Runway Development Program - Calgary Airport

The Calgary Airport Authority

Parallel Runway Project Volume IV – Item 2 Airfield Model

Calgary International Airport

RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

AIRFIELD MODEL

CALGARY AIRPORT RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - AIRFIELD MODEL 10499R605R YYC RWY SIM FINAL REPORT.DOCX AIRBIZ 5/11/2009

Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2 INTRODUCTION 10

3 DATA AND REVIEW 14

4 DEMAND 19

5 AIRFIELD MODEL 29

6 SCENARIOS 32

7 TAXIWAY LOCATIONS 59

8 CONCLUSIONS 63


LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE ‎1-1 CALGARY AIRPORT – INDICATIVE FUTURE AIRFIELD LAYOUT 2

FIGURE ‎1-2 PROJECTED BUSY DAY AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS – 2008, 2015, 2025 3

FIGURE ‎1-3 RUNWAY MODES OF OPERATION FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS 6

FIGURE ‎1-4 OPTIONS FOR CDF LOCATION 7

FIGURE ‎1-5 DUAL LINK TAXIWAY OPTIONS 8

FIGURE ‎1-6 INDICATIVE TAXIWAY LAYOUT FOR PARALLEL RUNWAY 9

FIGURE ‎2-1 CALGARY AIRPORT – INDICATIVE FUTURE AIRFIELD LAYOUT 11

FIGURE ‎4-1 ANNUAL AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS – HISTORICAL AND FORECAST 20

FIGURE ‎4-2 TRANSPORT CANADA HIGH AIRCRAFT FORECAST 21

FIGURE ‎4-3 TRANSPORT CANADA BASE AIRCRAFT FORECAST 21

FIGURE ‎4-4 TRANSPORT CANADA HIGH PASSENGER FORECAST 21

FIGURE ‎4-5 TRANSPORT CANADA BASE PASSENGER FORECAST 21

FIGURE ‎4-6 2008 DAILY FIXED WING ARRIVALS/DEPARTURES 23

FIGURE ‎4-7 2008 RANKED DAILY MOVEMENTS 24

FIGURE ‎4-8 PROFILE FOR 90TH

PERCENTILE AND SIMILARLY RANKED DAYS 25

FIGURE ‎4-9 BUSY DAY PROFILE 2008, 2015 AND 2025 26

FIGURE ‎4-10 BUSY DAY ANAYSIS 2008 – COLD WEEKDDAYS AND WEEKEND 27

FIGURE ‎4-11 HOURLY AIRCRAFT – 2008 COLD WEEKDAYS 27

FIGURE ‎4-12 HOURLY AIRCRAFT – 2008 ICY WEEKDAYS 27

FIGURE ‎4-13 REPRESENTATIVE 2008 “COLD DAY” VS 90TH

BUSY DAY 28

FIGURE ‎5-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIRFIELD DELAY AND DEMAND 31

FIGURE ‎6-1 RUNWAY MODES OF OPERATION FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS 33

FIGURE ‎6-2 EXISTING RUNWAY MODES AND USAGE 34

FIGURE ‎6-3 BASE CASE – EXISTING CROSSING RUNWAYS / NO NEW RUNWAY 36

FIGURE ‎6-4 RUNWAY DEMAND VS CAPACITY 2008 AND 2015 37

FIGURE ‎6-5 RUNWAY ARRIVALS DEMAND VS CAPACITY 2008 AND 2015 37

FIGURE ‎6-6 RUNWAY DEPARTURES DEMAND VS CAPACITY 2008 AND 2015 38

FIGURE ‎6-7 HOURLY DEMAND 2008 AND 2015 38

FIGURE ‎6-8 HOURLY DEMAND 2008 AND 2015 VS THROUGHPUT RWYS 28/34 38

FIGURE ‎6-9 2015 ARR AND DEP DEMAND VS RWY 28/34 THROUGHPUT 39

FIGURE ‎6-10 ARRIVAL DELAY FOR 28/34 MODE AT 2015 39

FIGURE ‎6-11 DEPARTURE DELAY FOR 28/34 MODE AT 2015 39

FIGURE ‎6-12 HOURLY DEMAND 2008 AND 2015 VS THROUGHPUT RWYS 10/16 40

FIGURE ‎6-13 2015 ARR AND DEP DEMAND VS RWY 10/16 THROUGHPUT 40

FIGURE ‎6-14 ARRIVALS DELAY FOR 10/16 MODE AT 2015 40

FIGURE ‎6-15 DEPARTURES DELAY FOR 10/16 MODE AT 2015 40

FIGURE ‎6-16 RUN 1 – 28/34 DEPARTURE QUEUE AT RWY 28 END (7:17PM) 41



FIGURE ‎6-19 RUN 2 – QUEUES ON TAXIWAYS H AND G (7:17PM) 42

FIGURE ‎6-20 RUN 2 – DELAYS CROSSING RUNWAY (10 5:43 PM) 42

FIGURE ‎6-21 RUN 2 – CONGESTION TWY H /J INTERSECTION (6:57 PM) 42

FIGURE ‎6-22 SEGREGATED MODE OPTIONS 43

FIGURE ‎6-23 SEGREGATED MODE CAPACITIES 43

FIGURE ‎6-24 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 – HOURLY DEPARTURES 44

FIGURE ‎6-25 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 – HOURLY ARRIVALS 44

FIGURE ‎6-26 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 – HOURLY MOVEMENTS 44

FIGURE ‎6-27 ARRIVALS DELAY – RUN 3 45




FIGURE ‎6-31 DEPARTURES DELAY – RUN 3 46




FIGURE ‎6-35 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 - AVG ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT 47

FIGURE ‎6-36 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 - AVG DEPARTURE DELAY PER FLIGHT47

FIGURE ‎6-37 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 - AVERAGE DELAY PER FLIGHT 47

FIGURE ‎6-38 OPTIONS FOR CDF LOCATION 48

FIGURE ‎6-39 LOCATION OF CDF NEAR INTERSECITON OF TAXIWAYS J AND G 48

FIGURE ‎6-40 RUNS 7 AND 8 – AVERAGE TAXIING DELAY 49

FIGURE ‎6-41 RUNS 7 AND 8 – TAXIING DELAY > 15 MIN 49

FIGURE ‎6-42 BUILDUP OF DEPARTURES – RUN 7 (17:56PM) 50




FIGURE ‎6-45 DUAL LINK TAXIWAY OPTIONS 51

FIGURE ‎6-46 HOURLY DEPARTURES – RUNS 9 TO 12 52

FIGURE ‎6-47 HOURLY ARRIVALS – RUNS 9 TO 12 52

FIGURE ‎6-48 HOURLY RUNWAY MOVEMENTS – RUNS 9 TO 12 52

FIGURE ‎6-49 DIRECTIONAL SPLIT OF TRAFFIC 2025 52

FIGURE ‎6-50 PROPORTIONAL SPLIT OF ARRIVALS 2025 53

FIGURE ‎6-51 PROPORTIONAL SPLIT OF DEPARTURES 2025 53

FIGURE ‎6-52 PROPORTIONAL SPLIT OF ALL FLIGHTS 2025 53

FIGURE ‎6-53 RUNS 9 TO 12 – AVERAGE TAXIING DELAY 54

FIGURE ‎6-54 RUNS 9 TO 12 – MOVEMENTS WITH TAXIING DELAY > 15 MIN 54

FIGURE ‎6-55 RUN 9 ARRIVALS ON 34R HELD FOR EAST FLOW ON TXY J 55

FIGURE ‎6-56 RUN 9 AIRCRAFT HELD FOR WEST FLOW ON TXY J 55

FIGURE ‎6-57 RUN 10 AIRCRAFT HELD FOR EAST FLOW ON TXY J 56

FIGURE ‎6-58 RUN 10 AIRCRAFT HELD FOR EAST FLOW ON TXY J 56

FIGURE ‎6-59 RUN 11 FREEFLOW EAST-WEST ON LINK TAXIWAYS J AND R 57

FIGURE ‎6-60 RUN 12 FREEFLOW EAST-WEST ON LINK TAXIWAYS J AND R 57

FIGURE ‎6-61 RUNS 9 TO 14 – AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAY (TXY D) 58


LIST OF TABLES TABLE ‎1-1 KEY STUDY OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES 4

TABLE ‎1-2 MODELING SCENARIOS 5

TABLE ‎1-3 SUGGESTED RET LOCATIONS 8

TABLE ‎6-1 MODELING SCENARIOS 32

TABLE ‎6-2 AVERAGE DE-ICING TIMES 48

TABLE ‎6-3 EQUIVALENT CODE C - DE-ICING PAD DEMAND 48


TABLE ‎7-2 RUNWAY OCCUPANCY AND CAPTURE FOR RETS 2 AND 3 60



1

1 Executive Summary Subheadingt

1.1. Background Calgary Airport Authority (YYC) has embarked on the preliminary design phase for the proposed new parallel runway with the general layout as shown in Figure 1-1.

Airbiz, as a subconsultant to the Program Manager AECOM Canada Ltd, developed a detailed airspace/airfield model to simulate aircraft movements at future projected traffic levels from arrival/departure in Calgary terminal airspace to terminal apron gates, cargo area and/or de-icing pad positions using ARCport ALTO modelling software. Airbiz consulted extensively with NAVCanada and airline flight operations representatives to ensure modeling inputs were consistent with agreed operating scenarios and that model inputs/outputs were clearly understood when reviewed by the Parallel Runway Program (PRP) Team and outside stakeholders.

The agreed scope of work included the preparation of daily aircraft movement schedules (representative busy day) for 2015 and 2025, development and testing of an airspace and airport simulation model, and reporting on a range of scenarios based on the following key assumptions:

Demand levels at 2015 and 2025

Runway layout (existing vs. airfield with new runway)

Runway direction (north flow and south flow)

Supporting taxiways (proposed enhancements to existing runway, e.g. full extension of Taxiway H and development of Taxiways R or the extension of Taxiway F for 2025 scenario)

Aprons IFP 22 gates for 2015 and IFP full development for 2025

The airfield modeling was driven by projected schedule based on the 90

th percentile (36

th ranked) busy day in the 2008 flight logs. The

Transport Canada High annual growth rates for aircraft movements were applied.

An airfield and airspace simulation model was constructed to test the existing runway system and the proposed parallel runway system. Terminal airspace and taxipaths were defined with the assistance of NAVCanada. Gate allocations were based on CAA reports (IFP and domestic).


2

FIGURE ‎1-1 CALGARY AIRPORT – INDICATIVE FUTURE AIRFIELD LAYOUT

34L

34RNew parallel runway

Single link

taxiway J

16L

16R

Existing main runway

GA Precinct

(south-east)

Passenger

Terminals (north)

GA Customs

(south-west)Cargo

New parallel taxiways –runway entries and exits


3

This study forms part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Operational scenarios have been developed to assess impacts, but these do not purport to dictate operational solutions. Only once the impacts have been assessed as part of the EA process, can any mitigation be suggested and explored through the appropriate processes.

1.2. Study objectives and key outcomes The study objectives and key outcomes are summarised in Table 1-1.

1.3. Methodology This study was workshop based, with the participation of management and technical representatives of the airport authority – Calgary Airport Authority (YYC), the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) – NAVCanada, airlines, and the Environment Assessment (EA) team. Over the course of four workshops the methodology and key assumptions were discussed and agreed, scenarios for modeling formulated and the results of the airspace and airfield model reported and conclusions confirmed.

A state-of-the-art airspace and airport model – ARCPort ALTO was used to construct a simulation model of the airport and the immediate airspace in the vicinity of the airport, with the procedures for air traffic allocation, control and management generally based on current practice, and adapted for the future parallel runway system agreed with NAVCanada. Key modeling assumptions were drawn, where available and appropriate, from an existing NAVCanada fast-time (TAAM) simulation model for the existing airfield.

The main sources of airfield delay were reported separately to identify the weakest links in the airfield system:

Air delay – on approach to the airport

Taxi delay – on the airfield for arriving and departing aircraft

Stand delay – on arrival waiting for a vacant stand

Take-off delay – on departure at stop bar

In addition to reporting average delays for arrivals or departures, reports were provided based on the suggested threshold for ―significant delay‖ to a single aircraft of around 15 minutes. This is based on FAA reporting standards and was agreed with airline operations as the level at which delay starts to severely impact on airline schedules. Delay distribution graphs were provided broken down into arrivals, departures or cause of delay.

Validation of the airfield model constructed for the study and performance included benchmarking against current throughput on each runway during busy periods, and the split between runways.

1.4. Demand Projected busy day schedules The projected busy day schedule is shown in Figure 1-2. It was based on the 90

th percentile (36

th ranked) busy day identified from 2008 flight

logs provided by NAVCanada. This was then projected to 2015 and 2025 by growing daily movements at the Transport Canada High growth forecast for annual aircraft movements.

The current schedule is characterised by a morning departures peak starting around 7am and extending to around 9am (with relatively few arrivals). In the afternoon there is an arrivals peak commencing around 4pm, closely followed by an evening departures peak around 7pm. There is a level of overlap between the extended afternoon arrivals peak and the evening departures peak. This same hourly demand pattern is found in the projected schedules.

FIGURE ‎1-2 PROJECTED BUSY DAY AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS – 2008, 2015, 2025

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2008 Total

2015 Total

2025 Total

Hour commencing

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

De

pa

rtu

res

<>

Arr

iva

ls

2008 Arr 2008 Dep

Afternoon arrivals peak

Morning departures peak

Eveningdepartures peak


4

TABLE ‎1-1 KEY STUDY OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

Key study objectives Outcomes

1. To establish the need for the new parallel runway at 2015 traffic levels - compare congestion and delays for ―do nothing‖ case (no new parallel runway versus with a new parallel runway).

The simulation model showed the existing two crossing runway system with implementation of all planned taxiway enhancements is unable to handle the 2015 representative busy day demand without unacceptable delays.

2. To test the operations of the runway and airfield system for year of opening (2015 busy day) traffic levels assuming segregated mode operations.

The 2015 representative busy day traffic levels require mixed mode operations on both runways to handle the afternoon peak within the limits of acceptable delays.

3. To test the operations of the runway and airfield system for 2025 traffic with a single cross-link taxiway (Taxiway J) compared with a dual cross-link taxiway system (Taxiway R and F).

A single link taxiway system (Taxiway J) at 2015 leads to head-to-head conflicts which result in significant delays for aircraft crossing between the parallel runways and aircraft parking aprons on arrival and departure. There are a number of options to provide a second east-west link which need consideration.

4. To test for any airfield congestion at 2015 traffic levels with the proposed Central De-icing Facility (CDF) at the preferred location.

The scenarios tested for the proposed CDF was for partial mixed mode only a single link (east-west) taxiway. The results of the simulation showed unacceptable delays, but not for any reasons associated with the sizing or location of the CDF. This needs further testing with a runway mode of operation which can handle the forecast traffic for the case without the CDF, and which the CDF can then be superimposed to test any impacts.

5. To provide a preferred parallel taxiway layout for the new parallel runway system (entry and exists onto the runway, including rapid exit taxiways – RETs), and suggest construction staging.

An indicative layout for the parallel taxiway system to serve the new parallel runway has been provided with three rapid exit taxiways (RETs) in each direction; dual runway entries at each runway end, and runway entries for intersection departures of turboprop aircraft towards each runway end. The RETs are generally spaced to capture three different categories of aircraft – turboprops; narrowbody jets and widebody jets.


5

1.5. Scenarios During the course of the study the fourteen scenarios in Table 1-2 were identified for modeling.

Run. Runways Taxiways Facilities Aprons

Runway Mode Flow5 Year4

1 Existing IFP 22 Gates Crossing North 2015

2 Existing IFP 22 Gates Crossing South 2015

3 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Segregated 1 North 2015

4 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Segregated 1 South 2015



7 Parallels Central de-icing IFP 22 Gates Segregated 3 North 2015

8 Parallels Central de-icing IFP 22 Gates Segregated 3 South 2015

9 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025

10 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025

11 Parallels With Txy R IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025

12 Parallels With Txy R IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025

13 Parallels With Txy F ext IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025

14 Parallels With Txy F ext IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025

Notes

1. New runway for arrivals

2. New runway for departures

3. Partial segregated (mixed on existing runway, arrivals on new runway)

4. All traffic is for 90th percentile (36

th rank) projected busy day

5. For each scenario traffic was modeled for north and south flow

TABLE ‎1-2 MODELING SCENARIOS

Figure 1-3 shows the runway modes of operation for these scenarios.

1.6. Outcomes Base case (no parallel runway) 2015 The catalyst for increasing runway capacity (new runway) can be:

deficiency in overall capacity during balanced peak demand

deficiency in arrival capacity during arrivals peak

deficiency of departures capacity during departures peak

The nominal runway capacity for the existing Calgary airfield, as indicated by NAVCanada and supported by anecdotal benchmarking at

other airports with crossing dependant runway operations is for between 55 and 60 total hourly movements.

The projected busy day 2015 schedule has a sustained peak between 5pm and 8pm above 70 hourly movements. Hourly departure demand peaks are above 50 and arrival demand above 40 hourly movements. This compares to 2008 peaks of less than 50 total movements, and under 40 arrivals and departures in respective arrivals and departures peaks.

As expected the simulation showed growing departure queues for both runways, but especially on the main runway, from 5pm onwards, with congestion setting in close to 6pm. The departure queue was managed by interspersing a departure between every arrival. Increasing the arrival rate would result in increased departure congestion and delay.

The demand analysis predicted this, and the simulation demonstrated that the level of projected delays is well beyond the accepted criteria. Average delays during the afternoon and evening peaked were reported as over 60 minutes per arrivals and 7 minutes per departure.

For the arrivals, 14% incurred no delay, and 33% some delay, but less than 15 minutes. For the roughly 240 movements between 4pm and 8pm, more than half were delayed more than 15 minutes. The arrivals delays above 15 minutes were almost exclusively air delay, symptomatic of the need for additional runway arrival capacity.

Parallel runway 2015 The capacity of a single arrival and single departure runway (segregated mode operations) is not adequate to meet the projected 2015 busy day demand. The delays during the afternoon in particular were found to be well beyond the thresholds of acceptable delay established for this study. Additional arrivals capacity is required and it was agreed for the projected 2015 busy day traffic levels the existing runway should be used for mixed mode, and the new runway would be dedicated to arrivals. Of course, the occasional ultra-long haul departure requiring the full length of the new parallel runway would be permitted.

Parallel runway 2025 At the traffic levels for the projected 2025 busy day, it was clear from the model outcomes that a single crossing taxiway (Taxiway J) would result in unacceptable delays to taxiing aircraft. Two way flows between the parallel runways in mixed mode operations creates head-to-head conflicts on Taxiway J.


6

Crossing Runways – Runs 1 and 2 Segregated Mode Operations – Runs 3 to 6

Partial Mixed Mode Operations – Runs 7 and 8 Full Mixed Mode Operations – Runs 9 to 14

FIGURE ‎1-3 RUNWAY MODES OF OPERATION FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS

Crossing Runways 28/34 Crossing Runways 10/16

New runway arrivals New runway departures

34L 34R

16L16R

34L 34R

16L16R


7

Central De-icing Facility (CDF) A proposed Central De-icing Facility (CDF) was tested at Location B, near the intersection of Taxiways J and G.

The assumptions for number of bays and average throughput times for the various categories of aircraft were provided by HMM and YYC based on previous studies.

FIGURE ‎1-4 OPTIONS FOR CDF LOCATION

The purpose of the simulation was to test any impacts of taxiway congestion for a facility at location B (one of three options being considered) with 2015 busy day traffic (considered a conservative assumption).

The results of the simulation highlighted the lack of departure capacity, particularly in the evening peak, where coincidence of the arrivals peak meant that arrivals and departures were being accommodated on the existing runway resulting in long queues and congestion. This congestion would also impact on the CDF, irrespective of the location.

An additional departures runway (i.e. operation of full mixed mode during the evening peak) would only partially solve the problem. The lack of a second east-west link taxiway creates cross-flow problems similar to that shown in the scenario modeled without Taxiway R (noting that the scenario modeled was at the higher 2025 traffic level).

The conclusions were that the sizing and location of the CDF can only be properly tested once the runway mode of operation at 2015 to handle the peak runway arrivals and departures has been resolved in principle. The runway mode will impact on the planning of taxiway flows to efficiently handle the ground sort of traffic for mixed mode operations. All of these decisions need to be resolved in principle, before the longer term location of a CDF in terms of taxiway congestion can be tested reliably.

Taxiways R and extension of Taxiway F An additional crossing taxiway (east-west) on the proposed alignment of Taxiway R was tested. The elimination of head-to-head conflict gave a noticeable improvement to airfield performance.

The timing issue associated with relocation of existing infrastructure on the alignment of Taxiway R was acknowledged. Alternatives to achieve the ―racetrack‖ patterns of one-way flows on the taxiways linking the two parallel runways are illustrated in Figure 1-5:

Use of the planned Taxiway E, with an extension west as far as Taxiway C (after relocation of some limited existing infrastructure).

Development of Taxiway R on a more southern alignment to reduce conflict with existing infrastructure just south of Taxiway J.

A southern link with the extension of Taxiway F to join the parallel taxiway system of the new runway.

The extension of Taxiway F was seen as the most promising alternative and was tested as a modeling scenario, and showed similar improvements to flows as the Taxiway R scenario.

34L/16R is departures rwy in 2015

A

B

C


8

FIGURE ‎1-5 DUAL LINK TAXIWAY OPTIONS

Recommended parallel taxiways for new runway A preliminary design for the taxiways associated with the new parallel runway was provided as the basis of modeling. Part of the brief for this study, required a more detailed analysis to provide a recommended layout for the entry and exit taxiways on the parallel runway.

The general philosophy was to provide three sets of RETs in each direction. The first is to capture the smaller aircraft in the fleet (such as Dash8 turboprops), the second narrowbody jets (such as B737 and A320) and the third to capture widebody jets (such as the A330 and B777). The recommended rapid exits commence turn out of the parallel runway at the locations in Table 1-3 and shown in Figure 1-6.

Runway RET Recommended distance from runway threshold

34R D2 Between 1,200 and 1,300m


34R D4 Around 2,500m

16L D7 Between 1,200 and 1,300m


16L D3 Around 2,500m

TABLE ‎1-3 SUGGESTED RET LOCATIONS

The detailed geometric design should consider this as guidance of the preferred location, but other considerations need to be:

the assumed exit speed from the RET to the parallel taxiway system (we have assumed 15 knots, but it should be confirmed that aircraft are not expected to come to a complete stop

1)

alignment with the taxiways onto which the RETs terminate (for example a confirmed alignment of future Taxiway R for RET D2 and D3 and a future northern IFP taxiway for RET D5).

The study also provides discussion and guidance on:

Taxiway B and D phasing to minimise impacts on or from flight operations on the new parallel runway during future stages of construction

runway entry points for full length departures and intersection departures at Taxiways D1 and D8

the proposed eastern parallel taxiway system.

1.7. Other considerations The existing runway system has been optimized for crossing runway operations and with the opening of the new runway there may be an opportunity for retrofit of the existing runway for optimized parallel operations before traffic demand builds up post 2015 and crossing Runway 28/10 is still operational.

Decisions will need to be made on the need to retain the 28/10 runway in the long term to ensure two east-west runways are available to meet future demand when strong cross-wind conditions mitigate the use of the parallel 16/34 runway system.

1 Discussion with NAVCanada centred around the new parallel runway

being used predominantly for arrivals, with minimal conflicts to be considered with departure flows on the parallel taxiway system. However, the recommendations for RET locations need to be made on the long term use of the parallel runway in mixed mode operations. There is a school of thought that for safety considerations, RETs should not line up directly to cross-taxiways, to force aircraft to come to a complete stop before entering the parallel taxiway system. This is in harmony with the aim of RETs to get the aircraft of the runway as quickly as possible, minimize runway occupancy and maximize runway capacity.

34L

34R

Txy R

Txy R

south

Txy F

Southern

link

Txy E

west


9

FIGURE ‎1-6 INDICATIVE TAXIWAY LAYOUT FOR PARALLEL RUNWAY


10

2 Introduction 2.1. Background

Calgary Airport Authority (YYC) has embarked on the preliminary design phase for the proposed new parallel runway as shown schematically in Figure 2-1 (preliminary layout only).

Airbiz, as a subconsultant to the Program Manager AECOM Canada Ltd, developed a detailed airspace/airfield model to simulate aircraft movements at future projected traffic levels from arrival/departure in Calgary terminal airspace to terminal apron gates, cargo area and/or de-icing pad positions using ARCport ALTO modelling software. Airbiz consulted extensively with NAVCanada and airline flight operations representatives to ensure modeling inputs were consistent with agreed operating scenarios and that model inputs/outputs were clearly understood when reviewed by the Parallel Runway Program (PRP) Team and outside stakeholders.

The agreed scope of work included the preparation of daily aircraft movement schedules (representative busy day) for 2015 and 2025, development and testing of an airspace and airport simulation model, and reporting on a range of scenarios based on the following key assumptions:

Demand levels a 2015 and 2025

Runway layout (existing -―do nothing‖ vs. airfield with new runway)

Runway direction (north flow and south flow)

Supporting taxiways (proposed enhancements to existing runway, elements of Taxiway H and development of Taxiway R for 2025 scenario)



11

FIGURE ‎2-1 CALGARY AIRPORT – INDICATIVE FUTURE AIRFIELD LAYOUT

34L

34RNew parallel runway

Single link

taxiway J

16L

16R

Existing main runway

GA Precinct

(south-east)

Passenger

Terminals (north)

GA Customs

(south-west)Cargo

New parallel taxiways –runway entries and exits


12

2.2. Study objectives The study objectives were:

1. To establish the need for the new parallel runway at 2015 traffic levels - compare congestion and delays for ―do nothing‖ case (no new parallel runway versus with a new parallel runway)

2. To test the operations of the runway and airfield system for year of opening (2015 busy day) traffic levels assuming segregated mode operations

3. To test the operations of the runway and airfield system for 2025 traffic with a single cross-link taxiway (Taxiway J) compared with a dual cross-link taxiway system (Taxiway R)

4. To test for any airfield congestion at 2015 traffic levels with the proposed Central De-icing Facility (CDF) at the preferred location

5. To provide a preferred parallel taxiway layout for the new parallel runway system (entry and exists onto the runway, including rapid exit taxiways – RETs), and suggest construction staging.

2.3. Methodology Overall methodology The study included analytical work undertaken by Airbiz to support development of traffic forecasts, the airfield simulation model and the taxiway analysis for the new parallel runway.

The study was ―workshop based‖, with participation of senior key representatives of the airport authority (Calgary Airport Authority – YYC), the air navigations service organisation (ANSO) – NAVCanada, airline flight operations specialist, the programme managers (AECOM) and members of the design team (HMM).

Assumptions and preliminary results were presented at these stakeholder workshops for discussion and agreements. Four workshops were held over the 5 months from May to October 2009.

Demand The following main tasks were undertaken to derive a daily demand profile for use in airfield modelling: 1. From historical total aircraft movements and associated Transport

Canada (TC) aircraft movements forecasts, plot the annual movements out to 2025 under a range of scenarios

2. Using the 2008 calendar year flight logs, plot the daily movements (excluding helicopters) for the whole year. Ranking the days by total daily movements, show various metrics for the selection of a representative busy day

3. Compare these metrics with those used in previous studies

4. Using days on either side of the selected busy days (under the range of metrics), compare the daily profile of hourly movements to ensure the selected day is ―representative‖ for the profile at this traffic level.

A high level justification for the use of the Transport Canada High forecast growth rates for long term planning purposes was provided.

Modeling The scope of the Calgary Airport airfield model extended from the aircraft stands to the boundaries of the airport terminal area, where airspace routes were defined. This means aircraft enter the airspace at the defined inbound ―bedposts‖ and exit the airspace essentially at the bounds of the terminal airspace. Inbound, aircraft follow the assigned Standard Terminal Approach Route (STAR) to the relative runway and then taxi to the assigned gate. All parallel runway models had only the initial climb and final approach leg. No Ground Service Equipment (GSE) was modeled.

The aircraft performance parameters were separated into five main groups as per the classifications provided in NAVCanada data. These groups included Wide Body Jets (WBJ), Narrow Body Jets (NBJ), Light Jets (LJ), Turbo Props (TP) and Pistons (P).

The separation standards between aircraft for wake vortex and in the terminal area were based on the rules applied at all airports across Canada and defined in the ATC MANOPS document produced by NAV Canada.

Runway entry and exit points used by aircraft on each runway were provided by Calgary ATC. Gate allocation was predominantly governed by the schedule created through the demand analysis process and the


13

adjacency constraints set for gates. For specific allocation within a certain apron, aircraft were allocated in the schedule based on a Gate Matrix dated May 2009 provided by the Airport Authority, and future plans with the proposed IFP terminal expansion. Remote parking assumptions were also developed as part of the modeling process.

The detailed technical assumptions were issued during the course of the study for review and agreement by the stakeholders. This included airfield layout, aircraft performance assumptions, airfield and airspace management parameters and detailed diagrams of taxiway routes and flow constraints for each scenario.

