DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Airport Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project Airport Operations Hogeschool van Amsterdam Domein Techniek Aviation Studies Hogeschool van Amsterdam Domein Techniek Aviation Studies 2011 – 2012 Project Airport Operations Project group AE Nick Antwerpen Joey Bakker Kevin van der Hart Bart van der Heijden Frank Mars Lars Veling Daniël van der Weijden Project guide D. V. Kerstens Date 23 May 2012 Airport consultancy group AE Hogeschool van Amsterdam Domein Techniek Aviation Studies Summary Project group AE has been working on an advice to the Dutch government, on the best possible future solution for the growing shortage of capacity at airports in the Netherlands. To fully understand this problem and to provide the government with the best possible solution, general airport theory is first researched. Air traffic is generally divided in Civil aviation and military aviation. Civil aviation is subdivided in Commercial aviation (CA) and General aviation (GA). Aircraft can fly under two types of flight rules. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) are flight rules based on navigation by landmarks on the ground, instrument Flight Rules (IFR) is based on navigation by using the instruments on board an aircraft. Airspace is divided in different categories, ranging from Class A to G. Class A airspace is the most strict airspace and class G the least. Airspace is further divided in upper airspace, CTA, TMA, and CTR. At an airport, various services and facilities are present. These services and facilities are divided in passenger and cargo services/facilities, runway and taxiways, flight facilities and navigation facilities and its adherent services. Airports are subject to various laws and regulations. The three most important regulation are noise laws, air safety regulations and regulations for buildings around an airport. The four airports in this research are Amsterdam Schiphol airport, Eindhoven airport, Rotterdam airport and Lelystad airport. Amsterdam Schiphol airport handled 420.250 flight movements in 2011 and is expected to grow to 803.500 movements in 2030. This growth will not cause problems with the capacity of 1.400.000 flight movements. Eindhoven airport handled approximately 22.000 flight movements. In 2030, a total number of 44.000 flight movements. The capacity of Eindhoven airport is 120.000 movements and will not cause problems. Rotterdam airport dealt with 53.900 movements in 2011 and is expected to grow to 103.100 movements. Its capacity is 100.000 movements, this capacity will be exceeded. Lelystad airport handled 134.000 flight movements in 2011. In 2030, 256.200 movements are expected. This is a large excess of the capacity of 100.000 movements. With this information, a multi airport system plan can be constructed. The surplus of flight movements at Lelystad airport will be distributed to Eindhoven airport, Rotterdam airport and a new VFR airport. The surplus of IFR flights at Rotterdam will be moved to Schiphol airport. This MASP ensures a good development of the Dutch aviation and expansion is possible in the future. The new VFR airport that will be build should handle approximately 66.700 flight movements. Three possible locations for this airport are Lage Mierde, Dinteloord and Soesterberg. By looking at various aspects of advantages of each airport, Soesterberg is chosen as the best location for a VFR airport. Soesterberg airport is able to handle at least 67.000 flight movements each year. Soesterberg is an old military airport and can be relatively cheap renovated to a modern VFR airport. It will have two main runways, one concrete and one grass runway. In addition, a small grass runway for glider pilots will be created. The main entrance will be to the west of the airport and the aircraft hangars will be in between the two runways. Soesterberg airport will have the opportunity to expand when a larger capacity is required. It can even be reconstructed for IFR traffic. Therefore, a recommendation is given for this multi airport system plan, which incorporates renovating Soesterberg airport, with the discussed airport master plan. Airport consultancy group AE Hogeschool van Amsterdam Domein Techniek Aviation Studies Table of Content Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Basic theory ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.1: Air traffic ....................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2: Airspace ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3: Airport .......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4: General Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Dutch airports ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1: Expected growth ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.2: Schiphol airport .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.3: Eindhoven airport ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.4: Rotterdam – The Hague Airport ................................................................................................. 