1. Pilots Aspects - Noise Abatement Procedures
Frankfurt

2. 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

3. 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: 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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 Author: J. Schadt

12. EDDF: RWY 07 – SIDs radarplots – conventional
Communities

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

14. 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

15. Cockpit Impression  Complexity
Primary pilot interfaces for automated flight

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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: Mobile: Fax: 5

20. Additional Reading Material
Appendix
Additional Reading Material

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

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

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

24. 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 arrivals)
Significant less RT
Capacity gains
Easy to use for ATC and operators

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