AIRSPACE CHANGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT … RNP...AIRSPACE CHANGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT Proposed RNP AR approaches and STAR updates at Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport

AIRSPACE CHANGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT

Proposed RNP AR approaches and STAR updates at

Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport

NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 August 2016

The information and diagrams contained in this report are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be used for navigation.

Airspace Change Community Engagement Report – CYOW RNP AR

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.0 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 4

3.0 Overview of Proposed Changes to Routes ........................................................................................ 5

3.1 Runways 07 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR .................................. 5

3.2 Runways 14 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR .................................. 8

3.3 Runway 25 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR .................................. 10

3.4 Runway 32 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR .................................. 13

4.1 Overall Impact on Community Noise .................................................................................... 16

4.2 Reduced Emissions .............................................................................................................. 18

5.0 Community Outreach and Engagement ........................................................................................... 19

5.2 Engagement with Airport ...................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Website ................................................................................................................................. 19

5.4 Open Houses ........................................................................................................................ 19

6.0 Survey Results and Other Feedback ............................................................................................... 20

6.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 20

6.2 Survey Respondents ............................................................................................................ 20

6.3 Summary of input received ................................................................................................... 21

6.4 Consideration of Main Mitigations Proposed by Residents .................................................. 22

7.0 Recommendation ............................................................................................................................. 23

8.0 Communication ................................................................................................................................ 23

9.0 Post Implementation Review ........................................................................................................... 23


3

Executive Summary Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV) are part of a family of technologies that lever the capabilities of modern flight management systems and GNSS for safer and more efficient navigation. RNP is increasingly being used to provide safe and accurate arrival routes to busy airports; it is also a significant piece of the technology tool kit being utilized to meet commitments made by the global aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This study examines the proposal to implement new RNP Authorization Required (AR) procedures as well as update existing RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) to runways 07/25 and 14/32 at Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport, and reports on noise modelling and the community consultation undertaken as per the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. The consultation process, which ran from May 16, 2016 to June 30, 2016, included briefings to elected officials and the airport’s noise consultative committee, hosting of community open house events in two locations and use of a survey mechanism to enable the public to provide direct comment. To support consultation, extensive noise modeling was completed. Overall, modeling shows benefits for several communities with very small increases in cumulative noise exposure at low noise levels, often below typical community noise levels, for some areas. The consultation team’s recommendation is to proceed with implementation of the proposed RNP AR procedures and updated RNAV STARs with a target implementation date in September 2016.


4

1.0 Purpose

This study examines the proposal to implement new RNP AR procedures and update existing RNAV STAR procedures at Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport. It reports on the community consultation undertaken as per the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol (2015). The report includes an overview of the proposed changes, expected quantitative environmental impacts (including emissions reductions and noise impacts), details public engagement activities and their results, and provides recommendations.

2.0 Background

Today, modern avionics are providing new opportunities to design routes that are no longer bound by ground-based navigational aids. These opportunities, enabled by Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), allow for the design of routes that are more precise, predictable, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. RNP and RNAV are part of a family of technologies that lever the capabilities of modern flight management systems and GNSS for safer and more efficient navigation. RNAV provides an efficient navigation tool that is used by many aircraft today. RNP, which brings a new level of precision and design flexibility, is increasingly being used to provide safe and accurate arrival routes to busy airports; they are, together, a significant piece of the technology tool kit being utilized to meet commitments made by the global aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The deployment of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) technologies, of which RNP and RNAV are a part, has been encouraged by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO took steps in 2007 to require its member countries to develop formal plans for the deployment of PBN in their respective jurisdictions. NAV CANADA Performance-Based Navigation Operations Plan (2014) and the Transport Canada PBN State Plan identifies the goal of achieving a total PBN environment in Canada with RNAV and/or RNP for all operations. RNP achieves benefits in part by allowing for flight path designs that reduce the track miles that an aircraft must fly to its destination while providing for a constant descent compared to an approach that requires level segments (which in turn require more thrust and burn more fuel). RNP AR has been used in Canada since 2004, primarily by WestJet using specific “company approaches.” New criteria recently published by Transport Canada as part of TP308 Criteria for the Design of Instrument Procedures enable RNP AR approach procedures to be designed for use by more airlines and by more types of aircraft. Ottawa International Airport is the country’s eighth1 busiest airport. The airport has a variety of approach procedures, including RNAV STAR procedures that provide a combination of GNSS-based guidance and air traffic control instructions to a point where the pilot can intercept the glide path emanating from the ground-based Instrument Landing System (ILS). The airport is also serviced by WestJet RNP AR approach procedures for runways 25 and 32. NAV CANADA is proposing new RNP AR approaches in addition to updating RNAV STARs for runways 07/25 and 14/32. No changes are proposed for runways 04/22.

