DEP and G/A separation

[what_goes_up]

Hi guys
Could anybody shed some light on how departing traffic is separated from go around traffic with crossing tracks on your aerodrome. In LSZH we have a big problem with our CAA who wants to proof that it is possible to close down an aerodrome just with restrictions.
Even in good weather we newly need to have a separation of up to 12NM which is ridiculous.
What does ICAO say? As far as I remember it is possible to make visual separation in good weather. Any hints and tips where to find that in the ICAO Docs is appreciated.

Thank you very much in advance
w_g_u

[Spitoon]

Separation is separation - if you can achieve one of the separation standards then you have done your job. In good weather (here in the UK anyway) we can used 'Reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome' where, if the controller can see both aircraft and can assure separation between them, you have achieved separation. There are a couple of other procedures that can be used too but for a G/A I'll keep an eye on them myself. I'm pretty sure the UK rules are based on ICAO SARPs. This only works for the initial period immediately after a G/A of course, but it's usually enough to time to set up radar separation or something else.

If the track of the G/A and the departure cross and the aircraft are in copnflict then it will be necessary to modify the route of one or both aircraft. Some units have standing procedures that say what the aerodrome controller can do whilst at others the aerodrome controller and approach controller will have to co-ordinate a suitable solution.

In poor weather when the aerodrome controller won't be able to do visual separation and the aircraft will get close if there is a G/A you might want to pre-agree a non-standard G/A with the approach radar controller. In LVOs we have to have bigger spacing between inbounds and departures have to be airborne before an inbound reaches 4 miles, in part, to prevent conflicts between inbounds and G/As.

Hope this makes sense.

[what_goes_up]

Spitoon
Thx for the reply. It majkes a lot of sense to me and that is how it should work. VMC separation in VMC and IMC separation in IMC. But our CAA peeps are thinking the other way, taking the responsibility from the controller and prevent the airport from a save AND efficient conduct of airtraffic.
You would not happen to know what ICAO doc covers this topic on its basics? (Is it Doc 4444??)
Cheers
w_g_u

[brimstone]

what_goes_up - from memory ICAO Doc 8168 concerning "aircraft flight procedures" has a section about operations on parallel or near-parallel runways. I take it you are referring to operations on runways 32 and 34 at Zurich.

If that is the case it doesn't surprise me that the Swiss CAA is nervous about separation between departures and go-arounds.

Here at Heathrow we have had our share of problems with this in the past and we have parallel runways. Our missed approach procedures used to involve climbing straight ahead, then proceeding as directed by ATC. Inevitably at times of high workload things did not always work out. The solution has been to construct missed approach procedures which turn away from the departure runway then at least one aspect of the event is predictable.

At Manchester airport where they have closely spaced parallel runways there are warnings on the SID charts that aircraft may be instructed to turn the opposite way from the planned route in order to establish separation from an aircraft going round from the other runway.

With converging runways there is also vortex wake separation to consider if the predicted flight paths will cross. A heavy departure from one runway and a smaller aircraft going round from the other may have an encounter if it has to pass behind.

Hope this helps

[what_goes_up]

Hi Brimstone

Thank you very much for explanations. I go and stick my nose into Doc 8168.
The newly "produced" problem in ZRH is landing RWY 14 and departures RWY 16 which turn for noise abatement reasons after 1NM to the left thus crossing the missed approach path for RWY 14. But IMHO it should be possible to keep them separated visualy if WX permit. But it is quite a long time I attended school for ATCO. I am on the other side of the mike now and maybe so called solutions look too easy for me now.
Again thank you much for your thoughts.
w_g_u

[NATCA A80]

w_g_u,

For a comparison in the rules on your question, take a look on the FAA.gov web site and read through Chapter 3 of the 7110.65 the section on Runway Separation, Chapter 5 which is Radar Separation.

Basically on a planned Go Around one of the following must occur, one of the aircraft must pass through the Runway intersection prior to the second aircraft crossing the runway thresshold, or the landing aircraft must be restricted to hold short of the other landing runway, or the aircraft going around must be on a restricted low approach at or above 500 AGL.

On a un-planned go around, the goal is not to trade paint.

Mike
NATCA A80

[brimstone]

w_g_u.... Ah I understand now. At Heathrow we have a similar potential conflict between south-east bound departures off 27R and a missed approach off 27L. As I'm sure you know the runways are operated independently with arrivals on 27L often 2.5 miles apart, so there is always the potential for a go-around.

The missed approach procedure on 27L is to climb ahead to 2000ft initially but after passing 1000ft aal or zero ILS DME, turn left onto a SE track and eventually climb to 3000ft.

The idea is that if all else fails, a SE bound departure off 27R will almost always be at or above 3000ft when the potential conflict occurs and the aircraft going round will be not above 2000ft. This is not a guaranteed separation and normally the controllers will intervene to ensure separation between the aircraft. Nevertheless it means that traffic at the airport is kept moving.

Obviously I don't know the situation at LSZH with regard to separations but perhaps thinking along these lines might be beneficial.

[what_goes_up]

Thanks guys for your valuable replies. Stuck my nose into the 8168 Doc and saw that especially in VMC almost everything is possible within airport vicinity. But the other conclusion is that our CAA ( Confederation Against Aviation) aims to zero risk which tends to no flights at all as to they keep their asses covered. So back to the roots and do procedural control.

Cheers for the hints and keep the sky save:ok: