Pilots Aspects - Noise Abatement Procedures 18.08.04 Frankfurt

Priority change possible Pilots – Motivation vs. Noise Abatement Pilots have over time developed a clear understanding about the operation of aircrafts and the governing prerogatives Safety first means Flight Ops Priorities in flight operations Safety Schedule Economic Operations Environment Priority change possible

Priorities in flight operations – a closer look 1. Safety Safety is the foundation of all commercial flight operations Without trust in safety the customers (better passengers) will not book the airline Safety is directly linked to the following factors: 1. Pilots training, knowledge and experience 2. Maintenance status of the aircraft 3. Equipment age or “visible look” of aircraft 4. Reputation of the airline  “Branding”, media appearance

Priorities in flight operations – a closer look (cont.) 2. Schedule Passengers are looking for reliable and on-time flight operations Adherence to schedules is a “the” prerogative in the every industry 3. Economics The direct costs of flight operations is more than 50% of all costs of an airline  Cost control decides over success in business Cost issues are contemplated over all other issues

Priorities in flight operations – a closer look (cont.) 3. Environment Environment was more or less no factor until the last 20 years Environmental issues develop into governing issues for flight operations Environmental issues start to effect anything 1. Pilots training 2. Flight deck procedures 3. Cockpit technology 4. Operations philosophies content  operation of aircrafts  new systems  “Priority changes” The reason for any flight operation is business and demand by the customer

Noise Abatement – a look from the cockpit Some examples will show how noise abatement will effect procedures and workload at flightdeck level Examples Noise abatement Take Off procedures RNAV departures vs. conventional instrument departures Steep approach gradients and continus descent approaches Quiet climb system (QCS)  innovative autothrust system

Noise impact difficult to judge for pilots Noise abatement Take off procedures Affecting factors are performance requirements and regulations Take Off Power setting (thrust rating)  derated thrust up to 15% less is possible Cut back altitude from T/O-power to Climb-power  3000 ft vs. 1500 ft - standard Required climb gradients increased T/O-run  reduced climb gradient  incresead engine life + - increased climb gradient  increased engine failure probability  increased workload due to additional pilot action + - increased climb gradient  increased workload due to additional pilot action + - Noise impact difficult to judge for pilots

RNAV – departures vs. conventional departure procedures Affecting factors are track adherence, (noise-) optimized routinings, the necessity of pilot inputs and workload issues (i.e. increased RT – demand) Today most of the instrument departures are designed to be flown with „old“ standard IFR – equipment  consolidated RNAV – requirements and mandates by authorities do not exist The use of RNAV shows major improvements  less noise in direct airport vicinity  less pilot workload  fuel savings win – win situation

RNAV (+ overlays) departures already proved to be successful* RNAV – departures vs. conv. departure procedures (cont.) Appropriate RNAV – equipment is available only at state of the art aircraft  many low cost carriers operate outdated equipment  cost reduction hinders retrofit  benefits are not „provided“ by using RNAV – equipment  grandfather rules hinder innovation  pilots training and technolgy problems (i.e. database integrity) develop as hindering issues RNAV (+ overlays) departures already proved to be successful* * - 4db at departures in FRA – RWY 25

Example RNAV – conv. SID: Conventional SID FRA RWY 18 Communities

Example RNAV – conv. SID: RNAV (overly) SID FRA RWY 18 new FMS database coding GPS not required less pilot workload neglegible costs  major improvement Communities Introduced 1996 DFS – DLH joint development  int. standard publication: Spektrum der Wissenschaft (Scientific American), Feb. 96 Author: J. Schadt

EDDF: RWY 07 – SIDs radarplots – conventional Communities

EDDF: RWY 07 – SIDs radarplots – RNAV (Overlay) Communities Introduced 1996

Steep Approach Gradients and Cont. descent Approaches In general steep approach angles will increase pilot workload because you operate the aircraft at the design limit. Additional pilots input will be required Continuous descent approachs need to have some degree for freedom for pilots. Today there are to much constraints envisioned 1. Steep approaches Jet aircraft are designed for approach angels below 5°  standard approach angle: 3° +/- 0,2° Steep descent angles get more critical at low speeds  high descent rate close to ground Any time you operate complex equipment close or beyond design limits safety gets critical

Cockpit Impression  Complexity Primary pilot interfaces for automated flight

Steep Approach Gradients and Cont. descent Approaches 2. Continuous descent approaches (CDA) Long and time consuming approaches  cost intensive The use of CDA during times of high traffic demand leads to arrival capacity reduction  airport capacity is a very expensive commodity CDA requires strict speed and descent control. Therefore degrees of freedom in flight parameters are limited  procedure sometimes not to be handled by pilots (i.e. A/C – weight) Todays ATC system and traffic demand do not allow the use of CDA an regular basis

Quiet Climb System (QCS)  new development The QCS is a new development by Boeing and Honeywell which will decrease thrust at climb out regarding an additional database containing “Noise Information Data”. Description - Software update for autothrust system - Autothrust reduction over noise sensitive areas - Database driven autothrust reduction down to minimum net gradient Ops impact - under evaluation (incl. training and ops aspects) - System tends to react drastically  Pilots get „anxious“ at thrust reductions on climb out QCS is an interesting option but critical under the human factors aspect

Summary and conclusion Some thoughts  Complex equipment operated at its design limits degrade safety  Human Factor issues are critical  Training is an essential requirement  State of the art equipment is essential  State of the art regulations are essential  only human beings are capable of “split second opimization”  Benefits for all involved parties must be transparent  “New equipment must buy its way into the cockpit” The goal Noise abatement is today not a major pilot issue. Training, state of the art equipment, appropriate procedures and documentation are the keys flightcrew acceptance.

Jürgen Schadt former Chief Technical Pilot Capt. A-320 Points of contact Lufthansa Jürgen Schadt former Chief Technical Pilot Capt. A-320 Chief Technical Pilot Office, FRA OZ Lufthansa German Airlines Phone: +49-69-696-2360 Mobile: +49-173-329-8265 Fax: +49-69-696-7070 E-Mail: Juergen.Schadt@dlh.de E-Mail: Bettina.Schadt@t-online.de 5

Additional Reading Material Appendix Additional Reading Material

EDDF: RWY 07 – Arrival radarplots – conventional Radar vector pattern ---> no procedure published

Published procedure since 1997 (now ammended) EDDF: RWY 07 – redesigned RNAV arrival Published procedure since 1997 (now ammended)

Radar Vectors for optinization EDDF: RWY 07 – Arrival radarplots – RNAV Radar Vectors for optinization Used procedure since 1997

Closed RNAV Transitions High Density TMA Operations EDDF: RWY 07 – RNAV arrival (latest release) Closed RNAV Transitions High Density TMA Operations Used in daily ops in FRA (approx. 600+ arrivals) Significant less RT Capacity gains Easy to use for ATC and operators

The future solution for airlines RNAV, PRANV, BRNAV+ ??  What for ??! The future solution for airlines