Floris Thesis

Time Based Separation
Compression on final approach and Time Based Separation for optimized

runway delivery
Final thesis report

December 1, 2014
Version 1.0
Supervisors:
Ir. V. Treve
Prof. Dr. Ir R. Curran
Dr. Ir. W. Zhao
R. Graham
A. Diepeveen 1390686
M. R. Herrema
Msc thesis Floris Groot 1312898
F. F. Herrema 1551256
K. K. Lie Hok Lien 1216007
J. Müller 1513060
M. Näring 1526847
TU Delft
Aerospace Engineering
EUROCONTROL
Master of Science
FLORIS FRISO HERREMA
-
Compression on final approach and Time Based Separation for
optimized runway delivery
FINAL REPORT
iv
Preface
T
his report is the result of a nine month master thesis study performed at the Airport Research
unit of EUROCONTROL, and is part of the Optimized Runway Delivery Study (ORD). The
research assignment has been provided by EUROCONTROL inside the SESAR Project 06.08.01
and the Air Transport and Operations Department of the Aerospace Engineering faculty at
Delft University of Technology. This study is executed in cooperation with NLR, various
airports, pilots and air traffic controllers.
The report shows relevant investigated runway compression issues on final approach, and will provide
fundamental information regarding the process from going over from a Distance Based Separation
(DBS) to a Time Based Separation (TBS) during final approach. During this process derived
characterization issues will be incorporated in the TBS methodology or act as support requirements for
Air Traffic Control (ATC). Therefore this report can be used as a basis for the future TBS concept and
for a better characterization of the compression effect.
In this research, firstly individual characterization performances are examined, such as, the time to fly,
the deceleration and stabilization fix, airspeeds, aircraft type and flight manual system. This will be
done for a better understanding of the speed profile and the compression effect on final approach.
Secondly, these performances will be verified with Vienna airport, RECAT-EU and Boeing data and
incorporated into a DBS model. Thirdly, the model will be translate into a TBS FFH (Floris Friso
Herrema) model by giving as input the most relevant extracted characterization issues. Finally, the
report shows two case studies, in which TBS FFH and TBS OSED 1 models are tested in real radar
tracks, using both Airbus and Boeing medium aircraft types. By comparing the performances of these
two TBS models, the best performances will be extracted by looking at the least time separation error.
The innovation of this study is that the aircraft performances, runway compression issues and air
traffic control solutions for applying TBS are now, for the first, time captured mathematically in a
model, in order to evaluate the system requirements and constraints to cater to compression. With
this model the potential performance improvements and related compression issues by using a TBS
methodology, can be predicted.
The report is meant especially for TU Delft, EUROCONTROL tutors of this project, the Single European
Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Project 06.08.01, international hub airports, airliners, airframe
manufacturers, aerospace engineers but can also provide information for general public interested in
aerospace engineering.
I would like to thank Vincent Treve, Ricky Curran, Wenjing Zhao and Bob Graham, from
EUROCONTROL and TU Delft, for their excellent feedback and valuable insight into difficult
considerations concerning the project. Their guidance during the project was of great help in
obtaining inputs for the TBS FFH model.
Also I would like to thank Valerio Cappellazzo and Frédéric Rooseleer from EUROCONTROL and
Gerben van Baaren from NLR, who provided useful information regarding problems encountered
during the project. They gave me more insight into ideas, feasibilities and/or difficulties of final
approach separations. Despite the tough assignment, I gained a lot of practical information and I
greatly enjoyed being part of a real working environment.
Herrema, F.F., Delft, 1 December 2014
v
vi
Summary
P
resently Distance Based Separation (DBS) rules are applied during final approach. As these rules
result in a loss in landing rate performance during (strong) headwind conditions, a new concept
should be introduced to help maintain or improve the landing rate performance. For this
purpose, the Time Based Separation (TBS) concept is in development; it involves changing separation
rules on final approach by investigating the possibilities of preventing loss of runway capacity under
strong wind conditions, while maintaining the required level of safety (Lepadatu, 2007).
For going over DBS and modeling a TBS concept, a better characterization of the compression effect is
required, which is the main goal of this report. Actual distance based separations are to be replaced
by time intervals, and/or speed compensation. The problem is that the aircraft pair (leader-follower)
flying different point on final approach differs in its speeds, causing the separation between the two
paired aircraft to increase or decrease. Decreasing separation below the minima increases the risk of
wake turbulence encounters. In addition, the headwind conditions should be taken into account since
these will reduce the groundspeed and as such the time to fly when no speed compensation is
applied. This study will predominately focus on these headwind conditions.
The characterization issues extracted in this study are needed to feed or support the TBS FFH tool for
building an airspeed profile for the leader and follower aircraft on final approach. The tool is able to
include the following characterization effects: Approach Speed (Vapp), Deceleration and Stabilization
Fix (DF & SF) and Glide Slope Speed. These performance parameters depend on the, aircraft type
(wingspan/speed), wind profile, manufacturer (Airbus or Boeing), airline, part of the day and STAR.
However, other challenging compression issues such as Time to Fly, current time separation, pilot/ATC
practices and the Flight Management System (FMS) have also been analyzed in extensive detail and
will act as recommendation for the future TBS studies.
The data supporting the above conclusions is obtained from Charles De Gaulle (CDG) airport. To
improve verification the results are compared with data from Vienna airport and show significant
similarities, noting that DF and SF standard deviations are higher compared to the TAS and time to
fly due to local ILS and IAP procedures. A comparison of CDG approach speed profiles with data used
in RECAT-EU and Boeing data also shows significant similarities.
In two case studies the new TBS FFH tool and the TBS OSED 1 tool are tested against real radar
tracks. By comparing the performances of these two models, the best performances are extracted by
looking at the least time separation error. In both studies the TBS FFH tool performed better.
Finally, approach speeds, DF & SF and glide slope speeds resulting from this study have been used as
input parameters in the SESAR Project 06.08.01 Validation Exercise for the TBS OSED Phase 2 model.
Primarily results from this exercise indicate an improvement in runway throughput recovery applying
the new TBS methodology when comparing low wind with high wind conditions.
vii
Table of contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................... v
Summary .............................................................................................................................. vii
Table of contents ................................................................................................................ viii
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xi
Nomenclature ...................................................................................................................... xii
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Research Goals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Data Mining Approach..................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Outcome and Relevance .................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Report Structure .............................................................................................................................. 4
2 Background .....................................................................................................................6
2.1 Distance Based Separation (DBS)..................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Time Based Separation (TBS) ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 ATC TBS concept description ........................................................................................................ 7
2.3 TBS methodologies .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Methodology 1 .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Methodology 2 .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Aircraft and Weather data ............................................................................................................. 13

2.4.1 Reliable data .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.4.2 Data Requirements .................................................................................................................... 13
2.4.3 TAS and wind calculation............................................................................................................ 14
3 Aircraft performance compression issues on final approach ........................................17

3.1 Time to Fly ..................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1 Per aircraft type, wind profile and distance to the threshold....................................................... 20
3.1.2 Airbus versus Boeing per wingspan ............................................................................................ 23
3.1.3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 TAS ................................................................................................................................................ 26
3.2.1 Per aircraft type, wind profile and distance to the threshold....................................................... 27
3.2.2 Airbus versus Boeing per wingspan ............................................................................................ 30
3.2.3 Glide slope speed as function of UTC time .................................................................................. 32
3.2.4 STAR .......................................................................................................................................... 36
3.2.5 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 38
3.3 Deceleration and stabilization fix point ......................................................................................... 39
3.3.1 Calculation method .................................................................................................................... 39
3.3.2 Aircraft wingspan ....................................................................................................................... 44
3.3.3 Airline 1 versus Airline 2 for A318, A319 and A320 ..................................................................... 48
viii
3.3.4 Fixed wingspan versus wind ....................................................................................................... 50
3.3.5 Fixed wingspan versus speed profile........................................................................................... 52
3.3.6 Results & Environmental Impact ................................................................................................ 54
3.4 Time Separation ............................................................................................................................ 54
3.4.1 Per aircraft pair .......................................................................................................................... 55
3.4.2 Current distance and time separation......................................................................................... 56
3.4.3 Average time separation during different parts of the day .......................................................... 57
3.5 Sub Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 58
4 Key performance indicators FMS, ATCs and pilots ........................................................60

4.1 Flight Management System ........................................................................................................... 60
4.1.1 Stabilization Heights................................................................................................................... 60
4.1.2 CDA Method .............................................................................................................................. 62
4.1.3 Ground Speed Mini Function ...................................................................................................... 62
4.2 Questionnaires ATC ....................................................................................................................... 65
4.3 Questionnaire pilots ...................................................................................................................... 68

4.4 Sub Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 69
5 Verification with Vienna airport ...................................................................................71

5.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 71
5.2 Comparing CDG with Vienna, RECAT EU and Boeing ...................................................................... 71
5.3 Sub Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 72
6 TBS FFH Model ..............................................................................................................74

6.1 Designing the TBS FFH Model ........................................................................................................ 74
6.2 Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 76
6.3 Results & Sub Conclusion............................................................................................................... 79
7 Validation .....................................................................................................................81
7.1 Purpose of Validation .................................................................................................................... 81
7.2 Validation model ........................................................................................................................... 82
7.3 Validation Overview and Input Thesis Study ................................................................................. 84
7.4 Results & Sub Conclusion............................................................................................................... 85
8 Conclusion & Recommendations...................................................................................88

8.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 88
8.2 Recommendations for further development ................................................................................. 89
Reference list .......................................................................................................................91

Appendix A: RECAT-EU Aircraft categories ..........................................................................94
Appendix B: Results TBS FFH2 tool .......................................................................................95
Appendix C: Verification with RECAT-EU and Boeing ...........................................................97
ix
Appendix D: Designed MathLab tools ..................................................................................99
Appendix E: Time to fly and TAS results .............................................................................100
Appendix F: DF & SF results per wind profile .....................................................................130
Appendix G: Gantt Chart ....................................................................................................155
Appendix H: Validation Assumptions .................................................................................156
x
Abbreviations
ATC Air Traffic Controller
DBS Distance Based Separation
FFH Floris Friso Herrema TBS tool
GSMF Ground Speed Mini Function
HMI Human Machine Interface
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
LIDAR LIght Detection And Ranging
MRS Minimum Radar Separation
ORD Optimized Runway Delivery Study
OSED Operational Service and Environment Definition
RECAT-EU The European Re-categorization of Wake Turbulence Separation Minima
SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research
SID Standard Instrument Departures
SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission)
STAR Standard Terminal Arrival Routes
TBS Time Based Separation
UTC Coordinated Universal Time
VALP Validation plan
xi
Nomenclature
Symbol Description Unit
DF Deceleration Fix (NM)
Df Chevron separation distance (NM)
DBS( lead , foll ) Distance between leader and follower aircraft (NM)
FTD Final Target Distance (NM)
GS Ground Speed (kts)
HW Headwind (kts)
IAS Indicated Airspeed (kts)
ITD Initial Target Distance (NM)
SF Stabilization Fix (NM)
TAS True Airspeed (kts)
TW Total wind (kts)
TBS( lead , foll ) Time Separations between leader and follower aircraft (s)
Vapp Final approach speed (kts)
Va,follower Approach speed follower (kts)
Va,lead Approach speed leader (kts)
Vg,lead Glide slope lead (kts)
Vglide Glide slope approach speed (kts)
XW Crosswind (kts)
xii
1 Introduction
T
he TBS project investigates the possibilities of preventing reduction in the landing rate under
strong wind conditions, while maintaining the required level of safety. The headwind condition
is the main compression issue during Distance Based Separation (DBS) that impacts not only
the achieved capacity, but also the time to fly and fuel efficiency, as well as the predictability
of operations and emissions. In addition, other challenging compression issues will also be taken into
consideration in this research project. The underlying motivation being that the actual DBS has to be
replaced by time intervals, and/or speed compensation. The main problem for going over to a TBS is
that the aircraft flying on final approach differ in their speeds, causing the separation between two
succeeding aircraft to increase or decrease. Decreasing separation forms a great threat to the wake
turbulence phenomenon.
The primary objective of this study is to quantify and model the potential performance compression
improvements on final approach. The novelty of this study is that to date the aircraft performances
compression issues and recommendations for air traffic control have never been captured
mathematically in a model to evaluate the (system) requirements and constraints to cater to
compression. Within the scope of this study, it is not foreseen to directly inject the results into the
further development of a specific operational concept, rather it should result in a better understanding
of the basis for future concepts such as TBS, and as such to come up with possible system
requirements to support controllers with ground based and/or air based system solutions.
The structure of this study is as follows; first, all relevant current compression (aircraft) performances
are analyzed. These current performances are obtained by executing various research methods, such
as: analysis of aircraft runway compression performances, developing and implementing
questionnaires for pilot/ATCs/manufacturers, and a literature study. The following aircraft
performances are examined at CDG airport; time to fly, true airspeed, deceleration and stabilization
fix, glide slope speed, current time separations and STAR. These elements have been analyzed for a
better understanding of the speed profile and the compression effect on final approach. Second, these
derived current performances are verified with Vienna, RECAT-EU and Boeing data and incorporated
into a DBS model. The approach speeds, glide slope speed and simplified DF and SF results gathered
in this study are validated in the real time simulator. Third, the model is translated into a Floris Friso
Herrema (FFH) TBS model by giving as input the most relevant and extracted characterization issues
for going over to a TBS. Finally, the report shows two case studies, in which the TBS (FFH) model will
be benchmarked with real radar tracks and the EUROCONTROL OSED 1 with real radar tracks. The
outcome of the case studies shows the overall error (or for a given aircraft parameter) in time
separation on final approach by comparing the above-described models. The model (either FFH or
OSED 1) that has the minimum error in time separation compared to real life has the best
performances.
1.1 Research Goals
The main issues discussed in this study concern the domain of going over from a DBS to a TBS
methodology and can essentially be summed up as follows:
• Analysis of the following aircraft runway compression performances; time to fly, true airspeed,
deceleration and stabilization fix, current time separations, STARs and key performance indicators.
Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1 Page 1

• Development of a model which allows a better characterization of the compression effect on final
approach.
• Finding pilot/ATC solutions which could help to compress on final approach.
• Providing the necessary/possible recommendations for TBS rules for the final approach controller in
order to enable accurate and consistent delivery of these rules on final approach. The rules are
derived from the analyzed runway characterization issues.
As a result, the following initial research question has been formulated:
To understand the current DBS and TBS on the glide slope approach by investigating the aircraft
performances and related compression issues of airports in order to estimate potential performance
improvements
The main goal of this project is summarized in the following project objective statement:
To develop a MathLab software support tool that explains and predicts the compression issues on final
approach. The tool should act as a basis to support ATC with the future development of time based
separation.
To answer the main research question and reach the study goal, the following main sub-questions are
defined:
• Which are the main compression parameters and how are they related to the wind profile, airline,
airport (CDG and Vienna), distance from the threshold and manufacture?
• What are the key drivers for these speed profiles and which systems could be influenced to decrease
the speed differences, and thus the TBS between two succeeding aircraft?
• How are these aircraft performances and speed profiles related to compression? Which parameters
can be used best in the TBS methodology for compression?
1.2 Research Methodology
In order to research the characterization issues, three complementary sources of information are
used, since it is actually not clear how the separation practices vary on final approach and how they
vary at different airports;
1. The actual aircraft performance (compression issues) and separations as appears in flight
track data (CDG and Vienna).
2. The separation policies as defined/described by the different Air Navigation Services Providers
(ANSPs).
3. The separation practices as executed and perceived by air traffic controllers (ATCs).

By using the current DBS methodology and improving TBS methodology on final approach from
EUROCONTROL (EUROCONTROL, 2013), the goal is to arrive at a historic reconstruction and a more
complete understanding of the DBS and TBS. The experimental set up is to gather relevant aircraft
and weather data from CDG and Vienna airport in order to determine runway compression issues. The
aircraft performances data concern a minimum of two months of flight data, whereby for each
individual flight the xyz coordinates are received per four seconds. The weather data is received for
every minute from 0m up to 3000m. After incorporating these methodologies, the focus will be on
understanding the speed profile and the compression effect on final approach for the TBS concept.
The best current performances are obtained by analyzing the differences per investigated
characterization issue and by benchmarking the current performances against the OSED phase 1
EUROCONTROL model and real radar tracks. For a better understanding of the compression effect,
challenging effects, like key performance indicators should also be analyzed and taken into account.
This should lead to a list of constraints and resilience requirements to predict and show the air traffic
controller what is possible to compress. Using all data mentioned above, a TBS MathLab tool was
developed. The model for the TBS MathLab tool was verified by using data from Vienna airport and
speed profiles from RECAT-EU and Boeing. Finally, a validation was performed by using the real time
simulator from EUROCONTROL.
1.3 Data Mining Approach
The research will be executed by using a data mining approach, expert interviews and surveys filled
out by pilots and air traffic controllers. The data mining approach is used, because it is expected that
by analyzing the characterization and compression issues (showed in chapter 3 and 4), patterns will
emerge.
The goal of the data mining process is to extract the necessary information from a data set and
transform it into an understandable structure for further use, like the TBS concept. Before data mining
algorithms can be used, a target data set must be assembled first. The target set for this study is the
data set of two months of Charles de Gaulle (CDG) airport, which was obtained from the Thales
group. It should be investigated whether the patterns produced by the data mining algorithms occur
in the wider data set. Not all patterns found by the data mining algorithms are necessarily valid. It is
common for the data mining algorithms to find patterns in the training set that are not present in the
general data set. That is also why the data sets of Vienna airport will be used (sensitivity analysis).
1.4 Outcome and Relevance
The results obtained by researching the above questions, form the input for a model, that in fact is
the outcome of this study. The model captures the potential performance improvements by using a
TBS methodology on final approach. These improvements are obtained by analyzing the aircraft
performances at CDG, questionnaires pilot/ATCs and a literature study.
The relevance of this study is that to date the aircraft performances (speed) and air traffic control
solutions to evaluate the resilience requirements to cater to compression, have not been
mathematically captured in a model. Taking the new input and solutions of the model into practice will
lead to a better understanding of the compression effect for the future TBS concept and forms a basis
to optimize the runway capacity loss during strong headwind conditions. In addition, the Human
Performance Assessment (HPA) of TBS could benefit from the results of this study.

1.5 Report Structure
This report consists of eight chapters. In chapter 1 a project outline is given, chapter 2 describes the
thesis background regarding the TBS and DBS. All the relevant aircraft compression and
characterization issues on final approach are presented in chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the key
performance indicators, such as FMS, ATC and pilot practices. Chapter 5 gives an overview of the
verification results at Vienna airport, RECAT-EU and Boeing, and two case studies regarding
implementation of the model will be outlined in chapter 6. Chapter 7 describes the validation exercise
in Brétigny and finally chapter 8 will draw conclusions and state recommendations for future research
and development.

2 Background
T
his chapter describes the current rules and main principles for the Distance Based (DBS) and
Time based separation (TBS) on final approach. The concept final approach signifies the last
flight phase of his flight of the aircraft; in general this is the last 0 to 10NM before threshold.
Section 2.1 explains the DBS procedures; in section 2.2 the TBS procedure is explained and in
section 2.3 two existing methodologies are described of how to go over from a DBS to a TBS; finally
section 2.4 shows the aircraft radar and weather data used to find aircraft runway characterization
and compression issues in order to feed the FFH MathLab tool.
2.1 Distance Based Separation (DBS)
Since the lift vector of an aircraft produces wake vortices, separations are applied. Wake vortex
formations are potentially hazardous, because of the rolling movement they may impose on a
following aircraft. These vortices are especially hazardous in the region behind an aircraft in the
landing or take-off phases; as during these phases, aircraft operate at low speed and at a high angle
of attack, and a relatively low distance separation is applied. This flight attitude maximizes the
formation of strong vortices. The intensity of these vortices is dependent on the aircraft weight,
wingspan and aircraft speed (Gerz, 2002). Therefore the European Re-categorization of Wake
Turbulence Separation Minima (RECAT-EU) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
have introduced minimum distance separation standards (DBS) per aircraft pair to ensure that aircraft
are not hampered by these vortices. These guidelines are RECAT separation 786 and ICAO 8168-
OPS/611 document (ICAO, 2010), should be applied when the airport operates under Instrument
Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The RECAT-EU guidelines (table 1) are used in this study, since
EUROCONTROL has derived these rules. In table 1, MRS stands for Minimum Radar Separation, which
is normally 2.5Nm, whereas L/F stands for the leader and follower aircraft pair. The leader and
follower aircraft pair can be divided into six different categorizations. Appendix A shows which aircraft
type belongs to what category.
Table 1: RECAT-EU DBS for six different aircraft categories in NM.

L/F CAT-A CAT-B CAT-C CAT-D CAT-E CAT_F
CAT-A 3 4 5 5 6 8
CAT-B MRS 3 4 4 5 7
CAT-C MRS MRS 3 3 4 6
CAT-D MRS MRS MRS MRS MRS 5
CAT-E MRS MRS MRS MRS MRS 4
CAT-F MRS MRS MRS MRS MRS 3
It should be noted that the same approach could be derived from the ICAO scheme.

2.2 Time Based Separation (TBS)
The TBS rules described in chapter 2.3 are derived from the DBS and have been designed by NATS
and EUROCONTROL. The TBS concept described in this study is for segregated mode use only: it
concerns arrivals on singular runways, not on runways used for departures. The concept could
eventually be extended for application to the mixed mode. The purpose to go over from a DBS to a
TBS system is to help to prevent the loss of runway arrival capacity that typically occurs under strong
headwind conditions. During strong headwind conditions, aircraft have a lower ground speed
compared to low headwind conditions, resulting in extra time between each arrival. Since they have to
maintain a set separation distance this would reduce the landing rate, and can have a significant
knock-on effect to airport capacity, causing delays and cancellations. The main problem for going over
to a TBS is that the aircraft flying on final approach differ in their speeds, causing the separation
between two succeeding aircraft to increase or decrease.
2.2.1 ATC TBS concept description
The key goal of TBS is to define the minimum distance in trail separation observed today in low and
strong headwind conditions (TBD), for application as a function of headwind profile for maintaining
constant time separation between aircraft landing pairs which are using RECAT-EU, ICAO or another
wake turbulence separation scheme (table 1).
The TBS distance is the distance separation equivalent of the TBS rules in the prevailing wind
conditions on final approach for displaying to the final approach controller and the tower runway
controller on the Human Machine Interface (HMI). The TBS distance will be applied in the same way
as the DBS are applied on final approach. This is a stable distance separation, equivalent to the TBS
rules and independent of the actual airspeed and ground speed profiles of the lead or follower aircraft
on final approach.
The DBS rules are converted to a TBS distance by applying the chosen reference airspeed profile to
the final approach threshold. These profiles were used to derive the reference time separations of the
TBS rules. The reference airspeed profile is to be applied in the context of the final approach wind
conditions on the glide slope approach that the follower aircraft is forecast to experience over the
distance separation to the threshold, so that the local TBS rules are to be applied (EUROCONTROL,
2014).
This minimum distance is the distance to be maintained down to threshold and will be materialized on
the HMI by the final target distance (FTD). The minimum distance to apply will vary as a function of;
 the wind profile,

 the aircraft category pair
A support tool will be needed for helping the controller deal with the compression effect at the ATC
controlled speed section on final approach, so that the required minimum separation when arriving at
threshold can be delivered. This controlled speed section will generally take place between the
Stabilization Fix (SF) and Deceleration Fix (DF), which is the last 3-6NM from the threshold. These two
points are defined as; the point on the glide slope where the aircraft initiate the deceleration speed to
stabilized approach speed will be called the Deceleration Fix (DF), whereby the point on the glide
slope where the aircraft initiate the stabilized approach speed to constant speed will be called the
Stabilization Fix (SF).

So the ATC controlled speed section will be a function of:
 the wind profile
 the aircraft pair final approach speeds and types
 the DF & SF
2.3 TBS methodologies
To go over from a DBS to a TBS a methodology is needed. This report describes two TBS methods
that where designed by EUROCONTROL and calculate the time separation by using the reference
airspeed profile of the follower aircraft. For an easier analysis of the speed profile and reconstruction
of the TBS concept, the TBS models have been modeled as showed in figure 1.
Figure 1: Reconstruction of the TBS model for modeling the speed profiles.
Therefore, this study will particularly focus on investigating the approach speed (Vapp), Stabilization fix
(SF), Deceleration Fix (SF) and glide slope speed (Vglide), for a better understanding of the speed
profile and the TBS compression effect. The TBS is defined by EUROCONTROL as follows:
TBS is the application of time based separation rules on final approach, so as to aid towards
stabilising the overall time spacing between arrival aircraft. The final approach controller
should be provided with the necessary TBS tool support to enable consistent and accurate
delivery to the TBS rules on final approach. The minimum radar separation and runway related
spacing constraints will be required to be respected when applying the TBS rules. (SESAR,
2012)
Figure 2 till figure 4 shows a concept illustration of a heavy and medium aircraft pair, where the
distance based separation is compared with the time based separation during strong headwind
conditions.

Figure 2: 5 NM distance applied between a heavy aircraft (leader) and a medium aircraft (follower).
Figure 3: According to the FFH2 TBS tool (appendix B) the time separation between heavy and
medium in low headwind conditions is 122s whereas in strong headwind this is 141s.
Figure 4: So, the time to fly increases by 19 seconds. The distance could thus be decreased by
0.4NM to achieve the same time separation as occurs during low wind.

2.3.1 Methodology 1
The first methodology discussed here uses the historical radar data to calculate the TBS that should
be applied during low wind conditions to accomplish with a best possible minimum time separation
between aircraft pair; Operational Service and Environment Definition (TBS OSED phase 1).
The chosen standard procedural airspeed profile for the conversion of the ICAO (RECAT EU) DBS rules
to the TBS rules to the runway landing threshold is a standard procedural airspeed of a steady 160kts
to 6NM from the runway landing threshold (6DME), with an airspeed reduction of 20kts per NM to a
steady landing stabilisation speed of 140kts Indicated Airspeed (IAS) to the runway landing threshold.
The reference airspeed profile represents a single profile applicable to all aircraft. An alternative may
be to consider individual reference air speed profiles defined for groups of aircraft, e.g. for each
aircraft type. These individual reference air speeds could be defined based on historic data and
potentially enhanced by taking into account the current conditions. Potential sources for defining
individual reference air speed profiles include historic Mode S data, historic radar data, and direct
airborne transmissions of aircraft intent (EUROCONTROL, 2013)
The TBS distance for the OSED 1 method between an arrival pair is established by:
o Looking up the required time based wake turbulence radar separation for the arrival pair
using the table of TBS rules, taking into account the respective wake turbulence categories of
the lead and follower aircraft (see table 2).
o Establishing the ground speed profile resulting from applying the reference airspeed profile
over the separation to the final approach threshold in the wind conditions on the glide slope
at the time the follower aircraft is forecast to fly the separation to the final approach
threshold.
o Calculating the TBS distance by applying the ground speed profile over the required time
based wake turbulence radar separation.
Table 2: TBS OSED 1 between the aircraft categories super heavy, heavy, medium and light.
Follower
Super Heavy Heavy Medium Light
Super Heavy 60s 145s 167s 189s
Leader Heavy 60s 98s 122s 145s
Medium 60s 60s 60s 122s
Light 60s 60s 60s 60s
The TBS distance is first calculated when the follower aircraft is on intermediate approach. This is in
order to support the final approach controller decisions for turning and merging the follower aircraft
on to final approach.
The TBS distance for an arrival pair shall be re-calculated whenever the ground speed profile changes
up until the lead aircraft turns on to intercept the localiser. After the lead aircraft has turned on to
intercept the localiser the final approach controller and the tower runway controller require a stable
separation indicator distance separation to support the refinement of the distance spacing that is set
up on merging on to final approach and for the monitoring for separation infringement until the lead
aircraft crosses the runway landing threshold.

