anms dfw rnav presentation oct08 - fly quiet oak...279 vfr ops per hour – highest in us five...

NextGen: New Technology for Improved Noise Mitigation Efforts:DFW RNAV Departure Procedures

DFW International AirportSandy Lancaster, Manager Noise CompatibilityOctober 13, 2008

2

IMPLEMENTING RNAV DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AT DFW AIRPORT

OUTLINE

About DFW AirportWhat Led to RNAV Departure Procedures at DFWHow RNAV Was Implemented by FAAOperational Effects

What Is Working WellWhat Issues, If Any

Community EffectsWhat Is Working WellWhat Issues, If Any

3


ABOUT DFW

DFW is the 3rd busiest airport in the World

DFW ranks 7th in the world in terms of annual passengers

DFW has over 18,000 acres of land (larger than the island of Manhattan)Seven runways!279 VFR Ops per Hour – Highest in USFive Passenger terminals155 Gates20 Passenger Airlines serving DFW20 Cargo Airlines; International growing at 11% annuallyEnough capacity to last until 2020 without building any more infrastructure9,000 Acres of pristine, undeveloped landDFW Airport is situated halfway between its owner cities of Dallas and Fort Worth but is not contiguous to either city.

4


DFW’S NOISE HISTORY

Before Airport was built, North Central Texas Council of Governments commissioned a study in 1971 to create a noise contour forecasting noise exposure with 1985 level operations.Noise Contour and Draft Land Use Ordinance was promulgated to DFW’s surrounding cities to control land use in flight corridors.Cities adopted and most still use TODAY!

5


EIS & New Runways

Proposed East Runway

Proposed West Runway

In the late 1980s, DFW updated its Airport Development Plan, which projected a need for two new north/south runways – one on DFW’s east side and one on the west.DFW completed an Environmental Impact Statement in 1992 and received approval from the FAA to build the two new runways conditioned on Specified Mitigation. DFW built the East Runway which opened in 1996.There was much controversy and lawsuits on the EIS and proposed runways that was eventually resolved in the mid-1990s.The West Runway has yet to be built.

Area of Required Mitigation for East Runway

6


East-Side Mitigation Program

DFW was required to provide mitigation to those in the 65 DNL noise contour or higher because of the proposed runway.Before DFW could open its 7th runway (17L/35R), the majority of the mitigation program phases had to be complete.Mitigation for approximately 1,700 parcels which consisted of:

Acquisition of over 500 parcels in the 70 DNL (mandatory and voluntary)Sound insulation of 23 parcels (apartments, churches, and schools), andAcquisition of easements and additional compensation of 1,200 parcels in 65 DNL.

7


Other Approved Projects from the EIS: Expansion of Class B Airspace

Metroplex Air Traffic System (MATS) Plan

Airspace RedesignApproved in 1992; Implemented in 1996.Doubled Airspace Capacity by enabling aircraft to fly parallel arrival routes into DFW, regardless of weather.MAJOR AIRSPACE CHANGE –went unnoticed by communities as it was dwarfed by the controversy over the two proposed new runways.

8


Existing Headings

Expanded Headings

Other Approved Projects from the EIS: Expanded Runway HeadingsExpanded Runway Departure Headings and WaiverIncreased options for Departure ThroughputFAA did not adopt the additional fanned headings

9


Pre-RNAV Departure Procedures

Excerpt from Runway Use Plan

~ 5 n.m.174o

170o

155o

120o

130o

Actual flight tracks from May 26, 2004

Jets departures were spaced at 1.5 minute intervals (at a minimum) to ensure requisite separation in trail.Departing Jets turned to initial assigned headings shortly after take off, often before reaching the departure end of the runway.

The initial headings were flown for 5 nautical miles or more before the jets were allowed to turn on course.

Slower turboprop aircraft were given early turnouts to keep them clear of the faster jet traffic.

Subsequent ground tracks vary depending on various factors including wind.

10


Between 1999 and 2004, airlines replaced turboprop aircraft with Regional Jets.As “jets” must fly for five miles before turning, the effect was an increase in the volume of traffic on the jet corridors.

May 1999May 1999 ---- Jets---- Turboprops---- Props

May 2004May 2004

Jets 95%

TP’s5%

Jets 73%

TP’s27%

RNAV Drivers: Transition from Turboprops to Jets

11


RNAV DRIVERS

Departure delays increasedDFW Airport again called upon the FAA to implement the Expanded Fanned HeadingsConventional procedures and current waivers limited FAA’s ability to use the expanded headings.FAA turned to RNAV for an effective solution

12


RNAV DEVELOPMENTLocal Air Traffic Control reviewed do’s/don’t’sfrom other RNAV airports i.e. Las VegasWorked closely with airlines in designSIDS linked to departure gates – route assignment based on destination.Tested procedures in simulatorsRefined through multiple flight testing scenarios.DFW RNAV Departures are NOT Noise Abatement Procedures..

