed over to the Final Director (FIN).

6.3.6 Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)

The Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S) is responsible for the

safe and efficient control of air traffic within Terminal Control South (TCS),

specifically:

• Managing the lower two levels of the hold (MSL – FL150).

• Managing the release of aircraft from the BRAVO hold.

• Coordinating with INT N regarding the release of aircraft from the

ALPHA hold.

• Establishing the arrivals sequence for aircraft in the BRAVO hold

(or arriving via the BRAVO IAF.


aircraft on the Southerly transition.

• Delivering an appropriately spaced sequence of aircraft from the

Hold/IAF to a point late downwind, early base leg, where the

aircraft are handed over to the Final Director (FIN).

6.3.7 Final Director (FIN)

The Final Director (FIN) is responsible for the safe and efficient control of

aircraft transitioning from intermediate to final approach to land.

Specifically:


aircraft on intermediate and final approach to land. The FIN will

receive aircraft in a coarsely spaced sequence from the two INT

controllers and be responsible to merging the two arrival streams

into a single stream for landing.

• Ensuring aircraft are delivered to the instrument landing system in

such as way as to ensure a safe and stable approach.


6.4 Terminal Control Sectorisation

Figure 3 depicts the current day Terminal Control (TC) sectorisation. The

proposed Concept of Operations differs substantially from the present day

mode of operation and would therefore likely require a wholesale redesign

of London Terminal Control airspace. The details of such changes are

beyond the scope of this study. This section will merely describe the

envisaged Concept as applied to existing Terminal Control airspace

adapted for the ERAT London Heathrow environment in 2015.

Figure 3 – London Terminal Control Sectorisation (2009).


Figure 4 – Overlay of ERAT LL Concept on TC/LACC Sectors

6.4.1 NW Sector

The North-West (NW) Sector covers the airspace to the North-West of the

airport and contains the ALPHA Hold/IAF itself, along with TMA traffic

departing and arriving from all airports within the TMA.

The NW Sector can be said to contain the following current day sectors:

• COWLY

• WELIN

6.4.2 NE Sector

The North-East (NE) Sector covers the airspace to the North-East of the

airport, along with TMA traffic departing and arriving from all airports

within the TMA.

The NE Sector can be said to contain the following current day sectors:

• LOREL

• NE DEPS

• LAM


• DAGGA

• REDFA

• LOGAN

6.4.3 SW Sector

The South-West (SW) Sector covers the airspace to the South-West of the

airport and contains the BRAVO Hold/IAF itself, along with TMA traffic

departing and arriving from all airports within the TMA.

The SW Sector can be said to contain the following current day sectors:

• OCKHAM

• SW DEPS

• WILLO

6.4.4 SE Sector

The South-East (SE) Sector covers the airspace to the South-East of the

airport, along with TMA traffic departing and arriving from all airports

within the TMA.

The SE Sector can be said to contain the following current day sectors:

• BIGGIN

• TIMBA

6.4.5 CAPITOL Sector

For the purposes of the Real-Time Simulation activities within Task 6.3,

where the reference case high deinsity airport being assessed is London

Heathrow, an additional CAPITOL Sector is required to control aircraft

flying within the airspace which sits above the central London area and

surrounding conurbation.

The CAPITOL Sector can be said to contain the following current day

sectors:

• COMPTON

• VATON


7 References

1. Project Plan (Amendment to D0-1) Version 2.0. M.Portier, To70.

Nov 2007.

2. D5-1 Experimental Plan LHR Version 1.0 H. Larden, NATS. Aug 2009.

3. M2-4 ERAT Reference Case London Heathrow 2015, M.Portier (on

behalf of NATS), To70. May 2009.

4. Arrival Manager (AMAN) Factsheet #1. C. Enright, NATS. 03 Oct

2008.

http://natsnet/FutureCentres/includes/AMAN/AMANFactsheet1Oct032008.d

oc. (Not externally accessible).

5. Arrival Manager (AMAN) Factsheet #2. C. Enright, NATS. 24 Oct

2008.

http://natsnet/FutureCentres/includes/AMAN/AMANFACTSHEET2Oct24200

8.doc. (Not externally accessible).

