Dublin Point Merge Irish Aviation Authority

Point Merge Conference March 2015 Oslo

Point Merge EIDW Runway 28

implemented 13th December 2012

Point Merge Systemisation Effect

RWY 28 Point Merge vs. RWY10

Point Merge EIDW Runway 10

to be implemented 2nd April 2015

Point Merge Runway 10

Initially planned for implementation coincidentally with Runway 28 PM

Very successful implementation on Runway 28 at Dublin

Runway 28 usage 63%

Runway 10 usage 30%

Implementation 2nd April 2015

SID & STAR Changes

Point Merge system for Runway 10

New STARs

Minor amendments to SIDs

New RNAV IAPs

New ABLIN STAR replaces LIPGO STAR on runway 28

New PM System Runway 10

Airspace design

– Prototyping various designs

Try to mirror runway 28 PM

Military airspace

Track miles

Regulatory approval

– IFP design

– Training

– Safety Case

BAMLI

NEVRI

ROTEV

NIMAT

BOYNE

BAGSO

SUROX

OLAPO

INKUR

LIFFY

LIPGO

VATRY

BEPAN

PESIT

BUNED

OLONO

SUTEX

PELIG

OSGAR

DEXEN

NORTH

SOUTH

LOWER NORTH (LN)

SFC – FL125

UPPER NORTH (UN)

ABOVE FL125

LOWER SOUTH (LS)

SFC – FL125

UPPER SOUTH (US)

ABOVE FL125

BAGSO

BOYNE

NIMAT

EKREN ELBON

ASDER

AKIVA ADNAL

EPIDU

BAMLI

OLAPO

APRUT

DW865

DW866

NEKIL

RISAP

OSLEX

DW755

DW754 BIVDI

BABON

BERMO

DETAX

RUBAR

LIPGO

VATRY

KANUS

DIRUM

BUNED

SUTEX

OSGAR

STARS

12.5 NM

ASDER

APRUT

DW865

DW866 NEKIL

RISAP

EIDW

All points along the leg have the same Constraint Level FL80 and Speed

Restriction 230kts

NORTH SECTOR SEQUENCE LEG

Total sequence leg length 30 NM approximately

6

11

ADNAL

AKIVA

5

RISAP

EIDW

12.5 NM

BERMO

BABON

BIVDI DW754

DW755

OSLEX

SOUTH SECTOR SEQUENCE LEG

All points along the leg have the same Constraint Level FL70 and Speed

Restriction 230kts

6

11

11

11

Total sequence leg length 24 NM approximately

5

14

New IAPs Runway 10

NEKIL

4000

OSLEX

5000

GANET 3000

IAP commences from OSLEX

IAP commences from NEKIL

RISAP

3000

EIME

KANUS

FL70

BAMLI

NEVRI

ROTEV

NIMAT

BOYNE

BAGSO

SUROX

OLAPO

INKUR

LIFFY

LAPMO

FL70 SORIN

SUGAD

DW704

DW705

DS706

SOPEP

LIPGO

VATRY

BEPAN

PESIT

BUNED

OLONO

SUTEX

PELIG

OSGAR

DEXEN

BAL

PEKOK

SIVNA FL70

DIRUM

KEPOR

ABLIN 1L Replaces LIPGO 1L

FL90

PEKOK

ABLIN ABLIN

IRKUM

ABLIN Level Constraint: Not Above FL180 Not Below FL150

IRKUM Level Constraint: Not Below FL90

PEKOK Level Constraint: AT FL70

BADSI

FL180

FL150

18

Training

PM28 – 9 days

PM10 – 2.5 days

– 1 day of Bookwork

– 1½ days of simulation

Basic approach

Full circuit

Runway change and holding

– All instructors are from PM project team

SOME LESSONS LEARNED AND

SUGGESTED BEST PRACTICES

Dublin Point Merge Implementation Runway 28 2012-2015

R&D CONCEPT

The Point Merge Concept originally aimed at increase of ATC capacity and improved sequencing; therefore sequence leg length was optimised for ATC use (i.e. accommodation of aircraft) rather than flight and fuel efficiency.

6

SYSTEM DESIGN

Sequence leg entry points should be positioned on direct tracks from major TMA entry points to merge point on final approach – shortest route to the runway. Not possible from all directions.

It was necessary to publish required airspeed on the sequence leg to assure spacing between consecutive aircraft – may be a compromise if significant mix of traffic types

3-in-1 rule for airspace design used to optimise CDO as far as possible – fuel reduction. Both from en-route to the sequence leg and then again to merge point.

Level constraints should be kept to a minimum to assist efficient CDOs and flight idle descents.

TRAFFIC FLOW BASED SYSTEM

MINIMAL LEVEL CONSTRAINTS

SOUTHERN SEQUENCE LEG

FL70

NORTHERN SEQUENCE LEG

FL80 IAS = 230kts

FUEL ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

IAA engaged regulator, airlines, FMS manufacturers and data houses 6 months before implementation when fuel issue highlighted. In retrospect, engagement from earlier stages of the project may have identified potential fuel issues.

LAPMO

DIRECT TO MERGE POINT

ADDRESSING THE FUEL ISSUE

The ANSP and its Regulator participated in Forums and Task Forces to identify potential solutions to the fuel issue. Participation of all appropriate disciplines is vital to ensure any identified solutions are feasible, cost-effective and efficient.

FUEL FORUM

ANSP

AIRLINES

FMS DATA

REG

FUEL ISSUE AWARENESS

The ANSP conducted an aggressive awareness campaign for airlines’ flight crew and operations departments to inform them about the flight planning and fuelling STAR but this strategy had mixed success.

(NOT) GETTING THE MESSAGE ACROSS

It did not get full ‘buy-in’ and led to some crews uplifting up to 400kgs per arrival to ensure no FMGC message was ever observed.

Therefore proven fuel benefits of Point Merge not reportedly achieved by all airlines.

Clearly, the extra un-needed fuel had not been carried then the benefits would have been available.

The concept of Point Merge is relatively easy to grasp but fuel planning issues are complicated - therefore much ill-informed comment can contaminate the true picture.

Bad ‘press’ resulted from anecdotal comments made around the industry.

SCHADENFREUDE

RE-DESIGN?

Re-design of the Dublin Point Merge system was considered, to be balanced between ATC requirements and those of the airlines

Decided that reduction of sequence leg length was not appropriate because of consequent reduction of ATC linear holding capacity

It is worth noting that, if aircraft were actually permitted to fly the ‘short’ direct-to STAR, then fuelling would become less of an issue.

KEEP PILOTS INFORMED

The ANSP should develop a robust method for providing pilots with realistic information regarding expected use of the sequence leg.

This information may be enhanced by controllers giving pilots time/expected delay information derived from an appropriately-tuned arrival manager.

Use of the enhanced information provided by the arrival manager could also lead to a reduction in the distance flown along the sequence leg.

MONITORING STILL VITAL

Especially in the early days following implementation there were numerous occurrences of pilots wishing to actually fly the short flight planning and fuelling STAR, even after they had been issued with the long (ATC) STAR on first contact with Dublin ATC.

This caused added RT workload and some confusion, and when introduced care must be taken to ensure aircraft do not fly the ‘short’ STAR even though they have been issued with the ‘long’ STAR.

‘X’

‘L’

ATC ISSUE

‘L’

‘L’ and ‘X’ ON SAME COCKPIT CHART

CONCLUSIONS

Every location has different challenges

Keep all the stakeholders well informed

Keep an open mind to suggested changes

Build a constructive relationship with the Regulator and…….

……The benefits achievable are worth all the effort !