The operation of the existing airfield was modeled based on detailed discussion and input from NAVCanada, included assumptions in NAVCanada’s own airspace/airfield model (developed using TAAM software).

Each of the scenarios was modeled for northerly flow (Runway 34 direction) and southerly flow (Runway 16 direction).

In order to complete the study within the required timeframe the number of scenarios was limited to those agreed at the start of the study, with the model then available for supplementary scenarios to explore issues and alternatives in further detail.


14

3 Data and Review

3.1. Previous studies The following data on forecasts and schedules was collected:

YYC – Aviation Forecasts 2007-2026 – Transport Canada

YYC – Aviation Forecasts Update April 2009 – Transport Canada

Passenger Forecasts 2008 – Calgary Airport Authority

Northern Summer Schedule 24-30Aug 09 – YYC

Northern Winter Schedule 26Jan-01Feb 09 – YYC

Other main reference documents reviewed included:

Airfield Planning/Demand Capacity Analysis (Sept 2007)

Supplement to 2007 Demand/Capacity Analysis (Feb 2008)

YYC BC Concourse Study 2008 (Jan 2009)

YYC Apron 1 De-icing Study Report (Jan 2009)

NAVCanada also provided ―flight logs‖ for the calendar year 2008, which included details of every flight such as flight number, aircraft type, arrival and departure times, origin/destination.

Weather data for the 2008 calendar year was obtained from the National Climate Data and Information Archive.

3.2. Consultations The main forums for consultation with key stakeholders were the four workshops where assumptions were tested and findings of analysis were presented and critiqued.

In addition one-on-one sessions were held at various times with YYC and airlines on air traffic forecasts, and with NAVCanada on airspace and airport procedures and detailed air model assumptions. This included sessions in Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton where various specialist staff were located.

Correspondence by email was also used to confirm assumptions with stakeholder organisation technical specialists as the need arose to confirm key operational parameters and assumptions.


15

3.3. Workshops Four workshops were held over the course of the study. All were held in the offices of the Calgary Airport Authority with participation of key representatives from the airport, NAVCanada, the EA program manager and environment and engineering team (AECOM and HMM) and airline operations specialists.

The date, objectives and outcomes are summarised in the following tables.

The active constructive contribution of all participants is acknowledged and greatly appreciated.

Workshop 1

Dates 11th and 12th May 2009

Objectives Introduction of Project and Workshop; Update of first public meetings; Objectives of study and Study program.

Session 1 – Demand

Objectives of Demand Task

Overview of Methodology

Current Traffic, Nature of Calgary Demand, Annual Forecasts, Review of Updated Transport Canada Forecasts, Calgary Air Service Development

Selection of Representative Day

Session 2 – Airfield Model

Scope of model, airspace and airfield layout and assumptions

Key airside issues

Confirmation of Scenarios to be Run

Outcomes The outcome will be a representative day schedule for 2015 and 2025 that will:

Form the basis of airspace/airfield, noise, GHG emission and pavement analysis (annuals)

Be built from a 2008 representative busy day

Use the high forecast scenario from Transport Canada and argue this choice by comparing past forecasts with actual growth

Be downsized/updated to provide a suitable scenario to run de-icing scenarios, peak loading of specific apron areas and other sensitivities as required

Include up gauging and increased frequency on existing markets and additional routes based on internal and external consultations

Pier usage – Jazz at B/C; WJ – west of B/C; AC – east of B/C


16

Workshop 2

Dates 28th and 29th June 2009

Objectives Review - Workshop 1 Summary; Overall Study and Workshop 2 Objectives; Progress to date

Review and provide comments on Discussion Paper – Selection of Representative Day

Provide justification of use of TC high forecast

Confirm the projected schedule

Confirm the de-icing schedule

Sign-off of airfield simulation assumptions document and the discussion paper on selection of a representative busy day, and the airfield modelling scenarios.

Discussion of delay criteria

Outcomes The Demand Task’s outcome will be a representative day schedule for 2015 and 2025 to be used as the basis of airspace/airfield, noise and GHG emission modelling tasks

Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) Method to be used with 2008 Flight Logs to select a representative to be grown using trends in passenger/aircraft, peak hour to day and peak hour to year ratios (subsequently agreed to use 90th percentile busy day) – later changed to 90th percentile busy day (refer to discussion in the body of this report)

Confirmed that 2009 schedule is an appropriate base from which to grow future schedules

Assumed that the base case will be used as the basis for the various ratios unless otherwise advised

Additional consultations required to identify new markets and growth markets in each sector when building from existing 2009 schedule

Confirmation of airfield simulations assumptions, selection of representative day and airfield model assumptions.

Workshop 3

Dates 17th and 18th August 2009

Objectives Review of the outcomes from Workshop 2, the overalls study and workshop 3 objectives; progress to date

Base Case 2015 (no new runway) review of assumptions – demand, airspace, airfield and airfield system performances, delays statistics

Presentations of analysis and conclusions for base case

Conclusions from modeling of Parallel Runway 2015 alternatives - Segregated mode – new runway for arrivals; Segregated mode – new runway for departures

Defining of assumptions for scenarios 7 – 12 - Mixed mode operations 2025; De-icing – schedule, single facility location; Taxiway R

Considerations for analysis of new runway taxiway locations

Outcomes Base case demonstrates need for new runway by 2015. Words in report to describe 2025 without new runway.

EA to consider delays costs of not proceeding.

Single runway cannot handle 2015 evening arrivals peak.

Use mixed mode in peaks on existing runway. Balance traffic / accommodate overflow of arrivals based on compass mode.

Modeling report to emphasize that basis for delay assessment is good weather (there are sub-optimal days – eg base case limited to single runway)

• Arrivals peak in 2015 requires arrivals on two runways - assume mixed mode on existing runway and arrivals only (except long haul departures) on new runway – allocate arrivals in peak hours using compass mode

• Consider additional scenarios to model the above

• Assist EA in developing scenario for terminal compass and mixed mode runway distributions to check extent of NEF contour under “worst conditions”


17

• Airbiz to issue further supplement to assumptions after confirmation with NAVCanada on mixed (compass) mode operations, including 15º departure divergence on new runway

• Modeling for de-icing to use 2015 schedule for 90% day (conservative assumption) and location B with entry from Txy J and exit to join Txy H, assuming mixed mode on existing runway and arrivals only on new runway. HMM to provide update location and supplementary reports. Cargo (ramp 7 and 9) de-ice on apron. Include frost spray (worst case). GA de-icing at central facility.

• Taxiway locations for new runway to assume

– three RETs (not MP with four RETs – which has geometric problems)

– dry runways (in wet auto brake settings can mean quicker stop)

– intersection departures for Props only and duplication of departure entry points (by-pass) at 16L and 34R thresholds

– initial build of full inner parallel taxiway, and partial build of central outer(reserve alignment for full dual parallel txy on new runway to potentially serve IFP north and aprons on SW side of 34R)

– airlines to confirm operational performance data, contacts and anecdotal comments on existing runway

• Note the NAVCanada 50 sec consistent actual ROT required to move to 2.5NM arrival separations (capacity benefit)

• EA assesses operational scenarios for impacts, it does not dictate to operational solutions (as per YVR) – EA and modeling report to make sure appropriate emphasis of this point. Starting point is what is best for YYC – assess impacts and any mitigation required.

Workshop 4

Dates 13th October 2009

Objectives Review of the outcomes of scenarios 7 to 12 (mixed mode 2025 with and without Taxiway R, central de-icing facility 2015)

Review of the recommended entry and exit taxiways for the new parallel runway.

Review of the draft Final Report

Outcomes There was discussion about the possibility of directing all aircraft to a single CDF. It was noted that frost-spray on Apron 1 for early morning departures would not necessarily provide a benefit in reducing load on a CDF – as the CDF would be operational in a precipitation event (different to the weather in which early morning frost-spray is required). It was unclear as to the optimum solution – from airfield operations two CDF’s in proximity to each runway may be preferred, but from a manpower perspective a single CDF is preferred.

It was acknowledged and clearly understood by all participants that the runway system requires a balance between airspace, runways, taxiways and aprons. Optimisation of one element can impact the requirements of other elements – eg unbalanced airspace design, means that optimum throughput of the combined a parallel runway system is not achieved; runway mixed operations on parallels to achieve runway throughput requires additional taxiway elements (dual cross-links to mitigate head-to-head conflict on TXY J, with resulting delays); the addition of a second cross-link (for example to the south such as TXY F extension) creates opportunities for a viable alternative CDF location.

Discussions revolved around future fleet mix and noted that Calgary had a high proportion of Trans-border in the international traffic, and increased frequency with growth in demand, rather than increasing aircraft size –continuing propensity to the use of Code C narrowbody jests.

The inclusion of Taxiway F would not preclude the need for the proposed extension of Taxiway H. Even in the TXY F


18

scenarios there was two-way (north-south) flow split between TXYs C and H. Deletion of the extension of TXY H extension would result in head-to-head conflicts on sections of TXY C (and the wave effect as illustrated on TXY J for east-west flow in mixed mode on parallel, with no second east-west cross link at TXY R or TXY F).

NAVCanada acknowledged the need to address balance of traffic between the two parallel runways in the airspace preliminary design – and there were options that would be available, either through revision to bedpost concepts or minor air-sort.

As semi-mixed mode did not provide adequate peak throughput, a scenario with mixed mode and with balanced runway usage was suggested. When the nominal sizing of a CDF for all traffic was confirmed, and an alternative location, probably south of TXY U to accommodate a CDF of this size was confirmed, a scenario at 2015 with mixed mode on both runways, balanced traffic, with and without TXY F, could be run – to quantify the benefits of the second east-west link.


19

4 Demand 4.1. Introduction

A projected representative busy day schedule for 2015 and 2025 was required to drive the airfield models.

A number of separate analytical tasks were undertaken to prepare these detailed aircraft movement schedules. The first step was to review historical total aircraft movements and associated Transport Canada (TC) aircraft movement forecasts and select appropriate future growth rates to apply to existing annual and busy daily air traffic movements. The 2008 calendar year flight logs were used to plot daily movement totals (excluding helicopters) for the whole year. The days were then ranked by total daily movements, and various metrics applied for the selection of a representative busy day. These metrics were then compared with those used in previous studies. Using days on either side of the selected busy days (under the range of metrics) the daily profile of hourly movements were compared to ensure the selected day is ―representative‖ for the profile at this traffic level.

A high level justification for the use of the Transport Canada High forecast growth rates for long term planning purposes was provided.

4.2. Transport Canada annual forecasts Figure 4-1 shows historical total aircraft movements and associated Transport Canada (TC) aircraft movements forecast to 2025 under a range of scenarios.

The annual aircraft movement projections used in the 2007 Demand/Capacity study are significantly higher, particularly in the short term, than both the 2008 High and Base case TC forecasts.

Transport Canada growth rates TC issues long-term passenger and aircraft movement forecasts for YYC. This data was analysed to determine how YYC traffic movements had historically related to TC forecast traffic movement forecasts. Forecasts dating back to 1998 were reviewed against actual traffic at YYC. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 indicate that actual aircraft movements trend closer to the High TC aircraft movement forecasts than the Base TC forecasts.

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show that the High TC passenger forecasts have trended closer to the actual forecast passenger movements that the Base TC values.


20

FIGURE ‎4-1 ANNUAL AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS – HISTORICAL AND FORECAST

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

All A

irc

raft

Mo

ve

me

nts

Historic Itinerant Base Itinerant High Itinerant YYC FltLog 2008 Total L&B 2007 Forecast Scenario

2015 20252007 Study

TC Base

TC High

2008 Flight Logs

Historic


21

It was concluded from this analysis that actual aviation activity at YYC has tracked closer to the High TC forecasts than the Base TC forecasts. The High TC forecasts are confirmed as appropriate to forecast the 2015 and 2025 projected schedules for long term planning purposes.

FIGURE ‎4-2 TRANSPORT CANADA HIGH AIRCRAFT FORECAST

FIGURE ‎4-3 TRANSPORT CANADA BASE AIRCRAFT FORECAST

FIGURE ‎4-4 TRANSPORT CANADA HIGH PASSENGER FORECAST

FIGURE ‎4-5 TRANSPORT CANADA BASE PASSENGER FORECAST

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Th

ou

sa

nd

s

Historic Aircraf t Movements 2009 (BASE) 2009 (HIGH) 1999 (BASE) 1999 (HIGH)

2002 (BASE) 2002 (HIGH) 2003 (BASE) 2003 (HIGH) 2004 (BASE)

2004 (HIGH) 2005 (BASE) 2005 (HIGH) 2006 (BASE) 2006 (HIGH)High TC Forecasts (Various base years)

Historic aircraft movements

The High Case TC forecasts appear to have better estimated the current

aircraft movement forecasts at YYC.

High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Th

ou

sa

nd

s



2004 (HIGH) 2005 (BASE) 2005 (HIGH) 2006 (BASE) 2006 (HIGH)Base TC Forecasts (Various base years)

The Base Case TC forecasts appear to under-estimate the current aircraft movement forecasts

at YYC.


High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

Mil

lio

ns



2004 (HIGH) 2005 (BASE) 2005 (HIGH) 2006 (BASE) 2006 (HIGH)

High TC Forecasts (Various base years)

High TC forecasts have

appeared to trend closer to the actual and

trend pax movements

for YYC.

Historic passenger movements

High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

Mil

lio

ns





High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts (Various base years)

Base TC forecasts

have appeared to trend consistently below the

actual and trend pax

movements for YYC.


22

4.3. 2015 and 2025 traffic levels and indicative profile Projected 2015 and 2025 aircraft traffic levels were estimated by increasing hourly and daily movements proportionally with TC High total aircraft movement forecast growth rates.

4.4. Representative busy day There is no single industry accepted method for selection of a representative busy period (day, hour or hours) for airfield modeling.

A range of metrics from the literature and used in airport planning practice were derived from analysis of the Calgary Airport flight logs for the 2008 calendar year provided by NAVCanada (EXCDS). These were compared and based on the requirements to model the airfield under a range of (geometric) scenarios and the 90th percentile day was considered the most appropriate for use in the EA airfield modelling task..

Analysis of the 2008 YYC flight logs suggested that the Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) method of busy day selection (as suggested by the FAA and used as a basis for the 2007 airfield study) results in total daily movements that are too lowly ranked and may underplay the potential congestion points and any augmentation of infrastructure to ensure effective and efficient ground flow.

For this reason the 90th percentile day (the 36

th ranked day based on

total daily movements) was adopted as the most appropriate to select a representative day for the airfield simulation. The 90

th percentile day

represents a daily aircraft movement demand level which is exceeded on average at least every second week and is considered a reasonable basis for planning and justification of infrastructure investment. The 90

th percentile day from the 2008 flight logs is Wednesday 10

September 2008.

Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show the 2008 calendar year flight logs (excluding helicopters) for the whole year chronologically and by ranking the days by total daily movements.

Figures 4-8 confirm that the hourly movement profiles of 90th percentile

day from the 2008 flight logs are representative of similarly ranked days.

4.5. Projected schedule Figure 4-9 shows hourly movement projections based on the 2008 flight log 90

th percentile day and the High TC aircraft movement

forecast growth rate. The actual projected schedules were built based on growth of specific market segments (international, transborder, domestic, cargo and general aviation, and on an individual movement basis).

Helicopters movements were not included in the airfield modelling, or in the schedules developed for the modeling.

The total daily International and Domestic traffic in the daily schedule was grown at the TC annual forecast rate and flights were added to the schedule based on consultation and background knowledge of scheduling opportunities and constraints, potential new destinations or increased frequency to accommodate growth to current or target markets. The ―speculative‖ nature of this projection means that it should be considered to be a scenario to facilitate realistic airfield modelling, rather than a true ―forecast‖ future schedule.

The unscheduled traffic in the 2008 flight logs were reviewed for any obvious patterns. Traffic in this segment was grown in line with the TC annual forecast growth rate. To the extent possible, the current fleet mix, and proportions of traffic in terms of arrivals/departures and origins/destination were preserved when projecting traffic to the target daily levels.


23

FIGURE ‎4-6 2008 DAILY FIXED WING ARRIVALS/DEPARTURES

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1212 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1212 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Fix

ed

Win

g M

ovem

en

ts p

er

Day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Tuesday, 1 January 2008

Friday, 1 February

2008

Saturday, 1 March 2008

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Thursday, 1 May 2008

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Tuesday, 1 July 2008

Friday, 1 August 2008

Monday, 1 September

2008

Wednesday, 1 October

2008

Saturday, 1 November

2008

Monday, 1 December

2008

Fix

ed

Win

g M

ovem

en

ts p

er

Day

Busy Day Typical Week Peak Month

90% Day

Peak Month Average Week Day

Peak Month Average Day


24

FIGURE ‎4-7 2008 RANKED DAILY MOVEMENTS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

141

145

149

153

157

161

165

169

173

177

181

185

189

193

197

201

205

209

213

217

221

225

229

233

237

241

245

249

253

257

261

265

269

273

277

281

285

289

293

297

301

305

309

313

317

321

325

329

333

337

341

345

349

353

357

361

365

Ran

ked

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

Day

WeekdayMvts WeekendMvts PMAD PMAWD BDTWPM 90th % Day



90th % Day


Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) appears low for a representative busy day


25

FIGURE ‎4-8 PROFILE FOR 90TH

PERCENTILE AND SIMILARLY RANKED DAYS

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

De

pa

rtu

res

,<--

|-->

Arr

iva

ls

20/06/2008 90% Day +2 A 20/06/2008 90% Day +2 D 23/10/2008 90% Day +1 A 23/10/2008 90% Day +1 D

10/09/2008 90% Day A 10/09/2008 90% Day D 5/03/2008 90% Day -1 A 5/03/2008 90% Day -1 D

4/09/2008 90% Day -2 A 4/09/2008 90% Day -2 D

The 90th % Day has a profile representative of other similarly ranked busy days

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

ho

ur


26

FIGURE ‎4-9 BUSY DAY PROFILE 2008, 2015 AND 2025

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

De

pa

rtu

res

<>

Arr

iva

ls

2008 Arr 2008 Dep 2015 Arr 2015 Dep 2025 Arr 2025 Dep


27

4.6. De-icing schedule Historical total aircraft movements from the 2008 flight logs were ranked according to daily total movements. The various busy metrics were identified, and ―cold weather days‖ in Figure 4-10 were marked in blue (other weekdays are in dark grey and weekends in light grey).

FIGURE ‎4-10 BUSY DAY ANAYSIS 2008 – COLD WEEKDDAYS AND WEEKEND

Weather data for the 2008 calendar year was obtained from the National Climate Data and Information Archive was used to classify the ―cold weather days‖ and ―icy days‖.

Generally cold weather days are lower ranked (have less than the busy day total aircraft movements).

Daily movement profiles were extracted for days identified in the weather record as cold or icy weekdays and plotted against the hourly movement profiles for the representative (90

th percentile – 36

th ranked)

busy day. Cold weekday peaks are lower the busy day and are icy weekdays. The profile for the selected representative ―busy‖ cold day (31/1/08) was compared separately against the profile for the 90

th

percentile busy day (10/09/08) (shown by the yellow line). This is shown in Figures 4-11, 4-12 and 4-13.

FIGURE ‎4-11 HOURLY AIRCRAFT – 2008 COLD WEEKDAYS

FIGURE ‎4-12 HOURLY AIRCRAFT – 2008 ICY WEEKDAYS

7/9/2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

141

145

149

153

157

161

165

169

173

177

181

185

189

193

197

201

205

209

213

217

221

225

229

233

237

241

245

249

253

257

261

265

269

273

277

281

285

289

293

297

301

305

309

313

317

321

325

329

333

337

341

345

349

353

357

361

365

Ran

ked

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

Day

WeekdayMvts WeekendMvts Cold Weather Weekday PMAD PMAWD BDTWPM 90th % Day

Busiest cold weather day is 31st Jan 2008 (99th Ranked Day)Busiest cold weather day is 31st Jan 2008 (99th Ranked Day)



90th % Day


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

28/01/2008

29/01/2008

30/01/2008

31/01/2008

1/02/2008

4/02/2008

10/09/2008

15/12/2008

18/12/2008

19/12/2008

22/12/2008

23/12/2008

Cold weekday peaks appear lower than 90% dayCold weekday peaks appear lower than 90% day

Hourly aircraft movements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

28/01/2008

29/01/2008

30/01/2008

4/02/2008

10/09/2008

15/12/2008

19/12/2008

Icy weekday peaks appear lower than 90% dayIcy weekday peaks appear lower than 90% day



28

FIGURE ‎4-13 REPRESENTATIVE 2008 ―COLD DAY‖ VS 90TH

BUSY DAY

The 31st January 2008 was originally suggested as the basis for

developing the projected de-icing schedule for airfield modelling. The projected schedule would then have been developed by modifying the 90

th percentile projected 2015 schedule to reflect differences evident in

the 2008 base days.

However, after discussion at Workshop 3, it was suggested that the hourly movements in the 2008 flight logs, being actual arrival and departure times (not scheduled) had a degree of ―smoothing‖ – flights delayed or cancelled due to adverse weather. Hence as a conservative assumption the same 2015 projected busy hour (based on the 2008 90

th percentile (36

th ranked), busy day) was used as for other

simulation scenarios.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

31/01/2008

10/09/2008

Peaks appear flattened in busy cold weekday (31/1/2008)Peaks appear flattened in busy cold weekday (31/1/2008)



29

5 Airfield Model 5.1. Background

The simulation model used in this study was ARCPort ALTO, a 4th

generation airport simulation tool. All the major geometrics, procedural and operational assumptions in the model were derived in consultation and agreement with NAVCanada. NAVCanada have their own simulation model for the existing Calgary Airport layout and this was interrogated to ensure compatibly between the base assumption in between their model and that developed for this study.

ARCport ALTO ARCport is a 4th generation airport simulation model, and being aggressively developed to fill a perceived niche as an overall airport simulation tool. The complete process from curbside, through terminal, aircraft boarding and aircraft movement area can be modelled. The airside model includes the required terminal airspace to ensure the orderly flow of aircraft to and from the runways. ARCport has been sold to a growing number of airports around the globe, including Calgary.

NAVCanada TAAM model TAAM is a 3rd generation ―fast time‖ airspace and airport simulation model. It was developed in Australia by an Australian government research arm and commercialised with support from the Airservices Australia (a government business enterprise and the Australian Air Traffic Services (ATS) provider). Its original emphasis was on airspace design (en-route) and was used on major re-sectorisation studies involving evaluation of controller workload. Over the years the airport components (runways, taxiways and apron) were developed. It has been used extensively by ATS providers (such as FAA, Japanese, Australian, New Zealand (Airways Corporation), Dutch (NLR), Swiss (Skyguide), German (DFS), UK (NATS) and NAVCanada).

NAVCanada have used TAAM for internal studies for all major Canadian airports.


30

5.2. Model assumptions Detailed model assumptions were developed for each set of scenarios, documented and issued for comment.. They include specification of:

Runway modes of operation modeled

Airspace layout

Standard Terminal Approach Routes (STAR’s)

Standard Instrument Departures (SID's)

Airspace segmenting and sorting

Airfield layout including

— Runways and Taxiways

— Apron locations

— Airport reference point, elevation and magnetic variation

Aircraft performance

— Aircraft classification groups

— Aircraft performance parameters and exceptions

Airfield Management

— Runway entries and exits

— Gate allocation and constraints

— Remote parking

— Taxi routes and flow constraints

— Apron entry and exit routes

Airspace Management

— Approach and departure flight plans

— Separation standards

— Wake vortex separations

— Terminal separation

— Departure stagger

— Arrival stagger (intersecting runways)

— Mixed operation stagger (intersecting runways)

— Origin destination groups

The scope of the Calgary Airport airfield model extended from the final approach to the aircraft stands on arrival and from the aircraft stands to the initial departure climb. The airfield infrastructure (and airspace arrangements) were adjusted appropriate to the scenario being modeled. The base case included STAR’s and SID’s up to the edge of the terminal airspace. The de-icing throughput times were sourced from previous reports for use in the de-icing scenarios,.

5.3. Model validation The model was validated by comparing runway throughput for the existing crossing runway system in the 10/16 and 28/34 directions with that achieved in practice (based on the stated assumption that the airfield is operating close to practical capacity at certain times).

5.4. Acceptable delay Capacity is a measure of processing capability of a system – in this case the runway system as a whole, or specific elements. Capacity is measured as the number of aircraft operations that can be processed during a specific unit of time, such as an hour, a day, or a year. Delay refers to the difference between the scheduled time of arrival or departure and the actual arrival or departure. This can be measured at an airport for a sample hour or day or can be calculated in simulation models. It can be averaged as minutes of delay per aircraft arrival and/or departure over a specified sample period, and will depend on a wide range of factors. These include the airspace allocation and routes close to the airport, the runway configurations and combinations of runways in use, and the operational rules (including those related to the weather conditions).

The following quote succinctly summarises the dilemma in reporting on airport capacity (particularly the airfield system – airspace, runway, taxiways and aprons), some of the measure commonly in use and the concept of “acceptable delays”.

“One problem encountered when assessing future airport capacity needs is the lack of consistent data on the current capacities in Europe. This is partly because there are many definitions of airport capacity. In Europe, each major airport (also known as scheduled or slot controlled airports) is required to declare their capacity as part of the slot scheduling, air traffic flow management (ATFM) regulation and airport coordination process [European Commission, 2004]. But as [de Neufville & Odoni, 2003] note, there is no generally accepted definition of declared capacity and no standard methodology for setting it. It is


31

essentially the responsibility of each airport, under guidance from its civil aviation organisation, to set its own capacity and to self-report it. As a result, declared capacities vary from airport to airport, EU member state to member state. There is no independent audit of these self-declared capacities and in many cases little supporting evidence to verify the veracity of the calculations.

The concept of practical capacity –also called operational, saturation or sustainable capacity –is intrinsically based on a certain level of service. [Newell, 1979] defines sustained capacity as a maximum average flow that a facility can accommodate over a time period long enough to include a large count (say 100 or more) and which could, in principle, be sustained for an infinitely long time. Practical capacity is also defined as the maximum number of entities that can be served in a given period of time under conditions when the average delay imposed on each entity does not exceed a level prescribed in advance [Hockaday & Kanafani, 1974; Horonjeff & McKelvey, 1994]. The paradox with the definition of operational capacity is that it can be changed –enhanced or reduced -by keeping all the factors affecting ultimate capacity unchanged (infrastructure, ATC equipment or operational procedures), but varying the acceptable level of delay. In this way, a major European airport increased capacity by 8% during peaks by increasing the acceptable level of delay from 4 to 8 minutes, everything else remaining unchanged. ”

2

The US Federal Aviation Administration discusses the exponential and volatile nature of the relationship between demand, capacity and delay which is common to many similar ―queuing systems‖ and illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 5-1.

“Experience shows that delay increases gradually with rising levels of traffic until the practical capacity of an airport is reached, at which point the average delay per aircraft operation is in the range of 3 to 5 minutes. Delays increase rapidly once traffic demand increases beyond this level. An airport is considered to be congested when average delay exceeds 5 minutes per operation. Beyond this point delays are extremely volatile, and a small increase in traffic, adverse weather conditions, or other disruptions can result in lengthy delays

2 Climate Related Air Traffic Management - Final Report, 25/02/09,

Dr Tom Reynolds & Dr David Gillingwater Omega (Opportunities for Meeting the Environmental Challenge of the Growth in Aviation)

that upset flight schedules and impose a heavy workload on the air traffic control system.”

3

FIGURE ‎5-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIRFIELD DELAY AND DEMAND

While, as discussed above, airport delay criteria are often measured against the average hourly delay over a period (aggregate measures), other criteria include maximum delay to an individual aircraft (distributive measures - for example for the threshold of 15 minutes)

4.

In this study it was agreed to report on both average delays over the projected representative busy day, and the number movements above the threshold of ―unacceptable delay‖ at which point there are serious impact airline schedules, of 15 minutes.

The delays are also separately reported for arrivals and departures, to understand the cause of delay in the airport system and suggest mitigation measures to improve performance and efficiency.

3 Federal Aviation Administration Report to Congress, National Plan of

Integrated Airport Systems (1998-2002), March, 1999. 4 Refer Chapters 10 and 11, Airport systems planning, design and

management, de Neufville and Odoni, (McGraw Hill, 2003)


32

6 Scenarios 6.1. Scenarios

During the course of the study the fourteen scenarios in Table 6-1 were identified for modeling. The runway modes of operation for the various scenarios are illustrated in Figure 6-1.

