1 / 21

ASAS Study: Benefits for NL ATM System

This project explores how ASAS can benefit the NL ATM system, with a focus on merging and spacing applications. The study provides recommendations for further research and implementation.

gcolbert
Download Presentation

ASAS Study: Benefits for NL ATM System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KDC ASAS 2008 project-How could ASAS benefit the NL ATM System ASAS-TN2.5 12-13 Nov ’08 ROME Nico de Gelder

  2. Overview • KDC • Intro KDC ASAS study • Merging & Spacing as example application (or High Capacity CDA as example challenge) • Main high level recommendations

  3. Knowledge & Development Centre (KDC) • Focuses on joint research for Schiphol mainport development • Market and environmental challenges www.kdc-mainport.nl

  4. KDC ASAS Study - Objectives • To study if and how ASAS could benefit the Schiphol concept evolution • workshops addressing specific problem areas and Airborne (and Ground) Surveillance Applications • The result should be a short list of applications with recommendations for more detailed / focussed research and focus on implementation

  5. KDC ASAS Study - Timing 18R 18C 36L 18L 36C 24 06 36R • Project started in Feb ’08, since then 4 workshops have been held • 1st workshop 01 Feb ‘08 • General brainstorm about ASAS and Schiphol • 2nd workshop 25 Mar ’08 • TMA operations • Merging & Spacing application • 3rd workshop 26 May ’08 • Airport Surface operations • SURF applications

  6. KDC ASAS Study - Timing • 4th workshop 29 Aug ’08 • Other Airborne Surveillance Applications • e.g. closely spaced // approaches, land after procedure • Final recommendations will be finished in one or two weeks • Recommendations as agreed within the KDC ASAS project team • Recommendations will then be put forward for decision making • Adapt ATM System Strategy

  7. KDC ASAS Study - Participants • KDC ASAS project team • NLR (project lead) • KLM • LVNL, Air Traffic Control the Netherlands • Schiphol Group • Delft University of Technology • involving Operational, ASAS, ATM (air & ground part), Human Factors, R&D expertise

  8. Specific challenges Schiphol Airport • Complex and busy ATM environment • Air Traffic Control • proficient, but high workload • difficult to reach required proficiency levels • Weather conditions • Low visibility operations • landing capacity • visibility from the tower • taxi risks, accessibility of gates • Noise hindrance (perception) • Capacity improvement (2020 -510,000/yr) and sustainability

  9. KDC ASAS study – Scope required: >120 nm Conceptual • KDC ASAS study looked at • today’s situation, and • near-to-medium future • Schiphol concept evolution • simple and stable traffic flows • high capacity CDA operations • independent parallel approaches • high capacity airport surface operations • particularly in low visibility conditions

  10. KDC ASAS study – Scope • Mainly expert assessment of the applications • They rated aspects like: • Importance for Schiphol • Safety • Efficiency – capacity • Efficiency – economy / fuel usage • Environment – noise, emissions • Sustainability • Maturity of application • Complexity of application, incl. transition path • Standardisation status • Controller & Pilot workload • Readiness for implementation • Minimum equipage level

  11. High Capacity CDA Operations - Example Application Merging & Spacing (M&S)

  12. TMA Operations - M&S • Two scenarios, for TMA operations + CDA’s • 30 landings per hour per runway (current LVNL Strategy & Vision) • 40 landings per hour per runway (growth scenario) • Expert assessment - conclusions • ’30’ scenario • several projects has shown that it is feasible without the support of M&S • ’40’ scenario • M&S enables growth towards ’40’ scenario • but is M&S adequate to support the ’40’?  an initial performance assessment has been carried out

  13. Initial Performance Assessment • Time containment model based on RNP containment methodology • Input: • 40 landings per hour per runway • ‘worse case’ conditions assumed • Mean final approach ground speed 125 kt • Mean absolute groundspeed differential between pairs of aircraft of 10 kt • 20% Heavy, 80% Medium • 99.5% success rate assumed • Success = remain within time containment limit, i.e. adhere to distance-based separation minima • Maximum of two (2) ATC interventions per day & per runway, for the peak hours

  14. Time Containment Limit aircraft of interest traffic to follow tDESIRED tMIN= tDESIRED - tCONTAINMENT Time Interval RNP value (e.g 5 sec) Time Containment Limit = CF x Time Interval RNP value (tCONTAINMENT) • If outside containment limit  ATC intervention, likely to be go-arounds

  15. Time Containment #4 130 kt Benchmark scenario 2 Sequence of aircraft with alternating final approach groundspeed - mean speed = 125 ks - mean absolute spd differential = 10 kt #3 120 kt #2 130 kt #1 120 kt

  16. Time Containment Conclusion: only possible option is 2.5 miles min separation (containment limit of at least 4 s, this gives a ‘bare minimum’ time spacing SD of 1.5 s)

  17. Time containment

  18. M&S Perf Assessment - Conclusions • 3 NM (and 4, 5) minimum separation • 40 landings per hour per runway is not feasible • No airborne or ground tool is able to achieve this goal • 2.5 NM (and 4, 5) minimum separation • Spacing error should be less than 3.9-4.5 sec (at threshold), 95% of the time • Sequence should cluster heavy aircraft when more than 15% is Heavy(clusters of 2-3 heavy aircraft in case of 20% Heavies) • 2.3 NM (and 4, 5) minimum separation • Spacing error should be less than 5.1 sec (at threshold), 95% of the time • No clustering of heavy aircraft required

  19. RecommendationsMerging & Spacing • Recommendations • To include Merging & Spacing in the ATM System Strategy of the Dutch Aerospace sector • To start Design and Development activities aiming at implementation of M&S at Schiphol in the short-to-medium term • To further explore viability of an Airborne Separation type (instead of Airborne Spacing type) of M&S • To monitor global activities w.r.t. time based separation minima • To investigate feasibility of an energy-based method to gain additional benefits, very precisely spaced aircraft performing more optimal CDA’s Next phase: Can Merging & Spacing really deliver 40 landings per hour per runway (at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol)? And how to get required equipage levels?

  20. High Level Recommendations - KDC ASAS Project Team • Most important recommendations: • To pursue an internationally agreed mandatory implementation of • ATSA-SURF • ATSA-AIRB • To pursue design & development of • ASPA-M&S • To pursue applied research into • ASEP/ATSA-CSPA closely spaced // approach • ASEP-CSL closely spaced landings • ASEP-SURF low visibility taxi operations

  21. THANK YOU QUESTIONS?

More Related