RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis - Final Report · · 2014-11-04offer various benefits, including...

29 Hercules Way

Aerospace Boulevard |||| AeroPark Farnborough |||| Hampshire |||| GU14 6UU |||| UK

T +44 1252 451 651

F +44 1252 451 652

E [email protected]

W www.askhelios.com

RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis - Final Report

P723D003* HELIOS 1 of 161

Document information

Document title RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis Final Report

Author Colm Thornton, Nick McFarlane, James Valner, Helios

Aline Troadec (Eurocontrol)

Produced by Helios

29 Hercules Way

Aerospace Boulevard - AeroPark

Farnborough

Hampshire

GU14 6UU

UK

Produced for Eurocontrol

Helios contact Colm Thornton

Tel: +44 1252 451 651

Fax: +44 1252 451 652

Email: [email protected]

Produced under contract T07/11109NG

Version 2.1

Date of release 20th May 2009

Document reference Updated version of P723D003 (P723D003*)


Executive Summary

This study investigates the varying level of benefit of RNAV approach at airports throughout Europe. It is performed by Helios on behalf of Eurocontrol, building upon previous work undertaken in the area, employing a more comprehensive benefits model and taking advantage of two new key elements:

the participation of several ANSPs/airport authorities;

the release of the recently developed Minima Estimation Tool (MET), allowing estimation of the potential reduction in operational minima specific at each airport.

Broadly speaking, RNAV approach fills the gap between conventional Non-Precision Approach (NPA) and Precision Approach (PA). When compared to NPAs, RNAV approaches offer various benefits, including guidance to enable Continuous Descent Final Approach (thereby improving safety and reducing environmental impact), removal of the need for circling approaches and a potential reduction in pilot training requirements.

The study focuses upon the benefit of reduced approach operational minima. During periods of poor weather or ILS unavailability at an airport, aircraft can suffer disruptions delays, diversions or cancellations. RNAV approaches typically offer lower approach minima than conventional NPAs enabling a potential reduction in the number of aircraft disruptions and operational cost savings for the aircraft operator. These cost savings were investigated for 16 different airport case studies throughout Europe with varying traffic levels, aircraft users, weather conditions, surrounding terrain and ILS capabilities.

First, the potential reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach is estimated for each airport case study using the MET tool. Then the resultant potential increase in airport operational capacity is evaluated and correlated with aircraft movements to estimate the avoided disruptions. The subsequent cost savings are calculated for two distinct scenarios with respect to the situation today where RNAV approach is not available:

Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable.

Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS APV I Approaches are implemented and available to all aircraft. Aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable are assumed to upgrade to SBAS.

The results of the study show a wide range in the reduction in operational minima for both APV Baro-VNAV and SBAS approaches compared to current NPAs. The minima is seen to vary significantly for individual runway ends at the same airport, as well as across the sample of case study airports. Whilst the variation was large, it was most commonly found that APV BaroVNAV enables a reduction of approximately 70ft with respect to NPA minima while SBAS APV enables an approximate 100ft reduction. However, the reduction in minima varies from 0ft to 320ft (APV Baro-VNAV) and 470ft (SBAS APV I) and the evaluation should be performed on a case-by-case basis.

In terms of resultant cost savings, a similar variation in results is observed. Cost savings range from zero or negligible in some airport case studies, up to 200,000 per year for others.

For airport runways with ILS installed at both runway ends, the cost savings are negligible. The combined probability of an ILS outage together with unsuitable tailwind conditions is typically quite low, and so most aircraft are able to fly an ILS approach incurring few disruptions. Irrespective of the enabled reduction in minima, there is little opportunity to realise any operational benefit as a result.


For airport runways with ILS installed at a single runway end, the cost savings can be significant. From the available sample set, the benefits are seen to fall into 3 benefit bands: zero or negligible benefit, medium benefit (in the region of 40,000 per year) and high benefit (in the region of 200,000 per year). This is dependant upon a number of key factors, with both varying influence and order of precedence at each airport, including:

airport traffic levels, their daily and seasonal variation (and of course the aircraft approach capabilities);

number of non-ILS landings at the runway of interest, dependant upon the ILS capability and tailwind strength and variability;

potential reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach, dependant upon the local terrain environment (and especially significant for NPA runways);

local weather conditions, such as cloud ceiling and runway visibility, which can greatly affect the realisable benefits.

In some case studies, for example, the dominant factors appear to be overall airport traffic levels and the corresponding number of non-ILS landings, whereas in others the predominance of favourable weather conditions counter balances this. Without any trends between the considered case studies, the actual operational impact of a reduction in minima must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Airports without any ILS capability will derive the greatest benefit. All arriving aircraft will execute an NPA and so be subject to a higher probability of disruption and therefore have greater potential benefit with the introduction of RNAV approaches. The study includes one NPA airport, but it had to be removed owing to the finding of an incomplete obstacle data set in the analysis.

There is some difference observed between the two assessment scenarios. In general, Scenario 2 (APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I) demonstrates an additional 20,000 annual cost saving per airport when compared to that of Scenario 1 (solely APV BaroVNAV). The difference at each airport is dependant upon the current aircraft BaroVNAV equipage levels as well as the difference in achievable operational minima between the two capabilities. In this respect, the PANS-OPS documents have a significant impact, restricting APV minima of a PA and NPA runway to 250ft and 300ft respectively. This can limit the potential benefits in certain cases, irrespective of the estimated reduced minima by the MET tool.


Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Document structure ..................................................................................................... 9

2 Study overview ........................................................................................................ 10

2.1 Background information ............................................................................................. 10

2.2 Rationale ................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Objective ................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Stakeholder participation ........................................................................................... 11

3 Benefits methodology ............................................................................................. 14

3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Total aircraft landings ................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Non-ILS landings ....................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Disruption probability per approach type .................................................................... 18

3.5 Number of disrupted landings .................................................................................... 19

3.6 Total cost savings ...................................................................................................... 21

4 Case study results ................................................................................................... 22

4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Analysis results template ........................................................................................... 22

4.3 Geneva (LSGG) analysis results ............................................................................... 23

4.4 Tromso (ENTC) analysis results ................................................................................ 24

4.5 Simferopol (UKFF) analysis results ........................................................................... 25

4.6 Kiev/Borispol (UKBB) analysis results ....................................................................... 26

4.7 Eindhoven Airbase (EHEH) analysis results .............................................................. 27

4.8 Clermont Ferrand (LFLC) analysis results ................................................................. 28

4.9 Bellegarde (LFBL) analysis results ............................................................................ 29

4.10 Biarritz (LFBZ) analysis results .................................................................................. 30