Run. Runways

Taxiways Facilities Aprons Runway Mode Flow5 Year4

1 Existing IFP 22 Gates Crossing North 2015

2 Existing IFP 22 Gates Crossing South 2015





7 Parallels Central de-icing IFP 22 Gates Segregated 3 North 2015

8 Parallels Central de-icing IFP 22 Gates Segregated 3 South 2015

9 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025

10 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025

11 Parallels With Txy R IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025

12 Parallels With Txy R IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025

13 Parallels With Txy F ext IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025

14 Parallels With Txy F ext IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025

Notes

1. New runway for arrivals

2. New runway for departures

3. Partial segregated (mixed on existing runway, arrivals on new runway)

4. All traffic is for 90th percentile (36

th rank) projected busy day

5. For each scenario traffic was modeled for north and south flow

TABLE ‎6-1 MODELING SCENARIOS

The full range of runway modes of operation and capacities, sourced from the 2007 airfield capacity study are shown in Figure 6-2, for the record. For the base case (do nothing) option in this study only the main modes of operation of the existing airfield were modelled – 10/16 and 28/34 – which according to the 2007 data are used for close to 98% of time. Of these the 28/34 combination is the most predominant, with around 73% usage and an hourly aircraft movement capacity of between 60 and 65, depending on the arrival/departure proportions. Figure 6-2 also shows that in adverse weather conditions the airport can be confined to a single runway with a significant reduction in capacity.


33

Crossing Runways – Runs 1 and 2 Segregated Mode Operations – Runs 3 to 6

Partial Mixed Mode Operations – Runs 7 and 8 Full Mixed Mode Operations – Runs 9 to 14

FIGURE ‎6-1 RUNWAY MODES OF OPERATION FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS



34L 34R

16L16R

34L 34R

16L16R


34

FIGURE ‎6-2 EXISTING RUNWAY MODES AND USAGE

34L

25

07

16R

34L

25

07

16R

34L

25

07

16R

34L

25

07

16R

Mode 1: ARR 10/16 DEP 10/16 Mode 2: ARR 28/34 DEP 28/34 Mode 3: ARR 16 DEP 16 Mode 4: ARR 34 DEP 34

Annual Usage: 23.4% 73.4% 0.3% 1.8%

Arrival Push: 78 Arrival Push: 65 Arrival Push: 52 Arrival Push: 52

Departure Push: 72 Departure Push: 60 Departure Push: 52 Departure Push: 52

Mixed Use: 80 Mixed Use: 65 Mixed Use: 52 Mixed Use: 52

* Capacity and usage figures from L&B report:

“Supplement to 2007 Demand/Capacity Analysis”


35

Runs 1 and 2 - base case “Do Nothing” (no parallel runway) This case included all planned taxiway enhancements to the current airfield (including full extension of H) prior to 2015.

The two main modes (northern flow with Runways 28/34 and southern flow with 10/16) were modeled. The use of 10/28 in combination with 25 was not modeled, as it is only used when wind conditions (Chinook) force its use (only 1.2% of the time).

This series tested the existing layout. Runs 1 and 2 have the addition of full build of the taxiway system (including the northern extension of Taxiway H) to support the existing runway system. It is the ―do nothing‖ option in the Environmental Assessment (EA), and looked at the degradation of performance of the airfield system as traffic builds to the project 2015 level under the predominant (and highest capacity) runway modes of operation for north and south traffic flow using crossing runways. All runs included apron development of IFP to 22 gates. In the unlikely event that the enhanced airfield with no new runway provided satisfactory performance, then further runs would have been undertaken to test a more limited airfield augmentation (deletes Taxiway H north). As anticipated, Runs 1 and 2, with Taxiway H north, were unable to cope adequately with 2015 demand and there was no need to model the existing airfield layout without this taxiway.

Runs 3 to 6 - 2015 parallel runways segregated modes This series tested the parallel runway layout on day of opening (2015) and included the IFP aprons with 22 gates.

Two flows directions were modeled – north and south, using the summer schedule (representative busy day – 90

th percentile, 36

th

ranked).

In Workshop 1 it was suggested that on day of opening the additional capacity of the parallel runway system over the current crossing runways may permit use of segregated runway modes of operation. However, there were diverging opinions on which runway would be used for arrivals and which for departures. The assumptions for the two alternative segregated modes were identified and debated, such that the simulation model was to be employed to provide analysis for further consideration and decision making.

The simulation demonstrated the need to provide additional arrival capacity in the afternoon peak using mixed mode on one of the runways (for this period). In discussion it was agreed that the preference was for mixed mode (arrivals and departures) on the

existing runway and arrivals only on the new parallel runway, until demand requires mixed mode on both runways. Of course ultra-long haul flights requiring the additional length available on the new parallel runway would be permitted on that runway. NAVCanada suggested that the allocation of departure runway will be based on ―compass mode‖ (based on runway closest to the direction of the destination, mitigating the need for ―air sort‖ – crossovers of departing aircraft on outbound tracks).

Runs 7 and 8 – centralized de-icing facility This series tested the parallel runway layout at 2015 (winter) demand with de-icing in operation.

The winter demand was to be based on the base (summer schedule) modified (appropriately scaled down) to reflect schedule changes between summer and winter and absolute level of aircraft movement demand. However, at Workshop 3 the nature of demand in the flight logs was discussed. It was suggested that this already contained some ―smoothing‖ of demand across the day, and conservatively it was agreed to used the same demand profile (projected 90

th percentile

busy day) as in the other model scenarios.

The 2015 demand assumed the IFP aprons with 22 gates, and two flows were modelled – north and south.

In Workshop 1 it was explained that there were three (3) options for the location of the central de-icing facility (CDF) under consideration. At Workshop 3 it was agreed that the location opposite Pier B/C, south of Taxiway J with the supporting entry and exit taxiways would be modeled in the first instance.

At Workshop 3 it was reported that peak arrival demand at 2015 was beyond the capacity of a single runway and segregated mode operations would not be viable. It was agreed that ―semi-segregated‖ mode would be modeled for this scenario, with departures on the existing runway and arrivals split between the existing and the new parallel runway.


36

Runs 9 and 10 - 2025 parallel runway mixed mode This series tested the parallel runway layout at 2025 demand and included the IFP aprons with full build.

Two flows were modeled – north and south, using the summer schedule (representative busy day). In Workshop 1 it was agreed that at this point demand would require the additional capacity afforded by adopting mixed mode on the parallel runway system.

Taxiway congestion opposite the terminal areas was anticipated due to inadequate cross-taxiways links. The delays were compared with the scenarios having an additional E-W links (Taxiway R).

Runs 11 and 12 – 2025 with Taxiway R This series tested the parallel runway layout for the projected 2025 representative busy day, for both north and south flow, assuming that the addition of the cross-taxiway link Taxiway R will add operational flexibility and efficiency to make mixed mode operations in peak periods more viable.

Alternative layouts to achieve dual cross-link taxiways are discussed including partial implementation of Taxiway R in 2015. This recognizes the difficulty in displacement of existing infrastructure along the alignment of Taxiway R in the short term. Partial implementation would include elements of Taxiway R in those areas with the least constraints and which would permit construction of passing loops for east-west taxiway flows. Other alternatives would be moving Taxiway R further south or the use of Taxiway E with an extension through to Taxiway B to achieve dual cross links.

Runs 13 and 14 – 2025 with Taxiway F extension This series tested the parallel runway layout for the projected 2025 representative day, for both north and south flow, assuming that the addition of the cross-link Taxiway F extension (in lieu of Taxiway R) will add operational flexibility and efficiency to make mixed mode operations in peak periods more viable.

This was seen as a better short-term alternative to the construction of Taxiway R which would require extensive relocation of existing infrastructure. An extension of Taxiway F would, however, require an underpass for the existing McCall Way.

6.2. Outcomes runs 1 and 2 – “Do Nothing” Existing Runways The layout of the existing runways and main modes of operation for northern or southern flow is shown in Figure 6-3. The airfield was modeled for this scenario included all proposed new taxiways and taxiway enhancements associated with the existing runway system, such as the full extension of Taxiway H.

FIGURE ‎6-3 BASE CASE – EXISTING CROSSING RUNWAYS / NO NEW RUNWAY

The catalyst for increasing runway capacity (new runway) is driven by:

deficiency in overall capacity during balanced peak demand

deficiency in arrival capacity during arrivals peak

deficiency of departures capacity during departures peak

The nominal runway capacity as indicated by NAVCanada and supported by anecdotal benchmarking at other airports with crossing dependant runway operations is for between 55 and 60 hourly movements.

The 2015 schedule has a sustained peak between 5pm and 8pm above 70 hourly movements. Hourly departure demand peaks are above 50 and arrival demand above 40 hourly movements. This



37

compares to 2008 peaks of less than 50 total movements, and under 40 arrivals and departures in respective arrivals and departures peaks.

As expected the simulation shows growing departure queues for both runways, but especially on the main runway, from 5pm onwards, with congestion setting in close to 6pm. The departure queue is managed by interspersing a departure between every arrival. Increasing the arrival rate would result in increased departure congestion and delay.

The demand analysis predicted this, but required the simulation to demonstrate the level of projected delays.

Figure 6-4 compares the overall 2008 busy day profile and the 2015 projected busy day profile with the shaded bars showing indicative crossing runway capacities, as confirmed by the simulation.

FIGURE ‎6-4 RUNWAY DEMAND VS CAPACITY 2008 AND 2015

The separate arrivals and departures demand vs. capacity for 2008 and 2015 is compared in Figures 6-5 and 6-6. The dark line shows the demand profile, and the shaded line across the day shows the capacity range for the existing runway system (with taxiway enhancements).

The hourly bars lightly shaded in the background show the corresponding arrivals demand for the departures graph and the corresponding departures demand for the arrival graph.

FIGURE ‎6-5 RUNWAY ARRIVALS DEMAND VS CAPACITY 2008 AND 2015

At the 2008 busy day traffic levels the afternoon arrivals peak is approaching the arrivals capacity of the existing runway system. This situation was confirmed by stakeholders at the workshop.

With the projected increase of traffic to 2015 the demand clearly exceeds arrivals capacity over an extended period from 4pm to 8pm.

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2008

Demand

Capacity

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2015

Demand

Capacity

2008

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Arrivals

Demand

Capacity

Departures

2015

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Demand

Capacity

Departures


38

Similarly the 2008 morning departures peak is just above the nominal departures capacity for a relatively short period. During this period the arrival demand is relatively low.

However, by 2015, with the projected demand the morning peak considerably exceeding the departures capacity for a few hours, and the lower evening departures peak (coincident with the extended arrivals peak) approaches the departures capacity.

FIGURE ‎6-6 RUNWAY DEPARTURES DEMAND VS CAPACITY 2008 AND 2015

The modeling confirmed these conclusions. The modeled peak throughput of about 56 hourly movements matches with 2008 flight log peak hour (actual) movements (verifying that the airfield is close to capacity at 2008 peak traffic levels).

Figure 6-7 shows the overall hourly demand highlighting the afternoon peak (coincidence of extended afternoon arrivals peak overlapping the evening secondary departures peak).

FIGURE ‎6-7 HOURLY DEMAND 2008 AND 2015

Figure 6-8 shows the hourly throughput (aircraft movements processed by the runway system) during this afternoon peak with northerly flow. The demand in 2015 of around 70 hourly movements is well above the achieved capacity of around 56 hourly movements.

FIGURE ‎6-8 HOURLY DEMAND 2008 AND 2015 VS THROUGHPUT RWYS 28/34

The separate demand and throughput for arrivals and departures for this afternoon peak is show in Figure 6-9.

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Departures

2008

Capacity

Arrivals

Demand

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Capacity

Arrivals

Demand

2015

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hourly by Departures /Arrivals

0

20

40

60

80

16 17 18 19 20

Throughput

Demand

2008

2015


39

FIGURE ‎6-9 2015 ARR AND DEP DEMAND VS RWY 28/34 THROUGHPUT

From the airfield model, delays were reported under the categories of: total, air, taxi; stand, service and takeoff delay. These are plotted in Figure 6-10 for the existing runway system in the 28/34 directions.

The arrival delays build significantly from the hour commencing 5pm, with the average delay per arrival from 4pm to 8pm being 43 minutes. There were 150 arrivals in this period, with 75% incurring delay above the 15 minute threshold for ―significant delay‖.

FIGURE ‎6-10 ARRIVAL DELAY FOR 28/34 MODE AT 2015

The departure delays peak after 6pm as the delays build from previous hours. Average delay per departure from 4pm to 8pm is 6 minutes. The total departures in this period are 89 and 11% of have delays above 15 minutes.

FIGURE ‎6-11 DEPARTURE DELAY FOR 28/34 MODE AT 2015

For southerly flow in the ―do nothing‖ scenarios (Runways 10/16 use), Runway 16R handles around 65% of the traffic and Runway 10 around 35%. In this case the busy hour throughput is 56 movements (29 arrivals and 27 departures). But, as shown in Figure 6-12, the crossing runway system cannot handle the peak demand at 2015, even with the proposed taxiway enhancements.

The modeled peak throughput of about 57 hourly movements matches with 2008 flight log peak hour (actual) movements (assumes airfield is close to capacity at 2008 peak traffic levels).

0

20

40

60

80

16 17 18 19 20

Throughput

Arr

Dep

Demand

Arr

Dep

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Arrival Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

34L

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Departure Delays

Total Delay Air Delay

Taxi Delay Stand Delay

Service Delay Takeoff Delay


40

FIGURE ‎6-12 HOURLY DEMAND 2008 AND 2015 VS THROUGHPUT RWYS 10/16

Figure 6-13 shows the separate demand and throughput for arrivals and departures for this afternoon peak.

FIGURE ‎6-13 2015 ARR AND DEP DEMAND VS RWY 10/16 THROUGHPUT

The delays build significantly from 5pm. Average delay per arrival from 4pm to 8pm is more than 60 minutes. There are 150 arrivals in this period and 67% of these are delayed more than 15 minutes.

FIGURE ‎6-14 ARRIVALS DELAY FOR 10/16 MODE AT 2015

The departure delays peak in the hour commencing 6pm as they build from previous hours. Average delay per departure from 4pm to 8pm is 4 minutes. For the 89 departures in this period only 3% are delayed more than 15 minutes.

FIGURE ‎6-15 DEPARTURES DELAY FOR 10/16 MODE AT 2015

0

20

40

60

80

16 17 18 19 20

Throughput

Demand

2008

2015

0

20

40

60

80

16 17 18 19 20

Throughput

Arr

Dep

Demand

Arr

Dep

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Arrival Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

16R

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00A

ve

rag

e d

ela

y p

er

flig

ht

Hour commencing

Departure Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay


41

In the peak period 17% of total movements incurred no delay, and 38% some delay, but less than 15 minutes. This meant that 45% of movements in the afternoon peak incurred more than 15 minutes of delay. This is a significant proportion of movements not meeting the airfield performance criteria. Translated into number of movements, for the roughly 240 movements between 4pm and 8pm, almost half are delayed more than 15 minutes. The delays above 15 minutes are almost exclusively air delay for arrivals indicating the need for additional arrival runway capacity to meet peak demand.

Some screen shots from the simulation model illustrating areas of congestion are shown in Figures 6-17 to 6-19 (aircraft are color coded – red for arrivals and green for departures). However, the most significant issue for the ―do nothing case‖ is in fact the inability of the existing crossing runway system to meet arrival demand. This would mean that aircraft would be held in the air waiting for an arrival slot or held on the ground at the port of origin. At the level of delay found in the model, scheduled airlines or aircraft operators (non-scheduled) would probably cancel or reschedule flights (where possible).

FIGURE ‎6-16 RUN 1 – 28/34 DEPARTURE QUEUE AT RWY 28 END (7:17PM)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Arr

Dep

T = 19:17pm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Arr

Dep

T = 19:17pm


42

FIGURE ‎6-19 RUN 2 – QUEUES ON TAXIWAYS H AND G (7:17PM)

FIGURE ‎6-20 RUN 2 – DELAYS CROSSING RUNWAY (10 5:43 PM)

FIGURE ‎6-21 RUN 2 – CONGESTION TWY H /J INTERSECTION (6:57 PM)


43

6.3. Outcomes runs 3, 4, 5 and 6 – segregated modes 2015 Four scenarios were modeled for segregated mode operations with the 2015 projected busy day traffic. Runs 3 and 4 assumed the new runway was used for arrivals in both the 34 and 16 directions, and runs 5 and 6 assumed that the new runway was used for departures in both the 34 and 16 directions. Figure 6-22 shows that In all cases the segregated mode of operation assumed that there was one runway for arrivals only and one for departures only.

FIGURE ‎6-22 SEGREGATED MODE OPTIONS

The capacity of a single arrival and single departure runway (segregated mode operations) is not adequate to meet the projected 2015 busy day demand. The delays during the afternoon in particular were found to be well beyond the thresholds of acceptable delay established for this study. Additional arrivals capacity is required and it was agreed for the projected 2015 busy day traffic levels the existing runway should be used for mixed mode, and the new runway would be dedicated to arrivals. Of course, the occasional ultra-long haul departure requiring the full length of the new parallel runway would be permitted. NAVCanada have suggested that the allocation of arrivals runway (and departure in other modes) will be based on ―compass mode‖ (based on runway closest to the direction of the origin, mitigating the need for ―air sort‖ – crossovers of aircraft on flight tracks).

Segregated mode combinations where in one direction the new runway is used for arrivals and in the other direction for departures were rejected on the basis of safety – consistency of operations on specific runways – always an arrivals runway or always a departures runway, irrespective of flow direction.

The current and future (retrofitted) Cat II landing capability of the existing runway versus the designed capability of the new runway was raised as a safety issue in favour of the new runway as the preferred arrival runway in segregated mode. It is understood that this issue is the subject of further studies.

The need for ultra-long haul departures (especially freighters) requiring the new longer runway was raised as an issue in favour of the new runway as the preferred departures runway in segregated mode.

The overall runway demand peak for the busy day in 2015 (TC High growth) is 72 mvts/hr. Peak arrivals demand is 44 mvts/hr and departure demand is 50 mvts/hr. Segregated mode has a single arrivals runway and single departures runway. Simulation gave a range of hourly aircraft throughputs (capacities); the averages were 33 arrivals and 44 departures. Figure 6-23 shows the arrival and departure throughputs (capacities) for the four segregated mode runs. There is a shortfall in arrival capacity of some 12 mvts/hour and in departure capacity to meet the peak hourly demand quoted above.

FIGURE ‎6-23 SEGREGATED MODE CAPACITIES


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Demand Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6

Arrivals

Departures

D e p a r t u r e s

A r r i v a l s


44

The overall runway peak throughput was between 58 and 65 movements. The measured peak throughput is purely related to the relative arrivals and departure demand compared to the separate capacities. However, because the arrivals and departure runways are independent, the theoretical runway capacity could be the sum of the separate capacities assuming balanced demand - between 69 and 81 movements if the arrival and departure streams are concurrently at their maximum.

Figure 6-24 shows that, based on throughput in the simulation, the demand in the morning departures peak is handled adequately.

FIGURE ‎6-24 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 – HOURLY DEPARTURES

Figure 6-25 shows that the arrivals demand in the afternoon peak is beyond the runway arrivals capacity in all scenarios, based on throughput recorded in the simulation,

FIGURE ‎6-25 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 – HOURLY ARRIVALS

Figure 6-26 shows the simulation total hourly aircraft throughput confirming that the single arrival runway fails to handle the afternoon (arrivals) peak.

FIGURE ‎6-26 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 – HOURLY MOVEMENTS

9/9/2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Demand

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

H o u r l y r u n w a y m o v e m e n t s - d e p a r t u r e s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Demand

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

H o u r l y r u n w a y m o v e m e n t s - a r r i v a l s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Demand

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

T o t a l h o u r l y r u n w a y m o v e m e n t s


45

In the segregated mode with arrivals on the new runway (in either direction) there is not enough single runway arrival capacity to meet the sustained afternoon demand from 4pm onwards of above 34 arrivals per hour. In the model the delays grow to levels that would never be tolerated in practice as shown in Figures 6-27 and 6-28.

FIGURE ‎6-27 ARRIVALS DELAY – RUN 3


In segregated mode with arrivals on the existing runway (in either direction) the existing runway handles the morning single hour of departures peak with minimal delays. In the model the delays grow to levels that would never be tolerated in practice. This shown in Figures 6-29 and 6-30, and is similar to the situation with the new runway as the arrivals runway.



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Arrival Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Arrival Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Arrival Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Arrival Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay


46

In segregated mode with arrivals on the new runway (in either direction) the existing runway handles the morning single hour of departures peak with minimal delays. Figures 6-31 and 6-32 show that there is some delay waiting for pushback and taxiing, but these are within acceptable limits.

FIGURE ‎6-31 DEPARTURES DELAY – RUN 3


In with segregated mode with departures on the new runway (in either direction) the single runway handles the morning single hour of departures peak with minimal delays. Long taxi to departure queue from GA aprons provides more time and opportunity for delays. Departures from SW apron must cross active runway. Delays are generally within acceptable limits, as shown in Figures 6-33 and 6-34.



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Departure Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Departure Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Departure Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Av

era

ge

de

lay

pe

r fl

igh

t

Hour commencing

Departure Delays

Total Delay

Air Delay

Taxi Delay

Stand Delay

Service Delay

Takeoff Delay


47

In segregated modes with arrivals on the new runway (runs 3 and 4) the air delay on arrivals limits the capacity of the system. Almost half the arrivals incur more than 15 minutes delay, with many at the levels that would not be tolerated in practice. The airfield copes with taxiing, take-off and stand delay for practically all movements less than 15 minutes.

Similarly, in segregated modes with departures on the new runway (runs 5 and 6) the air delay on arrivals limits the capacity of the system. Almost half the arrivals incur more than 15 minutes delay, with many at the levels that would not be tolerated in practice. The airfield copes with taxiing, take-off and stand delay for practically all movements less than 15 minutes.

Figure 6-35 compares all segregated mode runs – north and south, new runway for arrivals or new runway for departures, showing the delay per arrival in the afternoon peak with only a single arrivals runway is beyond that which would be tolerated in practice.

FIGURE ‎6-35 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 - AVG ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT

Figure 6-36 compares all segregated mode runs – north and south, new runway for arrivals or new runway for departures, and shows that there is generally adequate departures capacity to handle the projected 2015 traffic levels.

FIGURE ‎6-36 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 - AVG DEPARTURE DELAY PER FLIGHT

Overwhelmingly the afternoon arrivals peak being beyond the capacity of a single arrivals runway is the primary source of delay under any segregated more scenario for 2015 traffic as shown in Figure 6-37.

The limit on arrivals runway capacity acts as a filter to the airfield system (taxiways and aprons) to keep these delays within acceptable limits in all scenarios.

FIGURE ‎6-37 SEGREGATED MODES 2015 - AVERAGE DELAY PER FLIGHT

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Avera

ge D

ela

y p

er

Fli

gh

t

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Avera

ge D

ela

y p

er

Fli

gh

t

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Avera

ge D

ela

y p

er

Fli

gh

t

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

Arrivals delay

Minutes

Departures delay


48

6.4. Outcomes runs 7 and 8 - central de-icing facility Three locations, as shown in Figure 6-39, have been considered for the proposed Central De-icing Facility (CDF).

FIGURE ‎6-38 OPTIONS FOR CDF LOCATION

It was agreed that the Location B would be tested with the simulation, as it would eventually be able to serve departures on both runways. A representative layout for this location near the intersection of Taxiways J and G is shown in Figure 6-39.

The assumptions for number of bays and average throughput times for the various categories of aircraft were provided by HMM and YYC based on previous studies. Table 6-2 shows the average de-icing time by aircraft size category (rounded up to the nearest minute).

Aircraft Code Average de-icing time (min)

B 10

C 13

D 16

E 25

TABLE ‎6-2 AVERAGE DE-ICING TIMES

FIGURE ‎6-39 LOCATION OF CDF NEAR INTERSECITON OF TAXIWAYS J AND G

The maximum number of bays in a CDF to meet 2015 representative busy day peak departure demand, was calculated using an analytical model. Table 6-3 shows the calculated pad requirements for a range of ―centralisation‖ assumptions, based on Code C sizing (one Code E aircraft equates to two Code E pads).

Traffic directed to CDF No Pads

All aircraft (incl GA, excl Cargo) 18

All Apron 1 aircraft 11

IFP traffic only 6

TABLE ‎6-3 EQUIVALENT CODE C - DE-ICING PAD DEMAND

A test simulation for all aircraft directed to a 6 bay CDF confirmed the static calculation - 6 bays did not meet peak demand. The full simulation was then run for only IFP traffic and a 6 bay CDF. The simulation showed that during the morning peak five bays were in use between 7am and 8am during the morning peak. This included

34L/16R is departures rwy in 2015

AB

C


49

widebody aircraft which have a longer average de-icing time and are assumed to require more room (the sizing of the 6 bays is for 6 x Code C aircraft). The simulation was run with 2015 busy traffic, and partial mixed mode for runway operations. This assumed that all departures were allocated to the existing runway 34L/16R. Arrivals were split between the existing Runway 34L/16R and the new parallel Runway 34R/16L, according to ―compass mode‖ (i.e. there was ―air sort‖ rather than ―ground sort‖).

The results of the simulation highlighted the lack of departure capacity, particularly in the evening peak The coincidence of the arrivals peak meant that some arrivals and all departures using the existing runway resulting in long queues and congestion. For example in northern flow (departures on 34L and arrivals on both 34R and 34L), the departure queue on Taxiway C built up to the extent that arrivals to the GA area were blocked behind the departure queue. This congestion would also impact on the CDF, irrespective of the location. This is shown in the sequence of screen captures between 6pm and 8pm for Run 8 in Figures 6-42 to 6-44.

The opening up of an additional departures runway on 34R (i.e. operation of full mixed mode during the evening peak) would only partially solve the problem. The lack of a second east-west link taxiway would create cross-flow problems similar to that shown in the scenario modeled without Taxiway R (noting that the scenario modeled was at the higher 2025 traffic level).

The conclusions were that the sizing and location of the CDF can only be properly tested once the mode of operation at 2015 to handle the peak runway arrivals and departures has been resolved in principle. This will also require decisions on the taxiway flows to efficiently handle the ground sort of traffic for mixed mode operations. The issue of balancing runway demand for arrivals in the peak for compass mode (see subsequent discussion on outcomes of runs 9 -12), also needs to be addressed, before the longer term location of a CDF in terms of taxiway congestion can be tested reliably.

Figure 6-40 shows the average taxiing delay per movement during the period 6am to 10pm. This and Figure 6-41 show that for the afternoon peak period after 4pm, the percentage of movements with taxiway delay greater than the critical 15 minute threshold escalates sharply.

The delays shown in these figures highlight the issues discussed above and the queuing for the single departures runway clogging the airfield and leading to unacceptable delays.

FIGURE ‎6-40 RUNS 7 AND 8 – AVERAGE TAXIING DELAY

FIGURE ‎6-41 RUNS 7 AND 8 – TAXIING DELAY > 15 MIN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ave

rage

Tax

iing

De

lay

pe

r Fl

igh

t(m

in)

Clock Hour

Run 7

Run 8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

% o

f M

ovem

en

ts D

ela

yed

> 1

5 m

in

Clock Hour

Run 7

Run 8


50

FIGURE ‎6-42 BUILDUP OF DEPARTURES – RUN 7 (17:56PM)




51

6.5. Outcomes runs 9 - 14 - parallel runway 2025 with/out Txy R and Txy F extension At the traffic levels for the projected 2025 busy day, it was clear from the model outcomes that a single crossing taxiway (Taxiway J) would result in unacceptable delays to taxiing aircraft. Two way flow between the parallel runways in mixed mode operations creates head-to-head conflicts on Taxiway J.

An additional crossing taxiway (east-west) on the proposed alignment of Taxiway R was tested. The elimination of head-to-head conflict gave a noticeable improvement to airfield performance.

The timing issue associated with relocation of existing infrastructure on the alignment of Taxiway R was acknowledged. Alternatives to achieve the ―racetrack‖ patterns of one-way flows on the taxiways linking the two parallel runways are illustrated in Figure 1-5:

Use of the planned Taxiway E, with an extension west as far as Taxiway C (after relocation of some limited existing infrastructure).

Development of Taxiway R on a more southern alignment to reduce conflict with existing infrastructure just south of Taxiway J.

Development of a southern link by extending Taxiway F to join the southern section of Taxiway B – the parallel taxiway system of the new runway.

These are illustrated in Figure 6-45. The benefits of the extension to Taxiway F was considered in further analysis.

Mixed mode operations on both runways at 2025 means that there are two arrival and two departure runways available at all times. It would be expected that air delay and departure queue delay for these scenarios would be within acceptable limits.

However, the model showed in the afternoon arrivals peak, and especially when the evening departures peak is superimposed, the runway system throughput is not keeping up with demand. NAVCanada suggested the airspace segmentation based on origin/destination. This may need some modification during NAVCanada's own planning processes, to ensure demand to each runway is ―balanced‖.

These are illustrated in Figures 6-46 to 6-48. These show that based on throughput recorded in the simulation, the demand in the morning departures peak is handled adequately in all scenarios.

FIGURE ‎6-45 DUAL LINK TAXIWAY OPTIONS

Based on the simulation outputs, in all scenarios, the arrivals demand in the afternoon peak is not reflected in the throughput. The simulation total hourly aircraft throughput shows that the two arrival runways fail to handle the afternoon (arrivals) peak.

Air delay recorded in the afternoon peak (implying aircraft are being held in the air or at the ground at their origin) increases sharply to beyond 60 minutes per aircraft after 5pm in all 2025 mixed mode scenarios.

