Potential Impact of EDR on Modeled CSPR Arrival Ratesv5 · 2004-10-27 · Potential Impact of EDR...

F064-B04-021© 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Potential Impact of EDR on Modeled Arrival Capacity for Closely Spaced

Parallel Runways

Clark R. Lunsford, Wayne W. Cooper, Arthur P. Smith, Anand D. Mundra,

Joseph E. Sherry, Jeffrey A. Tittsworth17 February 2004

2004 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

© 2004 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved.F064-B04-021

Outline

• Overview of ATC wake procedure work for NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)

• Example of an ATC wake procedures • Impact of EDR on lateral wake transport• Relationship of EDR and surface wind• Impact of EDR on capacity increments and delay

benefits



Introduction

• Goal is to provide quantitative estimates of benefits for potential WakeVAS concepts or procedures – Enable comparison between concepts – Help NASA select one or two for full development

• Trade off between benefits and development and deployment risks

• Potential concepts analyzed in FY03 for NASA/Langley– Capacity increment over comparable FAA commitments if they

exist; else over current operations– Development and deployment risk analysis (qualitative) will be

addressed in FY04



Potential Arrival Procedure Steps Analyzed for Benefits for Closely Spaced Parallel Runways

WakeVAS-PD

WakeVAS-Wx2

WakeVAS-Wx1

WakeVASStep

5b. Use crosswind to allow wake independence for both runways if the crosswind is low enough, judging wake transport of leading cluster aircraft at a level dependent on the weight class of the trailing aircraft, with a tighter safety buffer to the crosswind required

a. Judge wake transport of leading cluster aircraft at a reference level, with a tighter safety buffer to the minimum crosswind required

h

4Use crosswind to allow wake independence for both runways if the crosswind is low enough, judging wake transport of leading cluster aircraft at a level dependent on the weight class of the trailing aircraft, adding a safety buffer to crosswind required

g

3Use crosswind to allow wake independence for both runways if the wind is low enough with the addition of turbulence considerations, adding a safety buffer to the crosswind required

f

Reduce minimum separations between aircraft on parallel approaches to 1 nmi, adding a safety buffer to the crosswind required

e

Use crosswind to allow wake independence for both runways if the crosswind is low enough, judging wake transport of leading cluster aircraft at reference level, adding a safety buffer to crosswind required

d

2Use crosswind to allow wake independence for both runways if the wind is low enough, judging the wake transport of leading wake category aircraft at a reference level, adding a safety buffer to crosswind required

c

1Use crosswind to allow wake independence of upwind runway (all aircraft) , adding a safety buffer to minimum crosswind required

b

Use crosswinds to allow wake independence of upwind runway behind large aircraft; Judge wake transport of leading wake category aircraft at a reference level, add safety buffer to minimum crosswind required

a

Analysis Increment

Potential Procedure stepEvolutionStep



Example Procedure for Dependent Approaches to Parallel Runways (Step 3)

Use crosswind to allow wake independence for both runways if the crosswind is low enough, judging wake transport of leading aircraft at a reference level, adding a safety buffer to crosswind required

• Clusters are examples of subdivisions within aircraft type, based on initial wake circulation strength computed using wing span, max landing weight, and minimum approach speed

Lead Cluster Small Large Heavy Lead Cluster Small Large Heavy8 (Small 9.3%) 87 (Large 12.8%) 76 (Large 14.8%) 65 (Large 29.1%) 54 (Large 16.9%) 43 (B757 9.1%) 32 (Heavy 5.1%) 21 (Heavy 2.9%) 1

-- All Winds ---- All Winds ---- All Winds ---- 5-20 kts --

-- All Winds ---- All Winds ---- All Winds ---- All Winds --

-- 0-10 kts ---- 0-10 kts ---- 0-5 kts --

-- No Wind Conditions --

-- All Winds ---- All Winds ---- All Winds ---- 0-15 kts --

1000 ft Runway SeparationDownwind Runway Wake Independence Upwind Runway Wake Independence

Trailing Wake Category Trailing Wake Category

WIND

Cluster 1

1000 ft

Cluster 1Cluster 6

Cluster 3Wake Spacing

1.5 nm

i

1.5 nm

i



Low

Mid

Hig

h

Range of EDRs Observed at DFW

Source: Turbulence Climatology at Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) Airport--Implications for a Departure Wake Vortex Spacing System, G.H. Perras and T. J. Dasey, November 2000, NASA/L-4.



Example of Effect of EDR on Wake Persistence for B757-300 (APA 3.2)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 60 120 180Time (sec)

Wak

e In

tens

ity

EDR .003

EDR .0001

EDR .0000001



DFW Observations of EDR vs. Wind Speed

Wind Speed vs. EDR at DFW

y = 0.0007x1.8308

R2 = 0.7717

y = 0.0002x1.6583

R2 = 0.5347

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Wind Speed (m/s)

ED

R

5 Meter40 MeterPower (5 Meter)Power (40 Meter)

June 9, 15, 17, 20 & July 7, 2000NASA data collected for:

Wind Speed vs. EDR at DFW

y = 0.0007x1.8308

R2 = 0.7717

y = 0.0002x1.6583

R2 = 0.5347

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Wind Speed (m/s)

ED

R

5 Meter40 MeterPower (5 Meter)Power (40 Meter)

June 9, 15, 17, 20 & July 7, 2000NASA data collected for:



EDR and Wake Transport Assumptions in FY03

• Conservative EDR Assumptions (from demise and transport perspective)– Calm wind (0-4.9 kts) has a very low EDR (1.0x10-7)– Medium wind (5-14.9 kts) has a mid-range EDR (1.4x10-3)– High wind (15 kts and greater) has a high EDR (3.0x10-3)

• Modeled wake transport with AVOSS (while wake remained above assumed background turbulence level)

• Applied operational constraints and flight technical error considerations to derive wake transport table for use in procedure exploration

• Delay reductions based on use of historical surface winds and demand for specific airports



Example of AVOSS Modeled B757-300 Wake Transport with Wind (APA 3.2)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 60 120 180Time (sec)

Late

ral T

rans

port

(m)

Wind 20 kts EDR .003

Wind 0 kts EDR .0000001



Simulation Mechanics

EXCEL Model@Risk RandomInput Generator

Run Parameters

12

34

@Risk DataAccumulator

@RiskSimulationController

ComplexLogic

Visual BasicCode

Visual BasicCode

Batch ModeController



Comparison of Capacity Results

Seattle Arrival Rate Comparison

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0 5 10 15 20

Crosswind

Incr

ease

ove

r S

ing

le R

un

way

FAA Increase

S1 Increase

S2 Increase

S3 Increase

S5 Increase

San Francisco Arrival Rate Comparison

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 5 10 15 20

Crosswind

Incr

ease

ove

r S

ing

le R

un

way

FAA Increase

S1 Increase

S2 Increase

S3 Increase

S5 Increase

• Several ATC wake procedures were analyzed (Step 1 – Step 5 with increasing technology needs)

• Higher than assumed EDR will increase the wind cases where runways can be run wake independent, moving these curves up, increasing the increment in capacity

• Lower than assumed EDR will decrease the opportunities to run the procedure and decrease the capacity increment



Airport Average Arrival Delay Reduction Per Day (with winds and current demand)

• This chart shows the estimated average delay reduction in hours per day when moving from current arrival capacity to that of the FAA baseline, plus each of the four procedures

• Step 1 shows significant benefits at airports with runway centerline separation less than 1000 ft

• Step 2 provides a small improvement over Step 1 and the FAA baseline results

• Steps 3 and 5 appear to show minimal improvements over Step 2 with respect to delay for current demand

• Considers surface winds only and demand for January-December 2002

Average Daily Delay Benefits by Procedure For Airport

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

LAX SFO SEA EWR MEM CLE STL PHL BOS

Del

ay (

in h

ou

rs)

FAA Baseline Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 5



Acknowledgements

• Dave Rutishauser at NASA LaRC for sharing AVOSS expertise and providing extensive AVOSS wake track data sets (72 aircraft types, 6 winds, 3 EDRs)

• Burnell McKissick at NASA LaRC for providing DFW wind and EDR data observations

• Wayne Bryant at NASA LaRC for guidance in ATC procedure analysis and downselect


Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Potential Impact of EDR on Modeled CSPR Arrival Ratesv5 · 2004-10-27 · Potential Impact of EDR...

Documents