LHR D4 -1 London Heathrow Concept of Operations - Europa
Transcript of 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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 4/67
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:
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 5/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 6/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 7/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 8/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 9/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 10/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 11/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 12/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 13/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 14/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 15/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 16/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 17/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 18/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 19/67
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:
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 20/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 21/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 22/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 24/67
5.6.2 BRAVO27R P-RNAV Transition
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 25/67
5.6.3 ALPHA09L P-RNAV Transition
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 26/67
5.6.4 BRAVO09L P-RNAV Transition
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 27/67
5.6.5 ALPHA27R & BRAVO27R (Westerly Operations)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 28/67
5.6.6 ALPHA09L & BRAVO09L (Easterly Operations)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 29/67
5.6.7 ALPHA27R & BRAVO27R Urban Exposure (Westerly Operations)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 30/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 32/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 33/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 34/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 35/67
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
FAF: As instructed (Vapp – Vref)
ALPHA09L
ALPHA: 220KIAS
MARLO/AEN18: 180KIAS
09L10: 160KIAS
FAF: As instructed (Vapp – Vref)
BRAVO09L
BRAVO: 220KIAS
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 36/67
ARMEY/BES19: 180KIAS
09L10: 160KIAS
FAF: As instructed (Vapp – Vref)
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 37/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 38/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 39/67
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.
• Establishing and maintaining the required separation criteria for
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:
• Establishing and maintaining the required separation criteria for
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 40/67
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).
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 41/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 42/67
• 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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 43/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 44/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 45/67
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:
TMA Controllers (TMA NW/NE/SW/SE/CAP)
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).
Main Success scenario:
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 46/67
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:
Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)
Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)
Flight Crew
Secondary Actors:
Final Director (FIN)
Pre-Conditions:
An established approach sequence.
Successful outcome:
The established sequence is maintained and refined as required.
Main Success scenario:
1. The INT N and INT S controllers use tactical instructions as required in
order to maintain the desired approach sequence.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 47/67
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:
Final Director (FIN)
Flight Crew
Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)
Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)
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.
Main Success scenario:
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 48/67
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:
Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)
Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)
Flight Crew
Secondary Actors:
Final Director (FIN)
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.
Main Success scenario:
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 49/67
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:
Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)
Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)
Flight Crew
Secondary Actors:
Final Director (FIN)
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.
Main Success scenario:
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 50/67
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:
Intermediate Approach Controller North (INT N)
Intermediate Approach Controller South (INT S)
TMA Controllers (TMA NW/NE/SW/SE/CAP)
Flight Crew
AMAN
VSL
Secondary Actors:
Final Director (FIN)
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.
Main Success scenario:
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 51/67
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 52/67
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
The Heart1A concept for
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.
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 53/67
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
The Heart1A concept for
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 Heart1A concept for
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 54/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 55/67
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
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 56/67
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)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 58/67
8.4.2 HEART1A Generic Concept (15nm)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 59/67
8.4.3 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090508 (Westerly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 60/67
8.4.4 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090508 (Easterly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 61/67
8.4.5 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090603 (Westerly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 62/67
8.4.6 ERAT LL RNP Concept Draft 20090603 (Easterly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 63/67
8.4.7 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090720 (Westerly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 64/67
8.4.8 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090720 (Easterly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 65/67
8.4.9 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090722 (Westerly Overview)
01-08-2009 ERAT LHR ConOps D4-1 v1.0 page 66/67
8.4.10 ERAT LL P-RNAV Concept Draft 20090722 (Easterly Overview)
Intentionally Blank