1 Annual aircraft movement statistics (2014). Statistics Canada. Retirieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-209-x/51-209-x2015001-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-209-x/51-209-x2015001-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/51-209-x/51-209-x2015001-eng.htm


5

3.0 Overview of Proposed Changes to Routes The proposed RNP AR approaches have been designed to mirror the downwind and final approach of existing flight paths with the base leg arc located within the existing distribution of traffic on the base leg.

The new RNP AR segments will result in a reduction of track miles flown for many aircraft and will enable a reduced power constant descent arrival at a three (3) degree descent angle.

It is important to note that approximately 23% of aircraft operating to Ottawa International today are equipped to fly RNP AR routes and utilization of the routes will be considerably less than that number for a variety of operational reasons. Equipage rates are expected to grow slowly but steadily over time through fleet renewal, reaching the 30-33% range by 2020.

3.1 Runways 07 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 07 receives approximately 25 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. When in use, ceiling and visibility are lower than usual and often accompanied by precipitation. It is normally in use for several hours or a few consecutive days at a time. Figure 1 shows the proposed RNP AR path (in blue) on a map of the Ottawa region with a 24-hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on February 23, 20162 (in turquoise). The new base legs are located amongst existing traffic patterns and at comparable altitudes; the approach from the north avoids populated areas by using greenspace. While a broad distribution of traffic will continue, the new RNP AR approach will allow many equipped aircraft to turn sooner than they might have otherwise and will result

in a smaller number of aircraft completing their turn over a wide region. Approximately 5-7 aircraft/day are expected to utilize the RNP AR approach from the north and 3-5 from the south when this runway is in use. The downwind component of the approach from the south is moved approximately 0.5 nautical miles south of the current standard

2 Operations can vary from day to day. For illustrative purposes only.

Figure 1: Sample traffic and proposed RNP AR route

5-7 aircraft/day

3-5 aircraft/day


6

arrival route, though its length is much shorter. Figure 2 shows the current standard arrival. The purple shading area represents the areas that experience overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at which point pilots follow for the controller’s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Despite the existence of STARs, other areas will experience overflight, particularly

when vectors are used to sequence traffic or pilots conduct visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final approach. This means that approaches can be distributed over a wide region; the shaded areas on the maps show typical traffic distribution taking in to account all types of approaches. Figure 3 shows the proposed standard arrival route with blue shading representing the areas that are expected to experience overflight when this runway is in use. Aircraft icons portray aircraft altitudes at respective locations. The proposed redesign of STARs would narrow the shaded operating region somewhat as a result of the intercept for the final approach (see aircraft icon at 3,000’) being relocated approximately 3 kilometres closer to the airport. In addition, the downwind component of the approach from the south is moved approximately 0.5 nautical miles south of its current location. Aircraft would be at similar altitudes on the proposed route compared to the current route.

Figure 2: Current RNAV STAR and Airspace Usage

Figure 3: Proposed RNAV STAR and Airspace Usage


7

Noise Modeling Figure 4 shows a single event noise contour for the proposed RNP AR approach to runway 07. Contours show areas likely to experience certain noise levels from overflight. In this instance the model uses a 737-800 aircraft, a type of aircraft seen frequently at the airport. Figure 5 shows a single event contour for the proposed RNAV STAR. It is important to note that RNAV STARs are flown with greater variance and that this is a sample of one typical approach. The location of the noise footprint will vary based on the exact flight path flown.

Figure 4: Single Event Contour for Runway 07 RNP AR

Figure 5: Single Event Contour for Proposed RNAV STAR


8

3.2 Runways 14 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR

Runway 14 receives a very small proportion of the traffic to Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier Airport. On an annual basis, less than two per cent of the traffic arrives on this runway. When in use, weather conditions are poor. Figure 6 shows the proposed RNP AR path for runway 14 arrivals (in blue) on a map of the Ottawa region with a 4-hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on February 3, 2016 (in turquoise). The more

direct approach brings aircraft closer to populated areas. However, the low usage levels results in no significant change to the cumulative noise exposure in the region. The broad distribution of traffic will continue and the new RNP AR approach will reduce the amount of land overflown for those aircraft that are equipped. Figure 7 shows the current standard arrival. The purple shaded area represents the area that

experience overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at which point pilots follow the controller’s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft

will turn towards the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Despite the existence of RNAV and RNP AR routes, pilots can still operate in other places through the use of controller-issued vectors or visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final approach. This means that approaches can be


Figure 6: Sample traffic and proposed RNP route

1-3 aircraft/day

7-12 aircraft/day


9

distributed over a wide region; the shaded areas on the map below show typical traffic distribution taking in to account all types of approaches. Figure 8 shows the proposed standard arrival route as well as blue shading over the areas that are expected to experience overflight when this runway is in use. Aircraft icons portray aircraft altitudes at respective locations.

The change would narrow the shaded operating region

somewhat as a result of the final approach course fix (see aircraft icon at 3,000’) relocating approximately 3 kilometres closer to the airport. Noise Modeling Figure 9 shows a single event noise contour for the proposed RNP AR approach to runway 14. Contours show areas affected by specific noise levels. In this instance the model represents a 737-800 aircraft, a type of aircraft seen frequently at the airport. Figure 10 shows a single event contour for the proposed RNAV STAR. It is important to note that RNAV STARs experience greater variance of flight path and that this is a sample of one typical approach.





10

3.3 Runway 25 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 25 receives approximately 37 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. When in use, weather conditions are usually good. It is normally used in conjunction with Runway 32; together these two Runways receive approximately 74 per cent of the traffic to Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier Airport. Figure 11 shows the proposed RNP AR path (in blue) on a map of the Ottawa region with a 24-hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on February 29, 20163 (in turquoise). In white, WestJet’s

existing RNP AR route is shown. The new base legs are located amongst existing traffic patterns and at comparable altitudes; the approach from the north transits between Blackburn Hamlet and Orleans to best avoid populated areas. The downwind component of the approach from the south is moved approximately 0.5 nautical miles south of the current standard arrival route, though its length is much shorter than the latter. While the broad distribution of traffic

will continue, the new RNP AR approach will allow many equipped aircraft to turn sooner and will reduce the amount of land overflown. Figure 12 shows the current standard arrival. The purple shaded area represents the area that experiences overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at which point pilots follow the controller’s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Despite the existence of STARs, pilots can still operate in other places through the use of controller-issued vectors or visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final approach. This means that approaches can be distributed over a wide region; the shaded areas on the map below show typical traffic distribution taking in to account all types of approaches.


Figure 11: Sample traffic and proposed RNP route

1-3 aircraft/day

7-12 aircraft/day


11

Figure 13 shows the proposed standard arrival route with blue shading representing the areas that are expected to experience overflight when this runway is in use. Aircraft icons portray aircraft altitudes at respective locations.

The change would narrow the shaded operating region somewhat as a result of the final approach course fix (see aircraft icon at 3,000’) relocating

approximately 3 kilometres closer to the airport. In addition, the downwind component of the approach from the south is moved approximately 0.5 nautical miles south of its current location.




12

Noise Modeling Figure 14 shows a single event noise contour for the proposed RNP AR approach to runway 25. Contours show when the maximum noise level attains a level of 60 dBA or above. In this instance the model uses a 737-800 aircraft, a type of aircraft seen frequently at the airport. Figure 15 shows a single event contour for the proposed RNAV STAR. It is important to note that RNAV STARs experience greater variance of flight path and that this is a sample of one typical approach.




13

3.4 Runway 32 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 32 receives approximately 37 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. When in use, weather conditions are usually good. It is normally used in conjunction with Runway 25; together these two Runways receive approximately 74 per cent of the traffic to Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier Airport. Figure 16 shows the proposed RNP AR path (in blue) on a map of the Ottawa region with a 24-

hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on February 29, 20164 (in turquoise). The proposed downwind from the north is located in the same location as the current route; the downwind from the south is closer to the airport than the existing non-RNP route. In white, WestJet’s existing RNP AR route is shown. While the broad distribution of traffic will continue, the new RNP AR approach will allow many equipped aircraft to turn sooner and will reduce the amount of land overflown.

