Mike Glen – Flight Performance

SID Climb Gradient Study 2016 A Study of 42 International Airports

Heathrow Community Noise Forum 14/04/16

The Aims

• To benchmark Heathrow operations against other international airports

to understand how our departure procedures compare

• Better inform future projects and procedural updates by understanding

what other airports are doing

• Investigate which airports are using conventional / PBN SIDs

• Gain an insight into what procedures our airlines are following around

the world

• Better answer community enquiries on our operation and how we

compare

Limitations

• Study examines minimum published climb gradients for SID’s at the

airports included in the study.

• It does not consider actual performance of aircraft types and airlines

against stated climb gradients. This is impossible to do without

knowing a wide number of variables.

• Some of the steeper SID climb gradients contain restrictions on aircraft

types so are not available for all aircraft.

• Heathrow has a minimum published climb gradient of 4% for noise

abatement reasons. However some of the SID’s have steeper climb

gradients for airspace and ATC purposes.

• The intention of this work is to make a first step to benchmark

Heathrow against airports worldwide. The Next Steps slide details how

this study will be used going forwards.

Methodology

A total of 42 international airports covering 23 countries feature in this study.

Methodology

• The airports that feature in this study were chosen as they are within a similar

regulatory environment to HAL and feature in other benchmarking studies e.g

Noise Action Plan Benchmarking Study 2013.

• These airports also represent a good cross section of different aerodrome heights,

surrounding terrain and average local temperatures which are all considerations

when looking at aircraft climb performance.

Information Gathering

• Information from this study has been gathered from recognized aviation sources

which are publicly available; this includes AIS websites, airnav.com and nformation

from Jeppesen databases

• It is important to note that not all SIDs have been listed individually. Some airports

have 100+ procedures so summaries have been provided.

• Information gathered includes climb gradient, end altitude of the procedure, use of

PBN and any other relevant noise mitigation methods

N.B - The information in this presentation and associated spread sheet has been

taken directly from the published procedural plate. No approach has been made to the

associated airport to verify the information.

Climb Gradient Analysis This table shows how many airports have published climb gradients within

the defined %age brackets.

**

< 4% 4% 4.1% - 5% 5.1% - 6% 6.1% - 7% 7.1% - 8% 8.1% - 9% 9.1% - 10% 10.1% - 11% 11.1% - 12% 12.1% - 13% 13.1% - 14% 14.1% - 15%

Eindhoven

Heathrow

Brussels

Amsterdam

Santiago

Buenos Aires

Frankfurt

Paris CDG

NYC JFK

Madrid

Sydney

Salzburg

Toronto Pearson

Hong Kong

Beijing

Prague

Copenhagen

Paris Orly

Dusseldorf

Munich

Tokyo Haneda

Singapore

Auckland

Oslo

Barcelona

Stockholm

Zurich

Geneva

Dubai

Gatwick

Stansted

Manchester

London City

Farnborough

John Wayne

Minneapolis

Chicago O'Hare

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Ronald Regan National

Atlanta

La Guardia

Orlando

Amsterdam Summary

• AMS only specifies set climb gradients from 2 of

it’s 4 runways – Rway 04 and 09

Rway 04 - 4% Rway 09 – 3.8%

ANDIK2F ANDIK1N

ARNEM2F ARNEM2N

LEKKO1F LEKKO1N

LOPIK1F LOPIK1N

LUNIX1F LUNIX1N

• These SIDs originate from the shortest runways

and are closest to the city so it is likely that the

climb gradient is specified for noise abatement

and for integration into other SIDS

• PRNAV Procedures are only available for STARs

09

Frankfurt Summary

Climb Gradients

3.7% 5.4%

4.1% 6.3%

4.3% 7.5%

4.6% 9.3%

5.2% 12%

• Highest climb gradients are mainly off Rway 25L/C at

12%

• AIP entry cites 12% for airspace reasons. Does not

place any restriction on aircraft types flying this

procedure

• RNAV SIDs available – RNAV-1 and GPS overlays

• Other climb gradients specified for obstacle

clearance – 6.3%

• Vast number of published procedures which are

complex to manage in the current airspace structure

Paris CDG Summary

Climb Gradients

Westbound 6.5% All other 5.5%

• Simplified climb gradients with only 2

specified

• All traffic heading towards the city

(Westbound) is required to fly a profile of

6.5%

• All other traffic to fly 5.5%

The Next Steps

Now the main bulk of information has been gathered, further studies and

analysis can be carried out with ease.

We are now proposing to:

1. Look at airport climb gradients in more detail to identify best practice for

airports with similar traffic eg types and load factors to EGLL i.e those

airports with heavy ultra long haul aircraft departing on climb gradients

greater than 4%

2. Look at the steeper climb gradients in more detail to understand the

restrictions

3. Present the data to the Heathrow Noise Forum and the Community

Noise Forum

4. Approach other airports to discuss actual performance and adherence

to the published gradients

5. Continue engaging with our airline partners in relation to climb gradient

performance

Source List

UK AIS – www.ais.org.uk

Airnav – www.airnav.com

Aus AIS - www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/dap/aeroprocchartstoc.htm

HK AIS - http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/ad.htm

Chinese Data - http://opennav.com/airport/ZBAA

NZ AIS - www.aip.net.nz

EU AIS - https://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadcms/eadsite/index.php.html