4.11 Lille (LFQQ) analysis results ...................................................................................... 31

4.12 Guipavas (LFRB) analysis results .............................................................................. 32

4.13 Kittila (EFKT) analysis results .................................................................................... 33

4.14 Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP) analysis results ................................................................. 35

4.15 Rovaniemi (EFRO) analysis results ........................................................................... 36

4.16 Oulu (EFOU) analysis results .................................................................................... 37

4.17 Ivalo (EFIV) analysis results ...................................................................................... 38

5 Study summary and conclusions ........................................................................... 40

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 40


5.2 Estimated reduction in decision heights ..................................................................... 40

5.3 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 43

5.4 LPV200 candidates ................................................................................................... 49

A Types of RNAV approach ........................................................................................ 51

A.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 51

A.2 RNP APCH ................................................................................................................ 51

A.3 RNP APCH with Baro-VNAV ..................................................................................... 51

A.4 RNP AR ..................................................................................................................... 51

A.5 SBAS APV ................................................................................................................ 51

B Model information flow ........................................................................................... 52

C Guide to following case study annexes ................................................................. 54

C.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 54

C.2 Annex structure ......................................................................................................... 54

D LSGG benefits analysis........................................................................................... 58

D.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 58

D.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 59

D.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 59

D.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 60

D.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 61

D.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 61

E ENTC benefits analysis ........................................................................................... 63

E.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 63

E.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 65

E.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 66

E.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 67

E.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 68

E.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 68

F UKFF benefits analysis ........................................................................................... 69

F.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 69

F.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 70

F.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 71

F.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 72

5.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 73

F.5 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 74

G UKBB benefits analysis .......................................................................................... 76


G.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 76

G.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 77

G.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 78

G.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 79

G.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 80

G.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 81

H EHEH benefits analysis ........................................................................................... 83

H.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 83

H.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 84

H.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 86

5.6 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 87

H.4 Runway landings ....................................................................................................... 88

H.5 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 89

I LFLC benefits analysis............................................................................................ 90

I.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 90

I.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 91

I.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 92

I.4 Airport accessibility gain ............................................................................................ 93

I.5 Aircraft landings ......................................................................................................... 94

I.6 Estimated cost savings .............................................................................................. 94

J LFBL benefits analysis............................................................................................ 96

J.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 96

J.2 Approach minima ...................................................................................................... 97

J.3 Runway usage ........................................................................................................... 99

J.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 100

J.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 101

J.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 101

K LFBZ benefits analysis.......................................................................................... 103

K.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 103

K.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 104

K.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 105

K.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 106

K.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 107

K.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 108

L LFQQ benefits analysis ......................................................................................... 109

L.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 109


L.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 110

L.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 111

L.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 112

L.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 113

L.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 113

M LFRB benefits analysis ......................................................................................... 115

M.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 115

M.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 116

M.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 117

M.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 118

M.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 119

M.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 119

N EFKT benefits analysis ......................................................................................... 121

N.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 121

N.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 122

N.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 124

5.7 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 125

N.4 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 127

N.5 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 127

O EFTP benefits analysis ......................................................................................... 129

O.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 129

O.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 130

O.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 132

O.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 133

O.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 134

O.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 135

P EFRO benefits analysis ......................................................................................... 137

P.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 137

P.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 138

P.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 140

P.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 141

P.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 142

P.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 143

Q EFOU benefits analysis ......................................................................................... 144

Q.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 144

Q.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 145


Q.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 147

Q.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 148

Q.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 149

Q.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 150

R EFIV benefits analysis ........................................................................................... 151

R.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 151

R.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 152

R.3 Runway usage ......................................................................................................... 153

R.4 Airport accessibility gain .......................................................................................... 154

R.5 Aircraft landings ....................................................................................................... 156

R.6 Estimated cost savings ............................................................................................ 156

S EHAM benefits analysis ........................................................................................ 157

S.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 157

S.2 Approach minima .................................................................................................... 158


1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

This is the final report of the RNAV approach benefits assessment study performed by Helios on behalf of Eurocontrol.

The study aims to evaluate the range of potential benefits from RNAV approach implementation throughout Europe, through the investigation of a series of case studies.

The results of the study will support Eurocontrols further activities in respect of RNAV approach implementation and provide input to the participating ANSPs/airport authorities as to their individual decisions.

1.2 Document structure

The report contains the following sections:

Section 1: is this introduction;

Section 2: sets the background to the study, outlining the rationale and specific objectives of the analysis;

Section 3: describes the approach used in estimating the benefits;

Section 4: presents a summary of the benefits analysis for each case study airport;

Section 5: presents the conclusions and recommendations based upon the analysis results;

Annex A: provides a reference for the different types of RNAV approach;

Annex B: provides an overview of the analysis inputs, processing and overall information flow as part of the benefits analysis;

Annex C: provides a guide to the proceeding Annexes which describe in detail the individual benefits analyses undertaken for each case study;

Annexes D-S: contain the detailed individual case study reports for each of the airports examined.

P723D003* HELIOS 10 of 161

2 Study overview

2.1 Background information

The concept of RNAV approach has been introduced by ICAO on a global level to help improve safety and increase operational efficiency for all aviation users. Several different types of RNAV approach exist:

RNP APCH, which is operated to LNAV minima, this is an RNAV approach without vertical guidance and is almost always based on the use of GPS.

RNP APCH with Baro-VNAV, which is operated to LNAV/VNAV minima, (also called APV BaroVNAV), this is a vertically guided approach that can be flown by modern aircraft with VNAV functionality using barometric inputs.

RNP AR (Approval Required), which is operated to LNAV/VNAV minima, make use of advanced RNP capabilities of certain modern aircraft to provide better access to runways with terrain or environmental constraints.

SBAS APV, which is operated to LPV minima, is a procedure supported by SBAS to provide lateral and vertical guidance. The term LPV stands for localizer performance with vertical guidance and this type of procedure provides an ILS look-a-like approach.

Broadly speaking, RNAV approach fills a gap between conventional Non-Precision Approach (NPA) and Precision Approach (PA). When compared to NPAs, RNAV approaches typically offer the following benefits:

reduction in approach operational minima, which can enable replacement of conventional NPAs or a back-up to ILS;

guidance to enable Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) improving safety and offering greater environmental benefits when compared to traditional step-down approaches;

improved aircrew situation awareness, resulting in increased safety;

a continuous RNAV path, potentially from en-route through terminal airspace and into final approach;

removal of need for circling approaches, (where they occur);

possible removal of VOR and ADF equipment on board aircraft in the long term if NPAs can be entirely phased out;

reduction in pilot training requirements if the number of different types of approach is reduced.