Analysis of aircraft runway assignment shows that with three (3) bedposts for the new runway translates to more demand and bias to the new runway which, based on the simulation results will have to be balanced with cross-overs to achieve the required 2025 throughput. In addition, 6NM separation is generally applied between arrivals to ensure departures can fit in between. The average separation between successive arrivals is 135 seconds based on an average approach speed of 160kts. This translates to a capacity of 27 movements an hour. In the simulation (and reality) not all aircraft achieve the approach speed of 160kts, as they need to slow for landing, resulting in additional loss of capacity.

34L

34R

Txy R

Txy R

south

Txy F

Southern

link

Txy E

west


52

FIGURE ‎6-46 HOURLY DEPARTURES – RUNS 9 TO 12

FIGURE ‎6-47 HOURLY ARRIVALS – RUNS 9 TO 12

FIGURE ‎6-48 HOURLY RUNWAY MOVEMENTS – RUNS 9 TO 12

Analysis of the schedule for 2025, split by Origin/Destination on which the airspace gatepost and runway allocation is made, illustrates the bias for arrivals from the East (new runway), and departures to the West (existing runway) during the afternoon peak. Figures 6-50 to 6-53 shows this in terms of absolute movements and percentage splits East vs. West between arrivals and departures.

FIGURE ‎6-49 DIRECTIONAL SPLIT OF TRAFFIC 2025

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Demand

Run 9

Run 10

Run 11

Run 12

H o u r l y r u n w a y m o v e m e n t s - d e p a r t u r e s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Demand

Run 9

Run 10

Run 11

Run 12

H o u r l y r u n w a y m o v e m e n t s - a r r i v a l s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Demand

Run 9

Run 10

Run 11

Run 12

T o t a l h o u r l y r u n w a y m o v e m e n t s

-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

0123456789

1011121314151617181920212223

Aircraft Movements

Ho

ur

Arrival West

Arrival East

Departure West

Departure East

EastWest


53

FIGURE ‎6-50 PROPORTIONAL SPLIT OF ARRIVALS 2025

FIGURE ‎6-51 PROPORTIONAL SPLIT OF DEPARTURES 2025

FIGURE ‎6-52 PROPORTIONAL SPLIT OF ALL FLIGHTS 2025

The above comments relate to ―air sort‖ rather than ―ground sort‖ (which would impact the on-airport supporting taxiway infrastructure), which was to be the primary focus of the simulation modeling. In fact the imbalance in arrival capacity may act as a ―filter‖ reducing the number of aircraft on the taxiways at any point in time during the (reduced) peaks.

The relative airfield performance with and without a second cross-link taxiway was compared in terms of taxiway delays – in absolute terms, in average per movement and the number of movements above the ―acceptable delay‖ threshold of 15 minutes.

Figure 6-53 shows the average taxiing delay per movement during the period 6am to 10pm. For runs 9 and 10 (north flow – RWY 34, and south flow – RWY 16, respectively) without Taxiway R, average delay peaks around 8 minutes per movement in the morning and afternoon busy periods. With the addition of Taxiway R, the average delay is generally half that reported without the taxiway, peaking around 4 minutes.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324

East

West

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324

East

West

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324

East

West


54

FIGURE ‎6-53 RUNS 9 TO 12 – AVERAGE TAXIING DELAY

Figure 6-54 shows the percentage of movements with taxiway delay greater than the critical 15 minute threshold for each hour of the day. As may be expected, for the runs without Taxiway R, the head to head conflicts on Taxiway J translate to some 20% of movements in busy periods being delayed more than 15 minutes. Again, the addition of Taxiway R roughly halves the percentage of movements with taxiing delay greater than 15 minutes.

FIGURE ‎6-54 RUNS 9 TO 12 – MOVEMENTS WITH TAXIING DELAY > 15 MIN

Figures 6-55 to 6-58 illustrate the ―wave nature‖ of operations caused by a single east-west link taxiway. While aircraft are crossing in the easterly direction (arrivals or departures depending on the mode and the runway/apron specific for the aircraft) those aircraft needing to cross in the westerly direction are held on the parallel taxiway system of the respective parallel runway. Once the aircraft on the single crossing Taxiway J have cleared the taxiway, the wave of held aircraft can use the taxiway in the opposing direction and new aircraft wanting to cross in the other direction are held. These delays to taxiing aircraft waiting for Taxiway J in their direction of travel accumulate, and can average up to 8 minutes per movement during peak periods. This can translate to up to 15% of all taxiing aircraft incurring a delay above the 15 minute threshold. With the addition of Taxiway R, a freeflow east-west route is created (Figures 6-59 and 6-60).

The illustrations are all at similar times in the afternoon peak.

Figures 6-55 to 6-58 demonstrate that due to the bi-directional operation of Taxiway J, delay was incurred on Taxiway H and C to the west and on Taxiway D to the east. The benefit of the second connection between the two parallel runways was clearly seen in the taxiway delay figures on Taxiway D. This was due to the fact that most arrivals on 16L/34R were required to use Taxiway J while it is in bi-directional operation in Runs 9 and 10. The delay on Taxiway C and H also captured delay at other locations along these two taxiways that may not have been related to the effect of Taxiway J being the one connection between the two runways. Runs 11-14 didn’t have the same bi-directional flow on Juliet or the other East-West connection (Taxiways R or F).

Figure 6-61 show the average taxiway delay peaks at around 5 minutes on Taxiway D for Runs 9 and 10, while Runs 11 to 14 (with the second east-west taxiway link – either Taxiway R or an extension of Taxiway F) exhibit no delay above 30 seconds for the evening peak.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Ave

rage

Tax

iing

De

lay

pe

r Fl

igh

t(m

in)

Clock Hour

Run 9

Run 10

Run 11

Run 12

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0:0

0

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11:0

0

12

:00

13:0

0

14

:00

15:0

0

16

:00

17:0

0

18:0

0

19:0

0

20:0

0

21

:00

22:0

0

% o

f M

ove

me

nts

De

laye

d >

15

min

Clock Hour

Run 9

Run 10

Run 11

Run 12


55

FIGURE ‎6-55 RUN 9 ARRIVALS ON 34R HELD FOR EAST FLOW ON TXY J

FIGURE ‎6-56 RUN 9 AIRCRAFT HELD FOR WEST FLOW ON TXY J


56

FIGURE ‎6-57 RUN 10 AIRCRAFT HELD FOR EAST FLOW ON TXY J

FIGURE ‎6-58 RUN 10 AIRCRAFT HELD FOR EAST FLOW ON TXY J


57

FIGURE ‎6-59 RUN 11 FREEFLOW EAST-WEST ON LINK TAXIWAYS J AND R

FIGURE ‎6-60 RUN 12 FREEFLOW EAST-WEST ON LINK TAXIWAYS J AND R


58

FIGURE ‎6-61 RUNS 9 TO 14 – AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAY (TXY D)



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Ave

rage

De

lay

(min

)

HOUR

TWY DELTA DELAY

RUN9

RUN10

RUN11

RUN12

RUN13

RUN14


59

7 Taxiway locations

7.1. Introduction A preliminary design for the taxiways associated with the new parallel runway was provided as the basis of modeling.

As part of the brief, Airbiz was required to provide a recommended layout for the entry and exit taxiways on the parallel runway based on more detailed analysis.

7.2. Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) Theoretical optimal locations for the RETs were calculated based on the runway design parameters (the runway longitudinal profiles, the airline mix in the 2025 projected busy day schedule, and relevant temperature) using the FAA sponsored design program Rapid Exit Design Interactive Model (REDIM) Version 2.1.

As part of the study the locations of Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) at a number of Canadian Airports were reviewed including the following airports Edmonton, Montréal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.

The general philosophy is to provide three sets of RETs in each direction. The first is to capture the smaller aircraft in the fleet (for example Dash8 turboprops), the second narrowbody jets (such as B737 and A320) and the third to capture widebody jets (such as the A330 and B777). The recommended rapid exits commence their turn out of the parallel runway at the locations in Table 7-1 and shown in Figure 7-1.










60


the assumed exit speed out of the RET (we have assumed 15 knots, but it should be confirmed that aircraft are not expected to come to a complete stop

5)

alignment with the taxiways onto which the RETs terminate (for example the confirmed alignment of future Taxiway R for RET D2 and D3 and future northern IFP taxiway for RET D5).

If the runway location were not fixed by previous planning decisions, slipping the runway south, would have better aligned the RETs with the cross-link taxiways to the terminal area, and saved backtracking for the majority of landings on the 34R.

Discussions with NAVCanada also centred on a secondary objective to minimize runway occupancy. A measured 50 seconds average occupancy was raised as a threshold for reduction in separations between arrivals down to 2.5 NM (from 3NM) and increasing arrival capacity. This provides the greatest benefit in segregated mode (on an arrivals only runway). In mixed mode, the spacing will also be determined by the gap required in the arrival stream to accommodate departing aircraft. In locating the RETs a balance needs to be achieved in capturing the greatest number of aircraft of a particular class at the specified exit (placing the RET as long as possible within a given range) and minimising occupancy associated with the particular RET (placing the RET as short as possible within a given range).

This is illustrated in Table 7-2, where the second RET can be placed to capture more aircraft (particularly the narrowbody fleet) expressed as a percentage of the aircraft exiting at that RET, at the expense of a


being used predominantly for arrivals, with minimal conflicts to be considered with departure flows on the parallel taxiway system. However, the recommendations for RET locations need to be made on the long term use of the parallel runway in mixed mode operations. There is a school of thought that for safety considerations, RETs should not line up directly to cross-taxiways, to force aircraft to come to a complete stop before entering the parallel taxiway system. This is in harmony with the aim of RETs to get the aircraft off the runway as quickly as possible, minimize runway occupancy and maximize runway capacity.

marginal increase in runway occupancy time (ROT expressed in seconds). The bottom rows of the table highlight the issue in capturing an increasing proportion of the widebody largest aircraft on the third RET.

Those not exiting at RET 3, would exit at the 900 exit (provided as a

runway entry for turboprop aircraft) or at the end of the runway – all at the expense of runway occupancy time.

RET 2 location

A320-200 B737-800 A330-300 B777-200

% ROT % ROT % ROT % ROT

1,900m 86 48.8 36 48.5 34.0 49.9 28 51.2

2,000m 98 50.9 75 50.2 67 51.9 62 53.0

2,100m 100 53.2 94 52.3 92 54.0 87 55.1

RET 3 location

B737-800 A330-300 B777-200 B747-400


2,200m 100 55.2 100 56.7 100 58.3 3.6 55.8

2,500m 100 60.7 100 62.7 100 63.6 72 61.4

2,600m 100 63.0 100 64.9 100 65.9 82 63.7

2,700m 100 65.2 100 67.1 100 68.1 94 65.8

2,800m 100 67.8 100 68.8 100 70.5 99 67.7

TABLE ‎7-2 RUNWAY OCCUPANCY AND CAPTURE FOR RETS 2 AND 3

The sensitivity and difference in performance between the mainstays of the narrowbody fleet (the A320-200 and the B737-800) suggest possible further detailed discussion with airline operational representatives to confirm the actual performance and operational characteristics and those assumed in the analysis based on initial consultations.

As shown in Table 7-2, the recommended locations generally match up with the average locations for the benchmarked Canadian airports,


61

Airport Average RET Distance from Threshold (m)

1 2 3 4 5

Edmonton - 1,790 1,895 2,379 2,518

Montreal 1,374 1,619 1,822 2,234 2,425

Toronto 1,270 1,667 1,939 2,245 2,520

Winnipeg 1,208 1,501 2,074 - -

Vancouver 1,216 1,667 2,035 2,303 2,455

Average 1,267 1,649 1,953 2,290 2,479

Calgary (Existing) - - 1,922 - 2,841

Recommended Say 1,250 - Say 1,950 - Say 2,500


7.3. Taxiway B and D Phasing In order to minimise impacts on or from flight operations on the new parallel runway during future stage of construction, it is recommended that the inner parallel Taxiway D is initially constructed full length, and the outer parallel Taxiway B is constructed between D2 and D7. If undertaken after the opening of the runway, such activity close to the Runway 16L/34R Transition Surface and between an active runway and taxiway would add to construction costs and require night works and or curfew periods for operations. The future extension of Taxiway B would cause less disruption.

7.4. Runway entry points Full length departures The ability to sequence departing aircraft at the runway threshold is a useful tool for air traffic control.

Runway 08L/26R at Vancouver Airport has two parallel taxiways near the runway threshold in order to sequence aircraft. The existing Calgary runways 16R/34L and 10/28 have entries from either side of the runway threshold, effectively allowing sequencing of departing aircraft. Similar arrangements exist at Toronto and Winnipeg airports.

It is envisaged that, for the new parallel runway at Calgary, this sequencing area would consist of two parallel taxiways on a single expanse of pavement, While Figure 7-1 shows two entry points at each of end of the runway, this is schematic only. It is assumed that detailed geometric design will be undertaken to allow holding of aircraft for departures and clearance for a Code F to pass behind a Code E aircraft at the hold points for maximum flexibility.

Intersection Departures at Taxiways D2 and D8 Piston and turbo-prop type aircraft make-up approximately one third of the future aircraft mix. Taxiways D2 and D8 could be used for intersection departures for these aircraft types.

The location of these taxiways (and the corresponding link across to Taxiway T) as shown in Figure 7-1 is preliminary only. Locations should be confirmed in detailed discussions with NAVCanada and operators, based on required take-off distances for the aircraft using these entries and the destinations to be served. Detailed geometric design for the runway to taxiway separation should allow aircraft sized up to a Q300 to undertake an intersection departure from these taxiways while another aircraft (at least Code E) passed behind.

7.5. Eastern parallel taxiway system The nominal new parallel runway layout has five 90

0 entries and exits

more or less evenly spaced on the eastern side of the proposed new parallel Runway 16L/34R. This taxiway system consists of a full length parallel Taxiway T and cross taxiways linking it to rest of the airfield to the west of 16L/34R. It is understood that the purpose of this taxiway system is to serve future cargo or maintenance developments to the east of Runway 16L/34R.

A possible cost saving could be achieved by just constructing the stub taxiways for the cross runways to the edge of the runway strip, and deferring the construction of the parallel Taxiway T until such times as it was required. This study was unable to further optimise locations as there is no information on the aircraft mix using the eastern side of the runway.


62



63

8 Conclusions 8.1. The Airfield model and the Environmental Assessment


8.2. Need for new runway A 2015 busy day demand profile was created by projecting a (90

th

percentile) 2008 busy day at the Transport Canada High forecast.

This demand is significantly above the exiting crossing runway system capacity in both the 28/34 and 10/16 directions, which includes all proposed taxiway upgrades. Modeling confirmed the need for additional runway capacity by 2015. Delays on busy days will increase over time until the new runway is operational.

As the modeling showed significant delay at 2015 demand levels, the ―do nothing‖ option at 2025 was not modeled. However, delays in the airport system behave as queuing systems, where as demand increases above a threshold, delays will increase at an exponential rate. In practice airport traffic growth beyond 2015 in the case of ―no new runway‖ would create a constraint to growth. Some services could fit into periods of low demand, but scheduled services generally fit into periods of natural demand or are driven by airline network considerations, such that for a percentage of flights rescheduling because of capacity constraints at Calgary Airport will not be possible and increasing number of potential services will be lost.

It is important to note that all simulation runs for all scenarios and the reported delay statistics are based on ―good weather days‖. There are, however, bad weather days, when operational restrictions will decrease airspace and airfield capacity (eg operations reduced to a single runway) and delays may increase (or in practice reduced capacity may be a cause of flight cancellations).

The Environmental Assessment process may consider an economic assessment of not proceeding with a new runway, which could be in terms of increased delay costs or loss of traffic at a constrained airport.

The airport and NAVCanada may need to consider measures to mitigate delay during peak periods as demand grows – beyond infrastructure and operational enhancements. This may include demand management.


64

8.3. 2015 runway modes of operations The morning peak projected for 2015 busy day has one hour with more than 40 departures. Although this demand is greater than single runway capacity for a limited duration, resulting in some delays, the simulation shows quick recovery.

The afternoon peak projected for 2015 busy day has 6 hours with demand of more than 34 arrivals, above single runway capacity. Sustained (intolerable) delays result. The air delay in the afternoon arrival peak limits the number of aircraft on the airfield at any time. The taxiway system is not stressed, with one-way flows on key taxiways there is limited head-to-head conflict.

To provide additional arrival capacity in the afternoon peak requires mixed mode on one of the runways (for this period). In terms of airfield performance, the new runway could be preferred as an arrivals runway due to sub-optimal location of RETs on the existing runway and minimising runway crossings. In workshop discussions it was agreed that the preference was for mixed mode (arrivals and departures on the existing runway) and arrivals only on the new parallel runway, until demand requires mixed mode on both runways. Of course ultra-long haul flights requiring the additional length available on the new parallel runway would be permitted to depart on that runway. NAVCanada suggested that the allocation of arrival runway would be based on ―compass mode‖ (based on runway closest to the direction of the destination, mitigating the need for ―air sort‖ – crossovers of departing aircraft on outbound tracks).

8.4. Centralised de-icing facility location Preliminary analysis was provided which sized a six pad facility to accommodate IFP traffic at a central facility based on 2009 traffic. The purpose of simulation was to test any impacts of taxiway congestion for a facility at location B (one of three options being considered) with 2015 busy day traffic (considered a conservative assumption).

The results of the simulation highlighted the lack of departure capacity, particularly in the evening peak, where coincidence of the arrivals peak meant that arrivals and departures were being accommodated on the existing runway resulting in long queues and congestion. This congestion would also impact on the CDF, irrespective of the location.

An additional departures runway (i.e. operation of full mixed mode during the evening peak) would only partially solve the problem. The lack of a second east-west link taxiway creates cross-flow problems

similar to that shown in the scenario modeled without Taxiway R (noting that the scenario modeled was at the higher 2025 traffic level).

The conclusions were that the sizing and location of the CDF can only be properly tested once the runway mode of operation at 2015 to handle the peak runway arrivals and departures has been resolved in principle. The runway mode will impact on the planning of taxiway flows to efficiently handle the ground sort of traffic for mixed mode operations. All of these decisions need to be resolved in principle, before the longer term location of a CDF in terms of taxiway congestion can be tested reliably.

8.5. Parallel runway 2025 airfield Mixed mode operations on both runways at 2025 means that there are two arrival and two departure runways available at all times. It would be expected that air delay and departure queue delay for these scenarios would be within acceptable limits. However, the simulation total hourly aircraft throughput results showed that the two arrival runways fail to handle the afternoon (arrivals) peak.

For all 2025 mixed mode scenarios, air delay recorded in the afternoon peak (implying aircraft are being held in the air or on the ground at their origin) increases sharply to beyond 60 minutes per aircraft after 5pm.

Analysis of aircraft runway assignment shows that with three (3) bedposts for the new runway translates to more demand and bias to the new runway which, based on the simulation results will have to be balanced with cross-overs to achieve the required 2025 throughput.

The above comments do not appear to be related to issues with the on-airport supporting taxiway infrastructure, which was to be the primary focus of the simulation modeling.

For runs 9 and 10 (north flow – RWY 34, and south flow – RWY 16, respectively) without Taxiway R, average delay over the whole airfield peaks around 8 minutes per movement in the morning and afternoon busy periods. With the addition of Taxiway R, the average delay over the whole airfield is generally half that reported without the taxiway, peaking around 4 minutes.

For the runs without Taxiway R, as may be expected, the head to head conflicts on Taxiway J, translate to some 20% of movements in busy periods being delayed more than 15 minutes. Again, the addition of Taxiway R roughly halves the percentage of movements with taxiing delay greater than 15 minutes.


65

An additional crossing taxiway on the proposed alignment of Taxiway R may have construction issues in the short to medium term. A number of alternatives to create the second cross-link (east-west) between the two parallel runways have been suggested for further consideration, which could also eliminate the head-to-head conflict and provide a noticeable improvement to airfield performance.

The option of extending Taxiway F was shown to exhibit equivalent benefits in terms of limiting taxiway delay. The delay on Taxiway D was used to assess the benefit of the second East-West connection. For Runs 9 and 10, without Taxiway R or F extension, average delay peaked at around 5 minutes during the peak hours. With the addition of Taxiway R or the extension of Taxiway F, the average delay was more than 10 times less, peaking at around half a minute.

8.6. Parallel runway taxiway system A recommended layout for the entry and exit taxiways on the parallel runway is shown in Figure 7-1. It is based on mathematical modelling, benchmarking and preliminary consultations with stakeholders.

The general philosophy is to provide three sets of RETs in each direction. The first is to capture the smaller aircraft in the fleet (for example Dash8 turboprops), the second narrowbody jets (such as B737 and A320) and the third to capture widebody jets (such as the A330 and B777).


the assumed exit speed out of the RET (we have assumed 15 knots, but it should be confirmed that aircraft are not expected to come to a complete stop

6)


being used predominantly for arrivals, with minimal conflicts to be considered with departure flows on the parallel taxiway system. However, the recommendations for RET locations need to be made on the long term use of the parallel runway in mixed mode operations. There is a school of thought that for safety considerations, RETs should not line up directly to cross-taxiways, to force aircraft to come to a complete stop before entering the parallel taxiway system. This is in harmony with the aim of RETs to get the aircraft off the runway as quickly as possible, minimize runway occupancy and maximize runway capacity.

alignment with the taxiways onto which the RETs terminate (for example the confirmed alignment of future Taxiway R for RET D2 and D3 and future northern IFP taxiway for RET D5).

The study also provides discussion and guidance on:

Taxiway B and D phasing to minimise impacts on or from flight operations on the new parallel runway during future stage of construction

Runway entry points for Full length departures and Intersection Departures at Taxiways D1 and D8

The proposed eastern parallel taxiway system.



Calgary International Airport

RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

AIRFIELD MODEL TECHNICAL APPENDICES

October 2009

CALGARY AIRPORT - RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AIRFIELD MODEL - TECHNICAL APPENDICES 10499R606P YYC RWY SIM TECH APPENDICES.DOC AIRBIZ 10/11/2009

1

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 DEMAND DISCUSSION – REPRESENTATIVE BUSY DAY 5

3 DE-ICING DEMAND 12

4 NEF PLANNING DAY 15

5 MODEL SCENARIOS DISCUSSION PAPER 17

6 BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS 23

7 SEGREGATED MODE ASSUMPTIONS 45

8 MIXED MODE ASSUMPTIONS 53

9 DE-ICING ASSUMPTIONS 63

10 PARALLEL RUNWAY ENTRIES AND EXITS 69


2

FIGURE ‎2-1 ANNUAL MOVEMENT SCENARIOS 6

FIGURE ‎2-2 2008 DAILY FIXED WING ARRIVALS/DEPARTURES 7

FIGURE ‎2-3 2008 RANKED DAILY MOVEMENTS 7

FIGURE ‎2-4 PEAK DAYS FROM 2008 FLIGHT LOGS 8

FIGURE ‎2-5 90% DAY AND SIMILARLY RANKED DAYS 8

FIGURE ‎2-6 90% DAY VS PMAD 8

FIGURE ‎2-7 HIGH TC AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT FORECASTS 9

FIGURE ‎2-8 BASE TC AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT FORECASTS 9

FIGURE ‎2-9 HIGH TC PASSENGER FORECASTS 9

FIGURE ‎2-10 BASE TC PASSENGER FORECASTS 9

FIGURE ‎2-11 ANNUAL FORECAST PROJECTIONS 10

FIGURE ‎2-12 DAILY PROFILE PROJECTIONS 10

FIGURE ‎2-13 PROJECTED DAILY PROFILE VS 2007 DEMAND/CAPACITY STUDY 11

FIGURE ‎3-1 RANKED DAILY AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS (2008 FLIGHT LOGS) 13

FIGURE ‎3-2 COLD WEEKDAYS – HOURLY AIRCRAFT MVT COMPARISON 13

FIGURE ‎3-3 ICY WEEKDAYS - HOURLY AIRCRAFT MVT COMPARISON 14

FIGURE ‎3-4 90TH

BUSY DAY VS BUSY DE-ICING DAY 14

FIGURE ‎3-5 BUSY COLD DAY 99TH

VS 98TH

AND 100TH

RANKED DAYS 14

FIGURE ‎6-1 AIRFIELD LAYOUT WITH ARRIVAL DEPARTURE FLOWS 24

FIGURE ‎6-2 ARRIVAL AIRSPACE SORTING IN TERMINAL AIRSPACE 27

FIGURE ‎6-3 DEPARTURE AIRSPACE SORTING IN TERMINAL AIRSPACE 27

FIGURE ‎6-4 AIRFIELD LAYOUT 28

FIGURE ‎6-5 APRON LOCATIONS 29

FIGURE ‎6-6 AERODROME CHART 30

FIGURE ‎6-7 APRON 1 REMOTE PARKING LOCATIONS 35

FIGURE ‎6-8 ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLOWS FOR RUNWAY 10 35




FIGURE ‎6-12 APRON FLOWS FOR RUNWAY MODE 10/16 36

FIGURE ‎6-13 APRON FLOWS FOR RUNWAY MODE 28/34 37



FIGURE ‎7-3 ARRIVAL 16L AND DEPARTURE 16R FLOWS 49

FIGURE ‎7-4 ARRIVAL 16R AND DEPARTURE 16L FLOWS 49

FIGURE ‎7-5 ARRIVAL 34L AND DEPARTURE 34R FLOWS 50

FIGURE ‎7-6 ARRIVAL 34R AND DEPARTURE 34L FLOWS 50

FIGURE ‎7-7 APRON 1 TAXIWAY LAYOUT 51

FIGURE ‎8-1 AIRFIELD LAYOUT - SINGLE EAST-WEST LINK 54

FIGURE ‎8-2 AIRFIELD LAYOUT – WITH TAXIWAY R 54

FIGURE ‎8-3 AIRFIELD LAYOUT WITH EXTENSION TO TAXIWAY F 54

FIGURE ‎8-4 ARRIVAL AIRSPACE SORTING 55

FIGURE ‎8-5 DEPARTURE AIRSPACE SORTING 55


FIGURE ‎8-7 RUN 9 FLOWS (ARRIVALS 34R/L AND DEPARTURES 34R/L) 56

FIGURE ‎8-8 RUN 10 FLOWS (ARR16R/L AND DEP 16R/L) 57

FIGURE ‎8-9 RUN 11 FLOWS (ARR 34R/L / DEP34R/L WITH TXY R) 57

FIGURE ‎8-10 RUN 12 FLOWS (ARR 16R/L DEP16R/L WITH TXY R) 58

FIGURE ‎8-11 RUN 13 FLOWS (ARR 34R/L WITH TXY F) 58

FIGURE ‎8-12 RUN 13 FLOWS (DEP 34R/L WITH TXY F) 59

FIGURE ‎8-13 RUN 14 FLOWS (ARR 16R/L WITH TXY F) 59

FIGURE ‎8-14 RUN 14 FLOWS (DEP 16R/L WITH TXY F) 60

FIGURE ‎8-15 APRON 1 TAXIWAY LAYOUT 60


FIGURE ‎9-2 ARRIVAL AIRSPACE SORTING 64


FIGURE ‎9-4 RUN 7 NORTH FLOW (ARR 34L/R AND DEP 34L) 66

FIGURE ‎9-5 RUN 8 SOUTH FLOW (ARR 16L/R AND DEP 16R) 67

FIGURE ‎9-6 DE-ICING PAD ENTRY ROUTES 67

FIGURE ‎10-1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RUNWAY 16L/34R TAXIWAY SYSTEM 70



3

TABLE ‎2-1 COMPARISON OF BUSY DAY METRICS 7

TABLE ‎3-1 WEATHER DATA AND DAILY MOVEMENTS – COLD DAYS IN 2008 13

TABLE ‎6-1 STAR WAYPOINT LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE 25

TABLE ‎6-2 STAR ROUTES MODE 1 26

TABLE ‎6-3 STAR ROUTES MODE 2 26

TABLE ‎6-4 DEPARTURE EXIT WAYPOINTS 27

TABLE ‎6-5 AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON DETAILS 29

TABLE ‎6-6 ARP LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE 30

TABLE ‎6-7 RUNWAY DIMENSIONS 30

TABLE ‎6-8 AIRCRAFT MODELED 31

TABLE ‎6-9 AIRCRAFT CATEGORY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS 32

TABLE ‎6-10 RUNWAY ENTRY POINTS 33

TABLE ‎6-11 RUNWAY EXIT POINTS 33

TABLE ‎6-12 GENERAL AIRCRAFT PARKING ALLOCATION 34

TABLE ‎6-13 CARGO AIRLINE APRON ALLOCATION 34

TABLE ‎6-14 APRON 1 REMOTE PARKING LOCATIONS 35

TABLE ‎6-15 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 10/16 36

TABLE ‎6-16 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 10/16 36

TABLE ‎6-17 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 28/34 37

TABLE ‎6-18 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 28/34 37

TABLE ‎6-19 WAKE VORTEX SEPARATION STANDARDS (NM) 38

TABLE ‎6-20 TERMINAL SEPARATION STANDARDS (NM) 38

TABLE ‎6-21 ALOMO AIRCRAFT ORIGINS 39

TABLE ‎6-22 DALLY AIRCRAFT ORIGINS 40

TABLE ‎6-23 EPLUR AIRCRAFT ORIGINS 40

TABLE ‎6-24 OPALE AIRCRAFT ORIGINS 41

TABLE ‎6-25 VUCAN AIRCRAFT ORIGINS 41

TABLE ‎6-26 BACHO AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 42

TABLE ‎6-27 CANOP AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 42

TABLE ‎6-28 GRETO AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 43

TABLE ‎6-29 HAYDN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 43

TABLE ‎6-30 GELLE AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 44

TABLE ‎6-31 MADYN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 44

TABLE ‎7-1 TURBOPROP INITIAL TURN FOR EACH RUNWAY 46

TABLE ‎7-2 RUNWAY DIMENSIONS 47

TABLE ‎7-3 RUNWAY ENTRY POINTS 48

TABLE ‎7-4 RUNWAY EXIT POINTS 48

TABLE ‎7-5 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16L/D16R 51

TABLE ‎7-6 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16R/D16L 51

TABLE ‎7-7 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34L/D34R 51

TABLE ‎7-8 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34R/D34L 51

TABLE ‎7-9 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16L/D16R 51

TABLE ‎7-10 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16R/D16L 52

TABLE ‎7-11 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34L/D34R 52

TABLE ‎7-12 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34R/D34L 52

TABLE ‎8-1 MODE A34L/D34R APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA (RUNS 9, 11, 13) 60



TABLE ‎8-4 MODE A16L/D16R APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA (RUNS 10, 12, 14) 61

TABLE ‎8-5 HAYDN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 61

TABLE ‎8-6 DARWN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS 62

TABLE ‎9-1 TURBOPROP INITIAL TURN FOR EXISTING RUNWAY 65

TABLE ‎9-2 AVE THROUGHPUT TIMES FOR DEFROSTING BY AIRCRAFT CODES 68

TABLE ‎10-1 AIRCRAFT MIX 72

TABLE ‎10-2 SCENARIO 1 RUNWAY 16L RESULTS 72

TABLE ‎10-3 SCENARIO 2 RUNWAY 34R RESULTS 72


TABLE ‎10-5 RUNWAY OCCUPANCY AND CAPTURE FOR RETS 2 AND 3 74




4

1 Introduction Subheadingt

This document of technical appendices consolidates the various discussion papers and assumptions documents issued during the course of the study.

The style may vary, and in some cases the material in the main report supersedes that in the discussion papers. That is because the discussion papers were issued for exactly that purpose – for background analysis and recommendations to be fed into discussions and decisions made at workshops on various issues. An example is the de-icing demand discussion paper, which discussed a winter busy day. A pragmatic decision was made at Workshop 2, to use the same 90

th percentile (36

th busy day) for all scenarios (conservative but

consistent). This is discussed in the main report in Chapter 4.

This document also includes the De-Icing Scenarios Assumptions and a technical discussion of the analysis of Rapid Exit Taxiways (RET) that fed into the recommended supporting taxiway system for the new parallel runway in Chapter 7 of the main report.

At the time of writing the Model Scenarios Discussion Paper, twelve scenarios were identified. At the conclusion of Workshop 3, an imperative for an alternative to Taxiway R as a second east-west taxiway link between the parallel runways to facilitate mixed mode operations was identified. An extension to Taxiway F was seen as the preferred solution and two additional scenarios (Runs 13 and 14) were modeled to test the effectiveness of this option.

Only minor editorial and formatting changes have been made to the papers and documents which were issued during the study.


5

2 Demand Discussion – Representative Busy Day Subheadingt

2.1. Executive Summary This paper provides an overview of:

The basis for developing aircraft movement demand profiles for the airfield modeling tasks and providing input to the Environmental Assessment (EA)

Guidance on usage of these demand profiles and associated analysis as input to other EA tasks

The key assumptions in projecting demand from current levels to representative busy days for 2015 and 2025

Commentary on the characteristics of current demand and projections from this, as they may impact the airfield modeling to cater for busy periods of aircraft activity

Justification for use of the Transport Canada (TC) high forecast for planning purposes

Comparison of the projected demand for the 2009 airfield modeling with that used as the basis for the 2007 airfield modeling studies

2.2. Recommendation There is no single industry accepted method for selection of a representative busy period (day, hour or hours) for airfield modelling.

A range of metrics from the literature and used in airport planning practice were derived from analysis of the Calgary Airport flight logs for the 2008 calendar year provided by NAVCanada (EXCDS). These were compared and based on the requirements to model the airfield under a range of (geometric) scenarios; the 90

th percentile day was

considered the most appropriate for use in the EA airfield modelling task. The reasoning and justification is one of the main topics of this discussion paper.

Analysis of the 2008 YYC flight logs suggests that the Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) method of busy day selection (as suggested by the FAA and used as a basis for the 2007 airfield study) results in total daily movements that are too lowly ranked and may underplay the potential congestion points and any augmentation of infrastructure to ensure effective and efficient ground flow.

It is recommended that the 90th percentile day (the 36th ranked day

based on total daily movements) is the appropriate representative day for the airfield simulation. The 90% Day represents a daily aircraft movement demand level which is exceeded on average at least every second week and is considered a reasonable basis for planning and justification of infrastructure investment. The 90

th percentile day from

the 2008 flight logs is Wednesday 10 September 2008.


6

2.3. Background YYC has embarked on the preliminary design phase for the proposed new parallel runway.

Airbiz, as a subconsultant to the Program Manager AECOM Canada Ltd, is developing a detailed airspace/airfield model that will allow simulations of agreed forecast traffic movements from arrival/departure in Calgary terminal airspace to terminal apron gates, cargo area and/or de-icing pad positions using ARCport ALTO modelling software. Airbiz is continuing to coordinate with NAVCanada to ensure modelling inputs are consistent with agreed operating scenarios and that model inputs/outputs are compatible when reviewed by the PRP Team and outside stakeholders.

The agreed scope of work for the preparation of daily aircraft movements schedules for 2015 and 2025 includes:

1. Preparing a revised ―study‖ set of aircraft movement forecasts to sufficient level of detail by aircraft type or category and movement scenario (e.g. de-icing, peak day etc.) in order to develop operating scenarios for modelling. Initial operating scenarios to be provided by NAVCanada.

2. Developing the aircraft mix for air traffic at 2015 and 2025 time horizons to match up with the first and expanded phases of the IFP and Piers A, B/C and D.

3. Developing overall airport nominal schedules for commercial air traffic, including cargo that will mimic forecast airport operations that will impact terminal and CDF aprons, queuing lengths for modelling and simulation runs.

4. Providing nominal schedule output such as size of the aircraft, point of origin and destination to be used by NAVCanada in development of their airspace model.

5. Evaluating the need to include General Aviation in forecasts and schedules and provide recommendations on status of GA operations.

2.4. Methodology The outline process for deriving a daily demand profile for use in airfield modelling includes the following main tasks:

1. Using historical total aircraft movements and associated Transport Canada (TC) aircraft movements forecasts plot the annual movements out to 2025 under a range of scenarios

2. Using the 2008 calendar year flight logs plot the daily movements (excluding helicopters) for the whole year, and ranking the days by total daily movements, show various metrics for the selection of a representative busy day

3. Using days on either side of the selected busy days (under the range of metrics) compare the daily profile of hourly movements to ensure the selected day is ―representative‖ for the profile at this traffic level.

This paper also includes a high level justification for the use of the Transport Canada High forecast growth rates for long term planning.

2.5. Findings Figure 2-1 shows historical total aircraft movements and associated Transport Canada (TC) aircraft movements forecast to 2025 under a range of scenarios.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

All A

irc

raft

Mo

ve

me

nts


2015 20252007 Study

TC Base

TC High

2008 Flight Logs

Historic

FIGURE ‎2-1 ANNUAL MOVEMENT SCENARIOS

The annual aircraft movement projections used in the 2007 Demand/Capacity study are significantly higher, particularly in the short term, than both the 2008 high and base case TC forecasts.


7

Figures 2-2 and 2-3 plot the 2008 calendar year flight logs (excluding helicopters) for the whole year chronologically and by ranking the days by total daily movements.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1212 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1212 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Fix

ed

Win

g M

ovem

en

ts p

er

Day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Tuesday, 1 January 2008

Friday, 1 February

2008

Saturday, 1 March 2008

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Thursday, 1 May 2008

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Tuesday, 1 July 2008

Friday, 1 August 2008

Monday, 1 September

2008

Wednesday, 1 October

2008

Saturday, 1 November

2008

Monday, 1 December

2008

Fix

ed

Win

g M

ovem

en

ts p

er

Day


90% Day



FIGURE ‎2-2 2008 DAILY FIXED WING ARRIVALS/DEPARTURES

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

141

145

149

153

157

161

165

169

173

177

181

185

189

193

197

201

205

209

213

217

221

225

229

233

237

241

245

249

253

257

261

265

269

273

277

281

285

289

293

297

301

305

309

313

317

321

325

329

333

337

341

345

349

353

357

361

365

Ran

ked

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

Day

WeekdayMvts WeekendMvts PMAD PMAWD BDTWPM 90th % Day



90th % Day


Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) appears low for a representative busy day

FIGURE ‎2-3 2008 RANKED DAILY MOVEMENTS

Both Figures 2-2 and 2-3 indicates that the PMAD day is ranked lower than would be expected for a representative busy day.

There is no generally accepted definition to derive a typical busy day for airfield analysis. A range of alternative metrics for typical busy days were compared using data from the 2008 flight log data including:

Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) – ―FAA Method‖ used in 2007 Demand/Capacity study

Peak Month Average Weekday (PMAWD)

Busy Day Typical Week Peak Month (BDTWPM)

90th Percentile Day (36

th ranked day of the year)

These metrics are shown in Table 2-1 along with their relevant relationships to annual movements (―peaking factor‖). These metrics are compared with values used in the 2007 Demand Capacity study.

2008 PMAD and 90% Day within 5% of 2007 PMAD Peaking Factor

2008 PMAWD closest to 2007 PMAD Peaking Factor TABLE ‎2-1 COMPARISON OF BUSY DAY METRICS

The comparison in Table 2-1 indicates that the peaking factor for both PMAD and 90% day from the 2008 flight logs are within 5% of the peaking factor used in the 2007 Demand/Capacity study.

Figures 2-4 and 2-5 compare the busy days selected from the metrics summarised in Table 2-1 with each other and other similarly ranked days. This analysis ensures that the selected day is ―representative‖ for the profile (in terms of hourly movements and arrival/departure splits) at this traffic level.


8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Fix

ed

Win

g M

ov

em

en

ts p

er

Ho

ur



90th % Day


FIGURE ‎2-4 PEAK DAYS FROM 2008 FLIGHT LOGS

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

De

pa

rtu

res

,<--

|-->

Arr

iva

ls

20/06/2008 90% Day +2 A 20/06/2008 90% Day +2 D 23/10/2008 90% Day +1 A 23/10/2008 90% Day +1 D

10/09/2008 90% Day A 10/09/2008 90% Day D 5/03/2008 90% Day -1 A 5/03/2008 90% Day -1 D

4/09/2008 90% Day -2 A 4/09/2008 90% Day -2 D

The 90th % Day has a profile representative of other similarly ranked busy days

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

ho

ur

FIGURE ‎2-5 90% DAY AND SIMILARLY RANKED DAYS

Figures 2-4 and 2-5 confirm that the hourly movement profiles of 90% Day from the 2008 flight logs are representative of both other typical peak day measures as well as similarly ranked days.

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

De

pa

rtu

res

,<--

|-->

Arr

iva

ls

10/09/2008 90% Day A 10/09/2008 90% Day D 14/07/2008 PMAD A 14/07/2008 PMAD D

The 90th % Day has higher absolute peaks than the PMAD

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

ho

ur

FIGURE ‎2-6 90% DAY VS PMAD

Figures 2-6 compares the 90% day to the PMAD day from the 2008 flight logs. It shows that the 90% day has a similar daily profile to the PMAD but higher peaks hours.

2.6. Projection to 2015 and 2025 Transport Canada growth rates TC issues long-term passenger and aircraft movement forecasts for YYC. This data was analysed to determine how YYC traffic movements had historically related to TC forecast traffic movement forecasts. Forecasts dating back to 1998 were reviewed against actual traffic at YYC.


9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Th

ou

sa

nd

s



2004 (HIGH) 2005 (BASE) 2005 (HIGH) 2006 (BASE) 2006 (HIGH)High TC Forecasts (Various base years)


The High Case TC forecasts appear to have better estimated the current

aircraft movement forecasts at YYC.

High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

FIGURE ‎2-7 HIGH TC AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT FORECASTS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Th

ou

sa

nd

s



2004 (HIGH) 2005 (BASE) 2005 (HIGH) 2006 (BASE) 2006 (HIGH)Base TC Forecasts (Various base years)

The Base Case TC forecasts appear to under-estimate the current aircraft movement forecasts

at YYC.


High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

FIGURE ‎2-8 BASE TC AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT FORECASTS

Figures 2-7 and 2-8 indicate that actual aircraft movements trend closer to the High TC passenger forecasts than the Base TC forecasts.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

Mil

lio

ns




High TC Forecasts (Various base years)

High TC forecasts have

appeared to trend closer to the actual and

trend pax movements

for YYC.


High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

FIGURE ‎2-9 HIGH TC PASSENGER FORECASTS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

Mil

lio

ns





High TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts

Base TC Forecasts (Various base years)

Base TC forecasts

have appeared to trend consistently below the

actual and trend pax

movements for YYC.

FIGURE ‎2-10 BASE TC PASSENGER FORECASTS

Figures 2-9 and 2-10 show that the High TC passenger forecasts have trended closer to the actual forecast passenger movements that the Base TC values.

This analysis concludes that actual aviation activity at YYC has tracked closer to the high TC forecasts than the base TC forecasts. The high TC forecasts are confirmed as appropriate to forecast the 2015 and 2025 projected schedules for long term planning purposes.


10

2015 and 2025 Traffic Levels and Indicative Profile Projected 2015 and 2025 traffic levels were estimated by increasing hourly and daily movements proportionally with TC high total aircraft movement forecast growth rates. The high TC annual aircraft movement forecasts are shown in red on the graph Figure 2-11.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

All A

irc

raft

Mo

ve

me

nts


2015 20252007 Study

TC Base

TC High

2008 Flight Logs

Historic

FIGURE ‎2-11 ANNUAL FORECAST PROJECTIONS

Figure 2-12 shows hourly movement projections based on the 2008 Flight Log 90

th percentile day and the high TC aircraft movement

forecast growth rate. These estimates are indicative only. The actual projected schedules will built on a market sector (International/Transboder/Domestic/GA) on an individual movement basis.

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

De

pa

rtu

res

<>

Arr

iva

ls

2008 Arr 2008 Dep 2015 Arr 2015 Dep 2025 Arr 2025 Dep

FIGURE ‎2-12 DAILY PROFILE PROJECTIONS

Figure 2-13 compares these projections to the peak day projections (PMAD) prepared for the 2007 Demand/Capacity study. The graph from Figure 2-12 has been superimposed over the 2007 Demand/Capacity study data to review, on an indicative basis, the shape and magnitude of the movement profiles. The 2007 study selected a day (August 2, 2006) with the same daily movements as the calculated PMAD demand and multiplied the hourly movement profile for this day by the then current TC growth rates to create the schedule for the various forecast years.

From Figure 2-13 we can conclude that the 2008 90th

percentile day projections have a similar profile to the PMAD projections.


11

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Dep

artu

re <

> A

rriv

als

2015 90% Day

2025 90% Day

10499w613e 10092008(90%Day)Analysis.xls

Hourly growth rates increase by same proportion as total annual TC movements[

2008 90% Day

FIGURE ‎2-13 PROJECTED DAILY PROFILE VS 2007 DEMAND/CAPACITY STUDY

2.7. Next steps - projected schedule development The 2008 representative busy day (as suggested in this discussion paper, or as modified as a result of consensus by the stakeholders in the review process), will be grown to the target total daily aircraft movements using the TC annual growth rates to 2015 and 2025.

Figure 2-12 shows a simple projection of the selected 2008 busy day schedule to traffic levels forecast for 2015 and 2025. A more refined projected schedule with flight movement details required for airfield modelling is being finalised.

The TC forecasts for growth of the various traffic segments will be used where available:

International (long haul)

International (trans-border)

Domestic

Unscheduled (heavy and light general aviation, mining, charter)

Flight training

It is important to note that helicopters have been excluded from the analysis as they are not included in the airfield modelling for the EA for the Proposed (Parallel) Runway Project (PRP).

The total daily International and Domestic traffic in the daily schedule will be grown at the TC annual forecast rate and flights will be added to the schedule based on consultation and background knowledge of scheduling opportunities and constraints, potential new destinations or increased frequency to accommodate growth to current or target markets. The ―speculative‖ nature of this projection means that it should be considered to be a scenario to facilitate realistic airfield modelling, rather than a true ―forecast‖ future schedule.

The unscheduled traffic in the 2008 flight logs will be reviewed for any obvious patterns. Traffic in this segment will be grown in line with the TC annual forecast growth rate. To the extent possible, the current fleet mix, and proportions of traffic in terms of arrivals/departures and origins/destination will be preserved when projecting traffic to the target daily levels.


12

3 De-icing Demand Subheadingt

3.1. Executive Summary This paper is a supplement to the discussion paper previously issued describing the process to select the representative busy day, which was also discussed in detail at the recent Workshop 2 in Calgary.

This paper outlines the selection of a representative winter de-icing day from the 2008 flight logs. Subject to stakeholder agreement it is proposed to use the comparison between the selected 2008 representative busy day (90

th percentile day – 10

th September 2008)

and the representative de-icing day (a busy cold day 31st January

2008) to modify the projected 2015 schedule used to drive de-icing scenarios for the airfield modelling.

Recommendation The recommendation to use the 90th percentile day (the 36

th ranked

day based on total daily movements) as the appropriate representative day for the airfield simulation was accepted at Workshop 2. Using similar analysis techniques it is recommended that the representative busy cold day from the 2008 flight logs be chosen as 31

st January

2008.

3.2. Background YYC has embarked on the preliminary design phase for the proposed new parallel runway.

Airbiz, as a subconsultant to the Program Manager AECOM Canada Ltd, is developing a detailed airspace/airfield model that will allow simulations of agreed forecast traffic movements from arrival/departure in Calgary terminal airspace to terminal apron gates, cargo area and/or de-icing pad positions using ARCport ALTO modelling software. Airbiz is continuing to coordinate with NAVCanada to ensure modelling inputs are consistent with agreed operating scenarios and that model inputs/outputs are compatible when reviewed by the PRP Team and outside stakeholders.

The agreed scope of work includes the preparation of a daily aircraft movement de-icing schedules for 2015.

3.3. Methodology The outline process for deriving a de-icing daily demand profile for use in airfield modelling will be similar to that used for projecting the 2008 busy day (90

th percentile day) to 2015 and 2025. The differences in the

2008 de-icing day and the 2008 busy day (summer) in terms of hourly distribution, fleet mix, origin/destinations will be indentified. This will permit modification of the 2015 busy day schedule (summer) to a de-icing day schedule – by manipulation of the additional flights in the projected 2015 schedule.


13

3.4. Findings Figure 3-1 shows historical total aircraft movements from the 2008 flight logs, ranked according daily total movements. The various busy metrics are identified, and ―cold weather days‖ are marked in blue (other weekdays are in dark grey and weekends in light grey). It can be seen that generally cold weather days are lower ranked (have less than the busy day total aircraft movements).

7/9/2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 5 9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

81

85

89

93

97

101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

141

145

149

153

157

161

165

169

173

177

181

185

189

193

197

201

205

209

213

217

221

225

229

233

237

241

245

249

253

257

261

265

269

273

277

281

285

289

293

297

301

305

309

313

317

321

325

329

333

337

341

345

349

353

357

361

365

Ran

ked

Mo

vem

en

ts p

er

Day

WeekdayMvts WeekendMvts Cold Weather Weekday PMAD PMAWD BDTWPM 90th % Day

Busiest cold weather day is 31st Jan 2008 (99th Ranked Day)Busiest cold weather day is 31st Jan 2008 (99th Ranked Day)



90th % Day


FIGURE ‎3-1 RANKED DAILY AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS (2008 FLIGHT LOGS)

Table 3-1 shows extracts from the 2008 weather data ranked by coldest max temperature. The 12 coldest weekdays were selected (-10

oC and lower). These days are at the similar time of year as the de-

icing report selected days (26th January – 1

st February 2009). The total

daily movements on these days are in the mid-range for the year, and below the traffic levels of busier weekdays.

The daily profiles for these 10 cold days were compared to the 90% busy day. As shown in Figure 3-2, the cold weekdays have peaks which are lower than the 90% busy day.

Date/Time Max Temp (°C) Conditions Hours of Ice Total Daily Movements Rank

Monday, 28 January 2008 -27.5 Snow and Ice 6 561 267

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 -26.9 Ice 9 645 230

Friday, 19 December 2008 -23.8 Snow and Ice 10 653 224

Thursday, 18 December 2008 -19.4 Snow 0 691 152

Monday, 22 December 2008 -19.4 Snow 0 619 242

Monday, 15 December 2008 -16.3 Ice 4 613 245

Wednesday, 30 January 2008 -15.2 Ice 10 695 138

Monday, 4 February 2008 -13.8 Snow and Ice 2 667 197

Tuesday, 30 December 2008 -12.9 Snow 0 614 244

Tuesday, 23 December 2008 -12.5 Cloudy 0 668 196

Friday, 1 February 2008 -10.8 Cloudy 0 639 234

Thursday, 31 January 2008 -10.2 Cloudy 0 711 99

7/9/2009

Total daily movements on ―cold weekdays‖

are lower than 90% day.

Total daily movements on ―cold weekdays‖

are lower than 90% day.Source: National Climate Data and Information Archive (www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca)

TABLE ‎3-1 WEATHER DATA AND DAILY MOVEMENTS – COLD DAYS IN 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

28/01/2008

29/01/2008

30/01/2008

31/01/2008

1/02/2008

4/02/2008

10/09/2008

15/12/2008

18/12/2008

19/12/2008

22/12/2008

23/12/2008

Cold weekday peaks appear lower than 90% dayCold weekday peaks appear lower than 90% day


FIGURE ‎3-2 COLD WEEKDAYS – HOURLY AIRCRAFT MVT COMPARISON

Similarly the icy weekdays (a subset of the 10 cold weekdays above, as derived from the weather data) are also have peaks lower than the 90% day.


14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

28/01/2008

29/01/2008

30/01/2008

4/02/2008

10/09/2008

15/12/2008

19/12/2008

Icy weekday peaks appear lower than 90% dayIcy weekday peaks appear lower than 90% day


FIGURE ‎3-3 ICY WEEKDAYS - HOURLY AIRCRAFT MVT COMPARISON

The profile for the selected representative ―busy‖ cold day (31/1/08) is compared separately against the profile for the 90% busy day (10/09/08) in Figure 3-3.

The candidate busy de-icing day from the 2008 flight logs was then compared to similarly ranked days (non-de-icing days), around the 99

th

ranking, to see if a de-icing day is any different in profile of hourly aircraft movements to other non-de-icing days of similar traffic level. Only the afternoon peak appears flatter on the de-icing day, with the rest of the profile non-dc-icing days with similar total daily traffic (98

th

and 100th ranked).

3.5. Next Step If there is no convincing alternative the intention is to adopt the 31st January 2008 as the basis for developing the projected de-icing schedule for airfield modelling (by modifying the 90th percentile projected 2015 schedule to reflect differences evident in the 2008 base days).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

31/01/2008

10/09/2008

Peaks appear flattened in busy cold weekday (31/1/2008)Peaks appear flattened in busy cold weekday (31/1/2008)


FIGURE ‎3-4 90TH

BUSY DAY VS BUSY DE-ICING DAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

10/09/2008

31/01/2008

2/04/2008

16/09/2008

Only the afternoon peaks appear flatter in

busy cold weekday (31/1/2008)

Only the afternoon peaks appear flatter in

busy cold weekday (31/1/2008)

31/1/2008 compared to

similarly ranked days

31/1/2008 compared to

similarly ranked days


FIGURE ‎3-5 BUSY COLD DAY 99TH

VS 98TH

AND 100TH

RANKED DAYS


15

4 NEF Planning Day Subheadingt

4.1. NEF Planning Day So that the calculated NEF contours are representative of a near to worst case 24 hour period, they are based on the number of aircraft operations for a Peak Planning Day. This is essentially a 95th percentile day, meaning that for only 5% of the time is there more aircraft operations than this 95th percentile day.

The following procedure is used to determine the number of aircraft operations for a Peak Planning Day. During the year, the three busiest months are isolated (usually the summer months) and the seven busiest days in each of the three months, for a total of 21 days, are identified. The Peak Planning Day is then calculated as the average number of movements over these 21 days.

Therefore: Np = (1/21)*(N1+N2+N3+…+N21)

Where Np = Peak Planning Day

And Ni = number of movements on the ith day of the 21 chosen days

Historic aircraft movements are in monthly AMS (Aircraft Movement Statistics).

The busy day from the 2008 flight logs selected projecting the 2015 and 2025 schedules for airfield modeling is the 90th percentile (36th ranked day ) with 760 movements.

Using the NEF methodology the traffic level (not an actual day) equating to 95th percentile is 777 daily aircraft movements.

This is a traffic level that is 17 daily movements (about 2% above the airfield modeling busy day).

A day with traffic level of closest to 777 daily movements is 1st May 2008 (16th ranked) which incidentally is not one of the sample from which the 95th percentile day is calculated. To select a day with this traffic level which is in the sample would be 31st July (778 daily movements, 15th ranked).


16

The following options are available to the EA team:

Use the completed projected 2015 and 2025 schedules based on 90th percentile day for both airfield and noise modeling (does not exactly match NEF methodology).

Use a single 2008 and projected schedules 2015, 2025 based on this day for both airfield modeling and noise modeling, based on the NEF methodology (95th percentile traffic level – not an actually day, but select a day close to this traffic level).

Generate two sets of projected schedules for 2015, 2025: that already generated for the airfield model (based on 36th ranked 10th September 2008 day and 760 daily movements) and a separate projected schedule from 1st May or 31st July 2008 for noise modeling.

Use the airfield modeling projected schedules (which include the necessary details for noise modeling of aircraft types, origin/destinations, time of day), and adjust them upward by 2% to the 95th percentile traffic level (add on average one movement per hour across approximately 17 ―operational‖ hours 6am to 11pm).


17

5 Model Scenarios Discussion Paper Subheadingt

5.1. Introduction

This discussion paper summarizes the proposed scenarios to be modelled for the Calgary Airport New Runway Development Project (RDP, also known as the Parallel Runway Project (PRP)).

The project brief issued to Airbiz outlines scenarios which cover the following key assumptions: Demand level (year – 2015 (day of opening) vs 2025 and season –

summer vs winter)

Runway layout (existing - ―do nothing‖ vs airfield with new (parallel) runway)

Runway direction (north flow vs south flow)

Supporting taxiways (proposed enhancements to existing runway, elements of Twy H and development of Romeo)

Aprons IFP 22 gates vs IFP full development (this aligns with day of opening (2015) vs 2025)

The matrix below summarises the current understanding of the 12 primary scenarios to be explored, defining the key elements which comprise the scenario – runway layout; taxiway layout; aprons; runway mode of operation; traffic direction flow; demand (year) and season.

For convenience these scenarios can be grouped into set of runs, the key considerations and current understanding of assumptions are discussed in more detail below.


18

Run No. Runways Taxiways / Sketch No

(1) Aprons Runway Mode Flow Year Schedule Other

1 Existing Option 1 / C007 IFP 22 Gates Crossing Runways North 2015 Summer

2 Existing Option 1 / C007 IFP 22 Gates Crossing Runways South 2015 Summer

3 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Segregated 1 North 2015 Summer Arrivals

4 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Segregated 1 South 2015 Summer 16L/34R

5 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Segregated 2 North 2015 Summer Arrivals

6 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Segregated 2 South 2015 Summer 16R/34L

7 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Preferred Segregated North 2015 Winter De-icing

8 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Preferred Segregated South 2015 Winter De-icing

9 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025 Summer

10 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025 Summer

11 Parallels Txy Romeo IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025 Summer

12 Parallels Txy Romeo IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025 Summer

13 Parallels Txy F extension IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025 Summer

14 Parallels Txy F extension IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025 Summer


19

5.2. Runs 1 to 4

Run No.

Runways Taxiways / Sketch No

Aprons Runway Mode Flow Year Schedule Other

1 Existing Option 1 / C007 IFP 22 Gates Crossing Runways

North 2015 Summer

2 Existing Option 1 / C007 IFP 22 Gates Crossing Runways

South 2015 Summer

This series tests the existing layout. Runs 1 and 2 have the addition of full build of the taxiway system (including the northern extension of taxiway H) to support the existing runway system. It is the ―do nothing‖ option in the EA, and looks at the degradation of performance of the airfield system as traffic builds to the project 2015 level under the predominant (and highest capacity) runway modes of operation for north and south traffic flow using crossing runways. All runs include apron development of IFP to 22 gates.

20152015

Existing Airfield

Run #1Run #1

Crossing runwaysCrossing runways

InclIncl Txy H northTxy H north

North flowNorth flow

20152015

Run #2Run #2



Existing Airfield

South flowSouth flow

5.3. Runs 3 to 6

Run No. Runways

Taxiways / Sketch No Aprons

Runway Mode Flow Year Schedule Other

3 Parallels

IFP 22 Gates

Segregated 34R Arr

North 2015 Summer

4 Parallels

IFP 22 Gates

Segregated 16L Arr

South 2015 Summer

5 Parallels

IFP 22 Gates

Segregated 34R Dep

North 2015 Summer

6 Parallels

IFP 22

Gates

Segregated

16L Dep South 2015 Summer

This series tests the parallel runway layout on day of opening (2015) and includes the IFP aprons with 22 gates.

There are two flows to be modelled – north and south, using the summer schedule (representative busy day). In Workshop 1 it was agreed that on day of opening the additional capacity of the parallel runway system over the current crossing runways would likely permit use of segregated runway modes of operation.

20152015

Run #3Run #3New Runway

Parallel runwaysParallel runways

Segregated mode 1Segregated mode 1

North flowNorth flow20152015





20152015




South flowSouth flow20152015






20

However, there were diverging opinions on which runway would be used for arrivals and which for departures.

Therefore, it was decided in Workshop 2 that both segregated options would be modelled to determine any major taxiing issues with both modes.

Runs 3 and 4 assume the new runway is for arrivals only, and runs 5 and 6 assume it is a departures runway.

20152015









20152015









20152015









20152015










21

5.4. Runs 7 and 8 Run No. Runways Taxiways Aprons


7 Parallels IFP 22 Gates Preferred Segregated North 2015 Winter De-icing

8 Parallels IFP 22 Gates

Preferred

Segregated South 2015 Winter De-icing

This series tests the parallel runway layout at 2015 (winter) demand with de-icing in operation.

The winter demand will be based on the base (summer schedule) modified (appropriately scaled down) to reflect schedule changes between summer and winter and absolute level of aircraft movement demand. The 2015 demand assumes the IFP aprons with 22 gates. There are two flows to be modelled – north and south.

In Workshop 1 it was explained that there are currently three (3) options for the location of the de-icing facilities (shown opposite). However, from discussions in Workshop 2, it was decided to hold the running of this scenario until the preferred segregated mode was decided on (runs 3-6). This is likely to influence the choice of the preferred de-icing location.

20152015



Segregated mode 1 or 2Segregated mode 1 or 2






20152015









Runs 9 and 10

Run No. Runways Taxiways Aprons Runway Mode Flow Year Schedule Other

9 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed North 2025 Summer

10 Parallels IFP Full Build Mixed South 2025 Summer

This series tests the parallel runway layout at 2025 demand and includes the IFP aprons with full build.

There are two flows to be modelled – north and south, using the summer schedule (representative busy day).

In Workshop 1 it was agreed that at this point demand would require the additional capacity afforded by adopting mixed mode on the parallel runway system.

Congestion is anticipated due to inadequate cross-taxiways links. The delays in these scenarios will be compared to those with introduction of additional E-W links (taxiway R) runs 11 and 12, or alternatively the extension of taxiway F – runs 13 and 14.

20252025



Mixed modeMixed mode










20252025














22



11 Parallels Txy Romeo

IFP Full Build

Mixed North 2025 Summer

12 Parallels Txy

Romeo

IFP Full

Build

Mixed South 2025 Summer

This series tests the parallel runway layout at 2025 (summer) assuming that the addition of the cross-taxiway link R, will add operational flexibility and efficiency to make mixed mode operations in peak periods more viable.

Alternative assumptions for Runs 11 and 12 are partial implementation of taxiway R in 2025. This recognizes the difficulty in displacement of existing infrastructure along the alignment of taxiway R in the short term. Partial implementation would include elements of taxiway R in those areas with the least constraints and which would permit construction of passing loops for east-west taxiway flows. There are two flows to be modelled – north and south.

20152015





20152015







13 Parallels Txy F extension

IFP Full Build

Mixed North 2025 Summer

14 Parallels Txy F

extension

IFP Full

Build

Mixed South 2025 Summer

This series tests the parallel runway layout at 2025 (summer) assuming that the addition of the cross-taxiway link F extension, will add operational flexibility and efficiency to make mixed mode operations in peak periods more viable.

There are two flows to be modelled – north and south.


23

6 Base Case Assumptions Subheadingt

6.1. Introduction This document outlines the key inputs and assumptions used in the ARCport ALTO simulation model for the defined ―Base Case‖. The document has been broken down into three main sections: Layout, Performance and Management. The Layout section defines the physical feature of the airspace and airfield that is applied to the model for the base case modes. The Performance section outlines the aircraft performance parameters applied to aircraft. This includes all performance inputs required for the aircraft to manoeuvre from the airspace to the gate. The Management section is separated into two sub-sections: Airspace and Airfield Management. These sub-sections define all remaining assumptions that govern the movement of aircraft in the airspace and on the airfield.

Inputs and assumptions have been aligned to the NAVCanada TAAM model as closely as possible in order to maintain comparative results. The model is constructed to simulate visual flight conditions with all aircraft following instrument approaches and departures. The schedule accounts for all aircraft recorded in flight logs. For more information on schedule production refer to the Demand Discussion Paper.

6.2. Scope Model Scope The scope of the Calgary Airport airfield model will extend from the aircraft stands to the boundaries of the airport terminal area. This means aircraft will enter the airspace at the defined inbound ―bedposts‖ and exit the airspace essentially at the bounds of the terminal airspace. Inbound, aircraft will follow the assigned Standard Terminal Approach Route (STAR) to the relative runway and then taxi to the assigned gate. No Ground Service Equipment (GSE) will be modeled.

Base Case The airfield ―base case‖ layout has been defined as containing the following basic detail:

Airspace Layout – as current layout of STAR’s and SID’s

Airfield Layout – including all airfield development planned up until 2015 except the parallel runway (16L/34R).

This airfield layout will include the complete construction of taxiway Hotel, the addition of a high speed exit off runway 10, the modification of runway 34 exit C2, the extension of taxiway November to runway 07/25, the 2015 planned layout of the International Facilities Project (IFP) and related taxiways and taxi-lanes, and the construction of taxiway Whisky North.


24

Modes Modeled Two modes of operation will be modeled in the ―base case‖ on the defined airfield. These will include the following:

Arrivals 10/16R Departures 10/16R

Arrival 28/34L Departures 28/34L

The two modes will test the existing runway layout. It is the ―do nothing‖ option in the Environmental Assessment, and looks at the degradation of performance of the airfield system as traffic builds to the project 2015 level under the predominant (and highest capacity) runway modes of operation for north and south traffic flow using crossing runways.

20152015

Existing Airfield

Run #1Run #1




20152015

Run #2Run #2



Existing Airfield


FIGURE ‎6-1 AIRFIELD LAYOUT WITH ARRIVAL DEPARTURE FLOWS

6.3. Layout Airspace Information on STAR’s and SID’s was sourced from the Canada Air Pilot: Instrument Procedures handbook published by NAVCanada. This information included waypoint longitudes and latitudes, altitude restrictions and speed advice.

Standard Terminal Approach Routes (STAR’s) The selected STAR’s were nominated after discussion with NAVCanada controllers, who also provided information on altitude ranges at each waypoint. Table 6-1 outlines the latitude and longitude of each waypoint in the Calgary terminal airspace and Tables 6-2 and 6-3 outlines the waypoints utilized in the model and the relative altitude ranges and speed expectation.


25

Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds

ALOMO ALOMO_KAXOM TWO 51 18 54 112 45 36

KAXOM ALOMO_KAXOM TWO 51 14 36 113 10 12

CALER ALOMO_KAXOM TWO 51 8 18 113 45 18

ELERO FACF 16 51 18 48 114 1 16

HENRI FACF 28 51 1 37 113 45 41

ARBUC FACF 10 51 12 49 114 16 33

GABOL FACF 34 50 55 1 114 1 17

DALLY DALLY.DALLY5 51 36 48 114 46 36

HEMPP DALLY.DALLY5 51 31 30 114 37 0

CAINN DALLY.DALLY5 51 18 12 114 13 6

EPLUR EPLUR.DUVNO1 51 50 30 113 35 24

URPON EPLUR.DUVNO1 51 44 42 113 37 48

DUVNO EPLUR.DUVNO1 51 38 54 113 40 6

BAIRS EPLUR.DUVNO1 51 11 47 113 50 59

YYC VORTAC 51 6 54 113 52 55

OPALE OPALE.HANDA5 50 51 12 114 59 36

HANDA OPALE.HANDA5 50 54 0 114 47 48

ALBRO OPALE.HANDA5 50 56 48 114 36 0

HANSI OPALE.HANDA5 51 1 6 114 18 12

MOGOT OPALE.HANDA5 51 2 24 114 12 12

VUCAN VUCAN ONE, SATUL ONE 50 27 12 113 19 42

SATUL VUCAN ONE, SATUL ONE 50 40 24 113 30 42

PERNA VUCAN ONE, SATUL ONE 51 12 52 114 1 17

WISKI DUVNO ONE 51 10 23 113 51 33

PENDL DUVNO ONE 51 5 57 113 41 44 200

BARIE DUVNO ONE, KAXOM TWO 50 55 1 113 53 23 200

KELMA DUVNO ONE, SATUL ONE, KAXOM TWO 51 17 8 114 12 34 200

VITEM HANDA FIVE 51 1 23 114 16 43 220

ADSEK HANDA FIVE 51 6 12 114 13 16

DURAD HANDA FIVE 51 8 29 114 20 30 200

UBTON HANDA FIVE 51 18 48 114 9 14 200

MESKA HANDA FIVE 50 55 1 114 9 11 200

DUPLU HANDA FIVE 51 1 11 114 1 17 LOWER LIMIT OF NEXT WP IN STAR

TEXIT HANDA FIVE 50 57 17 113 49 37 200

SENKO KAXOM TWO 51 11 4 113 30 2

KEPTU KAXOM TWO 51 11 53 113 53 5 LOWER LIMIT OF NEXT WP IN STAR

VOBAR KAXOM TWO, SATUL ONE 51 18 47 113 53 18 200

ONDIR KAXOM TWO 51 1 55 113 53 8 LOWER LIMIT OF NEXT WP IN STAR

GOSOM KAXOM TWO 51 12 34 113 58 25

AGDAN SATUL ONE 50 53 41 113 41 44

Speed Limit (kts)STARWaypointLatitude (North) Longitude (West)

TABLE ‎6-1 STAR WAYPOINT LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE


26

Mode Runway STAR Waypoints Minimum Altitude Maximum Altitude

Mode 1 16 ALOMO.KAXOM2 ALOMO 12000 18000

KAXOM 9000 12000

SENKO 9000 12000

CALER 7500 12000

KEPTU 7500 9500

VOBAR 7500 9500

ELERO 6500 7500

SARCEE 4500 5500

EPLUR.DUVNO1 EPLUR 12000 18000

URPON 10000 14000

DUVNO 9000 12000

ELERO 6500 7500

SARCEE 4500 5500

VUCAN.SATUL1 VUCAN 12000 18000

SATUL 9000 12000

AGDAN 9000 12000

YYC VORTAC 9000 12000

VOBAR 7500 9500

ELERO 6500 7500

SARCEE 4500 5500

DALLY.DALLY5 DALLY 12000 18000

HEMPP 9000 12000

ELERO 6500 7500

SARCEE 4500 5500

OPALE.HANDA5 OPALE 12000 18000

HANDA 12000 16000

ALBRO 10000 16000

VITEM 10000 14000

ADSEK 7500 10000

UBTON 7500 9500

ELERO 6500 7500

SARCEE 4500 5500

10 DALLY.DALLY5 DALLY 12000 18000

HEMPP 9000 12000

ARBUC 6500 7500

FAF10 4500 5500


HANDA 12000 16000

ALBRO 10000 16000

VITEM 8000 12000

ADSEK 7500 10000

DURAD 8000 9500

ARBUC 6500 7500

FAF10 4500 5500

TABLE ‎6-2 STAR ROUTES MODE 1

Mode Runway STAR Waypoints Minimum Altitude Maximum Altitude

Mode 2 34 VUCAN.SATUL1 VUCAN 12000 18000

SATUL 9000 12000

GABOL 6500 7500

BOVIX 4500 5500

DALLY.DALLY5 DALLY 12000 18000

HEMPP 9000 12000

CAINN 9000 12000

GABOL 6500 7500

BOVIX 4500 5500


HANDA 12000 16000

ALBRO 10000 16000

MOGOT 7500 9500

MESKA 7500 9500

GABOL 6500 7500

BOVIX 4500 5500

ALOMO.KAXOM2 ALOMO 12000 18000

KAXOM 9000 12000

SENKO 8000 12000

CALER 8000 12000

ONDIR 7500 9500

BARIE 7500 9500

GABOL 6500 7500

BOVIX 4500 5500


URPON 12000 18000

DUVNO 9000 12000

WISKI 8000 11000

YYC VORTAC 7500 9500

BARIE 7500 9500

GABOL 6500 7500

BOVIX 4500 5500

28 ALOMO.KAXOM2 ALOMO 12000 18000

KAXOM 9000 12000

SENKO 8000 12000

HENRI 6500 7500

FAF28 4500 5500


URPON 12000 18000

DUVNO 9000 12000

WISKI 7500 9500

PENDL 7500 9500

HENRI 6500 7500

FAF28 4500 5500

TABLE ‎6-3 STAR ROUTES MODE 2


27

Standard Instrument Departures (SID) The SID routes are defined to a lesser extent than STAR’s. For the simulation, less focus is placed on the SID’s as it is considered that, since the aircraft are moving away from the ―bottleneck‖ of the airport, departures will present fewer problems. The departure routes will be defined more for visualization purposes than for analysis.

Five terminal area exit gates exist. In the model each gate is represented by one waypoint which aircraft must pass through when exiting the terminal airspace. These gates are represented by the waypoints shown in Table 6-4.

Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds

North 1 GELLE 51 32 22 114 8 58

North 2 MADYN 51 29 42 114 16 0

North East GRETO 51 32 42 113 12 48

South East BACHO 50 49 42 113 4 48 HUSAR

South HAYDN 50 28 0 114 12 54 DARWN, NUVVE, TURNY

West CANOP 51 4 6 114 35 30

RepresentingGate WaypointLatitude (North) Longitude (West)

TABLE ‎6-4 DEPARTURE EXIT WAYPOINTS

Since there are only radar SID’s provided in the NAVCANADA charts no other defined waypoints exist for departures from Calgary Airport. Waypoints for SID’s have instead been added to ensure realistic climb performance is achieved and all STAR’s are not impacted. Two general rules exist for Jets and Non-jets:

Jets climb to 6500ft above sea level (ASL) before they can head to exit waypoint

Non-jets climb to 4057ft ASL before they can head to exit waypoints

It should be noted that all non-jets make and initial turn at 4057ft ASL and continue to approximately 5NM before heading to their respective exit waypoint. Also, in practice Jets can turn at a lower altitude when departing on runway 34. However, this is not seen as critical to the results of this study.

Airspace Segmenting On arrival and departure aircraft are often allocated to a certain runway and its corresponding STAR or SID depending on their origin/destination. This is common practice while both runways are operating. It ensures aircraft separation is maintained and the airspace complexity is kept to a minimum. Exceptions exist for all wide body jets (WBJ), which always use runway 16/34. In general the terminal airspace will be split into 2 sectors (East and West)

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 10

ARR 16

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 10

ARR 16

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 10

ARR 16

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 34

ARR 28

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 34

ARR 28

FIGURE ‎6-2 ARRIVAL AIRSPACE SORTING IN TERMINAL AIRSPACE

DEP 16

DEP 10

358/359°

136/137°

GRETO

BACHO

HAYDN

CANOP

MADYN

GELLE

DEP 16

DEP 10

358/359°

136/137°

GRETO

BACHO

HAYDN

CANOP

MADYN

GELLE

DEP 28

DEP 34

325/326°

136/137°

MADYN

GRETO

BACHO

HAYDN

CANOP

GELLE

DEP 28

DEP 34

325/326°

136/137°

MADYN

GRETO

BACHO

HAYDN

CANOP

GELLE

FIGURE ‎6-3 DEPARTURE AIRSPACE SORTING IN TERMINAL AIRSPACE


28

6.4. Airfield Layout Scope – Runways and Taxiways The airfield layout will feature the addition of full build of the taxiway system (including the northern extension of Taxiway H) to support the existing runway system. This also includes the extension of Taxiway N, the addition of Taxiway W north and Taxiway F1. Both scenarios will include apron development of IFP to 22 gates. It should be boted that the section of Taxiway Golf between Foxtrot and Juliet will be made unavailable for taxiing.

FIGURE ‎6-4 AIRFIELD LAYOUT


29

Aprons For the base case 11 aprons are located on the airfield. All aprons and their locations are listed in the Table 6-5.

Apron Name Apron Location Aircraft Types

Apron 1 NE All Commercial

Apron 2 NE Commercial/Cargo Apron 3 SE GA

Apron 4 SE GA

Apron 5 SE GA

Apron 6 SW GA

Apron 7 NW Cargo

Apron 8 SW GA

Apron 9 NW Cargo

Air Canada Apron NE (End of Route 1) Air Canada Remote Parking

West Jet Apron NE (North of Juliet) West Jet Remote Parking TABLE ‎6-5 AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON DETAILS

Apron 1Apron 9

Apron 7

Apron 2

Apron 6/8Apron 3/4/5

WJA

ACA

Apron 1Apron 9

Apron 7

Apron 2

Apron 6/8Apron 3/4/5

WJA

ACA

FIGURE ‎6-5 APRON LOCATIONS


30

Airport Reference Point, Elevation and Magnetic Variation Defining the airport location and elevation is very important due to the continual reference of other inputs to this detail. This information sets the base for all other layout features (e.g. waypoints, runways and taxiways). This data was sourced from the Canada Air Pilot: Instrument Procedures handbook published by NAVCANADA. Figure 3.5 outlines the basic layout and detail of this document.

FIGURE ‎6-6 AERODROME CHART

Airport Reference Point (ARP)

Latitude and Longitude Degrees Minutes Seconds

North 51 6 50

West 114 1 13 TABLE ‎6-6 ARP LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE

ARP Elevation: 3557ft

Magnetic Variation: 17 Degrees East

Runways 1. Runway 16/34

2. Runway 10/28

3. Runway 07/25 (only used as taxiway in model)

RWY Length (m) Width (m) Elevation (ft)*

16/34 3,863 60 3356/3543

10/28 2,438 60 3547/3542

07/25 1,890 45 3531/3557

*Runway elevation is not used in model TABLE ‎6-7 RUNWAY DIMENSIONS

6.5. Performance Aircraft Classification Groups The aircraft performance parameters are separated into five main groups as per the classifications provided in NAVCanada data. These groups include Wide Body Jets (WBJ), Narrow Body Jets (NBJ), Light Jets (LJ), Turbo Props (TP) and Pistons (P). Aircraft were selected on their frequency of operation at Calgary Airport from the list of aircraft provided in the data.


31

The following aircraft fall under the five categories:

Category Type Manufacturer Representing

WBJ A330 Airbus A332, A333, B788

A300-600 Airbus A306

A340 Airbus A345

B777-200 Boeing B772, B773

B74A Boeing B742

A310 Airbus A310

NBJ A320 Airbus A319, A320

A321 Airbus A321

CL60 CanadairC750, CL60, F2TH, FA50,

GLF5

B737-800 Boeing B736, B737, B738

B737-200 Boeing B732



CR9 Canadair CR9, CRJ9, E190

F100 Fokker BA11

LJ C500 CessnaC25B, C500, C501, C525,

C550, C680

C560 Cessna C560, C56X, LJ55

CARJ Canadair CR2, CRJ1, CRJ2, CRJ7

H25B Hawker-Beechcraft H25B

LJ31 Learjet GL5T, LJ35, LJ40, LJ45

TP AC6T Rockwell AC90

BE10 Hawker-Beechcraft BE10, BE9L, PC12

C130 Lockheed CVLT

D328 Dornier B350, D328

DHC8 De Havilland CanadaB190, BE20, DH8A, DH8C,

DH8D

JSTA British Aerospace C401, DA42, JS31, JS32

MU2 Mitsubishi HAWK

SF34 Saab SF34

SW4 Fairchild-Swearingen SW3, SW4

P BE36 Hawker-Beechcraft C208

BE58 Hawker-Beechcraft BE58, DH6

C172 Cessna C172

C182 Cessna C182

PA28 Piper PA28

PA31 Piper PA30, PA31

PA42 Piper C441 TABLE ‎6-8 AIRCRAFT MODELED

As performance data is only provided for a certain number of aircraft, these certain aircraft will represent the performance data of other aircraft. This list of aircraft and those that they represent was also provided by NAVCanada with the performance data. Therefore, the column in Table 4-1 titled ―Type‖ outlines the aircraft that will represent the aircraft in the column titled ―Representing‖.

The performance data in Table 4-2 outlines the performance parameters which are applied in the model for each group (WBJ, NBJ, LJ, TP and P). In many cases the NAVCanada provided data was converted to the ARCport ALTO required units.

Performance Parameters Performance parameters were taken for between the altitude of 3,000’ and 25,000’:


32

Sector Input Unit WBJ NBJ LJ TP P

Terminal Airspace min speed kts 155 137 109 120 70

max speed kts 380 366 300 260 233

max accel ft/sec/sec 4.23 4.23 3.38 2.25 1.97

max decel ft/sec/sec 4.51 4.51 2.25 2.25 2.11

min holding speed kts 208 175 150 100 80

max holding speed kts 235 290 210 180 160

max down vertical speed ft/min 5000 4000 4200 2500 2500

max up vertical speed ft/min 4500 4600 7500 3100 2900

Approach min approach length nm 4 4 4 4 4

min approach speed kts 140 130 96 110 75

max approach speed kts 250 220 175 210 170

Landing min touchdown speed kts 120 90 86 89 50

max touchdown speed kts 160 139 117 130 110

min touchdown distance m 300 300 300 300 300

max touchdown distance m 300 300 300 300 300

max decel ft/sec/sec 5.90 8.20 9.84 7.87 13.11

normal decel ft/sec/sec 5.38 5.84 8.52 6.62 9.48

min land distance m 1160 900 800 120 150

max land distance m 2500 1500 1000 1020 1400

max speed (acute exit) kts 15 15 10 20 15

max speed (90 deg exit) kts 35 35 30 35 20

max speed (high speed exit) kts 50 60 40 60 40

Taxi Inbound accel m/s/s 1.65 1.89 2.5 2.44 1.5

decel m/s/s 1.64 1.78 2.60 2.02 2.89

normal taxi speed kts 15 15 15 15 15

max taxi speed kts 15 15 15 15 15

intersection buffer ft Default Default Default Default Default

min separation in Q m Default Default Default Default Default

max separation in Q m Default Default Default Default Default

Stand Service min turn around time min 30 30 30 30 30

Pushback/Tow pushback operation speed m/s Uniform Dist [1-2] Uniform Dist [1-2] Uniform Dist [1-2] Uniform Dist [1-2] Uniform Dist [1-2]

unhook and taxi time mins Uniform Dist [1.5-3.5] Uniform Dist [1.5-3.5] Uniform Dist [1.5-3.5] Uniform Dist [1.5-3.5] Uniform Dist [1.5-3.5]

attached accel m/s/s Uniform Dist [0-3] Uniform Dist [0-3] Uniform Dist [0-3] Uniform Dist [0-3] Uniform Dist [0-3]

attached decel m/s/s Uniform Dist [1-5] Uniform Dist [1-5] Uniform Dist [1-5] Uniform Dist [1-5] Uniform Dist [1-5]

tow speed m/s Constant [5] Constant [5] Constant [5] Constant [5] Constant [5]

Engines Startup/running starting time sec 0 0 0 0 0

Taxi Outbound accel m/s/s 1.65 1.89 2.5 2.44 1.5

decel m/s/s 1.64 1.78 2.60 2.02 2.89

normal taxi speed kts 15 15 15 15 15

max taxi speed kts 15 15 15 15 15

intersection buffer m Default Default Default Default Default

min separation in Q m Default Default Default Default Default

max separation in Q m Default Default Default Default Default

Take-off min accel ft/sec/sec 5.41 6.20 8.20 8.00 4.92

max accel ft/sec/sec 6.56 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20

min lift-off speed kts 134 120 97 90 50

max lift-off speed kts 170 160 122 120 107

min position time sec 10 6 6 6 2

max position time sec 10 6 6 6 2

min take-off roll m 1600 1260 860 650 450

max take-off roll m 3300 2300 1450 1330 1350

Departure Climb min horizontal accel ft/sec/sec 1.69 1.41 1.97 0.85 0.56

max horizontal accel ft/sec/sec 4.23 4.23 3.38 2.25 1.97

min vertical speed ft/min 800 1152 1800 300 140

max vertical speed ft/min 4500 4600 7500 3100 2900 TABLE ‎6-9 AIRCRAFT CATEGORY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS


33

Performance Exceptions Aircraft performance is also governed by Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), especially in the terminal airspace and on the airfield. In order to maintain certain separations, ATC will request aircraft to operate at certain speeds, altitudes or on a certain heading. The following general rules apply to aircraft:

Normal airspeed on approach – 250kts

Max airspeed below 10,000ft – 250kts

Normal airspeed on final – 160kts

Normal departure airspeed – 250kts

Normal Downwind Approach Speed: 210kts

Speed on taxiways – 15kts

Speed on Aprons – 7kts

Tow speed - 5kts

Minimum gate occupancy time – 30 minutes 1

Minimum gate occupancy before tow to remote stand – 60 minutes 2

Minimum total gate occupancy for towing – 120 minutes 3

Time before take-off acceleration (after aircraft are ―lined-up‖ on runway):

— Heavy: 10 seconds

— Medium: 6 seconds

— Light: 2 seconds

6.6. Airfield Management RWY Entry/Exits Runway entry and exit points are critical as they govern the start and end points of taxiway flows. Due to the traffic levels experienced at Calgary Airport, the entry and exits used by aircraft on each runway are very specific and were provided by Calgary ATC.

1 Time for empty aircraft to be towed to gate and depart

2 Includes time for aircraft to be unloaded and prepared for towing

3 Accounts for aircraft to stay minimum time before being towed (60 minutes) and

minimum time for another aircraft to be able to use stand (30 minutes) plus minimum time for towed aircraft to use stand before departure (30 minutes).

Departure Runway

Aircraft Category

Gate Location Available Taxiway Entry

10 ALL NE, NW Juliet

ALL W, SE, SW Wiski 16 ALL NE, SE C8

TP, P NE C4

TP, P SE U

TP, P SW A1

JET NW, SW, W Alpha

28 ALL NE, W Foxtrot

ALL NW, SE, SW Uniform

34 ALL NE, SE Charlie

TP, P NE C1 ALL NW, SW, W Alpha

TABLE ‎6-10 RUNWAY ENTRY POINTS

Arrival Runway Aircraft Category


10 ALL NE Foxtrot, Hotel, F1

ALL NW, SE, SW, W Uniform, Hotel

16 ALL NE, SE C1, C3

ALL NW, SW, W Uniform, A3 28 ALL NE, NW Alpha, J2, Juliet

ALL W, SE, SW Alpha, Wiski

34 ALL NE C2, C4, C6

ALL SE Uniform, C3

ALL NW, W Uniform, A1

JET SW Uniform, A1

TP, P SW Uniform, A3 TABLE ‎6-11 RUNWAY EXIT POINTS

Gate locations are defined as follows: NE – includes Aprons 1 and 2

NW – includes the cargo Apron 9

SE – includes the GA Aprons 3,4,5

SW – includes the GA Aprons 6,8

W – includes cargo Apron 7


34

Gate Allocation and Constraints Gate allocation will be predominantly governed by the schedule created through the demand analysis process and the adjacency constraints set for gates. The schedule defines parking locations for each aircraft by apron. Table 5-3 defines the general rules that are applied but exceptions may exist.

Airline ICAO Code Contact Stand

Air Canada Domestic* ACA Pier A/B

Air Canada International ACA IFP

Jazz JZZ Pier A/B

WestJet Domestic WJA Pier D/C

Canadian North MPE Pier D/C

WestJet International WJA IFP

Air North ANT Pier D/C Central Mountain Air GLR Pier B

International Carriers Various IFP

Cargo Various Apron 2, 7, 9

GA Various Apron 3 ,4, 5, 6, 8

*Including all Air Canada code share airlines TABLE ‎6-12 GENERAL AIRCRAFT PARKING ALLOCATION

For specific allocation within a certain apron, aircraft are allocated in the schedule with consideration of the Gate Matrix dated May 2009 provided by the Airport Authority.

Cargo apron allocation is generally as per Table 5-4. Exceptions exit for Code E and F aircraft allocated to Apron 7. These aircraft will be reallocated to Apron 2.

Airline ICAO Code Contact Stand

Cargojet CJT Apron 9

ASIANA AAR Apron 9

CARGOLUX CLX Apron 9

KLM Cargo KLM Apron 9 UPS UPS Apron 9

FEDEX FDX Apron 9

Kelowna Flightcraft KFA Apron 7

Morningstar Air Express MAL Apron 7

Atlas Air GTI Apron 2 TABLE ‎6-13 CARGO AIRLINE APRON ALLOCATION


35

Remote Parking Since delays are observed now and are expected in the model, contingencies need to be setup for foreseeable and unforeseeable situations. For those unforeseeable cases where an aircraft needs to be re-allocated to a new gate, a plan must be applied so that aircraft are re-allocated to a reasonable location. For aircraft staying extended times at a gate a remote stand may be required to open up gates for other aircraft. In these cases aircraft need to taxi or be towed to reasonable remote stands. These two situations are accounted for in the model.

Remote parking is used for aircraft from Apron 1 requiring an off-gate location to park overnight or if staying longer than 150 minutes on-gate. Certain piers have been allocated certain remote parking locations. The following rules exist for relocation of aircraft from contact stands on Apron 1 to remote stands:

Contact Stand Remote Stands Remote Stand Location

Pier A 90-99, Air Canada Apron South of Pier A, South End of Route 1B

Pier B/C 120-129 West of Pier B/C

Pier D 130-133, West Jet Apron North of Pier D, North of Taxiway Juliet IFP IFP Remote 1-6 East of IFP TABLE ‎6-14 APRON 1 REMOTE PARKING LOCATIONS

130-133

120-129

90-99

IFP

Remote

AC Apron

130-133

120-129

90-99

IFP

Remote

AC Apron

FIGURE ‎6-7 APRON 1 REMOTE PARKING LOCATIONS

Taxi Routes and Flow Constraints To maintain an accurate simulation of aircraft movement on the ground, all taxiway routes were defined for each runway mode modeled. All taxi routes were defined by NAVCanada after analyzing the base case plan. Note that GA aircraft coming from international destinations go through the Apron 6 GA customs area.

FIGURE ‎6-8 ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLOWS FOR RUNWAY 10



36



Apron 1 Entry and Exit Routes The Apron 1 entry and exit points are dependent on the parking location of aircraft due to the high traffic experienced in this area. NAVCanada provided information for the two operating modes (RWY 10/16 and RWY 28/34) of the base case which includes the 22 gate IFP development.

FIGURE ‎6-12 APRON FLOWS FOR RUNWAY MODE 10/16

Concourse/Gates Entry Taxiway

Concourse A, B, C, E Golf

Concourse D C8

TABLE ‎6-15 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 10/16

Concourse/Gates Exit Taxiway

Concourse A and E Juliet via nearest Taxiway

Concourse B/C, Gates 31-34,41,43,45,47,49

C6

Gates 40,42,44,46,48,50 Charlie

TABLE ‎6-16 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 10/16


37

FIGURE ‎6-13 APRON FLOWS FOR RUNWAY MODE 28/34


Concourse A, B, C, E Golf

Gates 31-34,41,43,45,47,49 C8

Gates 40,42,44,46,48,50 C

TABLE ‎6-17 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 28/34


Concourse A and E Juliet via nearest Taxiway

Concourse B/C, Gates 31-34 C6

Gates 40+ C8

TABLE ‎6-18 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE 28/34

6.7. Airspace Management Approach and Departure Flight Plans Each STAR and SID has a designated flight plan that aircraft aim to achieve. However, due to sequencing of aircraft these plans often vary in flight. This functionality in ARCport operates as guidance to aircraft only. It defines the altitude, speed and mode of flight at each waypoint.

The altitudes remain within the defined range at each waypoint. These may vary for different types of aircraft. One exception exists for non-jet aircraft approaches, where they are defined to cross the inner fixes (KAXOM, HEMPP, DUVNO and SATUL) at 11,000’.

The definition of speed gives aircraft the expected speed at each waypoint and can be overridden by sequencing or performance limitations. The expected speed, as defined earlier, is 250kts on approach up until final approach. From final approach a speed guidance of 160kts is applied, while on departure a constant speed guidance of 250kts is applied.

Mode of Flight governs what aircraft performance data is utilized during each flight segment. This is critical as aircraft may be restricted by their performance in certain segments. In such instances, the aircraft will only be able to perform within its defined performance parameter limits even if the flight plan defines a performance parameter outside of this range.

Separation Standards Separation standards are enforced for many reasons, the most obvious of these being safety. Due to wake vortices caused by the flow of air over aircraft wings, a base separation is maintained by aircraft. This separation is defined as ―Wake Vortex Separation‖ and must be maintained when aircraft are following the same or intersecting flight paths (often seen in the terminal airspace). Other factors govern separations and often they are specific to the situation at each airport. Larger separations may be maintained in the terminal airspace due to the convergence of STAR’s at certain points or if aircraft require extra time on the runway to achieve a certain exit location. The general rules that are applied at all airports across Canada are defined in the ATC MANOPS document produced by NAVCanada.


38

Wake Vortex Separation The following wake vortex separation standards must be applied in all airspace across Canada for aircraft on the same or intersecting flight paths (defined in the ATC MANOPS).

Leading\Trailing H M L

H 4 5 6

M - - 4

L - - -

TABLE ‎6-19 WAKE VORTEX SEPARATION STANDARDS (NM)

Terminal Separation Terminal separation is applied to aircraft within the terminal area, where a minimum of 1,000ft altitude and 3NM distance is maintained between all aircraft (defined in the ATC MANOPS). Since all aircraft modeled operate on defined STAR’s and SID’s wake vortex separation also applies, resulting in the following separation standards:

Leading\Trailing H M L

H 4 5 6

M 3 3 4

L 3 3 3

TABLE ‎6-20 TERMINAL SEPARATION STANDARDS (NM)

Departure Stagger The following departure rules for same runway operations are applied in the model if no wake vortex separations are defined:

Jet ahead of Jet – 3.25NM minimum separation

Jet ahead of Non-jet – 3.25NM minimum separation

Non-jet ahead of Non-jet – 3.25NM minimum separation if initial turn in same direction

Note: since non-jets only climb to 500ft AGL, ARCport will automatically clear the following aircraft once the preceding aircraft leaves the common flight path.

For intersecting runway operations, a departing aircraft is clear to take-off when the departing aircraft on the intersecting runway passes the intersection. ARCport implements this functionality automatically.

Arrival Stagger (Intersecting Runways) Arrival stagger is the separation required for intersecting runways (single runway arrival stagger is defined by terminal separation standards). These need to be defined as they are specific to the airport situation. The arrival stagger is defined as the distance the following aircraft must be from the threshold when the first aircraft touches down.

For arrivals on runway 10 and 16 an arrival stagger of 1.5NM is required for both possible combinations:

1. Arrival 10 followed by Arrival 16

2. Arrival 16 followed by Arrival 10

For arrivals on runway 28 and 34 an arrival stagger of:

3. 2NM for Arrival 28 followed by Arrival 34

4. 3NM for Arrival 34 followed by Arrival 28

Note: A difference exists between the two modes of operation since the distance to the intersection varies.

Mixed Operation Stagger (Intersecting Runways) Departure after Arrival operation is clear in its definition. An aircraft is capable of taking-off as soon as the runway is no longer occupied by another aircraft. This means if an aircraft lands on the intersecting runway, the aircraft taking off can do so when the preceding arriving aircraft passes the intersection. In the case of the arriving aircraft landing on the same runway as the departing aircraft, the departure can take-off once the arrival exits the runway. This separation is maintained automatically by ARCport.

Departure before Arrival constraints are more complex and must be defined. Two rules exist for this case when both operations are on the same runway:

1. 1NM separation is required for a Jet or a Turbo-prop to be airborne before any other arrival;

2. 2NM separation is required for a Piston to be airborne ahead of before a Jet.


39

For Departures before Arrivals on separate runways, a rule exists for each mode of operation:

3. Arrival needs to be at 1NM when Departure is at intersection for Runway 10/16 operations

4. Arrival needs to be at 1.5NM when Departure is at intersection for Runway 28/34 operations

Origin and Destination Groups Arrival sorting, as mentioned previously, is dependent on the origin of the aircraft. Under advice of NAVCanada the following origins and destinations were aligned with the relevant inbound bedpost and outbound waypoint. Note that where multiple bedposts were assigned to one origin, these origins were assigned to only one bedpost. This was done with reference to movement figures so that an equal distribution was maintained for these special cases.

Inbound Bedpost - ALOMO

Origin Country Name

CYYZ CANADA TORONTO

CYXE CANADA SASKATOON

CYQR CANADA REGINA INTL

CYUL CANADA MONTREAL/PIERRE-ELLIOTT-TRUDEA

CYOW CANADA OTTAWA

CYLL CANADA LLOYDMINSTER

EDDF GERMANY FRANKFURT

CYVG CANADA VERMILION

EGKK UNITED KINGDOM LONDON (GATWICK)

EGCC UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER

CYYN CANADA SWIFT CURRENT

KGEG USA SPOKANE INTL

CFT8 CANADA PELICAN

KSJC USA MINETA SAN JOSE INTL

CYMJ CANADA MOOSE JAW/AIR VICE MARSHALL C.

CYZR CANADA SARNIA (HADFIELD)

CYWV CANADA WAINWRIGHT

CYQT CANADA THUNDER BAY

CYBR CANADA BRANDON MUNI

LFPG FRANCE PARIS (CDG)

CYYQ CANADA CHURCHILL

EGVN UNITED KINGDOM BRIZE NORTON AB

EDDV GERMANY HANNOVER

EHAM NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM

CYFB CANADA IQALUIT TABLE ‎6-21 ALOMO AIRCRAFT ORIGINS


40

Inbound Bedpost – DALLY

Origin Country Name

CYQU CANADA GRANDE PRAIRIE

CYET CANADA EDSON

CYXS CANADA PRINCE GEORGE

CYXJ CANADA FT ST JOHN

CYPE CANADA PEACE RIVER

CYZU CANADA WHITECOURT

CYDQ CANADA DAWSON CREEK

CYXY CANADA WHITEHORSE INTL

CYYE CANADA FT NELSON

CYRM CANADA ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE

CEC4 CANADA HINTON/JASPER-HINTON

CYOJ CANADA HIGH LEVEL

RKSI KOREA INCHEON INTL

CYCZ CANADA FAIRMONT HOT SPRINGS TABLE ‎6-22 DALLY AIRCRAFT ORIGINS

Inbound Bedpost - EPLUR

Origin Country Name

CYEG CANADA EDMONTON INTL

CYMM CANADA FT MC MURRAY

CYXD CANADA EDMONTON CITY CENTER

CYBF CANADA BONNYVILLE

CYQF CANADA RED DEER REGIONAL

EGLL UNITED KINGDOM LONDON (HEATHROW)

CYNR CANADA FORT MACKAY

CYZF CANADA YELLOWKNIFE

CRL4 CANADA KIRBY LAKE

CAL4 CANADA FORT MACKAY

CYLB CANADA LAC LA BICHE

CER4 CANADA FORT MCMURRAY

CFG6 CANADA #N/A

CEG4 CANADA DRUMHELLER MUN

CYZH CANADA SLAVE LAKE

CZVL CANADA VILLENEUVE

CEE5 CANADA WABASCA

ELLX LUXEMBURG LUXEMBOURG

CER3 CANADA DRAYTON VALLEY INDUSTRIAL

EGPF UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW

PANC USA ANCHORAGE

CEH3 CANADA PONOKA INDUSTRIAL-LABRIE FIELD

CYOD CANADA COLD LAKE

CEX3 CANADA WETASKIWIN

BIKF ICELAND KEFLAVIK

CYWM CANADA ATHABASCA

CEN5 CANADA COLD LAKE REGL

CEZ3 CANADA COOKING LAKE

CFX2 CANADA OKOTOKS AIR PARK

CYED CANADA #N/A TABLE ‎6-23 EPLUR AIRCRAFT ORIGINS


41

Inbound Bedpost - OPALE

Origin Country Name

CYVR CANADA VANCOUVER

CYLW CANADA KELOWNA

CYYJ CANADA VICTORIA INTL

CYXX CANADA ABBOTSFORD

KSEA USA SEATTLE

KLAX USA LOS ANGELES

KSFO USA SAN FRANCISCO

CYXC CANADA CRANBROOK/CANADIAN ROCKIES INT

CYQQ CANADA COMOX

CYKA CANADA KAMLOOPS

CYYF CANADA PENTICTON

CYCG CANADA CASTLEGAR

KBFI USA BOEING FIELD/KING CO INTL

CYVK CANADA VERNON

MMSD MEXICO LOS CABOS INTL

KBOI USA BOISE AIR TERMINAL/GOWEN

CZAM CANADA SALMON ARM

CYRV CANADA REVELSTOKE

KPDX USA PORTLAND INTL

KSAN USA SAN DIEGO INTL

KDAL USA DALLAS LOVE

CET2 CANADA LEISMER

PHOG USA MAUI ISL. KAHULUI

KOAK USA OAKLAND

CYGE CANADA GOLDEN

PHNL USA OAHU ISL. HONOLULU INTL TABLE ‎6-24 OPALE AIRCRAFT ORIGINS

Inbound Bedpost - VUCAN Origin Country Name

CYWG CANADA JAMES ARMSTRONG RICHARDSON INT

CYQL CANADA LETHBRIDGE

CYXH CANADA MEDICINE HAT

KIAH USA HOUSTON

KDEN USA DENVER

KPHX USA PHOENIX

KORD USA CHICAGO

CYHM CANADA HAMILTON

KLAS USA LAS VEGAS

KSLC USA SALT LAKE

KPSP USA PALM SPRINGS INTL

CYHZ CANADA HALIFAX INTL

KMSP USA MINNEAPOLIS

KDFW USA DALLAS/FORD WORTH

CYXU CANADA LONDON

MMUN MEXICO CANCUN INTL

KMEM USA MEMPHIS

KJFK USA NEW YORK (JFK)

CYKF CANADA KITCHENER/WATERLOO

KGTF USA GREAT FALLS INTL

KFSD USA FOSS

MMPR MEXICO LIC GUSTAVO DIAZ ORDAZ INTL

KSDL USA SCOTTSDALE

KMCO USA ORLANDO

MUVR CUBA JUAN G. GOMEZ INTL

KGPI USA GLACIER PARK INTL

MDPC DOMINICAN REPUBLIC PUNTA CANA INTL

KTEB USA TETERBORO

KHOU USA HOBBY

MDPP DOMINICAN REPUBLIC GREGORIO LUPERON INTL

KTUS USA TUCSON INTL

MMMZ MEXICO GEN RAFAEL BUELNA INTL

KFAR USA HECTOR INTL

KHPN USA WESTCHESTER CO

KBIL USA BILLINGS LOGAN INTL

KMOT USA MINOT INTL

KMDW USA CHICAGO MIDWAY INTL

KCTB USA CUT BANK MUN

KSTP USA ST PAUL DOWNTOWN-HOLMAN TABLE ‎6-25 VUCAN AIRCRAFT ORIGINS


42

Outbound Exit Waypoint - BACHO Destination Country Name

CJQ3 CANADA CARLYLE

CYEN CANADA ESTEVAN

CYHM CANADA HAMILTON

CYHZ CANADA HALIFAX INTL

CYOW CANADA OTTAWA INTL

CYQG CANADA WINDSOR

CYQM CANADA GREATER MONCTON INTL

CYQR CANADA REGINA INTL

CYQT CANADA THUNDER BAY

CYRQ CANADA TROIS-RIVIERES

CYTS CANADA TIMMINS

CYUL CANADA MONTREAL/PIERRE-ELLIOTT-TRUDEA

CYWG CANADA JAMES ARMSTRONG RICHARDSON INT

CYXH CANADA MEDICINE HAT

CYXU CANADA LONDON

CYYN CANADA SWIFT CURRENT

CYYZ CANADA TORONTO

CZBA CANADA #N/A

KBNA USA NASHVILLE INTL

KDAY USA COX-DAYTON INTL

KDTW USA DETROIT

KEWR USA NEWARK

KFAR USA HECTOR INTL

KFSD USA FOSS

KJFK USA NEW YORK (JFK)

KMCI USA KANSAS CITY INTL

KMEM USA MEMPHIS

KMOT USA MINOT INTL

KMSP USA MINNEAPOLIS

KOKC USA WILL ROGERS WORLD

KORD USA CHICAGO

KSDF USA LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORD

KSUS USA SPIRIT OF ST LOUIS

KTOL USA TOLEDO EXPRESS

KUGN USA WAUKEGAN RGL TABLE ‎6-26 BACHO AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS

Outbound Exit Waypoint - CANOP

Destination Country Name

CAA8 CANADA INVERMERE

CAD4 CANADA TRAIL

CAJ3 CANADA CRESTON (ART SUTCLIFFE FIELD)

CYBW CANADA SPRINGBANK


CYJQ CANADA #N/A

CYKA CANADA KAMLOOPS

CYLW CANADA KELOWNA

CYPK CANADA PITT MEADOWS

CYPR CANADA PRINCE RUPERT

CYQQ CANADA COMOX

CYVK CANADA VERNON

CYVR CANADA VANCOUVER INTL

CYXC CANADA CRANBROOK/CANADIAN ROCKIES INT

CYXX CANADA ABBOTSFORD

CYYF CANADA PENTICTON

CYYJ CANADA VICTORIA INTL

CYZF CANADA YELLOWKNIFE

CYZP CANADA SANDSPIT

CZAM CANADA SALMON ARM

CZMT CANADA MASSET

KBFI USA BOEING FIELD/KING CO INTL

KGEG USA SPOKANE INTL

KMRY USA MONTEREY PENINSULA

KPDX USA PORTLAND INTL

KSEA USA SEATTLE

KSFO USA SAN FRANCISCO

PHNL USA OAHU ISL. HONOLULU INTL TABLE ‎6-27 CANOP AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS


43

Outbound Exit Waypoint - GRETO


CEA5 CANADA HARDISTY

CEG4 CANADA DRUMHELLER MUN

CEN5 CANADA COLD LAKE REGL

CYBF CANADA BONNYVILLE

CYLL CANADA LLOYDMINSTER

CYOD CANADA COLD LAKE

CYPA CANADA PRINCE ALBERT (GLASS FIELD)

CYQW CANADA NORTH BATTLEFORD (CAMERON MCIN

CYQX CANADA GANDER INTL

CYSF CANADA STONY RAPIDS

CYVG CANADA VERMILION

CYWV CANADA WAINWRIGHT

CYXE CANADA JOHN DIEFENBAKER INTL

EDDF GERMANY FRANKFURT

EDDL GERMANY DUSSELDORF

EDDM GERMANY MUNCHEN

EGCC UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER

EGKK UNITED KINGDOM LONDON (GATWICK)

EGLL UNITED KINGDOM LONDON (HEATHROW)

EGPF UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW

EGSS UNITED KINGDOM STANSTED

EGVN UNITED KINGDOM BRIZE NORTON AB

EHAM NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM

ELLX LUXEMBURG LUXEMBOURG TABLE ‎6-28 GRETO AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS

Outbound Exit Waypoint - HAYDN


CYCZ CANADA FAIRMONT HOT SPRINGS


CYSW CANADA SPARWOOD/ELK VALLEY

CZPC CANADA PINCHER CREEK

KAPA USA CENTENNIAL


KDEN USA DENVER


KGPI/KFCA USA GLACIER PARK


KHOU USA HOBBY

KIAD USA WASHINGTON

KIAH USA HOUSTON

KICT USA WICHITA MID-CONTINENT

KLAS USA LAS VEGAS


KLGB USA LONG BEACH/DAUGHERTY FIELD

KPHX USA PHOENIX


KRNO USA RENO/TAHOE INTL


KSLC USA SALT LAKE

KSUU USA TRAVIS AFB



MUVR CUBA JUAN G. GOMEZ INTL TABLE ‎6-29 HAYDN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS


44

Outbound Exit Waypoint - GELLE


CEP3 CANADA BARRHEAD

CEQ3 CANADA CAMROSE

CER4 CANADA FORT MCMURRAY

CEX3 CANADA WETASKIWIN

CFF3 CANADA #N/A

CRL4 CANADA KIRBY LAKE

CYEG CANADA EDMONTON INTL

CYMM CANADA FT MC MURRAY

CYNR CANADA FORT MACKAY

CYQF CANADA RED DEER REGIONAL

CYXD CANADA EDMONTON CITY CENTER TABLE ‎6-30 GELLE AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS

Outbound Exit Waypoint - MADYN


CEC4 CANADA HINTON/JASPER-HINTON

CEQ5 CANADA GRANDE CACHE

CER3 CANADA DRAYTON VALLEY INDUSTRIAL

CYDQ CANADA DAWSON CREEK

CYET CANADA EDSON

CYPE CANADA PEACE RIVER

CYQU CANADA GRANDE PRAIRIE

CYRM CANADA ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE

CYXJ CANADA FT ST JOHN

CYXY CANADA WHITEHORSE INTL

CYYE CANADA FT NELSON

CYZU CANADA WHITECOURT TABLE ‎6-31 MADYN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS


45

7 Segregated Mode Assumptions Subheadingt

7.1. Scope Model Scope The scope of the Calgary Airport airfield model will extend from the final approach to the aircraft stands on arrival and from the aircraft stands to the initial departure climb. The airfield segregated mode layout has been defined as containing the following basic detail: Airspace Layout – final approach (10NM) and initial climb

(approach 5NM).

Airfield Layout – including all airfield development planned up until 2015 including the parallel runway (16L/34R).


Modes Modeled As detailed in the ―Airfield Modeling Scenarios‖ document, the following segregated modes will be modeled:

Arrivals 34R Departures 34L Arrival 16L Departures 16R

Arrivals 34L Departures 34R Arrival 16R Departures 16L

The four modes will test the proposed runway layout with arrivals and departures restricted to one runway under the forecast demand at 2015. These runs will aim to identify if the demand exceeds the capacity of the runways during peak hours and if any significant taxiing delay is present with the proposed taxiway layout.

There are two flows to be modelled – north and south, using the summer schedule (representative busy day). In Workshop 1 it was agreed that on day of opening the additional capacity of the parallel runway system over the current crossing runways would likely permit use of segregated runway modes of operation. However, there were diverging opinions on which runway would be used for arrivals and which for departures. Therefore, it was decided in Workshop 2 that both segregated options would be modelled to determine any major taxiing issues with both modes. Runs 3 and 4 assume the new runway is for arrivals only, and runs 5 and 6 assume it is a departures runway.


46

20152015









20152015









20152015









20152015










7.2. Layout Airspace – Standard Terminal Approach Routes and Standard Instrument Departures Information on STAR’s and SID’s is not yet available for the modes involving the parallel runway due to the subsequent changes a new runway causes on an airport’s terminal airspace. Since there are too many unknowns, it was decided that only the initial climb and final approach phases will be modeled.

Airspace Segmenting Since all aircraft follow a common final approach segment no airspace segmenting is required for arrival movements. Only Props are defined to take different departure routes; they will either take an initial left (L) or right turn (R). For simplicity the airspace was split in two segments using existing exit gates.

Exit Gate D16L D16R D34L D34R

GELLE L L R R

GRETO L L R R

BACHO L L R R

HAYDN R R L L

CANOP R R L L

MADYN R R L L

TABLE ‎7-1 TURBOPROP INITIAL TURN FOR EACH RUNWAY

Airfield Layout Scope – Runways and Taxiways The airfield layout will feature the addition of full build of the taxiway system (including the northern extension of Taxiway H) to support the proposed 2015 runway system. This also includes the extension of Taxiway N, the addition of Taxiway W north and Taxiway F1. All scenarios will include apron development of IFP to 22 gates. It should be noted that the section of Taxiway Golf between Foxtrot and Juliet will be made unavailable for taxiing.


47


Aprons This detail will be identical to Base Case.

Airport Reference Point, Elevation and Magnetic Variation This detail will be identical to Base Case.

Runways 1. Runway 16R/34L

2. Runway 16L/34R



RWY Length (m) Width (m) Elevation (ft)*

16R/34L 3,863 60 3356/3543

16L/34R 4,267 60 3598/3563

10/28 2,438 60 3547/3542

07/25 1,890 45 3531/3557

*Runway elevation is not used in model TABLE ‎7-2 RUNWAY DIMENSIONS

7.3. Performance Aircraft Classification Groups This detail will be identical to Base Case.


48

7.4. Airfield Management RWY Entry/Exits Runway entry and exit points are critical as they govern the start and end points of taxiway flows. Due to the traffic levels experienced at Calgary Airport, the entry and exits used by aircraft on each runway are very specific and were provided by Calgary ATC. For the new runway operations, entries and exits were determined after consultation with all stakeholders in Workshop 2.

Departure Runway

Aircraft Category


16R ALL NE, SE C8

TP, P NE C4

TP, P SE U

TP, P SW A1

JET NW, SW, W Alpha

34L ALL NE, SE Charlie

TP, P NE C1

ALL NW, SW, W Alpha

16L ALL ALL Bravo

TP, P ALL D8

34R ALL ALL Quebec

TP, P ALL D1 TABLE ‎7-3 RUNWAY ENTRY POINTS

Arrival Runway

Aircraft Category


16R ALL NE, SE C1, C3

ALL NW, SW, W Uniform, A3

34L ALL NE C2, C4, C6

ALL SE Uniform, C3

ALL NW, W Uniform, A1

JET SW Uniform, A1

TP, P SW Uniform, A3

16L ALL ALL D7, D5, D3, D1

34R ALL ALL D2, D4, D6, D8 TABLE ‎7-4 RUNWAY EXIT POINTS

Gate locations are defined as follows:

NE – includes Aprons 1 and 2

NW – includes the cargo Apron 9

SE – includes the GA Aprons 3,4,5

SW – includes the GA Aprons 6,8

W – includes cargo Apron 7

Note: For arrivals on the new runway normal braking conditions are applied with the stated exits made available to all aircraft types.

Gate Allocation and Constraints This detail will be identical to Base Case.

Remote Parking This detail will be identical to Base Case.

Taxi Routes and Flow Constraints In order to maintain an accurate simulation of aircraft movement on the ground, all taxiway routes were defined for each runway mode modeled. All taxi routes were defined by NAVCanada after analyzing the runway and taxiway layout. Note that GA aircraft coming from international destinations go through the GA customs area on Apron 6.


49

FIGURE ‎7-3 ARRIVAL 16L AND DEPARTURE 16R FLOWS

FIGURE ‎7-4 ARRIVAL 16R AND DEPARTURE 16L FLOWS


50

FIGURE ‎7-5 ARRIVAL 34L AND DEPARTURE 34R FLOWS

FIGURE ‎7-6 ARRIVAL 34R AND DEPARTURE 34L FLOWS


51

Apron 1 Entry and Exit Routes Apron 1 entry and exit points are dependent on the parking location of aircraft due to the high traffic experienced in this area. NAVCanada provided information for the four operating modes which includes the 22 gate IFP development.

FIGURE ‎7-7 APRON 1 TAXIWAY LAYOUT


Gates 30-34, Concourse A, B, C, IFP West Golf

Gates 40-50 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-5 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16L/D16R



Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

Gates 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-6 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16R/D16L



Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

Gates 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-7 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34L/D34R



Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

Gates 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-8 APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34R/D34L


Concourse A, IFP West Apron 1B

Concourse B/C, Gates 30-34, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49

C6

Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

IFP South S2

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-9 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16L/D16R


52




Gates 40-50 C8

IFP South S2

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-10 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A16R/D16L




Gates 40-50 C8

IFP South S2

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-11 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34L/D34R




Gates 40-50 C8

IFP South S2

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎7-12 APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA FOR RUNWAY MODE A34R/D34L

7.5. Airspace Management Approach and Departure Flight Plans This detail will be identical to the Base Case.

Separation Standards This detail will be identical to the Base Case.

Origin and Destination Groups No arrival sorting will be done for the segregated modes as all aircraft will complete the final approach segment. Hence, origin groups are not required for these cases. Departure sorting will be conducted for Props as defined in the ground sorting section and destination groups will remain the same as defined in the base case. Jet aircraft undergo no ground sorting so destination groups do not apply for these cases.


53

8 Mixed Mode Assumptions Subheadingt

8.1. Scope Model Scope The scope of the Calgary Airport airfield model will extend from the final approach to the aircraft stands on arrival and from the aircraft stands to the initial departure climb.

Mixed Modes The airfield mixed mode layout has been defined as containing the following basic detail:

Airspace Layout – final approach (10NM) and initial climb (approach 5NM).



Modes Modeled As detailed in the ―Airfield Modeling Scenarios‖ document, the following mixed modes will be modeled:

Arrivals 34R/L Departures 34R/L (with / without Taxiway Romeo)

Arrival 16R/L Departures 16R/L (with / without Taxiway Romeo)

Arrivals 34R/L Departures 34R/L (with Taxiway F extension)

Arrival 16R/L Departures 16R/L (with Taxiway F extension).

The six modes will test the proposed runway layout with arrivals and departures on both runways with the forecast demand at 2025. These runs will aim to identify if the demand exceeds the capacity of the runways during peak hours and if any significant taxiing delay is present with the proposed taxiway layout.

There are two flows to be modelled – north and south, using the summer schedule (representative busy day). In Workshop 1 it was agreed that at this point demand would require the additional capacity afforded by adopting mixed mode on the parallel runway system.

Congestion is anticipated due to limited cross-taxiways links. The delays in this series (Runs 9 and 10) can be compared to those with the additional E-W links (Taxiway R - Runs 11 and 12 or Taxiway F extension – Runs 13 and 14).


54

20252025













20252025













FIGURE ‎8-1 AIRFIELD LAYOUT - SINGLE EAST-WEST LINK

20252025













20252025













FIGURE ‎8-2 AIRFIELD LAYOUT – WITH TAXIWAY R

FIGURE ‎8-3 AIRFIELD LAYOUT WITH EXTENSION TO TAXIWAY F

8.2. Airspace Layout Standard Terminal Approach Routes and Standard Instrument Departures Information on STAR’s and SID’s is not yet available for the modes involving the parallel runway due to the subsequent changes a new runway causes on an airport’s terminal airspace. Since there are too many unknowns, it was decided that only the initial climb and final approach phases will be modeled. However, existing exit and entry points were used to allocate aircraft to the appropriate initial climb and final approach section on each runway.

Airspace Segmenting Allocation to the runways is done similar to the base case where the origins and destinations determine the runway used. For simplicity the airspace was split in two segments (East and West) using existing entry and exit gates. One exception from the base case exists for the departure waypoint HAYDN. This exit location has been split across two locations (HAYDN and DARWN); destination allocation to these positions is given in the Airspace Management section.


55

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 16R

ARR 16L

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 34L

ARR 34R

FIGURE ‎8-4 ARRIVAL AIRSPACE SORTING

DEP 16R

DEP 16L

GRETO

BACHO

DARWN

CANOP

MADYN

DEP 34L

DEP 34R

GELLE

HAYDN

GRETO

BACHO

DARWN

CANOP

MADYN

GELLE

HAYDN

FIGURE ‎8-5 DEPARTURE AIRSPACE SORTING

8.3. Airfield Layout Scope – Runways and Taxiways The airfield layout will feature the addition of full build of the taxiway system (including the northern extension of Taxiway H) to support the proposed 2025 runway system. This also includes the extension of Taxiway N, the addition of Taxiway W north and Taxiway F1. All scenarios will include full apron development of IFP. Note: the section of Golf between Foxtrot and Juliet will be made unavailable for taxiing. Taxiway R is included for Runs 11 and 12 only, and the extension of Taxiway F only applies for Runs 13 and 14.

Aprons This detail will be identical to Base Case.

Airport Reference Point, Elevation and Magnetic Variation This detail will be identical to Base Case.

Runways This detail will be identical to the Segregated Modes.



56

8.4. Performance

Aircraft Classification Groups Identical to Base Case.

8.5. Airfield Management RWY Entry/Exits Identical to the Segregated Modes.

Gate Allocation and Constraints Identical to Base Case.

Remote Parking Identical to Base Case.

Taxi Routes and Flow Constraints In order to maintain an accurate simulation of aircraft movement on the ground, all taxiway routes were defined for each run. All taxi routes were defined by NAVCanada after analyzing the runway and taxiway layout. Note that GA aircraft coming from international destinations go through the GA customs area on Apron 6.

It should be noted that the taxiway system supporting the new parallel runway is based on that provided in the briefing documents. A separate task being undertaken concurrently with this work, recommends the optimum number and location of entries and exits on the new parallel runway. The refinement of this taxiway system will not materially impact on the simulation results in terms of airfield congestion. The optimization of entries and exits is to minimize Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) on the runway, but arrival and departure rates on the runway driving the traffic distribution on the rest of the airfield system will remain similar.

FIGURE ‎8-7 RUN 9 FLOWS (ARRIVALS 34R/L AND DEPARTURES 34R/L)


57

FIGURE ‎8-8 RUN 10 FLOWS (ARR16R/L AND DEP 16R/L)

FIGURE ‎8-9 RUN 11 FLOWS (ARR 34R/L / DEP34R/L WITH TXY R)


58

FIGURE ‎8-10 RUN 12 FLOWS (ARR 16R/L DEP16R/L WITH TXY R)

FIGURE ‎8-11 RUN 13 FLOWS (ARR 34R/L WITH TXY F)


59

FIGURE ‎8-12 RUN 13 FLOWS (DEP 34R/L WITH TXY F)

FIGURE ‎8-13 RUN 14 FLOWS (ARR 16R/L WITH TXY F)


60

FIGURE ‎8-14 RUN 14 FLOWS (DEP 16R/L WITH TXY F)

Apron 1 Entry and Exit Routes Apron 1 entry and exit points are dependent on the parking location of aircraft due to the high traffic experienced in this area. NAVCanada provided information for the four operating modes which includes the 22 gate IFP development. Note: minor route changes exist for the Runs 11 to 14, which incorporate Taxiway R or an extension to Taxiway F, These routes have been highlight previously. However, entry and exit points to Apron 1 remain the same for Runs 9-14.

FIGURE ‎8-15 APRON 1 TAXIWAY LAYOUT



Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

Gates 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎8-1 MODE A34L/D34R APRON 1 ENTRY CRITERIA (RUNS 9, 11, 13)


61



Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

Gates 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N




Gates 40-50 C8

IFP South S1

IFP North IFP N




Concourse B/C, Gates 30-34, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49

C6

Gates 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Charlie

IFP South S2

IFP North IFP N

TABLE ‎8-4 MODE A16L/D16R APRON 1 EXIT CRITERIA (RUNS 10, 12, 14)

8.6. Airspace Management Approach and Departure Flight Plans This detail will be identical to the Base Case.

Separation Standards This detail will be identical to the Base Case.

Origin and Destination Groups The only change to the destination group assignment exists for the existing HAYDN group. This has been split into two groups: HAYDN and DARWN. HAYDN is assigned to the western airspace sector while DARWN is assigned to the eastern airspace sector. No changes have been made to any other inbound or outbound waypoints.

Outbound Exit Waypoint - HAYDN


CYCZ CANADA FAIRMONT HOT SPRINGS

CYSW CANADA SPARWOOD/ELK VALLEY

CZPC CANADA PINCHER CREEK


KGPI/KFCA USA GLACIER PARK


KLGB USA LONG BEACH/DAUGHERTY FIELD

KPHX USA PHOENIX


KRNO USA RENO/TAHOE INTL


KSUU USA TRAVIS AFB


KSEA USA SEATTLE TACOMA

KPDX USA PORTLAND

KOAK USA OAKLAND

CYXC CANADA CRANBROOK


KSFO USA SAN FRANSISCO TABLE ‎8-5 HAYDN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS


62

Outbound Exit Waypoint – DARWN



KAPA USA CENTENNIAL

KDEN USA DENVER



KHOU USA HOBBY

KIAD USA WASHINGTON

KIAH USA HOUSTON

KICT USA WICHITA MID-CONTINENT

KLAS USA LAS VEGAS

KSLC USA SALT LAKE


MUVR CUBA JUAN G. GOMEZ INTL TABLE ‎8-6 DARWN AIRCRAFT DESTINATIONS


63

9 De-icing assumptions Subheadingt

9.1. Scope Model Scope The scope of the Calgary Airport airfield model will extend from the final approach to the aircraft stands on arrival and from the aircraft stands to the initial departure climb.

De-icing Modes The airfield segregated mode layout has been defined as containing the following basic detail:

Airspace Layout – final approach (10NM) and initial climb (approach 5NM).



Modes Modeled As detailed in the ―Airfield Modeling Scenarios‖ document, the following de-icing modes will be modeled with the preferred segregated mode. In workshop 3 it was determined that arrivals on the new runway and departures on the existing runway was the preferred option. However, since the capacity of the segregated mode could not handle the arrivals demand in the afternoon peak, it was decided that a semi-segregated mode would have to be used. Therefore, to ensure the best representation, it was agreed that the de-icing modes will be modeled with the preferred 2015 semi-segregated mode (existing runway in mixed mode, and new runway in segregated mode (additional arrivals runway)).

Two scenarios (Runs 7 and 8) analyze the parallel runway layout at 2015 (winter) demand with de-icing in operation. At Workshop 3 it was agreed to, conservatively, use the same 2015 base schedule (36

th

busy day) as for other scenarios. The 2015 demand assumes the IFP aprons with 22 gates and the full build of the taxiway system up to 2015 (including the northern section of H). There are two flows to be modeled – north and south.


64

In Workshop 1 it was explained that there are currently three (3) options for the location of the de-icing facilities. In Workshop 3 it was decided that the preferred de-icing location would be a centralized de-icing facility (CDF) at the current location of Apron 2. All aircraft with international and transborder destinations from Apron 1 will use the CDF.


9.2. Layout Airspace Layout Standard Terminal Approach Routes and Standard Instrument Departures Information on STAR’s and SID’s is not yet available for the modes involving the parallel runway due to the subsequent changes a new runway causes on an airport’s terminal airspace. Since there are too many unknowns, it was decided that only the initial climb and final approach phases will be modeled.

Airspace Segmenting Allocation to the runways is done similar to the base case where the origins determine the runway used. For simplicity the airspace was split in two segments (East and West) using existing entry gates.

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 16R

ARR 16L

EPLUR

ALOMO

VUCAN

OPALE

DALLY

ARR 34L

ARR 34R

FIGURE ‎9-2 ARRIVAL AIRSPACE SORTING

Only turboprops are defined to take different departure routes; they will either take an initial left (L) or right turn (R). For simplicity the airspace was split in two segments using existing exit gates.


65

Exit Gate D16L D16R D34L D34R

GELLE L L R R

GRETO L L R R

BACHO L L R R

HAYDN R R L L

CANOP R R L L

MADYN R R L L

TABLE ‎9-1 TURBOPROP INITIAL TURN FOR EXISTING RUNWAY

Airfield Layout Scope – Runways and Taxiways The airfield layout will feature the addition of full build of the taxiway system (including the northern extension of taxiway H) to support the proposed 2015 runway system. This also includes the extension of taxiway N, the addition of taxiway W north and taxiway F1. All scenarios will include apron development of IFP to 22 gates. Note: section of Golf between Foxtrot and Juliet will be made unavailable for taxiing. 6 code C de-icing pads will be located at the current Apron 2 location.

Aprons Identical to Base Case.

Airport Reference Point, Elevation and Magnetic Variation Identical to Base Case.

Runways Identical to the Segregated Modes. Performance

Aircraft Classification Groups Identical to Base Case.



66

9.3. Airfield Management

RWY Entry/Exits Identical to the Segregated Modes.

Gate Allocation and Constraints Identical to Base Case.

Remote Parking Identical to Base Case.

Taxi Routes and Flow Constraints For an accurate simulation of aircraft movement on the ground, all taxiway routes were defined for each runway mode modeled. All taxi routes were defined by NAVCanada after analyzing the runway and taxiway layout. Note that GA aircraft coming from international destinations go through the GA customs area on Apron 6. IFP Departure aircraft are required to go through the CDF and entry is achieved through Taxiway Juliet while exit is onto Taxiway Hotel.

In the Figures 9-4 and 9-5 the taxi routes are defined without considering the use of de-icing bays. These figures do, however, outline the general flows of aircraft on the airfield. So from these flows the flows to the de-icing pads can be determined. Generally, aircraft from the SW and SE will approach the de-icing pads by using Taxiway Charlie then Juliet, while aircraft approaching from Apron 1 will use Hotel then Juliet or just Juliet (as shown in Figure 9-6).

.

FIGURE ‎9-4 RUN 7 NORTH FLOW (ARR 34L/R AND DEP 34L)


67

FIGURE ‎9-5 RUN 8 SOUTH FLOW (ARR 16L/R AND DEP 16R)

FIGURE ‎9-6 DE-ICING PAD ENTRY ROUTES


68

Apron 1 Entry and Exit Routes This detail will be identical to the Segregated Modes.

De-icing Throughput Times Average times for defrosting conditions were gathered during the 2007-2008 de-icing season. The average times sum the times for an aircraft to enter the CDF, have defrosting performed, and depart from the CDF.

Aircraft Code Average Total Throughput Time (min)

B 09:454

C 13:54

D 15:50

E 24:30 TABLE ‎9-2 AVE THROUGHPUT TIMES FOR DEFROSTING BY AIRCRAFT CODES

9.4. Airspace Management Approach and Departure Flight Plans Identical to the Base Case.

Separation Standards Identical to the Base Case.

NAVCanada defined that for single runway mixed mode operations the standard separation between arrivals will be approximately 6NM to ensure spacing is allowed for a departure between each arrival.

Origin and Destination Groups Identical to the Base Case for arrival sorting defined in Airspace Segmenting section. No departure sorting is required for these runs.

4 The CDF Bay size can accommodate one Code C aircraft or two

Code B aircraft. Since the simulation tool is unable to replicate this design feature of the de-icing pads completely an alteration was made to the above throughput times. The probability of a Code B aircraft arriving at the de-icing after another Code B was calculated to be around 9%. This means that 91% of the time the advantage of fitting two Code B aircraft on one de-icing bay was not realised. This resulted in an adjusted throughput time for Code B aircraft to be 9 minutes.

It should also be noted that Code D and E aircraft only accounted for 4% of the total traffic in the 2015 schedule so the restrictions on neighbouring de-icing pads were ignored, but will be noted in the results.


69

10 Parallel Runway Entries and Exits Subheadingt

10.1. Introduction A preliminary design for the taxiways associated with the new parallel runway was provided as the basis of modeling.

The preliminary airfield layout for the runway 16L/34R and associated taxiway system is illustrated on Figure 10-1. The basis of design was for three RETs in each direction (for Runway 16L and 34R landings). One additional 90

o angled taxiway entry/exit is shown before the first

RET and several additional 90o angled taxiways are located beyond

the last RET. It is understood that the original Master Plan layout assumed a four RET system, but that preliminary geometric design showed that the close spacing between some of the proposed RETs meant a geometric layout could not be achieved.

As part of the brief, Airbiz was required to provide a recommended layout for the entry and exit taxiways on the parallel runway based on more detailed analysis. This analysis was undertaken towards the end of the modeling task, so the simulation was based on the preliminary design provided in the study brief.

10.2. Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) Theoretical optimal locations for the RET’s were calculated based on the runway design parameters (the runway longitudinal profiles, the airline mix in the 2025 projected busy day schedule, and relevant temperature) using the FAA sponsored design program Rapid Exit Design Interactive Model (REDIM) Version 2.1.

The purpose of the Runway Exit Interactive Design Model (REDIM 2.1), a computer program developed at the Centre for Transportation Research at Virginia Tech University, is to expedite the optimal location and geometric design features of runway exits at airports under realistic conditions (i.e., multiple aircraft and varied environmental conditions).

Past research has demonstrated the importance of runway occupancy time in the overall effectiveness of an airport to handle traffic. The location of runway exits, however, has been determined using simple aircraft landing roll approximations aided by common sense. With the proliferation of more aircraft types, locating exits optimally becomes a fairly complex issue requiring rigorous quantitative approaches to achieve a meaningful solution.


70

FIGURE ‎10-1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RUNWAY 16L/34R TAXIWAY SYSTEM


71

The approach used in the development of REDIM is a combination of stochastic simulation modelling to represent the random behaviour of aircraft landing distributions coupled with a dynamic programming optimization routine to select optimal exit locations from a large set of candidates.

The REDIM program considers four broad types of analysis, as follows:

1. Evaluation of an existing runway

2. Improvement of an existing runway

3. Design of a new runway facility

4. Individual aircraft landing roll behaviour.

For the Calgary REDIM analysis design of a new runway was used for the analysis.

Airport Data Inputs The following data was used in each scenario analysed:

Runway Elevation = 1084 m (3,557 ft)

Total Runway Length = 4,267 m

Runway Width = 60 m

Reference Temperature = 25 oC

In REDIM the reference temperature is usually set to a temperature representative of a summer day requiring higher approach speeds. The temperature value for Calgary was derived by following the recommendations of the Canadian Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practises TP312E, section 2.2.6.2 which states that;

“2.2.6.2 Recommendation -The aerodrome reference temperature should be the monthly mean of the daily maximum temperatures for the hottest month of the year (the hottest month being that which has the highest monthly mean temperature). This temperature should be averaged over a period of at least eight years. “

The reference temperature for the REDIM analysis was obtained by averaging data from the last 10 full years, 1999 to 2008. The data was obtained from the Canadian National Climate Data and Information Archive, www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca.

The following runway longitudinal profiles for the new runways were taken from The Calgary Airport Authority - Parallel Runway 16L-34R Engineering and Construction Feasibility Study by UMA/AECOM September 2007.

Runway 16L

Chainage 0,000 – 1,533 -0.267% slope

Chainage 1,533 – 2,733 0 % slope

Chainage 2,733 – 4,267 -0.429% slope

Runway 34R

Chainage 0,000 – 1,534 0.429% slope

Chainage 1,534 – 2,734 0 % slope

Chainage 2,734 – 4,267 0.267% slope

Operational Parameters The Canadian Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practises TP312E section 2.2.6.2 states the following;

“3.4.5.1 Recommendation - A rapid exit taxiway should be designed with a radius of turnoff curve of at least:

– 550 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and

– 275 m where the code number is 1 or 2;

To enable exit speeds under wet conditions of:

– 93 km/h (50 kts) where the code number is 3or 4; and

– 65 km/h (35 kts) where the code number is 1or 2.”

Based on the standards REDIM analysis is reported for wet runway conditions.

For the ninety degree exits and junctions speeds the following speeds were assumed.

900 taxiway = 15 knots

Taxiway Junction Speed = 15 knots

Aircraft Traffic Mix Inputs The aircraft traffic mix is inputted as a percentage in REDIM. The number of annual or busy day aircraft movements is used to determine the percentage split of the aircraft mix.

The traffic mix from the projected 2025 schedule annual traffic mix developed for the airside simulation was used as the basis for the REDIM analysis. A similar mix of aircraft was observed for the interim years of 2015 and 2010.

The 2025 aircraft mix was analysed, and the aircraft types rationalised into similar aircraft groups (weights and landing distances,). A representative aircraft type was then selected from the REDIM database to represent the aircraft group.


72

Table 10-1 shows the aircraft mix adopted in the analysis.

It should be noted that the proportion of wide body aircraft was less than 4.0% of the total traffic mix. Pistons and turbo-prop aircraft were found to make up 36.6% of the aircraft mix, Small jets were found to make up 59.4% of the mix.

As landing data is not available on the B787 aircraft, it was assumed to have similar landing performance to the A330 for the purpose of the analysis.

Aircraft Type REDIM Aircraft Type % of Aircraft Mix

Piston CE-208 5.7%

Beech 1900 BE-400 7.1%

Beech King Air CE-421 12.2%

Bombardier Q300/400 or DH8 DHC-8 11.6%

Bombardier CRJ CRJ-200 13.3%

Embraer E190 Fokker 100 4.8%

Business jet Lear55 8.4%

Boeing B737 B737-800 23.7%

Airbus A320 A320-200 9.1%

Boeing B787 A330-300 2.0%

Airbus A330 A330-300 1.0%

Boeing B777 B777-200 1.0%

TABLE ‎10-1 AIRCRAFT MIX

10.3. Results Runway 16L and Runway 34L Table 10-2 and 10-3 summarise averaged results from the 5 runs for each of the scenarios using REDIM.

Taxiway Optimized RET

Location % Usage Wet

RET 1 1,210m 43.8%

RET 2 1,880m 39.1%

RET 3 2,203m 17.1% Weighted Average ROT 45.3 seconds -

TABLE ‎10-2 SCENARIO 1 RUNWAY 16L RESULTS

Taxiway Optimized RET

Location % Usage Wet

RET 1 1,198m 44.0%

RET 2 1,823m 40.2%

RET 3 2,133m 15.7% Weighted Average ROT 44.1 seconds -

TABLE ‎10-3 SCENARIO 2 RUNWAY 34R RESULTS

From these tables above, it is noted that:

The recorded Weighted Average ROT’s (WAROT) for each runway are below the target 50 seconds set as the ideal objective ROT by NAVCanada.

The average difference between the maximum and minimum WAROT’s recorded in each of the 5 runs, was less than 0.3 of a second.

The proportion of aircraft using the third RET was found to drop significantly in dry conditions. Conversely the number of aircraft using the second RET was found to rise in dry conditions.

The first RET is utilised by smaller aircraft types such as the Piston, B1900, Beech Kingair, business jets Q300/400 type aircraft.

The second RET is used predominately by small jet aircraft such as the CRJ, E190, and A320 type aircraft. Approximately 35-45% of B737 type aircraft were also found to use this exit under wet conditions, with this percentage increasing in dry conditions. Approximately 30-40% A330 and B777 also use this exit under wet conditions with percentage increasing in dry conditions.

The third RET is used primarily by B737, A330 and B777 type aircraft and a small percentage of A320 type aircraft.


73

On three of the 16L runs, a very small percentage (less than 0.05%) of A330 and B777 aircraft types were found to miss the RET system under wet conditions.

The locations of the RET’s on 16L are at slightly longer distances than those on 34R. This reflects the difference in the runway profiles in each direction.

REDIM displays RET location results as an upper and lower bound figure. The results shown in the table above are the average RET locations from the 5 runs. The maximum difference between the upper and lower figures on any run was 150m; the average range was approximately 60m.

The general philosophy is to provide three sets of RETs in each direction. The first is to capture the smaller aircraft in the fleet (for example Dash8 turboprops), the second narrowbody jets (such as B737 and A320) and the third to capture widebody jets (such as the A330 and B777). The recommended rapid exits commence their turn out of the parallel runway at the locations in Table 10-1 and shown in Figure 10-2.









The detailed geometric design by others should consider this as guidance of the preferred location, but other considerations need to be:

the assumed exit speed out of the RET (we assumed 15 knots, but it should be confirmed that aircraft are not expected to come to a complete stop

5)

alignment with the taxiways onto which the RETs terminate (for example the confirmed alignment of future Taxiway R for RET D2 and D3, for RET D5 - alignment with future northern IFP taxiway.

If the runway location were not fixed by previous planning decisions, slipping the runway south, would have better aligned the RETs with the cross-link taxiways to the terminal area, and saved backtracking for the majority of landings on the 34R.

Discussions with NAVCanada also centred on a secondary objective to minimize runway occupancy. A measured 50 seconds average occupancy was raised as a threshold for reduction in separations between arrivals down to 2.5 nm (from 3mn) and increasing arrival capacity. This provides the greatest benefit in segregated mode (on an arrivals only runway). In mixed mode, the spacing will also be determined by the gap required in the arrival stream to accommodate departing aircraft. A balance should be achieved in locating the RET’s between capturing the greatest number of aircraft of a particular class at the specified exit (placing the RET as long as possible within a given range) and minimising occupancy associated with the particular RET (placing the RET as short as possible within a given range).

This is illustrated in Table 10-2, where the second RET can be placed to capture more aircraft (particularly the narrowbody fleet) expressed as a percentage of the aircraft exiting at that RET, at the expense of a marginal increase in runway occupancy time (ROT expressed in seconds). The bottom rows of the table show the issue in capturing an increasing proportion of the widebody largest aircraft on the third RET.


being used predominantly for arrivals, with minimal conflicts to be considered with departure flows on the parallel Taxiway system. However, the recommendations for RET locations need to be made on the long term use of the parallel runway in mixed mode operations. There is a school of thought that for safety considerations, RETs should not line up directly to cross-Taxiways, to force aircraft to come to a complete stop before entering the parallel Taxiway system. This is in harmony with the aim of RETs to get the aircraft of the runway as quickly as possible, minimize runway occupancy and maximize runway capacity.


74

Those not exiting at RET 3, would exit at the 900 exit (provided as a

runway entry for turboprop aircraft) or at the end of the runway – all at the expense of runway occupancy time.

RET 2 location

A320-200 B737-800 A330-300 B777-200


1,900m 86 48.8 36 48.5 34.0 49.9 28 51.2

2,000m 98 50.9 75 50.2 67 51.9 62 53.0

2,100m 100 53.2 94 52.3 92 54.0 87 55.1

RET 3 location

B737-800 A330-300 B777-200 B747-400


2,200m 100 55.2 100 56.7 100 58.3 3.6 55.8

2,500m 100 60.7 100 62.7 100 63.6 72 61.4

2,600m 100 63.0 100 64.9 100 65.9 82 63.7

2,700m 100 65.2 100 67.1 100 68.1 94 65.8

2,800m 100 67.8 100 68.8 100 70.5 99 67.7

TABLE ‎10-5 RUNWAY OCCUPANCY AND CAPTURE FOR RETS 2 AND 3

The sensitivity and difference in performance between the mainstays of the narrowbody fleet (the A320-200 and the B737-800) warrants further detailed discussion with airline operational representatives to confirm the actual performance and operational characteristics and those assumed in the analysis based on initial consultations.

10.4. Consultations and Benchmarking Airline opinions on RET locations and turn out speeds was sought.

Jazz airlines confirmed that the assumptions, with respect to RET turnout speeds were sufficient for their operation. He said that distances to reach these speeds are type specific and dependant on conditions. WestJet provided feedback regarding optimal RET location of approximately 6,000-6,500 ft (1,828-1981m) from the threshold. The WestJet fleet consists of a mix of new generation B737 aircraft such as B737-600, B737-700 and B737-800. No feedback was received from Air Canada.

The locations of Rapid Exit Taxiways (RET’s) at comparable Canadian Airports were reviewed. Airports benchmarked were Edmonton, Montréal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary (existing runways).

Table 10-6 shows the RET distance from threshold groupings for representative aircraft types that would typically exit at such distances.

No. Distance Aircraft Class

1 < 1,500m turboprops (e.g. Dash 8)

2 1,501 – 1,800 small jet (e.g. E170/190)

3 1,801 – 2,100 (medium jet (e.g. A320, B737)

4 2,101 – 2,400 widebody (e.g. A330, B767, B777)

5 2,401 < large widebody (e.g. B747).


As shown in Table 10-7, the recommended locations generally match up with the average locations for the benchmarked Canadian airport,

Airport Average RET Distance from Threshold (m)

1 2 3 4 5

Edmonton - 1,790 1,895 2,379 2,518

Montreal 1,374 1,619 1,822 2,234 2,425

Toronto 1,270 1,667 1,939 2,245 2,520

Winnipeg 1,208 1,501 2,074 - -

Vancouver 1,216 1,667 2,035 2,303 2,455

Average 1,267 1,649 1,953 2,290 2,479

Calgary (Existing) - - 1,922 - 2,841

Recommended Say 1,250 - Say 1,950 - Say 2,500



75

10.5. Taxiway B and D Phasing It is recommended that the inner parallel Taxiway D is initially constructed full length, and the outer parallel Taxiway B is constructed between D1 and D7, in order to minimise impacts on or from flight operations on the new parallel runway during future stage of construction. If undertaken after the opening of the runway, such activity close to the runway 16L/34R Transition Surface and between an active runway and taxiway would add to construction costs and require night works and or curfew periods for operations. The future extension of Taxiway B would cause less disruption.

10.6. Runway entry points Full length departures The ability to sequence departing aircraft at the runway threshold is a useful tool for air traffic control.

Runway 08L/26R at Vancouver Airport has two parallel taxiways near the runway threshold in order to sequence aircraft. The existing Calgary Runways 16R/34L and 10/28 have entries from either side of the runway threshold, effectively allowing sequencing of departing aircraft. Similar arrangements exist at Toronto and Winnipeg airports.

It is envisaged that, for the new parallel runway at Calgary, this sequencing area would consist of two parallel taxiways on a single expanse of pavement, While Figure 10-2 shows two entry points at each of end of the runway, this is schematic only. It is assumed that detailed geometric design will be undertaken to allow holding of aircraft for departures and clearance for a Code F to pass behind a Code E aircraft at the hold points for maximum flexibility.

Intersection Departures at Taxiways D1 and D8 Piston and turbo-prop type aircraft make-up approximately one third of the future aircraft mix. Taxiways D1 and D8 could be used for intersection departures these aircraft types.

The location of these taxiways (and the corresponding link across to Taxiway T) as shown in Figure 10-2 (based on Figure 10-1) is preliminary only. Locations should be confirmed in detailed discussions with NAVCanada and operators, based on required take-off distances for the aircraft using these entries and the destinations to be served. Detailed geometric design for the runway to taxiway separation should allow aircraft sized up to a Q300 to undertake an intersection departure from these taxiways while another aircraft (at least Code E) passed behind.

10.7. Eastern parallel taxiway system The nominal new parallel runway layout has five 90

0 entries and exits

more or less evenly spaced on the eastern side of the proposed new parallel runway 16L/34R. This taxiway system consists of a full length parallel Taxiway T and cross taxiways linking it to rest of the airfield to the west of 16L/34R. It is understood that the purpose of this taxiway system is to serve future cargo or maintenance developments to the east of Runway 16L/34R.

A possible cost saving could be achieved by just constructing the stub taxiways for the cross runways to the edge of the runway strip, and deferring the construction of the parallel Taxiway T until such times as it was required. This study was unable to further optimise locations as there is no information on the aircraft mix using the eastern side of the runway.


76


Documents

Runway Development Program - Calgary Airport