1. Slide 1 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 – Current situation analysis – Airspace perspective Béatrice Raynaud & Eric Vallauri (Sofréavia) CARE/ASAS Action FALBALA Project Dissemination Forum – 8 th July 2004

2. Slide 2 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 scope and objectives To identify relevant arrival traffic patterns, and typical traffic situations, in the investigated TMAs: Paris TMA London TMA Frankfurt TMA Using European radar data recordings, as well as Meteorological Aerodrome Reports (METARs) and Aeronautical Information Publications (AIPs) To perform qualitative and quantitative analysis of traffic patterns extracted from radar data

3. Slide 3 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Data, method and tools

4. Slide 4 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Different sources of radar data for each environment: French en-route and Paris TMA data (CENA) UK en-route and London TMA data (NATS) Frankfurt TMA data (DFS) Maastricht radar data (EUROCONTROL Maastricht) – Only used by WP2 analysis European radar data recordings About one month of radar data for each environment

5. Slide 5 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Initial radar data processing Radar data conversion into a common (MADREC) format Selection of the tracks of interest in each radar coverage, i.e. the arrival and departures flights at various airports: Tracks that have plots below FL50 No tracks too short (i.e. less than 30 plots), No tracks related to Non Altitude Reporting (NAR) traffic, No tracks that do not go above FL10 and No tracks that do not go below FL50 Specific processing for the French mono-radar data to re- associate tracks that enter the radar silence cone

6. Slide 6 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG METAR data processing To get the most important weather parameters for the whole recording period and for each airport of interest: Paris Charles De Gaulle, Paris Orly, Le Bourget, London Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Frankfurt Wind Visibility (and weather phenomena) CeilingQNH

7. Slide 7 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG AIP data processing Semi-automatic AIP scanning, parsing and translation into ARINC424 format: Runway characteristics Standard Arrival Routes (STARs) RNAV arrival routes Initial and final approach procedures

8. Slide 8 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Traffic patterns processing Specific radar data processing to determine which AIP procedure best matches to each radar track

9. Slide 9 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Traffic patterns analysis Assessment of the typical traffic characteristics in TMA and Extended-TMA: Traffic demand and main arrival flows in TMA? Actual use of STARs and approach procedures? Use of radar vectoring in TMA and Extented-TMA? Use of holding patterns in TMA and Extented-TMA? Runway use at main airports? Ordering of aircraft in the landing sequences in TMA? Spacing between successive aircraft in arrival sequences? Qualitative assessment on a few selected days, as well as some quantitative assessment over the period of radar data

10. Slide 10 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris TMA

11. Slide 11 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris TMA - Arrival flows Distinct arrival flows to main Paris airports LFPO Arrivals LFPG Arrivals Separate analysis of: Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) Paris Orly (LFPO) Insight to: Le Bourget (LFPB)

12. Slide 12 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris TMA and Extended -TMA Two approach control units in charge of Paris TMA: Paris CDG Approach Paris Orly Approach Paris Area Control Centre (CRNA/N) in charge of arrival sectors in E-TMA Paris CDG Paris Orly Paris CDG Paris Orly ~80 NM ~240 NM

13. Slide 13 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris airports characteristics (1) LFPG: 4 main IAFs further out the airport 2 pairs of close parallel runways LFPO: 3 IAFs further out the airport 3 converging runways Legend: Jet aircraft arrival flows Turbo-propeller arrival flows ~20 NM

14. Slide 14 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LFPG and LFPB: Very close airports Same IAFs Distinct altitudes at same IAF Paris airports characteristics (2) Triple parallel approaches (westerly configuration) Paris CDG Le Bourget ~6 NM Departures Arrivals

15. Slide 15 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris TMA – Use of runways LFPG : Runways used in specialised mode (in the south) Only one runway used either for landings and take-offs (in the north) LFPO : Converging runways used in specialised mode Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals

16. Slide 16 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris - Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA) Limited use of the Standard Arrival Routes (STAR) IAF Use of direct routing and radar vectoring towards IAFs Holding patterns not typically used (under nominal conditions)

17. Slide 17 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris TMA – Aircraft spacing at the IAFs LFPG: Distinct distribution in the south (one main IAF) Similar (and larger) distribution for two IAFs in the north LFPO: Similar (and large) distribution at two main IAFs Either longitudinal, vertical or lateral separation at IAF Influence of the traffic demand over the spacing at IAF

18. Slide 18 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Pseudo downwind legs Pseudo downwind leg Paris TMA – Use of radar vectoring LFPG: LFPO: Actual over-fly of the IAFs depending runway proximity Comb- like vectoring Trombone- like vectoring Both large trombone and comb- like traffic patterns