In 2003, Eurocontrol launched work to investigate the first of these benefits. This study builds upon this initial work taking advantage of a newly developed software tool (known as the Minima Estimator Tool or MET) to estimate the potential minima reduction enabled by RNAV approach. The range of potential benefits has been assessed by examining a series of case study airports throughout Europe.

2.2 Rationale

RNAV approach can help reduce the number of aircraft disruptions during periods of inclement weather conditions or where ILS is unavailable. A disruption is any

P723D003* HELIOS 11 of 161

aircraft event affecting the movements capacity of an airport and can include delay,diversion or cancellation of an aircraft landing.

This may occur at airports where there is no ILS capability or where the ILS is out of service. The reduction in operational minima enabled by RNAV approach can allow an aircraft to land at an airport where it would otherwise encounter a disruption. This may occur during periods where a combination of low cloud ceiling or reduced runway visibility and current published minima result in a failure to sight the runway in advance of the missed approach point.

2.3 Objective

This study therefore estimates the potential benefit levels derived from reduced aircraft disruptions through the introduction of RNAV approach capability at various case study airports throughout Europe.

In particular the study:

estimates the potential reduction in current operational minima at each case study airports;

evaluates the potential increase in airport operational capacity at that airport;

estimates the corresponding cost savings from the resultant reduction in number of aircraft disruptions.

The case for its introduction is then assessed based upon the following:

Base case: No RNAV approach is implemented, this is the current day situation;

Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable.

Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS Approaches are used by all aircraft. This assumes a maximum benefit by assuming that aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable would upgrade to SBAS. Therefore all aircraft would be either Baro-VNAV or SBAS capable.

The results of this analysis are summarised in Section 4 with supporting detail provided in Annexes D-S inclusive.

2.4 Stakeholder participation

A total of 6 different ANSPs/airport authorities participated in the study allowing analysis of 16 different case study airports. The geographical spread is shown below.

P723D003* HELIOS 12 of 161

Figure 1- participation map

This accounts for the following case study airports:

ANSP/ airport authority Airport Name ICAO code

Skyguide Geneva LSGG

Avinor Tromso ENTC

UkSATSE Simferopol UKFF

Kiev/Borispol UKBB

DSNA

Clermont Ferrand LFLC

Bellegarde LFBL

Biarritz LFBZ

Lille LFQQ

Guipavas LFRB

Finavia

Kittila EFKT

Tampere-Pirkkala EFTP

Rovaniemi EFRO

Oulu EFOU

Ivalo EFIV

CAA Netherlands Schiphol EHAM

Royal Netherlands Air Force Eindhoven airbase EHEH

Table 1 - participating ANSPs/airport authorities & airports

P723D003* HELIOS 13 of 161

These airports demonstrate a range of aircraft users and approach capabilities. They include high traffic airports (e.g. Schiphol), terrain restricted airports (e.g. Geneva) or those which primarily serve smaller aircraft (e.g. Bellegarde). Also included are airports with larger potential for minima reduction (e.g. Tromso).

Our thanks is extended to all the ANSPs/airport authorities who participated in this study and supported the team in their work.

P723D003* HELIOS 14 of 161

3 Benefits methodology

3.1 Overview

This section describes the methodology used in estimating the benefit for each of the case studies. The high-level steps are presented below and then described in more detail in the following sub-sections.

The benefits assessment employs a modular approach calculating in turn:

1) the total number of aircraft landings at the airport;

2) the number of non-ILS landings from these;

3) the disruption probability per approach type;

4) the subsequent number of disrupted NPA landings;

5) the total cost of these disruptions.

1) Total aircraft landings

2) Non-ILS aircraft landings

3) Disruption probability per approach type

4) Aircraft disruptions

All analysis is performed per quarter

Dependant upon airport ILS capability and tailwind sets upper

bound to potential benefits

Dependant upon estimated (m)DH, cloud ceiling & runway visbility

Dependant upon landing aircraft capability and selected RNAV

capability

5) Total cost savings

Figure 2 - determining the benefits

P723D003* HELIOS 15 of 161

3.2 Total aircraft landings

The benefit for each case study is evaluated on a quarterly basis. The total aircraft movements are estimated based upon 4 individual sample weeks of data provided by the CFMU.

1) Total aircraft landings = (week 4 landings * 13) + (week 20 landings * 13) . (week 32 landings) + (week 45 landings * 13)

Each of the sample weeks includes all aircraft movements within the ECAC area for week 4 (beginning 5th February), week 20 (beginning 14th April), week 32 (beginning 12th August) and week 45 (beginning 5th November) in 2007. This distributed sample set helps to minimise any anomalies occurring within the sample period which may mis-represent the usual landing rate at the case study airports (e.g. ATC strike, runway maintenance, landing incident, etc.) as well as accounting for any seasonal variations.

The quarterly landing rates and aircraft types at an airport are assumed to be constant throughout each quarter.

3.3 Non-ILS landings

The study focuses on aircraft disruptions, i.e. delays, diversions or cancellations, where an aircraft employs a non-ILS approach type, e.g. NDB, VOR, LNAV, APV BaroVNAV or SBAS APV I/II. For any airport, the number of aircraft non-ILS landings are dependant upon total aircraft landings, runway ILS capability (and availability) and tailwind behaviour.

2) Non-ILS landings = function (total aircraft landings, runway ILS capability, , tailwind strength statistics)

Four distinct cases are identified in respect of ILS capability:

3 or more ILS installations: if an airport has 3 or more ILS installations, it is assumed to be well served and that all landings will use an ILS approach.

2 ILS installations: It is assumed that at least one ILS will be available at all times throughout the year and that outages can occur for a total of 1 week during the year (occurring over a single period or at intermittent times during the year). This equates to a fixed outage probability of 1/(52*4) per quarter.

1 ILS installation: As above, it is assumed that planned outages can occur for a total of 1 week during the year (over a single period or at intermittent times).

No ILS installation: All aircraft landings will be non-ILS.

The runway tailwind conditions are then considered in addition to this. If the tailwind component at the relevant runway end is greater or equal to 5 knots, it is assumed that the aircraft would not use the ILS approach, even if available.

P723D003* HELIOS 16 of 161

The number of non-ILS landings can be calculated using one of the four possible permutations below and together with the appropriate percentage of total airport landings for that runway.

For a single ILS runway, there are two cases in which aircraft will execute a non-ILS approach and therefore be susceptible to disruption:

The ILS is available, however the tailwind at this runway end exceeds the threshold level of 5knts;

The tailwind level is acceptable however the ILS is out of service.

Figure 3 - single ILS runway

Two cases also exist for a dual ILS runway:

The ILS at runway end 1 is unavailable and the tailwind at runway end 2 exceeds the threshold level;

Similarly, for the ILS runway end 2 out of service and tailwind at runway end 1 exceeding the threshold.

Note, it is assumed that only one ILS can be unavailable at any given time.

ILS1 ILS1

ILS 1 out of serviceConsequence : approach rwy end 2 used

irrespective of tailwindImpact : non -ILS landings

Single runway single ILS installation

Case 1 Case 2

ILS 1 in serviceTailwind rwy end 1 > threshold

Consequence : approach rwy end 2 usedImpact : non - ILS landings

P723D003* HELIOS 17 of 161

Figure 4 - dual ILS runway

A summary of the combined probability logic for non-ILS landings is presented below.

# ILS Description Assumed logic % probability for non-ILS landing per quarter

>=3 The airport will have more than 1 runway and is assumed to be well served

All landings will be Precision Approach (PA)

0%

2 A single runway airport with ILS installed at both runway ends.

1 week (non-overlapping) maintenance outage assumed per year for each ILS. During this week the logic of a 1ILS airport must be applied however in this instance the two probability factors are multiplied

Summed for both runway ends, the probability of

- Tailwind exceeding threshold

OR

- ILS outage, i.e. 1/(52*4)

for each average hourly block

1 A single runway airport with one ILS installation

Will use ILS when available and when tailwind does not exceed threshold 5 knots.

1 week maintenance outage assumed per year. This translates to a fixed probability of 1/52 per average hourly block, assuming an evenly spread (Gaussian) probability

For the ILS runway end, the probability of

- Tailwind exceeding threshold

OR

- ILS outage, where threshold not exceeded

for each average hourly block

0 No ILS published procedures

All landings will be non-ILS. 100%

Table 2 - Percentage NPA landing conditions

The probability of the tailwind exceeding the threshold is derived from meteorological statistics provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

ILS2

ILS 1

ILS2

ILS 1

ILS 1 out of serviceTailwind rwy end 2 >threshold

Consequence : approach rwy end 1 must be usedImpact : non- ILS landings

ILS 2 out of serviceTailwind rwy end 1 >threshold

Consequence : approach rwy end 2 must be usedImpact : non - ILS landings

Single runway dual ILS installation

Case 2 Case 1

P723D003* HELIOS 18 of 161

Administration (NOAA). These annual statistics include hourly, if not half hourly, observations of local meteorological conditions and are often the source for airport METARS. They are also used in the next stage of the benefits analysis in examination of runway visibility and cloud ceiling levels.

3.4 Disruption probability per approach type

The probability of an aircraft actually encountering a disruption during a non-ILS approach is dependant upon the operational minima combined with meteorological conditions at the time of approach.

The benefits model assumes, given a particular (Minimum) Decision Altitude/Height or (M)DA/DH, two dominant weather types will result in a disruption; poor runway visibility or low cloud ceiling.

Recorded cloud ceiling

Recorded visibility

Threshold (50ft)

(M)DA/DH

Runway

Required visibility

Required cloud ceiling

Figure 5 - NPA landing conditions

If the decision height of an approach meant that the (M)DA/DH was greater than the required cloud ceiling or the recorded visibility exceeded the required level, then a disruption will ensue. The specific formulation of this follows.

Applying a 30 glide slope, an aircraft descends at a rate of 300 feet/NM in the final approach. Hence, for a given DH:

A) For the cloud ceiling, landings are not possible when:

Recorded cloud ceiling (feet) < DH

B) For visibility:

Tan = descent rate

= 300ft/NM (1 NM = 1.852 km)

Where is the descent angle.

Tan = (DH - 50) / Required visibility

For a given (M)DA/DH (Descent to threshold, hence DH - 50)

P723D003* HELIOS 19 of 161

Since the descent angles are the same:

300/1.852 = (DH - 50) / Required visibility

Required visibility (km) = (1.852*(DH - 50)) / 300

Hence, for visibility, landings are not possible when:

Recorded visibility < Required visibility

Recorded visibility (km) < (1.852*(DH 50)) / 300

Therefore, landings are not possible if:

3) Recorded cloud ceiling < DH or recorded visibility < (1.852*(DH 50)) / 300

This formula is evaluated for all hours over each quarter providing a specific probability factor to be applied at all times. This is then applied to the estimated non-ILS landings per quarter.

Current operational minima have been provided by the ANSPs/airport authorities and the newly developed MET tool is used to estimate the potential (Minimum) Decision Heights or (M)DH for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II1. These are adapted to ensure compliance with current PANS-OPS requirements, i.e.

The minimum (M)DH for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II is 250ft for a Precision Approach (PA) runway;

The minimum (M)DH for LNAV, APV BaroVNAV and SBAS APV I/II is 300ft for a Non Precision Approach (NPA) runway.

3.5 Number of disrupted landings

The total number of disrupted landings is equal to the product of the number of non-ILS landings per hour multiplied by the probability of disruption for the particular approach type, summed over each quarter.

4) Number of disruptions = (number of non-ILS landings per hour) * . . (disruption probability per approach type)

1 The MET tool also provides estimates for ILS CAT I approach types and these have also been included in the case study results.

P723D003* HELIOS 20 of 161

Obviously different aircraft will employ different approach types, dependant upon their equipage level and corresponding capability. The specific approach capability for each airports landing profile is therefore evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to the benefits scenario in question.

Generally speaking, aircraft can be categorised in terms of increasing equipage as follows:

P aircraft Piston aircraft (eg Cessna 335, Piper PA-31).

T1 aircraft Light single engine pressurised turboprop aircraft (eg Beech F90, Piper PA-42-1000).

T2 aircraft Light multi-engine pressurised turboprop aircraft (eg Cessna 425 Corsair, BAe-3100 Jetstream 31).

T3 aircraft Large turboprop aircraft (eg ATR-72, Fokker F-50).

J1 aircraft Light business jet aircraft (eg Cessna 500 Citation, Learjet 35).

J2 aircraft Midsize business jet aircraft (eg Bombardier BD-700 Global Express, Dassault Falcon 2000).

J3 aircraft Air transport jet and large business jet aircraft (eg Airbus A-320, Boeing 737s).

From previous work, Boeing has indicated that approximately 90% of the active fleet are BaroVNAV capable. More specifically, B717s, B737-300s, B737-400s, B737-500s, B737-600s, B737-700s, B737-800s, B737-900s, B747-400s, B757s, B767s, B777s, B787s and MD-11s are BaroVNAV capable.

In addition, Honeywell has indicated that all Honeywell FMCs are BaroVNAV capable. All Airbus aircraft use Honeywell FMCs and so are BaroVNAV capable. Universal Avionics have also indicated that all their FMSs support VNAV approaches for all NPA types.

Consequently, all J2 and J3 type aircraft are assumed capable of BaroVNAV. All T1, T2 and P type aircraft are assumed not to be BaroVNAV capable. Finally, the J1 and T3 aircraft were researched individually and approximately 50% of T3 and 30% of J1 aircraft are estimated to be BaroVNAV capable.

In terms of SBAS capability, it is assumed that all aircraft which are not BaroVNAV capable will equip with SBAS. The resultant navigation capability is summarised below.

Aircraft equipage category BaroVNAV capable SBAS APV I/II

capable

P 0% 100%

T1 0% 100%

T2 0% 100%

T3 50% 50%

J1 30% 70%

J2 100% 0%

J3 100% 0%

Figure 6 - aircraft navigation capability

P723D003* HELIOS 21 of 161

Since the (M)DHs provided by the MET tool are specific to the aircraft approach category for SBAS APV I/II and ILS CAT I approach types the analysis uses a library of all operating aircraft for the case studies, cross referencing aircraft approach capability to percentage BaroVNAV and/or SBAS capable.

3.6 Total cost savings

The case for RNAV introduction is investigated based upon the following:

Base case: No RNAV approach is implemented, this is the current day situation;

Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable;

Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS Approaches are used by all aircraft. This assumes a maximum benefit by assuming that aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable would upgrade to SBAS. Therefore all aircraft would be either Baro-VNAV or SBAS capable.

Total cost savings are defined with respect to the base case and are calculated in applying a standard operator cost per disruption. This is set at 4,6602 based upon an average of 50 minutes of time lost per diversion and 43 passengers per flight. The recommended cost figures for each are 66 per minute of delay and 38 per hour for the passenger value of time.

2 Standard Inputs for Eurocontrol Cost Benefit Analysis

P723D003* HELIOS 22 of 161

4 Case study results

4.1 Overview

This section presents the individual benefits analysis results for each case study airport. A standard results template is used and describes the potential benefits for each of the defined scenarios.

For each case study, the default operational runway is selected based upon a combination of current operational minima and average wind conditions. This may change throughout the analysis period owing to tailwind conditions, environmental restrictions, etc. Complete details of all the analyses are provided in the Annexes and these should be referenced to obtain further explanation.

4.2 Analysis results template

The analysis results for each case study are presented in the following format:

Airport overview: indicating airport name, runway configuration, ILS capability and particular interest in RNAV approach implementation.

Airport traffic: providing statistics on the level of annual landings at the airport and the respective user breakdown. The number of non-ILS landings (as a result of ILS outage or high tailwind conditions) is also indicated for each aircraft category. The benefit is evaluated based upon the potential reduction in disruptions occurring for these landings.

Operational minima: presenting for the runway(s) of interest both the published operational minima and potential minima as estimated by the MET tool (and in compliance with PANS-OPS requirements).

Current day situation: providing the estimated number and cost of aircraft disruptions incurred with current operational minima for the runway of interest.

Potential benefits: providing the estimated benefit of reduced aircraft disruptions with respect to the current day situation. This is assessed for BaroVNAV (Scenario 1) and BaroVNAV/SBAS APVI (Scenario 2) implementation.

P723D003* HELIOS 23 of 161

4.3 Geneva (LSGG) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Geneva

ICAO Code LSGG

Runway configuration

Number of runway(s): 1

Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 2

Interest in RNAV approach capability

As a backup to ILS

Airport Annual Landings & User Breakdown

Total CAT A CAT B CAT C CAT D

Total landings 80,769 2,158 14,170 63,817 624

NPA landings 123 3 22 97 1

As % of total landings 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Runway end LSGG05 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)

Approach type CAT A CAT B CAT C CAT D

ILS CAT I 200

NDB 433

LLZ (/DME) 479

Runway end LSGG05 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 253

SBAS APV I 263 273 282 292

SBAS APV II 250 250 259 269

APV BaroVNAV 407

LNAV 437

Current Day Situation

Annual number of disruptions 1.1

Annual cost of disruptions () 5,300

Potential Benefits

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Annual number of avoided disruptions 0.0 0.2

Annual cost savings () 200 700

P723D003* HELIOS 24 of 161

4.4 Tromso (ENTC) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Tromso

ICAO Code ENTC




Use of runway: ENCT19 is assumed to be the default


As backup to ILS.

This case study highlights the limitation of MET tool in excluding obstacles in intermediate approach area. Only APV BaroVNAV is seen to offer a reduction and is investigated.



Total landings 18,291 741 10,621 6,929 0

Non-ILS landings 46 2 27 17 0


Runway end ENTC19 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 282 329 347 1041

LLZ (/DME) 850 1050

Runway end ENTC19 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 604 614 624 634

SBAS APV I 3130 3140 3150 3160

SBAS APV II 3130 3140 3150 3160

APV BaroVNAV 767

LNAV 1766




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions 0.1 _

Annual cost savings () 200 _

P723D003* HELIOS 25 of 161

4.5 Simferopol (UKFF) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Simferopol

ICAO Code UKFF





In consideration of extending the existing RNAV approach phase.



Total landings 6,526 78 2,015 3,614 819



Runway end UKFF19 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 164

NDB 345

VOR 345

Runway end UKFF19 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 250

LNAV 325




Potential Benefits



Annual cost savings () 700 1,000

P723D003* HELIOS 26 of 161

4.6 Kiev/Borispol (UKBB) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Kiev/Borispol

ICAO Code UKBB





In consideration of extending the existing RNAV approach phase.



Total landings 40,560 182 7,644 31,044 1,690



Runway end UKBB18 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 140

NDB 380

LLZ (/DME) 380

Runway end UKBB18 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 256

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 405

LNAV 336


Annual number of disruptions 7


Potential Benefits



Annual cost savings () 5,700 7,600

P723D003* HELIOS 27 of 161

4.7 Eindhoven Airbase (EHEH) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Eindhoven Airbase

ICAO Code EHEH





This is joint civilian and military use airport with a single dual ILS equipped runway for each.

RNAV approach is seen as beneficial for military users for training purposes and as a back up to ILS for civilian users.



Total landings 9,789 65 2,873 6,851 0



Runway end 34 Published (minimum) Decision Height (ft)


ILS CAT I 261

TACAN 420

NDB 490

Runway end 34 Estimated RNAV Decision Height (ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 345

LNAV 523




Potential Benefits




3 Confining analysis to civil aircraft use. An additional runway is used for military aircraft.

P723D003* HELIOS 28 of 161

4.8 Clermont Ferrand (LFLC) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Clermont-Ferrand

ICAO Code LFLC



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFLC26)


As backup to ILS.

Location of significant obstacles highlights limitation of MET tool



Total landings 10,049 429 4,186 5,408 26

NPA landings 352 15 145 192 1


Runway end LFLC26 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT II 280

ILS CAT I 410

NDB 440

LLZ (/DME) 500

Runway end LFLC26 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APV I 168 178 188 198

SBAS APV II 136 146 156 166

APV BaroVNAV 473

LNAV 728




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions 0 0.2

Annual cost savings () 0 900

P723D003* HELIOS 29 of 161

4.9 Bellegarde (LFBL) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Bellegarde

ICAO Code LFBL



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFBL21)


As backup to ILS



Total landings 4,329 169 2,951 1,209 0

NPA landings 883 34 616 234 0


Runway end LFBL21 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC 550

NDB 580

Runway end LFBL21 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 286

LNAV 1022




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions 30 59


P723D003* HELIOS 30 of 161

4.10 Biarritz (LFBZ) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Biarritz

ICAO Code LFBZ



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFBZ27)


Change in default operational runway end from LFBZ27 to LFBZ09



Total landings 5,850 364 1,326 4,160 0

NPA landings 854 51 192 612 0


Runway end LFBZ09 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


VOR 390

LNAV 380

Runway end LFBZ09 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APV I 300 300 300 300

SBAS APV II 300 300 300 300

APV BaroVNAV 327

LNAV 379




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions -3 -1

Annual cost savings () _ _

P723D003* HELIOS 31 of 161

4.11 Lille (LFQQ) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Lille

ICAO Code LFQQ



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFQQ26)


Change in default operational runway end from LFQQ26 to LFQQ08



Total landings 9,321 546 1,937 6,838 9,321

NPA landings 1,165 67 242 856 1,165


Runway end LFQQ08 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


LNAV 350

VOR/DME 360

VOR 440

Runway end LFQQ08 Tool Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 132 142 151 161

SBAS APV I 300 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 300 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 300

LNAV 300




Potential Benefits


Annual number of avoided disruptions -78 -70

Annual cost savings () _ _

P723D003* HELIOS 32 of 161

4.12 Guipavas (LFRB) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Guipavas

ICAO Code LFRB



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (LFRB25)


As backup to ILS



Total landings 6,760 260 520 5,954 26

NPA landings 995 37 74 881 4


Runway end LFRB25 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 200

LOC 460

NDB 450

Runway end LFRB25 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 174 184 194 204

SBAS APV I 215 225 234 244

SBAS APV II 183 193 203 213

APV BaroVNAV 400

LNAV 410




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 33 of 161

4.13 Kittila (EFKT) analysis results

There are two distinct cases considered for EFKT:

Airport Overview

Airport Name Kittila

ICAO Code EFKT



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFKT34)


Case 1: as backup to ILS and in the future, replace current NDB procedure.

Initial plans are for APV BaroVNAV implementation.



Total landings 624 0 13 611 0



Runway end EFKT34 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 162 173 188 206

NDB 790 750 720 730

LLZ (/DME) 730 700 680 700

Runway end EFKT34 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 425 435 445 454

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 453

LNAV 654




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 34 of 161

Airport Overview

Airport Name Kittila

ICAO Code EFKT



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFKT34)


Case 2: as a means to increasing airport capacity through a switch in the default operational runway end.







Runway end EFKT16 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


LLZ (/DME) 480

Runway end EFKT16 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 300 300 300 300

SBAS APV I 300 300 300 300

SBAS APV II 300 300 300 300

APV BaroVNAV 579

LNAV 1047




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 35 of 161

4.14 Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Tampere-Pirkkala

ICAO Code EFTP



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFTP24)


As backup to ILS.

As means of providing an alternative runway end EFTP06 with improved minima to satisfy environmental requirements for night time arrivals.

There are plans for APV BaroVNAV trials at both runway ends.



Total landings 5,252 117 2,340 2,795 0

NPA landings 510 11 236 263 0


Runway end EFTP24 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 176

RNAV 500

LLZ (/DME) 500

VOR 530

Runway end EFTP24 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 262

SBAS APV I 252 261 271 281

SBAS APV II 250 250 252 262

APV BaroVNAV 360

LNAV 499




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 36 of 161

4.15 Rovaniemi (EFRO) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Rovaniemi

ICAO Code EFRO



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFRO21)


As a backup to ILS




Total landings 2,236 26 221 1,989 0



Runway end EFRO21 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 174 187 199 210

LNAV 370

LOC 380

VOR 400

NDB 430

Runway end EFRO21 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 216 226 236 245

SBAS APV I 257 267 276 286

SBAS APV II 225 235 245 255

APV BaroVNAV 265

LNAV 392




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 37 of 161

4.16 Oulu (EFOU) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Oulu

ICAO Code EFOU



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFOU12)


As a backup to ILS




Total landings 4,771 65 286 4,420 0

NPA landings 1,017 13 66 939 0


Runway end EFOU12 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


171 181 189 202

LNAV 370

LLZ (/DME) 370

VOR 370

NDB 390

Runway end EFOU12 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV I 250 250 250 250

SBAS APV II 250 250 250 250

APV BaroVNAV 310

LNAV 368




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 38 of 161

4.17 Ivalo (EFIV) analysis results

Airport Overview

Airport Name Ivalo

ICAO Code EFIV



Number of runway end(s) equipped with ILS: 1 (EFIV22)


As a backup to ILS







Runway end EFIV22 Published Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 172 184 196 210

LOC 560

RNAV 670

NDB 750

Runway end EFIV22 Study Calculated Operational Minima (OCH/ft)


ILS CAT I 315 325 335 345

SBAS APV I 336 413 355 365

SBAS APV II 324 250 344 353

APV BaroVNAV 413

LNAV 462




Potential Benefits




P723D003* HELIOS 39 of 161

P723D003* HELIOS 40 of 161

5 Study summary and conclusions

5.1 Introduction

This section gives a summary of the study results and conclusions.

5.2 Estimated reduction in decision heights

The potential reduction in operational minima with respect to published NPAs is shown below for all case study airports. The minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) values are presented in respect of the various published approach types and respective aircraft approach categories.

APV BaroVNAV SBAS APVI

Name Runway end

Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft)

Max (ft)

Geneva LSGG05 30 70 140 220

Tromso ENTC194 0 80 - -

Simferopol UKFF01 30 130 30 130

UKFF19 100 100 100 100

Kiev/Borispol UKBB18 0 0 130 130

UKBB36 60 60 110 110

Eindhoven Airbase

EHEH04 70 140 170 240

EHEH22 150 150 250 250

Clermont Ferrand LFLC26 0 0

160 250

Bellegarde LFBL03 210 210 210 210

LFBL21 260 280 300 330

Biarritz LFBZ09 50 60 80 90

Lille LFQQ08 50 140 50 140

Guipavas LFRB07 10 100 110 200

LFRB25 200 210 170 230

Kittila EFKT16 0 0 230 230

EFKT34 130 270 430 470

Tampere-Pirkkala

EFTP06 10 50 90 140

EFTP24 140 170 250 280

4 The surrounding terrain environment at ENTC is unsuitable for the estimation model of the MET tool.

P723D003* HELIOS 41 of 161

Name Runway end

Min (ft) Max (ft) Min (ft)

Max (ft)

Rovaniemi EFRO03 90 150 90 150

EFRO21 70 130 70 130

Oulu EFOU12 60 70 120 140

EFOU30 20 60 60 100

Ivalo EFIV04 230 230 220 250

EFIV22 140 320 200 390

Schipol

EHAM06 0 0 0 10

EHAM18C 0 0 50 330

EHAM18R 0 80 0 160

Table 3 - summary of minima reduction with respect to NPAs

The potential reduction in operational minima, enabled by APV BaroVNAV, ranges from 0 to 320ft. The introduction of SBAS APVI enables a potential reduction of 0 to 470ft.

The chart below shows the range of reductions enabled by APV BaroVNAV approach procedures. A wide variation can be seen across all case studies, and in some cases at individual case study airports. In general a reduction of approximately 70ft is seen with respect to published NPA minima. This is in line with expectations.

BaroVNAV reduction in (m)DHs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

LSGG

05

ENTC

UKFF

01

UKFF

19

UKBB

18

UKBB

36

EHEH

04

EHEH

22

LFLC

26

LFBL

03

LFBL

21

LFBZ

09

LFQQ

08

LFRB

07

EFKT

16

EFKT

34

EFTP

06

EFTP

24

EFRO

03

EFRO

21

EFOU

12

EFOU

30

EFIV

04

EFIV

22

EHAM

06

EHAM

18C

EHAM

18R

Runway end

Red

uct

ion

in

NP

A m

inim

a

Min

Max

Figure 7 - variation of BaroVNAV enabled minima reduction

A similar chart is observed for SBAS APV I operational minima reductions. There is wide variation across the different case study airports, however the variation at specific airports is not as pronounced. In general a reduction of approximately 100ft is seen with respect to published NPA minima.

P723D003* HELIOS 42 of 161

Therefore, in general, SBAS APV I approach offers improved minima on the order of 30ft with respect to APV BaroVNAV approach.

SBAS APVI reduction in (m)DH

050

100150200250300350400450500

UKFF

01

UKFF

19

UKBB

18

UKBB

36

EHEH

04

EHEH

22

LFLC

26

LFBL

03

LFBL

21

LFBZ

09

LFQQ

08

LFRB

07

EFKT

16

EFKT

34

EFTP

06

EFTP

24

EFRO

03

EFRO

21

EFOU

12

EFOU

30

EFIV

04

EFIV

22

EHAM

06

EHAM

18C

EHAM

18R

Runway end

Red

uct

ion

in

NP

A m

inim

a

Min

Max

Figure 8 - variation of SBAS APV I enabled minima reduction

Whilst the above charts illustrate the potential reduction in minima as estimated by the MET tool, it must be highlighted that the PANS-OPS requirements in respect of an airports Precision Approach (PA) capability can limit this reduction in practise. It states that for a PA runway the minima for an APV approach will be 250ft whereas for a Non-Precision Approach (NPA) runway it will be 300ft. This can in some cases significantly reduce any potential benefits and decrease the minimum and maximum ranges illustrated above.

Indeed, a certain level of caution must be exercised in interpreting the results of the MET tool. It is by definition an estimation tool and so cannot replace a complete procedure design process. It provides an estimation of the potential Obstacle Clearance Heights (OCHs) for each of the approach types and so strict interpretation of these values requires the knowledge and the experience of a procedure designer.

The MET tool assumes a straight-in approach modelling only the final approach and initial missed approach segment. This results in some limitations:

A bias in the estimates of operational minima when compared to ILS minima in cases where the controlling obstacle for the minima of the procedure is located in the final missed approach segment.

Overly pessimistic estimation of operational minima in the case where there is high terrain on the limits of the Final Approach Point (FAP) and intermediate segment.

Unusually high OCH values for LNAV and APV BaroVNAV approaches where the highest controlling obstacle is far in the Missed Approach (MA) segment yet remaining on the edge of the Obstacle Assessment Surface (OAS). This is inherent of the OAS model and would not appear in the case of other procedure design methodologies, for example in the use of a Collision Risk Model (CRM) investigation.

P723D003* HELIOS 43 of 161

Nevertheless experience of the MET tool confirmed that the operational minima of a new approach type is extremely site specific. It depends upon the obstacle height and lhas shown that the potential minima reduction has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The estimated operational minima are extremely site specific, dependant on both obstacle height and location with respect to the assessment surfaces.

5.3 Estimated cost savings

The study considered two scenarios for each airport case study compared to the current day situation (no RNAV approach implemented):

Scenario 1: Baro-VNAV approach is implemented and available to all aircraft which are Baro-VNAV capable;

Scenario 2: Baro-VNAV and SBAS Approaches are used by all aircraft. This assumes that aircraft that are not Baro-VNAV capable would upgrade to SBAS.

The estimated benefit is then calculated as the difference in annual cost savings for each of the Scenarios 1 and 2 with respect to the Base case. A summary of the resultant potential cost savings for each case study is presented below. The airports are arranged such that the first 5 airports from the left (i.e. LSGG-EHEH) all have ILS installed at both runway ends. The following 11 airports (i.e. LFLC-EFIV) all have ILS installed at a single runway end.

Estimated benefits

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

LSGG

ENTC

UKFF

UKBB

EHEH

LFLC

LFBL

LFBZ

LFQQ

LFRB

EFKT

EFTP

EFRO

EFOU

EFIV

Case study airport

An

nu

al s

avin

gs

()

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Figure 9 - Benefits overview

The cost savings are seen to vary on a wide scale, ranging from 0-272,000 per year. This includes:

case studies such as Bellegarde airport (LFBL) or Guipavas (LFRB) in France which demonstrate cost savings in the region of 200,00 per year;

case studies such Tampere-Pirkkala (EFTP), Rovaniemi (EFRO), or Oulu (EFOU)in Finland, which demonstrate cost savings in the region of 50,000;

case studies such as Geneva (LSGG), in Switzerland, or Simferopol (UKFF), in the Ukraine, which demonstrate negligible cost savings.

P723D003* HELIOS 44 of 161

There are a number of general conclusions which can be made in regards the introduction of RNAV approach capability:

There is negligible benefit in the case of a runway with ILS installed at both runway ends. The combined probability of an ILS outage together with high tailwinds is typically quite low, resulting in few aircraft disruptions. Irrespective of the enabled reduction in minima, there is little opportunity to realise any operational benefit as a result. This is observed in all such case studies.

There can be significant benefit in the case of a runway with ILS installed at a single end. The magnitude of this benefit is dependant upon a number of factors such as tailwind conditions, airport traffic levels, minima reduction, etc. Where this occurs it is seen to achieve either a high level of cost savings at approximately 200,000 per year, or a lower level at approximately 50,000 per year.

The benefit is greatest in the case of an NPA-only runway. Aircraft are inherently more susceptible to disruption having to operate to higher minima and therefore any reduction in these will have a significant impact5.

Greater benefit can be realised through the combined introduction of RNAV capability using both APV BaroVNAV and SBAS, Scenario 2, rather than solely through the current APV BaroVNAV capability, Scenario 1. The extent of this additional benefit is of course dependant upon current BaroVNAV equipage levels amongst airspace users as well as the difference of minima reduction between the two approach types (and its actual operational impact). It is seen to achieve an additional 20,000 per year in a number of cases.

In order to draw more specific conclusions therefore, it is necessary to identify the various factors which are in play and which dominant the resultant cost savings. The following table presents an account of all the case studies considered and highlights the various influencing factors in each.

5 Whilst there is no NPA airport in the final case study list, preliminary analysis of one example supported this conclusion. This case study however had to be withdrawn owing to the finding of incomplete obstacle data for its surrounding environment and therefore overly optimistic minima reduction .

P723D003* HELIOS 45 of 161

ICAO code Name

# ILS

Annual cost savings Overview of influencing factors Scenario

1 Scenario 2

LSGG Geneva 2 200 700

Very high traffic airport (80,769 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (

P723D003* HELIOS 46 of 161

ICAO code Name

# ILS


1 Scenario 2

EHEH Eindhoven airbase 2 1,300 2,300

Medium traffic airport (9,789 annual landings). Negligible percentage of non-ILS landings (

P723D003* HELIOS 47 of 161

ICAO code Name

# ILS


1 Scenario 2

investigated the use of an alternative default operational runway end using RNAV approach. No reduction in annual disruptions observed therefore zero cost savings indicated.

Annual cost savings would be expected employing RNAV approach as a backup to ILS for the current default operational runway end.

LFQQ Lille 1 0 0

Low traffic airport (9,321 annual landings). Very high percentage of non-ILS landings (36%) owing to generally high tailwind conditions.

Very high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated (311) owing to meteorological conditions during Q1 and Q4.

As above, limited obstacle data provided therefore investigated the use of an alternative operational runway end. Annual cost savings would be expected employing RNAV approach as a backup to ILS for the current default operational runway end.

LFRB Guipavas 1 207,300 233,000

Low traffic airport (6,760 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (15%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (97) owing to high NPA minima and unfavourable meteorological conditions. Significant reduction in operational minima. The benefit of this is amplified by unfavourable meteorological conditions Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 44 and 50 respectively for each scenario.

EFKT Kittila 1

95,000

195,800

96,500

196,100

Low traffic airport (624 annual landings). 2 cases were considered:

Case 1: RNAV approach capability as backup to ILS. High percentage of non-ILS landings (29%) owing to strong tailwinds.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (47). Significant reduction in operational minima. Some periods where unfavourable meteorological conditions occurs. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 20 and 21respectively for each of the scenarios.

Case 2: RNAV approach capability as means to an alternative default operational runway end. With respect to published minima at current default operational runway, little reduction in minima. Significant reduction in operational minima (albeit it capped in meeting PANS-OPS requirements). Estimated annual disruptions decreased by 42 for

P723D003* HELIOS 48 of 161

ICAO code Name

# ILS


1 Scenario 2

both scenarios, largely owing to the reduced tailwind conditions.

EFTP Tampere-Pirkkala 1 37,400 99,300

Medium traffic airport (5,252 annual landings). Low percentage of non-ILS landings (10%).

Currently very large number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (101) largely owing to unfavourable meteorological conditions during winter months (i.e. Q1 and Q4). Significant reduction over current operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 17 and 38 respectively for each of the scenarios.

This is an example airport where environmental requirements restrict operations.

EFRO Rovaniemi 1 50,500 68,300

Low traffic seasonal airport (2,236 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (16%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (48) most of which are during the winter months (Q1 and Q4). Current NPA minima quite high at 400ft and so significant reduction in operational minima. Estimated annual disruptions decrease by 11 and 15 respectively for each of the scenarios.

EFOU Oulu 1 26,700 46,200

Medium traffic seasonal airport (4,771 annual landings). High percentage of non-ILS landings (21%) due in part to variability in tailwind conditions.

Currently high number of annual aircraft disruptions estimated to occur (39) most of which are during the winter months (Q1 and Q4). Significant reduction over current operational minima howev

RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis - Final Report · · 2014-11-04offer various benefits, including...

Documents

Transcript of RNAV Approach Benefits Analysis - Final Report · · 2014-11-04offer various benefits, including...