1100Z-1700ZAUGUST 9, 200598 EAST GATE RNAV DEPARTURES

N

13


Noise Affects of RNAVFAA requested DFW’s help with NEPA requirements; DFW developed noise contours with and without RNAVAirport developed before/after RNAV contours to determine course of action: EA or Cat-X.No significant impacts with RNAV.FAA instead used data to prepare written re-evaluation of previous NEPA work.

With RNAV

Without RNAV

14


Communicating RNAV to the CommunityNo requirement for public communication but DFW chose to brief local cities.FAA and DFW Noise Staff conducted briefings to cities as they desired, i.e. city staff only, city council, both.One City, Coppell, wanted Council briefed and local reporter picked up on story.Negative Headlines about Procedures went to local Coppell residents Announcing the then proposed start date of October 12, 2004.

15


Community Response: Announced Date vs. Actual Start Date24 Complaints received week of Oct 12, 2004: Date RNAV expected to start by Coppell Residents per newspaper article. [Coppell in blue].

Eight Complaints from week of actual start date of Nov. 1, 2004: The 3 Coppell complaints of Nov. 1 were not related to departures.

16


RNAV Issues: Loss of SeparationRNAV flew for 2.5 days. Issues arose with track compliance by some aircraft resulting in a loss of required separation for aircraft on parallel tracks. There were also issues with separation criteria between RNAV and non-RNAV. FAA had to suspend, redesign, and resubmit for publishing. Revised procedures began September 5, 2005.

Variability of turn radius between 5 mile turn and 8 mile turn resulted in loss of required 3-mile separation for aircraft on parallel tracks.

17


Redesigned RNAV – Before and After RNAV – Flight Corridors

CONVENTIONAL DEPATURE ROUTES

RNAV DEPATURE ROUTES

18


RNAV Departures - Precision Flight Paths

1.6 Miles

1.3 Miles

Conventional Departures

5.0 Miles RNAV Departures

340o

354o 354o

010o

Width of RNAV Course .25-.30 Miles Wide with 150-250 departing jets within the corridor.

19


Before and After RNAV – Track Density

RNAV DEPATURES

NON-RNAV DEPATURES

20


RNAV Operational Effects – What Works Well14% Increased Departure Throughput: Turbojet flows increased from 2 to 4Aircraft departing at <1.5 min. intervals.95% of Fleet equippedPrecise, consistent flight patternsReduced Frequency CongestionMore direct routingEnhances capability to segregate aircraft by route; less in trail

21


Before RNAV, Aircraft flew an initial heading for 5 miles and then turned and were vectored to their departure gate

RNAV ROUTE TO SOLDO FIX

RNAV Operational Effects – Issues Related to Increased Track DistancePRE-RNAV ROUTE TO SOLDO FIX

RNAV procedures are published routes with built-in separation with other RNAV routes; In four specific cases, it lengthens the routes over conventional SIDS; To reduce flight time/fuel burn, FAA often vectors RNAV aircraft if there is no other aircraft on the parallel track.

22


RNAV Operation Effects – American Airlines Proposed Solution

Existing Route

Proposed Route

23


RNAV Operational Effects – Issues Related to Flexibility During Weather

24


RNAV Operational Effects – Issues Related to Flexibility During Weather

25


RNAV Community Effects – Issues with Proximity of RNAV Corridors in NE

Conventional Departure Tracks RNAV Departure Tracks

26


RNAV Community Effects – Issues with Proximity of RNAV Corridors in SE

Conventional Departure Tracks RNAV Departure Tracks

27


RNAV Noise Effects – What Worked Well

Advanced Notification of Community Leaders and Continued Transparency Enhanced Acceptance of Procedural ChangeReduced Population Exposed in 65 DNL by 22% (mostly in multi-family)Substantially Reduced Areas of OverflightsAreas where noise increased were less than FAA ThresholdsComplaints Continued to Decline

28


DFW Noise Complaint Trends Todayay

2008 Complaints

Year To Date = Only 82(as of Oct. 10, 2008)

RNAV Implemented: September 2005

29


Summary

RNAV Departure Procedures has greatly enhanced FAA’s ability to optimize DFW’s airfield and the DFW Airspace. RNAV could have been a very controversial implementation.RNAV’s acceptance by the local communities is believed to be the direct result of good relations forged with local cities in the mid-1990s and continually nurtured today.DFW expects to incorporate RNAV or RNP into its arrival procedures in the future as part of the NextGen Evolution.

Thank You!

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

SANDY LANCASTER [email protected]

PHONE: 972-973-5573

anms dfw rnav presentation oct08 - fly quiet oak...279 vfr ops per hour – highest in us five...

Documents