Figure 17 shows the current standard arrival. The purple shaded area represents the areas that experience overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at which point pilots follow the controller’s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Despite the existence of RNAV and RNP AR routes, pilots can still operate in other places through the use of controller-issued vectors or visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final



Figure 16: Sample traffic and proposed RNP AR route

2-4 aircraft/day

10-20 aircraft/day


14

approach. This means that approaches can be distributed over a wide region; the shaded areas on the map show typical traffic distribution taking in to account all types of approaches. Figure 18 shows the proposed standard arrival route as well as blue shading over the areas that are expected to experience overflight when this runway is in use. Aircraft icons portray aircraft altitudes at respective locations.

The change would narrow the shaded operating region somewhat as a result of the final approach course fix (see aircraft icon at 3,000’) relocating approximately 3 kilometres closer to the airport.



15

Noise Modeling

Figure 19 shows a single event noise contour for the proposed RNP AR approach to runway 32. Contours show areas expected to experience specific noise levels. In this instance the model uses a 737-800 aircraft, a type of aircraft seen frequently at the airport. Figure 20 shows a single event contour for the proposed RNAV STAR. It is important to note that RNAV STARs experience greater variance of flight path and that this is a sample of one typical approach.




16

4.0 Environment

4.1 Overall Impact on Community Noise

The overall community noise impact of the proposed changes are expected to be positive or low impact based on the following:

• Much of the new portion of the RNP AR flight paths have been designed to overfly non-residential land use. Key examples include the RNP AR approaches from the north to runways 07 and 25 respectively. These flight paths represent a significant reduction in population overflown from the typical arrival routing that would either fly further west to land on runway 07 or further east over runway 25.

• RNP AR provides aircraft with guidance for constant descent operations The 3 degree descent gradient that RNP AR provides should result in reduced noise as compared to equivalent flights that require aircraft to fly a level segment before intercepting the final approach glide path. Constant descent has been shown to reduce single event noise by 1-5 dB in portions of the flight path.5

• The relocation of STAR routes – which are used more frequently than RNP AR, include some changes, however, proposed routes are in places that experience overflight today.

To better compare current and proposed impacts, cumulative noise exposure maps were developed. The contours show the cumulative sound impact of operations using the Day-Night Level (DNL) metric. The DNL metric is widely used as a measure to communicate a cumulative exposure to aircraft noise, using a 24-hour average. The metric assists with the comparison of different aircraft operations, such as those expected before and after an airspace change. The DNL metric takes all the aircraft noise events at a location and averages them to provide a single numerical value. This allows for comparison between one location that experiences a handful of very loud events in a day against another that may receive more events that are not as loud. The metric also applies a noise penalty to operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to recognize lower community ambient noise levels at those times. Due to the volume of traffic and runway variance at Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, all of the cumulative exposure above 50 DNL occurs at locations where aircraft are on final approach. As a result, the changes appear very subtle on maps comparing current and propose cumulative exposure.

5 CAA ERCD, BAA, CDA Briefing Paper, “Noise benefits associated with Continuous Descent Approach Procedures at London Heathrow”. 32 DTLR (1999). And “Noise from arriving aircraft: Final Report of the ANMAC Technical Working Group,” Departments for Transport Local Government and the Regions, December 1999.


17

The following map provides the contours for current operations:

The following map shows what the cumulative impact would be if the proposed changes were implemented in 2016:

http://navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/PublishingImages/CYOW Consultation/DNL_Base.png

http://navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/PublishingImages/CYOW Consultation/DNL_WP.png


18

However the biggest benefits will be in instances of reduced track miles and reduced population overflown as a direct result when aircraft use the RNP AR rather than the traditional RNAV to ILS procedure. For communities that are overflown by the proposed RNP AR flight path, some increase in the amount of daily traffic experienced can be expected. However the overall utilization of RNP AR is expected to continue to be a relatively small proportion of overall traffic due to both equipage levels and the sequencing requirements of traffic.

4.2 Reduced Emissions The implementation of PBN in Canada is an objective of Canada’s Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation (2012), due to its potential to reduce fuel burn and associated emissions from aircraft operations. The Action Plan was the Government of Canada’s response to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Assembly Resolution A37-19, which encourages Member States to submit national plans detailing the measures they are taking to address aviation emissions. In addition to safety benefits for pilots and controllers resulting from improved predictability of operations during one of the busiest phases of flight, it is estimated that the earlier turns off of the downwind leg at Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport will reduce flying time by up to two minutes per flight. Over the course of a year, this is equivalent to approximately 300,000 million litres of fuel savings and a reduction of 750 metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions6.

6 Estimate based on 2015 equipage rates and is expected to grow overtime. Does not include some added efficiencies related to RNAV STAR approach improvements.


19

5.0 Community Outreach and Engagement

5.2 Engagement with Airport NAV CANADA’s design team worked with the airport’s environmental services staff at the early stages of design to ensure their knowledge of the local community was taken into consideration. This was followed up with meetings and workshops to discuss the results of noise modeling and develop a consultation strategy as per the industry’s Airspace Change Communication and Consultation Protocol. In addition, the airport’s noise consultative committee was briefed during the consultation period.

5.3 Website All meeting materials were made available online at www.navcanada.ca/yow on May 16, 2016. Consultation materials available on the website were as follows:

• A description of the changes, including maps of existing air traffic, the proposed flight paths and cumulative noise contours,

• a video explaining RNP AR technology in plain language, • a schedule of Open House events, and, • access to the feedback mechanism, consisting of a survey with open and close ended questions.

Webpage analytics shows that this section of the website received more than 3,500 unique visitors.

5.4 Open Houses Two Open House events were held in the Ottawa area. This provided the public with opportunities to learn about proposed changes in person, to ask questions directly to personnel of NAV CANADA and provide input for consideration in the final flight path design. To ensure community awareness of the consultation effort, notices (sample in Appendix A) were placed in community weeklies and popular daily newspapers with a combined distribution of over 650,000 readers per insertion. Notices included information on dates and locations of community Open Houses and encouraged residents to visit the website. In addition, the effort garnered earned media in several mainstream media outlets in the region, including the CBC Ottawa television, radio and web, Unique FM (94.5), Manotick News and Blackburn Hamlet News. Some elected officials helped promote the consultation effort through their own newsletters and social media channels. Notices of the Open Houses were published in the following media on the dates indicated. Publication Estimated circulation per

edition Insertion Dates

Ottawa Citizen 243,000 May 17 and 28; June 15 Le Droit 35,800 May 18 and 28; June 15 All EMC papers in Ottawa

• Kanata Courier-Standard • Manotick News • Nepean/Barrhaven News • Orleans News • Ottawa East, South, West

EMS • Stittsville News

474,000

Aylmer Bulletin Not available May 27; June 1 and 15


20

The following table provides specific locations and dates of the Open Houses, as well as the number of attendees at each event: Location Date and Time Number of attendees

Good Shepherd School Gymnasium 101 Bearbrook Road Gloucester, ON K1B 3H5

June 2, 2016 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

32

Maurice-Lapointe School Gymnasium 17 Bridgestone Drive, Kanata, ON K2M 0E9

June 22, 2016 6 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

36

Community Open House events were hosted in gymnasiums with large, open spaces. NAV CANADA representatives were available throughout to explain proposed changes, discuss current and expected flight patterns and answer resident questions. Attendees were invited to provide their name on a sign-in sheet for tracking purposes. To better explain the proposed changes, large boards were printed containing information on NAV CANADA, RNP AR technology as well as maps showing current tracks and the proposed RNP AR flight paths. Other resources available during the open houses included: a computer that allowed residents to locate their own residence on a Google Earth map with current flight tracks and proposed RNP AR and RNAV approaches overlaid in 3D; another computer station had noise modelling information to analyze noise impacts based on resident’s postal code or street. Most residents in attendance had previewed information on current and proposed flight paths online, and arrived seeking information specific to their residence. Overall, residents seemed appreciative of NAV CANADA’s effort to communicate changes and the quality/detail of information available. The Open Houses provided residents with a good understanding of the changes. Residents asked well-informed questions and seemed satisfied with the answers. A small number of residents indicated sensitivity to small increases in aircraft overflight, but seemed somewhat reassured by noise modeling information. Many took the opportunity to fill in paper copies of the survey while others indicated they would do so online. Based on the number of completed surveys, it is clear that others opted not to provide any formal comments through the feedback mechanism. Based on the number of Open House participants against the number of survey responses, combined with the tone of conversations held with several residents, supportive or neutral feedback is potentially underrepresented.