19. Slide 19 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Paris TMA – Aircraft spacing at the runway LFPG: Large distribution in the north Tighter distribution in the south LFPO: Large distribution (medium traffic density) Influence of the runway use over the spacing at runway Specialised runway Non-specialised runway Specialised runway

20. Slide 20 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG London TMA

21. Slide 21 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG London TMA Several close airports with significant level of traffic Study of: London Heathrow (EGLL) London Gatwick (EGKK) ~45 NM ~25 NM

22. Slide 22 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA - Arrival flows Distinct arrival flows to EGLL and EGKK Independent analysis of each airport

23. Slide 23 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA - Airspace and airport characteristics EGLL: 4 IAFs close to the airfield 2 parallel runways EGKK: 3 IAFs in the South close to the airfield 1 single runway ~10 NM ~22 NM ~20 NM~10 NM

24. Slide 24 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA – Use of runways EGLL: Parallel runways used in specialised mode EGKK: One runway used for arrivals and departures Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals

25. Slide 25 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA - Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA) EGLL: Direct routing and radar vectoring to the IAFs EGKK: Radar vectoring to some converging points Waypoint IAF Waypoint Radar vectoring IAF

26. Slide 26 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA – Use of holding patterns Seldom used in EGKK but typically used in EGLL Mean distribution of orbits in holding patterns for arrivals flying over an IAF (EGLL)

27. Slide 27 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA – Use of IAFs EGLL: High use Holding patterns EGKK: Limited use Radar vectoring Arrival flow breakdown per IAF (both landing configurations) TIMBA WILLO ASTRA None Arrival flow breakdown per IAF (both landing configurations) LAM BIG BNN OCK None

28. Slide 28 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA – Use of radar vectoring in TMA EGLL: S-shaped traffic patterns Merge of flows from the 4 IAFs EGKK: S-shaped traffic patterns Radar vectoring before the IAF

29. Slide 29 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG LTMA – Aircraft spacing at the runway EGLL: Series of peaks Specialised runways EGKK: Large distribution Non-specialised runway

30. Slide 30 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Frankfurt TMA

31. Slide 31 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Frankfurt TMA Only one airport with significant level of traffic Frankfurt (EDDF) ~80 NM

32. Slide 32 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Airspace and airport characteristics 4 Clearance Limits remote from the airfield Two types of arrival procedures: RNAV arrival routes STARs (2 IAFs per landing configuration) Three runways: 2 closely-spaced parallel runways A third runway ~40 NM RNAV & ILS procedures STAR MTR CHA

33. Slide 33 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Use of runways 2 closely-spaced parallel runways (RWY07/25): Arrivals and departures More departures from RWY07L/25R (dedicated to northbound departures only) More arrivals on RW25R (westerly configuration) Departures Arrivals 1 additional runway (RWY18): Departures only (~60% of total)

34. Slide 34 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Use of arrival procedures (E-TMA) Arrival flights: Direct routing and Radar vectoring To: Clearance Limits and Converging point Radar vectoring Converging point Clearance Limit Clearance Limits

35. Slide 35 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Use of holding patterns Sometimes used Mainly in the easterly configuration Mean distribution of orbits in holding patterns for arrivals flying over a Clearance Limit

36. Slide 36 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Use of IAFs and Clearance Limits No use of IAFs Clearance Limits often used Alternative use of two points in the west GED PSA ROKIM ETARU None Arrival flow breakdown per converging points (both landing configurations)

37. Slide 37 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Use of radar vectoring in TMA Two successive mergings for the three northern flows Subsequent merging with southern flow (trombone- like traffic patterns) Radar vectoring Northern arrivals flying towards the southern downwind leg Mergings

38. Slide 38 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Approaches to the parallel runways Dependent parallel runways (separated by 518 m) Staggered approaches Extensive use of visual clearances

39. Slide 39 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG EDDF – Aircraft spacing at the runway Large distribution Dependent parallel runways Interaction between arrivals Non-specialised runways Interaction with departures RW25L RW25R

40. Slide 40 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Conclusions & Recommendations

41. Slide 41 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 conclusions Better understanding of the current situation within: Paris TMA London TMA Frankfurt TMA Different strategies applied for each investigated airport to get maximum benefits from available resources Operational indicators measured in each environment not directly comparable

42. Slide 42 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG WP1 recommendations Applicability and benefits of AS applications should be assessed in relationship with current situation in each airspace Traffic demand, airspace and airport characteristics should be considered when assessing current situation More in-depth investigation of the current situation should better support the quantitative assessment of the possible benefits brought by AS applications

43. Slide 43 July 2004 – FALBALA/WP5/FOR2/D – CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, Sofréavia & UoG Questions / Discussion