2.3.2 Methodology 2
The second methodology (TBS OSED phase 2) calculates the TBS by inserting a headwind profile and
aircraft category pair. This methodology will be used for the validation exercise explained in chapter 7.
A tool will be designed (FFH2) as showed in chapter 7 to show the calculations performed during the
validation exercise. TBS results from this tool (Appendix B) will be extracted for Airbus (followers)
only, whereby the input parameters will be used from this study and showed in Appendix E.
This following paragraph explains the theory and formulas behind the second TBS methodology. The
theory has been developed by I. de Visscher (EUROCONTROL, 2014). Besides this theory by
EUROCONTROL the literature study points out a number of other TBS theory ideas. These theories are
not included in the theory described in this thesis, as they are too basic in principle. The methodology
and separation computation for the TBS is performed according to the following three steps:
1) First, the time separations to be applied at threshold or at 1NM from the threshold are
calculated by using table 1 (or ICAO separation table). In this step the generic reference
speed profile is considered as a function of the stabilized approach speed in low wind
conditions parameterized for each aircraft type. With the time to fly results shown in appendix
E, the time separation can be calculated using Equation 1.
TBS( lead , foll )  T 2Ffoll (DBS( lead , foll )  1NM)  T 2Ffoll (1NM) Equation 1
For equation 1 the DBS( lead , foll ) is the RECAT-EU distance separation found from table 1 per
aircraft pair and the T 2Ffoll (DBS( lead , foll )  1NM) is the time to fly of the follower aircraft at
1  DBS( lead , foll ) NM from the threshold. It should be noted that the distance from threshold
could be taken either at threshold or at 1NM. The time to fly data per aircraft type and
distance from the threshold can be found in appendix E. The time to fly data for different
aircraft types, headwinds and distances has been found by analyzing the CDG aircraft data.
2) In this step the headwind factor will be taken into account. The Initial target distance (ITD) is
calculated at the deceleration fix (DF) point for delivering the final target distance (FTD) after
compression, which takes place between DF and threshold. Also the differences in stabilized
approach speed will be taken into account between the leader and follower. Six sub steps will
be performed to obtain the initial target distance.
1. In the first sub step the airspeed profile is computed for the follower aircraft. The procedure
for the leader aircraft is the same. In this step the airspeed profile will be defined in three
zones:
 Until the DF the airspeed is constant and equal to the glide slope speed (Vglide).
 From the DF to the SF the glide slope speed reduces linearly to the final approach speed
(Vapp)
 From the SF till touchdown the speed equals the approach speed
In formula form this becomes:

x  DF  Va,lead ( x )  Vglide
 V V 
SF  x  DF  Va,lead ( x )   glide app,lead   x  DF   Vglide Equation 2
 DF  SF 
x  SF  Va ,lead ( x )  Vapp,lead
2. Here the measured headwind profile hw(x) along the flight path will be used
3. For every point (every 4sec) along the flight path the ground speed is calculated with
equation 3. Where Va is the true airspeed.
Vg ,lead  Va,lead ( x )  hw( x ) Equation 3
4. The time to fly of the leader at 4DME and at the final chevron is calculated by formula 4.
x
1.0
t 2 flead ( x )   dx ' Equation 4
0 Vg ,lead  x 
'
5. The distance to threshold of the follower aircraft is computed by interpolation of the time
when the leader is at 4NM.
X foll (t 2 flead (4NM)  t 2 flead (ref )  t 2 flead (ref )  TBS )

 4Nm 1.0 D f  ref 1.0  Equation 5
 X foll   dx '
 0 Vg, foll  x '  
dx '
 ref Vg ,lead  x ' 
 
6. So finally the initial chevron distance is calculated using formula 6.
Di  x foll t 2 flead (4Nm  t 2 flead (ref )  t 2 f foll (ref )  TBS)  4Nm Equation 6
The above two methodologies are based on calculation of time separation by using the formulas
described. The methodologies are calculated by using two reference air speed profiles. In the FFH
model, the calculation of the speed profile is as follows: when the leader is at threshold and the
follower is at the minimum DBS (see table 1), the model calculates the speed profile in reverse.
Instead of using formulas, the FFH model uses characterization issues as input.
The TBS OSED phase 1 methodology is used for benchmarking against the FFH tool, whereas the TBS
OSED phase 2 is needed for the validation exercise explained in chapter 7. A tool was created (TBS
FFH2 tool) which shows the calculations performed during the validation exercise. The TBS FFH2
results for Airbus types can be found in appendix B.

2.4 Aircraft and Weather data
The weather and aircraft data is needed for every participating airport in order to find the true
airspeed (radar speed data is received in ground speed) and analyze the characterization issues as
function of the headwind or crosswind profile. For this study the aircraft and weather data is received
for a minimum of 2 months and a maximum of 2 years of each participating airport. A tool is designed
to enable the analysis of the following files txt, csv, cnv, geo and xls file.
2.4.1 Reliable data
An overview of the company’s and responsible persons that deliver the radar data for the relevance
airports is shown in table 3. EUROCONTROL has a good relationship with those companies which
make it unlikely that they send unreliable data. By doing deductive comparison between the data of
the participating airports one could see if there is fraud data involved.
Table 3: Responsible persons of participating airports for aircraft/weather data and questionnaires.
Airport Company Responsible person

Charles de Gaulle Thales group Jean-Yves Schneider
Vienna Airport Austrocontrol Christian Kern
2.4.2 Data Requirements
This note specifies the data necessary for the analysis of the development of spacing between
succeeding aircraft, taking into account the targeted separation, the aircraft speed profiles and (when
available) wind conditions. For each radar dot, the aircraft type, actual time and position is required.
In addition, information on the instrument procedure is needed. The focus of the analysis is on
approaching aircraft to single, parallel and/or converging runways over the last 10 NM. If possible,
analysis of departures may be conducted as well. To cover seasonal variability, data over a period of
one year is preferred. The detailed specification of data requirements is described below.
 Scope:
o Focus on approach, but if possible also departures;
o Approach data range from 15 NM out to passing runway threshold;
o Departure data encompassing – as a minimum – from runway threshold to about 10
Nm out;
o One year period to cover seasonal variations;
o If because of data size there is a necessity to limit, then peak hours are of particular
interest;
 Instrument procedure data
o Runway layout;

o Information on runway usage (single runways, parallel runways, converging runways,
mixed mode runways) to analyse or account for any effects of the different runway
usage modes;
o Runway threshold coordinates;
o Glide Path Angle;
o Interception altitude;
o Outer marker / Final Approach Fix;
o If available information on speed control as applied by ATC;
 Radar track data
o Radar refresh rate;
o Aircraft characteristics:
 Callsign (for analysis of airline policies);
 ICAO type / ICAO WTC;
o Per radar dot:
 x,y in lat/lon or relative to runway threshold;
 z-coordinate (altitude above runway threshold or AMSL);
 time hh:mm:ss;
 true air speed (if available ground speed);
 Weather data
o Wind speed and direction
 at least at 10m altitude, preferably also at higher altitudes;
 at least every 10 minutes, preferably every minute;
o Visibility conditions (To distinguish certain low visibility conditions where additional
separation may be applied).
2.4.3 TAS and wind calculation
This subchapter explains how the tool (GStoTAS.m) calculates the headwind and true airspeed (TAS)
from the given radar data per airport. First, the headwind profile will be analyzed (per 10 minutes)
and divided into six different wind categories; 0-5kt TW (tail wind, blowing in the direction of travel of
the aircraft), 0-5kt HW (head wind, blowing in the opposite direction, i.e. against the aircraft), 5-10kt
HW, 10-15kt HW, 15-20kt HW and 20-25kt HW. Since the radar data gives information on the heading
and height of the aircraft (should be close to the glide slope direction), it is relatively easy to find the
corresponding headwind component by calculating the headwind speed for a given altitude and
heading (received from aircraft). Second, the corresponding TAS profile will be calculated by
subtracting (headwind) or summation (tailwind) of the wind profile from the GS profile. This study will
work with true airspeeds since this will give a better indication of the speed compensations applied
per aircraft type.
The program is also able to extract the crosswind profiles (0-5kts XW, 0-5kts XW, 5-10kts XW, 10-
15kts XW, 15-20kts XW, 20-25kts XW). Results can be found in the EUROCONTROL directory;
Floris/AftPerformances.

The headwind profile received from CDG and Vienna is defined by four values at altitudes of 10m,
500m, 1000m and 3000m. These wind measurements were gathered from CDG for two months and
for three years for Vienna. A linear evolution is assumed between the four reference points, which is
effected with the function inpaint_nans.m from MathLab. An separate MathLab program was built to
analyze what the linear relations are for these heights of CDG. A relation is extracted when more than
1000 measurements are analysed (figure 5).
Figure 5: Analyzing low wind case up to 1300m for CDG.
Four wind scenarios are built to cover various headwind conditions. These conditions might not be
representative of CDG operations, but aim to show TBS effects for a large range of headwind values
at different heights. The following four wind scenarios have been formulated.
1. Low wind conditions. In this scenario, the wind is 2kts at 10m, 5kts at 500m and
10kts at 1000m. Relation found by investigating 30 days of low wind scenarios of
CDG.
2. Strong wind conditions. In this scenario, six profiles are defined with a headwind
ranging between 10 and 15kts at 10m, between 30 and 40kts at 500m and between
35 and 40kts at 1000m.
3. Strong wind conditions to nominal. In this scenario, 10 profiles are defined. The
headwind increases from low wind conditions to cases with a maximum of 30kts
headwind at 10m. The altitude wind ranges from 10 to 40kts.
4. Strong wind conditions to faulted. In this scenario, 4 of the 10 profiles of the strong
wind conditions to nominal are modified (with a maximum variation of 10kts). This
faulted profile is to be used to introduce a mismatch between the actual wind profile
and that used by the platform.

3 Aircraft performance compression issues on final approach
T
he main purpose of this chapter is to understand and show what is possible to compress on
final approach in terms of aircraft performance parameters. An overview of all the investigated
compression issues can be found in figure 7. First the Time to fly will be discussed and
analyzed in section 3.1, the speed profiles and speed compensations per aircraft type are
shown in section 3.2. The results for DF and SF will be elaborated in section 3.3. In section 3.4 the
current time separation of CDG will be shown. Finally, in section 3.5, a conclusion will be drawn.
Figure 6 gives an overview of the investigated parameters as function of the corresponding
subchapter.
This section will provide fundumental information of all the relevant, investigated and analyzed aircraft
characterization issues on final approach. This study analyses the following aircraft parameters and
aircraft variables on final approach; Time to fly, Speed profile (TAS), Deceleration & stabilization fix,
(current) time separation and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs). These parameters will be
analyzed as a function of the headwind profiles, aircraft type, distance to threshold, speed profile,
airports, different times of the day and wingspan. For each aircraft parameter and variable
combination an attempt is made to find an aircraft characterization issue which should help ATC to
minimize the time separation per aircraft pair on final approach. Eventually the found characterization
issues will be verified with Vienna airport and incorporated, where possible, in the FFH TBS tool
explained in chapter 6. All extracted characterization issues will be highlighted in green and should act
as input for the FFH tool or recommendation (rule of thumb) to support the air traffic controller, the
main goal being to show what is possible on the glide. The approach speed (Vapp), DF, SF and glide
slope speed (Vglide) results will be inserted into the TBS OSED phase 2 methodology explained in
section 2.3.2, whereas the results can be found in chapter 7.5 and appendix B.
3.2
3.3
3.2 3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.4
Figure 6: Overview in sub sections of the aircraft parameters analyses performed, for a better
understanding of the speed profile and the compression effects on final approach.

Figure 7: Work breakdown diagram of all investigated aircraft compression issues.
After the aircraft radar data, weather data and questionnaires were received from the participating
airports, all compression parameters (figure 7) on final approach are analyzed. The designed FFH
program is able to extract the received data of Charles de Gaulle (CDG) airport and Vienna airport into
the following output parameters; Time to fly, True airspeed, Glide slope speed, time separation and
Deceleration and stabilization fix. DF and SF will be researched as a function of the span, wind, speed,
distance to threshold, aircraft type, manufacturer and airline. It should be noted that for both airports
the headwind data will be calculated and used from 0 m to 3000m.
3.1 Time to Fly
First the time to fly per aircraft type will be analyzed for CDG airport as a function of the headwind
profile and distance from the threshold. The purpose of the time to fly analysis is to calculate the
delay in time by comparing low with high wind profiles, and get a better understanding of where the
time to fly per aircraft type stays constant as a function of the distance from the threshold and wind
profile.
The main goal to go over to a TBS is to stabilize the overall time spacing between arrival aircraft. With
the time to fly results found and showed in appendix E, this can be achieved by calculating the delay
in time as function of the headwind profile for every aircraft type and as a function of the distance
from the threshold.
The time to fly has been calculated by converting the mean ground speed for each 1NM segment of
the final approach glide slope to a flying time for each 1NM segment. Figure 8 shows an example of
the time to fly for an A318 in low headwind conditions and distance from the threshold. In figure 9 the
time to fly has been plotted against the headwind profile and 5NM from the threshold. The green line
indicates the linear fit between 0 and 25kts headwind, whereas the red line shows the linear fit for the
0 till 5kts headwind. All time to fly figures for 50 different aircraft types as function of the distance to
threshold and headwind profile can be found in the EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances.
However, the most relevant figures for this study can be found in appendix E.

Figure 8: Time to fly example for the A318 and low headwind profile as function of the threshold.
Figure 9: Time to fly for the A318 at 5NM from the threshold as function of the headwind profile.

3.1.1 Per aircraft type, wind profile and distance to the threshold
This subchapter shows the relevant characterization issues for the time to fly per aircraft type, wind
profile and distance to the threshold. These issues have been extracted by analyzing the time to fly
differences between the 0-5kts HW profile and the 10-15kts HW profile and between the 1 till 6NM
segment from the threshold. These headwind profiles have been chosen since we have the most
measurements for these, and thus the most reliable differences in time to fly. The results between 1
and 6NM from the threshold will be analyzed, since these form the ATC controlled speed section on
final approach. The main purpose is to notice if there is a decrease or increase in flying time per type
during higher wind profiles.
From these results the characterization issues will be concluded for every single aircraft type
(appendix E), first. Second, the extracted characterization issues per single type will be compared, and
combined if they show similarities. If the total number of measurements (n.o.m) is above 10, the
issues will then be divided into the categories shown in table 5. Finally, for clarification the time to fly
graphs will be shown in appendix E which are relevant for the extracted time to fly characterization
issue. For all graphs the linear fit will be plotted for the 0-5kts HW case versus the 0-25kts HW case.
This is done to give a clear overview of the time to fly differences as function of the headwind.
Two time to fly categories have been extracted from the characterization issues shown in appendix E.
For each issue it has also been analysed in which RECAT-EU category (table 1) scheme it belongs.
Table 4 and equation 7 show an example for the B763 where per 10kts headwind the time to fly is
increased by 9.9%.
158.9  17.7 Equation 7

 1.099
144.8  16.3
Table 4: Time to fly example as function of the threshold and headwind profile for the B763.
B763
Time to fly (s)
Wind (kts) -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25

Distance
threshold (Nm)
1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.7 15.8 16
2 43 43 44.4 46.1 43.2 44
3 69.1 69 72 73.7 72.2 73
4 95.9 95.7 100.1 102.7 101 103
5 121.2 120.8 126.8 131.7 129.8 131
6 145.6 144.8 152.6 158.9 155.4 158
7 168.9 167.5 176.9 185.3 181.8 185
8 191.3 189.4 200.2 209.9 206 209
9 214.1 210.9 223.3 234.7 229.6 233
10 235.5 232 245.6 258.5 252.8 257
n.o.m 13 68 49 19 5 1
Table 4 and equation 7 shows thus per 5kts headwind the time to fly is on average increased by
4.9%. Therefore, it can be concluded that the B763 does not apply speed compensation at 1NM from
the threshold. This conclusion has been reached by analyzing the average speed profile. For the low

headwind profile (0-5kts) the average speed is (5NM/(144.8s-16.3s))*3600s=140kts, whereas for the
10-15kts wind profile this is 5NM/(158.9s-17.7s))*3600s=128kts. So on average the average speed is
decreased by 12kts whereby the headwind profile is increased by 12kts, and thus no speed
compensation is applied for the B763. However, by analyzing the TAS in chapter 3.2 the same
conclusion has been obtained by analyzing the TAS for both wind profiles. Figure 10 shows the time to
fly increase versus the headwind profile and 6NM from the threshold.
Figure 10: Time to fly for the B763 at 6NM from the threshold as function of the headwind profile.
Figure 11: Time to fly increase per 10kts HW. The left graph is in low wind and the right graph in
10-15kts HW.

Figure 11 show that per 10kts increase in headwind, the time to fly is increased by 4-7% for the
aircraft types shown in table 5. According to appendix A these types belong to the RECAT-EU
categories A, B, D and E. Performing this procedure for all aircraft types results in table 5 and
characterization issues 1 and 2.
Table 5: Time to fly increase in % per 10kts HW.
Time to fly increase per 10kts HW 4-7% 8-10%
A318 B733
A319 B734
A320 B735
A321 B737
A332 B738
A343 B744
A346 B752
A388 B762
AT45 B763
AT72 B772
RJ85 B77L
B77W
CRJ7
CRJX
DHD8
E145
E170
E190
F27
RECAT-EU category A, B, D, E B, C, D, E
Characterization issue 1
We observe that an increase of 10kts will on average increase the time to fly by 4-7%. The
same applies for the aircraft types, A318, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A346, A388,
AT45, AT72 and RJ85. It can be concluded that these aircraft types are special Airbus types
that fall into the RECAT-EU categories; A, B, D and E.
We observe that an increase of 10kts will on average increase the time to fly by 8-10%. The
same applies for the aircraft types B733, B734, B735, B737, B738, B744, B752, B762, B763,
B772, B77L, B77W, CRJ7, CRJX, DHD8, E145, E170, E190 and F27. It can be concluded that
these aircraft types are special Boeing types that fall into the RECAT-EU categories; B, C, D
and E.
Next to these two main time to fly issues, the following rule of thumb for the time to fly could be
concluded:

Time to fly rule of thumb
The time to fly during low wind is on average 25 seconds and 28 seconds for strong
headwind conditions at the ATC controlled speed section.
3.1.2 Airbus versus Boeing per wingspan
Because of the differences observed in time to fly for the Airbus and Boeing types by comparing low
with high headwind conditions (characterization issue 1 and 2), this subparagraph will investigate both
manufacturing types as function of the wingspan. The time to fly will be compared for Airbus and
Boeing in low wind conditions at the ATC controlled speed section and by investigating the aircraft
types with a wingspan between 30-40m and 40-60m. These wingspans have been chosen since most
Airbus and Boeing aircraft fall into these categories. By analyzing figure 12, where the time to fly has
been plotted versus the distance to threshold in low wind and for the wingspans 30-40m,
characterization issue 3 can be extracted. The same procedure has been applied for characterization
issue 4, only now for the 40-60m wingspan types.
Figure 12: Time to fly versus distance to the threshold in low wind for the 30-40m wingspan.
For both categories the following two characterization issues can be distinguished:
We observe that per 1NM increase from the threshold will, on average, increase the time to
fly by 24sec for Airbus and 22sec for Boeing, for a wingspan between 30 and 40m.
We observe that per 1NM increase from the threshold will, on average, increase the time to
fly by 23sec for Airbus and 21sec for Boeing, for a wingspan between 40 and 60m.

Comparing the results for different wind conditions by analyzing figure 12 with 13 and by plotting
figure 14 results in characterization issue 5. The same procedure has been applied for characterization
issue 6, only now for the 40-60m wingspan types. However, all these graphs are very similar to each
other, therefore it is assumed to derive characterization issue 6 and 7 from 3NM from the threshold
(figure 14) for Airbus and Boeing and the wingspans 30 to 40m and 40 to 60m.
Figure 13: Time to fly versus distance to the threshold in 10-15kts HW for the 30-40m wingspan.
Figure 14: Time to fly with the corresponding standard deviation versus headwind at 3NM distance
from threshold for the 30-40m wingspan.

We observe that an increase of 5kts in HW for the wingspans 30-40m will, on average,
increase the time to fly by 1.5sec till 18kts HW for Airbus and Boeing, whereas the time to
fly decreases with 3sec for Airbus and 1sec for Boeing between 18 till 25kts HW.
We observe that an increase of 5kts in HW for the wingspans 40-60m will, on average,
increase the time to fly by 1.3sec till 18kts HW for Airbus and Boeing, whereas the time to
fly decreases with 3.1sec for Airbus and 1.2sec for Boeing between 18 till 25kts HW.
3.1.3 Results
Every aircraft type in appendix E with more than 10 measurements, belongs to either characterization
issue 1 or 2 and has been divided into the RECAT-EU categories. Apparently, the types that belong to
one group have on average the same time to fly delay and average speed profile (at the ATC
controlled speed section) as function of the headwind. However, it should be noted that the weight of
the aircraft and the temperature of the environment plays an important role for the final approach
speed. Since for all these types in table 5 the number of measurements lies above 10, it is very
common that extreme low or high temperature and weight cases are cancelled out.
Characterization issue 1, 2, 5 and 6 show that Airbus types apply speed compensations for strong
headwind (>15kts) conditions on final approach whereas the Boeing types don’t. This is due to the
fact that the energy management system (ground speed min system) is installed. D. de Winter who is
a captain at Easy Jet and flies A319 and A320 confirms this characterization issue (Winter, 2014).
Section 4.1.3 will give a clear overview of the working principle of the ground speed mini function.
From this characterization issues 7 has been derived.
The time to fly results shown in Appendix E as function of the headwind and distance to threshold, will
be used as input for the EUROCONTROL TBS OSED 2 model, whereas characterization issue 1, 2 and
7 will be used as input for the FFH tool. With the time to fly and the true airspeed known (section
3.2) of the follower aircraft it could be calculated what the distance separation should be in order to
maintain a fixed time separation (OSED phase 2). Characterization issues 3 and 4 can be used as
support recommandation for ATC on final approach for a better understanding of the time to fly for
Airbus/Boeing and per aircraft type.
It can be concluded that Airbus applies a much higher speed compensation during strong
headwind conditions compared to Boeing.

3.2 TAS
In this subchapter the True Airspeed (TAS) will be analyzed for CDG airport as a function of the
headwind and distance from the threshold. Results are only validated when the total number of
measurements is above 10. The purpose of the TAS calculation is to get a better understanding of the
speed compensations applied per type during different headwind conditions and different distances
from the threshold. The information could be used for the FFH model, verification of the OSED 2
model (FFH2) and support or advise the ATC on how to minimize the time separation on final
approach.
In this section the same procedure as shown in 3.1 has been executed only now for the TAS
parameter. This has been achieved by converting the mean ground speed (observed by the radar
data) for each 1NM segment of the final approach glide slope to a TAS for each 1NM segment by
taken the wind vector, from 0m to 3000m, into account. This calculation has been executed in the
MathLab tool ‘FindTASPerType.m’. Figure 15 and figure 16 show an example of the TAS of an A318 in
low headwind conditions and distance from the threshold. More TAS figures per aircraft type can be
found in appendix E, however only the relevant figures have been inserted. All other figures can be
found in the EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances.
Figure 15: TAS versus distance to the threshold for the A318 with 10-15kts HW. The figure shows
that speed compensation is applied between 3 and 5 NM from the threshold.

Figure 16: TAS versus headwind at 3NM to the threshold for the A318. The green line of the figure
shows that speed compensation is applied since a 10kts difference is observed by a 20kts increase
in headwind.
3.2.1 Per aircraft type, wind profile and distance to the threshold
This subchapter shows the relevant TAS characterization issues per aircraft type. The main purpose is
to notice if there is speed compensation applied per aircraft type during higher wind profiles. The TAS
differences will be compared with each other by analyzing the results for 1 and 2NM from the
threshold. Especially, the results between 1 and 2NM from the threshold will be analyzed, since these
form the speed section on final approach where the aircraft apply speed compensation. For each
aircraft type the relevant characterization issues will be extracted from these results. Furthermore for
each characterization issue an example will be shown of the relevant TAS graph as a function of the
threshold. For all graphs the linear fit will be plotted for the 0-5HW case versus the 0-25kts HW case.
This is done to give a clear overview of the speed compensation applied as function of the headwind.
Appendix E shows these TAS results as a function of the wind profile (-5kts HW till 25kts HW) and
threshold for 30 different aircraft types. For reliability purposes, only the results and graphs are shown
where the total number of measurements (n.o.m) lies above 10. However, in the EUROCONTROL
directory; Floris/AftPerformances results for 50 different aircraft types have been shown but
unfortunately for 20 aircraft types the results were not reliable enough (n.o.m<10) to take them into
account in this report.
Next, the individual characterization issues will be compared on their similarities and eventually be
divided into the categories shown in table 7. Two TAS characterization issues have been extracted
from the results shown in appendix E. The first column shows the aircraft types where speed
compensation is applied whereas in the second column don’t. For each issue it has also been analysed
in which RECAT-EU category scheme it belongs. Table 6 and figure 17 show an example for the B763
where per 10kts headwind the TAS is increased by 0% between 1 and 2NM from the threshold.

Table 6: TAS example as function of the threshold and headwind profile for the B763.
B763
TAS (kts) Windprofile
(kts)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25

threshold (NM)
(31) (68) (49) (19) (5) (1)
1 140.6 141.4 139.3 141.8 143.1 142.9

2 142.6 142.7 141.5 142.3 144.5 143.4
3 143.6 144.4 145.1 144.3 142.8 143.6
4 150.8 151.8 152.6 147.8 152.8 151.2
5 162.6 162.3 160.6 154.3 162.7 164.3
6 170.6 171.8 169.4 163.9 174.9 176.9
7 175.5 177.9 176.2 172 176.7 180.4
8 178 181.7 181.2 174.8 179.5 185.1
9 183 185.5 186.9 179.7 182.6 185.9
10 187.6 188.8 189.3 185 184.9 188.3
From table 6 it can be concluded that per 10kts increase in headwind the TAS is increased on average
by 0%. It can be concluded that no speed compensation is applied for this aircraft type between 1
and 2NM from the threshold. Figure 17 shows the TAS versus the headwind profile for the B763 at
2NM from the threshold and figure 18 shows all the aircraft types that apply speed compensation
between the 0 till 15kts HW segment and between 1 and 2NM from the threshold.
Figure 17: TAS versus headwind at 2NM from the threshold for the B763. The green line of the
figure shows that no speed compensation is applied since 0kts difference is observed for a 10kts
increase in headwind.

Figure 18: TAS increase per 10kts HW. The left graph is in low wind and the right in 10-15kts HW.
Characterization issue 8 and 9 have been extracted from the results shown in table 7. In table 7 it is
analysed for each issue in which RECAT-EU category scheme it belongs.
Table 7: TAS increase in % per 10kts HW.

TAS Increase per 10kts HW 3-5% 0%
A318 B733
A319 B734
A320 B735
A321 B737
A332 B738
A343 B744
A346 B752
A388 B762
AT45 B763
AT72 B772
RJ85 B77L
B77W
CRJ7
CRJX
DHD8
E145
E170
E190
F27
RECAT-EU category A, B, D, E B, C, D, E
We observe that an increase of 10kts in HW will, on average, increase the TAS by 3-5%
between 2 and 1NM. The same applies for the aircraft types: A318, A319, A320, A321,
A332, A343, A346, A388, AT45, AT72 and RJ85. It can be concluded that these aircraft are
special Airbus types and fall into the RECAT-EU categories; A, B, D and E.

We observe that an increase of 10kts in HW will, on average, increase the TAS by 0%
between 2 and 1NM. The same applies for the aircraft types: B733, B734, B735, B737,
B738, B744, B752, B762, B763, B772, B77L, B77W, CRJ7, CRJX, DHD8, E145, E170, E190
and F27. It can be concluded that these aircraft types are special Boeing types that fall into
the RECAT-EU categories; B, C, D and E.
3.2.2 Airbus versus Boeing per wingspan
Because of the differences observed in TAS for the Airbus and Boeing types by comparing low with
high headwind conditions (characterization issue 8 and 9), this subparagraph will investigate both
manufacturing types as function of the wingspan. The TAS will be compared for Airbus and Boeing in
low wind conditions at the ATC controlled speed section and by investigating the aircraft types with a
wingspan between 30-40m and 40-60m. These wingspans have been chosen since most Airbus and
Boeing aircraft fall into these categories. By analyzing figure 19, where the TAS has been plotted
versus the distance to threshold in low wind and for the wingspans 30-40m, characterization issue 10
can extracted. The same procedure has been applied for characterization issue 11, only now for the
40-60m wingspan types.
We observe that per 1NM increase from the threshold will, on average, increase the TAS by
7.9kts for Airbus and 5.4kts for Boeing, for a wingspan between 30 and 40m and low wind.
Figure 19: TAS versus distance to the threshold for wingspans between 30 and 40m in low wind.

We observe that per 1NM increase from the threshold will, on average, increase the TAS by
7.8kts for Airbus and 5.2kts for Boeing, for a wingspan between 40 and 60m and low wind.
Comparing the results for different wind conditions results in characterization issues 12 and 13. The
graphs between 2 and 6NM for different wind conditions will be compared since these form the ATC
controlled speed section. However, all these graphs are very similar to each other, therefore it is
assumed to arrive at characterization issues 12 and 13 for 3NM from the threshold (figure 20) and the
wingspans 30-40m and 40-60m.
Figure 20: TAS with the corresponding standard deviation versus the headwind at 3NM from the
threshold for Airbus versus Boeing and 30-40m wingspan.
We observe that an increase of 5kts in HW will, on average, increase the TAS by 1kts till
18kts HW for Airbus and Boeing, whereas the TAS increases by 14kts for Airbus and 11kts
for Boeing between 18 till 25kts HW, for the wingspans between 30 and 40m.
We observe that an increase of 5kts in HW will, on average, increase the TAS by 1.5kts till
18kts HW for Airbus and Boeing, whereas the TAS increases by 14kts for Airbus and 8kts for
Boeing between 18 till 25kts HW, for the wingspans between 40 and 60m.

3.2.3 Glide slope speed as function of UTC time
The analysis of the flown glide slope speed profile (DF-10NM) was conducted by interviewing the CDG
air traffic controllers. According to them, aircraft are allowed to fly between the speed regimes 160kts
to 190kts, and they have to fly 160kts during peak hours. Therefore a tool has been created to
analyse the average glide slope speed for different parts of the day. The goal of this tool is to know
beforehand what the percentage is of a flown speed for a better understanding of the glide slope
speed profile. This is found by normalizing the glide slope speed over the time intervals 6:00-8:00,
9:00-10:00, 12:00-13:00 and 19:00-21:00. Furthermore, CDG ATC say that the glide slope speed
differs a lot for the A380 compared to other types. Therefore the same procedure will be executed for
the aircraft with a wingspan lower than 60m and the types with wingspans between 70m and 80m
(A380). Figure 21 and 22 shows the typical speed profiles at 10 and 7NM for all the aircraft types and
the A380 (blue dots) as a function of different parts of the day.
Figure 21: TAS as function of UTC (hr) at 10NM from the threshold.
Following the same procedure but now for 7NM instead of 10NM, results in figure 22.

Figure 22: TAS as function of UTC (hr) at 7NM from the threshold.
By investigating the speed profile between the DF and 10NM from the threshold, it can be concluded
that the glide slope speed indeed varies a lot for different flights and time of the day. Usually the pilot
has to maintain at least 160kts but can go faster substantially, 190-200kts, as observed by the CDG
data. From figure 21 and 22 characterization issue 14 can be formulated:
We observe that the 160kts glide slope speed profile is mainly flown during the (peak)
hours 07:00, 09:00, 11:00, 16:00 and 18:00 whereas the 190kts speed profile is mainly
flown during the entire part of the day.
According to the completed CDG questionnaires, ATC notice a big difference in glide slope speed
profiles flown between A380 and medium aircraft types (lower than 60m). Therefore, this difference
in speed profiles flown by the A380 aircraft versus medium types has been investigated during peak
hours and 7NM from the threshold. The blue line in figure 23 shows the normalized speed profiles
flown for aircraft types with a wingspan lower than 60m, whereas the blue line in figure 24 indicates
the normalized speed profiles flown for A380 aircraft type.
It should be noted that 07:00, 09:00, 11:00, 16:00 and 18:00 are peak hours, whereas the remaining
times of day will be indicated as non-peak hours.

Figure 23: Normalized TAS speeds for all aircraft types at 7NM from the threshold.
Figure 24: Normalized TAS speeds for A380 aircraft at 7NM from the threshold.
From figure 23 and 24 characterization issue 15 can be formulated:

We observe during peak hours and 7NM from the threshold, that the 190kts speed profile is
flown for 34% (probability chance) by all the A380 flights and for 26% by all the medium
flights, whereas the 160kts speed profile is flown for 11% by all the A380 flights and for
14% by all the medium flights.
Performing the same analyses at 10NM results in characterization issue 16.
As a result of analysing the speed profile differences by decreasing the glide slope approach
distance from 10NM to 7NM, the probability chance of the A380 190kts speed profile
decreases by 25%, whereas the probability chance for the medium aircraft and 190kts
speed profile decreases by 40%.
The interviews with the air traffic controllers indicate that in general the glide slope speed reduces by
an increase in number of aircraft. When 1 or 2 aircraft are on final approach the glide slope speed is
normally 190kts whereas during peak hours (>3 aircraft) the speed profile flown is normally 160kts.
Figure 25 plotted this statement, whereby the glide slope speed (between 6 and 10NM) has been
plotted against the number of aircraft on final approach.
Figure 25: Glide slope speed as function of the number of aircraft on final approach.

It can be concluded that according to the data of CDG the statement of the ATC indeed holds. Figure
25 shows that on average the glide slope speed reduces to 160kts when the number of aircraft on
final approach is above 3. From this, characterization issue 17 can be formulated.
As a result of analyzing the glide slope speed profile as function of the number of aircraft on
final approach, the probability chance of the 160kts speed profile increases when the total
number of aircraft on final approach is above 3.
3.2.4 STAR
According to ATC, the glide slope speed not only depend on the number of aircraft on the glide,
aircraft type and time of the day but also on the standard terminal arrival routes (STARS) (10-30NM).
A STAR is a procedure followed by aircraft on an IFR flight plan before reaching the glide slope
approach. It is a flight route defined and published by the air navigation service provider (ANSP),
which usually covers the phase of a flight that lies between the last point of the route filled in the
flight plan and the first point of the approach to the airport (start ILS), which normally is the IAF
(Initial Approach Fix). The main goal being avoid inhabited areas and increase safety, a STAR
connects the en-route phase with the approach phase of the flight.
For each runway several of these routes are defined, which are published in the Aeronautical
Information Publications (AIP). Relations have been found between the STARs on runway 26L of CDG,
as a function of the time of the day and destination. Five different scenarios can be found in the
EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances. This subchapter described one of these scenarios;
where Amsterdam is inserted as destination during peak hours. Figure 26 shows an example for the
A318 in low wind conditions, with their corresponding STAR routes.
Figure 26: Heading versus distance to threshold for the A318 in low wind.

Given as input peak hours and analyzing the STAR routes originating in Amsterdam for 7 days, will
result in figure 27.
Figure 27: Heading versus distance to threshold originating from Amsterdam for 7 days in low wind.
According to figure 27, similar STARS are flown. As a next step the tool will calculate the unique
reference speed profiles for these flights. These speed profiles will be used for a better understanding
of the glide slope speed profile by inserting the destination and time of the day. The tool concluded
that 80% of these flights have flown the 190kts glide slope speed profile when the flight is originating
in Amsterdam during peak hours. However, for the other four scenarios similar relations have been
found. From this STAR research, the following characterization issue can be extracted.
We observe that the STAR is of influence on the glide slope speed.
However, it is recommended that for a better understanding of the relation between the STAR and
glide slope speed more routes at different times of the day have to be analysed.

3.2.5 Results
Every aircraft type in appendix E with more than 10 measurements, belongs to either characterization
issue 8 or 9 and has been divided into the RECAT-EU categories. It can be concluded that not all
aircraft types apply speed compensation on final approach. One of these categories apply speed
compensation between 1 and 2 NM from the threshold whereby the other does not.
From characterization issue 8, 9, 12 and 13 it can be concluded that Airbus types apply speed
compensations for strong headwind conditions (between 1 and 2NM) whereas the Boeing types don’t
(characterization issue 7). This is due to the fact that the energy management system (ground speed
min system) is installed in Airbus types (Winter, 2014).
It can be concluded that on average the glide slope speed reduces to 160kts when the number of
aircraft on final approach is above 3 or during peak hours at CDG. However, this conclusion has been
found by either characterization issue 14 and 17. Nevertheless, when A380 types are flying between
the 6 till 10NM segment, the chance that the 160kts speed profile will be flown reduces. The STAR is
of influence on the glide slope speed.
The TAS results shown in Appendix E as function of the headwind and distance to threshold, will be
used as input for the EUROCONTROL OSED 2 model, whereas characterization issue 8, 9 and 17 will
be used as input for the FFH tool. With the time to fly (section 3.1) and the true airspeed known of
the follower aircraft it could be calculated what the distance separation should be in order to maintain
a fixed time separation (OSED 2). Characterization issues 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 can be used as
support recommandation for ATC on final approach for a better understanding of the TAS for
Airbus/Boeing and per aircraft type.

3.3 Deceleration and stabilization fix point
For a better understanding of the speed profile and the compression effect on final approach, this
subchapter shows the results for the Deceleration Fix and Stabilization Fix (DF & SF). First the
calculation method for the DF and SF is explained in section 3.3.1. Furthermore it shows the results as
function of different headwind profiles and aircraft types since these form the key parameters of the
differences obtained in DF and SF. In section 3.3.2 the aircraft wingspan will be researched as a
function of the speed profile, wind profile and wingspan. The differences for the aircraft types A318,
A319 and A320 and the airlines Easy Jet (Airline 1) and Air France (Airline 2) will be shown in section
3.3.3. In section 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 the results for the fixed wingspan are shown for respectively the
wind and speed profile. Finally, section 3.3.6 will show the main results of section 3.3 for the DF and
SF together with their estimated environmental impact.
3.3.1 Calculation method
The TBS study should provide ATC with the time separation to be applied at the ATC controlled speed
section on final approach. Typically, the controlled speed section lies between the DF and SF. The
application for the separation before DF will help ATC to cope with the compression effect for
delivering the required minimum separation at threshold; therefore it is of great importance to know
what the distance is from threshold and where the controlled speed profile starts and stops.
The following section will calculate this by finding the DF and SF.
The two points DF and SF calculated in this subsection are needed for ATC support. The DF is the
point where the aircraft starts with selection flap 1, 2 flap 3 and finally gear down, whereas the
aircraft is fully configured at the SF (full flap configuration, stays almost constant for the last miles).
The main area of interest in finding the DF and SF points lies between 2 and 7Nm typically. For every
TAS versus distance to threshold, aircraft type and wind profile the following relation is calculated;
• The final approach speed Va, indicated with point 1, is calculated by finding the average TAS
of all the measurements at 1 NM.
• Point 2 is found by calculating the maximum of the first derivative for each measurement
between 1 and 4NM. The final DF is found by taking the average of all these maximums. The
speed at point 2 is found by finding the maximum of normalizing the number of
measurements as function of the True airspeed.
• Point 3 is found by calculating the maximum of the first derivative between 5 and 8NM for
each measurement. The final SF is found by taking the average of all these maximums. The
speed at point 3 is found by finding the maximum of normalizing the number of
measurements as function of the True airspeed.
• The TAS of point 4 and at 10NM is calculated by normalizing the number of measurements as
function of the true airspeed profile (Vglide). A relation will be found of the maximum number
of measurement per TAS profile. Steps of 1kts and 1Nm have been taken. If there is a second
local maximum which differs less than 10% and has a minimum of 10kts difference compared
to the optimal maximum, a second DF and SF will be found, which is indicated by the yellow
line.
Figure 28 show an example of the A318 aircraft during low headwind conditions. The figure indicates
that it has a DF of 5.4NM and TAS of 191.5kts, whereas for the SF this was respectively 3.1NM and
142.2kts.

3 4
2
1
Figure 28: Example DF and SF analyses for the A318 in low wind with the four corresponding points.
Figure 29: Example glide slope measurements by plotting the altitude versus the distance.

The final approach aircraft data was received from CDG airport and runway 26L. Comparing the
obtained DF and SF results (by applying the method described in section 3.3.1) with the ILS approach
(see figure 29 and 30) of runway 26L shows the following similarities;
1) Most of the aircraft have an indicated airspeed (IAS) of around 200kts between 11 and 12Nm.
According to figure 29, the ILS approach starts at 11.2Nm with an IAS of around 200kts. ATC
dedicate pilots to maintain this speed for a couple of miles, whereby the next step is to start
selecting flap 1, flap 2, gear down, etc (from DF till SF).
2) From around 6NM, aircraft should significantly lower their approach speed by ensuring that
full landing configuration is maintained at 3NM. Using the described DF method will lead to
results which are very close to 6NM.
3) From the SF the aircraft should make sure that full landing configuration is applied and that
the approach speed stabilizes. Using the described SF method will lead to results which are
very similar to the distance of the full configured ILS distance.
Figure 30: ILS approach of runway 26L from CDG (Virtual ATC, 2013).
This subchapter shows the relevant results and characterization issues for the DF & SF issues per
aircraft type and wind profile. The extracted individual aircraft characterization (Appendix H) issues for
the DF & SF will be compared and combined if they show similarities. Table 8 and 9 shows this
combining for respectively the DF & SF.
Furthermore, for each individual characterization issue an example will be shown of the relevant DF &
SF graph. For reliability purposes, only the results and graphs are shown where the total number of
measurements (n.o.m) lies above 10. In the EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances results
for 50 different aircraft types are shown, but unfortunately for 20 types the results were not reliable
enough (n.o.m<10) to take them into consideration for this report. For all DF & SF graphs the linear
fit will be plotted for the 0-5HW case versus the 0-25kts HW case. This is done to give a clear
overview of the differences between the DF & SF. Figure 31 shows an example of the A388 type
where the DF is plotted against different headwind profiles. Since there are enough numbers of
measurements for the A388, it can be concluded that the DF on average stays constant by an

Figure 31: Example of the DF versus the headwind for the A388.
Table 8: DF increase in NM per 5kts HW.

DF increase per 5kts HW 0-0.5NM 0.5-1NM >1NM
A318 A319 A343

A320 A346 A388
A321 B733 F27
A332 B738
AT45 B744
AT72 B763
B734 B772
B735 B77L
B737 CRJX
B752 E145
B762 E170
B77W
CRJ7
DHD8
E190
RJ85
RECAT-EU category B, C, D, E B, C, D, E A, B

Table 9: SF increase in NM per 5kts HW.
SF Increase per 5kts HW 0NM 0.2-0.5NM
A318 AT45
A319 AT72
A320 B737
A321 B752
A332 F27
A343 RJ85
A346
A388
B733
B734
B735
B738
B744
B762
B763
B772
B77L
B77W
CRJ7
CRJX
DHD8
E145
E170
E190
RECAT-EU category A, B, C, D, E C, D,E
The comparable characterization issues for the DF & SF will know be shown for the relevant aircraft
types and RECAT-EU categories.
We observe that an increase of 5kts in headwind will on average, increase the DF by 0-
0.5NM. The same applies for the aircraft types: A318, A320, A321, A332, AT45, AT72, B734,
B735, B737, B752, B762, B77W, CRJ7, DHD8, E190 and RJ85.
We observe that an increase of 5kts in headwind will on average, increase the DF by 0.5-
1.0NM. The same applies for the aircraft types: A319, A346, B733, B738, B744, B763, B772,
B77L, CRJX, E145 and E170.

We observe that an increase of 5kts in headwind, will on average, increase the DF by

>1.0NM. The same applies for the aircraft types: A343, A388 and F27.
The comparable characterization issues for the SF will know be shown for the relevant aircraft types
and RECAT-EU categories.
We observe that, an increase of 5kts in headwind, the SF will predominantly remain
constant. The same applies for the aircraft types: A318, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343,
A346, A388, B733, B734, B735, B738, B744, B762, B763, B772, B77L, B77W, CRJ7, CRJX,
DHD8, E145, E170 and E190.
We observe that, an increase of 5kts in headwind, will on average, increase the SF by
0.2-0.5NM. The same applies for the aircraft types: AT45, AT72, B737, B752, F27 and RJ85.
From the results shown in this subchapter it can be concluded that in general the DF is increased for
an increase in headwind whereas the SF stays in general constant by increase in headwind. With
these results ATC is able to see what the controlled speed area is for a given aircraft type and for a
given wind profile.
No relation has been found for Airbus and Boeing types as function for the SF & DF. Therefore these
results have not been inserted into this report. However for curiosity reasons these results can be
found in the EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances.
3.3.2 Aircraft wingspan
In this subsection the aircraft wingspan will be investigated as function of the DF and SF. The
wingspan is the distance from one wingtip to the other wingtip and will be analyzed as a function of
the following parameters; wind profile, airline and speed profile. Comparing the SF & DF with various
wingspans gives some interesting results which could be used for a better understanding of the speed
profile and the compression effect on final approach. The DF & SF differences will be compared with
each other and for each wind profile the relevant characterization issues will be extracted from these
results. Figure 32 shows an example where the SF is plotted against different wingspans in low wind
conditions. Since there are enough number of measurements (>10), it can be concluded that the SF
will predominantly remain constant (3.0NM) for the aircraft wingspans 20m till 80m.

Figure 32: SF with the corresponding standard deviation versus different wingspans in 0-5kts HW.
Characterization issue 24 has been extracted from the SF versus all the wingspans and low wind
profile. However, it can be concluded that, for all wind type graphs, on average, a constant relation is
found. Therefore, characterization issue 24 holds for every SF versus wingspan and wind profile.
Results for all other wind type graphs can be found in the EUROCONTROL directory;
We observe that on average the 3.0NM SF is flown for the aircraft wingspans between 20
and 80m and all headwind profiles.
The same procedure has been executed for the DF which results in characterization issue 25. Figure
33 will show an example of the DF versus the aircraft wingspan in low headwind conditions. The DF
results for different wind conditions can be found in the EUROCONTROL directory;

Figure 33: DF with the corresponding standard deviation versus different wingspans for 0-5kts HW.
We observe that on average for each 10m increase in wingspan, starting at 30m and
finishing at 45m, the DF is increased by 1.5NM. Between 20 and 30m the DF stays roughly
4.5NM whereas between 50 and 80m wingspan the DF stays roughly 7NM.
Analysing this for the wind conditions 0-5kts TW, 5-10kts HW, 10-15kts HW, 15-20kts HW and 20-
25kts HW results in characterization issue 26:
We observe that on average for each 5kts HW increase the DF is increased by 5% between
the wingspan range 20 and 60m and 0% for the wingspan range 60 and 80m.
Considering figure 33 and plotting the DF results in bars gives some interesting results. As is shown in
figure 34, there are some exceptions for characterization issue 25, namely the 25m, 26m, and 29m
wingspan. The aircraft exceptions in figure 33 and 34 are the 24.6m (AT45 1984), 26.3m (B462
1983), 28.99m (F27 1960), 34.11m (A318/A319 2003), 34.32m (B736) and 60.32m
(A333/A332/A334) wingspan. By deleting all these aircraft types, a better relation is found and thus
characterization issue 25 is supported better. It appeared that all three aircraft types were built before
1985. By deleting these older aircraft types the conclusion of characterization issue 25 is supported
better and thus a better relation is found and a more reliable polyfit line can be plotted.

Figure 34: DF in bars with the corresponding standard deviation versus different wingspans for
0-5kts HW.
From figure 34 characterization issue 27 can be extracted;
As a result of deleting the wingspans 25m, 26m and 29m, characterization issue 25 gives
less uncertainty; so for each 5kts HW increase the DF is increased by 5% between the
wingspan range 20 and 60m.
By plotting the DF versus the wingspans 25, 26 and 29m, characterization issue 28 can be extracted.
We observe that roughly for each 5kts HW increase the DF is increased by 2% between the
wingspan range 25 and 29m.
It can be concluded that the general trend for the DF (start with flap 2, flap 3 and gear down) is that
bigger aircraft are slowing down earlier before threshold. This conclusion has been derived by plotting
the polyfit line of the DF versus the investigated wingspans and wind profiles.
The reason for this relation is that bigger aircraft have a higher energy level compared to smaller
aircraft. Since the energy of an airplane is a function of the square root of the approach speed, it
takes longer to reduce the energy level of bigger aircraft, therefore resulting in an earlier slowing
down (Skybrary, 2012). For the SF a constant relation was found, on average 3NM.

3.3.3 Airline 1 versus Airline 2 for A318, A319 and A320
Interesting relations have been found by investigating the SF and DF as function of the airlines Easy
Jet (Airline 1) and Air France (Airline 2) Jet and the aircraft types A318, A319 and A320. These airlines
and types have been investigated since the most measurements for these combinations are available.
Therefore, the exposed characterization issues in this subchapter show less deviation errors compared
to other aircraft types. Also, airlines apply different minima of where they have to maintain full landing
configuration (SF). For KLM and Easy Jet the minima for example is 1000ft (Winter, 2014; Verdoes,
2014), whereas for Ryanair and Air France this is 500ft.
An example of the SF A318 versus the wind profile for Easy Jet and Air France will be shown in figure
35. The extracted characterization issue from this graph will be shown in characterization issue 29.
Also, for each characterization issue, an example can be found in the EUROCONTROL directory;
Figure 35: SF with the corresponding standard deviation versus the wind profile for Air France and
Easy Jet.
Characterization issue 29 (A318)
We observe that roughly for each 5kts increase in wind speed, starting at -5kts and finishing
at 5kts, the SF is decreased by 0.6NM for Easy Jet and 0.5NM for Air France. Between 5kts
and 25kts the SF stays roughly 3.2NM for Easy Jet and 3.0NM for Air France.
Analyzing this for the two other aircraft types A319 and A320 results in the characterization issues 30
and 31:


From the above three characterization issues derived, it can be concluded that the SF differs by
comparing the results of Air France with Easy Jet for the aircraft types A318, A319 and A320. The
differences are obtained by the fact that the airlines apply different SF minima.
The same procedure has been performed for the DF. Figure 36 shows an example for the DF versus
the low wind profile, A318 and the airlines Air France and Easy Jet.
Figure 36: DF with the corresponding standard deviation versus the wind profile for Air France and
Easy Jet.
We observe that on average for each 5kts increase in wind speed, starting at -5kts and
finishing at 25kts, the DF is increased by 0.26NM for Easy Jet and 0.26NM for Air France.
Analysing this for the two other aircraft types A319 and A320 results in characterization issue 33 and
34:

It can be concluded that the general trend for the DF (start with flap 2, flap 3 and gear down) is that
Easy Jet’s medium aircraft (A318, A319 and A320) are slowing down earlier before threshold
compared to medium aircraft from Air France. This conclusion has been derived by plotting the polyfit
line of the DF versus the investigated aircraft types, wind profiles and airlines.
3.3.4 Fixed wingspan versus wind
Since the main goal of this study is to develop a tool that predict the TBS compression on final
approach, this subsection shows the characterization issues for the DF & SF as a function of the fixed
wingspan and wind profile. The fixed wingspan has been chosen since this will give an indication of
the size and thus the weight of the aircraft. A comparison and analysis will be done on the relation of
the DF and SF for all possible wingspans and headwind profiles, and the related characterization
issues will be extracted.
From section 3.3.1, it is expected that by increasing the headwind profile, there will be an increase
found in DF. However, the rate of increase clearly differs per wingspan. Figure 37 shows an example
for the 23m wingspan; results for all other wingspan possibilities can be found in the EUROCONTROL
directory; Floris/AftPerformances. For each characterization issue concluded and for a more reliable
relation, the amount of measurements per graph lies above ten. The blue vertical lines in figure 37
indicate the standard deviation per wind profile.
Figure 37: DF with the corresponding standard deviation versus the headwind and 23m wingspan.

As figure 37 shows, the following characterization issue can be derived for the 23m wingspan.
We observe that on average for each 5kts increase in HW the DF is increased by 0.25NM,
roughly per 5kts increase the DF is increased by 5%.
Analyzing this for all the wingspan possibilities, results in characterization issue 36.
We observe that on average for each 5kts increase in HW the DF is increased by 5%

between the wingspan range of 20 and 60m and 0% for the wingspan range of 60 and 80m.
The same calculation and analysis has been performed for the SF. From section 3.3.1 and by
increasing the headwind profile, it is expected that there will be a constant relation found for the SF.
However, the constant SF values differ per wingspan. Figure 38 shows an example for the 29m
wingspan.
Figure 38: SF with the corresponding standard deviation versus the headwind and 29m wingspan.
As figure 38 shows, the SF relation will predominately remain constant by an increase in headwind.
Comparing all wingspans will result in characterization issue 37.

We observe that on average the 3.0NM SF is flown for all different headwind profiles and
wingspan range of 20 and 80m.
3.3.5 Fixed wingspan versus speed profile
The following subsection will show the characterization issues for the SF & DF versus the speed
profiles, fixed wingspans and wind profile. These parameters have been investigated for a better
understanding of the speed profile and the compression effect on final approach, and subsequently to
use as input for the TBS FFH tool.
The DF & SF versus speed profile differences will be compared with each other and for each wind
profile; the relevant characterization issues will be extracted from these results. The EUROCONTROL
directory; Floris/AftPerformances shows these derived DF & SF results and graphs as a function of the
speed, wind profile and fixed wingspan.
Next, the extracted characterization issues will be compared with regard to their similarities and
eventually be divided into the characterization issues 39 and 41. Furthermore, for each
characterization issue an example will be shown of the relevant graph. The graph is only relevant if
the total number of measurements lies above 10.
Figure 39 shows an example where the SF is plotted versus the 34m wingspan in low wind conditions.
Since there are enough numbers of measurements characterization issue 38 can be concluded.
Figure 39: SF with the corresponding standard deviation versus the TAS and 34m wingspan.

We observe that for the 34m wingspan and low HW case, on average for each 10kts
increase in TAS, the SF is increased by 1NM.
For the other wind profiles and 34m wingspan, the SF relation will predominately remain constant.
However, by investigating all wingspans in low wind the following average characterization issue can
be extracted:
We observe that on average for each 10kts increase in TAS, the SF is increased by 0.4NM for
the wingspan range of 20 to 80m and low HW case.
From section 3.3.1 and by increasing the headwind profile, it is expected that there will be a constant
relation found for the SF. Again the wind profile does not have an influence on characterization issue
38. The same calculation and analysis has been performed for the DF.
Figure 40 shows an example where the DF is plotted versus the 60m wingspan in low wind conditions.
Since there are enough numbers of measurement characterization issue 40 can be extracted.
Figure 40: DF with the corresponding standard deviation versus the TAS and 60m wingspan.
We observe that for the 60m wingspan and low HW case, on average for each 13kts
increase in TAS, the DF is increased by 1.5NM

Analyzing the other wingspans in low wind conditions, results in characterization issues 41;
We observe that on average in low wind for the wingspans 30 to 50m for each 1kts increase
in TAS, the DF is increased by 0.11NM, whereas 0.13NM was observed for the wingspans 60
to 80m.
Analyzing characterization issues 40 and 41 for different wind conditions result in compression issues
42 and 43.
We observe that on average for the wingspans 30 to 50m for each 1kts increase in TAS and
5kts increase in HW, the DF is increased by 0.15NM.
We observe that on average for the wingspans 60 to 80m for each 1kts increase in TAS and
5kts increase in HW, the DF is increased by 0.17NM.
From these results it can be concluded that for every wingspan possibility, most results show an
increase in DF with an increase in TAS and headwind.
3.3.6 Results & Environmental Impact
In general the DF is increased for an increase in TAS and headwind, even though this increase differs
per aircraft type, whereas the SF stays constant at increase in headwind. According to characterization
issue 25 and 43 an earlier DF on the glide slope approach will lead to a heavier aircraft and an
increase in glide speed profile. More weight and speed will lead to an increase in noise level (FAA,
2009). Also according to figure 29 an earlier DF will result in a higher altitude for selecting flap 1 to
flap max. Flaps down results in more turbulence and friction, which thus makes more noise compared
to flaps up. Therefore it can be concluded that during high headwind conditions the overall noise level
is increased (Roberson, 2010).
Since the TBS methodology will result in a lower DF and a lower approach speed, this will
automatically result in a decrease in noise. However, the minimum height for the final flap selection
differs per airline. Most of the airlines (amongst others KLM and Easy Jet) say that the minimum
height to be fully configured is 1000ft above mean sea level. To reduce noise, emissions and conserve
fuel, the final flap selecting must be delayed until this minimum height is reached.
3.4 Time Separation
Since the main goal is to understand the compression effect on final approach, and give
recommendations concerning minimizing the time separation between aircraft pairs, it will be helpful
to have a better understanding of the current time separation applied per aircraft pair and different
parts of the day. This subchapter will investigate these parameters.

3.4.1 Per aircraft pair
During the final approach phase, all distance separations tend to reduce due to the global reduction of
speed between interceptions and touchdown. During this approach two phases are distinguished.
The first phase covers interception down to 4NM. The speed variations are coherent for all aircraft and
dictated by the procedural airspeed profiles. In this phase, the compression is relatively easy to
predict. ATC shall anticipate the compression to reach the initial separation distance at 4NM. During
this phase, there is little to no time separation variation.
In the second phase, the separation distances in general continue to reduce, but in different
proportions as a function of the leader and follower final approach speeds. The time separations may
vary significantly in this phase. The follower is gaining or loosing time compared to the leading
aircraft. At the first order, the time lost or gained is driven by the final approach speeds of the leader
and follower and therefore by the pair of aircraft types. However, if one observes the time variation
for a given pair for a large range of headwind profile along the glide, it appears that the wind has a
second order effect that cannot be neglected. Figure 41 shows such a variation of time separation for
different aircraft pairs and range of headwind profiles. Both phases are taken into consideration by
computation of the TBS separation methodology, which is explained in chapter 2.
Figure 41: Normalized versus variation of time separation for four different aircraft pairs.
Figure 41 only shows the aircraft pair with minimum/maximum losing time and gaining time
separation for a 5NM distance. From figure 41 four compression issues can be drawn. The aircraft pair
in the figure indicates the follower and leading aircraft.
The aircraft pair A310-B738 (Leader-Follower) gains time between -8sec to -12sec on final
approach. Roughly the same applies for the aircraft RECAT-EU categories B-C and B-D.

The aircraft pair AT43-B744 (Leader-Follower) gains time between -16sec to -35sec on final
approach. Roughly the same applies for the aircraft RECAT-EU categories B-C.
The aircraft pair B738-MD83 (Leader-Follower) loses time between 10sec to 18sec on final
approach. Roughly the same applies for the aircraft RECAT-EU categories C-D.
The aircraft pair B744-A310 (Leader-Follower) loses time between 19sec to 30sec on final
approach. Roughly the same applies for the aircraft RECAT-EU categories B-C.
3.4.2 Current distance and time separation
In addition to the characterization issues above described, it is important to determine how the
standard separation per aircraft pairs is executed per airport. A tool has been created which identifies
the distance separation as a function of the distance to the threshold for each aircraft pair. These
results will be compared with the standard minimum separation distance, which will show a relation
between the separation applied per aircraft type/airline and airport. With this information,
recommendations can be made when an aircraft pair is flying on final approach. An example will be
shown in figure 42.
Leader @4NM to THR Leader @4NM to THR

200 150
Count
Count
100
100
50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 50 100 150 200 250
150 150
Count
Count
100 100
50 50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 50 100 150 200 250
150 150
Count
Count
100 100
50 50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 50 100 150 200 250
150 150
Count
Count
100 100
50 50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 50 100 150 200 250
Leader @0.5NM to THR Leader @0.5NM to THR
150 100
Count
Count
100
50
50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 50 100 150 200 250
Distance Separation (NM) Time Separation (s)
Figure 42: Number aircraft pairs (Medium-Medium) versus distance and time separation.
Figure 42 shows the distance and time separation for the aircraft pairs with a standard minimum
separation of 2.5NM (Medium-Medium table 1) for a distance of 4 to 0.5NM from the threshold. The
percentages of the aircraft that fly with a lower minimum separation is indicated on the left side of the
red vertical line. The aircraft that apply a buffer or were not flying during peak hours, which will

normally result in a larger time separation, are indicated on the right side of the red line. After
analyzing all these results in low wind conditions the following recommendations can be made;
For the aircraft pair Medium-Medium and between 4 to 0.5NM from threshold at CDG
airport, the percentage that fly below the minimum standard separation varies between
17% and 22.5%, for Heavy-Heavy pairs this is respectively 15% and 20%.
For the aircraft pair Medium-Medium and between 4 to 0.5NM from threshold at Vienna
airport, the percentage that fly below the minimum standard separation varies between
10% and 18%, for Heavy-Heavy pairs this is respectively 8% and 14%.
3.4.3 Average time separation during different parts of the day
The tool is able to analyze the average time separation during different parts of the day (morning,
afternoon and night), different wind conditions and peak hours. Table 10 shows an example of these
results during low wind conditions, analyzed during peak hours.
Table 10: Average time separation (s) during low wind conditions (< 5kts) at CDG.
Leader Morning Afternoon Night
Follower
HH 83.4 93.1 104.4
HM 84.2 79.9 97.2
MH 64.6 74.6 76.7
MM 81.0 80.0 95.8
The following recommendations can be made:
The average time separation applied during night peak hours is higher compared to morning
peak hours at CDG. The difference between these two parts of the day is on average 15%.
The average time separation applied during night peak hours is higher compared to morning
peak hours at Vienna airport. The difference between these two times of day is on average
12%.

This section has provided fundumental information of compression improvements that can be made
on final approach. It shows the possibilities of obtaining an even more efficient final approach
operation. According to these results ATC should pay extra attention to aircraft pairs with a minimum
separation of 3.0NM. The results show that 25% at 0.5NM from the threshold can be compressed
even more in order to increase the runway capacity.
3.5 Sub Conclusion
A number of characterization issues concerning time to fly, indicate that Airbus types apply speed
compensations (ground speed mini function) for strong headwind conditions on final approach
whereas the Boeing types do not. Research showed that the same results apply for the true air
speeds. According to the data of CDG ATCs’ statements concerning the speed profile indeed holds: On
average the glide slope speed reduces to 160kts when the number of aircraft on final approach is
above 3. STAR is of influence on the glide slope speed.
In general the DF is increased for an increase in TAS and headwind, even though this increase differs
per aircraft type, whereas the SF stays constant at increase in headwind. Furthermore, larger aircraft
types are slowing down earlier before threshold.
The SF differs by comparing the results of Air France with Easy Jet for the aircraft types A318, A319
and A320. The differences are obtained by the fact that the airlines apply different SF minima.
The general trend for the DF (start with flap 2, flap 3 and gear down) is that Easy Jet’s medium
aircraft (A318, A319, A320) are slowing down earlier before threshold compared to medium aircraft
from Air France. So, for every wingspan possibility, most results show an increase in DF with an
This section has provided fundumental information of compression improvements that can be made
on final approach. It shows the possibilities of obtaining an even more efficient final approach
operation. According to these results ATC should pay extra attention to aircraft pairs with a minimum
separation of 3.0NM. The results show that 25% at 0.5NM from the threshold can be compressed
even more in order to increase the runway capacity.

4 Key performance indicators FMS, ATCs and pilots
I
n the previous chapter the aircraft performance characteristics (compression issues) where found
and analyzed, bottlenecks were identified and solutions for efficient time separations were found.
Based on these solutions several recommendations and input is generated for the TBS tool. For
supporting the aircraft performances, this chapter elaborates on the key performance indicators
like the working practices of ATC, pilots and FMS for Boeing and Airbus. Starting in section 4.1 with
the FMS, which determines the final speed profile and speed compensation on final approach. To
discover the practices of ATC and pilots, questionnaires for ATC were developed and used; these will
be discussed in section 4.2, in section 4.3 an outline is given of the pilot and manufacturer
questionnaires and finally, in section 4.4 conclusions are drawn.
4.1 Flight Management System
The flight management system (FMS) needs to be explained for a better understanding of the aircraft
speed profile on final approach. The system is a fundamental component of modern aircraft, and has
the main goal to reduce workload on the pilots. A FMS is a specialized computer system that
automates a wide variety of flight tasks. A primary function is the flight management of the flight
plan. Using various sensors to determine the aircraft's position, the FMS can guide the aircraft along
the flight plan. The FMS is normally controlled through a Control Display Unit (CDU), which
incorporates a small touch screen. The system sends the flight plan for display to the Navigation
Display (ND) or Multifunction Display (MFD).
All FMS contain a navigation database (NDB), which contains all of the information required for
building a flight plan. The following primary information has been inserted in the NDB (Walter, 2001).
 Waypoints
 Airways
 Radio navigation aids including distance measuring equipment (DME), VHF omnidirectional
range (VOR), non-directional beacons (NDBs) and instrument landing systems (ILSs).
 Airports
 Runways
 Standard instrument departure (SID)
 Standard terminal arrival (STAR)
 Holding patterns
 Instrument approach procedure (IAP)
In the following subchapters the most important input parameters will be discussed which could be
helpful for the TBS between aircraft pairs. However, for this study only the ILS & IAP systems and
related parameters will be discussed, since these form the key drivers for calculating the speed profile
on final approach.
4.1.1 Stabilization Heights
The approach is an important part of the landings process. The aircraft needs to stabilize in order to
carry out the perfect landing. The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF), as well as Airbus, have given
minimum stabilization heights to achieve a stabilized approach (FSF, 2009; Airbus, 2013; Airbus,
2006; Airbus, 2005). The authors give insight into a research performed in the U.S. The study

concluded that there should not be a speed restriction imposed within 3 to 4 NM before the threshold.
These minimum stabilization heights (SF) are important for the entire aviation industry:
 1000 feet above airport elevation (3.14NM from the threshold) in Instrument Meteorological
Conditions (IMC)
 500 feet above airport elevation (1.57NM from the threshold) in Visual Meteorological
Conditions (VMC)
The above minimum procedures are implemented in the current FMS-IAP, to ensure that ATC could
better predict and anticipate on the TBS between aircraft pairs. On the occasion that the approach is
not stabilized before reaching this minimum stabilization height, the FSF recommends an immediate
go-around, which will decrease the number of accidents while landing.
An unstabilized approach is often caused by the crew of the aircraft. In most known cases the crew
did not have the ability to control the aircraft on the desired flight parameters. For this reason aircraft
builders like Airbus have written operations manuals of their aircrafts for crews. These notes provide
an overview of criteria defining a stabilized approach, and the factors involved in rushed and
unstabilized approaches. It has been proven that when following the operation note by Airbus (Airbus,
2005) the final approach will be more stabilized. Table 11 shows these operations, which will lead to
more stabilized approaches and thus more efficient TBS.
Table 11: An approach is considered stabilized only if all the following elements are achieved before
or when reaching the stabilization height.
The aircraft is on the correct lateral and vertical flight path
Only small changes in heading and pitch are required to maintain this flight path
The aircraft is in the desired landing configuration
The thrust is stabilized, usually above idle, to maintain the target approach speed along the desired
final approach path
The landing checklist has been accomplished as well as any required specific briefing
No flight parameter from table 11 exceeds the criteria defined in table 12.
Table 12: Criteria for stabilized approach.
Parameter Callout Criteria
Airspeed Lower than Vapp – 5kts or Greater than Vapp + 10kts
Vertical Speed Greater than – 1000 ft/min
Pitch Attitude Lower than (5°) Nose Down or Greater than (10°) Nose Up
Bank Angle Greater than 7°
LOC deviation 1/4 dot or Excessive (Beam) Deviation Warning
Glide Slope deviation (ILS) 1 dot or Excessive (Beam) Deviation Warning

A more stabilized approach which is influenced by the airspeed, flight pad angle and aircraft track, will
decrease the TBS between aircraft pairs and therefore gives the following benefits for pilots and ATC:
 More time and attention are available for the monitoring of ATC communications, weather
conditions, system operation
 More time is available for the monitoring and back-up by the Pilot Not Flying (PNF)
 Defined flight-parameter-deviation criteria and minimum stabilization height support the
decision to land or go-around
 Landing performance is consistent and thus a higher runway throughput will be obtained
 Situational awareness is increased
Performance indicator 1
We observe that on average the minimum SF for the TBS tool should be maintained at
3.14NM for IMC and 1.57NM for VMC. For more efficient TBS, table 11 and 12 has to be
taken into account by the FMS or pilots on final approach.
4.1.2 CDA Method
Also literature has been taken into account for obtaining performance indicators. In 2004 the model
named Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) speed was tested at the Louisville International Airport
(Clarke, 2004). In their research they searched for a method to increase runway capacity by reducing
the noise level and the delay time. With their CDA method aircraft descend and decelerate
continuously without reverting to flight level (stabilizing approach speed). According to the team, the
results show that further research should be done to develop controller tools that will enable
widespread implementation of the given procedures.
After four years, this tool has not been introduced at the major airports worldwide. This raises the
notion that new tools are difficult to imply on a large scale (Clarke, 2008).
For existing aircraft, a research was initiated to develop low noise approaches procedures and more
stabilized approach speeds between aircraft pairs. From this research John-Paul B. Clarke and Liling
Ren developed a model, by testing multiple theories at the Nottingham East Midlands Airport (Clarke,
2007). The objective was to conduct flight trials with a range of aircraft types of the procedures to
assess their environmental and operational performance under realistic conditions.
We observe that the CDA method results in higher landing rates and more stabilized
approach speed profiles, which is better for the TBS concept. However, more research is
needed to implement this method into the FMS and daily flight operations on airports.
4.1.3 Ground Speed Mini Function
Further to the method of Ren and Clarke, it is important to understand the speed profile per aircraft
type on the final approach in order to minimize the time separation between aircraft pairs. In addition
to this study, Boeing has published the recommended approach speeds per aircraft type as a function
of the maximum landing weight (Boeing, 2011). This could be helpful to implement these speed
profiles in the TBS methodology and to crosscheck with the found speed profiles from the tool
developed in this thesis. The speed profiles from Boeing can be found in appendix C.

The ground speed mini function (GSMF) is of great influence on the speed management (ILS and IAP)
of Airbus types on final approach, according to (Winter, 2014). A better understanding of this system
will automatically lead to a better predictability of the speed profile on final approach. As this will
support ATC, this subchapter will explain and calculate the measured speed compensation by the
GSMF for the aircraft types A318, A319 and A320. From 2005, the GSMF system is installed in all
these airbus types.
The working principle of the system will be explained and compared with the Airbus speed results,
found in appendix E. The purpose of the GSMF is to take advantage of the aircraft inertia, when the
wind conditions vary on final approach. The system is installed in the FMS, and calculates an IAS/TAS
with the current wind conditions by ensuring that the energy level is above a minimum level, so that a
certain standard aerodynamic margin over stall is kept. The minimum energy level is found by
calculating which ground speed the aircraft should have at touchdown and by taking the wind speed
vector at the ground into account (Oetiker, 2008). The GSMF starts to work when the aircraft reaches
the stabilization fix point (SF) (fully configured and flaps down). Equation 8 shows the GSMF
calculation.
GSmin i  Vapp  TWR _ HEADWIND _ COMPONENT Equation 8
Where the TWR_HEADWIND_COMPONENT is calculated by meteo stations on the ground and Vapp is
found by using equation 9.
Vapp  VLS  MAX (5, _1/ 3_ OF _ THE _ TOWER _ HEADWIND _ COMPONENT ) Equation 9
Where VLS is the minimum final approach speed. The following three examples show how the GSMF
operates in real life for the aircraft types A318, A319 and A320.
Example A318
A 130kts minimum final approach speed has been assumed for this type and a landing direction of
090. So for this example the approach speed in strong headwind (30kts) is Vapp=130+max(5,1/3 of
30)=140kts and the GS mini is GSmini=140-30=110kts. So the IAS at the SF during different wind and
height conditions becomes:
1. The aircraft undergoes a wind of 090/50 kts so IAS=MAX(Vapp, 110+50)=160kts.
2. The aircraft undergoes a wind of 090/10 kts so IAS=MAX(Vapp, 110+10)=140kts
3. The aircraft undergoes a wind of 270/10 kts so IAS=MAX(Vapp, 110-10)=140kts
4. The aircraft undergoes a wind of 090/30 kts so IAS=MAX(Vapp, 110+30)=140kts
So during strong headwind conditions and by using the GSMF during landing approach, the cockpit
crew will notice that the IAS displayed on the primary flight display is variable. According to Appendix
E the A318 has a SF of 3.2NM during strong headwind conditions. A 3.2NM from the threshold will
lead to an A318 TAS of 149kts during 22.5kts HW. Since a 30kts headwind had been assumed in this
example, 7.5kts should be subtracted from the calculated IAS, which will lead to a 152.5kts TAS. It
can be concluded that both answers are similar.

Example A319
The results of the A319 during 15kts headwind conditions (Appendix E) will be compared to the
methodology of the GSMF. We assume a tower wind of 15kts and a VLS of 125kts. So equation 9 is
Vapp=125+max(5,1/3 of 15)=130kts and equation 8 is; GSmini=130-15=115kts. According to Appendix
E the A319 has a SF of 3.1NM during 15kts HW. A 3.1NM from the threshold will lead to an A319 TAS
of 145.2kts during 15kts HW. Since a 15kts headwind had been assumed in this example, a 5.2kts
difference has been observed. It can be concluded that the answers differ 3.5%, which is tolerable.
Table 13: A319 appendix E results versus GSMF results.
Headwind Appendix E results GSMF results

0-5 TW 131.1 IAS  MAX (VAPP,120  5)  130kts
0-5 HW 131.2 IAS  MAX (VAPP,120  5)  130kts
5-10 HW 133.1
10-15 HW 135.5
IAS  MAX (VAPP,120  10)  130kts
IAS  MAX (VAPP,120  25)  145kts
Example A320
The results of the A320 during strong headwind conditions (Appendix E) will be compared to the
methodology of the GSMF. We assume a tower wind of 15kts and a VLS of 130kts. So equation 9 is
Vapp=130+max(5,1/3 of 15)=135kts and equation 8 is GSmini=135-15=120kts.
Table 14: A320 Appendix E results versus GSMF results.
Headwind Code results GSMF results

0-5 TW 132.4 IAS  MAX (VAPP,120  5)  130kts
5-10 HW 135.6
IAS  MAX (VAPP,120  25)  145kts
We observe that the speed calculation performed by the GSMF could help ATC for a better
understanding and predictability of the speed profiles flown by the Airbus types A318, A319
and A320. This will lead to a better predictability of the compression effect. The GSMF
results from this subchapter show similarities with the TAS results from appendix E.

4.2 Questionnaires ATC
In order to understand the current working practice of the different European control towers and
approach control centres it is essential to know their regulations regarding the final approach. A
questionnaire was sent to several European airports to obtain this information. The questions
addressed to air traffic controllers were divided into three parts:
A. Tower and approach centre equipment
B. Runway configuration and information (Current lay-out and maximum capacity)
C. Separation and spacing procedures and practices (Separation minima and responsibility)
Because part A and B concern factual information, these parts could be filled in by only one person
per airport. Part C questions the experience of the controllers of the procedures and practices of the
final approach. Therefore, this part was answered by several individual controllers. Contact person for
this study is Vincent Treve from EUROCONTROL (supervisor). Five airports received an invitation to
participate. Until now 8 ATCs of Vienna airport, 5 ATCs of Milan airport and 3 ATCs of CDG have
responded to part C of the questionnaire. The questions being asked has given insight into the
position of the controllers and the conditions/ procedures they are working with. Table 15 shows the
answers per participating airport. From these answers the different working practices per EU airport
must be found to understand what is possible on final approach to compress.
Table 15: ATC separation and spacing procedures and practices (ATC, 2014).
Milan (5) Vienna (8) CDG (3)

Current position TWR TWR TWR
Minimum radar separation
- 2 succeeding aircraft on the same 3 NM 2.5 NM 2.5 NM
approach in IMC
- 2 succeeding aircraft on the same 3 NM 2.5 NM 2.5 NM
approach in VMC
In what conditions are procedures Aircraft must be in Whenever both Whenever both
with reduced separation in the vicinity sight by the tower aircraft are in sight by aircraft are in sight
of the aerodrome applied? the tower ATC by the tower ATCO
Regarding the wake turbulence NO, we use only NO, we use only NO, we use only
separation minima as proposed by L/M/H and B757 L/M/H and B757 L/M/H and B757
ICAO, do you apply any local
adaptations?
Do you ever apply radar separation Yes. In Case of Yes, increased spacing NO
larger/less than the required radar arrival Runway 35L during low visual
separation minima in specific the required spacing procedures
conditions? is 6 NM between two
If so, which ones and under which succeeding A/C
conditions?
Do you ever apply wake turbulence NO NO NO
separation larger/less than the
required separation minima?
Who is responsible for deciding The tower NO It is a coordination
whether a separation minimum should supervisor, but it between tower and
be extended – the Approach supervisor isn't a process approach supervisor
or Tower supervisor? Is there a defined
process defined for this? If so please
describe the process

Different airports apply the separation When the first When the preceding When the preceding
minima differently. aircraft is on the TDZ aircraft is over the aircraft is over the
When considering two succeeding the 2nd must be at touchdown zone touchdown zone
aircraft inside 10 NM from the runway the minima radar (3
threshold, at what point do you apply NM)
the minima?
Is there a difference between applying Yes, because the wake turbulence Wake turbulence
wake turbulence separation minima separation is separation minima separation minima is
and radar separation minima? If so different in miles, often is higher than based on time whilst
please describe. 3NM minima and 4- radar separation radar separation
5-7-8 NM depending minima minima is based on a
on type of A/C radar data
Is there a difference depending on NO NO NO

VMC or IMC conditions? If so please
describe.
Where is the handover of aircraft from 8 NM on Final 8 NM on Final 8 NM on Final
APP to TWR?
Which controller (APP or TWR) is Approach is Approach is Approach is
responsible for separation at which responsible for responsible Tower responsible. Tower
part of the approach? separation. APP and Controller is only service provides
Tower are monitoring the monitor during final
responsible for separation approach using
maintaining of radar
separation
Describe your procedures regarding Below FL 100 = Below FL 100 = speed Below FL 100 =
speed management on final approach. speed 230 Kts, NOV 220 Kts, NOV = speed speed 230 Kts, NOV
What are the procedural approach = speed 210 Kts, 9 220 Kts, 9 NM = speed = speed 220 Kts, 9
speeds that you use, and where do you NM = speed 180 Kts, 180 Kts, 6 M = speed NM = speed 190 Kts,
expect aircraft to conform these? 6 M = speed 160 Kts 160 Kts 6 M = speed 160 Kts
Where on the final approach do you 4 NM About 4-6 NM from 4 NM

expect aircraft to converge towards TDZ
the landing speed stabilization?
Do you apply distance compression Yes. 4 NM on 35L NO Yes. 3.5 NM on 35L

management on an everyday basis, between medium between medium
taking into account e.g. speed profiles, A/C A/C
meteorological conditions?
How do you apply buffers to achieve Experience based on Experience based on Experience based on
the separation minima? aircraft type plus aircraft type plus aircraft type plus
airline airline airline
Do you use any spacing support tools No NO NO
in current operations
Is there a decision point on the final 1st A/C at TDZ Before minimum radar 1st A/C at TDZ
approach where the separation separation is infringed
minimum need to be achieved? (<2.5NM)
Do you have procedures or practices to Yes, Only to inform Yes, Only to inform the Yes, Only to inform
describe how the final approach the crew and advise crew and advise them the crew and advise
controller or tower controller must act them to maintain to maintain own them to maintain
if the radar separation minimum or own separation or separation or Go- own separation or
wake turbulence separation minimum Go-around around Go-around
is infringed on short final?
Do your procedures allow you to apply NO NO NO
time separation instead of distance
separation on approach?

To what extent are these working They are more or There are more or less There are more or
practices commonly applied or does it less common with a common with a few less common with a
depend on the individual? few individual individual exceptions. few individual
exceptions. exceptions.
European airports all have different separation minima for aircraft in the final approach. In the
questionnaire the controllers are asked about these minima. These minima between two succeeding
aircraft on the same approach have been checked in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and
Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The graphic below gives an example of average
separation minima between the airports Milan and Vienna. Distance is given in Nautical Miles (NM).
Figure 43: Average time separation in NM for Vienna and Milan airport.
It can be concluded that airports apply the separation minima differently. When considering two
succeeding aircraft inside 10NM from the runway threshold all the controllers apply the given minima
when the first aircraft is on the Touch Down Zone (TDZ). Many airports apply buffers to achieve the
separation minima (e.g., according to aircraft type, rule of thumb, wind conditions). The answers to
how these buffers are applied are really quite different, the answer given in most cases is based on
experience from the controllers. Some call it “based on individual sensitiveness”.
At a certain moment in the Final Approach there is a handover of aircraft from the Approach Centre
(APP Centre) to the controller of The Tower (TWR). The distance (in NM) between this handover in
some cases shows a large difference between the European airports. The average handover of Vienna
airport lies at 4NM from threshold whereas for Milan airport the average handover lies at 8NM.
A safe separation of arrival aircraft during final approach is vital. One of the tools being used by
controllers is the FAA’s Terminal Proximity alert system (Gong, 2010). This system gives the
controllers the assistant to guarantee the safety on the final approach. In an effort to improve the
performances of this system the authors of the paper ‘A final approach trajectory Model for current
operations’ tested two final approach trajectory models against actual traffic data based on;
Polynomial interpolation and Fourier transform.
At the final approach most pilots navigate using the dead reckoning method. However, both of the
investigated models shown a better final approach trajectory prediction accuracy. Also the mean
landing time errors has decreased by 55 seconds using the Fourier transform model over the dead
reckoning method.

Practical issue 1
We observe that the separation procedures and practices differ per airport. It can be
concluded that next to the aircraft performances discussed in chapter 3, also the ATC
practices (table 15) should be taken into account to enhance similar working procedures per
airport, ATC and weather conditions.
4.3 Questionnaire pilots
The following pilots have been asked to fill in the final approach compression issue questionnaires;
Nico Verdoes (KLM captain MD11 and test pilot), Marco Kemp (KLM captain 737 and former F16 pilot)
and Dirk de Winter (Easy Jet captain A320). The questions have been asked to get a better
understanding of the influence of pilots on the final approach speed profile (see table 16).
Table 16: Pilot opinions for the speed profile on final approach.
Questions Summarized answers
Do the STARS have influence on the final approach Only for the DF.
speed? Is the STAR from influence on the DF and SF?
At which distance from threshold do you start your Yes, but it depends on the wind.
deceleration and stabilization fix? Is there a difference SF minima KLM and Easy Jet is 500ft
for this distance between low and strong headwind and for Air France and Transavia this minima
conditions? is 1000ft.
Do you apply speed compensation on final approach For non-automatic landing yes, for automatic
during strong headwind conditions? Describe your ladings and airbus types the speed
procedures regarding approach speed. compensation starts at 10-15kts headwind.
TAS=Vref+0.5*HW+gust for most Boeing
types. Airbus types uses the GSMF.
How do you calculate your approach speed? Every aircraft type has their own approach
speed calculation and could be found in the
aircraft manual or has been implemented in
the FMS. When ATC knows before the 10NM
from the threshold what their expected Vapp
will be, a decrease in TBS could be obtained.
Do you have procedures or practices that show if radar No, follow ATC instructions on final approach.
separation minima or wake turbulence separation
minima is infringed on short final?
Do you ever apply separation less than the required Yes, if there is strong (cross) wind, wake
minima? turbulences disappear faster. During calm
weather more attention has to be given.
When normally does the controller give you any Between 7 till 10NM and 3 till 5NM.
feedback/comments on your final approach speed?
Is there a decision point on the final approach where Yes, when the leader is at threshold.
separation minima has to be achieved?

Interview test pilot KLM (Verdoes, 2014)
According to Verdoes it is very hard to change pilot and airline procedures on the final approach to get
an even more stabilized approach speed between two pairs. Main reason for this is that all the
professional checks/flight school training and other procedures must be changed. There are too many
parameters that could influence the final approach speed and thus must be changed in the training of
a pilot. He also said that nearly 70% of rushed and unstable approaches are triggered by errors in the
management of the descent and approach profile. These errors result in a higher/lower vertical flight
pad or/and a faster/slower desired airspeed. This can create a delay in the initiating descent.
Therefore, Airbus gives pilots guidelines to prevent errors like this (Airbus, 2013).
Conclusion
From this interview it can be concluded that the solutions for stabilizing the approach speeds could
better be found by the FMS of the aircraft manufacturers. Furthermore, he said that the solution could
also be found by ATC, since they could influence the minimum separation distance during (strong)
headwind conditions. In his opinion it is possible to change procedures for the air traffic controller in
order to cope with the loss of runway capacity that occurs during (strong) headwind conditions.
4.4 Sub Conclusion
It can be concluded that the ATC and pilot approach systems and procedures do not interact
sufficiently and that different procedures (airport/airline) are applied; this results in a not fully
stabilized approach speed profile or/and minimized distance separation. By analyzing the ATC and
pilot questionnaires it can be concluded that stabilizing the approach speeds could be obtained by
setting up new requirements and procedures for the FMS and air traffic controller. Key requirements
are aircraft speed stabilization between 10NM and DF, the differences in distance separation minima
applied by ATC and the differences in speed compensation and stabilization heights applied by pilots.

5 Verification with Vienna airport
I
n the previous chapter the aircraft performance characteristics (compression issues), ATC and
pilot practices where analyzed and solutions for efficient time separations were found. Based on
these solutions several recommendations and input is generated for the FFH TBS tool. This
section will verify the aircraft performances from CDG with Vienna Airport by calculating the
differences of the four aircraft performances used to build the TBS tool and shown in chapter 3.
Section 5.1 states all the assumptions whereas the verification results are shown in section 5.2.
Furthermore, in section 5.2, the true airspeed results from this study will be verified with the results
from, Boeing and RECAT-EU (appendix C). Finally section 5.3 will draw a conclusion from the obtained
verification results.
5.1 Assumptions
The extracted compression issues described in chapter 3 will be verified with the aircraft and weather
data from Vienna airport. The following assumptions should be taken into account;
- It is assumed that the airport elevation heights are the same for CDG and Vienna airport. The
height has an effect on the IAS and thus TAS.
- The differences between the ILS and IAP procedures of CDG and Vienna have not been taken
into account.
- The differences in airline procedures of Austrian Airlines and Air France have not been taken
into account. Since these are the common airliners that fly on Vienna and CDG, respectively,
these procedures will influence the SF & DF characteristics results found.
- Two years of aircraft and weather data of Vienna airport have been acquired, whereas the
data for CDG amounted to two months. Therefore, an effort is made to extract the results by
using more or less the same amount of measurements as was done for obtaining the results
in chapter 3.
5.2 Comparing CDG with Vienna, RECAT EU and Boeing
This subchapter shows the deviation of the four most important compression issues in this study,
namely; approach speed (Vapp), glide slope speed (Vglide), DF and SF, by comparing CDG performance
data with Vienna aircraft performance data. Figure 44 show the deviation results in percentage rate,
for these four parameters and as a function of the aircraft type and 10 till 15kts wind profile.
Next to verifying CDG against Vienna airport, the final approach speeds in low wind conditions have
been verified with, RECAT-EU and Boeing speed results. Results for this verification can be found in
appendix C. However, all results per individual aircraft type can be found in the EUROCONTROL
directory; Floris/AftPerformances. From this verification it can be concluded that the approach speed
profiles found in this study are very comparable to the low wind results from RECAT-EU and Boeing.
On average the speed profiles differ between 2 and 4kts.

Figure 44: Deviation in percentage for the TAS, Glide slope speed, DF and SF.
Please note that this figure includes aircraft types which have more than 5 measurements. Deviation
results of Vienna airport for other wind profiles can be found in the EUROCONTROL directory;
5.3 Sub Conclusion
It can be concluded that the standard deviation for the four most important compression issues differs
between 3 and 10%. However the DF and SF standard deviation is higher (5-10%) compared to the
approach speed and glide slope speed due to local ILS and IAP procedures. Taking the assumptions
from section 5.1 into account will result in an even lower difference.
Comparing the CDG approach speed profiles with RECAT-EU, and Boeing shows also good similarities.
It can be concluded that on average the speed profiles differ between 2 and 5kts. Overall, the
verification that has been done in this chapter shows good similarities. Therefore the tool has been
approved for analysing the TAS, glide slope speed and DF & SF results on other airports.

6 TBS FFH Model
P
revious chapters discussed the characterization issues, which should help to better understand
the speed profile and thus the compression effect on final approach. The four main parameters,
time to fly, TAS, DF & SF and glide slope speed (Vglide) have been verified in chapter 5; whereas
the TAS (Vapp and Vglide) and the DF & SF have been validated with the real time simulator of
Bretigny, explained in chapter 7. However, before these parameters are validated, first the TBS FFH
model will be finalized in this chapter. Two case studies will be shown in which the TBS FFH model will
be benchmarked with the real radar tracks and the TBS OSED1 (explained in chapter 2) model with
real radar tracks. First, this chapter explains the TBS FFH model in section 6.1; two case studies at
CDG airport will be described in section 6.2. Section 6.3 shows the results by benchmarking the real
radar tracks against the TBS FFH model and the TBS OSED 1 model. Finally, a conclusion will be
drawn in section 6.4.
6.1 Designing the TBS FFH Model
In order to build the new improved TBS tool, all results gathered in chapter 3 are inserted in the FFH
model. From all characterization issues found in this study, as many as possible are inserted into the
model. The issues that cannot be inserted will serve as recommendations for the TBS FFH tool
(supporting controllers). The base of the design of the FFH tool will be shown in an ‘if then else
statement’, whereas the four main aircraft performances; Vapp, SF, DF and Vglide will be used for
calculating the speed profile and building the tool. The FFH model calculates the speed profile in
reverse. The tool starts calculating the DBS and TBS when the leader of the aircraft pair is at
threshold and the follower is at the minimum DBS (table 1).
With the given reference speed profiles, which results from the four aircraft parameters, the tool
calculates the track backwards, from 0 to 10NM out. As shown in chapter 3 these performances
depend on many functions, however, the following key functions will be used as input for the FFH
model:
- Aircraft pair (Leader and Follower)
- Airline (Leader and Follower)
- Number of aircraft on final approach (1-5)
- Headwind profile
- Time of the day
The following input code is used for case study 1 (Airbus types as input);
Input code
LeaderType=input('Leader Aircraft type= A318(1), A319(2), A320(3), A321(4),
A332(5), A343(6), A346(7), A388(8)')
FollowerType=input('Follower Aircraft type= A318(1), A319(2), A320(3), A321(4),
A332(5), A343(6), A346(7), A388(8)')
LeaderAirline=input('Air France(1)/Easy Jet(2)')
FollowerAirline= input('Air France(1)/Easy Jet(2)')
Amountofaircraft=input('# Aircraft on the glide')
Headwind=input('Headwind= 0-5 kts HW(1), 5-10 kts HW(2), 10-15 kts HW(3), 15-20 kts
HW(4), 20-25 kts HW(5), 0-5 kts TW(6)')
Timeoftheday=input('# Time in UTC= peak(1), nonpeak(2)')

The following ‘If then else statement’ is used, to build for the leader and follower aircraft, a unique
airspeed profile.
%Between DF and 10NM
if Amountofaircraft>3 & Timeoftheday<2
GlideSpeed=160
else GlideSpeed=190
end
%Between DF and SF
DF=5
if Headwind>0 & <=5
DF=DF_low_wind(AcType)
else if Headwind>5 & <=10
DF=DF_wind(AcType)
DF=DF_medium_wind(AcType)
DF=DF_high_wind(AcType)
else if Headwind>20
DF=DF_strong_wind(AcType)
end
end
end
end
end
if LeaderAirline<2 %From characterization issues 32,33,34

DF=DF*1.05
end
SF=3
if Headwind>0 & <=5
SF=SF_low_wind(AcType)
SF=SF_wind(AcType)
SF=SF_medium_wind(AcType)
SF=SF_high_wind(AcType)
else if Headwind>20
SF=SF_strong_wind(AcType)
end
end
end
end
end
if LeaderAirline>1 %From characterization issues 29,30,31

SF=SF*1.05
end
%Between SF and 0NM

Vapp=130
if Headwind>0 & <=5
Vapp=Vapp_low_wind(AcType)
Vapp=Vapp_wind(AcType)
Vapp=Vapp_medium_wind(AcType)
Vapp= Vapp_high_wind(AcType)
else if Headwind>20
Vapp= Vapp_strong_wind(AcType)
end
end
end
end
end

6.2 Case Studies
This subchapter shows two case studies. In the first 150 medium aircraft Airbus runs (flights) are
compared, while in the second, 150 runs for all heavy Boeing types are compared. Each run stands for
a single flight case where the input shown in section 6.1 has to be selected. For each run the error is
measured by noting the differences in TBS comparing the TBS FFH model with real tracks and by
comparing the TBS OSED1 model with real radar tracks. Five different error parameters are used;
Vapp, SF, DF, glide slope speed and overall error. The overall error is found by using the mean square
function. So for the first case study the following aircraft types are used as leader and follower; A318,
A319, A320 and A321 (change sequence). The other input will be randomly selected per run, namely
wind profile, peak or non-peak hours, amount of aircraft on the glide and airline. Finally after 150 runs
the overall summation error will be calculated for the 5 different error parameters, by using formula
10. The same procedure will be executed for the TBS OSED1 model with real radar tracks. It should
be noted that for the real radar tracks a random flight will be used which corresponds with the
selected input from section 6.1. Figure 45 shows an example where the following input has been
selected: the A320 (Easy Jet) is the leader aircraft and the A318 (Air France) is the follower, 10-15kts
headwind, 5 aircraft on the glide and peak hours.
Figure 45: Example run for two Airbus types on final approach.
error   (TBS _ real  TBS _ FFH)2  .... Equation 10
The left subfigure shows the tracks where the TAS has been plotted versus the distance from the
threshold. It is noted that for the TBS FFH model and the real data aircraft model different lines have
been plotted. This can be explained by the fact that we found different aircraft characteristics for the
A319 and A320 as a function of the selected input parameters. However, as explained in chapter 2,
the TBS OSED1 model uses the same TAS as function of the threshold for both the follower and
leader aircraft. Therefore, the leader and follower aircraft tracks are overlapping. As can be noted

from this graph, the follower aircraft starts at 2.5NM since this is the minimum TBS for large medium
aircraft pairs (CAT D, see table 1). The right sub graph shows the TBS between the leader and
follower aircraft as function of the distance from the threshold. The figure starts calculating the TBS
backwards from the minimum distance between the pairs (2.5NM).
The comparison in which the TBS FFH model, after 150 runs, shows the least TBS error (FFH vs real)
compared to TBS OSED1 error (OSED1 vs real) performs the best (you want to have the least TBS
difference compared to real life). Figure 46 shows the corresponding time separation error of figure
45. For this specific flight case it can be concluded that the FFH model performs better than the OSED
1 model. The OSED1 model shows a lower TBS between the aircraft pairs, but it was concluded that
in this model, the TBS was too low to operate in real life.
Figure 46: Time separation error from figure 45 for each parameter.
Performing 150 runs for the medium aircraft types results in the overall summation error, shown in
figure 47.

Figure 47: Overall summation error after 150 Airbus runs (case study 1).
Performing the same procedure for medium Boeing pairs results in the overall summation error
showed in figure 49, whereas figure 48 shows a result of singular Boeing pair on final approach.
Figure 48: Example run for two Boeing types on final approach.

Figure 49: Overall summation error after 150 Boeing runs (case study 2).
6.3 Results & Sub Conclusion
In the first case study a 15.4s overall time separation error was found for the TBS FFH model,
compared to a 18.5s overall time separation error of TBS OSED1, by running 150 medium Airbus
pairs. In this case study the TBS FFH model is performing 20% better compared to the TBS OSED1
model. Analysis of the four individual parameters shows that the biggest improvements in TBS can be
reached by the DF.
In the second case study a 17.3s overall time separation error was found for the TBS FFH model,
compared to a 19.9s overall time separation error of TBS OSED1, by running 150 heavy Boeing pairs.
In this case study the TBS FFH model is performing 15% better compared to the TBS OSED1 model.
Analysis of the four individual parameters shows that the biggest improvements in TBS can be
reached by the DF.
It can be concluded that by comparing both case studies (medium Airbus and heavy Boeing types)
with real tracks, after executing 150 flights in different environments the TBS FFH tool performed
better than the OSED 1 tool. In sum, everything what we determined and analyzed for a better
understanding of the speed profile and the compression effect on final approach, could be helpful for
the future TBS concept.

7 Validation
T
he validation process led by EUROCONTROL (SESAR Project 06.08.01) will be described and
discussed in this chapter. This process is related as a first step, to the validation of the generic
Time Based Separation concept. This concept will be available for a large number of airports
and compatible with most usual operational practices. In section 7.1 the need for validation is
discussed; the validation model is discussed in section 7.2. The validation overview and the input from
this thesis study can be found in section 7.3 and finally in section 7.4 it will be concluded whether
there is a preventing of loss of runway capacity under strong wind conditions.
The objective of the testing is to validate a generic Time Based Pair Wise Separation concept, in line
with most usual operational practices, made available for application in a large number of airports in
Europe. The Simulation was held at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre at Brétigny, France in
October 2014, and used for the Paris CDG Airport environment. This is why the extracted
characterization issues in chapter 3 are based on CDG radar data and not on data from Vienna. The
Vienna data will function as counter-verification data.
The TBS OSED 2 goal is to allow application of safe dynamic separations varying as a function of the
headwind and the landing pair (Leader and Follower) aircraft. This is done to execute safe separations
and to provide the Approach controller and Tower Runway controller (and supervisors) with the
necessary TBS tool support. The time to fly TAS, DF and SF results of this study will be used in this
validation exercise. The other compression issues investigated in this study are too complex and vary
too much to insert in the tool. However, they are supportive of the TBS ATC tool, and will function as
recommendation or assumption in chapter 8.
The validation approach is based on real-time simulations, LIDAR wake measurement analysis, aircraft
performance analysis (mainly from this study) and fast-time simulations. The outcome of these
various activities will be used for feeding Human Performance, Business, Safety, Environmental
assessments and will support air traffic controllers as an end goal. Table 17 shows the planning for
the validation exercise:
Table 17: Planning validation exercise.
Exercise From Till

Validation plan 3rd March 2014 TBC 31st July 2014
Acceptance Testing 1st September 2014 3rd September 2014
th
Participant Training 6 October 2014 10th October 2014
Simulation Conduct 20th October 2014 24th October 2014
7.1 Purpose of Validation
After the characterization issues described in the previous chapters are verified by the radar data of
Vienna airport, it is necessary to validate them in practice by making use of the real time simulator in
Brétigny. Since the ultimate goal of this SESAR 6.8.1 project is to have the model be accepted by its
intended stakeholders, and to put the model into use for solving real final approach problems, the
necessary steps were taken.

The main aim of the validation is to create model acceptance. In practice, this is effected by
evaluating different aspects of the model, such as:
· Evaluating the theory and assumptions that the model is based on;
· Testing the variation of the model’s output for varying input, or the effects of uncertainty both in
that input and output;
· Using the model to predict past events and compare these with what actually happened;
· Predicting future events and observing how close these are to the truth.
As for the TBS FFH Model, there is essentially one reason why validation is necessary: it serves as the
answer to the main research question, by showing that the investigated aircraft performances and
related compression issues do show improvements in terms of runway throughput by inserting them
into the TBS OSED phase 2 concept (explained in chapter 2).
The explained methodology to go over to a TBS (OSED phase 2) has been validated by the real time
simulator of EUROCONTROL. This exercise used a real time simulation validation infrastructure (figure
50).
Figure 50: The EUROCONTROL ITWP for Tower Runway Controller Working Position including the
3D external view of RWY27L at Paris CDG.
7.2 Validation model
To give a clear overview of the TBS calculation during the validation run, this subchapter shows a
specific example by taking one aircraft pair and showing how to calculate the ITD and FTD. The
following example of a B737 behind a B744 on final approach summarizes the procedure explained in
chapter 2.3.2 (EUROCONTROL, 2014).
1. A glide speed of Vglide=160kts is assumed whereby the B744 has an approach speed of
Vapp=153.6 kt (Appendix B or results chapter 4). According to table 3.1 a DBS should be
applied of 4NM
2. The wind profile is provided in figure 51 where the wind goes from 10kts at low altitudes to
40kts at higher altitudes
3. The obtained ground speed profile is provided in figure 51

4. By integration of the groundspeed profile, we obtain the time-to-fly to 1NM. Note that here
we assume linear variations between each segment.
5. The time for the leader aircraft to fly from 4DME to 1NM
t 2 flead (4Nm)  t 2 flead (1Nm)  74.95s
6. So given as input the t2flead which is 74.95sec and the formula
X foll (t 2 flead (4Nm)  t 2 flead (ref )  t 2 flead (ref )  TBS) , we get after interpolation the results
shown in figure 52. This interpolation results in X foll (74.95  t 2 ffoll (1Nm)  TBS )  7.56Nm
Thus the final initial chevron distance becomes Di=7.56-4=3.56NM. So a reduction of 0.44Nm
is applied but the time to fly stays the same. With these results the final time separation at
4DME can now be computed (see figure 52)
TBSi  (t 2 flead (4Nm)  t 2 flead (ref ))  t 2 f foll (ref )  TBS  91.8s
Figure 51: Headwind profile, groundspeed and airspeed for the aircraft pair B744-B737.
Di
TBSi TB
S
Df
Figure 52: Example of distance to threshold versus time w.r.t. leader @ 1 NM for the B744-B737
aircraft pair. The vertical dash line shows the time at which the leader is at 1NM and at 4NM.

A tool has been created to perform the calculation procedure as explained in chapter 2.3.3. Appendix
B shows the TBS results in low wind for all the Airbus aircraft types, by giving as input the time to fly,
Vapp, SF, DF and Vglide researched this study.
7.3 Validation Overview and Input Thesis Study
The validation (approach) described in this section will start with the validation of the Time Based
concept and the associated system, allowing to safely apply separations varying as a function of the
headwind. The validation executed in the real time simulator of Bretigny will be based on:
 Real-time simulation for covering the acceptability, operational feasibility and other human
performance aspects of the concept.
 LIDAR wake measurement analysis for demonstrating that the envisaged separation reduction
remains acceptably safe and for determining the surface wind threshold where TBS should
apply.
 Assurance demonstration that TBS Tool and required input for computing a correct Target
distance indication have been fully specified to properly deliver required separation at runway
threshold.
 Aircraft performance data analysis for predicting the typical aircraft behaviour as a function of
the wind. The data will automatically be inserted in the methodology described in section
2.3.2.
 Fast-time simulation for assessing the expected improvement of the runway throughput
resilience resulting from the TBS concept.
 Airspace Users feedback to determine if they are sufficiently informed about the TBS concept
in order to derive proper “TBS” Flight Crew procedures (e.g. speed profile adherence, inform
ATC in case of non-adherence)
 The validation will also consider the RECAT-EU wake turbulence appendix A scheme to
demonstrate the effect of using these 6 categories for the controllers.
 CDG will be the pioneer airport to implement the scheme in 2015 and the simulation will
provide to the controllers a first hands-on practical experience
The outcome of these various activities will be used to feed the Safety and Environmental cases and
Human Performance assessment. The next phases of the project will consist in adding system “plug-
in”, allowing to also conditionally reduce separations as a function of weather conditions and
eventually to design dynamic pair wise separations.
There are many validation strategy objectives defined and TBS arrival sequences used (Heavy,
Medium, Light) (considering the pairwise OSED table) for this SESAR 6.8.1 validation project. An
overview has been given in the document validation.docx, which can be found in the EUROCONTROL
directory; Floris/AftPerformances. The assumptions are shown in appendix H.
Input
The aircraft performances, i.e., flight speed during the glide, are derived from Mode- S observations
measured at Paris-CDG in low headwind conditions (HW < 5kts). The speed profile is described by 4
parameters: the glide speed (Vglide), the deceleration fix (DF), the stabilization fix (SF) and the
approach speed (Vapp). The 4 parameters for nominal speed profiles correspond to the average of the
measured Mode-S profiles. The approach speeds in low wind conditions can be found in appendix E.
For the glide slope speed a 160kts speed profile has been assumed (chapter 3.2.3), since at CDG
160kts are flown during peak hours (between 6 and 10NM).

According to my supervisor (Vincent Treve) the DF & SF results/measurements from this study vary
too much per aircraft type and wind profile, which will result in a very complex validation run.
Nevertheless, since it is the first study that calculates the DF and SF, these results need to be verified
by experts before they can be implemented into real life/ or a validation run. Therefore, a DF of 5NM
and a SF of 3NM has been assumed for this validation exercise.
Summarized the following data is needed for the real time simulator in order to test the TBS
methodology described in section 2.3.2:
1. Different aircraft sequence

2. Display Settings for Target Distance Indicators (FTD and ITD)
3. ITD computation (from ac or previous ITD)
4. Wind/speed/ac/outliers profiles used by simulator.
5. New Speed profile dataset: Check SF (3Nm), DF (5Nm), Vglide (160 kts)
6. New definition of the ITD defined in x-DME with x=6Nm as opposed to 4 Nm previously
7. Infringement more visible for ITD than FTD
8. Application of MRS = 2 NM for TBS and 2.5NM for DBS
9. TBS table computation presented in Appendix B prototype. TBS based on low-wind scenario DBS
10. Identification of the aircraft on the glide
11. Resources summary, we have:
a. 1 ATCO (ECTL), 2 pilots for the dry run (September 25th)
b. 2 ATCO (DSNA), 2 pilots, 1 pilot supervisor (October 6th-9th)
c. 2 ATCO (DSNA), 2 pilots, 1 pilot supervisor (October 20th-24th)
12. Log and recordings (when separations are recorded it has to be from threshold to 10 Nm) – also
consider the option: record everything for manual post processing (x(t),y(t),z(t), IAS(t), ac type,
TDI(t)).
7.4 Results & Sub Conclusion
The validation exercises were mainly conducted for a reference operational environment of a major
European airport, being Charles the Gaulle airport (CDG).
The application of the TBS minima determined for arrivals on final approach, corresponding to current
DBS minima, will need to consider the variability in approach speed profiles (used from this study
appendix E) between aircraft types within a WTC (wake turbulence category), and as a function of the
operating conditions.
The following relevant DBS and TBS throughput results have been found with their corresponding
under spaced percentage.
 Day1 run 1 low wind DBS: 39.0 ac/h 33

 Day1 run 2 low wind DBS: 38.9 ac/h 30
 Day5 run 7 for low wind DBS: concluded 38.4 aircraft landed per hour.
Three runs for the low wind DBS have been executed. On average, a throughput of 39 aircraft per
hour has been analyzed, whereby 15% was under spaced. The under spaced pairs also result from

the limited training in that simulation environment, therefore the under spaced pairs are not
considered for computing the provided throughput.
 Day1_run03_Strong_DBS: 29.6 ac/h 23

 Day4_run15_Strong_DBS: 34.3 ac/h
Two runs for the strong wind DBS have been executed. On average, a throughput of 32 aircraft per
hour has been analyzed, whereby 33% was under spaced.
28
 Day2_run04_Strong_TBS_FTD_ITD: 34.8 ac/h 31
 Day2_run06_Strong_TBS_FTD: 34.6 ac/h 34
 Day3_run09_Strong_TBS_FTD: 37.6 ac/h
 Day4_run14_Strong_TBS_FTD_ITD: 33.8ac/h
Four runs for the strong wind TBS have been executed. On average, a throughput of 35 aircraft per
hour has been analyzed, whereby 21% was under spaced.
From the above validation results it can be concluded that, by comparing the high wind DBS runs over
the low wind DBS runs, the runway throughput has been reduced by 18%. However, applying the
FTD_ITD TBS methodology (TBS OSED phase 2) and the input from subchapter 7.3.1 result in a 10%
reduction by comparing the high wind TBS runs over the low wind DBS runs. So an 8% throughput
recovery can be expected by comparing the low wind with the high wind conditions and applying the
new TBS methodology.
From an analytical assessment, completed by the validation exercises results, a set of qualitative
safety requirements have been formulated on the existing and new elements of the ATM functional
system. These requirements play a role in enabling Arrival TBS operations, and ensuring satisfaction
of the safety objectives in normal operating conditions; in failure conditions they play a role in hazard
risk mitigation. These safety requirements for TBS operation and system design should be considered
as a starting point for the next development phases of the concept and can be found in the
EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances.

8 Conclusion & Recommendations
T
he project objective is to quantify and model the potential performance compression
improvements on final approach. The TBS FFH model has been made in MathLab and can be
used for a better understanding of the speed profile and can predict the compression effect on
final approach. The tool should act as basis for future development of the TBS concept. First, the
conclusion of the most important features of this project are stated in section 8.1, thereafter the
recommendations for further development of the TBS project and TBS FFH tool are elaborated on in
section 8.2.
8.1 Conclusion
The approach speed (Vapp), Stabilization Fix (SF), Deceleration Fix (DF) and the glide slope speed
(Vglide) are the main four aircraft parameters for a better understanding of the speed profile and the
TBS compression effect between aircraft pairs. Extensive research into the effects of these parameters
on the TBS between aircraft pairs, resulted in the following;
• The approach speed (Vapp) is mainly influenced by the headwind profile and aircraft type (aircraft
weight). Airbus types apply speed compensation between 0 till 15kts HW, whereas Boeing types do
not. This compression issue is supported by analyzing both the true airspeed profile and the time to
fly at the ATC controlled speed section. The differences in speed between these two manufacturing
types are due to the fact that the FMS of Airbus uses the ground speed mini function, which applies
speed compensation between 1 and 2NM and above 10kts HW.
• The stabilization fix and deceleration fix (SF & DF) depend on the headwind profile, true airspeed
(TAS), and aircraft type. In general, the DF is increased for an increase in TAS and headwind,
whereas the SF stays constant by increase in headwind. Furthermore, we observed that on average
the 3.0NM SF is flown for the aircraft wingspans between 20 and 80m and for all wind profiles (0-
25kts HW). On average for each 10kts TAS increase, the SF is increased by 0.4NM for the wingspan
range 20-80m. Concerning the DF, bigger aircraft slow down earlier before threshold; they have a
higher energy level compared to smaller aircraft and thus have to start losing speed earlier. We also
observed that on average for each 5kts headwind increment the DF is increased by 5% between the
wingspan range 20 and 60m and 0% for the wingspan range 60-80m.
• The glide slope speed for CDG depends on the number of aircraft on the glide, time of the day and
STAR. On average the 160kts speed profile is flown when the total number of aircraft is above 3,
whereas the 190kts profile is flown when the total number of aircraft on the glide is between 1 and 3.
We observe that the 160kts speed profile is mainly flown during the (peak) hours 07:00, 09:00, 11:00
and 16:00. The STAR is of influence on the glide slope speed. From the STAR we observed that there
is an 80% chance that the 190kts speed profile will be flown when the flight is coming from
Amsterdam.
In addition to researching the parameters of the TBS, the key performance indicators of FMS, ATC and
pilots procedures were also examined. Results of two questionnaires developed for this purpose,
indicate that ATC and pilot approach systems and procedures do not interact sufficiently. This study
concludes that the buffers on the separation minima are applied differently per airport as well as the
handing over from tower controller to approach controller. Furthermore, different procedures
(airport/airline) are applied resulting in a not fully stabilized approach speed profile or/and minimized
distance separation. Guidelines from Airbus state that there should not be a speed restriction imposed
within 3 to 4 NM before threshold, and that the minimum final approach stabilization height must be

1000ft above airfield elevation for IMC conditions and 500ft for VMC. The stabilization is needed for a
better application of TBS methodology.
The data supporting the above conclusions was obtained from Charles de Gaulle airport. To improve
verification the results were compared with data from Vienna airport and show significant similarities,
noting that the DF and SF standard deviations are higher (5-10%) compared to the TAS and time to
fly due to local ILS and IAP procedures. Comparing the CDG approach speed profiles with RECAT-EU,
and Boeing data also shows significant similarities.
For a better understanding of the TBS concept, a TBS model was developed (FFH), in which the
parameters researched could be inserted; the aim being to predict the compression effect on final
approach. The ‘if then else statement’ showed that the Vapp, SF and DF results are automatically
received of what we have learned in this study; the glide slope speed varying component is inserted
depending on the time of the day and amount of aircraft on the glide. By comparing the outcome of
the TBS FFH tool with real radar flights in two case studies, it turns out that the TBS FFH tool
performs better than the TBS OSED1 model in both cases. Furthermore, the DF is the parameter that
shows the largest TBS error compared to real tracks. Therefore the biggest improvements in terms of
decreasing the TBS error can be reached by means of this parameter.
From the validation results it can be concluded that the runway throughput has been reduced by 18%
when comparing the high wind DBS runs over the low wind DBS runs. However, applying the
FTD_ITD TBS methodology (TBS OSED Phase 2) and the input from subchapter 7.3.1, result in a 10%
reduction when comparing the high wind TBS runs over the low wind DBS runs. This means that an
8% throughput recovery can be expected when comparing low wind with high wind conditions and
applying the new TBS methodology. Appendix B shows the TBS FFH2 model results in low wind,
where the TBS results are shown by using the TBS OSED2 methodology and input from this study.
With this thesis a better prediction is established of the compression effect on final approach,
hopefully this research will stimulate further TBS studies. The model that was developed for this study
shows an improvement in the time separation error. The most important sub characterization
(compression) issues, ATC/pilots advices and related compression issues that could be explored
further are presented below.
8.2 Recommendations for further development
Approach speed profiles on the glide slope approach have been studied in extensive detail, and semi-
academical papers can be found on other aircraft performance compression issues for estimating
potential performance improvements. It is, however, recommended to explore other sources in order
to find aircraft runway compression issues. The following compression factors have not been taken
into account in this study but merit further investigation: Deviation from the required vertical profile,
Deviation from calculated final approach speed, Variable wind velocity on approach and during the
landing flare and landing roll, Frozen deposits or excessive water depth on the runway, Deviation from
threshold crossing height (THC), Gross Weight, Flap configuration and abnormal configuration, Use of
Auto throttle speed mode and CAT Autoland, Ice Accretion and Wind Shear (Flight safety foundation,
2009). Al these factors are of influence on the TBS and need to be taken into account according to
EUROCONTROL and FSF (EUROCONTROL, 2011; FSF, 2000). Furthermore the STAR has been
investigated at five different destinations. For a better understanding of the relationship between the
STAR and the glide slope speed, more routes at different times of the day should be investigated.
Characterization issues 3, 4, 7, 10 and 18 are clear and reliable recommendations, which could not be
inserted into the FFH tool but could act as recommendation for the ATC. The same is applicable for
characterization issues 48 and 50 found for the current time separations, which act as base for the

TBS OSED 2 at CDG. Furthermore characterization issues 37 and 40, fixed wingspan versus the wind
and speed profile is not very reliable since the number of measurements is relatively low. The TBS
FFH tool should be tested at more airports (different radar tracks behavior) to prove the advantage of
the system, while iterations are needed for building the new ‘if then else statement’ of the tool. It is
recommended to insert runway throughput information per airport since this will affect the TBS on
final approach. For a better understanding of approach separation/throughput the method of Clarke
and Ren, 2008 can be used.
By analyzing the ATC and pilot questionnaires it can be concluded that stabilizing the approach speeds
could be obtained by setting up new requirements and procedures for the FMS and air traffic
controller. However, the possibilities on changing these procedures should be researched first, by
setting up new interviews with manufacturers and air traffic controllers. Furthermore, the different
working behavior of air traffic controllers should be taken into account. This study concludes that the
airports apply the separation minima and the handover of aircraft from the Approach Centre (APP
Centre) to the controller of The Tower (TWR) in different ways (Vienna and Milan 2014). This is an
important aspect to take into account for the future development of the TBS concept.

Reference list
Air Traffic controllers Vienna airport (anonym). Personal interview. 15 Juny 2014.
Air Traffic controllers Milan airport (anonym). Personal interview. 20 Juny 2014.
Airbus. (2005). Aircraft Energy Management during Approach. Flight Operations Briefing Notes. p1-
11.
Airbus. (2005). Airplane characteristics for airport planning. Available:

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A380-20111101.pdf.
Last accessed 12-12-2011.
Airbus. (2006). Optimum use of Automation. Flight Operations Briefing Notes. p1-14.
Airbus. 2011. Airbus A380-800 specifications. [online]

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a380family/a380-800/specifications/
[accesses: 12-12-2011]
Airbus. (2013). Descent Management. Flight Operations Briefing Notes. p1-6.
Boeing (2011). Airport Reference Code and Approach Speeds for Boeing Airplanes, Airport Technology
Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
EUROCONTROL (2013). Operational Service and Environment Definition (OSED) for Time Based
Separations for Arrivals (TBS). Brussels: EUROCONTROL. p194.
EUROCONTROL (2014). Time Based Separation for Arrivals_OSED. Brussels: EUROCONTROL. p50-71.
EUROCONTROL (2014). Time Based Separation for Arrivals_OSED. Brussels: EUROCONTROL. P87-
112.
FAA. (2014). Arrival Procedures. Available:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0504.html. Last accessed 16th Nov 2014.
Flight Safety Foundation. (2009). FSF Alar Briefing Note 7.1 Stabilized Approach. Flight Safety
Foundation Alar Tool Kit. (no. 7.1), p1-5.
Gong, C. (2010). A Final Approach Trajectory Model for Current Operations. 2010 AIAA ATIO/ISSMO
Conference, Vo1.1 p1-13.

ICAO. (2010). Aircraft operations. Available: http://code7700.com/pdfs/icao_doc_8168_vol2.pdf. Last
accessed 7th, Nov 2014.
Johnson, D. (2009). Aircraft Noise Issues. Available:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/airport_aircraft_nois
e_issues/. Last accessed 16th Nov 2014.
John-Paul B. Clarke, Nhut T. Ho, Liling Ren, John A. Brown, Kevin R. Elmer, Kwok-On Tong, Joseph K.
Wat. (2004). Continuous Descent Approach: Design and Flight Test for Louisville International Airport.
Journal Of Aircraft. Vol. 41 (no. 5), p1054-1066.
Lepadatu,C. (2007). Time-basedSeparations. Available:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/APT_time_based.html. Last accessed 10th Feb
2014.
Liling Ren and John-Paul B. Clarke. (2008). Flight-test Evaluation of the Tool for Analysis of Separation
and Throughput. Journal Of Aircraft. Vol. 45 (no. 1 ), p323-332.
Oetiker, U. (2008). Line Training . Available: https://www.scribd.com/doc/244723424/217/Ground-

speed-mini-function-principle. Last accessed 16th Nov 2014.
Reynolds, Tom, Liling Ren and John-Paul B. Clarke. (2007). Advanced Noise Abatement approach
Activities at a Regional UK Airport. Air Traffic Control Quarterly. Vol. 15 (no. 4), p275-298.
Roberson, W. (2010). Descent and approach. Boeing Aero. 5 (1), p1-3.
SESAR (2012). SESAR Concept of Operations. Brussels: SESAR. p104.
SKYbrary. (2012). Energy Management during Approach. Available:

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Energy_Management_during_Approach. Last accessed 17th Nov
2014.
Thomas Gerz, Frank Holzapfel, Denis Darracq. (2002). Commercial aircraft wake vortices. Aerospace
Sciences. 28 (4), p4-8.
Verdoes, N., 2014. KLM Captain MD11 and test pilot KLM. Personal interview.
Virtual ATC. (2013). Boston Virtual ATC. Available:

http://www.bostonvirtualatc.com/charts/index.html?Page=LFPG_index.html. Last accessed 16th Nov
2014.

Walter, R (2001). Flight Management Systems. Paris: CRC press LLC. p1-25.
Winter, D. de, 2014. EASY JET captain A320 & A321 and EUROCONTROL employee. Personal
interview.

Appendix A: RECAT-EU Aircraft categories
“Super Heavy” “Large Heavy” “Small Heavy” “Large Medium” “Small Medium” “Light”
“A” “B” “C” “D” “E” “F”
A124 A332 A306 A318 AT43 BE40
A388 A333 A30B A319 AT45 BE45
A343 A310 A320 AT72 C152
A345 B752 A321 B712 C180
A346 B753 B736 B733 C525
B744 B762 B737 B734 C650
B748 B763 B738 B735 D328
B772 B764 B739 CL30 E120
B773 DC10 MD82 CL60 FA10
B77L MD11 MD83 CRJ1 FA20
B77W … MD88 CRJ2 H25B
B788 MD90 CRJ7 JS32
B789 … CRJ9 JS41
… DH8D LJ35
E135 LJ60
E145 P180
E170 SF34
E190 …
GLF4

Appendix B: Results TBS FFH2 tool
This appendix shows the TBS OSED phase 2 results for Airbus types, however in the EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances results for other types
are shown.
0 _ 5
L/F A306 A30B A318 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A388
A 130,2 128,5 151,0561 151,7521 143,5478 140,5272 100,0116 98,5 96,44444 89,66667 99,22222
B 104,4 104,5 103,972 103,2903 96,74157 94,19565 73,11628 72,5 70,33333 65,5 72,27778
C 75,4 74,5 76,88785 75,91102 70,90169 69,13043 59,44767 59,5 57,06944 53,41667 58,69444
D 61 60,25 62,64019 61,67373 57,62219 56,23641 59,44767 59,5 57,06944 53,41667 58,69444
E 61 60,25 62,64019 61,67373 57,62219 56,23641 59,44767 59,5 57,06944 53,41667 58,69444
F 61 60,25 62,64019 61,67373 57,62219 56,23641 59,44767 59,5 57,06944 53,41667 58,69444
5 _ 1 0
L/F A306 A30B A318 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A388
A 131,6667 132 154,8902 153,9628 147,4947 143,4656 103,4643 106 99,48276 92,66667 102
B 106,3333 104 106,1341 104,652 98,77936 96,45802 75,66071 76 72,72414 67,88889 74,15385
C 79 76 78,54878 77,07095 72,64057 70,71756 61,625 62 58,96552 55,33333 60,30769
D 63,66667 62 63,9939 62,71115 59,07295 57,56489 61,625 62 58,96552 55,33333 60,30769
E 63,66667 62 63,9939 62,71115 59,07295 57,56489 61,625 62 58,96552 55,33333 60,30769
F 63,66667 62 63,9939 62,71115 59,07295 57,56489 61,625 62 58,96552 55,33333 60,30769
1 0 _ 1 5
L/F A306 A318 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A388
A 160 156,28 155,7407 150,1092 148,0857 105,2273 76 100,92 96 96 103,5714
B 124 106,86 105,3333 100,454 98,8381 76,31818 56 73,48 68 70 75,42857
C 88 78,78 77,43386 73,63218 72,32381 62,02273 46 59,58 54 56 61,07143
D 71,5 64,4 62,96825 59,93103 58,83333 62,02273 46 59,58 54 56 61,07143
E 71,5 64,4 62,96825 59,93103 58,83333 62,02273 46 59,58 54 56 61,07143
F 71,5 64,4 62,96825 59,93103 58,83333 62,02273 46 59,58 54 56 61,07143
Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1.5 Page 95

1 5 _ 2 0
L/F A318 A319 A320 A321 A332 A343 A346 A388
A 160,913 159,0299 153,1528 149,9565 104,1429 101,4 96 108
B 111,1739 107,3582 102,2083 98,69565 75,71429 73,4 72 77,375
C 82,82609 79,13433 74,5 72,34783 61,57143 59,2 58 62,6875
D 67,36957 64,35821 60,73611 59,15217 61,57143 59,2 58 62,6875
E 67,36957 64,35821 60,73611 59,15217 61,57143 59,2 58 62,6875
F 67,36957 64,35821 60,73611 59,15217 61,57143 59,2 58 62,6875
2 0 _ 2 5
L/F A318 A319 A320 A321 A346 A388
A 159,6 157,1154 153,6154 147,2 88 105
B 109,8 105,8462 100,7692 97,8 64 76
C 81,8 77,65385 73,61538 72 52 62
D 66,1 63,23077 59,67308 58,8 52 62
E 66,1 63,23077 59,67308 58,8 52 62
F 66,1 63,23077 59,67308 58,8 52 62

Appendix C: Verification with RECAT-EU and Boeing
- Recat-EU comaprison
Aircraft Type Results from FFH tool

TAS (kts)
A318 126.22
A321 141.59

- RECAT-EU comparison, for 9 Airbus types. - Boeing comparison
AftType Windprofile Difference with FFH tool in Measurements

kts
A318 0-5 kts HW 0,91 107
A319 0-5 kts HW 1,55 472
A320 0-5 kts HW 0,55 356
A321 0-5 kts HW 4,56 184
A332 0-5 kts HW 2,35 86
A333 0-5 kts HW 2,82 2
A343 0-5 kts HW 2,25 36
A346 0-5 kts HW 0,06 6
A388 0-5 kts HW 2,91 18
From this verification it can be concluded that the average approach speed profiles found in this study are very comparable to the low wind results from
RECAT-EU and Boeing. On average the speed profiles differ between 2 and 5kts. All comparison results for 50 aircraft types can be found in the
EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances.

Appendix D: Designed MathLab tools
The following programs were used for obtaining characterization issues of Charles the Gaulle and Vienna airport. All programs can be found in the
EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances
Matlab tools Function

FindWindCat.m Calculating headwind/crosswind (0 till 3000m) for a given ILS (heading) and divide into wind categories.
FindTime2FlyPerType.m Finding Time to fly per aircraft type as function of the headwind, distance to threshold and manufacturer.
FindTASPerType.m Finding TAS per aircraft type as function of the headwind, distance to threshold and manufacturer.
FindGlideSlopeSpeed.m Finding Glide slope speed as function of time of the day and number of aircraft on the glide.
STAR.m Finding STAR and calculate corresponding glide speed profile as function of the destination and aircraft type.
FindDFSF.m Finding DF and SF as function of, aircraft type, (fixed)wingspan, wind profile and speed.
FFH.m Finding TBS by using the input from this study and benchmark with OSED 1 and real tracks.
FFH2.m Finding TBS by using the formulas from OSED phase 2 and the input from this study.

Appendix E: Time to fly and TAS results
This appendix shows the time to fly and TAS for 30 different aircraft types, however in the EUROCONTROL directory; Floris/AftPerformances
results for 50 different types are shown. Twenty types are not inserted into this appendix since the number of measurements is below 10, which
holds for the; A306, A30B, A333, A345, AT43, B462, B463, B736, B739, B753, B788, BE20, CL60, CRJ2, CRJ9, F100, GLEX, MD11, SB20 and SW4.
A318 A318
Time2fly(s) Windprofile ΔTime to TAS (kts) Windprofile ΔTAS
(kts) fly (s) (kts) (kts)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25
threshold threshold
(Nm) (44) (107) (82) (50) (23) (5) (Nm) (44) (107) (82) (50) (23) (5)
1 19.1 19.5 19.7 19.8 21 20 0.9 1 128.9 129.2 130.5 133 133.9 133.4 4.5
2 47.8 48.4 49.4 50 51.9 50.4 2.6 2 131.8 132.7 133.2 136.8 135.9 138.1 6.3
3 76.8 76.9 78.5 78.8 82.8 81.8 5 3 139.5 141.9 142.7 143.9 144.5 146.2 6.7
4 103.5 104 106.1 106.9 111.2 109.8 6.3 4 156.4 158.8 157.5 158 159.3 165 8.6
5 127.9 128.1 131.4 132.6 137.1 136.4 8.5 5 170 171.7 171.1 171.3 176.7 175.4 5.4
6 151 151.1 154.9 156.3 160.9 159.6 8.6 6 177.1 178.6 179.7 176.7 183.1 186 8.9
7 172.2 172.9 177.4 179.6 183.9 182.8 10.6 7 180.7 182.5 184.4 181 188.9 187 6.3
8 194.4 194.4 199.3 202.6 205.6 206 11.6 8 183.3 184.3 187.6 185 190.9 186.4 3.1
9 215.5 215.7 221 225.2 227.7 227.4 11.9 9 185.9 186.9 190.4 188.5 194.1 188.6 2.7
10 236.9 237 242.5 247.1 249.2 252.2 15.3 10 187.6 189.3 193.4 191.9 196.4 194.5 6.9
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5kts in headwind, starting at 0kts It can be concluded that, an increase of 5kts in headwind, starting
HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time to fly for at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the
the A318 by 156.3  19.8 TAS for the A318 by 3-5% between 1 and 2 NM.
 1.037
151.1  19.5

A319 A319
Time2fly(s) TAS (kts) Windprofile
(kts)
Wind profile -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20-25
(kts) 20 25 threshold 20
(Nm)
Distance
threshold
(NM)
1 18.9 19.1 19.5 19.4 19.8 19.7 1 131.1 131.2 133.1 135.5 139.1 141.6
2 46.9 47.4 48.4 48.5 49.6 48.8 2 133.2 133.8 135.6 139.1 141.7 145.3
3 75.4 75.9 77.1 77.4 79.1 77.7 3 140 140.5 143.1 145.2 146.3 149.9
4 102.3 103.3 104.7 105.3 107.4 105.8 4 154.6 154.7 156.2 157.9 156.6 159.3
5 127.2 128.4 130.1 131.3 134.2 132.6 5 169 168.4 168.9 170.1 169.3 170.6
6 150.3 151.8 154 155.7 159 157.1 6 176.9 176.5 177.4 177.6 178.3 176.8
7 172.6 174.3 176.7 179 183 181.1 7 180.6 181 182.6 182.3 182.2 180.7
8 194 196 198.8 201.7 206 204.6 8 184.4 184.3 186.6 185.2 184.2 183.7
9 215.4 217.4 220.3 224.2 228.9 227.4 9 188.3 187.7 189.3 187.6 186.9 186.9
10 236.4 238.5 241.6 246.4 251.8 250.3 10 191.5 190.8 192.3 191 189.2 191.8
N.o.m. 179 472 296 189 67 26 179 472 296 189 67 26
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting at It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting
0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time to at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the
fly for the A319 by 155.7  19.4 TAS for the A319 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.027
151.8  19.1

A320 A320
Time2fly(s) Windprofile TAS (kts) Windprofile
(kts) (kts)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20-
threshold 20 25 threshold 20 25
(Nm) (145) (365) (281) (174) (Nm) (145) (365) (281) (174)
(72) (26) (72) (26)
1 17,4 17.6 18.3 18.8 19 18.8 1 139.3 139.3 140.5 144.1 145.2 151.6
2 44 44.3 45.5 46.2 47 45.7 2 141.1 141.2 143 147.2 146.9 153.4
3 70.4 70.9 72.6 73.6 74.5 73.6 3 147 147.2 149.7 151.3 152.2 157.5
4 96.1 96.7 98.8 100.5 102.2 100.8 4 160.1 159.9 159.9 161 159.6 163.5
5 119.9 120.8 123.7 125.8 128.2 127.9 5 171.4 171.3 168.7 170.4 169.4 167.7
6 142.6 143.5 147.5 150.1 153.2 153.6 6 177.9 177.3 174.5 177.5 175.8 170.7
7 164.3 165.6 170.7 173.5 177.1 178.5 7 181.3 181.1 179.3 181.3 179.7 177.6
8 185.8 187.2 193.2 196.4 200.9 203.2 8 184.8 184.5 182.3 184.8 182.4 181.9
9 207.1 208.6 215.5 219 224.1 228.1 9 187.5 187.2 185.9 188.7 184.9 185.3
10 227.8 229.4 237.1 241.1 246.9 251.8 10 191.3 190.8 189.7 191.9 188.2 190.1
n.o.m 145 365 281 174 72 26 145 365 281 174 72 26
0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the
to fly for the A320 by 150.1  18.8 TAS for the A320 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.043
143.5  17.6

A321 A321
Time2fly(s) Windprofile ΔTime TAS (kts) Windprofile ΔTAS
(kts) to fly (kts) (kts)
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20-
threshold threshold 20 25
(Nm) (74) (184) (131) (105) (23) (5) (Nm) (74) (184) (131) (105)
(23) (5)
1 16.7 17.3 18.3 18.5 18.9 18.4 1.7 1 144.6 143.7 143.8 145.1 151 153.7 9.1
2 42.7 43.3 44.4 45.3 46 45.6 2.9 2 147.2 145.1 147.2 149.4 152.7 157.1 9.9
3 68.3 69.1 70.7 72.3 72.3 72 1.7 3 152.3 151.5 153.9 154.5 158.6 164.6 12.3
4 92.8 94.2 96.5 98.8 98.7 97.8 5.0 4 164.9 162.3 164.3 163.4 162 175.2 10.3
5 115.9 118 120.5 123.8 125.3 123.6 7.7 5 175.6 172.2 174.3 171.2 167.6 175.2 -0.4
6 137.7 140.5 143.5 148.1 150 147.2 9.5 6 181.3 178.6 180.5 175.7 174.2 177.2 -4.1
7 159.1 162.5 165.9 171.8 174.7 171.4 12.3 7 183.2 181.5 184.3 179 174.5 181.5 -1.7
8 179.8 184 187.5 194.8 199.2 195 15.2 8 186.2 184.1 187 182.7 175.9 182.9 -3.3
9 200.6 205.4 208.7 217.9 223.8 218.8 18.2 9 190.8 188.5 190.3 186.6 179.7 184.5 -6.3
10 221 226.3 230.2 240.2 247.5 243 22 10 195.5 192.9 193.4 189.8 184.3 190.6 -4.9
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting at It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind,
0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time to starting at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average,
fly for the A321 by 148.1  18.5 increase the TAS for the A321 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.052
140.5  17.3

