A Methodology to Assess the Safety of Aircraft Operations When Aerodrome Obstacle Standards Cannot Be Met
Affiliation(s)
1 Dresden University of Technology, Chair of Air Transport Technology and Logistics, Dresden, Germany. 2 GfL—Gesellschaft für Luftverkehrsforschung, Dresden, Germany.
1 Dresden University of Technology, Chair of Air Transport Technology and Logistics, Dresden, Germany. 2 GfL—Gesellschaft für Luftverkehrsforschung, Dresden, Germany.
ABSTRACT
When Aerodrome Obstacle Standards cannot be met as a result of urban or technical development, an aeronautical study can be carried out with the permission of EASA, in conjunction with ICAO, to prove how aircrafts can achieve an equivalent level of safety. However currently, no detailed guidance for this procedure exists. This paper proposes such a safety assessment methodology in order to value obstacle clearance violations around airports. This method has already been applied to a safety case at Frankfurt Airport where a tower elevating 4 km out of threshold 25R severely violates obstacle limitation surfaces. The model data refers to a take-off and landing performance model (TLPM) computing precisely aircraft trajectories for both standard and engine out conditions at ground proximity. The generated tracks are used to estimate collision risk incrementally considering EASA/FAA, EU-OPS & ICAO clearance criteria. Normal operations are assessed with a probabilistic analysis of empirical take-off/landing track data generating the local actual navigation performance (ANP) on site. The ANP shows integration to collision risk for an aircraft with any obstacle. The obstacle is tested for clearance within a “5-step-plan” against all performance requirements for landing climb and take-off climb. The methodology thereby delivers a comprehensive risk picture: The presented safety case for Frankfurt Airport showed an equivalent safety level despite the violation of standards. The collision risk during both normal and degraded performance operations was still found to be within ICAO Collision Risk Model (CRM) limits, requiring only limited risk mitigation measures. The presented work should complement ICAO Doc 9774 Appendix 3.
When Aerodrome Obstacle Standards cannot be met as a result of urban or technical development, an aeronautical study can be carried out with the permission of EASA, in conjunction with ICAO, to prove how aircrafts can achieve an equivalent level of safety. However currently, no detailed guidance for this procedure exists. This paper proposes such a safety assessment methodology in order to value obstacle clearance violations around airports. This method has already been applied to a safety case at Frankfurt Airport where a tower elevating 4 km out of threshold 25R severely violates obstacle limitation surfaces. The model data refers to a take-off and landing performance model (TLPM) computing precisely aircraft trajectories for both standard and engine out conditions at ground proximity. The generated tracks are used to estimate collision risk incrementally considering EASA/FAA, EU-OPS & ICAO clearance criteria. Normal operations are assessed with a probabilistic analysis of empirical take-off/landing track data generating the local actual navigation performance (ANP) on site. The ANP shows integration to collision risk for an aircraft with any obstacle. The obstacle is tested for clearance within a “5-step-plan” against all performance requirements for landing climb and take-off climb. The methodology thereby delivers a comprehensive risk picture: The presented safety case for Frankfurt Airport showed an equivalent safety level despite the violation of standards. The collision risk during both normal and degraded performance operations was still found to be within ICAO Collision Risk Model (CRM) limits, requiring only limited risk mitigation measures. The presented work should complement ICAO Doc 9774 Appendix 3.
KEYWORDS
Aeronautical Study, Aircraft Performance, Obstacle Clearance, Collision Risk, Engine out Operations
Aeronautical Study, Aircraft Performance, Obstacle Clearance, Collision Risk, Engine out Operations
Cite this paper
Fricke, H. and Thiel, C. (2015) A Methodology to Assess the Safety of Aircraft Operations When Aerodrome Obstacle Standards Cannot Be Met. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 62-81. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2015.52007.
Fricke, H. and Thiel, C. (2015) A Methodology to Assess the Safety of Aircraft Operations When Aerodrome Obstacle Standards Cannot Be Met. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 62-81. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2015.52007.
References
[1] ICAO (2009) Aerodrome Design and Operations. Annex 14, Volume 1, 5th Edition, ICAO, Montreal. [2] ICAO (2006) Procedures for Air Navigation Services—Aircraft Operations. Doc 8168, Volume II, 5th Edition, ICAO, Montreal. [3] EASA, Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2011-20, CS ADR DSN, Cologne, November 2011. [4] Frauenkorn, M. (2001) FLIP—Flight Performance Using Frankfurt ILS, DFS, Langen, Germany. [5] Thiel, C. and Fricke, H. (2010) Collision Risk on Final Approach—A Radar-Data Based Evaluation Method to Assess Safety. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT), Budapest, 1-4 June 2010, 473-480. [6] ICAO (1980) Manual on the Use of the Collision Risk Model (CRM) for ILS Operations. Doc 9274-AN/904, ICAO, Montreal. [7] ICAO (2004) Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (ASMGCS) Manual. Doc 9830, Montreal. [8] ICAO (2001) Manual on Certification of Aerodromes. Doc 9774, Montreal. [9] ICAO (2006) Aerodrome Design Manual (ADM), Part I Runways. Doc 9157, 3rd Edition, Montreal. [10] EU-OPS (2008) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the Harmonization of Technical Requirements and Administrative Procedures in the Field of Civil Aviation. EU-OPS, Brussels. [11] EASA (2011) Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes—CS-25. Amendment 11, Cologne. [12] FAA: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 25—Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Airplanes, USA. [13] ICAO (2007) PANS ATM (Air Traffic Management). Doc 4444, 5th Edition, Montreal. [14] EUROCONTROL (2006) Air Navigation System Safety Assessment Methodology (SAM), SAF.
ET1.ST03.1000- MAN-01, Edition 2.1. [15] ICAO (2008) Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) Manual. Doc 9613-AN/937, 3rd Edition, Montreal. [16] Thiel, C., Seiß, C., Vogel, M. and Fricke, H. (2012) Safety Monitoring of New Implemented Approach Procedures by Means of Radar Data Analysis. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT), Berkeley, 22-25 May 2012. [17] Kaiser, M., Schultz, M. and Fricke, H. (2011) Enhanced Jet Performance Model for High Precision 4D Flight Path Prediction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Application and Theory of Automation in Command and Control Systems (ATACCS), Barcelona, 26-27 May 2011, 38-45. [18] Condor Flight Operations Engineering, HO/E (Bölling, M., et al.), Take off and Landing Flight Performance Calculations, November 2011. [19] DFS: FANOMOS Flight Track Data of Approaches/Departures at Frankfurt/Main Airport, May-October 2011, Langen, November 2011.
[1] ICAO (2009) Aerodrome Design and Operations. Annex 14, Volume 1, 5th Edition, ICAO, Montreal. [2] ICAO (2006) Procedures for Air Navigation Services—Aircraft Operations. Doc 8168, Volume II, 5th Edition, ICAO, Montreal. [3] EASA, Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2011-20, CS ADR DSN, Cologne, November 2011. [4] Frauenkorn, M. (2001) FLIP—Flight Performance Using Frankfurt ILS, DFS, Langen, Germany. [5] Thiel, C. and Fricke, H. (2010) Collision Risk on Final Approach—A Radar-Data Based Evaluation Method to Assess Safety. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT), Budapest, 1-4 June 2010, 473-480. [6] ICAO (1980) Manual on the Use of the Collision Risk Model (CRM) for ILS Operations. Doc 9274-AN/904, ICAO, Montreal. [7] ICAO (2004) Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (ASMGCS) Manual. Doc 9830, Montreal. [8] ICAO (2001) Manual on Certification of Aerodromes. Doc 9774, Montreal. [9] ICAO (2006) Aerodrome Design Manual (ADM), Part I Runways. Doc 9157, 3rd Edition, Montreal. [10] EU-OPS (2008) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the Harmonization of Technical Requirements and Administrative Procedures in the Field of Civil Aviation. EU-OPS, Brussels. [11] EASA (2011) Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes—CS-25. Amendment 11, Cologne. [12] FAA: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 25—Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Airplanes, USA. [13] ICAO (2007) PANS ATM (Air Traffic Management). Doc 4444, 5th Edition, Montreal. [14] EUROCONTROL (2006) Air Navigation System Safety Assessment Methodology (SAM), SAF.
ET1.ST03.1000- MAN-01, Edition 2.1. [15] ICAO (2008) Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) Manual. Doc 9613-AN/937, 3rd Edition, Montreal. [16] Thiel, C., Seiß, C., Vogel, M. and Fricke, H. (2012) Safety Monitoring of New Implemented Approach Procedures by Means of Radar Data Analysis. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (ICRAT), Berkeley, 22-25 May 2012. [17] Kaiser, M., Schultz, M. and Fricke, H. (2011) Enhanced Jet Performance Model for High Precision 4D Flight Path Prediction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Application and Theory of Automation in Command and Control Systems (ATACCS), Barcelona, 26-27 May 2011, 38-45. [18] Condor Flight Operations Engineering, HO/E (Bölling, M., et al.), Take off and Landing Flight Performance Calculations, November 2011. [19] DFS: FANOMOS Flight Track Data of Approaches/Departures at Frankfurt/Main Airport, May-October 2011, Langen, November 2011.