Airspace Traffic Analysis in TMAs: Paris, London, Frankfurt

1. WP1 – Current situation analysis – Airspace perspective Béatrice Raynaud & Eric Vallauri(Sofréavia) CARE/ASAS Action FALBALA Project Dissemination Forum – 8th July 2004

2. WP1 scope and objectives • To identify relevant arrival traffic patterns, and typical traffic situations, in the investigated TMAs: • Paris TMA • London TMA • Frankfurt TMA • Using European radar data recordings, as well as • Meteorological Aerodrome Reports (METARs) and • Aeronautical Information Publications (AIPs) • To perform qualitative and quantitative analysis of traffic patterns extracted from radar data

3. Data, method and tools

4. European radar data recordings • Different sources of radar data for each environment: • French en-route and Paris TMA data (CENA) • UK en-route and London TMA data (NATS) • Frankfurt TMA data (DFS) • Maastricht radar data(EUROCONTROL Maastricht) – Only used by WP2 analysis • About one month of radardata for each environment

5. Initial radar data processing • Radar data conversion into a common (MADREC) format • Selection of the tracks of interest in each radar coverage, i.e. the arrival and departures flights at various airports: • Tracks that have plots below FL50 • No tracks too short (i.e. less than 30 plots), • No tracks related to Non Altitude Reporting (NAR) traffic, • No tracks that do not go above FL10 and • No tracks that do not go below FL50 • Specific processing for the French mono-radar data to re-associate tracks that enter the radar silence cone

6. METAR data processing • To get the most important weather parameters for the whole recording period and for each airport of interest: • Paris Charles De Gaulle, Paris Orly, Le Bourget, London Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Frankfurt

7. Semi-automatic AIP scanning, parsing and translation into ARINC424 format: Runway characteristics Standard Arrival Routes (STARs) RNAV arrival routes Initial and final approach procedures AIP data processing

8. Traffic patterns processing • Specific radar data processing to determine which AIP procedure best matches to each radar track

9. Traffic patterns analysis • Assessment of the typical traffic characteristics in TMA and Extended-TMA: • Traffic demand and main arrival flows in TMA? • Actual use of STARs and approach procedures? • Use of radar vectoring in TMA and Extented-TMA? • Use of holding patterns in TMA and Extented-TMA? • Runway use at main airports? • Ordering of aircraft in the landing sequences in TMA? • Spacing between successive aircraft in arrival sequences? • Qualitative assessment on a few selected days, as well as some quantitative assessment over the period of radar data

10. Paris TMA

11. Paris TMA - Arrival flows LFPG Arrivals LFPO Arrivals • Distinct arrival flows to main Paris airports • Separate analysis of: • Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) • Paris Orly (LFPO) • Insight to: • Le Bourget (LFPB)

12. Paris TMA and Extended -TMA Paris CDG Paris CDG ~80 NM ~240 NM Paris Orly Paris Orly • Two approach control units in charge of Paris TMA: • Paris CDG Approach • Paris Orly Approach • Paris Area Control Centre (CRNA/N) in charge of arrival sectors in E-TMA

13. LFPG: 4 main IAFs further out the airport 2 pairs of close parallel runways LFPO: 3 IAFs further out the airport 3 converging runways Paris airports characteristics (1) Legend: Jet aircraft arrival flows Turbo-propeller arrival flows ~20 NM

14. Paris airports characteristics (2) Arrivals Paris CDG Departures ~6 NM Le Bourget • LFPG and LFPB: • Very close airports • Same IAFs • Distinct altitudes at same IAF • Triple parallel approaches (westerly configuration)

15. LFPG : Runways used in specialised mode (in the south) Only one runway used either for landings and take-offs (in the north) LFPO : Converging runways used in specialised mode Paris TMA – Use of runways Arrivals Arrivals Departures Departures

16. Limited use of the Standard Arrival Routes (STAR) Paris - Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA) IAF IAF IAF IAF IAF IAF • Use of direct routing and radar vectoring towards IAFs • Holding patterns not typically used (under nominal conditions)

17. LFPG: Distinct distribution in the south (one main IAF) Similar (and larger) distribution for two IAFs in the north LFPO: Similar (and large) distribution at two main IAFs Paris TMA – Aircraft spacing at the IAFs • Either longitudinal, vertical or lateral separation at IAF • Influence of the traffic demand over the spacing at IAF

18. LFPG: LFPO: Paris TMA – Use of radar vectoring “Comb”- like vectoring “Trombone”- like vectoring Pseudo downwind legs “Comb”- like vectoring Pseudo downwind leg “Trombone”- like vectoring • Actual over-fly of the IAFs depending runway proximity • Both large “trombone” and “comb”- like traffic patterns

19. LFPG: Large distribution in the north Tighter distribution in the south LFPO: Large distribution (medium traffic density) Paris TMA – Aircraft spacing at the runway Specialised runway Non-specialised runway Specialised runway • Influence of the runway use over the spacing at runway

20. London TMA

21. London TMA ~25 NM ~45 NM • Several close airports with significant level of traffic • Study of: • London Heathrow (EGLL) • London Gatwick (EGKK)

22. LTMA - Arrival flows • Distinct arrival flows to EGLL and EGKK • Independent analysis of each airport

23. EGLL: 4 IAFs close to the airfield 2 parallel runways EGKK: 3 IAFs in the South close to the airfield 1 single runway LTMA - Airspace and airport characteristics ~10 NM ~20 NM ~22 NM ~10 NM

24. EGLL: Parallel runways used in specialised mode EGKK: One runway used for arrivals and departures LTMA – Use of runways Departures Departures Arrivals Arrivals

25. EGLL: Direct routing and radar vectoring to the IAFs EGKK: Radar vectoring to some converging points LTMA - Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA) IAF IAF Waypoint IAF IAF IAF Waypoint Radar vectoring

26. LTMA – Use of holding patterns Mean distribution of orbits in holding patternsfor arrivals flying over an IAF (EGLL) • Seldom used in EGKK but typically used in EGLL

27. EGLL: High use Holding patterns EGKK: Limited use Radar vectoring LTMA – Use of IAFs LAM BIG BNN OCK None TIMBA WILLO ASTRA None Arrival flow breakdown per IAF(both landing configurations) Arrival flow breakdown per IAF(both landing configurations)

28. EGLL: “S-shaped” traffic patterns Merge of flows from the 4 IAFs EGKK: “S-shaped” traffic patterns Radar vectoring before the IAF LTMA – Use of radar vectoring in TMA

29. EGLL: Series of peaks Specialised runways EGKK: Large distribution Non-specialised runway LTMA – Aircraft spacing at the runway

30. Frankfurt TMA

31. Frankfurt TMA ~80 NM • Only one airport with significant level of traffic • Frankfurt (EDDF)

32. 4 “Clearance Limits” remote from the airfield Two types of arrival procedures: RNAV arrival routes STARs (2 IAFs per landing configuration) Three runways: 2 closely-spaced parallel runways A third runway EDDF – Airspace and airport characteristics RNAV & ILS procedures STAR MTR CHA ~40 NM

33. 2 closely-spaced parallel runways (RWY07/25): Arrivals and departures More departures from RWY07L/25R (dedicated to northbound departures only) More arrivals on RW25R (westerly configuration) EDDF – Use of runways Arrivals Departures • 1 additional runway (RWY18): • Departures only (~60% of total)

34. Arrival flights: Direct routing and Radar vectoring To: Clearance Limits and Converging point EDDF – Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA) ClearanceLimits Convergingpoint ClearanceLimit Radar vectoring

35. EDDF – Use of holding patterns Mean distribution of orbits in holding patternsfor arrivals flying over a Clearance Limit • Sometimes used • Mainly in the easterly configuration

36. EDDF – Use of IAFs and Clearance Limits GED PSA ROKIM ETARU None Arrival flow breakdown per converging points(both landing configurations) • No use of IAFs • Clearance Limits often used • Alternative use of two points in the west

37. Two successive mergings for the three northern flows Subsequent merging with southern flow (“trombone-like” traffic patterns) EDDF – Use of radar vectoring in TMA Radar vectoring Radar vectoring Mergings Northern arrivalsflying towards thesouthern downwind leg

38. EDDF – Approaches to the parallel runways • Dependent parallel runways (separated by 518 m) • Staggered approaches • Extensive use of visual clearances

39. EDDF – Aircraft spacing at the runway RW25R RW25L • Large distribution • Dependent parallel runways • Interaction between arrivals • Non-specialised runways • Interaction with departures

40. Conclusions&Recommendations

41. WP1 conclusions • Better understanding of the current situation within: • Paris TMA • London TMA • Frankfurt TMA • Different strategies applied for each investigated airport to get maximum benefits from available resources • Operational indicators measured in each environment not directly comparable

42. WP1 recommendations • Applicability and benefits of AS applications should be assessed in relationship with current situation in each airspace • Traffic demand, airspace and airport characteristics should be considered when assessing current situation • More in-depth investigation of the current situation should better support the quantitative assessment of the possible benefits brought by AS applications

43. Questions / Discussion