Steeper Approach Procedure for Increasing Ultimate Capacity of Closely Spaced Parallel Runways

Abstract

The steeper approach procedure (SAP) is investigated as an innovative option for increasing the ultimate arrival capacity of closely spaced parallel runways under the instrument metrological conditions and instrumental flight rules. SAP is based on the two pairs of instrumental landing systems, each enabling the certified aircraft to approach a given parallel runway at either the standard (3°) or steeper (5° to 7°) glide slope (GS) angle. The difference in the GS angles allows application of the air traffic control (ATC) vertical separation rules between the arriving aircraft; this can mitigate the impact of wake vortices on the aircraft in trail separation while on the same or different approach trajectories. A combination of these with the ATC longitudinal and horizontal–diagonal separation rules has the potential to increase the ultimate arrival capacity of closely spaced parallel runways. An analytical model was developed for calculating the arrival ultimate capacity of closely spaced parallel runways. The model inputs are the geometry of given parallel runways, the ATC minimum separation rules, and the aircraft fleets mix characterized by the aircraft wake vortex types and categories, capability of using different GS angles, final approach speeds, and the arrival runway occupancy time. The model output consists of the ultimate capacity of closely spaced parallel runways and its variations in dependence on the mixture of arrivals and departures for a large U.S. airport.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures. FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.

Operational Environment Definition: Extended Visual Acquisition. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2001.

Optimal Procedures and Techniques for the Improvement of Approach and Landing—OPTIMA. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2005.

Burnham

D. C.

Hallock

J. N.

and Greene

G. C.

. Wake Turbulence Limits on Paired Approaches to Parallel Runways. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 4 2002, pp. 630–637.

Summary Results from Long-Term Wake Turbulence Measurement at San Francisco International Airport. DOT-VNTSC-FA27-PM-04-13. FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.

Enhanced Airport Capacity Through Safe, Dynamic Reductions in Aircraft Separation: NASA's Aircraft VOrtex Spacing System (AVOSS). National Aeronautical and Space Administration, Hampton, Va., 2001.

Business Case for NASA Wake Vortex Technology. Logistics Management Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004.

Cotton

Foggin

and Gosling

G. D.

. Potential Future Contribution of Air Traffic Management Technology to the Capacity of San Francisco International Airport. EIR/EIS—Emerging and New Technologies, FAA, San Francisco, 2001.

Janic

Model of Ultimate Capacity of Dual-Dependent Parallel Runways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1951, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 76–85.

10.

Approval of Steep Approach Landing Capability of Transport Category Aircraft. Aircraft Certification, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 2004.

11.

Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services: Procedures for Air Navigation Services, 13th ed. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada, 1996.

12.

Blumstein

The Landing Capacity of a Runway. Operations Research, Vol. 7, No. 1 1959, pp. 752–763.

13.

Odoni

A. R.

and Bowman

. Existing and Required Modeling Capabilities for Evaluating ATM Systems and Concepts. International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, 1997.

14.

Andreatta

and Romanin-Jacur

. Aircraft Flow Management Under Congestion. Transportation Science, Vol. 21, No. 4 1987, pp. 249–253.

15.

Bianco

and Bielli

. Air Traffic Management: Optimization Models and Algorithms. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 26, No. 2 1992, pp. 131–167.

16.

Richetta

Odoni

A. R.

. Dynamic Solution to the Ground-Holding Problem in Air Traffic Control. Transportation Research A, Vol. 28, No. 3 1994, pp. 167–185.

17.

Richetta

and Odoni

A. R.

. Solving Optimally the Static Ground-Holding Policy Problem in Air Traffic Control. Transportation Science, Vol. 27, No. 3 1993, pp. 228–238.

18.

Richetta

Optimal Algorithms and a Remarkably Efficient Heuristic for the Ground-Holding Problem in Air Traffic Control. Operations Research, Vol. 43, No. 5 1995, pp. 758–770.

19.

Terrab

and Odoni

A. R.

. Strategic Flow Management in Air Traffic Control. Operations Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 1993, pp. 138–152.

20.

Vranas

Bertsimas

D. J.

and Odoni

A. R.

. Dynamic Ground-Holding Policies for a Network of Airports. Transportation Science, Vol. 28, No. 3 1994, pp. 275–291.

21.

Tosic

and Horonjeff

. Effect of Multiple Path Approach Procedures on Runway Landing Capacity. Transportation Research, Vol. 10, No. 5 1976, pp. 319–329.

22.

Eads

G. C.

Kiefer

M. R.

and Mehndiratta

S. R.

. Short-Term Delay Mitigation Strategies for San Francisco International Airport. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1744, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 44–51.

23.

Airport Capacity Benchmark Report. Mitre Corporation, McLean, Va., 2004.

24.

Air Traffic Operational Data on Selected U.S. Airports with Parallel Runways. NASA/CR-1998-207675. National Aeronautical and Space Administration, Hampton, Va., 1998.