It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has stipulated the spacing of parallel runways, but it hasn’t considered different aircraft categories classified by speed. So there is no provision as a reference for the safety runway spacing corresponding to different aircraft speed combinations. This paper studied the safety spacing of parallel runways based on aircraft categories classified by speed in the ICAO regulations with the aim of providing more reasonable planning for the parallel runway configuration suited for different aircraft speed combinations. The improved simulation model is established. The innovations are mainly reflected in the following two aspects. First, based on the established evasion solution to the hazardous scenario in PLB(Parallel Landing Blunder) model, this paper added a new solution that the deviating aircraft (blunderer) corrects its course returning to the designated approach course (i.e., the course correction solution). Second, when adopting the evasion solution, this paper revised the simulated evasion maneuver command according to Doc. 8168 of ICAO, because it could better reflect the pilot’s real response. According to the simulation results, it is concluded that when the combinations consists of the same aircraft category, both A-A and B-B combinations can conduct simultaneous independent parallel instrument approaches (SIPIA) to the parallel runways with the spacing of 835m. When the combinations consist of different aircraft categories, the paper emphatically studied the A-E combinations with the largest difference of approach speed. In the case of A-E combinations, with 1035 m runway spacing, the collision risk of SIPIA is relatively high.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Aeronautical Engineering College, Air Force Engineering University, Xi’an, China
2 Air Force Academy Engineering Design Institute, Beijing, China