6. Arrival Manager (AMAN) Factsheet #3. C. Enright, NATS. 01 Dec

2008.

http://natsnet/FutureCentres/includes/AMAN/AMANFACTSHEET01Dec2008.

doc. (Not externally accessible).

7. Performance Based Navigation Manual Volume 1 – Concept &

Implementation Guidance 5.1 Final, RNP Special Operations Requirements

Study Group (RNPSORSG), 07 Mar 2007.

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meetings/perf2007/_PBN%20Manual_W-

Draft%205.1_FINAL%2007MAR2007.pdf

8. P-RNAV, ‘What is P-RNAV’. Eurocontrol Navigation Domain

http://www.ecacnav.com/content.asp?CatID=201

9. TGL-10 Rev 1. JAA Administrative & Guidance Material Section One:

General Part 3: Temporary Guidance Leaflet No 10. Airworthiness and

Operational Approval for Precision RNAV Operations in Designated

European Airspace.

http://www.ecacnav.com/downloads/TGL10%20rev.1.pdf

10. Environmentally Optimised RNP Arrivals (EORA) . Operational

Scenarios and Environment Description. A. Clark : Version 0.4, 2009.

11. AMAN User Requirements Doc. S Goodman, B Taylor, M McKeever.

June 2007.

12. E-OCVM Version 2.0. 07/02-28-08. N. Makins, U. Borkenhagen et al.

17-03-2007 http://www.eurocontrol.int/valfor/gallery/content/public/E-

OCVM_v2_Small.pdf


8 Appendices

8.1 Use Cases

8.1.1 Smoothed & Metered Flow Delivery (AMAN)

Synopsis:

The existence of an advanced Arrival Manager (AMAN) provides the

delivery of a smoothed and metered flow of traffic into the TMA.

Aim:

To deliver a smoothed and metered delivery of inbound traffic into the

Terminal Manoeuvring Area (TMA).

Primary Actors:

AMAN & Area Controllers

Secondary Actors:

TMA Controllers (TMA NW/NE/SW/SE/CAP)

Pre-Conditions:

Foresight of information regarding demand & capacity balancing process,

likely to be comprised of:

1. Filed flight plans

2. Radar data

Successful outcome:

Reduced exposure to both demand peaks and demand troughs providing

optimal delivery rates of arriving traffic into the TMA.

Main Success scenario:

‘1. Aircraft radar tracks and FDP data are captured and the aircraft’s expected arrival time is calculated for each metering fix on the route. 2. The AMAN interprets this data and calculates an optimised Metering Fix

Arrival Time in order to smooth the flow of aircraft through the metering fix. 3. The Metering Fix Arrival Time guidance is conveyed individually to TMA and Area control for each aircraft. 4. The controllers use various techniques to achieve these targets (4a) The a/c arrives at each metering fix at the Metering Fix Arrival Time. 5. A smoothed traffic flow passes through each metering fix, reducing congestion through ATC choke points.

Extensions:

4a. Controller/aircraft cannot meet the Metering Fix Arrival Time target (possibly due to controller work load or aircraft performance constraints)

The AMAN continually assesses the a/c track and speed, recalculating and

updating the Metering Fix Arrival Time guidance.’9

9 AMAN User Requirements Doc. S Goodman, B Taylor, M McKeever. June 2007.


8.1.2 Establish Sequence

Synopsis:

The arrivals sequence is established allowing a safe and efficient manner

enabling the required landing rate to be met.

Aim:

To establish an efficient arrivals sequence consistent with the spacing

requirements to service the desired landing rate.

Primary Actors:

Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)

Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)

Secondary Actors:


AMAN

VSL

Flight Crew

Pre-Conditions:

The provision of a smoothed and metered flow of arriving traffic into the

TMA.

Successful outcome:

Aircraft are taken safely and efficiently from the hold and delivered in an

appropriate sequence to the Final Director (FIN).


1. The TMA Controller(s) manage the delivery of suitable aircraft into the

holds (pre-sequencing).

2. The Intermediate Approach Controllers (INT) coordinate an appropriate

release of aircraft from the holds.

3. Aircraft are released from the holds and take up the appropriate

transition as instructed by the INT controller.

4. Aircraft are established in a coarse sequence ready for delivery to the

Final Director (FIN) for fine sequencing and approach spacing.


8.1.3 Maintain Sequence

Synopsis:

The established approach sequence is maintained in a stable manner at

all stages during the intermediate and final approach.

Aim:

To maintain the desired approach sequence.

Primary Actors:



Flight Crew

Secondary Actors:

Final Director (FIN)

Pre-Conditions:

An established approach sequence.

Successful outcome:

The established sequence is maintained and refined as required.


1. The INT N and INT S controllers use tactical instructions as required in

order to maintain the desired approach sequence.


8.1.4 Re-sequencing Missed Approach

Synopsis:

Once a missed approach is initiated the aircraft will execute the published

Missed Approach procedure (MAP) and the Approach Controller will issue

appropriate tactical instructions, as required, for insertion back into the

sequence.

Aim:

To integrate missed approach aircraft back into the approach sequence.

Primary Actors:


Flight Crew



Secondary Actors:

None

Pre-Conditions:

An aircraft will have executed a published Missed Approach procedure

(MAP) as a result of either:

1. Failure on the part of the Flight Crew to successfully establish a

stable approach, or;

2. Failure of the Approach Controller to achieve and maintain the

required spacing and separation criteria.

Successful outcome:

The Approach Controller detects that an aircraft has executed a Missed

Approach and takes appropriate action to insert the affected aircraft back

into the approach sequence.


1. Flight Crew notify ATC that a Missed Approach has been initiated

and/or;

2. Approach Controller detects that an aircraft has executed a Missed

Approach.

3. Aircraft flies the published Missed Approach procedure as mandated

within the AIP.

4. Approach Controller intervenes as required by issuing tactical

instructions to re-insert the affected aircraft back into the approach

sequence.


8.1.5 Handling non-equipped aircraft

Synopsis:

The ERAT concept for London Heathrow will need to accommodate a

mixed equipage traffic environment. Non-equipped aircraft must be able

to operate safely and efficiently within the defined procedures.

Aim:

To ensure non-equipped aircraft are accommodated within the defined

procedures for both normal and non-normal modes of operation.

Primary Actors:



Flight Crew

Secondary Actors:


AMAN

Pre-Conditions:

Non-equipped or non-compliant (P-RNAV) aircraft inbound for approach

sequencing and landing.

Successful outcome:

Non-equipped aircraft or aircraft experiencing P-RNAV performance

degradation are successfully incorporated into the arrival sequence for a

successful approach and landing.


1. Approach Controller identifies instance of non-equipped aircraft.

2. Approach Controller constructs a sequence so as to successfully

accommodate non-equipped aircraft through use of tactical ATC

instervention.

3. Approach Controller intervenes as required by issuing tactical

instructions to the affected aircraft in order to establish and maintain an

appropriate approach sequence.


8.1.6 Adverse Weather Conditions (CB Activity)

Synopsis:

The ERAT concept for London Heathrow must accommodate non-normal

scenarios including adverse weather, such as convective activity/ CBs.

Aircraft must be able to operate safely and efficiently in instances of

inhibitive adverse weather.

Aim:

To ensure aircraft are handled in a safe and efficient manner during

temporary periods of adverse weather occurances. Specifically that;

aircraft are issued with safe, expedient and appropriate ATC instructions

should weather avoiding action be required.

Primary Actors:



Flight Crew

Secondary Actors:


AMAN

Pre-Conditions:

Adverse weather conditions (typically convective activity/CBs) exist within

the Terminal Maneuvring Area, inhibiting normal operations.

Successful outcome:

Aircraft are handled safely and efficiently in instances where adverse

weather exists within the TMA. This may involve the receipt of weather

avoiding instructions so as to successfully avoid any inhibitive

meteorological conditions and their subsequent effects.


1. Approach Controller detects the presence of adverse weather that may

affect aircraft on approach to the airport.

2. Approach Controller issues avoiding action instructions as required to

the affected aircraft.

3. Approach Controller issues appropriate tactical instructions as required

to re-establish sequence.


8.1.7 Temporary Runway Closure

Synopsis:

The ERAT concept for London Heathrow must be able to accommodate

temporary periods of zero [landing] rate flow to the arrivals runway, in

instances where the runway is closed.

Aim:

To successfully facilitate temporary periods of airborne holding for aircraft

either established in the hold, or downstream of the hold on approach to

the airport.

Primary Actors:




Flight Crew

AMAN

VSL

Secondary Actors:


Pre-Conditions:

A zero rate flow in force on the arrivals runway (runway closed).

Successful outcome:

Aircraft within the TMA are held at both the primary holds

(ALPHA/BRAVO) and outer holds until such time that the runway can be

re-opened.


1. Approach Controller instructs aircraft already established in the hold to

maintain current holding until further instruction.

2. Approach Controller issues tactical instructions to aircraft on the

transition to proceed to the hold and take up the hold. If demand exceeds

capacity, emergency holding levels of FL70 – FL110 will be activated. In

such instances, departures will be restricted to 6000ft on the SID.

3. TMA Controllers instruct aircraft to hold at the outer holds. Any aircraft

en-route to the primary holds are given tactical instructions to proceed to

the outer hold and take up the hold.

4. AMAN applies a zero flow rate to inbound aircraft at an appropriate

time/distance horizon.

5. Once the runway re-opens, the Approach Controller empties the lower

(emergency) levels of the hold first by instructing the holding aircraft to

take up the P-RNAV transition. Once the lower levels are clear, the

Approach Controller begins releasing aircraft from the standard levels as

appropriate. At such time the 6000ft climb restriction for departing traffic

is removed and aircraft are again cleared to FL90 in initially.


6. TMA Controllers begin to release aircraft from the outer holds and

instruct aircraft to proceed to the primary holds.

7. AMAN removes the zero flow rate and applies an appropriate flow rate

as required.

8. Once the demand/capacity imbalance has been resolved, flow

restrictions are removed and normal operations can resume.


8.2 Mapping of ERAT Heathrow concept elements against

SESAR Operational Improvements (OIs)

SESAR WP no

or OI step

SESAR activities /

OI step

ERAT WP

no.

ERAT activities &

contributions to

SESAR

AOM-601 Terminal Airspace

Organisation Adapted

through Use of Best

Practice, PRNAV and

FUA where suitable

LHR 4, LHR 5,

LHR 6

The design of the

Heart1A concept for

Heathrow is based upon

the use of P-RNAV for

both the arrival

transitions and the

revised SIDs.

AOM-602 Enhanced Terminal

Airspace with

Curved/Segmented

Approaches, Steep

Approaches and RNAV

Approaches Where

Suitable

LHR 4, LHR 5,

LHR 6

The Heart1A concept for

Heathrow incorporates

curved intermediate

approaches. There is

also an option of the

Heart1A design being

used in conjunction with

RNAV or RNP final

approach procedures.

AOM-603 Enhanced Terminal

Airspace for RNP-based

Operations

LHR 4, LHR 5,

LHR 6

The Heathrow ERAT

concepts are designed

based upon the use of

RNP-based procedures,

e.g. RNAV-1 arrival

transitions and SIDs.

AOM-701 Continuous Descent

Approach (CDA)

WP 3, LHR 4,

LHR 5, LHR 6

Both of the proposed

Heathrow ERAT concepts

feature Continuous

Descent Approaches.

AOM-702 Advanced Continuous

Descent Approach

(ACDA)

WP 3, LHR 4,

LHR 5, LHR 6


Heathrow features

Advanced CDAs, which

start from considerably

higher offering an

enhanced profile and

which are based upon a

defined 3D profile rather

than being radar

vectored.


SESAR WP no

or OI step

SESAR activities /

OI step

ERAT WP

no.

ERAT activities &

contributions to

SESAR

AOM-703 Continuous Climb

Departure

WP 3, LHR 4,

LHR 5, LHR 6

Both of the proposed

Heathrow ERAT concepts

include new departure

profiles which eliminate

step climbs and facilitate

continuous climb

departures.

AOM-705 Advanced Continuous

Climb Departure

WP 3, LHR 4,

LHR 8


Heathrow ensures

separation of arriving

and departing flows of

traffic through the use of

3D profiles incorporated

into a systemised

airspace design.

