Merging arrival flows without heading instructions

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Merging arrival flows without heading instructions"

Gavin Ramsey
8 years ago
Views:

1 Merging arrival flows without heading instructions Bruno Favennec, Eric Hoffman, François Vergne, Karim Zeghal, EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Ludovic Boursier, Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne, France Aymeric Trzmiel, Steria Transport Division, France ATM seminar, July 2007 European 1 Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne, France Aymeric Trzmiel, Steria

2 Merging of arrival flows with open loop radar vectors Paris CDG, 2002, source: ADP Efficient and flexible But Highly demanding as it imposes rapid decisions for the controller and time-critical execution by the flight crew Consequences Peaks of workload High frequency occupancy Lack of anticipation Difficulty to optimise vertical profiles and to contain the dispersion of trajectories 2

execution by the flight crew Consequences Peaks of workload High frequency occupancy Lack of

3 Merging of arrival flows with Precision Area Navigation Use of area navigation (RNAV, P-RNAV) to revisit the merging of arrival flows Definition of new route structures, e.g. trombones Merging achieved through route modification But 3

merging of arrival flows Definition of new route

4 Limitations... at high traffic loads, the controllers inevitably revert to radar vectoring in order to maximise capacity. EUROCONTROL TMA2010+ Business Case for an Arrival Manager with PRNAV in Terminal Airspace Operations (AMAN-P) The main disadvantage of RNAV procedures is that they reduce the flexibility that radar vectoring affords the controller and experience has shown that, without the help of a very advanced arrival manager, controllers tend to revert to radar vectoring during the peak periods. EUROCONTROL Guidance Material for the Design of Terminal Procedures for Area Navigation, Edition 3.0, March

that they reduce the flexibility that radar vectoring affords the controller and experience has shown that, without the help of a very advanced arrival

5 Examples EDDF - 14/06/2007 (7:00-10:00) EDDF - 14/06/2007 (17:00-20:00) 5 Source: stanlytrack.dfs.de/stanlytrack/stanlytrackeddf.jnlp

6 Motivation Key points Maintain flexibility to be able to expedite or delay aircraft Keep aircraft on Flight Management System trajectory Maximise runway throughput When investigating airborne spacing (ASAS), a specific method and route structure was defined to expedite or delay aircraft in the terminal area Can we now apply this method and the route structure without airborne spacing? 6

spacing (ASAS), a specific method and route structure was defined to expedite or delay aircraft

7 Principles We created a merge point with legs at a constant distance for path shortening or stretching Merging is achieved through direct-to instructions to the merge point Merge point Envelope of possible paths Sequencing legs (vertically separated) 7

through direct-to instructions to the merge point Merge point

8 Merge point FL120 FL100 10NM Sequencing legs 8

9 Series of experiments A series of small-scale experiments to perform an initial assessment of feasibility, benefits and limits Experimental conditions High traffic load (36 to 40 arrivals per hour with 20% heavy) Various wind conditions (no, moderate and strong) Various airspace configurations (two, three and four entry points) Various configurations of legs (same or opposite direction, parallel or non parallel) Various geometries of legs (straight segments, segments approximating concentric arcs, with or without intermediate points) Initial measurement of benefits with today s method (open loop vectors) as baseline (2 x 3 runs) 9

entry points) Various configurations of legs (same or opposite direction, parallel or non parallel) Various geometries of legs (straight segments, segments

10 Airspace (baseline) Two frequencies: approach controller (APC) and final director (FIN) FAF Holding SUDOK: FL100 / min / 220 kt TAMOT SUDOK SIMON PONTY Holding PONTY: FL080 / min / 220 kt CODYN OKRIX SIMON FL100 PONTY FL080 ILS

220 kt TAMOT SUDOK SIMON 065 330 PONTY Holding PONTY: FL080 /

11 Airspace (point merge) Two frequencies: approach controller (APC) and final director (FIN) FAF Holding SUDOK: FL100 / min / 220 kt TAMOT SUDOK LOMAN NADOR FL080 MOTAR FL100 SIMON TOLAD PONTY Holding PONTY: FL080 / min / 220 kt CODYN OKRIX SIMON/TOLAD FL100 MOTAR/NADOR FL080 ILS

SUDOK LOMAN NADOR FL080 MOTAR FL100 SIMON TOLAD PONTY Holding PONTY: FL080

12 Density of instructions 1 16 Baseline 1 16 Point merge FAF BOKET FAF BOKET LOMAN TAMOT SIMON TAMOT NADOR SIMON MOTAR TOLAD SUDOK PONTY SUDOK PONTY 12

13 Geographical distribution of instructions 60 Final director Baseline Approach controller 40 Level Direct Heading Speed Number of instructions Final director Point merge Approach controller Distance to reference point (NM)

20 0 60 40 Final director Point merge Approach controller 20 13 0 0 5 10

14 Number of instructions Final director Approach controller Level Direct Heading Speed 80 Number of instructions Baseline Point merge Baseline Point merge 14

Heading Speed 80 Number of instructions 60

15 Number of instructions per aircraft Baseline Point merge Number of instructions Heading Direct Speed Level All

16 Frequency occupancy 100% Final director Approach controller 80% Baseline Point merge Frequency occupancy 60% 40% 20% 0% 16

17 Spacing on final 7 Baseline Point merge Spacing at final appraoch fix (NM) Max Max for 95% Mean+STD Mean Mean-STD Min for 95% Min 17 2

18 Trajectories Baseline Point merge M3 TMA Vectors M3 TMA Triangle Similar distance and time flown: 70 NM during 18 minutes on average 18

19 Descent profiles 120 Altitude in feet (*100) Point merge Mean Std dev Baseline Mean Std dev Distance to final approach fix (NM)

Baseline Mean Std dev 19 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20 Configurations tested (1/2) Merge point Straight sequencing legs Segmented sequencing legs Common point Merge point 3 flows, with 2 sequencing legs of same direction Dissociated sequencing legs 20

point Merge point 3 flows, with 2 sequencing

21 Configurations tested (2/2) IAF 1 IAF 2 FAF IAF 1 IAF 3 IAF 4 IAF 2 FAF1 IAF 1 FAF2 IAF 4 IAF 2 IAF 3 FAF IAF 4 IAF 3 21

22 22

23 23

24 Summary Method found comfortable, safe and accurate, even under high traffic load, although less flexible than open loop vectors Predictability and anticipation increased, workload and communications reduced Open loop radar vectors no longer used and aircraft remained on lateral navigation mode Final approach spacing as accurate as today Descent profiles improved (potential for continuous descent from FL100) Flow of traffic more orderly with a contained and predefined dispersion of trajectories All these elements should contribute to improve safety No specific airborne functions or ground tools are required initially, except P-RNAV capabilities 24

25 Conclusion The point merge method Maintains flexibility to be able to expedite or delay aircraft Keeps aircraft on Flight Management System trajectory Maximises runway throughput 25

26 In perspective The point merge method is A transition towards extensive use of P-RNAV A sound foundation to support further developments such as continuous descent (CDA) and target time of arrival (4D) A step to the implementation of airborne spacing (ASAS) 26

SESAR Air Traffic Management Modernization. Honeywell Aerospace Advanced Technology June 2014

SESAR Air Traffic Management Modernization Honeywell Aerospace Advanced Technology June 2014 Honeywell in NextGen and SESAR Honeywell active in multiple FAA NextGen projects ADS-B Surface Indicating and