16 2.5: Lelystad airport ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.6: Multi airport system plan ........................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 3: Design options ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.1: Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.2: Location ...................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3: Layout ......................................................................................................................................... 26 3.4: Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 29 Chapter 4: Airport elaboration .............................................................................................................. 30 4.1: Certification ................................................................................................................................ 31 4.2: Facilities ...................................................................................................................................... 32 4.3: Expansion Possibilities ................................................................................................................ 33 4.4 Financial aspect ........................................................................................................................... 33 4.5: Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 36 List of terms ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Literature list ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Airport consultancy group AE Hogeschool van Amsterdam Domein Techniek Aviation Studies Preface The aviation market is growing rapidly due to further growing businesses and the need that people want to travel to foreign countries. In Holland the aviation grows quickly also, but the Dutch aviation has his limits due to the few airports and required space needed for this growth. The Dutch government has contacted Aviation Project-group AE to investigate the substantial growth in the Dutch aviation and look for possibilities to take advantage of the upcoming growth. The estimated average growth will be 3,47 percent a year so there will be a limit within these years and aviation project-group has to investigate what the growth until 2030 will be and on which elements the growth has more influence and which not. Here fore they have to write a plan to redistribute the flight movements between the already existing airports and on these number design a new extra airport to enhance the growth in the Dutch aviation. The aviation project-group AE consists of seven young men that have different knowledge in the aviation scene to investigate this growth and will therefore have a substantial amount of potential to form a redistribution and create a new design of the necessary airport that will be designed. Project-group AE will be assisted by Engineer Kerstens and can consult him or many documents to have the right sources and collected knowledge. To understand the complete investigation and its terminology the basics of an airport and its adherent features
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EHAM — AMSTERDAM/Schiphol
    AIP NETHERLANDS AD 2.EHAM-1 04 FEB 2016 EHAM — AMSTERDAM/Schiphol EHAM AD 2.1 AERODROME LOCATION INDICATOR AND NAME EHAM — AMSTERDAM/Schiphol EHAM AD 2.2 AERODROME GEOGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 1 ARP co-ordinates and site at AD 52°18'29"N 004°45'51"E 062 DEG GEO 135 m from TWR. 2 Direction and distance from (city) 4.9 NM SW of Amsterdam. 3 Elevation/reference temperature -11 ft AMSL/20.4°C (JUL). 4 Geoid undulation at AD ELEV PSN 142 ft. 5 MAG VAR/annual change 0°E (2010)/8'E. 6 AD operator, postal address, telephone, telefax, Post: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol email, AFS, website P.O. Box 7501 1118 ZG Schiphol-Centre Tel: +31 (0)20 601 9111 (Airport all EXT) +31 (0)20 601 2116 (Airport office/Apron Management Service) +31 (0)20 601 2115 (Airport Authority) Fax: +31 (0)20 604 1475 AFS: EHAMYDYX 7 Types of traffic permitted (IFR/VFR) IFR/VFR 8 Remarks 1. Airport for use by national and international civil air transport with all types of aircraft. 2. Upon request, contact the airside operations manager (AOM) on channel 130.480 call sign "Airport One" (not monitored H24). 3. Changes in the availability of the runway and taxiway infrastructure at the airport will be promulgated by NOTAM. The NOTAM can refer to the website http://www.eham.aero where visual material relating to this subject will be shown. This material may only be used in combination with the current NOTAM. EHAM AD 2.3 OPERATIONAL HOURS 1 AD operator H24 2 Customs and immigration H24 3 Health and sanitation H24 4 AIS briefing office H24 self-briefing Tel: +31 (0)20 406 2315 +31 (0)20 406 2316 Fax: +31 (0)20 648 4417 5 ATS reporting office (ARO) H24 Tel: +31 (0)20 406 2315 +31 (0)20 406 2316 +31 (0)20 406 2323 Fax: +31 (0)20 648 4417 6 MET briefing office H24 7 ATS H24 8 Fuelling Schiphol-Centre: H24.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Airspace Usage
    A PPENDIX I Countywide Airspace Usage Riverside County is within one of the busiest and most complex sections of airspace in the United States, handling over 4.3 million operations annually. To better understand the magnitude of these op- erations and complexities of this system, Map 1 depicts Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations for the six busiest airports in the area for a 24-hour period on January 26, 1996. This exhibit does not depict operations from the 14 airports in Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan update. AIRSPACE STRUCTURE Since the advent of aviation, nations have established procedures within their boundaries to regulate the use of airspace. Airspace is broadly classified as either “controlled” or “uncontrolled” in the United States. The difference between the two categories relates primarily to requirements for pilot qualifica- tions, ground-to-air communications, navigation and traffic services, and weather conditions. Six classes of airspace have been designated in the United States. Airspace designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered controlled airspace. Aircraft operating within controlled airspace are subject to vary- ing requirements for positive air traffic control. The airspace in Riverside County, as illustrated on Map 2, is constantly occupied by aircraft arriving and departing from other airports in the region. Frequently, overflights experienced in communities near Riverside County airports are not the result of operations at nearby airports, but from aircraft us- ing airports outside Riverside County. After the preparation of this plan, additional approaches have been established for aircraft arriving at Los Angeles International Airport. These new approaches were not included as part of the map development process for this plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Easy Access Rules for Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA)
    Easy Access Rules for Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA) EASA eRules: aviation rules for the 21st century Rules and regulations are the core of the European Union civil aviation system. The aim of the EASA eRules project is to make them accessible in an efficient and reliable way to stakeholders. EASA eRules will be a comprehensive, single system for the drafting, sharing and storing of rules. It will be the single source for all aviation safety rules applicable to European airspace users. It will offer easy (online) access to all rules and regulations as well as new and innovative applications such as rulemaking process automation, stakeholder consultation, cross-referencing, and comparison with ICAO and third countries’ standards. To achieve these ambitious objectives, the EASA eRules project is structured in ten modules to cover all aviation rules and innovative functionalities. The EASA eRules system is developed and implemented in close cooperation with Member States and aviation industry to ensure that all its capabilities are relevant and effective. Published December 20201 1 The published date represents the date when the consolidated version of the document was generated. Powered by EASA eRules Page 2 of 213| Dec 2020 Easy Access Rules for Standardised European Rules Disclaimer of the Air (SERA) DISCLAIMER This version is issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in order to provide its stakeholders with an updated and easy-to-read publication. It has been prepared by putting together the officially published regulations with the related acceptable means of compliance and guidance material (including the amendments) adopted so far.
    [Show full text]
  • Icao Definitions Flight Procedures Icao Rules Of
    22 AUG08 AIRTRAFFICCONTROL 1 INTRODUCTION This AirTrafficControlSectionisdesignedtoprovide pilots with InternationalCivil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards, Recommended Practicesand P rocedures forinternational operations.Inaddition, on astate-by-statebasis,flightproceduresuniquetoeachstate,ordifferent from thepublishedICAOrules andprocedures, areincluded. Each part of this AirTraffic ControlSection is describedbelow. ICAODEFINITIONS durespage.Ifthe state hasexceptions to thepub- Thesedefinitions areapplicable to theICAOinfor- lishedholding tables, acomplete tabulation of hold- mation contained in this ATCsection andhavebeen ing speeds is provided. extractedfromappropriateICAOpublications. PROCEDURE LIMITATIONS AND OPTIONS FLIGHT PROCEDURES Statementsconcerning conformance with ICAO Details of thePANS-OPS instrumentdepartureand PANS-OPS areincludedhere. The latestversion approach procedure informationusefultothe pilot-in- of PANS-OPS,VolumeIis provided in theICAO commandinthe execution of an instrument departure Flight Procedures chapter. Thestatement “Instru- or approach procedureare included. Theinformation ment Procedures areinconformancewith thenew is extractedfromthe latestamended edition of Pro- PANS-OPS Document8168,VolumeII” indicates ceduresfor AirNavigation Services—Aircraft Oper- compliance with this document. ations, Document 8168, VolumeI,FlightProcedures. Procedurelimitations, non-standard circling pro- References to earliereditionsare included. tectedarea, airspeedrestrictions, andsimilartype informationisincluded.Significantstatedifferences