AO-0402 Interlaced Take-Off and

Landing

LHR 4, LHR 5,

LHR 6

The Heathrow simulation

will include use of

Tactically Enhanced

Arrival Mode (TEAM)

operations, when take-

off and landings are in

use on one of the two

runways.

CM-0602 Precision Trajectory

Clearances (PTC)-3D

Based On Pre-defined

3D Routes

LHR 4, LHR 5,

LHR 6


the Heathrow reference

case simulation uses

pre-defined 3D arrival

transitions, so is broadly

linked with SESAR OI

CM-0602.

TS-0102 Arrival Management

Supporting TMA

Improvements (incl.

CDA, P-RNAV)

LHR 4, LHR 5,

LHR 6

Both of the ERAT

concepts for the

Heathrow reference case

airport are dependent

upon having an Arrival

Management (AMAN)

system that is capable

of delivering a smoothed

and metered flow of

traffic into the LTMA.

5.2 Consolidation of

Operational Concept

Definintion and

Validation

WP 3, LHR 4 Description of a

medium-term concept

incorporating elements

of the SESAR CONOPS


SESAR WP no

or OI step

SESAR activities /

OI step

ERAT WP

no.

ERAT activities &

contributions to

SESAR

5.2 Consolidation of

Operational Concept

Definintion and

Validation

LHR 5 Validation results from

RTS concerning the

above concept

5.3 Integrated and Pre-

operational Validation &

Cross Validation

LHR 5 Validation results from

RTS concerning concept

elements i.e. CDA, P-

RNAV and AMAN.

5.6

(5.6.1-5.6.4 +

5.6.7)

Queue Management in

TMA

WP 3, LHR 4,

LHR 5, LHR 6

Results from RTS where

an AMAN system is used

to deliver a smoothed

and metered flow of

traffic into the TMA

thereby reducing

airborne holding and

enabling the new

airspace concepts to be

used.

5.7.4 Full implementation of

P-RNAV in TMA

LHR 6 Results from RTS where

P-RNAV based arrival /

departure profiles are

utilised in a high density

/ high complexity TMA


8.3 E-OCVM Concept Validation Methodology Overview

The following figure is taken from the European Operational Concept

Validation Methodology (E-OCVM) Version 2.0. The complete document can

be found at:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/valfor/gallery/content/public/E-

OCVM_v2_Small.pdf

Figure 5


8.4 HEART1A Design Evolution

The drawings in 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 illustrate the HEART1A generic concept.

This design was conceived by the Terminal Airspace Design (TAD) team

within the Operational Standards & Investment department at NATS. The

initial concept was drafted using CorelDraw software.

The drawings in 8.4.3 and 8.4.4 illustrate the evolution of the HEART1A

design, where the generic concept has been initially applied within the

current confines of London TMA airspace. These graphics have been

produced using AutoCad software.

Drawings 8.4.5 through 8.4.8 illustrates the maturation of the design to

incorporate geo-referenced information along with altitude and distance

from FAF. The information depicted on these drawings shows the absolute

values with respect to the vertical profile.

The final drawings, 8.4.9 and 8.4.10 represent a relatively mature design

that closely relates to the procedure being assessed in Task 6.3. The main

feature of this iteration of the design is the move from laterally merged,

vertically separated transitions to independent, laterally seperated

transitions. These drawings differ slightly from the final design (Section 5)

in that the BRAVO hold features a left-hand orbit off the notherly hold axis

and a slightly shallower descent gradient.

8.4.1 HEART1A Generic Concept (25nm)


8.4.2 HEART1A Generic Concept (15nm)


8.4.3 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090508 (Westerly Overview)


8.4.4 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090508 (Easterly Overview)


8.4.5 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090603 (Westerly Overview)


8.4.6 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090603 (Easterly Overview)


8.4.7 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090720 (Westerly Overview)


8.4.8 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090720 (Easterly Overview)


8.4.9 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090722 (Westerly Overview)


8.4.10 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090722 (Easterly Overview)

Intentionally Blank

LHR D4 -1 London Heathrow Concept of Operations - Europa

Documents

Transcript of LHR D4 -1 London Heathrow Concept of Operations - Europa