Verification of Heathrow Noise and Track keeping System Status update Henk Veerbeek, January 25 th, 2016
Introduction 1. Status summary 2. Presentation of verification results o Flight tracks - Radar data o Flight tracks - ADS/B data o Historical changes o INM noise modelling 3. Time schedule update 4. Questions and answers 2
Status update 1. Flight (track) data compare with radar data reference set compare with ADS/B data reference set verify track reconstruction verify track display 2. Flight data completeness ANOMS data WebTrak data 3. Historical changes Study received information 4. Noise models INM modelling ANCON modelling work on modelling in progress 3
Verification of flight track data (1) To enable community stakeholders to be confident that: 1. the aircraft are at the heights and locations that the Heathrow systems indicates Does ANOMS use correct input data? Verify against raw radar data as well as ADS/B data. Answer: Yes, it does Status: Performed for ground tracks as well as heightprofiles Verification shows results as expected 4
Verification of flight track data (2 radar data) ANOMS data compared to radar data Ground distance (per flight): Average differences: 5-20 m Maximum differences: 5-250 m Height (per flight): Average differences : -30-90 ft Maximum differences: -15-180 ft 5
Verification of flight track data (3 radar data) ANOMS data compared to radar data 6
Verification of flight track data (4 ADS/B data) ANOMS data compared to ADS/B data Ground distance (per flight): Average differences: 5-150 m Maximum differences: 15-250 m Height (per flight): Average differences : -55-40 ft Maximum differences: -34-120 ft 7
Verification of flight track data (5 ADS/B data) ANOMS data compared to ADS/B data 8
Incorrect Mode S ADS/B lateral positions (removed) ADSB ANOMS 9
Verification of system changes (1) Assess whether there has been any historical change in the past 5 years, to the ANOMS or WebTrak systems, which may have altered the accuracy of the systems. Answer: Yes, several changes / improvements were applied Status: Changes can be classified as improvements It concerns system changes as well as changes in data feed 10
Verification of system changes (2) System changes: (2011) Increased accuracy of WebTrak target point speed calculation (2012) ANOMS upgrade: bugfixes and new functionality (2013) Turn off track point filtering (2014) Enable WebTrak Sync service to send radar data to message store (2015) ANOMS 8 to 9 upgrade (2015) Migration to Earth track builder system; real-time radar enabled Data changes: (2011) H23 radar decommissioned; new primary/backup radar feed (2014) Fix corrupted Aircraft registry Data (2015) New multi-radar feed introduced: o better resolution in altitude (25 ft instead of 100 ft) and o better alignment to runway o less gaps in data due to use of multi-radar data 11
Verification of Noise Models Verify that the Noise Models used by Heathrow are 1. compliant with international standards and 2. provide an accurate assessment of the noise climate. Answer: INM modelling shows results as expected Status: INM modelling checked for departures (limited by data available) 4 measurement locations. Activities w.r.t. ANCON modelling: started o Same period as used for INM verification o Arrivals will be included o 5 measurement locations. 12
INM Noise Model verification (1) Verifications: For 4 different aircraft types (A320, A380, B744 and B777) Peak levels as function of distance Modelled peak levels vs. measured peak levels used in N x type calculations Modelled SEL levels vs. measured SEL levels (SEL = Sound Exposure Level) used in L eq type calculations Higher levels match as expected At lower levels we see differences: o under-estimated modelled result? o or over-estimated measurements? 13
INM Noise Model verification A380 measured peak level vs distance 14
INM Noise Model verification A380 modelled and measured peak levels 15
INM Noise Model verification A380 modelled and measured SEL levels 16
INM Noise Model verification A320 measured peak level vs distance 17
INM Noise Model verification A320 modelled and measured peak levels 18
INM Noise Model verification A320 modelled and measured SEL levels 19
Ascot measurement investigation (1) Measured noise levels at the Ascot site are not behaving as expected See graph of A320 noise measurements: o noise levels against distance between aircraft and monitoring station Poyle Red line indicates reduction of 6dB with doubling of distance (approximation of expectation noise reduction) Hounslow Heath Ascot Teddington Noise levels are not decreasing with increasing slant distanceat at Ascot. 20
Ascot measurement investigation (2) NMT positioned close to A-road Road noise is likely to be the dominant noise source at this site 21
Ascot measurement investigation (3) Noise climate on NMT 123 (Ascot) confirm this: Higher background levels Background levels do not drop on days without aircrafts movements Recommendation: also investigate the modelled noise levels 22
Time schedule (update) 1. Verifications to be performed ANCON Noise modelling 2. Reporting Written report Final presentation 3. Time schedule Noise modelling ANCON: o subject to availability of data o expected to finish this work in February Report and presentation: o first draft by mid-february o final versions before next CNF meeting 23
Fully engaged Netherlands Aerospace Centre NLR Amsterdam Anthony Fokkerweg 2 1059 CM Amsterdam NLR Marknesse Voorsterweg 31 8316 PR Marknesse p ) +31 88 511 3113 f ) +31 88 511 3210 e ) info@nlr.nl i ) www.nlr.nl p ) +31 88 511 4444 f ) +31 88 511 4210 e ) info@nlr.nl i ) www.nlr.nl
INM Noise Model verification B777 measured peak level vs distance 25
INM Noise Model verification B777 modelled and measured peak levels 26
INM Noise Model verification B777 modelled and measured SEL levels 27
INM Noise Model verification B744 measured peak level vs distance 28
INM Noise Model verification B744 modelled and measured peak levels 29
INM Noise Model verification B744 modelled and measured SEL levels 30