Published Report (DOT/FAA/CT-94-36)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

An evaluation of NBO's and NTZ entries was conducted to assess total navigation system error (TNSE). NBO's occurred in 0.2 percent of the non-blunder approaches. In addition, the DIA runway spacings were sufficiently large that aircraft did not enter the NTZ as a consequence of TNSE. Participating air traffic controllers reported, "In this simulation the air traffic controller team believes they safely monitored triple simultaneous ILS approaches at the simulated new Denver Airport using the FMA.ll Technical observers unanimously agreed that controllers "had little difficulty detecting and resolving blunders." It was also noted that, "the controllers seemed so comfortable with the position that time was taken to evaluate options, even after a blunder had occurred.11 The risk assessment indicated the operation meets the target risk of 1 fatal accident per 25,000,000 approaches. The MPAP TWG evaluated the controllers effectiveness at resolving conflicts, the frequency of NTZ entries and NBO's, and the ability of the system to maintain the predetermined target level of risk (1 fatal accident per 25,000,000 approaches). Based upon their evaluations, the TWG concluded that the triple simultaneous ILS approach operation at DIA as simulated was acceptable. X
1. INTRODU<strong>CT</strong>ION. The ability of the National Airspace System (NAS) to meet future air traffic demands has been a serious concern at the national level. With the growing number of aircraft in the NAS and increasing congestion at the nation's airports, the Federal Aviation Administration (<strong>FAA</strong>) has been developing programs to improve NAS capacity since the early 1980's. These programs have attempted to reduce air traffic delays by meeting the increasing demands on the NAS. Programs to redesign the existing airways structure include proposals to provide a more modern air traffic flow management capability and major programs to incorporate state-of-the-art automation technology throughout the system. A major factor influencing system capacity has been the number of aircraft that can land at an airport during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Limitations imposed by current airport runway configurations and associated air traffic separation criteria contribute to the capacity problem, particularly as they relate to aircraft executing instrument landing system (ILS) approaches under IMC. Increases in the number of simultaneous ILS approaches during IMC will increase airport capacity and potentially improve traffic flow throughout the NAS. The Denver-Stapleton International Airport was faced with the capacity problems mentioned above, as well as noise level and environmental concerns. To deal with these issues and to avoid potential future problems, the new Denver International Airport (DIA) is being constructed. The size, location, and design of the new airfield will help overcome capacity issues, such as congestion and delays, as well as protect surrounding environmental interests. DIA's high field elevation, however, will affect airport and aircraft operations in many ways, especially with respect to high density altitude. High density altitude is a concern, particularly during the final approach phase of flight, as it affects aircraft performance. 1.1 BACKGROUND. Density altitude has been defined to be "a measure of air density used to determine aircraft performance" (Jeppeson Sanderson, 1983). Generally, as air density decreases (i.e., as a function of ambient temperature, altitude, and barometric pressure), density altitude increases. Any significant increase in density altitude can result in drastic reductions in engine power output, propeller efficiency, and aerodynamic lift (Jeppeson Sanderson, 1990). This degradation of performance occurs throughout the airplane's operational envelope, but is especially noticeable in takeoff and rate of climb performance (FAR/AIM, 1991). 1
Page 1 and 2: 1 DOT/FAA/CT-94/3 6 FAA Technical C
Page 3: 1. Title and Subtitle Technical Rep
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SU
Page 9: Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 LIST OF ILLUSTRA
Page 14 and 15: One specific effect of high density
Page 16 and 17: Technical Center. Indicated air spe
Page 18 and 19: -: zg cui r - I -----1 s: i I - OM
Page 20 and 21: sometimes instructed to disregard c
Page 22 and 23: ILS Localizer Cen tex line A Note:
Page 24 and 25: The Simulation Pilot Subsystem cons
Page 26 and 27: provided by ARTS displays, FMA's pr
Page 28 and 29: Controllers also submitted a report
Page 30 and 31: a. NTZ transgression frequency: b.
Page 32 and 33: 3.3.1.1 No-Controller Intervention
Page 34 and 35: analyses and the TWG operational as
Page 36 and 37: I [OOOO l'OS66) [OOS6'0SP6) [0006'0
Page 38 and 39: [OOSS' OSPS) [OOOS'OS6P) [OOSP' OSP
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 8. TCV DATA, TWA621/AAL204 Bl
Page 43 and 44: directed not to respond), the 17R c
Page 45 and 46: 4.2.6 Blunder Resolution Performanc
Page 47 and 48: [LSI [ssl [ESI L 35
Page 49 and 50: 4.4.2 Post-Simulation Controller Ou
Page 51 and 52: 4.5.2 Phraseoloav. The second state
Page 53 and 54: number of causes of accidents durin
Page 55 and 56: 1 ACC X 8 WCB's x 102 Itat risk" WC
Page 57 and 58: 5.3.2 Technical Observer Assessment
Page 59 and 60: BIBLIOGRAPHY Bilicki, H. W., TGF an
Page 61 and 62: GLOSSARY Aimort Surveillance Radar
Page 63 and 64:
Outer Marker (OM) - A marker beacon
Page 65:
APPENDIX A MULTIPLE PARALLEL APPROA
Page 69:
APPENDIX B SIMULATION USING THE FDA
Page 72 and 73:
Thus, the controller,s ability to d
Page 75:
TECHNICAL OBSERVERS REPORT DIA SIMU
Page 79 and 80:
FDADS SIMULATION AT DENVER A demons
Page 81:
isk blunders, but only 2 TCV's. The
Page 85 and 86:
ILS 10L DENVER INTERNATlONAL AIRPOR
Page 87:
ILS 17L 1 DENVER TOWER 1205 1 DENVE
Page 91 and 92:
POST-RUN CONTROLLER QUESTIONNAIRE D
Page 93 and 94:
POST-SIMULATION CONTROLLER QUESTION
Page 95 and 96:
CONTROLLER TEST CRITERION VIOLATION
Page 97:
111. STATEMENT: 1. From your knowle
Page 101 and 102:
PILOT BREAK-OUT QUESTIONNAIRE DIA S
Page 103 and 104:
2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS I 2.1 Please p
Page 105:
APPENDIX H CONTROLLER REPORT
Page 109:
APPENDIX I TECHNICAL OBSERVER REPOR
Page 112 and 113:
The Technical Observers believe tha
Page 115 and 116:
.. v) CI t E" E 8 - a c .- 0 CI 5 2
Page 117:
c X > 0 4 L 5-3
Page 121 and 122:
MULTIPLE PARALLEL APPROACH PROGRAM
Page 123:
APPENDIX L RISK ANALYSIS OF BLUNDER
Page 126 and 127:
2.0 BASIC RISK COMPUTATION 2.1 DEFI
Page 128 and 129:
a fatal accident during an approach
Page 130 and 131:
3.4 ESTIMATING COLLISION RISK The f
Page 132 and 133:
4.0 DETERMINATION OF ALIGNMENT WIND
Page 134 and 135:
The roots of the quadratic equation
Page 136 and 137:
e estimated as the ratio of the num
Page 138:
This is a very high rate, which wou
show all

Published Report (DOT/FAA/CT-94-36)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?