6.0 Survey Results and Other Feedback

6.1 Methodology

To garner consistent feedback, a survey containing a mix of 12 closed- and open-ended questions was made available on the website and publicized at community events. For those that wished it, copies of the online survey were available at all Open Houses. Surveys filled out by residents at the Open Houses and left behind with staff were entered into the survey tool and considered along with those entered online.

6.2 Survey Respondents


21

A total of 56 individuals completed the survey. Figure 21 shows the approximate location* of respondents based on postal code information provided. The yellow icons, identify the location of the two consultation events.

The location of respondents shows a good mix from communities in the East, West, North and South. There are some clusters of respondents in areas currently affected by noise which are not located near proposed flight path changes, such as Barrhaven and Country Place (the former which is under the final approach to runway 07, the latter which is exposed to flight school operations). Overall, the number of survey respondents is quite low when one considers the significant visibility effort and the overall population of Ottawa and surrounding communities as well as the significant web traffic the relevant web pages received.

6.3 Summary of input received The engagement effort related to new RNP AR procedures revealed some concerns by residents regarding flight paths, but the distribution of respondents made it difficult to identify any clear location-based trends except in those areas which are currently exposed to significant aircraft noise. Some were concerned that RNP AR would further exacerbate the current concentration of flights over their areas. A total of 54 per cent of survey respondents indicated that they expected noise to increase if the proposal were implemented, while the remaining 46 per cent expected it to either stay the same or decrease.

Figure 21: Approximate Location of Survey Respondents


22

Overall, feedback received indicated that residents preferred that flight paths be designed so as to avoid overflying populated areas where possible. Comments from the public are important inputs in considering airspace proposals; however, the volume of responses against the number of website and event visitors is considered to be quite low. The full results of the survey are available in APPENDIX 2.

6.4 Consideration of Main Mitigations Proposed by Residents Avoid Overflying Communities NAV CANADA is sensitive to the fact that overflight of residential areas can be perceived as a nuisance for communities. As such, it makes efforts to balance the requirements for safe navigation, the interests of surrounding communities and the need to reduce the environmental impact of the industry. Unfortunately, due to the location of airports in relation to communities, flight path design criteria and safety requirements, it is not always possible to avoid overflying residential areas. Where possible, the company endeavors to design flight paths that overfly commercial or non-residential areas in a manner that respects Transport Canada-approved design criteria. Some of the suggestions to move existing flight paths were unrelated to RNP AR and beyond the scope of this consultation. With respect to the RNP AR design, the proposed RNP AR represents an improvement over the existing RNP AR utilized at Ottawa MacDonald Cartier International Airport. Fewer residential areas are directly overflown by the proposed design. Design Multiple Flight Paths to Each Runway Design criteria, noise abatement procedures and other factors constrain flight path locations in many points along the route. While respite routes have been used in some locations internationally with mixed success, the use of multiple flight paths does not usually occur within the same time period. The figures above that show current traffic distribution as well as flight tracks over a 24 hour period demonstrate some variation in flight paths. Varied, or alternating flight paths significantly increases airspace complexity and, in turn, air traffic controller and pilot workload as well as the risk of errors. It is not being considered at this time. Despite this, sequencing needs and pilot requests will mean that dispersion of traffic will still occur for aircraft that are not equipped or not granted a clearance for an RNP AR approach. Increase the altitude of aircraft The altitude of an aircraft on approach is directly related to its distance from the airport. The closer to the airport, the lower the aircraft must be. Flight paths are generally designed to provide constant descent to the runway at a 3 degree angle. This is the most optimal angle to enable aircraft to operate efficiently with low power settings and in a clean configuration through reduced use of flaps and other drag devices. In some cases, a steeper rate of descent would require the use of aerodynamic drag devices, such as wing flaps which can increase noise output, and depending on the rate chosen, can limit the types of aircraft that can operate at the airport.


23

7.0 Recommendation RNP AR procedures have been flown at Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport since 2007. Its use by WestJet at the airport has been successful in providing a shorter flight path and reducing emissions. The proposed RNP AR design ensures approaches to all runways, has some design benefits over the current procedure including strategic use of non-residential areas, and will be able to be utilized by other suitably equipped and certified operators. It is recommended that the proposed RNP AR procedures for Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport be implemented. A target implementation date in September 2016 should be identified. Implementation will be subject to review as per section 8.0.

