The Effect of Pushback Accuracy On Static Apron Capacity at AAS

98 Pages·2017·12.57 MB·English

The Effect of Pushback
Accuracy On Static Apron
Capacity at AAS
N. J. C. Tange
t
f
el
D
t
ei
t
si
r
e
v
ni
U
e
h
c
s
ni
h
c
e
T

The Effect of
Pushback Accuracy
On Static Apron
Capacity at AAS
by
N. J. C. Tange
toobtainthedegreeofMasterofScience
attheDelftUniversityofTechnology,
tobedefendedpubliclyonFridayJune30,2017at10:00PM.
Studentnumber: 4013824
Thesiscommittee: Ir.P.C.Roling, TUDelft,supervisor
Ing.J.O.Haanstra, RoyalSchipholGroup,supervisor
Dr.Ir.R.Curran, TUDelft
Ir.M.Schuurman, TUDelft
Anelectronicversionofthisthesisisavailableathttp://repository.tudelft.nl/.

Summary
SchipholAirporthastocopewithapassengerdemandthatwilldoubleoverthenext20years[1].Apronsur-
faceareaatSchipholisrestricted.Evenwiththenewlydesignedpiers,thenumberofgateswherewidebody
aircraftcanbehandledislimited.Thestaticaproncapacitycanbeincreasedwhenaircraftareparkedcloser
together. Currently, the taxi wingtip clearance is used for pushback and towing. With accurate pushback
movements,theseclearancesmaybereduced.Thiswillbeinvestigatedinthisreport.Thefollowingresearch
questionwillbeanswered:
IsthespreadoftheanalyzedpushbacktracksatSchipholsufficientlysmalltojustifyadecreaseinwingtip
clearanceforpushbackmovements?
Gatesaredividedintocategories. Thecategoriesarebasedonthewingspanandthelengthoftheaircraft.
Forcategory9aircraft,withawingspanmorethan65m,only2gatesareavailableatSchiphol.
ThisresearchfocusesononepartofSchiphol. TheE-pierhasbeenchosenasitisacriticalpierandrepre-
sentativeforallpushbacksthathappenattheairport.TheE-pierhas1category9gateand8category8gates
withawingspanupto65m. Thelargestcategory8aircraftaretheBoeingB777-300ERandtheAirbusA350.
Thestaticaproncapacityisincreasedwhenacategory9aircraftcanbeparkedatacategory8gate.Thelatest
memberoftheB777family,theB777-9X,isacategory9aircraftwithawingspanof72m. TheB777-9Xwas
simulatedatallcategory8gatesoftheE-pier. GateE20couldbeupgradedtoaccommodatetheB777-9Xif
thewingtipclearanceisreducedfromthecurrent7.5mto6.7m,soareductionof0.8m.
AnincreaseincapacityisnotonlybeneficialforAASbutalsofortheotherstakeholdersinvolved:theground
handlerandtheairline.ThecostsandrevenuespotentialofaB777-300ERandtheB777-9Xarecomparedfor
thethreestakeholders.TheB777-9Xcarriesupto29passengersmore.Schipholearns10europerpassenger,
thegroundhandlerchargesperpassengerandperassignmenttime. Fortheairline,thetripcostsperpas-
sengerarelowerwhenoperatinglargeraircraft,butdependtoalargeextentonthefuelprices.Althoughthe
yieldforbothaircraftisthesame,theRPKoftheB777-9Xishigher.
Toachieveahighaccuracyofpushbackmovements, thecurrentaccuracylevelmustbedetermined. This
isdonebyplottingtheaircrafttransponderdataandreproducethepushbacktracks.Thisisdonebyfittinga
cubicsplinethroughthedatapoints. Thespreadbetweenthedifferenttracksisdeterminedintermsofthe
standarddeviation.
Thespreadoftheactualpushbacktracksof4category8gatesandonecategory7gateoftheE-pierhave
beendeterminedbyanalyzingtheaircrafttransponderdata. Thespreadfollowsanormaldistribution. The
acceptablelevelofsafetyismetwhen99.73%ofallapronmovementshaveaspreadthatissmallerthanthe
wingtipclearance.Table1showstheacceptablelevelofsafetyfortheanalyzedgates.
Table1:Acceptablelevelofsafetybeforeredclearancelineandtotalpushback
Gate Beforeredclearanceline[m] Totalpushback[m]
E6straight 3.3 4.5
E6turn 8.7 9
E7 5.4 6.9
E8 6.6 10.5
E20 5.7 9
E22 5.7 6.6
iii
iv 0.Summary
Furthermore,thedataanalysisshows:
• Theturnsareinitiatedbythetugdriveratdifferentdistancesfromtheredclearanceline.Thedistance
between nose gear and main gear determines where to start a turn and depends on the size of the
aircraft.Eachaircrafthasitsownpushbacktrack.
• Thetugdriverstendtosteertotheoppositesideofthetaxi-inline. Bysteeringtotheoppositesideof
thetaxi-inline,thepushbacktugdrivermakeamoreshallowturn.Thisistokeepthewearandtearof
theairplanetiresataminimumlevel.
• AllpushbackswereexecutedaccordingtotheSOP.StandardOperatingProcedures(SOP)describeper
gateingeneralwhichturnstotakeduringthepushbackandwheretoendthepushback.Therequired
trackthatthetugdriverhastofollowisnotdescribed.Thetugdriverexecutesthepushbackaccording
tohisownperceptionoftheactualenvironment.
ThespreadatgateE20andE22issufficientlysmalltoreducethewingtipclearancebetweenthesegatesfrom
thecurrentminimumof7.5mto6.7m. Bydoingthis,thestaticaproncapacityattheE-pierforaB777-9Xis
increasedfrom1gateto2gateswhereaB777-9Xcanbeparkedsimultaneously,seeTable3.5.
Table2:E-pierstaticaproncapacityE20increase
Thecurrentpushbackproceduresanalysisshowedthatthetugdriverwilltrytocreateasmuchleewayaspos-
sible.ForallgatesandaircrafttypesoptimumpushbacktracksaresimulatedbyAmsterdamAirportSchiphol.
Toincreasethecapacitybydecreasingthewingtipclearance,pushbackshavetobeexecutedbasedonthese
simulations.Aguidancesystemthatpresentstheseoptimumtrackstothetugdriverisessentialtomakethe
pushbackconsistentlyaccurate. Twoconceptsthatprovideguidancetothetugdriverhavebeenpresented.
Onethatwillbeimplementedontheapron,basedontheprinciple’FollowtheGreens’. Onesystemwillbe
implementedonthetug.BymeansofDGPS,thetugdriverwillseethethepositionofthetugandtheaircraft
relativeontheaprononascreeninthetug. Withtheimplementationoftheseconcepts,pushbackscanbe
performedmoreaccurateandthuspossibilitiesarisetoreducethecurrentlymaintainedpushbackwingtip
clearance.
Preface
ThisMSc. thesishasbeenwrittentofulfilltherequirementsofgraduatingatAerospaceEngineering,atthe
AirTrafficOperationsDepartmentofAerospaceEngineering,DelftUniversityofTechnology,incooperation
withRoyalSchipholGroup.
Thegoalofthisresearchistofindawaytoincreasethestaticaproncapacityintermsofpushbackaccu-
racyatAmsterdamAirportSchiphol.Thepushbackisararelyresearchedphaseoftheflightoperation.Atan
earlystageoftheresearchitbecameapparentthatthisareawasnotextensivelydocumented.Atfirstthiswas
adifficultybecauseIhadtolookfordirection,yetafterawhiletherealizationcamethatthiscouldbroaden
theresearch,thatmultipleaspectsofthepushbackoperationwereinterestingtoexamineandmention.
DoingmythesisatSchipholwasagreatopportunityandwasmyfirstpickwhenchoosingaresearchproject.
ThiswasduetothefactthatSchipholhasfascinatedmefromayoungage. Toexperiencetheoperational
aspectofairsideplanningtomewasanenrichingexperience,becausethispartoftheaviationworldisnot
includedintheregularmastercurriculum,andyetalwaysfoundmyspecialinterest.
A couple of people were important to me during this final phase of my studies and whom I would like to
thankspecifically. ThesepeopleIwouldliketothankfortheirpersonalinterestinmyprojectbuttheyalso
motivatedmetocomeupwithnewideas,helpedmegetthroughsomechallengingmoments.
First,IwouldliketothankPaulRoling,supervisorofAirTransportOperationswhohelpedmebyfindingthis
researchprojectandbysuggestingideashowtoapproachtheproject.
Jan-OttoHaanstra,IwouldliketothankfortheopportunitytodothisgraduationprojectattheAirsideOp-
erationsDepartmentofSchipholGroup. TherestofthecolleaguesatSchipholfortakingthetimetoanswer
allmyquestionsofwhichIhadmany. Ialsogreatlyappreciatethemotivationfrommyfriendsandfamily,
theirsupportandponderingofideas. Myparents,GielandEls,deserveaspecialthanksfortheirunlimited
support.
Ihopethereaderwillenjoymyreport.
N.J.C.Tange
DelftUniversityofTechnology
June30th2017
v

Contents
Summary iii
Preface v
ListofFigures ix
ListofTables xi
Nomenclature xiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Reportoutline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Researchquestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Background 3
2.1 Schipholgeographicallocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 SchipholCenterandapronlayout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Apronstandardoperatingprocedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Aproncapacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Apronsafety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 StaticApronCapacity 13
3.1 CurrentstaticaproncapacityE-pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 B777-9Xstaticaproncapacityincreasepotential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4 CostBenefitComparisonB777-300ERandB777-9X 17
4.1 ComparisonB777-300ERandB777-9X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 AmsterdamAirportSchiphol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3 Groundhandler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4 Airline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5 AircraftTransponderData 21
5.1 Schipholsurveillancesystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1 MLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.2 ADS-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.3 SMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.4 ASTRAData . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Filterandcategorizedata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6 Methodology 27
6.1 Best-fitmethods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1 Vectorcalculus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.2 Nonlinearregression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.3 Splines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2 Thecomputermodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2.1 Tuningthemodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2.2 Spreadofpushbacktracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7 ResultsDataAnalysis 35
7.1 Individualpushbacks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2 Pushbackscombined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.3 Analysisoftheresults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.3.1 E6S,E8andE22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.3.2 E6L,E7andE20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.3.3 Acceptablelevelofsafety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
vii
viii Contents
7.4 Staticaproncapacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8 CurrentProcedureAnalysis 47
8.1 Standardoperatingprocedures(SOP)pushbackAAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.2 Influencingfactorsexecutionofpushback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.3 Spreadandcurrentprocedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
9 PushbackGuidanceConcepts 53
9.1 Actualstatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9.2 Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9.3 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9.3.1 Ontheapron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9.3.2 Onthetug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
10 Discussion 59
11 ConclusionsandRecommendations 61
11.1 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
11.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Bibliography 65
Bibliography 67
12 AppendixResultsDataAnalysis 69
12.1 Individualpushbacks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
12.2 Pushbackscombined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
13 AppendixturnaroundoperationsB777-300ERandB777-9X 81