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2 ORDER of PRIORITY for AIRSPACE USE
    Appendix 2 ORDER OF PRIORITY FOR AIRSPACE USE The order of priority described in this Appendix is based on advance notification procedures at the pre-tactical level of ASM in adherence to the FUA concept. Approved Agencies (AA) are authorised to submit advance notifications to the AMC. Airspace reservations can also be made without an advance notification at the tactical level, but in that case the reserved areas will have no priority over other airspace structures or air traffic. This document specifies the permanent order of priority for airspace use. Traficom may issue a decision concerning temporary reorganisation of priorities through the strategic level planning and negotiation process. The following flights always take priority over all other air traffic and airspace structures: - an aircraft in an emergency; - an aircraft avoiding a weather phenomenon dangerous to flights; - quick reaction alert flights (QRA missions); - flights conducted under an Open Skies agreement; - flights designated with STS indicators MEDEVAC/SAR/HEAD. The following order of priority shall be observed between various airspace structures and air traffic: 1 TSA – TMA At the pre-tactical level, a TMA takes priority over TSAs. A TSA may be given priority over a TMA through the strategic level planning and negotiation process. At the tactical level, the TMA holder may release airspace for a TSA, in which case the TMZ requirement and services specific to the airspace class may also be waived. 2 TSA – FIZ At the pre-tactical level, the FIZ takes priority over TSAs. A TSA may be given priority over a FIZ through the strategic level planning and negotiation process.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA Airspace Classifications
    United States Main article: Airspace class (United States) The U.S. adopted a slightly modified version of the ICAO system on September 16 , 1993 , when regions of airspace designated according to older classifications were converted wholesale. The exceptions are some Terminal Radar Service Areas (TRSA), which have special rules and still exist in a few places. • With some exceptions, Class A airspace is applied to all airspace between 18,000 feet(5,500 m) and Flight Level 600 (approximately 60,000 ft). Above FL600, the airspace reverts to Class E (Reference Order 7400.9P, Subpart E). The transition altitude (see Flight level ) is also consistently 18,000 feet (5,500 m). All operations in US Class A airspace must be conducted under IFR. SVFR flight in Class A airspace is prohibited. • Class B airspace is used around major airports , in a funnel shape that is designed to contain arriving and departing commercial air traffic operating under IFR, up to10,000 feet (3,000 m) above MSL (12,000 feet above Denver, Colorado ). Class C airspace is used around airports and military air bases with a moderate traffic level. Class • Class D is used for smaller airports that have a control tower. The U.S. uses a modified version of the ICAO class C and D airspace, where only radio contact with ATC rather than an ATC clearance is required for VFR operations. • Other controlled airspace is designated as Class E - this includes a large part of the lower airspace. Class E airspace exists in many forms. It can serve as a surface-based extension to Class D airspace to accommodate IFR approach/departure procedure areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to VFR Pilots Information to VFR Pilots
    Information to VFR pilots Information to VFR pilots This publication has been prepared by Airspace Class G Airspace Class D Naviair with the purpose of focusing In general, the airspace in Denmark, All CTRs and some TMAs in Denmark, on flight safety and clarifies topics, outside CTRs and TMAs, is Airspace e.g. Aarhus, Rønne, Aalborg, Karup which are important to know for VFR Class G from GND to 3500 feet. and Skrydstrup are Airspace Class D. pilots, to prevent airspace penetration Both IFR and VFR traffic are permitted. of controlled airspace. Over the North Sea it is Airspace Class G from GND to FL195. Airspace Class D is controlled airspace and ATC Clearance is required. Airspace Classes Both IFR and VFR traffic are permitted. Airspace Class G is uncontrolled VFR traffic receives traffic information In Denmark the airspace below FL195 airspace and therefore both IFR and about other traffic, IFR included. is divided into four different airspace VFR traffic only receive FIS, includ- classes, namely Airspace Class C, D, E ing traffic information about other There is no requirement for transpon- and G, with Airspace Class C being the known traffic. der, but two-way radio communicati- most restrictive airspace and Airspace on is required. Class G the least restrictive. There is no requirement for two-way radio communication or transponder for VFR flights. Note however, that Airspace Class C when flying in TIZs and TIAs two-way Billund TMA and Copenhagen Area, radio communication is mandatory, which consists of Roskilde and Ka- even though they are Airspace Class G.
    [Show full text]
  • London Southend Airport (LSA) Proposal to Re-Establish Controlled Airspace in the Vicinity of LSA
    London Southend Airport (LSA) Proposal to Re-establish Controlled Airspace in The Vicinity Of LSA Airspace Change Proposal Management in Confidence London Southend Airport (LSA) Proposal to Re-establish Controlled Airspace in The Vicinity Of LSA Document information London Southend Airport (LSA) Proposal to Re-establish Document title Controlled Airspace in The Vicinity Of LSA Authors LSA Airspace Development Team and Cyrrus Ltd London Southend Airport Southend Airport Company Ltd Southend Airport Produced by Southend on Sea Essex SS2 6YF Produced for London Southend Airport X London Southend Airport T: X Contact F: X E: X Version Issue 1.0 Copy Number 1 of 3 Date of release 29 May 2014 Document reference CL-4835-ACP-136 Issue 1.0 Change History Record Change Issue Date Details Reference Draft A Initial draft for comment Draft B Initial comments incorporated – Further reviews Draft C 23 May 2014 Airspace Development Team final comments Final 27 May 2014 Final Review Draft D Issue 1.0 29 May 2014 Initial Issue CL-4835-ACP-136 Issue 1.0 London Southend Airport 1 of 165 Management in Confidence London Southend Airport (LSA) Proposal to Re-establish Controlled Airspace in The Vicinity Of LSA Controlled Copy Distribution Copy Number Ownership 1. UK Civil Aviation Authority – Safety and Airspace Regulation Group 2. London Southend Airport 3. Cyrrus Ltd Document Approval Name and Organisation Position Date signature X London Southend X 27 May 2014 Airport London Southend X X 27 May 2014 Airport London Southend X X 29 May 2014 Airport COPYRIGHT © 2014 Cyrrus Limited This document and the information contained therein is the property Cyrrus Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • STS UAS Operations Within Close Proximity and Above an Object
    Standard Scenario (STS) UAS OPERATIONS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND ABOVE AN OBJECT WITHIN AND OVER CONGESTED AREAS Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport - CAA The Netherlands Version 1.4 - December 2018 Table of contents Introduction 3 Glossary of Terms 4 ConOps; introduction 8 Conops; General Conditions 9 Operator Requirements 11 General 11 Operations Manual and Procedures 15 Crew Qualification 20 Other specifics 21 Application for Authorization 22 STS-CAA-NL-CLOSEPROX-V1.4 !2 Introduction In order to avoid time consuming appraisals of repetitive individual approvals, CAA-NL applies the methodology to define “Standard Scenarios” for a growing number of identified types of ConOps with known threats and acceptable risk mitigations. Standard Scenarios limit the administrative burden for both UAS operators and the authorities and stimulates innovation by lowering the entry level for certain types of operation. A standard scenario includes a declaration that shall be signed by the operator’s accountable manager and submitted to the authorities. By submitting the declaration the operator indicates the covered operation will be conducted in accordance with the indicated general conditions and that all mitigation measures are in place and verified. This methodology is in line with all known elements of upcoming EU drone legislation. Some underlying elements of this legislation and associated guidance material are still under construction. Therefore, until further notice, all operators wishing to conduct the operation covered by this standard scenario in The Netherlands, also need to obtain the specific approval of CAA-NL by applying for extension of the privileges under their RPAS Operators Certificate (ROC). Dutch ROC-holders may send their applications for authorisations to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D National Airspace System
    APPENDIX D NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Airport Master Plan Update APPENDIX D. NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM The national airspace system consists of a network of navigational aids and a number of air traffic control facilities designed to operate in conjunction with the various defined classes of airspace. These classes are subdivided into controlled, uncontrolled, special use, and other airspace categories. D.1 CONTROLLED AIRSPACE Controlled airspace includes all airspace categorized as either Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace. While operating in controlled airspace pilots are subject to certain operating rules as well as pilot qualification and aircraft equipment requirements. In accordance with each airspace classification, ATC service is provided to aircraft operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR). D.1.1 Class A Airspace Class A airspace includes the airspace over the United States and the airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 contiguous states, from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to and including 60,000 feet MSL, also known as flight level 600 (FL600). Appendix D D - 1 Final Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Airport Master Plan Update The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) requires all persons operating an aircraft in Class A airspace to be flying under IFR. Operations in Class A airspace can only be conducted under an air traffic control (ATC) clearance received prior to entering the airspace and each aircraft must be equipped with a two-way radio capable of communicating with ATC on an assigned frequency and an operating transponder.
    [Show full text]
  • Ops Info for Ento and Torp Ctr
    FLYSIKRING AS TORP KONTROLLTÅRN OPS INFO FOR ENTO AND TORP CTR VERSION HISTORY Version Date References Description 1.0 2014-09-15 First edition 1.1 2015-01-13 Chapter 2.1 Classification of Torp CTR based on new BSL F 1-1 (SERA) 1.2 2015-08-20 Chapter 2.3 New RNAV (GNSS) approach procedures for both runways 1.3 2015-12-01 Chapters Revised restrictions based on new noise abatement 1.11 and 2.7 procedures with effect from 2015-12-01. 1.4 2016-10-01 Chapter 2.7 Revised noise abatement procedures for aircraft with certified noise level below 72dB(A) 2.0 2018-09-13 Updates related to AIRAC 13 SEP 2018, incl. introduction of ILS CAT II for RWY18. Modified design of holding point on TWY W3. Naming of Main Apron taxiway TANGO. 2.1 2018-09-24 Chapter 1.6 New map Main Apron 2.2 2019-06-29 Chapter 1.7 New map GA Apron, including revised operational procedures GENERAL This document contains data which is relevant for all types of aviation related operations at Sandefjord Airport Torp (ENTO) and in the airspace surrounding the airport (Torp control zone/CTR). This includes operations with manned and unmanned aircraft, aerial sporting activities and model aircraft. The information provided is either additional or supplemental to information included in Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) Norway, refer the following internet page. The information is divided into two chapters: 1. Airport 2. Airspace Chapter 1 contains descriptions of activities, regulations and limitations at ENTO. Chapter 2 contains descriptions of activities, regulations and limitations in Torp CTR, including: • Operations at ENTO, incl.
    [Show full text]
  • Airspace Management Operations Manual Procedures for Flexible Use of Airspace
    Airspace Management Operations Manual Procedures for Flexible Use of Airspace Approved by Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) and Air Force Command Valid from: 25.4.2019 until further notice CONTENTS: DOCUMENT HISTORY .................................................................................................... 4 abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 5 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 8 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 11 2 GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Description and purpose of the ASM Operations Manual ....................... 12 3 AIRSPACE ORGANISATION ................................................................................ 13 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 13 3.2 FIR .................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Airspace over international waters ......................................................... 13 3.2.2 ATS-delegated areas in the EFIN FIR ..................................................... 14 3.3 CTA ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]