A332 A332
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20-
threshold 25 threshold 20 25
(Nm) (35) (86) (56) (22) (7) (Nm) (35) (86) (56) (22)
(0) (7) (0)
1 18.3 19 19.5 19 20 - 1.7 1 138.7 136.8 137.9 140.7 142.2 - 3.5
2 45.2 45.8 47.6 47.7 47.4 - 2.2 2 137.5 137.7 140.1 142.5 145.2 - 7.7
3 71.8 73.1 75.7 76.3 75.7 - 3.9 3 141.5 142.9 145.1 147.5 151.6 - 10.1
4 98.5 100 103.5 105.2 104.1 - 5.6 4 154.3 152 153.3 155.9 157.9 - 3.6
5 123.4 125.7 130.4 132 132.1 - 9.7 5 164.1 161.8 161.6 163.2 163.6 - -0.5
6 147.7 150.1 156.4 159.1 158.4 - 10.7 6 172.1 170.9 170.3 167 174.5 - 2.4
7 171.1 173.4 181.2 185.2 183.7 - 12.6 7 175.9 177.1 176.4 172.3 179.8 - 3.9
8 193.1 195.6 204.9 210.1 207.7 - 14.7 8 178.5 181.1 181.7 175.1 181.9 - 3.4
9 215.5 217.8 228.5 235.4 230.7 - 15.2 9 182.5 185.1 185.8 178.8 186.7 - 4.2
10 237.5 239.5 251.1 259.5 253.1 - 15.6 10 187.1 188.1 186.8 182.6 189.3 - 2.2
fly for the A332 by 159  19 increase the TAS for the A332 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.068
150.1  19

A343 A343
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-
threshold 25 threshold 25
(Nm) (13) (36) (29) (25) (5) (Nm) (13) (36) (29) (25) (5)
(0) (0)
1 17.2 17.8 18.1 18.5 19.2 - 2 1 143.9 141 141.4 145.3 142.7 - -1.2
2 43.1 43.8 45.2 45.7 45 - 1.9 2 141.6 142.1 144.3 146.4 144.8 - 3.2
3 69.2 70.3 72.7 73.5 73.4 - 4.2 3 143.9 144.8 148.5 151.9 151.1 - 7.2
4 95.2 96.4 99.5 100.9 101.4 - 6.2 4 156.5 155 155.3 157.4 156.7 - -0.2
5 118.8 120.8 125.4 128.1 127.8 - 9 5 168 164.1 163.7 166.6 170 - 2
6 142.2 145 150.9 152.9 153.4 - 11.2 6 177.2 173.8 170.5 172.5 181.5 - 4.3
7 163.9 167.6 174.5 178.1 174.8 - 10.9 7 178 177.4 173.3 177.2 185.5 - 7.5
8 186.1 189.4 199 202.7 197.4 - 11.3 8 179.5 182.4 178.1 180 189 - 9.5
9 207.5 211.1 222.5 226.7 219.8 - 12.3 9 186.2 186.2 181.5 181.7 192.2 - 6
10 229.6 232.5 245.6 250.5 241.4 - 11.8 10 188.6 188.2 184.3 184.3 192.7 - 4.1
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting at 0kts It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind,
HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time to fly for the starting at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average,
A343 by 152.9  18.5 increase the TAS for the A343 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.057
145  17.8

A346 A346
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20-
threshold 15 20 25 threshold 20 25
(Nm) (4) (6) (9) (Nm) (4) (6) (9) (2)
(2) (2) (1) (2) (1)
1 16 16 17 18 18 19 2 1 152.2 151.2 152.8 154.3 152.7 162.1 9.9
2 41 41.3 42.8 42 44 45 3 2 153.5 151.6 156.3 155.9 155.1 164.1 10.6
3 65.3 65.5 67.9 70 72 74 6.7 3 155.6 154.8 160.6 163.3 155.5 188.1 32.5
4 89.5 89.7 92.7 96 96 98 6.5 4 158.8 160.1 167.5 165.2 156.6 189.1 30.3
5 112.5 113 116.3 122 122 125 9.5 5 167 164.7 175.8 174 165.6 186.1 19.1
6 135.3 136.8 139 146 146 149 10.7 6 178.2 175.1 179.3 181.6 184.6 183.1 4.9
7 156.5 160.2 162.2 170 168 172 11.5 7 180.9 177.2 180.8 182.4 187.2 185.8 4.9
8 177.3 181.8 184.2 195 191 193 13.7 8 182.4 180.1 184.7 195.8 184.2 188.4 6
9 199.3 204.5 207.1 217 211 215 11.7 9 183.8 183.1 189.3 198.4 188.1 192.1 8.3
10 219.5 225.3 228.3 239 233 241 13.5 10 186.3 187.7 191 202 187.9 191.3 5
fly for the A346 by 146  18 increase the TAS for the A346 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.060
136.8  16

A388 A388
(s)
(Nm) (8) (18) (13) (7) (8) (4) (Nm) (8) (18) (13) (7)
(8) (4)
1 17.9 17.3 18.3 17.7 18.5 18.1 0.6 1 138.8 135.6 136.6 139.9 138.5 140.1 -0.3
2 45 45.1 46.5 46.7 48 47.2 3 2 139.5 137.1 134.7 141.1 140.4 143.4 0.9
3 70.5 72.3 74.2 75.4 77.4 76.8 6.9 3 144.7 141.8 140.7 144.6 142.1 144.7 -2.6
4 96.8 99.2 102 103.6 108 106.1 11.2 4 152.8 151.5 146.3 150.2 149.8 150.8 -3
5 121.1 123.7 129.8 131.6 136.1 134.7 15 5 169.6 164.4 159.1 158.6 162.5 164.2 -7.1
6 143.6 147.3 155.6 157.3 162.1 160.5 18.5 6 178.1 174.5 164.4 173.2 175.3 177.6 -2.8
7 165.6 169.7 181.2 181.3 186.1 184.9 20.5 7 184.1 180.5 169.9 177.9 179.7 182.2 -4.4
8 184.9 191 205.5 204.4 209.4 207.1 24.5 8 186.1 182.3 173.3 182.3 182.8 183.9 -3.3
9 205.4 211.9 229.3 226.7 231.9 229.4 26.5 9 191.1 187.6 174.3 190.8 188.8 191.5 -2.3
10 225.4 232.6 263.6 247.9 253.4 251.1 28 10 192.8 189.3 177.2 195.4 191.8 194.2 -1
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting at
at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the TAS
time to fly for the A388 by 157.3  17.7 for the A388 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.073
147.3  17.3

AT45 AT45
(s)
(Nm) (5) (13) (17) (8) (2) (Nm) (5) (13) (17) (8)
(0) (2) (0)
1 21.4 21.4 22.2 21 22 - 0.6 1 123.3 121.7 118.1 127.2 121.8 - -1.5
2 51.2 52.1 55.5 54 56 - 4.8 2 129.7 127.6 124.9 132.9 131.4 - 1.7
3 82.4 83.2 86.7 85.4 88 - 5.6 3 137.9 136.5 138.8 143.5 137.4 - -0.5
4 109 110.6 115.1 115.3 118 - 9 4 157.8 153.5 157 157.1 154.3 - -3.5
5 133.4 136.4 141.2 141.6 146 - 12.6 5 161.8 158.8 168.3 162.9 173.1 - 11.3
6 157.8 161.3 166.1 168.3 170 - 12.2 6 173.9 165.5 180.8 173.4 182.6 - 8.7
7 179.6 185.2 188.6 192.8 191.5 - 11.9 7 176.3 171.8 189.3 183.5 191.8 - 15.5
8 202.2 208.5 211.3 215.5 215 - 12.8 8 185.3 177 196.4 188.7 194.5 - 9.2
9 224 230.7 231.5 239 235 - 11 9 188.1 179.3 202.2 196.9 195.3 - 7.2
10 244.4 251.5 252.8 261.1 259 - 14.6 10 195.7 182.2 205.1 199.2 196.1 - 0.4
fly for the AT45 by 168.3  21 increase the TAS for the AT45 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.053
161.3  21.4

AT72 AT72
(s)
(Nm) (5) (15) (17) (7) (5) (Nm) (5) (15) (17) (7)
(1) (5) (1)
1 21 20.3 21 20.7 21.4 21 0.4 1 119.1 117.4 119.8 121.9 125.2 130.4 11.3
2 52.2 51.6 52.9 53.4 55 54 2.8 2 122.6 124.2 126.1 130.4 128.4 117.5 -5.1
3 84 82.4 82.8 86.6 87 88 3 3 134.3 137.1 144 142.9 138.9 137.2 2.9
4 111.4 109.9 110.4 113.4 116.8 117 5.4 4 148.7 158.8 154.1 160.8 150.7 152.5 3.8
5 136.8 133.8 137.5 138.6 144.8 146 8 5 167.2 172.9 166.7 169.5 163.2 157.9 -9.3
6 160 156.1 161.4 163.1 170.4 172 10.4 6 176 178.8 171.7 175.9 168.2 159.6 -16.4
7 183 178.5 183.8 186 196.8 199 13.8 7 177.3 183.8 177.3 177.6 170.8 160.4 -16.9
8 204.6 199.2 206.5 209 222.2 224 17.6 8 183.7 188.6 180.4 185 171.5 157.7 -26
9 226.2 220 229.5 230.7 246.8 248 20.6 9 184.2 192.8 185 188.5 175.1 163.9 -20.3
10 247 239.8 250.8 252.4 271 273 24 10 186.4 195 194.5 191.6 186.6 182.9 -3.5
fly for the AT72 by 163.1  20.7 increase the TAS for the AT72 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.049
156.1  20.3

B733 B733
(s)
(Nm) (24) (70) (47) (10) (5) (Nm) (24) (70) (47) (10)
(3) (5) (3)
1 17.2 18.1 18.7 17.1 19.2 - 2 1 136.6 139.5 139.9 142.6 147.3 - 10.7
2 44.3 45.4 46.9 44.7 46.8 - 2.5 2 137.4 141.5 142.1 143.1 151.6 - 14.2
3 72.1 74 75.4 71.9 75 - 2.9 3 144.3 142.4 146 148.8 155.3 - 11

4 99.4 101.7 103.5 98.6 100.4 - 1 4 160.5 158.1 159.1 161.4 166.1 - 5.6
5 123.7 127 129.3 124.7 127.2 - 3.5 5 172.6 172.5 169.8 170.3 170 - -2.6
6 146.7 146.3 153.6 155.6 152.6 - 5.9 6 177.1 179.7 175.1 175 165.8 - -11.3
7 169.1 172.5 176.8 172.6 177.4 - 8.3 7 179.7 183.6 180.5 177.7 160.8 - -18.9
8 190.6 194.3 199.7 195.7 204.2 - 13.6 8 182.5 188 185.6 179.7 167.7 - -14.8
9 212.1 215.4 221.9 219.5 230 - 17.9 9 183.6 190.2 189.3 184.3 169.7 - -13.9
10 233.8 236.2 243.8 241.6 256.6 - 22.8 10 187.4 192.7 192.2 184.9 169.3 - -18.1
fly for the B733 by 155.6  17.1 TAS for the B733 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.08
146.3  18.1

B734 B734
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20-
threshold 15 20 25 threshold 20 25
(Nm) (2) (5) (3) (Nm) (2) (5) (3) (1)
(1) (0) (1) (0) (1)
1 16 16.8 18.7 17 - 18 1 1 136.8 139.8 139.6 142.1 - 139.5 18.1
2 42.5 43.3 47 41 - 42 -1.5 2 144.5 140.1 143.3 143.6 - 144 12.1
3 70.5 71.4 76.3 64 - 68 -6.5 3 149.3 146.9 138.2 157.7 - 150.2 8.4
4 96.5 97 106.7 88 - 90 -8.5 4 162.8 158.8 149.9 164.7 - 165.7 1.9
5 120.5 121.2 134.7 112 - 115 -8.5 5 174.5 171.2 162.3 180.7 - 175.3 6.2
6 145 144.8 160.3 132 - 140 -11 6 177.8 178.2 164.7 176.9 - 178.6 -0.9
7 167 168.8 188.7 152 - 166 -15 7 181.1 177.8 170.1 173.8 - 175.9 -7.3
8 188.5 190.4 214.7 175 - 183 -13.5 8 199.1 186.7 175 172.7 - 180.8 -26.4
9 208.5 212 240 196 - 203 -12.5 9 200 189.1 174.7 179.3 - 183.3 -20.7
10 228 232.6 266.3 220 - 229 -8 10 198.5 193 173.9 187.4 - 190.5 -11.1
time to fly for the B734 by 160.3  18.7 for the B734 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.10
145  16

B735 B735
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20-
threshold 15 20 25 threshold 15 20 25
(Nm) (3) (8) (11) (Nm) (3) (8) (11)
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0)
1 18.7 19.5 18.4 - 20 - -0.3 1 131.9 130.7 132.6 - 150.9 - -0.3
2 46.7 48.3 47.1 - 44 - 0.4 2 131.6 133.5 133.9 - 141.9 - 1.3
3 76 76.8 76.9 - 76 - 0.9 3 129.1 135.3 137.3 - 149.2 - 8.2

4 104.3 104.4 105.8 - 105 - 1.5 4 142.3 150.1 159.6 - 151.2 - 17.3
5 132 130.3 131 - 133 - -1 5 151 165.4 173.1 - 159.2 - 22.1
6 151.3 153.4 161.1 - 161 - -3.6 6 171.1 179.8 186.4 - 165.8 - 15.3
7 180.3 175.4 175.1 - 189 - -5.2 7 178.8 183.6 190.5 - 176.4 - 11.7
8 202 197 195.4 - 212 - -6.6 8 181.9 188.5 196.8 - 183.9 - 14.9
9 225 218.6 216.2 - 232 - -8.8 9 181.3 189.3 196.5 - 192.9 - 15.2
10 246.3 239.1 236.5 - 256 - -9.8 10 180.8 191.3 197.7 - 194.4 - 16.9
0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the
to fly for the B735 by 161.1  18.4 TAS for the B735 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.08
151.3  18.7

B737 B737
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20-25 Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20-
threshold 15 20 threshold 15 20 25
(Nm) (1) (8) (8) (2) (Nm) (1) (8) (8)
(0) (0) (0) (0) (2)
1 20 20 18 - - 19 -2 1 133.8 134.7 131.8 - - 132.2 -2
2 44 45.5 47.8 - - 46.4 3.8 2 140 140.7 138.2 - - 150.3 -7.8
3 72 74 78.1 - - 80.1 6.1 3 146.9 146.6 139.9 - - 142.3 -7

4 96 100.1 106.4 - - 108.2 10.4 4 168.4 156.3 151.7 - - 153.9 -16.7
5 120 125.6 132.4 - - 135.5 12.4 5 189.1 166.2 168.5 - - 171.3 -20.6
6 142 148.6 151.9 - - 154.9 15.9 6 210.6 177.1 181.1 - - 184.6 -29.5
7 159 171.6 178 - - 183.2 19 7 212.3 185 186.7 - - 190.9 -25.6
8 175 191.3 199.6 - - 205.3 24.6 8 210.8 189.4 188.9 - - 192.5 -21.9
9 195 212.8 221.1 - - 226.8 26.1 9 209 192.3 188.1 - - 195.1 -20.9
10 212 232.9 242.6 - - 245.7 30.6 10 206 195.2 190.1 - - 201.0 -15.9
fly for the B737 by 151.9  18 increase the TAS for the B737 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.10
142  20

B738 B738
(s)
(Nm) (27) (69) (55) (27) (5) (Nm) (27) (69) (55) (27)
(0) (5) (0)
1 16.3 16.6 17.5 17.4 15.6 - -0.7 1 146.3 147.5 148.6 149.4 150.1 - 3.8
2 42 42.8 44.1 43.9 42.4 - 0.4 2 147.8 148.5 149.8 150.5 154.3 - 6.5
3 67.6 68.7 70.4 71.3 68.8 - 1.2 3 152.8 150.4 155 157.1 161.8 - 9
4 91.9 94.3 95.9 97.4 93 - 1.1 4 164.7 160.8 163.9 164.7 161.2 - -3.5
5 115.9 119 119.6 123.2 117.8 - 1.9 5 171.1 168.1 171.5 167.4 168.4 - -2.7
6 138.2 140.5 143.3 153.2 141.8 - 3.6 6 177 173.4 178.5 173.9 180.8 - 3.8
7 160.8 165.7 166.2 172.3 164.2 - 3.4 7 181.5 177.8 183 178.4 182.3 - 0.8
8 181.6 187.5 188.3 195.9 187.2 - 5.6 8 185 182 186.2 181.2 182.4 - -2.6
9 202.6 209.3 209.8 219.7 209.6 - 7 9 188.4 186.1 189.8 182.7 183.5 - -4.9
10 223.2 230.6 231.2 242.6 231.4 - 8.2 10 192.7 190.7 194.2 187.4 185.9 - -6.8
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting at
starting at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the TAS for
increase the time to fly for the B738 by 153.2  17.4 the B738 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.10
140.5  16.6

B744 B744
(s)
(Nm) (18) (36) (15) (12) (3) (Nm) (18) (36) (15) (12)
(4) (3) (4)
1 15.9 16.3 16.5 16 16 17 0.1 1 149.3 148.2 148.2 149.4 158.1 160.2 8.8
2 40.1 40.7 42.2 43 42.3 41.9 2.2 2 148.8 149.6 147.2 151.1 157.7 161.1 8.9
3 65.4 66.3 69.1 70.7 68.7 67.2 3.3 3 152.6 154.2 153.2 155.6 158.5 163.4 5.9
4 90.6 90.9 94.5 96.4 95.7 98.4 5.1 4 162.8 162.1 156.7 162.4 158.6 164.2 -4.2
5 113.8 114.3 120.1 122.7 121 123.5 7.2 5 172.1 171.2 163.3 169.8 162.9 167.6 -9.2
6 136.9 137.2 145.3 148.8 146.3 149.3 9.4 6 177.6 178 172.7 174.9 169.1 172.1 -8.5
7 158.2 158.3 168.1 172.5 172 174.3 13.8 7 182.3 183.5 176.4 181.5 169.1 174.3 -13.2
8 179.9 180.3 191.2 195.7 197.3 199.5 17.4 8 185.8 188.4 178.9 186.2 169.6 175.8 -16.2
9 200.9 200.8 214.1 218.8 221.3 225.6 20.4 9 190.7 193.4 186 190.8 172.3 180.2 -18.4
10 221.7 221 235.7 242.1 245.3 248.6 23.6 10 195.3 197.2 187.6 195 172.7 183.1 -22.6
fly for the B744 by 148.8  16 TAS for the B744 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.10
137.2  16.3

B752 B752
(s)
(Nm) (15) (32) (25) (6) (2) (Nm) (15) (32) (25) (6)
(3) (2) (3)
1 17.8 17.9 19.2 19.5 20 21.1 2.2 1 131.8 128.5 128.7 126.6 133.1 130.2 1.3
2 45.1 46.6 49.8 50.8 52 54.8 6.9 2 133.6 130.7 132.2 127.8 133.6 132.5 0
3 74 76.1 79.6 82.8 82 84.3 8 3 137.7 138.2 142.5 140.5 145.2 144.8 7.5
4 100.9 104.1 108.2 112.5 110.5 11.9 9.6 4 152.7 150.5 151.8 159.9 154.4 152.3 1.7
5 127.3 130.8 135.9 139.2 138.5 142.1 11.2 5 162.7 159.2 164.1 176.5 160.8 165.9 -1.9
6 150.9 150.9 160.9 164.5 164.5 170.3 13.6 6 175.9 173.3 171.7 181.5 164.1 171.3 -11.8
7 174.1 179.1 185.4 186.5 192.5 196.7 18.4 7 182.2 179.7 176.1 182.5 169.4 172.4 -12.8
8 195.7 201.4 208.6 209.8 219.5 221.6 23.8 8 184.7 183.4 180.5 183.4 172.2 175.5 -12.5
9 216.8 223.1 231.2 233.8 243.5 248.1 26.7 9 187.7 188.2 183.5 183.4 177.3 180.6 -10.4
10 238.1 244.6 254.2 256.7 269.5 271.1 31.4 10 192.1 191.8 184.9 187 180.6 183.9 -11.5
0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the time to fly starting at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average,
for the B752 by 164.5  19.5 increase the TAS for the B752 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.09
150.9  17.9

B762 B762
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20-
threshold 15 20 25 threshold 15 20 25
(Nm) (2) (9) (6) (Nm) (2) (9) (6)
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0)
1 20 18.2 17.8 - 20 - 1.8 1 126.6 129.2 130.7 - 141.6 - 17
2 46 47.3 47.8 - 48 - 2 2 130.1 129.8 131.2 - 144.7 - 14.6
3 76.5 78 78.3 - 76 - -0.5 3 134.7 130.1 134.2 - 147.9 - 13.2

4 104.5 107.7 109.5 - 108 - 3.5 4 148.6 146.4 142.7 - 149 - 0.4
5 130 133.8 138.2 - 132 - 2 5 166.8 166.9 156.7 - 149.3 - -17.5
6 152 156.4 163.5 - 156 - 4 6 185.7 180.2 163.2 - 179.2 - -6.5

7 174 178.1 188.3 - 180 - 6 7 190.6 187 172.1 - 183.6 - -7
8 193.5 199.9 211.3 - 200 - 6.5 8 189.9 187.1 175.9 - 182.2 - -7.7
9 213.5 221.3 234 - 224 - 10.5 9 194.9 189.2 182.9 - 178.6 - -16.3
10 231.5 240.6 255.8 - 244 - 12.5 10 200 192.3 184.9 - 184.9 - -15.1
fly for the B762 by 163.5  17.8 increase the TAS for the B762 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.10
152  20

B763 B763
(s)
(Nm) (31) (68) (49) (19) (5) (Nm) (31) (68) (49) (19)
(1) (5) (1)
1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.7 15.8 16 -0.4 1 140.6 141.4 139.3 141.8 143.1 142.9 2.5
2 43 43 44.4 46.1 43.2 44 0.2 2 142.6 142.7 141.5 142.3 144.5 143.4 1.9
3 69.1 69 72 73.7 72.2 74 3.1 3 143.6 144.4 145.1 144.3 142.8 143.6 -0.8
4 95.9 95.7 100.1 102.7 101 104 5.1 4 150.8 151.8 152.6 147.8 152.8 151.2 2
5 121.2 120.8 126.8 131.7 129.8 134 8.6 5 162.6 162.3 160.6 154.3 162.7 164.3 0.1
6 145.6 144.8 152.6 158.9 155.4 158 9.8 6 170.6 171.8 169.4 163.9 174.9 176.9 4.3
7 168.9 167.5 176.9 185.3 181.8 188 12.9 7 175.5 177.9 176.2 172 176.7 180.4 1.2
8 191.3 189.4 200.2 209.9 206 211 14.7 8 178 181.7 181.2 174.8 179.5 185.1 1.5
9 214.1 210.9 223.3 234.7 229.6 234 15.5 9 183 185.5 186.9 179.7 182.6 185.9 -0.4
10 235.5 232 245.6 258.5 252.8 255.9 17.3 10 187.6 188.8 189.3 185 184.9 188.3 -2.7
 1.10
144.8  16.3

B772 B772
(s)
(Nm) (21) (63) (53) (32) (12) (Nm) (21) (63) (53) (32)
(0) (12) (2)
1 18.6 18.7 19.2 19.3 20 21 1.4 1 137.7 138.4 138.7 137.4 137.2 140.2 -0.5
2 45.4 45.1 46.3 49.2 50.8 52.9 5.4 2 136.4 138.5 138.8 140 140.7 141.5 4.3
3 72.4 72.3 74.7 78 80.1 84.4 7.7 3 137.8 143.2 143.8 145 143.6 148.7 5.8
4 100.6 99.6 101.8 106.9 110.2 113.2 9.6 4 148.9 153.2 152 153.9 156.7 155.3 7.8
5 126.6 125 128.2 134.1 137.9 138.5 11.3 5 163.2 165.8 166.4 166.3 164.5 165.5 1.3
6 150.8 148.8 152.9 159.8 164.2 165.4 13.4 6 173.7 175.2 174.3 175.3 175.1 174.3 1.4
7 174 171.6 176.3 183.8 188.6 191.2 14.6 7 178.9 181.1 178.5 181.2 180.3 183.2 1.4
8 196.5 193.4 198.8 207.5 212.7 213.4 16.2 8 184.1 185.3 182.6 182.6 182.2 181.9 -1.9
9 218.3 215 221.2 230.9 236.3 238.9 18 9 187.3 189 186.4 186.5 186.1 188.1 -1.2
10 239.5 235.9 243.3 253.5 259.3 261.3 19.8 10 190.5 190.9 188.7 191.1 187.9 190.0 -2.6
 1.08
148.8  18.7

B77L B77L
(s)
(Nm) (6) (11) (6) (2) (Nm) (6) (11) (6) (2)
(0) (0) (0) (0)
1 16.2 16.5 16.7 20 - - 3.8 1 147.5 145.7 144.5 145 - - -2.5
2 41.7 42.5 44.7 48 - - 6.3 2 147.5 147.7 144.6 146.9 - - -0.6
3 67.7 68.6 70.2 76 - - 8.3 3 154.1 154.1 150.2 153.6 - - -0.5

4 92 92.5 96.8 102 - - 10 4 162.7 162.7 155.7 157.5 - - -5.2
5 115.8 116.4 121.5 128 - - 12.2 5 175.2 172.3 165.4 163.9 - - -11.3
6 139.2 139.6 145.5 154.5 - - 15.3 6 179.7 178.8 175.7 168 - - -11.7
7 161 161.2 170 182.5 - - 21.5 7 186.5 186 184.6 179.1 - - -7.4
8 180.7 181.2 191.3 207 - - 26.3 8 188.2 188.6 186.1 179.5 - - -8.7
9 202.2 202 212.2 233 - - 30.8 9 195.5 192.8 192.3 182.6 - - -12.9
10 222.7 222.6 233.5 257 - - 34.3 10 200.2 196.4 193.4 182.1 - - -18.1
fly for the B77L by 154.5  20 increase the TAS for the B77L by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.09
139.5  16.5

B77W B77W
(s)
(Nm) (40) (92) (70) (31) (12) (Nm) (40) (92) (70) (31)
(2) (12) (2)
1 16.9 16.9 17.4 17.7 17.4 17.5 0.5 1 147.1 146.8 146.5 147.2 151.3 152.6 4.2
2 41.7 42.3 43.7 45.1 44.4 45.6 2.7 2 146.7 146.3 146.3 147.3 150.9 157.4 4.2
3 67.2 67.9 70.3 72.5 71.5 73.4 4.3 3 150 150 151 152.2 151.1 159.4 1.1
4 92.8 93.4 96.8 99.7 99 99.8 6.2 4 156.2 157.4 157.5 157.4 162.4 165.3 6.2
5 117 117.9 122.4 126.4 124.8 126.2 7.8 5 165 165.7 168.3 167 172.8 175.3 7.8
6 140.9 141.6 146.5 152.1 148.8 152.1 7.9 6 177.7 176.8 177.7 176.1 181 182.3 3.3
7 163.1 163.8 170.1 176.8 172.3 177.6 9.2 7 181.7 181.8 183.9 180.1 186.2 186.9 4.5
8 184.5 185.3 192.3 200.5 193.8 198.3 9.3 8 184.9 184.6 187.6 182.1 190.3 191.1 5.4
9 205.8 206.6 214.3 224.4 215.8 221.3 10 9 189 188.7 190.5 184.2 194.3 194.2 5.3
10 226.7 227.7 235.9 248.6 238 245.2 11.3 10 193.2 192.4 193.3 186.8 199.1 201.8 5.9
fly for the B77W by 152.1  17.7 increase the TAS for the B77W by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.078
141.6  16.9

CRJ7 CRJ7
(s)
(Nm) (28) (63) (61) (36) (15) (Nm) (28) (63) (61) (36)
(3) (15) (3)
1 16.5 16.8 17.1 17.6 18.3 18.5 1.8 1 135 133.2 133.5 134.9 136.6 138.1 1.6
2 44.1 44.8 46.1 46.9 48.3 48.8 4.2 2 136.1 134.5 133.4 136.5 137.3 148.2 1.2
3 71.3 72.8 75.3 77.2 77.9 78.2 6.6 3 139.6 138 135.9 139.2 140.3 145.2 0.7
4 98.4 100.3 104.7 106.5 107.9 108.6 9.5 4 152.2 148.1 143.3 147.6 148.5 150.1 -3.7
5 123.3 126.5 132.5 134.9 135.9 135.4 12.6 5 169.2 164.9 159 163.4 163.2 165.5 -6
6 146.1 149.1 158.4 161.9 160.9 163.2 14.8 6 179.5 174.5 168.3 172.9 173.3 174.2 -6.2
7 167.5 172.4 182.2 184.1 185 189.5 17.5 7 186.5 181.5 174.9 181.6 178.9 183.9 -7.6
8 187.9 194 205.8 207 207.6 209.2 19.7 8 192.1 186.9 180.1 187 188.5 190.2 -3.6
9 208 215 228.4 230.2 230.3 235.7 22.3 9 195.9 190 184 191.5 192 192.3 -3.9
10 228.2 235.6 250.4 251.6 250.8 255.1 22.6 10 198.1 192.7 187.9 194.4 193.1 194.2 -5
fly for the CRJ7 by 161.9  17.6 increase the TAS for the CRJ7 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.09
149.1  16.8

CRJX CRJX
(s)
(Nm) (8) (15) (13) (11) (6) (2) (Nm) (8) (15) (13) (11)
(6) (2)
1 16.6 16.6 16.6 18.8 18.5 19 1.9 1 138.7 136.9 136.3 138.7 133.5 135.6 -5.2
2 43.3 44.1 44.4 46.9 48.8 51.5 5.5 2 138.7 139 139.5 140.3 134.2 138.3 -4.5
3 71.3 72.1 73.5 77.1 79.5 80.2 8.2 3 141.4 140.3 140.9 139.5 139.4 140.8 -2
4 97.3 99.5 101.2 105.8 111.3 113.5 14 4 153 148.8 151.5 150.8 146.8 148.5 -6.2
5 121.5 125.3 127.4 132.7 138.8 140.5 17.3 5 165.3 159.5 165.2 161.8 160.8 162.3 -4.5
6 145 148.1 152.4 160.2 166.3 167.4 21.3 6 176.5 171.3 170.2 168 168.4 170.2 -8.1
7 166.5 172.5 176.1 182.6 191.7 195.9 25.2 7 182.4 179.4 176.8 170.7 175.8 173.7 -6.6
8 187.1 194.5 198.8 208 217.3 220.3 30.2 8 183.8 182.3 182.3 177.3 181.6 182.4 -2.2
9 207.5 216.3 221.5 231.5 242.5 248.4 35 9 186.9 186.4 184.3 181.1 185.6 185.9 -1.3
10 228.5 237.4 243.5 255.2 266 269.7 37.5 10 189.2 188.5 185.1 183.6 185 189.2 -4.2
It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, It can be concluded that, an increase of 5knots in headwind, starting at 0kts
starting at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the TAS for the
increase the time to fly for the CRJX by 160.2  18.8 CRJX by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.08
148.1  16.6

DHD8 DHD8
(s)
(Nm) (16) (10) (10) (5) (Nm) (16) (10) (10) (5)
(0) (0) (0) (0)
1 18.7 19.2 20.3 23.2 - - 4.5 1 124.4 124.7 124.2 125.1 - - 0.7
2 50 50 51.2 54.6 - - 4.6 2 126.8 127.3 128.7 132.8 - - 6
3 79.3 78.8 80.4 85.8 - - 6.5 3 140.2 145.3 152.5 141 - - 0.8
4 108.8 106.5 104.8 113.8 - - 5 4 150.9 156 169 167.4 - - 16.5
5 136.2 132.1 128 138.6 - - 2.4 5 165.8 167.3 180 172.4 - - 6.6
6 161.3 156.5 149.2 163.4 - - 2.1 6 175.9 177 183.4 174.2 - - -1.7
7 183.5 178.1 169.9 186.6 - - 3.1 7 182 183.2 186.5 182.2 - - 0.2
8 205.7 199.9 191.6 208.8 - - 3.1 8 190.8 193 188 187.7 - - -3.1
9 228.3 221.3 212.4 230.4 - - 2.1 9 196.9 197.1 194.4 194 - - -2.9
10 248.3 241.3 232.9 252.8 - - 4.5 10 196.7 201.3 202.3 198.4 - - 1.7
fly for the DHD8 by 162.2  18.8 increase the TAS for the DHD8 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.09
148.1  16.6

E145 E145
(s)
(Nm) (16) (28) (30) (18) (Nm) (16) (28) (30) (18)
(2) (3) (2) (3)
1 17.5 17.1 18.1 17.9 16 17.5 1.5 1 135.7 136.4 139.4 138.8 138.7 137.5 3
2 45.3 45.3 45.4 46.5 46 48.5 0.7 2 138.4 139.7 142.4 142.8 147.9 145.2 9.5
3 72.1 71.8 72.7 75.1 74 75.2 1.8 3 143.8 143.4 151.6 147.7 148.5 151.2 4.7
4 98.2 98 98.3 102.1 102 104 3.8 4 155.2 155.8 169.7 158.7 157.4 159.6 2.2
5 122.4 122.4 121.6 128.3 128 131 5.6 5 167.2 168.5 183.7 170.5 157.4 165.4 -9.8
6 146.4 145.3 143.6 156.4 152 154 5.6 6 172.5 175.4 192.8 181.1 159.3 179.4 -13.2
7 169.1 168.7 164.4 175.2 178 181.4 8.9 7 177.9 179.3 198.3 184.7 164.7 182.4 -13.2
8 191.7 191 184.1 198.6 205 208.6 13.3 8 181.7 182.9 200.6 189.3 184.2 185.2 2.5
9 212.7 212.4 203.8 220.1 225 228.5 12.3 9 189.8 190.1 204 193.8 194.3 196.9 4.5
10 233.7 233.2 223.4 241.4 247 251.2 13.3 10 192 195.1 207.9 194.2 201.9 202.1 9.9
time to fly for the E145 by 156.4  17.9 for the E145 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.08
145.3  17.1

E170 E170
(s)
(Nm) (25) (91) (62) (36) (20) (Nm) (25) (91) (62) (36)
(7) (20) (7)
1 18.3 18.9 19.6 19.8 20.5 21.3 2.2 1 131.7 129.4 127.6 129.3 129.5 129.8 -2.2
2 46.6 47.7 50 50.8 52.4 53.6 5.8 2 134.3 132.7 130.6 132.5 133 132.6 -1.3
3 74.4 76.3 80.2 81.6 84.3 85.6 9.9 3 145.3 142.9 142.4 142.8 143.4 142.7 -1.9
4 100.1 103.1 107.6 109.8 114.6 116.8 14.5 4 160.7 157.8 157.3 158.7 151.7 152.4 -9
5 124.6 127.6 133 135.4 142.9 145.7 18.3 5 172.4 172.1 168 168.2 155.7 158.4 -16.7
6 147.7 149.5 157.3 161.5 170.5 174.2 22.8 6 179.2 179.8 176.4 175.1 165.1 168.9 -14.1
7 169.8 172.3 180.4 183.7 196.7 199.6 26.9 7 182.8 184 180.2 179.4 170.6 175.2 -12.2
8 191.5 193.7 203.2 207.5 222.7 225.4 31.2 8 186.6 188.6 183.7 184 176.9 178.2 -9.7
9 212.7 214.8 225.4 230.4 247.6 253.5 34.8 9 191.7 193.2 188.4 188.3 178.7 182.7 -13
10 233.4 235.3 247 252.7 271.1 275.1 37.7 10 198.3 197.9 192.6 193.2 179.7 185.4 -18.6
at 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the 0kts HW and finishing at 10kts HW, will on average, increase the TAS for
time to fly for the E170 by 161.5  19.8 the E170 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.08
149.5  18.9

E190 E190
(s)
(Nm) (45) (89) (69) (40) (14) (Nm) (45) (89) (69) (40)
(4) (14) (4)
1 19.3 19.3 20 19.8 20.4 20.5 1.1 1 129.7 128.6 126.9 129.9 133.9 132.4 4.2
2 48.4 48.4 50.7 50.5 50.8 51.2 2.4 2 133.4 132.2 131.7 134.5 136 135.4 2.6
3 76.2 76.9 80.2 80.7 81.4 82.9 5.2 3 143.5 142.8 143.2 144.6 143.2 144.3 -0.3
4 102.6 103.6 107.7 108.3 110.4 111.8 7.8 4 160.2 157.8 157.6 160.7 158.9 161.7 -1.3
5 126.3 128 132.9 133.8 136.1 138.5 9.8 5 170 168.9 168.5 173.2 168.8 165.6 .2
6 149.3 149.3 156.8 159.6 161.9 164.7 12.6 6 177 176.6 175 178.7 171.8 173.9 -5.2
7 170.9 173.5 180.1 181.7 185.6 188.6 14.7 7 181.7 181.6 179 182.8 175.5 178.6 -6.2
8 192.4 195.1 202.7 203.9 209.6 213.4 17.2 8 186.1 186.3 183.4 184.5 176.3 183.1 -9.8
9 213.6 216.2 225.3 226.7 233.9 237.8 20.3 9 190.1 190.4 187.8 186.1 180.2 186.5 -9.9
10 234.3 237.1 247.1 249.2 257.9 261.9 23.6 10 194 193.8 191.7 188.7 181.6 184.3 -12.4
fly for the E190 by 159.6  19.8 TAS for the E190 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.08
149.3  19.3

F27 F27
(s)
Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15-20 20- Distance -5-0 0-5 5-10 10- 15- 20-
threshold 15 25 threshold 15 20 25
(Nm) (3) (16) (5) (4) (Nm) (3) (16) (5)
(1) (0) (1) (4) (0)
1 20.3 20.3 21.8 20 19 - -1.3 1 128.3 128.3 121.5 127.3 133.1 - 4.8
2 49.3 49.9 53.2 52 51 - 1.7 2 136.3 136.4 126.9 122 128.9 - -7.4
3 76.7 79 84.4 85 81.5 - 4.8 3 147.7 147.7 145.5 123.3 142.7 - -5

4 102 105.6 112.4 121 111.5 - 9.5 4 160.7 160.7 162.9 126.4 151 - -9.7
5 126.3 130.4 138.8 156 138.3 - 12 5 168.1 168.1 170.5 134 155.1 - -13
6 149 154.3 163.6 189 165.5 - 16.5 6 171.5 171.6 173.8 135 163.5 - -8
7 171.7 177.6 188.4 217 192.5 - 20.8 7 175.9 176 175.3 149.7 170.3 - -5.6
8 195.3 200.9 211 248 216 - 20.7 8 179.1 179.1 181.9 161.8 179 - -0.1
9 216.7 223.3 234.4 276 241.3 - 24.6 9 181.1 182 188.8 176.1 187.1 - 6
10 237.7 245.9 256.8 300 263.3 - 25.6 10 184.9 185 186 180.3 186.8 - 1.9
fly for the F27 by 163.6  21.8 F27 by 0% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.102
149  20.3

RJ85 RJ85
(s)
(Nm) (15) (57) (46) (32) (11) (Nm) (15) (57) (46) (32)
(3) (11) (3)
1 18.8 18.9 19.8 20.4 21.1 22.3 2.3 1 128.5 128.5 128.5 130 132.2 133.2 3.7
2 47.8 47.7 49.4 51.3 51.9 53.1 4.1 2 129.9 129.9 130.1 133.4 135.1 139.2 5.2
3 78.1 77.3 79.3 81.5 83.6 85.9 5.5 3 137.8 137.8 138.1 140.6 141.1 143.9 3.3
4 107.4 104.8 107.8 110.4 112.9 115.4 5.5 4 150.8 150.8 150.8 151.5 150.7 150.8 -0.1
5 133.2 130.4 134.3 137.5 140.5 144.9 7.3 5 163.9 164 163.8 167.1 160.1 163.2 -3.8
6 157.5 154.2 158.8 161.8 167.8 171.3 10.3 6 174.1 174.1 173.5 178.7 174.4 175.6 0.3
7 180.2 177.2 182 184.8 191.1 194.6 10.9 7 179.9 180 180.8 186 182.1 184.9 2.2
8 201.6 199.2 204.4 207.2 214.5 218.4 12.9 8 186.4 186.4 184.5 189.2 183.9 185.4 -2.5
9 222.8 220.6 226.6 228.5 237.6 241.2 14.8 9 190.6 190.6 186.9 191.1 186.1 192.7 -4.5
10 242.5 241.8 248.2 250.3 260.6 263.1 18.1 10 194.1 194.2 188.1 194.5 191 193.2 -3.1
fly for the RJ85 by 161.8  20.4 increase the RJ85 by 3-5% between 1 and 2NM.
 1.045
154.2  18.9

Appendix F: DF & SF results per wind profile
Aircraft type Wind profile DF (NM) SF (NM)
AftType Windprofile DF (Nm) SF (Nm)

A318 0-5 kts TW 4,98 3,14
A318 0-5 kts HW 5,49 3,14
A318 5-10 kts H 4,94 3,12
A318 10-15 kts 6,21 3
A318 15-20 kts 5,72 3,17
A318 20-25 kts 5,8 3,2

A319 0-5 kts TW 5,1 3,29
A319 0-5 kts HW 5,05 3,23
A319 5-10 kts H 4,96 3,12
A319 10-15 kts 5,99 3,11
A319 15-20 kts 5,52 3,12
A319 20-25 kts 8,17 3,23

A320 0-5 kts TW 6,12 3,13
A320 0-5 kts HW 5,63 3,1
A320 5-10 kts H 6,14 2,97
A320 10-15 kts 6,15 2,97
A320 15-20 kts 5,12 3
A320 20-25 kts 7,97 2,69

A321 0-5 kts TW 5,26 3,24
A321 0-5 kts HW 6,24 3,13
A321 5-10 kts H 5,62 3,04
A321 10-15 kts 7,12 2,9
A321 15-20 kts 5,24 2,91
A321 20-25 kts 5,5 2,6

A332 0-5 kts TW 6,2 2,91
A332 0-5 kts HW 6,53 3,06
A332 5-10 kts H 6,46 3,2
A332 10-15 kts 6,75 2,91
A332 15-20 kts 6,89 2,86

A343 0-5 kts TW 5,42 3,31
A343 0-5 kts HW 4,96 3,31
A343 5-10 kts H 6,66 3
A343 10-15 kts 7,18 3,16
A343 15-20 kts 6,8 3,6

A346 0-5 kts TW 5,88 2,75
A346 0-5 kts HW 5,83 2,83
A346 5-10 kts H 6,17 3
A346 10-15 kts 7,5 3
A346 15-20 kts 7,5 3,5
A346 20-25 kts 6,5 3

A388 0-5 kts TW 5,5 3,75
A388 0-5 kts HW 5,58 3,56
A388 5-10 kts H 7,04 3,31
A388 10-15 kts 7,5 2,86
A388 15-20 kts 5,63 2,88
A388 20-25 kts 7,5 3,75

AT45 0-5 kts TW 5 2,4
AT45 0-5 kts HW 5,04 2,08
AT45 5-10 kts H 8,03 2,88
AT45 10-15 kts 6,75 2,5
AT45 15-20 kts 5,5 3,5

AT72 0-5 kts TW 5,6 3,2
AT72 0-5 kts HW 5,7 3,07
AT72 5-10 kts H 5,24 2,88
AT72 10-15 kts 5,36 3
AT72 15-20 kts 5,7 2,2
AT72 20-25 kts 5,9 2

B733 0-5 kts TW 5,67 3,42
B733 0-5 kts HW 5,61 3,34
B733 5-10 kts H 7,27 2,79
B733 10-15 kts 7,55 3,2
B733 15-20 kts 7 2,6
B733 20-25 kts 7,5 3

B734 0-5 kts TW 6,5 3,5
B734 0-5 kts HW 5,7 3,4
B734 5-10 kts H 5,83 3
B734 10-15 kts 6,5 4
B734 20-25 kts 6,5 1

B735 0-5 kts TW 5,83 2,33
B735 0-5 kts HW 4,88 3,13

B735 5-10 kts H 4,86 3,09
B735 15-20 kts 6,5 1

B737 0-5 kts TW 5 3
B737 0-5 kts HW 6 2,88
B737 5-10 kts H 5,31 3,25
B737 20-25 kts 6 2,5

B738 0-5 kts TW 4,19 2,89
B738 0-5 kts HW 5,22 2,86
B738 5-10 kts H 5,9 2,82
B738 10-15 kts 6,63 2,52
B738 15-20 kts 5,6 3,4
B738 20-25 kts 6,5 2,67

B744 0-5 kts TW 6,33 2,78
B744 0-5 kts HW 5,79 3,03
B744 5-10 kts H 6,27 2,53
B744 10-15 kts 7,92 2,92
B744 15-20 kts 7 2,67
B744 20-25 kts 7 2,5

B752 0-5 kts TW 4,27 3,2
B752 0-5 kts HW 6,41 3,09
B752 5-10 kts H 5,5 2,84
B752 10-15 kts 5,17 3
B752 15-20 kts 4,25 3,5
B752 20-25 kts 5,83 3,67

B762 0-5 kts TW 5,5 3,5
B762 0-5 kts HW 5,78 3,56
B762 5-10 kts H 5,67 3,33
B762 15-20 kts 5,6 3

B763 0-5 kts TW 5,81 3,03
B763 0-5 kts HW 6,15 3,18
B763 5-10 kts H 6,63 3,16
B763 10-15 kts 5,39 2,84
B763 15-20 kts 6,7 3,6
B763 20-25 kts 7 3

B772 0-5 kts TW 6,1 3,48
B772 0-5 kts HW 5,64 3,19

B772 5-10 kts H 6,62 3,45
B772 10-15 kts 7,02 3,28
B772 15-20 kts 7,08 2,83
B772 20-25 kts 7.1 1,5

B77L 0-5 kts TW 5,42 3,5
B77L 0-5 kts HW 5,32 2,82
B77L 5-10 kts H 6,75 3,5
B77L 10-15 kts 6,5 3

B77W 0-5 kts TW 4,94 3,08
B77W 0-5 kts HW 5,5 3,09
B77W 5-10 kts H 5 3,19
B77W 10-15 kts 5,03 2,9
B77W 15-20 kts 5,08 2,75
B77W 20-25 kts 6 3,5

CRJ7 0-5 kts TW 4,64 3,21
CRJ7 0-5 kts HW 4,48 3,38
CRJ7 5-10 kts H 4,57 3,54
CRJ7 10-15 kts 4,99 3,44
CRJ7 15-20 kts 5,6 3,47
CRJ7 20-25 kts 5,5 2,67

CRJX 0-5 kts TW 5,25 3,25
CRJX 0-5 kts HW 5,4 3,13
CRJX 5-10 kts H 5,58 3,31
CRJX 10-15 kts 6,18 3,18
CRJX 15-20 kts 5,83 3,5
CRJX 20-25 kts 6,0 3,5

DH8D 0-5 kts TW 5,1 2,83
DH8D 0-5 kts HW 6 2,6
DH8D 5-10 kts H 5,1 2,5
DH8D 10-15 kts 6,9 2,6

E145 0-5 kts TW 4,78 3,31
E145 0-5 kts HW 5,29 3,32
E145 5-10 kts H 5,42 3
E145 10-15 kts 6,03 3,39
E145 15-20 kts 7,5 2
E145 20-25 kts 7,5 3,33

E170 0-5 kts TW 5,16 2,72
E170 0-5 kts HW 6,66 3,1
E170 5-10 kts H 5,03 2,79
E170 10-15 kts 5,74 2,86
E170 15-20 kts 6,55 3,2
E170 20-25 kts 7,86 2,86

E190 0-5 kts TW 5,14 2,73
E190 0-5 kts HW 5,12 2,93
E190 5-10 kts H 5,69 2,96
E190 10-15 kts 6,13 2,98
E190 15-20 kts 6,18 3,14
E190 20-25 kts 6,88 3.0

F27 0-5 kts TW 4,5 1,67
F27 0-5 kts HW 4,22 2,5
F27 5-10 kts H 4,8 2,4
F27 10-15 kts 6,5 4
F27 15-20 kts 6,5 2,25

RJ85 0-5 kts TW 6,03 2,87
RJ85 0-5 kts HW 6,09 3,09
RJ85 5-10 kts H 6,54 3,17
RJ85 10-15 kts 6,5 3,06
RJ85 15-20 kts 7,27 3
RJ85 20-25 kts 7,67 3,67
ds

A318 DF
It can be concluded that, an
increase of 5knots in
headwind, starting at 0kts HW,
will on average, increase the
DF by 0.36NM
SF
will on average, decrease the
SF by 0NM
A319 DF
DF by 0.5NM

SF
SF by 0NM
A320 DF
DF by 0.26NM
SF
SF by 0.07NM

A321 DF
DF by 0.44NM
SF
SF by 0.12NM
A332 DF
DF by 0.11NM

SF
SF by 0NM
A343 DF
DF by 1.11NM
SF
SF by 0NM

A346 DF
DF by 0.84NM
SF
SF by 0NM
A388 DF
DF by 1NM

SF
SF by 0.35NM
AT45 DF
DF by 0.86NM
SF
SF by 0.21NM

AT72 DF
DF by 0.17NM
SF
SF by 0NM
B733 DF
DF by 0.75NM

SF
SF by 0NM
B734 DF
DF by 0.4NM
SF
SF by 0.2NM

B735 DF
DF by 0NM
SF
SF by 0NM
B737 DF
DF by 0NM

SF
SF by 0.19NM
B738 DF
DF by 0.6NM
SF
SF by 0NM

B744 DF
DF by 0.6NM
SF
SF by 0NM
B752 DF
DF by 0.3NM

SF
SF by 0.2NM
B762 DF
DF by 0NM
SF
SF by 0NM

B763 DF
DF by 0.5NM
SF
SF by 0NM
B772 DF
DF by 0.6NM

SF
SF by 0NM
B77L DF
DF by 0.5NM
SF
SF by 0NM

B77W DF
DF by 0NM
SF
SF by 0NM
CRJ7 DF
DF by 0.25NM

SF
SF by 0NM
CRJX DF
DF by 0.65NM
SF
SF by 0NM

DHD8 DF
DF by 0.2NM
SF
SF by 0NM
E145 DF
DF by 0.6NM

SF
SF by 0NM
E170 DF
DF by 0.6NM
SF
SF by 0NM

E190 DF
DF by 0.25NM
SF
SF by 0NM
F27 DF
DF by 1.1NM

SF
SF by 0.6NM
RJ85 DF
DF by 0.25NM
SF
SF by 0.2NM

Appendix G: Gantt Chart

Appendix H: Validation Assumptions
Impact on Assessment
Type of Assumption
KPA Impacted
Flight Phase
Justification
Description
Identifier
Value(s)
Source
Owner
Title
AS-01.03.01-01 Wind data Aircraft Selecting the wind Some selected Final approach Safety Thales (for CDG -Ground wind - Primary project Medium
performance profile cases (0- flight cases might Airport) Entire wind profile
5ktsHW, 5- undergo different
10ktsHW) by using wind vectors in
the ground speed real life
profile.
Deceleration Fix Aircraft For calculating DF Final approach Safety Thales (for CDG Distance for SF Primary project High
(DF) and performance and SF, use is Airport) and DF
Stabilization Fix made of the first
(SF) derivative and
normalized True
airspeed values
Time to fly Aircraft Time to fly is found Final approach Safety Thales (for CDG Primary project Low
performance by the time Airport)
measurement of
the radar data
True airspeeds Aircraft With the ground The selected wind Final approach Safety Thales (for CDG Primary project Medium
performance speed the true profile might be Airport)
airspeed profile is different in real life
calculated, by for calculating the
making use of the true airspeed
entire wind profile
Airports Traffic Mix Traffic 10 Scenarios from To simulate the - Capacity 2012 Airport traffic Traffic Mix Primary project High
characteristics different Airports impact on traffic data (CFMU)
at different time pressure simulating
with different the evolution of
shares of Aircraft aircraft type (
Categories change in the
shares of aircraft
categories )

Floris Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Floris Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time Based Separation

Compression on final approach and Time Based Separation for optimized

Final thesis report

Herrema, F.F., Delft, 1 December 2014

1.5 Report Structure .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Aircraft and Weather data ............................................................................................................. 13

3 Aircraft performance compression issues on final approach ........................................17

3.5 Sub Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 58

4 Key performance indicators FMS, ATCs and pilots ........................................................60

4.3 Questionnaire pilots ...................................................................................................................... 68

5 Verification with Vienna airport ...................................................................................71

5.3 Sub Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 72

6 TBS FFH Model ..............................................................................................................74

6.3 Results & Sub Conclusion............................................................................................................... 79

7.4 Results & Sub Conclusion............................................................................................................... 85

8 Conclusion & Recommendations...................................................................................88

Reference list .......................................................................................................................91

ATC Air Traffic Controller

DBS Distance Based Separation

FFH Floris Friso Herrema TBS tool

GSMF Ground Speed Mini Function

HMI Human Machine Interface

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions

LIDAR LIght Detection And Ranging

MRS Minimum Radar Separation

ORD Optimized Runway Delivery Study

OSED Operational Service and Environment Definition

RECAT-EU The European Re-categorization of Wake Turbulence Separation Minima

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SID Standard Instrument Departures

SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking (Agency of the European Commission)

STAR Standard Terminal Arrival Routes

TBS Time Based Separation

UTC Coordinated Universal Time

VALP Validation plan

Symbol Description Unit

DF Deceleration Fix (NM)

Df Chevron separation distance (NM)

FTD Final Target Distance (NM)

GS Ground Speed (kts)

IAS Indicated Airspeed (kts)

ITD Initial Target Distance (NM)

SF Stabilization Fix (NM)

TAS True Airspeed (kts)

TW Total wind (kts)

Vapp Final approach speed (kts)

Va,follower Approach speed follower (kts)

Va,lead Approach speed leader (kts)

Vg,lead Glide slope lead (kts)

Vglide Glide slope approach speed (kts)

1.1 Research Goals

Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1 Page 1

As a result, the following initial research question has been formulated:

1.2 Research Methodology

Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1 Page 2

1.3 Data Mining Approach

1.4 Outcome and Relevance

Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1 Page 3

Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1 Page 4

2.1 Distance Based Separation (DBS)

Table 1: RECAT-EU DBS for six different aircraft categories in NM.

Final Report V0.1F Final Report V1 Page 6

2.2.1 ATC TBS concept description