Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS

FP5

SOURDINE I I Report Summary

Project ID: 11011
Funded under: FP5-GROWTH
Country: Spain

Complete assessment of newly developed procedures with respect to noise, capacity, safety and acceptance by pilot and air-traffic controller

HOW are the various assessments done?

The validation methdology applied in the SOURDINE-II project has been described in the deliverable D2-1: Validation Methdology. It is based on the MAEVA Validation Methodology.

The assessments are part of the overall validation work. The newly defined Noise Abatement Procedures have been assessed with respect to Noise, Capacity, Safety and Acceptance by the Pilot and the Air-Traffic Controller. For the execution of these specific assessments, various computer models, tools and simulators have been used. The specific methods applied in these assessments have been described in detail in the following reports:
Noise: D5-1, D5-2
Capacity: D4-1-1a
Safety: D4-2-1
User acceptance: D6-1, D6-2, D6-3, D6-4, D6-5.

SUMMARY of the results of the assessments

NOISE:
All Sourdine II procedures provide significant noise reduction as compared with current day practice.

Approach:
With single event simulations, it has been demonstrated that the SOURDINE II reference approach procedure, as compared with current practice, shows benefits more than 5dBA in a very large range of the procedure (see chapter 4).
As compared with the reference, even more noise reduction can be achieved, especially with procedure III and IV. Procedure III providing noise relief at all noise levels; procedure IV mainly at the lower (~55 Lden) noise levels.

A population impact study was performed at Madrid-Barajas airport and all four approach procedures showed reductions in impacted population. Procedure III was responsible for the largest change in impacted population. However, procedure IV, and to a lesser extent procedure II produced noticeable reductions in numbers under the 60dB Lnight contour.

CAPACITY:
Application of the SOURDINE II approach procedures will lead to a reduction of the peak hour capacity. Obviously, this is especially the case for procedure IV, where a long distance is flown at low speed (FAS). However, for procedure II, III and V, relatively small reductions in peak hour capacity occur. This capacity reduction only presents a problem during operations where demand exceeds the capacity. In off-peak hours or in the situation where traffic is scheduled more regularly over the day, no sustained capacity problem would occur at the four airports considered in this analysis when procedure II, III, or V would be implemented. This is even true at 2015 traffic volumes.
It is assumed that implementation of the departure procedures will have no capacity impact.

SAFETY:
The combination of parallel runways with CDA procedures is an identified safety issue. This operation is not in line with the current ICAO guidelines for parallel approaches, i.e., 1000ft vertical separation is required until aircraft on both approaches are locked on the ILS Localiser signal. Possible solutions on this subject that need further exploration are for example the use of curved approaches based on approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV procedure) or to have a short level segment for one of the runways. Also the approach with the optimised level segment (SII reference) may be an option here.

During the expert panels and the final meeting various experts emphasised the importance to have a generic noise abatement procedure and no tailor made procedures for each airport. This recommendation is mainly derived from a safety point of view, increased risk on pilot error when flying many different procedures.

ACCEPTANCE OF PILOTS AND CONTOLLERS:
The pilots and air traffic controllers were positive on procedure II and II-A (variation of procedure II including speed constraints). Procedure II-A basically leads to more time between the various configuration changes and therefore makes it more controllable for the pilot. Speed constraints have the risk however of leading to a negative noise impact as compared with a more noise-ideal procedure II. It was suggested by some of the controllers to extend the prototyped version of the ATC monitoring aid with an alert when the separation minima are violated and the controller needs to intervene.

Contact

Dolores JULIÁN, (Aeronautical engineer)
Tel.: +34-91-2711023
Fax: +34-91-2711999
E-mail
Record Number: 43410 / Last updated on: 2006-11-28
Information source: e-TIP
Collaboration sought: Further research or development support
Stage of development: Results of demonstration trials available