8.0 Communication As per the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol, NAV CANADA will communicate the decision by posting this study on both the NAV CANADA website at least three weeks prior to implementation.

9.0 Post Implementation Review An assessment of the change will be made by NAV CANADA and the Airport operator within 180 days following implementation of the new RNP AR arrival routes. This assessment will include noise monitoring to determine actual decibel levels in the affected area. The 180 day review will be shared with the Airport Community Consultative Committee and published on NAV CANADA’s website.


24

APPENDIX 1 Below is a sample notice that was published in the Ottawa Citizen.


25

APPENDIX 2 Survey Results The following section provides a summary of the responses received to the online survey.

1. What should be the considerations when designing air routes? Please rank in order of importance, with 1 being most important and 8 being least important. (56 responses) Top three rankings: Most popular #1 rankings: Safety (66%) Community Noise Exposure (27%) Reducing delays (7%) Most popular #2 rankings Community Noise Exposure (42%) Safety (18%) Air quality/pollution (13%) Most popular #3 rankings Air quality/pollution (36%) Reducing fuel burn/GHGs (21%) Shortening flight times (9%) Average Rankings Safety 1.72 Community noise exposure 2.58 Air quality/pollution 3.65 Reducing fuel burn/greenhouse gas emissions 3.94 Reducing delays 4.6 Shortening flight times 5 Increasing airspace capacity 5.87 2. How often do you travel by air? (56 responses) Never 9% 1 to 5 times per year 80% 5 to 10 times per year 7% More than 10 times per year 4% 3. How would you describe your current exposure to aircraft noise? With 1 being low and 5 being high. (56 responses)

1 – low 2 3 4 5 – high 14% 17% 23% 23% 23%

4. Is the current level of aircraft noise a concern to you? (56 responses) Yes 70% No 30%


26

5. If yes, what do your current concerns relate to? (39 responses) Aircraft on approach to landing (arrivals) 64% Aircraft taking off (departures) 59% Night flights 36% I'm not certain 10% Other 18% For those that selected other, the comments provided generally indicated concern with the time of flight (mornings and evenings) or the type of aircraft (commercial jet or single propeller). 6. Do your current concerns relate to operations from (select all that apply): (39 responses) Commercial jets 90% Turbo props 51% Small/recreational aircraft 21% Helicopters 41% I'm not sure <1% 7. Do you expect aircraft noise to increase, decrease or stay the same based on what you understand regarding the upcoming proposed RNP? (56 responses) Increase 54% Decrease 14% Stay the same 32% 8. If you selected "Increase" for question 7, please explain why: (open ended question with 30 responses) Explanations provided included the following:

• The new flight paths are above/closer to my neighbourhood (15 mentions) • I’m not certain (6 mentions) • I’m concerned with the growth of traffic levels (6 mentions) • I currently experience a significant amount of aircraft noise (5 mentions) • RNP will concentrate aircraft overflight (3 mentions) • RNP will result in aircraft being lower than they were before (2 mentions)

9. If you selected "Decrease" for question 7, please explain why: (open ended question with 7 responses) Explanations provided included the following that continuous descents are smoother/quieter (6 mentions), shorter flight paths (3 mentions), aircraft engines are becoming quitter (2 mentions) and better population avoidance (1 mention). 11. Please provide any further feedback, comments or concerns related to the proposed changes. (Open ended question with 43 responses) Comments include:

• The designs should better avoid densely populated areas/go over industrial/rural areas or prioritize community noise impacts (10 comments).


27

• Some respondents indicated that consultation should be more extensive or that existing consultation include clearer information materials7 (14 comments) while a few mentioned that they thought the information materials were well done (4 comments)

• Several comments mentioned displeasure with current flight patterns (9 comments) • Positioning the initiative as beneficial to the environment or to communities is disliked (4

comments) • Some respondents further indicated that they were neutral to the changes (3 comments) • Other comments include that air traffic should be dispersed, that there were benefits to RNP, that

they expect more noise, that altitudes should be higher and that RNP should be adopted by airlines sooner.

7 An effort was made to reach out to respondents that had questions in their survey entries. Eight individuals were contacted independently during the consultation to help clarify impacts.

Documents

AIRSPACE CHANGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT … RNP...AIRSPACE CHANGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT Proposed RNP AR approaches and STAR updates at Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport