Airsight - Study On Maximum Wind Component Limits Aplicable at BRU

STUDY ON THE MAXIMUM WIND COMPONENT LIMITS
APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF RUNWAYS AT THE BRUSSELS

NATIONAL AIRPORT
Prepared by: airsight GmbH
08 October 2009
COPYRIGHT & CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

This document and the information contained therein is the property of airsight GmbH. It must not be
reproduced in whole or part or otherwise disclosed to parties outside of airsight GmbH without the
prior written consent of the Project Manager.
Study on the Wind Component Limits applicable to the Use of Runways BRUSSELS NATIONAL AIRPORT
AMENDMENT
Changes in this document will result in the document being reissued in its entirety.
RECORD OF AMENDMENTS
New Issue Date Change Reference Details
0.9 10 July 2009 Interim Report Draft for Review
0.91 20 August 2009 Interim Report Section 6.10. added
1.0 30. September 2009 Final Report Part III added, Part I and II
reviewed
1.1 5 October 2009 Final Report Section 3.6 reviewed
CONTROLLED COPY DISTRIBUTION LIST
Copy Number Ownership
1 Secretary of State for Mobility and Transport
2 airsight GmbH
DOCUMENT ACCEPTANCE
Approved by: Holger Schulz
Date: 5 October 2009
airsight GmbH – Managing Director
-1- Final Report

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4
1.1 General....................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 General....................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Aim of the Study.......................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 6
Part I System Definition.................................................................................................. 8
2 Current Situation at Brussels National Airport ..................................................................... 8
2.1 General....................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Wind data for Brussels Nation Airport .......................................................................... 10
2.3 Movement Data BRU Airport 2008............................................................................... 11
3 Legislation, Standards and Recommendations .................................................................. 12
3.1 ICAO Standards and Recommendations ....................................................................... 12
3.2 EASA & FAA Certification Specifications........................................................................ 13
3.3 FAA Recommendations............................................................................................... 15
3.4 Operational Rules ...................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Overview of Cross- and Tailwind Limits........................................................................ 16
3.6 Statements from the Belgian Cockpit Association BeCA ................................................. 17
4 Inventory of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria ......................................................................... 18
4.1 Survey of Aircraft Types and Frequency of Operations .................................................. 18
4.2 Demonstrated Cross- and Tailwind Capabilities............................................................. 18
4.3 Cross- and Tailwind Limits during Autoland Operations ................................................. 21
4.4 Cross- and Tailwind Limits applied by Aircraft Operators ............................................... 21
4.5 Landing Runway Length Requirements ........................................................................ 23
4.6 Weight Restrictions during Take-off in Tailwind Conditions ............................................ 27
5 Best Practices at European Airports ................................................................................. 29
5.1 Survey of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria at other European Airports .................................. 29
5.2 Survey of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria at other European Air Navigation Service Providers 30
Part II Risk assessment.................................................................................................. 32
6 Risk Assessment of Cross- and Tailwind Components........................................................ 32
6.1 General..................................................................................................................... 32
6.2 European Accident Data ............................................................................................. 33
6.3 NTSB Accident Data ................................................................................................... 35
6.4 European Traffic Data ................................................................................................ 35
6.5 U.S. Traffic Data........................................................................................................ 37
6.6 Accident Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 38
6.7 Target Level of Safety ................................................................................................ 42
-2- Final Report

6.8 Crosswind Risk Model................................................................................................. 45

6.9 Crosswind Component Limit ....................................................................................... 49
6.10 Tailwind Component Limit .......................................................................................... 50
Summary of Risk Assessment.................................................................................................. 61
6.11 Overview .................................................................................................................. 61
Part III Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 62
7 Reallocation of movements............................................................................................. 62
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 62
7.2 Flight Plan Analysis .................................................................................................... 62
7.3 Reallocation of Movements ......................................................................................... 63
8 Evaluation of Impact on Airport Capacity ......................................................................... 71
8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 71
8.2 Analysis of Influence of Reallocations .......................................................................... 71
8.3 Critical Scenario......................................................................................................... 74
8.4 Results ..................................................................................................................... 75
9 Evaluation of Impact on Noise ........................................................................................ 76
9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 76
9.2 Calculation Process .................................................................................................... 76
9.3 Results ..................................................................................................................... 78
List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................... 80
Part IV Annexes............................................................................................................... 83
Annex A Airport Layout ....................................................................................................... 83
A.1 Map of Brussels National Airport ................................................................................. 83
Annex B Legislation, Standards and Recommendations .......................................................... 84
B.1 ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices .............................................................. 84
B.2 EASA & FAA Certification Specifications........................................................................ 85
B.3 Advisory Material for Certification Specifications ........................................................... 86
B.4 FAA Recommendations............................................................................................... 90
B.5 Operational Rules ...................................................................................................... 91
Annex C Risk Model ............................................................................................................ 92
C.1 Estimated Coefficients of the Risk Model...................................................................... 92
Annex D Figures Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 93
D.1 Redistributed Movements ........................................................................................... 93
D.2 Usage rates of runways.............................................................................................. 96
Annex E Definitions............................................................................................................. 99
E.1 Accident ................................................................................................................... 99
E.2 Emergency Landing ................................................................................................... 99
E.3 Statistical Model ...................................................................................................... 100
-3- Final Report

Executive Summary
1.1 General
1.1.1 This report addresses the maximum wind component limits applicable to the
use of runways at the Brussels National Airport. In the past, intensive
discussions have led to manifold modifications of the cross- and tailwind limits.
Since the act of numerous changes of wind limits does not advocate the current
safety situation, the Belgian government seeks to conclude a justifiable set of
wind limits.
1.1.2 Firstly, all relevant legislative aspects related to the safety of operations under
cross- and tailwind conditions are presented. International regulations,
certification specifications as well as the position of the Belgian Cockpit
Association on the current wind limits are summarized. Furthermore, the cross-
and tailwind capabilities of the most frequent aircraft types operated at Brussels
National Airport are analyzed and a survey is given concerning the operational
limits of the local airlines. Moreover the landing distance requirements and the
maximum take off weights as well as the according required field lengths of the
most demanding aircrafts for different wind conditions have been analyzed. In
addition to this, a survey is given showing the best practices concerning the
wind criteria and their observation at other major European aerodromes.
1.1.3 For the derivation of limits for the cross- and tailwind component, two different
approaches have been applied. For the crosswind limit a comprehensive
accident data set has been compiled as basis for a quantitative risk model. For
the tailwind limit a number of surveys and interviews with domain experts have
been carried out combined with the review of the important aspects of the
certification and regulations.
1.1.4 The quantitative risk model is based on European accident and traffic data from
8 countries (Belgium being one of which). The compiled data set comprises of
106 relevant accidents which occurred within the time period of 1996 to 2007.
1.1.5 Furthermore a Target Level of Safety has been derived, based on the
internationally established Safety Level for the ICAO Collision Risk Model. The
adopted Safety Level for this study is 1.4x10-6 accidents during arrival and
departure. The maximal crosswind component representing this Safety Level is
15 kts (including gusts).
-4- Final Report

1.1.6 After analysis of all gathered expert arguments complemented with quantitative
data on Brussels Airline’s operations on the westerly runways that are exposed
to more than the manufacturer and operators limit of 10kts, a tailwind
component limit of 5 kts (including gusts) is proposed. This limit leaves a
sufficient safety buffer to the manufacturer and operators limit of 10kts.
1.1.7 These limits are proposed to apply for both departure and arrival during all
times of the day and on all runways. Both limits represent the best practice at
other major European Airports and are moreover compliant with the
recommendations of the ICAO.
1.1.8 The potential effects of the adoption of the current wind limits have been
analysed using the real flightplan of 2008 in combination with detailed wind
information.
1.1.9 A complex algorithm has been developed to analyse the potential impact on
airport capacity and noise in the vicinity of the airport. The current wind
components for each movement in 2008 are assessed in order to check if these
movements should have been handled on another runway if these new limits
would have been valid in 2008.
1.1.10 In 2008 1.8 % of the movements would be reallocated to another runway due
to exceeded wind limits. The most affected RWYs to exceed the limits are the
parallel runways 25R/L. Most of the movements need to be relocated to the
runway 02/20.
1.1.11 Based on the analyses, the new traffic distribution could have been handled
without noticeable impact on airport capacity. However, due to infrastructural
limitations (no taxiway access on 25L, no ILS in direction 07) a remaining single
runway system could generate capacity constraints under special wind
conditions (southerly or easterly winds).
1.1.12 The potential noise effects have been assessed using the Integrated Noise
Model (INM). The results demonstrate no significant changes in equivalent
noise levels, maximum noise levels and noise effected areas.
-5- Final Report

Introduction
1.2 General
1.2.1 One factor governing the selection of a runway appropriate for operation is the
prevailing wind. In case of a preferential runway or runway system the
selection is limited by maximal cross- and tailwind components established for
the runway. Whenever the cross- and tailwind components exceed specified
limits, the runway in use must be changed for safety related reasons.
1.2.2 International regulations leave some margins in setting precise wind limits for
safe runway operations. This allows some flexibility and leads to different best
practices at different airports.
1.2.3 In the past, intensive discussions have led to manifold modifications of the
cross- and tailwind limits applicable to Brussels National Airport. Since the act of
numerous changes of wind limits does not advocate the current safety
situation, the Belgian government now seeks to conclude a justifiable set of
wind limits.
1.3 Aim of the Study
1.3.1 The aim of this study is to define cross- and tailwind limits for the use of the
runways at Brussels National Airport primarily based on operations safety. In
addition, the impact of the revised wind limits on noise in the vicinity of the
airport and the capacity of the airport shall be analysed.
1.4 Methodology
1.4.1 Firstly, information related to specific operational characteristics of Brussels

National Airport will be gathered, and the available regulations and guidance
material related to the safety of operations under cross- and tailwind conditions
will then be reviewed (section 3). Furthermore, the aircraft types operated at
Brussels National Airport are analyzed concerning their certification and their
operational limits applied by the local airlines (section 4). In addition to this, a
survey of the current best practices concerning the wind criteria and the
preferential runways at other European aerodromes will be conducted
(section 5).
-6- Final Report

1.4.2 In a next step, a comprehensive accident data set has been compiled and
analysed in order to build a quantitative risk model. The results of this
investigation enable to quantify the risk of an accident under given cross- and
tailwind conditions. By means of the risk model, acceptable safe wind limits will
be identified. (section 6).
1.4.3 Based on the proposed wind limits, the impact on airport capacity and aviation
noise in the vicinity of the airport will be analysed. Therefore the actual cross-
and tailwind components of each movement of the year 2008 will be calculated.
If the actual wind components are exceeding the proposed wind limits, the
movement will be reallocated to another suitable (by means of wind and
operability) runway. This will be made for all movements of 2008 (section 7).
1.4.4 The result of the reallocation process is an adopted flight plan which serves,
together with the original flight plan, as the basis for impact assessment. To
assess the impact on airport capacity, the reallocated movements will be
assessed in depth in relation to the traffic profiles of the airport and its runways
(section 8). For the assessment of the impact on noise the Integrated Noise
Modell (INM) will be used in order to analyse potential differences of the two
flightplans (section 9).
-7- Final Report

Part I System Definition
2 Current Situation at Brussels National Airport
2.1 General
2.1.1 Brussels National Airport possess three runways – two being parallel (RWY
07L/25R, 07R/25L) and one being a crossing runway (RWY 02/20) – as
depicted in Figure I-1. See Part IV, page 83 for more details.
Figure I-1: Airport Layout [2]
2.1.2 In Table I-1 the following information is provided: available landing aids,
physical characteristics of the runways plus information on the neighbouring
areas that are overflown when the according runway is in use.
RWY Equipment ASDA LDA Direction

02 ILS CAT I, LLZ, 2987m 2941m Melsbroek
VOR-DME 9799ft 9648ft
20 ILS CAT I, LLZ 2987m 2767m Sterrebeek
9799ft 9078ft
07R VOR-DME 2891m 3089m Kortenberg
9484ft 10134ft
25L ILS CAT I, II, III, 3211m 3211m Zaventem
LLZ, VOR-DME 10534ft 10534ft
07L VOR-DME 3638m 3380m Steenokkerzeel,
11935ft 11089ft Louvain
25R ILS CAT I, II, III, 3638m 3338m Brussels, Diegem,
LLZ, VOR-DME 11935ft 10951ft Haren, Evere
Table I-1: Landing Aids, Declared Distances, Directions overflown [2]
-8- Final Report

2.1.3 Due to noise sensitive areas in the vicinity of the aerodrome, Brussels National
Airport has implemented a Preferential Runway System (PRS). This runway
system defines, for given times of the day which runway should be assigned for
landing and departing aircrafts. However, the PRS is not the determining factor
in runway selection for a number of circumstances. In case winds exceed the
limits summarized in Table I-2, a deviation from the Preferential Runway
System for safety related reasons is required1.
Crosswind Tailwind Gusts incl. Runway Remarks
20kts 7kts yes 25R, 25L, 07R, 07L
15kts 5kts yes 20/02 for landings
15kts 5kts yes 20/02 for take-offs from 2200 to 0459
15kts 0kts yes 20/02 for take-offs from 0500 to 2159

Table I-2: Current wind limits at Brussels National Airport [3]
1
All wind limits are valid for the runway conditions dry and wet (defined according to JAR-OPS).
-9- Final Report

2.2 Wind data for Brussels Nation Airport
2.2.1 Figure I-2 depicts a so-called ‘wind rose’: this provides a visualization of the
predominant wind velocity and wind direction for Brussels National Airport. The
wind rose shown below bases its data on the wind data provided by the
meteorological department of Belgocontrol and represents the year 2008. Since
the prevailing wind direction at Brussels National Airport is south-west it can be
stated that the runways 25R, 25L and 20 face dominant winds.
N
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
W + E
S
Figure I-2: Wind Rose for Brussels National Airport for the Year 2008
- 10 - Final Report
2.3 Movement Data BRU Airport 2008
2.3.1 The major load of the Airport’s annual traffic is handled on the two parallel
runways 25R and 25L. There are several reasons besides the local wind climate
for this observation (e.g. length of the runway, available landing aids, number
of exit taxiways as well as the taxiing time to the terminal). Figure I-3
represents the distribution of the movements for the year 2008.
80000 100000
Frequency
60000
40000
20000
0
Rwy02 Rwy07L Rwy07R Rwy20 Rwy25L Rwy25R
Runway used
Figure I-3: Distribution of the Traffic along the Runways
- 11 - Final Report
3 Legislation, Standards and Recommendations
3.1 ICAO Standards and Recommendations
3.1.1 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) states information

regarding cross- and tailwind limitations in the following documents:
• ICAO Annex 14 Vol. 1, Aerodromes

• ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611, PANS-OPS Vol. 1
• ICAO Doc 4444 ATM/501, PANS-ATM
ICAO Annex 14 Vol. 1
3.1.2 The ICAO Standards and Recommended Practises, which are published in the
Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, are adopted by the
Council. Standards are recognized as necessary and come with the obligation of
implementation by the contracting states. The below mentioned provisions of
ICAO Annex 14 concerning crosswinds however, represent Recommended
Practises which are different to Standards. Standards shall be implemented
whereas Recommended Practices should only be followed by the states.
3.1.3 The Annex 14 assumes that under certain crosswind conditions, landing and
take-offs are precluded (see Annex B.1). These assumptions lead to the
following maximum crosswind limits:
• 20 kts in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1500

m or over, except that when poor runway braking action owing to an
insufficient longitudinal coefficient of friction is experienced with some
frequency, a crosswind component not exceeding 13 kts should be
assumed,
• 13 kts in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1200
m or up to but not including 1500 m,
• 10 kts in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is less
than 1200 m.
3.1.4 There are no comparable provisions for tailwind, and it is not clear whether
gusts are included or not. However, it is mentioned that the above stated
provisions relate to normal circumstances and that several factors - gusts being
one of them - may require a reduction in the maximum crosswind values.
- 12 - Final Report
ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM
3.1.5 The guidelines of the ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM do not carry the status
afforded to the Standards and Recommended Practises of the ICAO. Therefore
they do not need to be implemented by the contracting states of the ICAO, nor
are, in general, deviations or non-compliances required to be reported.
Nevertheless, the guidelines of the PANS are recommended for world-wide
implementation.
3.1.6 The ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM state provisions concerning noise
preferential runways / the selection of runway in use. Both documents
recommend that under certain cross- and tailwind conditions noise abatement
shall not be a determining factor in runway nomination (see Annex B.1). Those
wind limits are:
• 15 kts crosswind, including gusts

• 5 kts tailwind, including gusts
3.1.7 Further does the ICAO PANS-ATM state, that normally an aircraft will land or
take-off into wind unless safety, the runway configuration, meteorological
conditions and available instrument approach procedures or air traffic
conditions determine that a different direction is preferable.
3.2 EASA & FAA Certification Specifications
3.2.1 Most aircraft operating at Brussels National Airport are certified according to
EASA CS-25 or FAA FAR Part 25. The certifications specifications of the FAA and
EASA are harmonized and the contents of the mentioned paragraphs remain
the same.
3.2.2 The regulations require among other things flight tests to demonstrate the
capability of handling certain wind components (see Annex B.2).
3.2.3 Since details on such flight tests are not within the content of the CS-25 or FAR
Part 25 regulations, the EASA and FAA published guidance material (see Annex
B.3). For that purpose, the EASA published Acceptable Means of Compliance
(AMC) in CS-25, book 2. Further AMC to the requirements of CS-25 can be
found in EASA AMC-20. The FAA published guidance material to FAR Part 25 in
form of the FAA AC 25-7A. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides acceptable
means of demonstrating compliance with the pertinent regulations.
- 13 - Final Report
3.2.4 The methods and procedures described in AC 25-7A have evolved through
many years of flight testing of transport category airplanes and, as such,
represent the current certification practice of the FAA. Like all Advisory
Circulars, these guidelines are not mandatory and do not constitute regulations.
3.2.5 The wind velocity, presented in the following, must be measured at a height of
10 m above the surface of the runway, or corrected for the difference between
the height at which the wind velocity is measured and the 10 m height,
according to CS-25 / FAR Part 25.
Crosswind Limits
3.2.6 During the flight tests it must be demonstrated that take-offs and landings are
safe with crosswinds of at least 20 kts or 0·2 VSR0, whichever is greater. There
is no obligation to identify the actual crosswind limit of the aircraft since the
crosswind does not need to exceed 25 kts during the test flights.
3.2.7 Therefore the demonstrated crosswind capabilities are not necessarily the
maximum crosswind components the aircraft is able to handle. Pilot judgement
based on flight handling is included in order to establish if demonstrated
crosswind value is also the limiting crosswind for that aircraft.
3.2.8 If the demonstrated crosswind is not considered as a limiting factor for aircraft
handling characteristics, higher crosswinds are then allowed when the
applicable operational requirements and the airline specifications allow it. For
practically all aircraft certified by the FAA, the demonstrated crosswind is not
regarded as limiting by the test pilots. Nevertheless is it possible that other
certification authorities consider the demonstrated crosswind to be a limit (e.g.
all Fokker aircraft demonstrated crosswinds are considered limiting by the
Dutch Civil Aviation Authorities).
3.2.9 Furthermore it is worth to mention that during these tests, only dry runways
are considered and it is not clear whether gusts are included or not.
Tailwind Limits
3.2.10 Corresponding to CS-25 or FAR Part 25 no specific flight test is necessary for
approval of operations in tailwind conditions of up to 10 kts. Aircraft certified
according to CS-25 or FAR Part 25 are therefore automatically approved for
operations in tailwind conditions of up to 10 kts.
- 14 - Final Report
3.2.11 For operations in tailwind conditions of more than 10 kts flight tests are
required. These flight tests must be conducted with not less than 150% of the
tailwind component value that is to be certified. This means for instance, that
when operations with a tailwind component of 15 kts shall be certified, the
tailwind component during the flight tests must be at least 22.5 kts.
3.2.12 Under such strong wind conditions, gusts can also normally be observed.
Therefore it can be assumed that the 150% margin in the tailwind component
shall account for gusts that may appear at this wind velocity.
3.2.13 The demonstrated tailwind however only reflects the capability of the aeroplane
as evaluated in terms of airworthiness but does not constitute operational
approval to conduct take-offs or landings in tailwinds exceeding 10 knots.
3.3 FAA Recommendations
3.3.1 The FAA published an order which prescribes air traffic control procedures and
phraseology for the use by personnel providing air traffic control services. This
order (FAA Order JO 7110.65S) states amongst other things the principle
procedure for the selection of runways (see Annex B.4).
3.3.2 In FAA Order JO 7110.65S, reference is made to FAA Order 8400.9 whose
purpose it is to provide safety and operational criteria for runway use programs
(see Annex B.4). This order applies to FAA personnel who may be called upon
to advise, evaluate, or coordinate on specific noise abatement plans for runway
use programs for particular airports.
3.3.3 The following wind limits for the nomination of runways in use are stated in
FAA Order 8400.9:
• clear and dry runways:

o 20 kts crosswind, including gusts
o 5 kts tailind or
o 7 kts tailwind, when anemometers are installed near the touchdown
zone of the candidate runway for landing, or near the departure
end for take-off
• runways not clear or not dry:
o 15 kts crosswind, including gusts
o no tailwind component, except the nominal range of winds reported
as calm (0 – 3 knots) may be considered to have no tailwind
component
- 15 - Final Report
3.3.4 Generally, the scope of the recommendations of the FAA is limited to the United
States. Even though the recommendations are applicable in European
countries, they may provide guidance in areas where no comparable
specifications exist.
3.4 Operational Rules
3.4.1 Specific operating requirements concerning high wind conditions may limit
operations. For instance, FAR Part 121 regulates the minimum required
proficiency of pilots for landing operations in crosswinds more than 15 kts (see
Annex B.5).
3.5 Overview of Cross- and Tailwind Limits
3.5.1 In Table I-3 the limits or requirements concerning cross and tailwind of the
described regulations, guidelines and recommendations are summarized.
Regulation / Guideline / Crosswind Tailwind incl. Gusts

Recommendation Cross- / Tailwind
Max. Limits
ICAO Annex 14 10 kts - 20 kts - -
ICAO PANS-OPS / 15 kts 5 kts Yes / Yes

ICAO PANS-ATM
FAA Order 8400.9 15 kts - 20 kts 0 kts - 7 kts Yes / -
EASA AMC 25.1581 / - 10 kts -

FAA AC 25-7A
Min. Requirements
Certification Specifications of 20 kts or - -

EASA CS-25 / FAR Part 25 0·2 VSR0
including guidance material
Table I-3: Wind Limits for the Nomination of Runways and Minimum Aircraft
Certification Requirements
3.5.2 Note that the values presented in Table I-3 cannot be compared due to their
different purpose and field of application. Some of the values are wind limits
others represent minimum capabilities. Whereas ICAO Annex 14 limits relate to
the optimal use of runway infrastructure, address ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS
ATM as well as the FAA order operational issues.
- 16 - Final Report
3.6 Statements from the Belgian Cockpit Association BeCA
3.6.1 The Belgian Cockpit Association BeCA has stated concern regarding the current
application of the noise preferential runway system. Therefore the BeCA has
published their conditions to change the operational procedures and their
recommendations. It is stated that these comply with the current position of the
International Federal Airline Pilots’ Association IFALPA.
3.6.2 The BeCA points out that the current wind criteria for selecting noise
preferential runways with wind limits of 20/7 kts (20 kts crosswind and 7 kts
tailwind) does not meet the ICAO’s regulations of 15/5 kts.
3.6.3 It is strongly recommended by BeCA to use the parallel runways 07L/25R and
07R/25L with wind criteria of 15/5 kts, including gusts as it is according to ICAO
regulations.
3.6.4 According to BeCA, the combined use of the crossing RWY 02/20 and RWY
07L/25R or RWY 07R/25L should be avoided at all times in order to increase the
level of safety at Brussels National Airport.
3.6.5 For periods of low traffic, and when there are no capacity constraints, BeCA
proposes the possibility for using only RWY 02/20 as a single runway with
headwind according to the actual wind direction. Due to the shorter length of
the runway, no operations with tailwind should be conducted as stated by the
BeCA.
3.6.6 Moreover, BeCA alludes that an installation of ILS for RWY 07L and 07R would
allow the use of all directions for landing and take-off and therefore
accommodates all weather operations. Further landings and take-offs on RWY
07L and 07R could decrease the noise impact. Additionally, the BeCA requires
the passing of existing plans for the building of a new taxiway to the threshold
of RWY 25L, this would allow the equivalent use of both RWY 25L and 25R for
take-offs.
- 17 - Final Report
4 Inventory of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria
4.1 Survey of Aircraft Types and Frequency of Operations
4.1.1 When discussing cross- and tailwind issues, the types of aircraft operated and
their capabilities to deal with the different wind conditions are of interest.
Figure I-4 shows 18 of the most frequent types of aircraft operated and their
frequency of operation at Brussels Airport for the year 2008.
25
20
Frequency (%)
15
10
0
A320
A319
A321
A330
BAe 146-200
B737
RJ85
CRJ100
ERJ145
CRJ200
B757
B767
B747
MD80
EMB135
F50
B777
MD11
Other
Aircraft Types
Figure I-4: Frequency of the most Frequent Operated Aircrafts at Brussels National
Airport for 2008
4.1.2 In the following section the cross- and tailwind capabilities for these aircraft
models are described.
4.2 Demonstrated Cross- and Tailwind Capabilities
4.2.1 Within the certification process, according to EASA CS-25 and FAR Part 25,
crosswind capabilities of aircrafts must be demonstrated during flight tests.
Operations in wind conditions with tailwind components of up to 10 kts are
automatically approved without specific flight tests. Only capabilities of
operations with tailwind components greater than 10 kts must be demonstrated
through flight tests.
- 18 - Final Report
4.2.2 Table I-4 provides an overview of the demonstrated cross- and tailwind
capabilities for the major aircraft types operated at Brussels National Airport.
Manufacturer Aircraft Model Demonstrated (Demonstrated)

Crosswind [kts] Tailwind [kts]
Aerospatiale ATR-42-200/300/320 45 (Take-Off), 15
38 (Landing)
ATR-72 35 10
Airbus A300-600 32 10
A310-200/300 28 10
A319 29 (Take-Off), 15
33 (Landing)
A320-100/200 29 gust 38 (Take-Off), 15
33 gust 38 (Landing)
A321 27 (Take-Off), 15
28 (Landing)
A330-300 32 15
A340-200/300 27 gust 33 15
Boeing B707-300 33 *
B727-100 29 *
B737-100/200 29 *
B737-300/400/500 35 10
B747-100/200 28 *
B747 SP 34 (Take-Off), *
32 (Landing)
B747-400 30 15
B757-200 30 15
B767-200 29 15
B767-300 33 15
B777-200 38 15
British Aerospace BAe146-100 25 (Take-Off), *
30 (Landing)
BAe146-200 30 (Take-Off), 5 (steep approach),
35 (Landing) 10 (Take-off),
15 (Landing)
RJ70/85/100 35 15
Jetstream 4100 35 *
Canadair CL-600/601/604 24 *
Dassault Falcon 20 23,5 *
Falcon 50 24,7 *
Falcon 900 30 *
Falcon 2000 35 *
de Havilland DHC-8-100/300 36 10
Dornier Do 328-100 21 *
Douglas DC-9-30 36 *
DC-10-10/30 29 *
DC-10-40 23,5 *
MD 80 28 10
MD 11 35 10
MD 90 30 10
Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia 30 *
EMB-145 30 10
Fokker F100 30 10
F70 35 10
F50 33 10
Gulfstream II 24,5 *
III 21 *
IV 24 *
Learjet 24 26 *
31 30 *
35 26,5 *
55 27 *
60 29 *
Lockheed L1011-1 33 *
SAAB 2000 40 10
340 35 10
Table I-4: Overview of Demonstrated Cross- and Tailwind Capabilities of Aircraft Types
Operated at Brussels National Airport [1] [22] [24] [23]
- 19 - Final Report
4.2.3 The demonstrated crosswinds vary between 20 kts and 45 kts. The tailwind
capabilities are either 10 kts or 15 kts. An exception is the 5 kts value for BAe
146-200 which is valid for steep approaches only. For some aircrafts separate
crosswind values are given for landings and take-offs.
4.2.4 Airbus has also published a mean demonstrated crosswind and a separate gust
value for the certification of the A320. For most of the other aircrafts it is
unclear whether gusts are included in the crosswind values. A comparison is
therefore difficult to conclude.
4.2.5 For some aircrafts separate crosswind values are given for landings and take-
offs. Airbus has published a mean demonstrated crosswind value and a
separate gust value since the certification of the A320. For most of the above
listed aircraft types however, it is unclear whether gusts are included in the
demonstrated crosswinds or not, thus making it difficult to compare the
different values.
4.2.6 Most of the demonstrated tailwinds are 10 kts, a value that was probably
culminated due to it being certified without specific flight test. When higher
tailwind capabilities are demonstrated, usually 15 kts are considered during the
flight test. For some aircraft types however, no demonstrated tailwind
capabilities were available (marked with *). Although it can be assumed that
according to the certification specifications of CS-25 / FAR Part 25 these
aircrafts are certified for operation in tailwinds of at least 10 kts.
4.2.7 It should be noted that the shown demonstrated wind capabilities do not
necessarily represent the actual crosswind limits the aircrafts are able to
handle. Actual limits are not required to be demonstrated (for more detail see
section 3.2 on page13). In fact, for only three aircrafts listed, the demonstrated
crosswind was considered as to be limiting (F50, F70 and SAAB 2000).
4.2.8 It is further worth mentioning that wind conditions during the flight tests are
selected more or less on a random basis. Therefore, some manufactures have
tested their aircraft during high crosswind conditions whilst others were not
able to complete the certification program during such conditions. This is
another reason why a comparison of the different wind capabilities is difficult.
- 20 - Final Report
4.3 Cross- and Tailwind Limits during Autoland Operations
4.3.1 An autoland operation can be performed by most modern jet transport aircraft.
These operations are amongst other factors limited by maximum allowable
cross- and tailwind components. Contrary to the demonstrated wind
components, the autoland cross- and tailwinds are always a limit.
4.3.2 Table I-5 gives an overview of cross- and tailwind limits during autoland
operations.
Manufacturer Aircraft Model Crosswind Limit [kts] Tailwind Limit [kts]

Airbus A300-600 15 10
A310-200/300 20 10
A319/A320/A321 20 10
A330-200/300 20 10
A340-200/300 20 10
Boeing B737-300/400/500 20 10
B737-800 20 10
B747-400 25 15
B757-200 25 15
B767-200/300 25 15
B777-200 25 15
Fokker F70 25 10
F100 25 10
McDonnell Douglas MD11 15 10
MD80 15 10
MD90 15 10
British Aerospace RJ70/85/100 15 10
Table I-5: Overview of Cross- and Tailwind Limits during Autoland Operations [1]
4.3.3 For all presented aircraft types in Table I-5, the demonstrated cross- and
tailwind capabilities are equal or more often higher than those of the autoland
wind limits (also see Table I-4). All aircraft types listed are capable to perform
autoland operations in conditions with a crosswind component of at least 15 kts
and a tailwind component of at least 5 kts.
4.3.4 It is worth mentioning that it is not clear if the values provided in Table I-5
include gusts.
4.3.5 Due to system constraints, the maximum crosswind values for autoland
operations are usually less than the manually demonstrated crosswind landings.
4.4 Cross- and Tailwind Limits applied by Aircraft Operators
4.4.1 In the case the demonstrated crosswind is not considered limiting, it is

generally up to the aircraft operators to determine their own operational limits
(see section 3.2, page 13). In general however, the operators consider the
maximum demonstrated crosswinds as limits.
- 21 - Final Report
4.4.2 A survey was made among the airlines operating at Brussels National Airport to
gather the cross- and tailwind limits of their aircrafts. The analysis gathers data
on 17 aircraft types that are being operated by 11 operators at Brussels
National Airport.
4.4.3 Since runway conditions have a significant influence on the ground performance
of aircraft during a crosswind ground roll, most operators are applying different
crosswind limits according to runway conditions or the braking actions reported.
These crosswind limits are usually determined by engineering judgments and
simulations and are not approved by authorities or substantiated by the
certification flight tests. The crosswind limits for dry runways are usually higher
than the limits for wet or contaminated runways. It is not always clear whether
gusts are included in the operators’ cross- and tailwind limits or not, since only
a few operators explicitly define limits including gusts.
4.4.4 For all aircraft types analysed in the study, the operators’ crosswind limits for
dry or wet runways with good braking action are set to at least 25 kts while
the tailwind limits is usually set at 10 kts (see Table I-6). Only three operators
define a tailwind limit of 15kts for specific aircraft types. Further, some
operators apply restrictions or corrections on the crosswind limit according to
the runway width available.
Operator Aircraft Models Tailwind Limits [kts]

Air Cairo Airbus A320 10
Brussels Airlines A319 / A330 / B737 / Bae 10
146 / RJ85 / RJ100
DHL A300 / B757PF / B757SF 10/10/15
EasyJet Switzerland 10
Estonian Air Boeing 737-300 / 737-500 10 /10
Flybe Dash 8 Q400 / Embraer 195 10 / 10
Jat Airways 10
Jetairfly Boeing 737 / 767 10-15
SAS B737 / MD80 / A320 / CRJ 15/10/15/10
900
Thomas Cook Airlines A320 10
VLM Airlines Fokker F50 10
Table I-6: Tailwind Limits of 11 Operators at Brussels National Airport
4.4.5 A few operators also define separate cross- and tailwind limits for take-offs and
landings. In such case, the crosswind limits for take-offs were in most cases
slightly lower than the limits for landings.
4.4.6 For autoland operations, the operators’ crosswind limits do not reach the level
the limits mentioned above.
4.4.7 It shall be noted that the flight crew may further request other runways to
decrease cross- and / or tailwind components according to operational
- 22 - Final Report
situations such as contaminated runways or other reasons (e.g. training of new

pilots). This may especially be the case when certain cross- and tailwind
components are reached (e.g. 20-25kts crosswind or 5-7kts tailwind).
4.5 Landing Runway Length Requirements
4.5.1 In order to evaluate required landing distances for demanding aircrafts being
operated at Brussels National Airport, an analysis has been made. In a first
step, the most demanding aircraft types were selected according to their
landing distances required in standard conditions which are available in the
“Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning” of the manufacturers. Afterwards,
the actual required landing distances for different conditions of interest were
then gathered.
4.5.2 The most demanding aircraft types regularly operated at Brussels National
2
Airport identified and used for the analysis are:
• McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (cargo series)

• Boeing B747-400 (cargo series)
• Boeing B747-200 (cargo series)
4.5.3 Calculations for the analysis were made according to demanding conditions at
Brussels National Airport. Therefore runway 02 was used since it is the shortest
runway (9800ft) with the highest down slope (0.78%). Additionally the
maximum landing weight for the aircraft types has been taken into account.
Although thrust reversers have not been taken into account. The variable
factors for the calculations of each aircraft type were:
• Tailwind component (5 kts, 7kts, 10 kts)

• Runway conditions and braking action (BA)
• Autobrake selector
• Flap settings (normal, full)
4.5.4 For the B747-400 and B747-200, the information was provided by courtesy of
Kalitta Air and is based on the Teledyne Controls Onboard Performance System
(OPS), which is an FAA approved source for take-off and landing data. This
program uses digitized FAA approved aeroplane flight manual data to determine
2
The Antonov An-124 is also a demanding aircraft in terms of required landing distance. However,
there was no performance data made available before the end date of this study. Therefore, this
type of aircraft could not be taken into account.
- 23 - Final Report
the solutions. Kalitta Air does not add additional safety margins to the
calculated values. However an appropriate safety margin in the form of a
1500ft long “air distance” before the actual touch down has been included.
However, that safety margin will be reduced in higher tailwind conditions due to
the potential longer flare distances whilst landing in such conditions.
4.5.5 The information regarding the MD-11 was provided by courtesy of Lufthansa
Cargo AG. The shown values are based on brakes fully applied and anti-skid
operative and can be compared to medium/maximum autobrake selector
settings. Also appropriate safety margins have already been included, additional
safety margins by the operator are not applicable.
4.5.6 In the following tables the results of the analysis are shown. The values are
colour-coded according to the required landing distance and runway’s landing
distances available (see Table I-1, page 8):
• Red: required landing distance is longer than the longest landing

distance available (RWY 07L, 3380m / 11089ft)
o no runway with the analysed conditions can be used for landings
• Orange: required landing distance is shorter than the longest and
longer than the shortest landing distance available
o runway selection is restricted for landings under the analysed
conditions
• Black: required landing distance is shorter than the shortest landing
distance available (RWY 20, 2767m / 9078ft)
o no restriction on runway selection for landings under the analysed
conditions
Flap Tailwind Runway Condition

Settings Component Dry Wet
[kts]
Autobrake Selector Autobrake Selector
Min Med Max Min Med Max
25 5 7494 6334 6334 7494 7284 7284
(normal) 7 7654 6508 6508 7654 7485 7485
10 7923 6770 6770 7923 7786 7786
30 5 7093 5978 5978 7093 6875 6875
7 7253 6148 6148 7253 7071 7071
10 7493 6403 6403 7493 7364 7364

Table I-7: Landing Distances of B747-200 (cargo series) in Feet, Data Courtesy of
Kalitta Air
- 24 - Final Report

Settings Component Dry Contaminated
[kts]
BA: good
2 3 4 Max 2 3 4 Max
25 5 9960 8691 7308 5989 N/A 9971 8706 8571
(normal) 7 10222 8921 7498 6133 N/A 10235 8934 8775
10 10615 9266 7783 6349 N/A 10631 9276 9081
30 5 9232 8066 6918 5687 N/A 9266 8165 8027
7 9482 8286 7102 5827 N/A 9520 8387 8227
10 9857 8616 7378 6037 N/A 9901 8720 8527

Table I-8: Landing Distances of B747-400 (cargo series) in Feet – Part I, Data Courtesy
of Kalitta Air

Settings Component Contaminated Contaminated
[kts]
BA: Fair/Medium BA: Poor
2 3 4 Max 2 3 4 Max
25 5 N/A 12704 12314 12307 N/A 18903 18860 18870
(normal) 7 N/A 13040 12632 12623 N/A 19423 19376 19386
10 N/A 13544 13109 13097 N/A 20203 20150 20160
30 5 N/A 11644 11362 11309 N/A 16981 16903 16895
7 N/A 11968 11672 11617 N/A 17485 17403 17395
10 N/A 12454 12137 12079 N/A 18241 18153 18145

Table I-9: Landing Distances of B747-400 (cargo series) in Feet – Part II, Data Courtesy
of Kalitta Air
Settings Component Dry Wet

[kts]
35 5 2832 3218
(normal) 7 2936 3322
10 3092 3478
50 5 2608 2961
7 2712 3065
10 2868 3220
Table I-10: Landing Distances of MD-11 (cargo series) in Meters, Data Courtesy of
Lufthansa Cargo AG
- 25 - Final Report
4.5.7 As shown in Table I-7, there are no restrictions concerning landing distances for
the B747-200 under the conditions analysed – even with tailwind components
up to 10 kts and the autobrake selector at minimum settings.
4.5.8 For the B747-400, the situation is quite different (see Table I-8 and Table I-9).
At Brussels National Airport, the B747-400 cannot perform landings on
contaminated runways with fair/medium or poor braking action. However,
heavy rainfalls which lead to runway conditions with braking action less than
good do occur at Brussels National Airport although on a rare basis (10-20
times a year, see [1]).
4.5.9 For dry runways or contaminated runways with good braking action the
situation regarding the B747-400 at Brussels National Airport is similar. There
are some restrictions on landings for the different runways concerning the
autobrake selector, tailwind conditions and flap settings. Using a normal flap
setting of 25 (for landings on any runway with tailwinds up to 7kts) the
autobrake selector must be set to at least 3 (dry runways) or 4 (Braking Action,
BA good). For landings at a tailwind component of 10kts, the autobrake selector
settings must be raised or restrictions in runway selection must be applied.
Whilst using a flap setting of 30, the situation slightly relaxes, although for
usual autobrake selector settings of 2 or 3, restrictions in runway selection still
apply. Higher autobrake selector settings of 4 however are primarily to be used
under CAT II/III operations.
4.5.10 When considering the landing distances of the B747-400, it can be concluded
that for the most frequent runway conditions of dry or BA good the aircraft can
to be landed at Brussels National Airport with tailwind components of up to
10kts. Some restrictions apply for the shorter runways regarding the autobrake
selector settings of the landing aircraft which need to be considered during
daily operations. These restrictions increase slightly with a tailwind component
of 10kts.
4.5.11 The analysis of the required landing distances of the MD-11 (see Table I-10)
shows that landings on wet runways and with a tailwind component of 10kts
cannot be performed at Brussels National Airport. Using normal flap settings, in
every other combination of runway conditions (dry/wet) and tailwind
components (5, 7, 10 kts), the selection of the runway for landings is restricted.
Landings on the runway with the shortest landing distance available (RWY 20)
can only be performed using full flaps and a tailwind component of up to 7kts.
- 26 - Final Report
4.5.12 Regarding different flap settings, it can be said that high flap settings are not
favoured by pilots in high wind and especially strong gust conditions. Lower flap
settings are then used to stabilize the approach, although higher approach
speeds and landings distances are then required. Therefore the above shown
values of the analysis for the full flaps settings must be considered with
caution.
4.5.13 Summarizing the analysis of the required landing distances for critical aircraft
that are operated at Brussels National Airport, the following can be stated:
• Runway conditions with less than good braking action can lead to
improper required landing distances of demanding aircraft types, even
with low tailwind components.
• On dry runways, or contaminated runways with good braking action,
landings of demanding aircraft types can be performed. Restrictions in
runway selection may be necessary regarding the settings of flaps and
the autobrake selector as well as regarding the tailwind. At higher
tailwind components, especially at 10kts, these restrictions intensify.
4.6 Weight Restrictions during Take-off in Tailwind Conditions
4.6.1 Corresponding to the analysis of the required landing distances for demanding
aircrafts that are operated at Brussels National Airport (see section 4.5), an
analysis has also been made for the take-off case. For this purpose, following
most demanding aircraft types have been evaluated:
• Boeing B747-400 (freight version)

• MD 11 (freight version)
4.6.2 For take-off operations, the required take-off distance or accelerate stop
distance can be compensated in relation to the available runway length by
adjusting the maximum take-off weight / mass (this can be conducted by
adjusting the payload). Therefore the maximum take-off weight / mass was
analysed in different tailwind conditions to gain knowledge on the reduced
masses that are present due to tailwind operations.
- 27 - Final Report
4.6.3 The information was provided by courtesy of Kalitta Air and Lufthansa
Cargo AG. The calculations were made upon the following conditions:
• Engines
o B747-400: General Electric CF6-80C2B1F
o MD-11: General Electric
• Flaps setting
o B747-400: Flaps 20 (which provide greatest weight capability)
o MD-11: Flaps variable for “calm” , 5kts and 7kts, flaps 28 for 10kts
• RWY 20, (shortest runway with 0.78% slope), dry runway
• Standard atmospheric conditions (ISA)
4.6.4 The results of the calculations are shown in the following table:
Tailwind Component [kts]
calm 5 7 10
B747-400 MTOW [kg] 366,373 354,016 349,162 341,829
MD-11 MTOW [kg] 280,400 272,100 269,700 265,100

Table I-11: MTOW of B747-400 and MD-11 (cargo series), Data Courtesy of Kalitta Air
and Lufthansa Cargo AG
4.6.5 As shown in Table I-11, the MTOW of both aircraft types decreases with
increasing tailwind components. The difference between the MTOW for 10kts
tailwind and the MTOW for calm wind is roughly 7.2% for the B747-400 and
roughly 5.5% for the MD-11. It is to be noted due to performance issues that
the MTOW will be lower than the presented values for higher temperatures and
for wet runways.
4.6.6 Due to the increasing weight restrictions on take-offs with increasing tailwind
components, the operator’s planned operations may be influenced to a higher
degree as well.
- 28 - Final Report
5 Best Practices at European Airports
5.1 Survey of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria at other European Airports
5.1.1 Table I-12 presents an overview of wind criteria used by European airports. The
data of 22 European airports was mainly obtained from the Aeronautical
Information Publication (AIP) of the different airports. This list represents only
major European airports and is therefore not complete.
Airport, Country mean max Crosswind Tailwind incl. Remarks

Crosswind Crosswind [kts] [kts] Gusts
[kts] [kts]
Vienna-Schwechat, 25 30 6 yes dry RWY
Austria
20 25 6 yes wet RWY and BA
good
Oostende, Belgium 15 5 Yes dry RWY
Kopenhagen- 15
Kastrup, Denmark
Bordeaux-Merignac, 25 5 tailwind for RWY 23
France
Frankfurt, Germany 5 landing direction 25
and BA good
15 take-off direction 18
Budapest-Ferihegy, 15 5 yes
Hungary
Reykjavik, Iceland 15 landing on RWY 24
Dublin, Ireland 15 5
Milan-Malpensa, 10
Italy (measured
mean)
Milan-Linate, Italy 7 dry RWY
5 wet RWY
Rome-Fiumicino, 25 10 dry RWY
Italy (measured
mean)
20 10 wet RWY
(measured
mean)
Venice, Italy 15
Turin, Italy 7 dry RWY
5 wet RWY
Amsterdam- 20 7 BA good
Schiphol,
Netherlands
15 7 RVR < 550 m and/or
cloud base < 200 ft
10 0 braking action
medium
5 0 barking action poor
Warsaw-Okecie, 15 5 yes
Poland
Barcelona, Spain 25 10 yes
Madrid-Barajas, 10 dry and wet RWY,
Spain BA good
Palma de Mallorca, 10 dry and wet RWY,
Spain BA good
Manchester, U.K. 5
Bournemouth, U.K. 5 departure from RWY
08
London-Heathrow, 5 dry RWY
U.K.
Table I-12 Overview of Wind Criteria used by European Airports
- 29 - Final Report
5.1.2 It is shown that several airports specify tailwind limits, although no crosswind
limits are established. In contrast, only two airports specify crosswind limits but
no tailwind limit. Furthermore, not all airports state if gusts are included in the
published wind limits.
5.1.3 Only some of the airports specify the wind criteria according to the runway
conditions. Those conditions are either characterized by the wetness or by the
braking action of the runway. Furthermore, only one airport takes into account
the visibility in terms of restriction to the runway visual range and ceiling.
5.1.4 Figure I-5 shows the frequency of the above described airports’ cross- and
tailwind limits. If there is more than one published criteria for cross- or
tailwinds, these criteria are also recorded in the figure.
12
10
8
Frequency
0
0 5 7 10 15 20 25
Wind Velocity [kt]
Tailwind Crosswind
Figure I-5: Frequency of Wind Criteria used by European Airports
5.1.5 It is illustrated that a majority of the largest European airports use 15 kts as the
crosswind limit and 5 kts as the tailwind limit.
5.1.6 Unusual in comparison with other airports, Frankfurt International Airport uses
a tailwind limit of 15 kts. Although it is to mention that this criteria only applies
to runway 18 where take-offs can only be conducted.
5.2 Survey of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria at other European Air

Navigation Service Providers
5.2.1 Three Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) have been interviewed
concerning their local practice of observation of cross- and tailwind limits. Data
- 30 - Final Report
are obtained through personal discussion and review of the local documented
procedures. Table I-13 presents a summary of the results.
Airport (ANSP) Limits Measured or Predicted Measurement
Berlin-Tegel (DFS) No Crosswind Limit, Measured and predicted 2 min average and
5 kts Tailwind values maximum value
(gusts including)
Hamburg (DFS) No Crosswind Limit, Mostly measured values, 2 min average and 3s
5 kts Tailwind predicted values are not so in last 10 min
(gusts including) reliable maximum (ICAO)
Düsseldorf (DFS) No Crosswind Limit, Measured and predicted 2 min average and 3s
5 kts Tailwind values, wind aloft reported by in last 10 min
(gusts including) pilots maximum (ICAO)
Vienna 25/30 kts Crosswind, Mostly measured values 2 min average and 3s
(Austrocontrol) 6 kts Tailwind in last 10 min
(gusts including) maximum (ICAO)
Zurich (Skyguide) No Crosswind Limit, Mostly measured values, 2 min average and 3s
10 kts Tailwind Limit predicted wind only under in last 10 min
(gusts not including) stable weather conditions maximum (ICAO)
Table I-13: Overview of the Results of the Survey among European ANSP
5.2.2 The German ANSP Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS) generally observes a 5kts
tailwind limit (including gusts). There is no limit concerning the crosswind.
Similarly, Skyguide at Zurich Airport has not implemented any crosswind limit.
However the runways are operated with up to a 10 kts tailwind (gusts not
including). At Vienna Airport Austrocontrol observes different crosswind limits
for dry and wet runways, a 6kts tailwind limit (including gusts) for all runway
conditions is accepted.
5.2.3 The Deutsche Flugsicherung more or less uniformly relies on both measured
and forecasted wind data when deciding on a change of runway. However, at
Hamburg airport, locally measured values are considered more suitable. At
Düsseldorf Airport, even the pilot’s reports on excessive wind at higher altitudes
are taken into account for the selection of a runway. At both Vienna and Zurich
Airport the local air traffic control relies mainly on measured wind data due to
the local terrain and the difficulty to obtain reliable forecasts.
5.2.4 The last issue subject to comparison is the definition of the mean wind and
gusts as well as the measurement of those data. It can be concluded that all
interviewed ANSP harmonized the measurement of the wind data according to
ICAO Annex 3 definitions.
- 31 - Final Report
Part II Risk assessment
6 Risk Assessment of Cross- and Tailwind Components
6.1 General
6.1.1 The overall aim of this study is to identify cross- and tailwind limits on the basis
of objective safety-related criteria. When a safety situation must to be analysed
a data-driven approach is common practice. Therefore the risk assessment
process applied in this study involves the use of historical accident data.
6.1.2 The Risk assessment process is shown in Figure II-1. Inputs of the assessment
are European accident and traffic data as well as the Target Level of Safety of
the ILS Collision Risk Model. An accident data analysis will be presented in
section 6.6 and a wind accident risk model will also be developed in section
6.7.10. A Target Level of Safety compatible with the wind accident risk model
will be derived in section 6.7. Wind limitations finally result from the model-
specific Target Level of Safety and wind accident risk model, as discussed in
section 6.9.
Figure II-1: Process of Risk Assessment to Determine a Wind Limit
- 32 - Final Report
6.2 European Accident Data
6.2.1 The accident data was compiled through the review of officially published
accident reports. The definition of accidents applied is according to the ICAO
Annex 13 (see Annex D, page 93) since the definitions used within the reports
varied among the national investigation authorities. Incidents have not been
taken into account, although otherwise envisaged, since it became apparent in
the course of the review process that the reporting policy for incidents was
heterogeneous.
6.2.2 A solid risk model requires a comprehensive data set. Due to the generally high
safety level within the aviation domain a large volume of air traffic has to be
considered in order to compile an appropriate data set. Therefore the accident
records of several European countries have been examined. Although
representing a comprehensive database, the reporting system of the US
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has not been used in the first
place. The safety level between North America and Europe can be considered
comparable, but with the focus on the wind climate Europe is the appropriate
choice.
6.2.3 Accidents that occurred in the following states have been analysed (see Figure
II-2). Eventual oversee territories are not included. This selection is mainly
driven from the availability of accident reports and represents approximately
67% of the movements in the year 2007 of the different States within the EU.
• Belgium
• France
• Germany
• Ireland
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
- 33 - Final Report
Figure II-2: Map of Selected European States for the Risk Assessment
6.2.4 The time frame considered was between 1996 and 2007, representing a recent
12 years average. These years have been completely reviewed forming a
virtually complete list of all accidents that have occurred within this time period
of the above mentioned countries. Completeness is crucial for the purpose of
this risk assessment.
6.2.5 Due to the scope of this study, accidents have been selected which occurred at
or on aerodromes during the following flight phases:
• take-off,
• initial climb,
• final approach,
• missed approach and
• landing.
- 34 - Final Report
6.2.6 Further selection- and exclusion criteria are geared to operations at Brussels
National Airport:
• IFR or IFR/VFR traffic has been considered.

• General Aviation, Aerial Work or Military flight nature has been
excluded.
• Accidents involving aircrafts with a maximum take-off mass of less
than 2 tons were excluded.
• Accidents due to sabotage, terrorism, and military action are excluded
(since these occurrences are not safety- but security-related).
6.2.7 No differentiations between the causes or the types of the accidents have been
made.
6.3 NTSB Accident Data
6.3.1 Although the wind climate of the US is expected to be different from Europe,
the accident reports published by the NTSB will be used for comparison
purpose.
6.3.2 Therefore, the equivalent selection and exclusion criteria that have been
applied to European data will be used in order to compile a US American data
set.
6.3.3 The following criteria was used for the selection of the relevant accidents:
• The accident occurred in the US.

• The accident occurred, within the time period of 1996 to 2007.
• The accident flights were conducted by Air Carriers, including US and
foreign flagged carriers.
• The accident flights were conducted according to IFR or IFR/VFR.
• The accidents occurred during take-off, final approach, missed
approach or landing.
6.4 European Traffic Data
6.4.1 Besides accident data the risk assessment process requires aviation traffic
statistics from the selected European states. These data is important for the
determination of the accident ration, i.e. the information how many accidents
occurred during how many movements. To obtain the required data the
Eurocontrol Air Traffic and Forecast (STATFOR) was examined.
- 35 - Final Report
6.4.2 The aviation traffic data collected by Eurocontrol in the STATFOR database is
mainly based on the data of the Central Flow Management Unit of Eurocontrol,
which is responsible for providing Air Traffic Flow Management services within
the airspace of the participating European States. The major part of the
STATFOR database represents the filed flight plans. Also actual routes flown as
well as data from the regional en-route charges system of the Central Route
Charges Office of Eurocontrol are included. Therefore the STATFOR database
gathers information about IFR flights; purely VFR traffic is not recorded.
6.4.3 The STATFOR data however could only be gathered back to 2005. Therefore an
extrapolation of the available data was needed. For the purpose of the
extrapolation in a first step aviation traffic statistics of the different European
states were collected from the responsible states’ authorities. From the states
data, growth factors for each state and year were determined. In a last step,
those factors were applied to the available STATFOR data to estimate the
missing data.
6.4.4 Figure II-3 illustrates the aviation traffic data used for the risk assessment
process. Corresponding to the accident selection criteria, there were
113,676,610 take-offs and landings performed in total.
12.000.000
10.000.000
Movements (Takeoffs and Landings)
8.000.000
6.000.000
4.000.000
2.000.000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
extrapolation available data
Figure II-3: STATFOR - Movements (Take-off and Landings) for the Selected European
States between 1996 and 2007
6.4.5 It is to mention that in the comparison of the aviation traffic data from the
different sources (STATFOR, European states’ authorities) deviations are
- 36 - Final Report
noticeable. Those differences can result from partly different allocations,

definitions and statistical procedures, for which reasons a comparison of the
data is difficult.
6.4.6 Therefore the extrapolation of the STATFOR aviation data was done, since it
allows the comparison of the data across the European states due to consistent
definitions and procedures of data collection. Furthermore the use of the
STATFOR data represents the more conservative approach, since the
movement numbers are slightly smaller than those compiled by the single
states.
6.5 U.S. Traffic Data
6.5.1 For the risk model based on US data, aviation traffic data was obtained through
the Federal Aviation Administration. To gather the total numbers of take-offs
and landings, the Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) was examined and
airport operations were analysed.
6.5.2 The obtained aviation traffic data summarizes the movement data (take-offs
and landings) of Air Carriers with IFR itinerant operations in the U.S. for the
corresponding year.
6.5.3 Figure II-4 illustrates the aviation traffic data used for the risk model.
Corresponding to the accident selection criteria, there were 159,709,633 take-
offs and landings performed in total.
16.000.000
14.000.000
Movements (Takeoffs and Landings)
12.000.000
10.000.000
8.000.000
6.000.000
4.000.000
2.000.000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Figure II-4: Movements (Take-offs and Landings) of Air Carriers with IFR Itinerant
Operations in the US between 1996 and 2007
- 37 - Final Report
6.6 Accident Data Analysis
6.6.1 All accidents of 8 European countries from 1996 to 2007 were analyzed. The
total count of 106 accidents complies with the selection- and exclusion criteria
described in section 6.2.
6.6.2 Due to the purpose of this study, the information regarding the wind conditions
at the time and location where the accident took place is very important. In
case the accident occurred under gusty wind conditions the maximal wind
velocity was recorded in the dataset. Therefore the accident data contains wind
velocities with gust data included. Consequently the risk model delivers risk
values associated with wind including gusts.
6.6.3 The accident distribution according to the flight phase is shown in Figure II-5.
More than 50% (57 accidents) of the accidents occurred during normal landing.
The category “Emergency landing” has been introduced to summarize a certain
type of accident involving an unscheduled landing due to diverse reasons (see
Annex C, page 99) that may even result in a forced landing in the vicinity of an
airport. More than 80% (87 accidents) of the accidents occurred during arrival
(final approach, missed approach, landing, emergency landing), while 18% (19
accidents) occurred during departure (take-off and initial climb).
50
40
Frequency
30
20
10
0
Emergency Final Initial Missed

Landing Approach Climb Landing Approach Takeoff
Flight phase
Figure II-5: Frequency of Accidents Depended on Flight Phase
6.6.4 8% (9 accidents) of the accidents occurred during the flight phase “Final
Approach” (FA) with a fatality rate of 78%, while the fatality rate is on average
- 38 - Final Report
at 21%. Only the flight phase “Initial Climb” (IC) has a higher fatality rate of
80%, as can be seen in Figure II-6. The least fatal flight phase is “Landing”
with a fatality rate of just 5%.
1.0
0.8
non fatal
0.6
Fatality
0.4
0.2
fatal
0.0
Em. Ldg FA IC Landing MA Takeoff
Flight phase
Figure II-6: Mosaic Plot for Accident Fatality and Flight Phase
6.6.5 Only 13% (14 accidents) are caused by aircrafts with wake category “Heavy”
(H), while 62% (66 accidents) of the accidents where caused by aircrafts with
wake category “Medium” (M).
60
50
40
Frequency
30
20
10
0
H L L/M M
Wake category
Figure II-7: Frequency of Accidents Depended on Wake Category
6.6.6 The histogram of the absolute value of the crosswind component is shown in
Figure II-8. Crosswind values above 15 kts are censored due to aircrafts,
airports and airlines crosswind limits. As to be expected, accident frequency
sinks with increasing crosswind speeds.
- 39 - Final Report
40
30
Frequency
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
absolute value of Cross Wind Component [kts]
Figure II-8: Histogram of the Absolute Value of the Crosswind Component (including
Gusts) of Accidents
6.6.7 A relationship between crosswind and the wake category can be examined by a
mosaic plot, shown in Figure II-9. Each vertical bar represents the frequency of
the wake category for a range of absolute values of the crosswind component.
The area of the squares is proportional to the frequency.
6.6.8 Figure II-9 shows no significant variation regarding frequency distribution of the
wake category for crosswind speed from 0 up to 15 kts. Crosswind speeds
above 15 kts are censored, due to aircrafts, airports and airlines crosswind
limits.
1.0
0.8
M
Wake category
0.6
L/M
0.4
L
0.2
H
0.0
0 5 10 15 35
absolute value of Cross Wind Component [kts]
Figure II-9: Mosaic Plot for ICAO Wake Category and Absolute Value of the Crosswind
Component (including Gusts)
- 40 - Final Report
6.6.9 The distribution of the headwind component, as shown in Figure II-10 is

asymmetric. One reason for this observation is that operations with positive
headwind components (i.e. headwind) are safer than operations with negative
headwind components (i.e. tailwind), which are therefore avoided in general.
Only 25% (27 accidents) of the accidents occurred with a negative headwind
component (i.e. under tailwind).
30
25
20
Frequency
15
10
5
0
-10 0 10 20 30
Head Wind Component [kts]
Figure II-10: Histogram of the Headwind Component (including Gusts) of Accidents
6.6.10 Figure II-11 shows the positive tailwind component distribution. Tailwind values
above approximate 5 kts are censored by varying aircrafts, airports and airline
tailwind limits. Only 3% (3 accidents) occurred with a tailwind component
above 5 kts.
15
10
Frequency
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
positive Tail Wind Component [kts]
Figure II-11: Histogram of the Positive Tailwind Component (including Gusts) of

Accidents
- 41 - Final Report
6.6.11 As European accidents with tailwind are rare, a comparison with U.S. accident
data will be conducted. Therefore the NTSB database has been analyzed
through application of the same criteria as for the European accidents (see
section 6.2). In the years from 1996 to 2007 there is a total count of 130
accidents that complies with the selection- and exclusion criteria.
6.6.12 Figure II-12 shows the positive tailwind component distribution of U.S.
accidents. Analogous to the European accidents, these data are also censored
by aircrafts, airports and airline tailwind limits. The comparison with Figure
II-11 demonstrates, that accidents with a positive tailwind are also rare in the
US data. Only 18% (24 accidents out of 130) have a positive tailwind
component and only 5% (6 accidents) occurred with a tailwind component
above 5 kts.
10
8
Frequency
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15
positive Tail Wind Component [kts]

Figure II-12: Histogram of the Positive Tailwind Component (not including Gusts) of US
Accidents
6.7 Target Level of Safety
6.7.1 The quantitative determination of risk requires an equal quantitative level

representing a maximal acceptable amount of the same risk. This is the concept
of the so called Target Level of Safety (TLS). This approach was introduced in
the 1950s within the aviation domain; it was first introduced in the certification
process of aircrafts and its subsystems. Today it is applied over a variety of
industries. The basic idea consists of defining a level of safety (or risk) that
shall be attained, or not to be exceeded. The measured level of risk can then be
compared with the mentioned TLS and lead to different outcomes. In case the
risk is not in excess of the target level, the associated activity can be accepted.
- 42 - Final Report
However, in an opposing case the risk, for an activity is unacceptably high and
must be mitigated.
6.7.2 Although the application of the TLS concept is rather straightforward, the areas
where such a Target Level of Safety is available are very limited. Especially with
regards to areas that involve majoritarian qualitative aspects (e.g. human
interaction, procedures), where the application of this quantitative concept
becomes difficult. However, current discussions in different ICAO working
groups and other international expert teams demonstrate the increasing use of
this concept in upcoming issues.
6.7.3 For the scope of this study a TLS covering all types of accidents during arrival
and departure of aircrafts is required. However, such a TLS is not yet available
in international literature. Nevertheless with the application of general principles
it is possible to derive a suitable safety target.
6.7.4 With regards to safety assessments required for Air Navigation Service
Providers, it is common praxis to apportion a given TLS on individual hazards.
The regulatory basis provides the Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory Requirement
(ESSAR) 4 [6]. It suggests that an apportionment may be done per phase of
flight and/or per accident types.
6.7.5 The starting point for the derivation of the safety objective shall be the TLS that
has been defined by the ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel (OCP) for the purpose
of their Collision Risk Model (CRM). This Target Level of Safety has been
designed to limit the risk of an obstacle collision of an aircraft conducting an
ILS-guided final approach or missed approach. The fact of being internationally
established since the 1980s and being published within the ICAO Doc. 9274 are
very important for the choice of this TLS as a base for further considerations.
6.7.6 The TLS of the CRM represents the maximal acceptable risk of 1 obstacle
collision in 10 Million ILS approaches or missed-approaches. With regards to the
overall objective of defining wind limits for arrival and departure operations at
the airport, it is necessary to scale the TLS to
• any types of accident, not only obstacle collisions, and

• all airport related flight phases.
6.7.7 For reasons that will be clarified within a later section (section 6.9, page 49)
the TLS will only cover the arriving traffic and not the departing traffic. The
missing flight phases relevant for airport operations besides final approach and
- 43 - Final Report
missed approaches are landings and emergency landings (definition provided in

Annex D, page 93).
6.7.8 The principal idea for the derivation of a suitable TLS is applying the maximal
risk allowed for ILS-operations related collisions on all other types of accidents
that may occur at an airport. Figure II-13 provides a visualisation of the scaling
process. The aim of the derivation is to determine a factor that scales the
limited scope of the CRM TLS to any type of accident (vertical axis) and to the
flight phases final approach, missed approach, landing and emergency landing
(horizontal axis).
Figure II-13: Visualisation of the Scaling of the Target Level of Safety
6.7.9 The dataset described in section 6.2, page 33, provides the required scale
factors. One factor representing the vertical (accident causes)-axis of Figure
II-13 is determined by identifying the number of collisions occurred during ILS-
operations within the final approach or the missed approach. According to the
data there are 2.5 times more accidents that occurred in these flight phases
than ILS-operations related collisions. The other factor representing the
horizontal (flight phases)-axis of Figure II-13 is determined by the number of
accidents due to all causes within the final approach and the missed approach.
According to the data there are 5.8 times more accidents that occurred during
landing and emergency landing than in the final approach or the missed
approach.
6.7.10 Through the multiplication of the two scale factors, the final scale factor for the
CRM TLS is determined. Accordingly 2.5 x 5.8 yields 14.5. This factor will be
rounded down to the next integer, 14, a direction that represents more safety.
- 44 - Final Report
6.7.11 Accordingly, the scaling process yields a 14 times greater TLS (than the ILS
CRM TLS) that addresses the arrival flight phases (final approach, missed
approach, landing and emergency landing) as well as all accident causes:
1x10-7 x 14 = 1.4x10-6 accidents during arrival.
6.8 Crosswind Risk Model
6.8.1 A statistical approach to explain aircraft accidents related to cross- or tailwinds

is based on all aircraft accidents which have occurred in a given time interval
for a specified geographical region. These accidents will have a statistical
distribution, which can be explained by variables such as cross- and tailwind. As
a result, the statistical approach models the aircraft accidents by a distribution,
which will be explained through cross- and tailwind information during the
accident. A great advantage of such a model is the possibility to validate it
through statistical tests on the given data.
6.8.2 Aircraft accidents occurs
• Continuous: No natural limit prevents aircraft accidents

• Independent: Each aircraft accident occurs independently from
other accidents
• Randomly: It is not possible to predict the explicitly of an accident
and can therefore be regarded as a Poisson process. A Poisson process is a

continuous stochastic process with the discrete Poisson distribution for events
occurring in a given time interval [4].
6.8.3 Figure II-14 shows the aircraft accidents from section 6.2 from 1996 up to 2007
and is typical for a Poisson process.
100
80
60
Count
40
20
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Year
Figure II-14: Accident Occurrence as Poisson Process
- 45 - Final Report
6.8.4 The time between two events, the so called interarrival time, of a Poisson
Process is exponential distributed [19]. The accident interarrival times are
approximated exponential distributed, as shown in Figure II-15.
40
30
Frequency
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200
Interarrival time [day]
Figure II-15: Time between Occurrence of Accidents
6.8.5 As the aircraft accident data are Poisson distributed, a statistical model can be
developed with a Poisson distributed response. A causal relationship between
explanatory variables (also called dependent variables) and the response
variable can be modelled with the Generalized Linear Models. [21]
6.8.6 The Generalized Linear Models (GLM) extends linear models to non-normal
response distributions (family of exponential distributions), such as the Poisson
distribution, and adds transformations to linearity [25]. Components of a GLM
are [21][25]:
• Dependent variables x1, …, xn only influence the distribution of

response y by a linear predictor η=β1x1+ … + βnxn with model
coefficients β1 … βn
• Distribution of response y is part of the family of exponential
distributions
• µ is the expected value µ=E(Y) of response y and a invertible function
of the linear predictor η:
η=g(µ), µ=g-1(η),
and g(·) is called the link function
6.8.7 To model a Poisson distributed response, a logarithmic function will be used as

the link function:
η=log(µ), µ=exp(η),
- 46 - Final Report
6.8.8 Statistical modelling of aircraft accidents with cross- and tailwinds as dependent
variables require more then the acquired 106 accidents to be statisticaly valid.
Especially the low number of tailwind accidents, as shown in section 6.6.10 and
6.6.11, are insufficient for a statistical model. Therefore, only a statistical model
with crosswind as dependent variable can be developed.
6.8.9 More accidents occurred during arrival then at departure, as shown in section
6.6.2. Therefore the risks for arrival and for departure are different and both
should be modelled separately.
6.8.10 A GLM with a discrete Poisson distributed response requires count data; this
meaning a continuous data like crosswind must be categorized to be countable.
The width of the interval depends on the amount of available accident data.
With an increasing number of accidents and at a same value range, the width
of the intervals may be reduced.
6.8.11 The following steps are necessary to build the statistical model:
a) Categorize continuous data, crosswind, and count number of events

for each interval
b) Estimate model coefficients
c) Perform statistical tests to check statistical significance of the model
6.8.12 The statistical model for crosswind and arrival traffic will be described by
coefficients, shown in Table IV-1 on page 92, and is described by:
6
βˆ0 + ∑ βˆi ⋅xi
E ( y ) = µˆ = e i =1
To check if the model is statistically valid, each coefficients p-value must be

below the level of significance α=0.05, which is given. The model must also
explain significantly more then a statistical model without dependent variables,
which has been successfully tested with the Wald test (shown in Table IV-2 on
page 92).
6.8.13 The accident probability derived from the statistical crosswind model for arrival
traffic is shown in Figure II-16. This diagram shows the increasing probability of
an accident for increasing values of the crosswind component. For intervals of
the crosswind component of 2m/s, risk values are associated. As introduced in
section 6.6 the wind values of this risk model represent the wind velocity
including gusts.
- 47 - Final Report
1.4e-06
Accident probability
1.2e-06
1.0e-06
8.0e-07
(0,2] (2,4] (4,6] (6,8] (8,10] (10,12] (12,25]
absolute value of Cross Wind Component [m/s]
Figure II-16: Accident Probability Depended on the Absolute Value of the Crosswind
Component for Arrivals (including Gusts)
6.8.14 The statistical model for crosswind and departure traffic will be described by
coefficients, shown in Table IV-3 on page 92, and is described by
E ( y ) = µˆ = e β0 + β1 ⋅ x1 .
ˆ ˆ
6.8.15 The significance of the coefficients has been statistically tested and each
coefficients p-value is below the level of significance α=0.05. The model also
explains significantly more then a statistical model without dependent variables,
which successfully tested with the Wald test (shown in Table IV-4 on page 92).
6.8.16 The accident probability derived from the statistical crosswind model for
departure traffic is shown in Figure II-17. The width of the crosswind-intervals
had to be selected wider compared to the intervals of the crosswind model for
arrivals, due to fewer accident data as described in section 6.8.9. Analogously
to the arrival risk model the wind values represent the wind velocity including
gusts.
3.3e-07
3e-07
(0,5] (5,10]
Component for Departures (including Gusts)
- 48 - Final Report
6.9 Crosswind Component Limit
6.9.1 Crosswind limits have derived from the statistical crosswind model for arrival
traffic, developed in section 6.8.9, and the Target Level of Safety for arrival
traffic and all accident causes (described in section 6.7).
6.9.2 The highest crosswind from the crosswind model for arrival traffic, which is
below the relevant Target Level of Safety of 1.4e-06, as shown in Figure II-18,
is 8 m/s or 15.6 kts. Therefore the crosswind interval associated with the risk
level slightly smaller than the TLS is identified (6 – 8 m/s). Since the risk level
associated with the next crosswind interval (8 – 10 m/s) exceeds the
determined TLS, the crosswind limit cannot be set higher than 8 m/s.
1.4e-06
Target Level of Safety

1.2e-06
1.0e-06
8.0e-07
(0,2] (2,4] (4,6] (6,8] (8,10] (10,12] (12,25]
Component for Arrivals Combined with Target Level of Safety (including Gusts)
6.9.3 Since the desired crosswind value shall define a safety-related limit, the 8 m/s
equalling 15.6 kts will be rounded down to the next lower integer of 15 kts.
This crosswind limit of 15 kts includes gusts as described in section 6.6.
6.9.4 As the accident rate for arrivals and departures vary, both have been modelled
independently. Departure accidents are more uncommon then arrival accidents
and cannot be therefore modelled with the same modelling detail, as described
in section 6.8.16. It is not possible to derive a reasonable crosswind limit for
departures with only two risk levels for the crosswind, as shown in Figure II-17.
Therefore the application of the same crosswind limit for departure and arrival
is suggested. This means 15 kts crosswind gusts included for departures.
- 49 - Final Report
6.9.5 Based on the accident and the traffic data described in sections 6.2 and 6.4, it
can be calculated that departures are generally more than 4 times safer than
arrivals. The overall risk for departures is 3.3e-07 per departure and the overall
risk for arrivals is 1.5e-06 per arrival.
6.9.6 With departures being more than 4 times safer then arrivals, the crosswind
limits derived from the statistical crosswind model for arrivals can be applied to
departures without degrading the safety level achieved for arrivals.
6.10 Tailwind Component Limit
6.10.1 For the derivation of a tailwind component limit, a different approach than for
the crosswind component limit has been chosen. Due to the low number of
tailwind accidents available, a stable statistical model could not be developed.
Therefore, several surveys amongst airlines, airports and air navigation service
providers as well as interviews with pilots and performance engineers have
been conducted. The arguments that can be drawn from the interviews with
this wide range of experts are presented in the following paragraphs. Further
references have been made to important aspects of the certification and
regulations. From all this information a tailwind component limit will be derived.
International Regulations
6.10.2 The most important international standards, recommendations and guideline for
the aviation sector are published by the International Civil Aviation
Organization. The ICAO has released regulations concerning noise preferential
runways / selection of runway in use in the ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM.
Even if the regulations provided in the ICAO PANS documents are not
mandatory, they are strongly recommended for world-wide implementation.
6.10.3 The regulations state circumstances in which noise abatement shall not be a
determining factor in runway selection (see Annex B). One of these factors are
wind conditions with a tailwind component of more than 5kts, including gusts.
Further circumstances are low ceiling / visibility conditions and insufficient
runway surface conditions.
6.10.4 In the ICAO OPS-Panel – one of the expert groups of the ICAO which develops
new regulations – a revision of the mentioned paragraph of the PANS-OPS and
PANS-ATM was discussed. According to the proposals, the wind limits for
runway selection were to be raised to 20kts crosswind and 7kts tailwind when
additional conditions are fulfilled. During the sixth meeting of the OPS-Panel in
- 50 - Final Report
2003 it was agreed to refer the proposals to the ICAO Secretariat for
coordination of appropriate amendments to the relating regulations [18].
6.10.5 Since 2003, the extension of the wind limits for noise preferential runway has
not been implemented in terms of new amendment. In the current versions of
the ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM, the wind limits of 15kts/5kts are still
effective. According to a discussion with an OPS-Panel member, this issue has
not been on the agenda within the last years.
6.10.6 Therefore it can be concluded that the existing international regulations

concerning wind limits for runway selection provide a tailwind limit of 5kts,
including gusts.
Best Practices of Airports / ANSP
6.10.7 The survey among major European Airports (see section 5.1, page 29) shows
that a fair amount of the airports apply a tailwind limit of 7kts or 10kts. The
only exception with even a higher limit is the take-off only runway 18 of
Frankfurt Airport with 15kts. However as described earlier, take-offs are not as
sensitive as landings in high wind conditions.
6.10.8 Most airports of the survey, which publish wind limits in the AIP, apply a
tailwind limit of 5kts. This value corresponds to the international
recommendations of ICAO.
6.10.9 Generally it can be stated, that in terms of noise exposure and also of capacity
it is not of interest to operate a runway with a significant tailwind component.
6.10.10 It is reasonable to assume that the closer the declared tailwind for the
Preferential Runway System (PRS) limit gets to the manufacturers and
operational limit of 10kts, the more go-arounds will be observed. This is due to
possible changes of wind direction and/or the appearance of gusts. A high
number of go-arounds will disturb the PRS, since Pilots will in many cases
request another runway for landing. Then the PRS will be of rather theoretical
nature.
6.10.11 An increasing number of go-arounds will increase the noise disturbance of the
residents in the vicinity of the airport. This is due to the fact that each go-
around leads to a missed-approach (in which the aircraft travels with take-off
thrust at low altitude) and to an additional approach (eventually on the
opposite runway overflying a different residential area than during the first
- 51 - Final Report
approach). Furthermore the initiation of a go-around with significant tailwind

may cause a wake turbulence influence for the trailing aircraft.
6.10.12 Furthermore, the runway occupation time increases with higher tailwind
components, since landing aircrafts tend to flare longer and to require more
braking distance. An aircraft taking-off with tailwind requires more acceleration
distance until the lift-off. These issues may cause delays in airport operations.
Manufacturers
6.10.13 The manufacturers of large transport aircrafts that are certified according to
EASA CS-25 or FAA Part 25 are not required to demonstrate the aircrafts’
maximum tailwind capabilities (see section 3.2, page 13). Instead all aircrafts
are automatically approved for operations in wind conditions with tailwind
components of up to 10kts (under CS-25 / Part 25).
6.10.14 There are aircrafts that are certified for operation with 15kts tailwind as the
Table I-4, page 19, shows. This exception however requires special tests and is
not the certified standard capability for all aircrafts. Therefore the minimum
tailwind component is 10kts, which all aircrafts certified according to CS-25 /
Part 25 are able to handle.
Operators
6.10.15 In general the operators adopt the wind limits of the manufacturers. For
operations with tailwind components of more than 10kts an additional approval
for the operator, besides the eventually demonstrated tailwind flight tests, is
required (see section 3.2, page 13).
6.10.16 The survey of the operators’ wind limits (see section 4.4, page 21)
demonstrates that most operators set the tailwind component limit for their
fleet to 10kts. Only three out of 11 operators define a tailwind component limit
of 15kts for specific aircraft types.
6.10.17 The outcome of an analysis assessing the landing distances for the most
demanding aircraft types concluded that the more the tailwind component
increases up to 10kts, the more restrictions appear in runway selection suitable
for landing (see section 4.5, page 23).
6.10.18 During take-off, generally speaking for demanding aircrafts, the MTOW must be
decreased with an increasing tailwind component. For the most demanding
- 52 - Final Report
aircraft (B747-400 freighter) the difference between the MTOW for 10kts
tailwind and the MTOW for calm wind is roughly 7.2%.
Pilots
6.10.19 First of all, in case there are no other restrictions (operational, infrastructural,
noise-related) pilots prefer to start and land into the wind. Thus the preferred
tailwind component is 0kts. This principle has been stated in the ICAO PANS
ATM [17] document (see section 3.1, page 12).
6.10.20 Without a Noise Preferential Runway System pilots accept tailwind for landing
or take-off only in order to compensate for other disadvantages. Such
disadvantages may be the approach procedure (e.g. a non-precision approach
or circling approach), the obstacle or terrain situation in the opposite
(headwind) direction.
6.10.21 Generally speaking, tailwind operations are demanding for pilots for both take-
off and landing. In the take-off case, tailwind can be considered within the
take-off performance calculation. Given the length of the available runway in
use, the pilot can optimize the configuration of the aircraft or even reduce the
take-off weight. For short term changes of the wind, the aircraft is able to wait
on the ground. Regarding the fact that for a landing procedure there is
generally a lower time buffer than for a take-off, it can be concluded that
landing operations are even more difficult under high tailwind conditions.
Another fact supporting this statement is the 15kts tailwind limit for the
departure-only runway 18 at Frankfurt Airport. There is no other airport within
the survey with such a high tailwind limit for take-off or landing operations.
6.10.22 The performance programs of the airlines consider the wind as parameter and
calculate the take-off speeds and the thrust reduction (derate) in order to
preserve the engines. Among other effects, derating reduces the probability of
engine failure during take-off. However, a tailwind component has an additional
impact on the climb performance of the aircraft. First of all, more power must
be applied to achieve the needed higher take-off speeds in tailwind conditions.
Increasing tailwind components also decrease the aircraft’s climb gradient.
Furthermore, pilots often observe a significant increase in wind speed joint with
a turn in direction shortly after lift-off. Due to the reduced climb performance,
increasing tailwind components provoke take-offs with lower climb gradients
and higher thrust settings. Among other issues, these circumstances are
tailstrike-prone. Furthermore stronger tailwind causes higher noise pollution,
especially when considering the fact, that with tailwind the noise is blown away
- 53 - Final Report
from the airport instead of to the airport. In case there are obstacles to be
overflown, a lower climb gradient can become a safety issue as well.
6.10.23 Before landing, the pilot must consider in general - and in particular with
tailwind - the following parameters:
• Length of the runway,

• Runway condition (dry/contamination, reported braking action)
• Mass of the aircraft
• Braking characteristics of the aircraft
• Proper operations of required technical systems
• Brake cooling time (in case a high autobrake setting is required)
• Available approach instruments
6.10.24 In case the above mentioned parameters are favourable, tailwind components
of up to 10kts are accepted since there is some margin in terms of landing field
length. However, if the parameters are less favourable (above all short and wet
runway, braking action less than good) then even 5kts tailwind component can
be beyond the limit.
6.10.25 The steadiness of the wind (in terms of direction and strength) is also an
important factor. In case the wind is changing direction and blowing in gusts,
the probability of excess of a 10kts average tailwind component is high.
Therefore, pilots tend to accept a 10kts tailwind component only when the wind
is reported steady and without gusts.
6.10.26 With an increasing tailwind component the behaviour and handling of the
aircraft during the landing phase changes significantly. The whole approach
becomes unstable, often since the wind at higher altitude (and therefore also
the tailwind component) is even stronger than at aerodrome level. Shortly then
before touch down the flare characteristics of an aircraft would alter. During the
flare phase of a landing the pilot has to rotate the aircraft in order to land on
the main gear and minimize the touch down impact. Normally the touchdown
has to be at about 1000ft behind the threshold. If the aircraft is exposed to a
10kts tailwind component, the touchdown can be displaced to the end of the
touchdown zone (3000ft behind the threshold). This is called a “long flare”. The
safety issues regarding a long flares is the adverse combination of a smaller
braking distance adversely linked to the high speed of the aircraft. This is
because the high speed of the aircraft requires a longer braking distance.
- 54 - Final Report
6.10.27 The more the tailwind component exceeds 10kts, the more the handling
characteristics of an aircraft become different. A capability to cope with more
than 10kts tailwind must be proven within the certification process, whereas all
aircrafts are capable to cope with up to 10kts implicitly. Moreover operations
beyond the limit of 10kts are not the focus of the training of commercial airline
pilots. Due to these circumstances pilots do not have to regularly practice take-
offs and landings with tailwind components beyond 10kts which makes such
operations less safe and therefore less desirable.
6.10.28 Another issue that pilots raise is the possible discrepancy between the wind
reported by the air traffic controller and the actual wind conditions. There are
some technical and procedural reasons for those differences. ICAO Annex 3
[14] defines the averaging period for surface wind observations with 2 minutes
for local routine and special reports and for wind displays in air traffic services
units. The 2 minutes average period accounts for the non-static nature of the
wind. Moreover, the update rate regarding the wind display for the air traffic
controller is 12 seconds. Wind data is reported to the pilot 1 minute prior to
landing at the latest (although mostly earlier). This means, that the measured
and reported value is – strictly speaking – a value from the past. In the
meantime, between the wind report and the landing or take-off the wind can
vary in both, direction and speed (gusts). These are some reasons why the
measured wind and the actual wind that the aircraft is exposed to may differ.
In the worst case an actual tailwind component can be higher than the
originally measured and reported tailwind component.
6.10.29 Furthermore, there can be a discrepancy between the measured value and the
actual wind which the aircraft is exposed to. According to a former study [1],
the wind measurement at Brussels National Airport is in line with ICAO
regulations. However, it can be discussed, if the accuracy of the measurement
of the wind is valid to 100% for real wind exposure of a landing or departing
aircraft. The anemometers are located near the touchdown zones and at the
take-off positions. However, the real wind at the point where the aircraft flares
and touches the ground or rotates and lifts-off may be slightly different from
the fix measurement locations. It is assumed that the difference may vary up to
1 or 2 kts.
- 55 - Final Report
Brussels Airlines Data
6.10.30 Brussels Airlines (the main local carrier at Brussels National Airport)
systematically collects various wind data for all its flights throughout the whole
of its network. Wind data is gained through the Flight Data Monitoring
equipment onboard some of its aircraft in its fleet. Wind data for Brussels
National Airport was provided by courtesy of Brussels Airlines.
6.10.31 The data provided represent the measured tailwind components at 30 ft height
during landings on the westerly runways (i.e. 25R/25L). The wind measured by
the aircraft during landing is the most realistic wind information available and
therefore very adequate to verify in a quantitative way the (mostly qualitative)
arguments.
6.10.32 In Figure II-19 an overview of the number of monthly landings is provided

where at which the aircraft was exposed to more than the operational limit,
being a 10kts tailwind. In the year 2007, a total number of 15107 flights with
aircraft types including the A319, A330 and Regional Jet were analysed. The
total number of infractions (flights that were operated beyond the 10kts
tailwind limit) sums up to a total of 82 flights (equals 0.5%).
Figure II-19: Monthly Number of Infractions of the Operators Tailwind Limit for the
Year 2007
6.10.33 Figure II-20 shows the data for the year 2008. A similar number of flights as
with the year 2007 was analysed (a total of 15421 flights). The number of
infractions was likewise high with 95 flights being operated beyond the
operational 10kts tailwind limit (equals 0.6%).
- 56 - Final Report
Figure II-20: Monthly Number of Infractions of the Operators Tailwind Limit for the
Year 2008
6.10.34 The double arrow in Figure II-21 represents a simple visualization of the
variation of the observed tailwind components for Brussels Airlines operations
on the westerly runways at Brussels National Airport. The variation of the
observed tailwind component around the mean (the official tailwind limit of 7kts
for the Preferential Runway System) is due to most of the above mentioned
reasons. However, when the variation exceeds the 10kts limit, operations
become less safe. According to the provided wind data, there are 0.6% of all
Brussels Airlines operations executed beyond a 10kts tailwind due to the
discrepancies between measured and real wind values amongst other reasons.
Figure II-21: Percentage of Infractions of all observed Brussels Airlines Operations on

the westerly Runways.
- 57 - Final Report
Safety Buffer
6.10.35 From all of the above mentioned considerations a tailwind limit shall be
suggested. In order to ensure the safety of operations at Brussels National
Airport while using a Preferential Runway System, a tailwind component limit of
5kts including gusts
is proposed. This value leaves a sufficient safety buffer to the manufacturer and
operators limit of 10kts.
6.10.36 Figure II-22 gives a visualisation of this safety buffer. With this safety buffer,
the part of the operational variations of the tailwind component that may
exceed the limit of 5kts (due to above mentioned reasons), will not exceed the
10kts limit. Compared to Figure II-21, the safety buffer of 5kts including the
gusts limit is greater than the current safety buffer with 7kts including gusts
limit that is implemented at the runways 07R/25L and 07L/25R. With this
measure, the percentage of infractions of 0.6% observed in the past is
expected to reduce to zero.
Figure II-22: A Safety Buffer between the proposed Limit for the Preferential Runway
System and the operational and manufacturer Limit.
6.10.37 Such a safety buffer is recommended in order to resolve all the mentioned
issues above. The following points explain why a buffer between the 5kts limit
and the maximum certified 10kts limit is recommendable:
• The safety buffer is vital to address any unfavourable constellation of

any of the following parameters: runway length, runway condition,
mass of the aircraft, braking characteristics of the aircraft, condition of
all required technical systems, brake cooling, type of approach and
weather conditions.
• With a tailwind component of 5kts even the most demanding aircraft
types are able to land. However, the higher the tailwind component
gets the more restrictions in runway selection appear.
- 58 - Final Report
• The absence of a 10kts tailwind would help to reduce pilots’ workload

due to the inexperience in the area of tailwind conditions. High
tailwind conditions can lead to unstable operations and therefore
reduce safety.
• It will help to reduce long flare landings and therefore enhance the
operational safety.
• It will help to reduce the noise exposure during landing operations
due to a smaller number of go-arounds that is to be expected with the
implementation of higher tailwind limits. Furthermore possible wake
turbulence influences will be reduced. Also the noise exposure during
take-off operations will be reduced due to less required engine power,
a higher climb gradient and less noise that is blown away from the
airport compared to a higher tailwind limit. A higher climb gradient
also enhances operational safety.
• The safety buffer further accounts for the possible discrepancy
between the reported and the actual wind as well as the possible
discrepancy between the measured wind and the actual wind.
• It represents the best practice of the major Airports within Europe.
• The 5kts tailwind component limit is in accordance with internationally
accepted ICAO recommendations for the use of Preferential Runway
Systems.
6.10.38 It is recommended to Brussels National Airport to maintain runway conditions

with at least good braking action in order to safely accommodate the most
critical aircrafts in terms of required landing field length operating at the
aerodrome.
- 59 - Final Report
Proposal for Decision Making for the Change of the Runway
6.10.39 The decision making process for the changing of the runway consequently
needs to be redesigned. Since this process is of a complex nature that must be
implemented by the local air traffic control experts, a first proposal only reflects
the main principles to be respected during the process of redesign.
• Fist of all, the proposed 15/5 kts including gusts are limiting speeds
that shall be applied on all runways and at all times of the day.
• In order to enable Belgocontrol to perform smooth runway
configuration changes, tolerance values shall be defined. The
following tolerances are proposed:
• 5kts crosswind component
• 2kts tailwind component
• These tolerances must be applied to the measured maximum wind
values (gusts incl.).
• Furthermore, to check the validity of the selected configuration, a
continuous comparison between measured and forecasted
values is essential. Close interaction with a meteorological observer is
required.
• Moreover, the measurement of average and maximal wind values
(gusts) shall be executed according to the definition of ICAO Annex
3.
• Finally, pilot reports regarding excessive cross- and tailwind
components at higher altitudes shall be taken into account for
decision making of the runway configuration.
- 60 - Final Report
Summary of Risk Assessment
6.11 Overview
6.11.1 Two different approaches for the derivation of limits for the cross- and tailwind
component have been applied. For the crosswind limit a historical accident
analysis has been conducted as basis for a quantitative risk model. For the
tailwind limit a number of surveys and interviews with domain experts have
been carried out combined with the review of the important aspects of the
certification and regulations.
6.11.2 European accident and traffic data has been gathered as a basis for a wind
accident risk model. Eight countries (Belgium being one of which) have been
subject to review for the time period of 1996 to 2007 resulting in a total
number of 106 relevant accidents.
6.11.3 Furthermore, a Target Level of Safety (TLS) has been derived. The basis for
this derivation was the internationally established TLS for the ILS Collision Risk
Model. The adopted TLS for this study is 1.4x10-6 accidents during arrival and
departure.
6.11.4 The highest crosswind from the crosswind risk model, which is below the
maximum acceptable risk level (TLS), is 15 kts (including gusts).
6.11.5 The analysis of all gathered expert arguments was complemented with
quantitative data on Brussels Airline’s operations on the westerly runways. This
data reveals the relatively high number of operations that are exposed to more
than the manufacturer’s and operator’s limit of 10kts tailwind.. A tailwind
component limit of 5 kts (including gusts) is therefore proposed. This value
leaves a sufficient safety buffer to the manufacturer and operators limit of
10kts.
6.11.6 These limits are proposed to apply for both the departure and arrival during all
times of the day and on all runways.
6.11.7 Both limits represent the best practice at other major European Airports and are
moreover compliant with the recommendations of the ICAO.
- 61 - Final Report
Part III Impact Assessment
7 Reallocation of movements
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Based on the results of the risk assessment process, the flightplan of 2008 has
been analyzed on potential effects of the application of the proposed wind limits
at Brussels National Airport.
7.1.2 The available wind information was analysed on the actual cross- and tailwind
components of each movement in the year 2008. Besides the runway which has
been used for this movement, the actual wind component for each other
runway has also been calculated.
7.1.3 Based on given operational constraints, the movements which exceed the
proposed wind limits are reallocated to another runway which suits better in
terms of wind components and operational conditions.
7.2 Flight Plan Analysis
7.2.1 The flight plan analysis is based on the flight plan of 2008 which was provided
by courtesy of Belgocontrol. The following information is available within this
flightplan:
• Actual Date / Time of Arrival / Departure

• Estimated On / Off Block Date / Time
• Call sign
• Aircraft Type
• Runway
• Actual On / Off Block Date / Time
7.2.2 The correlation with the wind information is based on the BARWIS data of 2008
(also provided by courtesy of Belgocontrol). The BARWIS data contains the
following information for each runway:
• 10 minute average wind speed in KT

• 10 minute average wind direction
• max windspeed (gust) in KT during last 10 minutes
• extreme wind direction variations during last 10 minutes
• max “real” crosswind during last 10 minutes
• max “real” tailwind during last 10 minutes
- 62 - Final Report
7.2.3 Each movement of the flightplan is then analysed to the actual cross- and
tailwind component of each movement in 2008. Based on the current wind
which is measured at the corresponding sensor, the cross- and tailwind
component of each movement is calculated. Additionally to the wind component
of the runway which was used for the movement, the (theoretical) wind
component for this movement on each runway is calculated.
7.2.4 The analysis of the movements during 2008 with regards to the number of
movements exceeding the proposed wind limits (5 kts tailwind / 15 kts
crosswind) demonstrated that 1.8 % of all movements would have exceeded
the proposed limits. The following Figure III-1 shows the number of
movements exceeding the proposed wind limits on the different runways which
have been used.
5000
1,80%
4500
4000
MOV exceeding new windlimits
3500
3000 1,06%
2500
0,74%
2000
1500
1000
500
0
02 20 25R 25L 07R 07L TOTAL
Crosswind 17 286 1029 530 22 16 1900
Tailwind 12 86 1962 625 19 6 2710
TOTAL 29 372 2991 1155 41 22 4610
Figure III-1: Number of Movements exceeding the proposed Wind Limits (5kts Tailwind
/ 15 kts Crosswind)
7.2.5 Remark: The counting of the number of movements shown in the figure above
is based on an algorithm which counts every movement with more than 5 resp.
15 kts. Taking into account a tolerance of 2 kts for each value would reduce the
number of affected movements from a total of 4610 to a total of 1992 (0.78%).
7.3 Reallocation of Movements
7.3.1 Movements identified in the analysis of the flightplan that require handling on
another runway must be assigned to another runway. Two main criteria must
be followed during this reallocation process:
• Suitable wind limits for the movement

• Best operational runway possible
- 63 - Final Report
7.3.2 In the flight plan analysis, the actual wind component for each movement on
every runway is calculated. Therefore this information, regarding whether the
runway data is most suitable to the movement or not, is connected to each
movement in the flight plan.
7.3.3 The allocation of another runway follows a logic which tries to allocate a flight
that exceeds its wind limits to another more suitable runway. The following
Figure III-2 demonstrates the main processes for the allocation of a new
runway.
Figure III-2: Main Runway Allocation Process
7.3.4 Remark: The notation applied for the figures is BPMN (Business Process
Modelling Notation)
7.3.5 Within the main process several sub-processes have been established. The
following Figure III-3 demonstrates the algorithms used and applied for the
checking if current wind conditions exceed the cross- and tailwind limitation of
the movements.
- 64 - Final Report
Figure III-3: Sub-Process “Wind Condition Check”
7.3.6 If within the “Wind condition check process” the wind limits have been
exceeded, the movement then requires a reallocation to another more suitable
runway. The reallocation process is demonstrated in the following Figure III-4.
- 65 - Final Report
Figure III-4: Sub-process “Reallocate runway”
7.3.7 Within the reallocation process pictured in the Figure III-4 above, another sub-
process named “choose priority runway sequence” expresses the algorithm
which is applied for the prioritisation for the assignment of a new runway. The
sub-process “Choose priority RWY sequence is illustrated in the following Figure
III-5.
- 66 - Final Report
Figure III-5: Sub-process “Choose priority RWY sequence”
7.3.8 The runway priority sequence illustrated in the Figure III-5 above is given in the
following Table III-1.
Runway priority sequence
Take off Landing
Priority Normal Heavy Normal Heavy
1 25R 25R 25L 25R
2 20 20 25R 25L
3 07R 07L 02 02
4 02 02 20 20
5 07L 07R 07L 07L
6 25L 25L 07R 07R

Table III-1: Runway Priority Sequence
- 67 - Final Report
7.3.9 The algorithm described in the paragraphs above had been applied to all
movements during the year 2008 which exceeded the proposed wind limits. An
analysis of the origin and destination of the reallocation processes has shown
that the runways with the largest number of affected movements are the
parallel runways 25R and 25L. The following Figure III-6 shows in detail the
number of movements which were required to be relocated from a runway (on
the x-axis) and the runway these movements were then moved to (colour
code). The percentages added to the top of the bars demonstrate the affected
movements on this runway.
3.000
2,2%
2.500
2.000
N° of redistributions
02
20
1.500 25R
1,3% 25L
07R
1.000
07L
500 1,9%
0,4% 0,2% 0,2%

0
07L 07R 25L 25R 20 02
Figure III-6: Redistribution from a certain Runway
7.3.10 The analysis above shows that the runways with the largest number of added
movements are the runways 02 and the 20. The following Figure III-7 below
shows in detail the number of movements that have been moved to a second
runway (on the x-axis) and the runway these movements have originated from
(colour code). The percentages added to the top of the bars demonstrate the
added movements on this runway.
- 68 - Final Report
9,2%
1.600
1.400
1.200
N° of redisitributions
6,6%
1.000 02
20
800 25R
0,8% 3,7% 25L
600 07R
0,3% 07L
400
200
0,8%
0
02 20 25R 25L 07R 07L
Figure III-7: Redistribution to a certain Runway
7.3.11 The Figure III-7 and Figure III-6 above demonstrate the total number of
movements which were required to be removed over the course of one year. In
order to analyse the distribution of the reallocations over the course of a year,
an analysis of the number of reallocated movements per day would be the next
step. The following Figure III-8 shows the number of redistributed movements
per day over the year. The different colours indicate the different runways.
160
150
140 02
20
130
07R
120 07L
Redistributions per day
110 25L
100 25R
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan Mrz Mai Jul Sep Nov Jan
2008
Figure III-8: Redistributed Movements spread over the Year
7.3.12 As described in paragraph 7.3.9, runway 25R is most affected by the cross- and
tailwind limits, thus having to reassign its movements to other runways. The
following Figure III-9 shows the number of affected movements per day over
the course of a year.
- 69 - Final Report
160
150
140
130
120

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2008
Figure III-9: Redistributed Movements from Runway 25R
7.3.13 The figures for the other runways 25L, 07R/L and 02/20 are shown in the
annex D.1, page 93.
- 70 - Final Report
8 Evaluation of Impact on Airport Capacity
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 The results of the reallocation process demonstrated in the chapter above have
shown that the wind limits derived in the risk assessment process result in a
slight change of the runway usage at Brussels National Airport. The most
important result is that the largest impact can be measured for the movements
which must be removed from the parallel runway system 25R/L to the crossing
runway 02/20 due to exceeded tail- and crosswind components.
8.1.2 Due to the fact that the algorithms applied within the reallocation process do
not consider operational flexibility, every movement above the proposed wind
limits (5/15 kts) is reallocated to another runway. The following evaluation of
impact on airport capacity focuses on the impact on the traffic flows and the
availability of the parallel runway system. In order to analyze the impact on
traffic flows, the frequencies of movements per hour and the impact of the
reallocation process is analysed.
8.2 Analysis of Influence of Reallocations
8.2.1 In order to analyse a potential impact on the available airport capacity, several
days of the year 2008 have been analysed on the results of the reallocation
process.
8.2.2 The following Figure III-10 shows the daily traffic distribution of an exemplary
day with 40 reallocated movements. The black line demonstrates the total
movements per rolling hour. The coloured lines show the number of
movements on the different runways. Dotted lines mark the number of
movements after the redistribution of movements.
- 71 - Final Report
70
02
20
60 07R
07L
25L
50 25R
TOTAL
40
MOV/h
30
20
10
01:00 06:00 11:00 16:00 21:00
Time
Figure III-10: Effects of Reallocations (1/2)
8.2.3 The Figure III-10 above demonstrates the effect of the reallocation process.
Movements exceeding the wind limits on the parallel runway system are
removed to the crossing runway 02/20.
8.2.4 The following Figure III-11 demonstrates another effect: Due to the changing
winds on that day, the operational direction of the parallel runway system had
to be changed from 25 to 07. Due to the adapted wind limits this effects is
applied approximately one hour earlier.
70
02
20
60 07R
07L
25L
25R
50 TOTAL
40
MOV/h
30
20
10
03:00 08:00 13:00 18:00 23:00
Time
Figure III-11: Effects of Reallocations (2/2)
- 72 - Final Report
8.2.5 In order to assess the impact on the potential capability of the runways, the
capacity utilisation of the runways is analyzed within the next step. For this
purpose, the number of movements in the rolling hours on each runway is
analyzed for the original and the adapted flightplan of the year 2008. In order
to compare the results, the frequencies of the appearance of movements per
hour are counted and prepared in percentage fractions. The following Figure
III-12 demonstrates the frequency of appearance of the number of movements
per hour for the runway 25R.
5.0
flightplan 2008
4.5 adapted flightplan
difference between flightplans
4.0
frequency/(total movements) [%]
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
MOV/h
Figure III-12: Usage Rates of Runway 25R
8.2.6 The Figure III-12 above shows that due to the reallocation of approx. 2000
movements from the runway 25 the frequency of appearance of movements
between 22 and 32 per hour is slightly lower than in the original flightplan. An
increase in the frequency of appearance (which could be demanding for the
runway and its capacity) can be detected in phases of little traffic (0 – 16
movements per hour).
8.2.7 With the assessment of the runway 20, and using the same algorithm as
described in the points above, the following results are shown: The adapted
flightplan shows a higher proportion than the original flight plan in the little
average utilisations (up to ten movements per hour). In the parts of higher
traffic the adapted flight plan shows smaller proportions of the traffic amount.
The following Figure III-13 demonstrates the usage rates of the runway 20.
The usage rates of the other runways are shown in the annex D.2, page 96.
- 73 - Final Report
5.0
flightplan 2008
4.0
frequency/(total movements) [%]

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
MOV/h
Figure III-13: Usage Rates of Runway 20
8.2.8 Based on the analysis described above, it can be stated that regarding the flight
plan of 2008, the runway system would have been able to handle traffic if the
proposed wind limits were applied. However, due to changes in the operational
limits there may be scenarios where the choices for suitable runways may be
limited. These scenarios will be described in the next paragraph.
8.3 Critical Scenario
8.3.1 As described in the paragraph above, the analysis showed that the reallocation
process only affects 2% of the total movements and this 2% is spread out over
the whole of the year. However, there may be some operational times which
may be demanding due to different factors which will be named in the following
section.
8.3.2 From the capacity point of view, the ideal configuration is the use of a parallel
runway system in westerly direction (25 R/L). Due to meteorological factors,
the use of these runways in use may not be possible. These meteorological
factors are at large the current winds at the aerodrome.
8.3.3 If there are easterly winds at Brussels National Airport, being above the
proposed tailwind limit of 5 kts, the runways in use must be altered to 07 R and
L possibly in combination with runway 02/20.
8.3.4 Strong winds from the south, which are quite frequent according to the wind
rose (see page 10 for details), the proposed crosswind component (15 kts) on
the parallel runway system may be exceeded. In this case, the operations
would be limited to the crossing runway 02/20. A single runway would not be
- 74 - Final Report
able to handle the traffic all day and all year long. An assessment of the total
movements of 2008 brought up an issue that only 250 (0.098%) movements
could have been handled on the crossing runway 02/20. These 250 movements
were spread out over 17 days of the year. For all other movements the use of
another runway would have been possible.
8.3.5 As a conclusion it can be stated that the airport capacity would be limited to a
single runway system if the crosswind components on the parallel runway
system exceed the adapted value of 15 kts. In the year 2008 this was only the
case when at Brussels National Airport the demand (movements per hour) was
moderate and the traffic could have been handled on the remaining runway.
8.4 Results
8.4.1 In 2008 1.8 % of the movements would have been reallocated due to exceeded
wind limits. The most affected RWYs to exceed the limits are the parallel
runways 25R/L. Most of the movements need to be removed to the runway
02/20.
8.4.2 The need for the reallocation of movements is fairly distributed all throughout
the year, as well as throughout the week / daytimes and therefore also over the
different traffic demand situations of the different runways.
8.4.3 The assessment of the flightplan 2008 showed that the new traffic distribution
on the runways could in general have been handled at Brussels airport.
However, capacity constraints may appear, when the crosswind limits on the
parallel runway system are exceeded and movements are limited to the
crossing runway 02/20.
- 75 - Final Report
9 Evaluation of Impact on Noise
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 In order to quantify the potential impact of the proposed cross- and tailwind
limits to the aviation noise effects in the vicinity of Brussels Airport, calculations
using the Integrated Noise Modell (INM) will be made. These calculations shall
help to quantify the potential effects on noise which are triggered by the
proposed wind limits.
9.1.2 Based on a recognized INM Model (Version 6.0c), which was provided by
courtesy of the University of Leuven (KUL), calculations on the differences in
noise measures have been undertaken.
9.1.3 The calculations which have been undertaken are taking into account the
affected areas, equivalent noise levels at chosen locations and maximum noise
levels at chosen locations. The results are based on the differences between
the INM results of 2008 and an adopted model which takes into account the
reallocation of movements due to the changes in cross- and tailwind limits (see
section 7.3 for details).
9.2 Calculation Process
9.2.1 To reach the goals of the noise impact assessment, the given INM model needs
to be adapted in accordance to the reallocation process which is described in
chapter 7.3, starting on page 63. Using the adopted flight plan which was also
used for the capacity impact assessment (section 8 from page 71), the flight
information within the INM model are adopted accordingly. It must be stated
again, that the applied algorithm and therefore the number of affected
movements is a worst-case. Every single movement, which is above 5 kts
tailwind or 15 kts crosswind is allocated to another runway.
9.2.2 To be able to compare both INM models, a two of premises have been set up:
• The number of movements shall be the same in both models

• The percentage of distribution on the flight routes is the same in both
models
9.2.3 In order to fulfil this two premises, an automated calculation of the adopted
database tables within the INM model das been developed and applied.
- 76 - Final Report
9.2.4 For both models, the real 2008 and the adopted 2008 model, calculations of
noises contours for equivalent levels of noise in day, evening, night and
combined in day/evening/night have been calculated. Beside the noise
contours, calculation have been defined in order to calculate equivalent levels
of noise and maximum noise levels at these points. The following Figure III-14
shows the location of the points for calculation.
6.
3.
5.
9.
10.
8.
4.
7.
11. 1.
12.
2.
Figure III-14: Location Points for Noise Calculations
- 77 - Final Report
9.3 Results
9.3.1 The calculation of the noise contours with equivalent levels of noise brought up
very similar results. In order to visualize them, the following Figure III-15
shows the overlay of the two noise contours which are, in the very most parts
congruent. The figure demonstrates the contours for the combined day,
evening and night considerations (DEN).
Figure III-15: Noise Contours for equivalent Levels of Noise (DEN)
9.3.2 Using the visual results for the evaluation of the differences between the two
scenarios, only negligible differences can be observed. Therefore, in the next
step the noise affected areas of the two models are compared. The following
Table III-2 demonstrates the differences between the two scenarios (“old” and
“new”).
Equivalent “old” “new” Delta

Time
Noise Level [SQ km] [SQ km] [SQ km]
%
DEN 55 dB(A) 85.124 85.338 0.214 0.25
DEN 70 dB(A) 5.377 5.389 0.012 0.22
D 55 dB(A) 53.700 53.894 0.194 0.36
D 70 dB(A) 3.640 3.656 0.016 0.44
E 55 dB(A) 49.701 49.861 0.16 0.32
E 70 dB(A) 3.319 3.334 0.015 0.45
N 55 dB(A) 16.302 16.333 0.031 0.19
N 70 dB(A) 1.167 1.175 0.008 0.69
Table III-2: Differences of affected Areas at equivalent Noise Levels
- 78 - Final Report
9.3.3 The Table III-2 above shows that the differences in the affected areas of the
two scenarios are very small. The new scenario is maximal 0.7% larger than
the old scenario which represents the real flightplan of 2008.
9.3.4 The calculation of equivalent levels of noise at the chosen locations (see Figure
III-14 for details) brought up the results displayed in the following Table III-3.
The values represent the combined values for day, evening and night.
“old” “new” Delta

Number Location Points
dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
1 2 km to RWY 02 63.6 63.9 0.3
2 4 km to RWY 02 59.2 59.4 0.2
3 2 km to RWY 20 59.3 59.4 0.1
4 2 km to RWY 07L 67.5 67.5 0.0
5 2 km to RWY 25R 68.6 68.5 -0.1
6 4 km to RWY 25R 64.2 64.1 -0.1
7 2 km to RWY 07R 57.5 57.6 0.1
8 2 km to RWY 25L 70.3 70.3 0.0
9 4 km to RWY 25L 66.0 66.0 0.0
10 Helipad Neder-over-Heembeek 57.0 56.9 -0.1
11 Car park in Zaventem 57.4 57.3 -0.1
12 Sports field in Sterrebeek 56.8 57.0 0.2
Table III-3: Differences in equivalent Noise Levels at Location Points (DEN)
9.3.5 The Table III-3 above demonstrates that the differences in the two scenarios
are negligible. The maximum difference of the two scenarios is 0.3 dBA. This is
a very small, theoretical and by human beings not noticeable difference.
9.3.6 The calculation of the maximum noise levels at the location points brought up
the results that the two scenarios show no difference in the maximum noise
levels at the location points.
- 79 - Final Report
List of Abbreviations
AC Advisory Circular
AIP Aeronautical Information Publication
AIS Aeronautical Information Services
AMC Acceptable Means of Compliance
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
ASDA Accelerate Stop Distance Available
ATC Air Traffic Control
BA Braking Action
BeCA Belgian Cockpit Association
CRM Collision Risk Model
CS Certification Specifications
DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung
DME Distance Measuring Equipment
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
GLM Generalized Linear Models
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IFALPA International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Association
IFPP Instrument Flight Procedure Panel
ILS Instrument Landing System
kts Knots
LDA Landing Distance Available
MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight
NPA Non Precision Approach
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OCP Obstacle Clearance Panel
PA Precision Approach
PANS-ATM Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management
PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations
PRS Preferential Runway System
RWY Runway
THR Threshold
TLS Target Level of Safety
US United States (of America)
VOR VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range
VSR0 Reference Stall Speed in Landing Configuration
- 80 - Final Report
References
[1] Airport and Aviation Consultancy Division of EA, Safety Case Study on Cross-
and Tail Wind Criteria for selection of noise preferential runways at Brussels
Airport, 12 May 2004
[2] Belgocontrol, Aeronautical Information Services, AIP EBBR Brussels Nationall
[3] Belgocontrol, Runway selection procedures, 12 March 2009
[4] Cox, D. R., Isham, V., Point Processes. 1st edition, Chapman and Hall,
London, New York, 1980
[5] EASA, CS-25 Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes, July 2009
[6] EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement (ESARR) 4 “Risk Assessment
and Mitigation in ATM”, Volume 1; 05.04.2001
[7] FAA, Advisory Circular 25-7A Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport
Category Airplanes, March 1998
[8] FAA, FAR Part 121 Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and
Supplemental Operations Advisory Material, Status of July 2009
[9] FAA, FAR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes,
Status of July 2009
[10] FAA, Order 8400.9 National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use
Programs, November 1981
[11] FAA, Order JO 7110.65S: Air Traffic Control, February 2008
[12] ICAO, Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, 9th Edition,
2001
[13] ICAO, Annex 14 Vol. 1, Aerodromes, 4th Edition, 2004
[14] ICAO, Annex 3, Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation, 16th
Edition, 2007
[15] ICAO, Manual on the Use of the Collision Risk Model (CRM) for ILS
Operations, Doc 9274-AN/904, 1st Edition, 1980
[16] ICAO, PANS-ATM, Doc 4444 ATM/501, 15th Edition, 2007
[17] ICAO, PANS-OPS Vol. 1, Doc 8168 OPS/611, 5th Edition, 2006
[18] ICAO, Review Of The Report Of The OPSP/6 Meeting, 2003
[19] Kingman, J. F. C., Poisson Processes. 1st edition, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York, 1993
[20] Lindsey, J. K., Models for Repeated Measurements. 1st edition, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1993
[21] McCullagh, P., Nelder, J. A., Generalized Linear Models. 2nd edition,
Chapman and Hall, London, New York, 1989
[22] National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, A Study on the Safety Aspects of
Criteria Governing Cross- and Tailwinds, March 2000
- 81 - Final Report
[23] National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Safety of aircraft operations in

crosswind, May 2001
[24] National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Safety of tailwinds operations, January
2001
[25] Venables, W. N., Ripley, B. D., Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th edition,
Springer Verlag, New York, 2002
- 82 - Final Report
Part IV Annexes
Annex A Airport Layout
A.1 Map of Brussels National Airport
- 83 - Final Report
Annex B Legislation, Standards and Recommendations
B.1 ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
ICAO Annex 14, Vol. 1
B.1.1 ICAO Annex 14 Vol. 1, Aerodromes [13]

Chapter 3 Physical Characteristics
§ 3.1.1 - The number and orientation of runways at an aerodrome should be such that the usability
factor of the aerodrome is not less than 95 per cent for the aeroplanes that the aerodrome is
intended to serve.
§ 3.1.2 - The siting and orientation of runways at an aerodrome should, where possible, be such
that the arrival and departure tracks minimize interference with areas approved for residential use
and other noise sensitive areas close to the aerodrome in order to avoid future noise problems.
§ 3.1.3 - Choice of maximum permissible cross-wind components
In the application of 3.1.1 it should be assumed that landing or take-off of aeroplanes is, in normal
circumstances, precluded when the cross-wind component exceeds:
- 37 km/h (20 kts) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1500 m or over, except
that when poor runway braking action owing to an insufficient longitudinal coefficient of friction is
experienced with some frequency, a cross-wind component not exceeding 24 km/h (13 kts) should
be assumed;
- 24 km/h (13 kts) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1 200 m or up to but
not including 1500 m; and
- 19 km/h (10 kts) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is less than 1200 m.
B.1.2 ICAO Annex 14 Vol. 1, Aerodromes [13]

Attachment A, Section 1 Number, siting and orientation of runways
1.1.2 Climatological conditions
b) The maximum mean cross-wind components given in Chapter 3, 3.1.3 refer to normal
circumstances. There are some factors which may require that a reduction of those maximum
values be taken into account at a particular aerodrome. These include:
1) the wide variations which may exist, in handling characteristics and maximum permissible
cross-wind components, among diverse types of aeroplanes (including future types) within each
of the three groups given in 3.1.3;
2) prevalence and nature of gusts;
3) prevalence and nature of turbulence;
4) the availability of secondary runway;
5) the width of runways;
6) the runway surface conditions – water, snow and ice on the runway materially reduce the
allowable cross-wind component; and
7) the strength of the wind associated with the limiting cross-wind component
A study should also be made of the occurrence of poor visibility and/or low cloud base. Account
should be taken of their frequency as well as the accompanying wind direction and speed.
ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM
- 84 - Final Report
B.1.3 ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611, PANS-OPS Vol. 1 [16]

Section 7, Chapter 2.1 Noise Preferential Runways
§ 2.1.4 - Noise abatement shall not be a determining factor in runway nomination under following
circumstances:
a) if the runway surface conditions are adversely affected (e.g. by snow, slush, ice, water, mud,
rubber, oil or other substances);
b) for landing in conditions:
1) when the ceiling is lower than 150 m (500 ft) above aerodrome elevation or the visibility is less
than (1 900 m); or,
2) when the approach requires vertical minima greater than 100 m (300 ft) above aerodrome
elevation and:
i) the ceiling is lower than 240 m (800 ft) above aerodrome elevation; or
ii) the visibility is less than 3 000 m;
c) for take-off when the visibility is less than 1 900 m;
d) when wind shear has been reported or forecast or when thunderstorms are expected to affect
the approach or departure;
e) when the crosswind component, including gusts, exceeds 28 km/h (15 kts), or the tailwind
component, including gusts, exceeds 9 km/h (5 kts).
B.1.4 ICAO Doc 4444 ATM/501, PANS-ATM [17]

Section 7, Chapter 2 Selection of Runway-in-Use
§ 7.2.2 - Normally, an aircraft will land or take-off into wind unless safety. The runway
configuration, meteorological conditions and available instrument approach procedures or air traffic
conditions determine that a different direction is preferable. In selecting the runway-in-use,
however, the unit providing aerodrome control service shall tale into consideration, besides surface
wind speed and direction, other relevant factors such as the aerodrome traffic circuits, the length of
runways, and the approach and landing aids available.
B.2 EASA & FAA Certification Specifications
EASA CS-25 Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes
B.2.1 CS 25.233 Directional stability and control [5]

(a) There may be no uncontrollable ground-looping tendency in 90º cross winds, up to a wind
velocity of 37 km/h (20 kts) or 0·2 VSR0, whichever is greater, except that the wind velocity need
not exceed 46 km/h (25 kts) at any speed at which the aeroplane may be expected to be operated
on the ground. This may be shown while establishing the 90º cross component of wind velocity
required by CS 25.237.
(b) Aeroplanes must be satisfactorily controllable, without exceptional piloting skill or alertness, in
power-off landings at normal landing speed, without using brakes or engine power to maintain a
straight path. This may be shown during power-off landings made in conjunction with other tests.
B.2.2 CS 25.237 Wind velocities [5]

(a) The following applies:
- 85 - Final Report
(1) A 90º cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for take-off and landing, must
be established for dry runways and must be at least 37 km/h (20 kts) or 0·2 VSR0, whichever is
greater, except that it need not exceed 46 km/h (25 kts).
(2) The crosswind component for takeoff established without ice accretions is valid in icing
conditions.
(3) The landing crosswind component must be established for:
(i) Non-icing conditions, and
(ii) Icing conditions with the landing ice accretion defined in appendix C.
B.2.3 CS 25.105 Take-off [5]

(d) The takeoff data must include, within the established operational limits of the aeroplane, the
following operational correction factors:
(1) Not more than 50% of nominal wind components along the takeoff path opposite to the
direction of takeoff, and not less than 150% of nominal wind components along the takeoff path
in the direction of takeoff.
B.2.4 CS 25.125 Landing [5]

(f) The landing distance data must include correction factors for not more than 50% of the
nominal wind components along the landing path opposite to the direction of landing, and not
less than 150% of the nominal wind components along the landing path in the direction of
landing.
B.2.5 CS 25.21 Proof of Compliance [5]

(f) In meeting the requirements of CS 25.105(d), 25.125, 25.233 and 25.237, the wind velocity
must be measured at a height of 10 metres above the surface, or corrected for the difference
between the height at which the wind velocity is measured and the 10-metre height.
B.3 Advisory Material for Certification Specifications
EASA Acceptable Means of Compliance
B.3.1 AMC 25.1581 Aeroplane Flight Manual [5]

Part 6 Aeroplane Flight Manual Contents, b. Limitations Section, (3) Operating
Limits, (i) operations
(F) Maximum Tailwind
The maximum allowable tailwind component for take-off and landing should normally be limited to
10 knots. If airworthiness approval has been granted for take-off and landing in tailwinds greater
than 10 knots, the AFM should provide the limiting tailwind value, accompanied by a statement
such as the following:
The capability of this aeroplane has been satisfactorily demonstrated for take-off and manual
landing with tailwinds up to knots. This finding does not constitute operational approval to
conduct take-offs or landings with tailwind components greater than 10 knots.
(G) Maximum demonstrated crosswind
(1) If the maximum demonstrated crosswind is considered to be limiting for either take-off or
landing, the crosswind limitation must be stated in the Limitations Section. If the crosswind value is
- 86 - Final Report
considered to be limiting for one type of operation (e.g. autoland) but not for another, the
crosswind limitation may also state the specific operations to which it applies.
(2) If the maximum crosswind value demonstrated under CS 25.237 is considered to be not limiting
for both take-off and landing operations, the demonstrated crosswind value may be presented in a
section other than the Limitations Section.
B.3.2 AMC 25.1091(d)(2) Precipitation Covered Runways [5]

4 The effects of cross-winds should be examined and where necessary a cross-wind limitation
established for inclusion in the Flight Manual for operation from precipitation covered runways.
- 87 - Final Report
FAA Advisory Circular 25-7A Flight Test Guide for Certification of

Transport Category Airplanes
B.3.3 FAA Advisory Circular 25-7A Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport
Category Airplanes [7]
Chapter 2 Flight, Section 7 Ground and Water Handling Characteristics, General
25.237 Wind Velocities
(1) Explanation
(i) Landplanes
(A) There must be a 90-degree crosswind component established that is shown to be safe for
takeoff and landing on dry runways.
(B) The airplane must exhibit satisfactory controllability and handling characteristics in 90-degree
crosswinds at any ground speed at which the airplane is expected to operate.
(iii) Crosswind Demonstration
A 90-degree crosswind component at 10 meters (as required by § 25.21(f)) of at least 20 knots or
0.2 VSO (where VSO is for the maximum design landing weight), whichever is greater, except that
it need not exceed 25 knots, must be demonstrated during type certification tests. There are two
results possible:
(A) A crosswind component value may be established that meets the minimum requirements but
is not considered to be a limiting value for airplane handling characteristics. This "demonstrated"
value should be included as information in the AFM.
(B) A crosswind component value may be established that is considered to be a maximum limiting
value up to which it is safe to operate for takeoff and landing. This "limiting" value should be
shown in the operating limitations section of the AFM.
(2) Procedures
(i) Configuration
These tests should be conducted in the following configurations:
(A) At light weight and aft c.g. (this is desirable; however, flexibility should be permitted).
(B) Normal takeoff and landing flap configurations using the recommended procedures.
(C) Normal usage of thrust reversers. Particular attention should be paid to any degradation of
rudder effectiveness due to thrust reverser airflow effects.
(D) Yaw dampers/turn coordinator On, or Off, whichever is applicable.
(ii) Test Procedure and Required Data
Three takeoffs and 3 landings, with at least one landing to a full stop, should be conducted in a
90-degree crosswind component of at least 20 knots or 0.2VSO, whichever is greater, except that
for airplanes whose certification basis includes Amendment 25-42, it need not exceed 25 knots.
For each test condition, a qualitative evaluation by the pilot of airplane control capability, forces,
airplane dynamic reaction in gusty crosswinds (if available), and general handling characteristics
should be conducted. The airplane must be satisfactorily controllable without requiring
exceptional piloting skill or strength. Wind data from Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), tower, or
portable ground recording stations should be corrected to a 90-degree crosswind component and
to a height of 10 meters.
B.3.4 FAA Advisory Circular 25-7A Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport
Category Airplanes [7]
Chapter 2 Flight, Section 1 General, Tailwind Takeoff and Landing
- 88 - Final Report
(i) Wind Velocities of 10 Knots or Less

Approval may be given for performance, controllability, and engine operating characteristics for
operations in reported tailwind velocities up to 10 knots, measured at a 10 meter height, without
specific flight tests.
(ii) Wind Velocities Greater than 10 Knots
(A) Performance
It is considered that takeoff, rejected takeoff, and landing distances, measured in tailwind
conditions greater than 10 knots, are unreliable for use in determining airplane performance.
Wind conditions of such magnitude are generally not sufficiently consistent over the length of the
runway or over the time period required to perform the test maneuver. The 150 percent
operational tailwind velocity factor, required by §§ 25.105(d)(1) and 25.125(e), affords a
satisfactory method for determination of airplane takeoff and landing performance information
and limitations up to a limiting tailwind velocity of 15 knots when using a flight test data base
obtained under zero wind conditions.
NOTE: The design requirements of § 25.479 (Level landing conditions) also require the effects of
increased contact speeds to be investigated if approval for landings with tailwinds greater than 10
knots is desired.
(B) Control Characteristics
Airplane control characteristics should be evaluated under the following conditions with the center
of gravity at the aft limit and the test tailwind velocity equal to the proposed limit tailwind
factored by 150 percent:
(1) Takeoff. At light weight with maximum approved takeoff flap deflection, both all-engines
operating and one-engine inoperative takeoffs should be evaluated.
(2) Landing. Approach and landing at light weight with maximum approved landing flap
deflection.
(3) Determination of the increased ground speed effect on gear vibration, shimmy, flight director
and/or autopilot Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches, Ground Proximity Warning
Systems (GPWS) sink rate modes, etc.
(4) If engine idle thrust is increased to account for the increased tailwind velocity, ensure that
deviations above the glideslope are recoverable.
(C) Weight Limits
In accordance with the requirements of §§ 25.105(d)(1) and 25.125(e), maximum takeoff weight
and maximum quick turnaround weight should be determined using brake energies and tire
speeds, as appropriate, calculated with the limit tailwind velocity factored by 150 percent.
(D) Engine Operating Characteristics
Satisfactory engine operation should be demonstrated at the limit tailwind velocity factored by
150 percent. The demonstrations should include:
(1) Zero groundspeed operation.
(2) Takeoff power setting procedure used for AFM performance (typically completed by
approximately 80 knots), both manually and automatically (autothrottle).
(3) Reverse thrust operations.
(E) Airplane Flight Manual
The AFM should contain a statement that the limitation for tailwinds greater than 10 knots reflects
the capability of the airplane as evaluated in terms of airworthiness but does not constitute
approval for operation in tailwinds exceeding 10 knots.
- 89 - Final Report
B.4 FAA Recommendations
FAA Order JO 7110.65S: Air Traffic Control
B.4.1 FAA Order JO 7110.65S: Air Traffic Control [11]

Chapter 3 Airport Traffic Control, Section 5 Runway Selection
§ 3-5-1 Selection
a. Except where a "runway use" program is in effect, use the runway most nearly aligned with the
wind when 5 knots or more or the "calm wind" runway when less than 5 knots (set tetrahedron
accordingly) unless use of another runway:
1. Will be operationally advantageous, or
2. Is requested by the pilot.
NOTE
1. If a pilot prefers to use a runway different from that specified, the pilot is expected to advise
ATC.
2. At airports where a "runway use" program is established, ATC will assign runways deemed to
have the least noise impact. If in the interest of safety a runway different from that specified is
preferred, the pilot is expected to advise ATC accordingly. ATC will honor such requests and
advise pilots when the requested runway is noise sensitive.
Reference: FAAO 8400.9, National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use Programs.
FAA Order 8400.9 National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway
Use Programs
B.4.2 FAA Order 8400.9 National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use
Programs [10]
Section 7 Operational Safety Criteria for Runway Use Programs
Except as provided for in paragraph 8, the following criteria shall be applied to all runway use
programs:
d. Winds
(1) Clear and dry runways
(a) Unless a greater crosswind component is approved by the applicable Flight Standards office
considering local weather factors, facilities and characteristics of aircraft normally using the
facility, the crosswind component for the selected runway (including gust values) must not be
greater than 20 knots.
(b) Except for (c) below, the tailwind component must not be greater than 5 knots.
(c) Where anemometers are installed near the touchdown zone of the candidate runway for
landings, or near the departure end for takeoffs, any tailwind component must not be greater
than 7 knots.
(2) Runways not clear or not dry
(a) the crosswind component (including gust values) must not exceed 15 knots
(b) no tailwind component may be present except the nominal range of winds reported as calm (0
– 3 knots) may be considered to have no tailwind component
- 90 - Final Report
(c) unless otherwise approved by the applicable FAA Flight Standards office based on runway
available and field lengths required for aircraft normally using the runway, the runway must be
grooved or have a porous friction course surface.
Programs [10]
Section 8 Waivers
When necessary to accommodate unique site-specific situation, requests for waivers to the criteria
contained in this order shall be submitted with justification, a safety analysis, and supporting data
to AAT-1 who shall coordinate with AFO-1 for concurrence before granting final approval.
Programs [10]
Section 9 Applicability
(a) This order applies to FAA personnel who may be called upon to advise, evaluate, or coordinate
on specific noise abatement plans for runway use programs for particular airports.
(b) This order does not require development or use of a runway use program where such a
program has not been used or is not needed.
B.5 Operational Rules
FAR Part 121 Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and

Supplemental Operations
B.5.1 FAR Part 121 Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations Advisory Material [8]
§ 121.438 Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirements
(a) If the second in command has fewer than 100 hours of flight time as second in command in
operations under this part in the type airplane being flown, and the pilot in command is not an
appropriately qualified check pilot, the pilot in command must make all takeoffs and landings in the
following situations:
(v) The crosswind component for the runway to be used is in excess of 15 knots.
- 91 - Final Report
Annex C Risk Model
C.1 Estimated Coefficients of the Risk Model
C.1.1 Crosswind Risk Model for Arrival traffic
Coefficients Estimate Standard Error z value p-value
3.4965 0.1741 20.086 < 2e-16

βˆ0 (Intercept)
-0.6633 0.2985 -2.222 0.026298
βˆ1 (absCWC.categories(2,4])
-1.0986 0.3482 -3.156 0.001602
-1.2993 0.3761 -3.455 0.000550

-3.4965 1.0150 -3.445 0.000572

-2.3979 0.6030 -3.976 6.99e-05

-2.1102 0.5294 -3.986 6.73e-05

Table IV-1: Estimate, Standard Error and p-Value for Coefficients of Crosswind Risk
Model for Arrival traffic
Residual degree of freedom degree of freedom Chi-Squared p-value
6 -6 45.595 3.565e-08
Table IV-2: Wald statistic for Crosswind Risk Model for Arrival traffic
C.1.2 Crosswind Risk Model for Departure traffic
Coefficients Estimate Standard Error z value p-Value
2.6391 0.2673 9.874 < 2e-16

βˆ0 (Intercept)
-1.9459 0.7559 -2.574 0.0100

Table IV-3: Estimate, Standard Error and p-Value for Coefficients of Crosswind Risk
Model for Departure traffic
Residual degree of freedom degree of freedom Chi-Squared p-value
1 -1 6.6265 0.01005
Table IV-4: Wald statistic for Crosswind Risk Model for Departure traffic
- 92 - Final Report
Annex D Figures Impact Assessment
D.1 Redistributed Movements
D.1.1 Redistributions from Runway 07R
Redistributions from runway 07R 2008
50
40
30
20
10
Date
D.1.2 Redistributions from Runway 07L
Redistributions from runway 07L 2008
50
40
30
20
10
Date
- 93 - Final Report
D.1.3 Redistributions from Runway 25R
Redistributions from runway 25R 2008
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Date
D.1.4 Redistributions from Runway 25L
Redistributions from runway 25L 2008
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Date
- 94 - Final Report
D.1.5 Redistributions from Runway 02
Redistributions from runway 02 2008
50
40
30
20
10
Date
D.1.6 Redistributions from Runway 20
Redistributions from runway 20 2008
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Date
- 95 - Final Report
D.2 Usage rates of runways
D.2.1 Usage rate of runway 07R
Frequeny of movements per hour on runway 07R
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
Frequency/(total movements) [%]
5.0
flightplan 2008
4.0 difference between flightplans
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
MOV/h
D.2.2 Usage rate of runway 07L
Frequeny of movements per hour on runway 07L
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
flightplan 2008
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
MOV/h
- 96 - Final Report
D.2.3 Usage rate of runway 25R
Frequeny of movements per hour on runway 25R
5.0
flightplan 2008
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
MOV/h
D.2.4 Usage rate of runway 25L
Frequeny of movements per hour on runway 25L
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
flightplan 2008
4.5
adapted flightplan
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
MOV/h
- 97 - Final Report
D.2.5 Usage rate of runway 02
Frequeny of movements per hour on runway 02
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
flightplan 2008
5.5
adapted flightplan
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
MOV/h
D.2.6 Usage rate of runway 20
Frequeny of movements per hour on runway 20
5.0
flightplan 2008
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
MOV/h
- 98 - Final Report
Annex E Definitions
E.1 Accident
E.1.1 According to ICAO Annex 13 [12]:

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the
time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons
have disembarked, in which:
a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:
- being in the aircraft, or
- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from
the aircraft, or
- direct exposure to jet blast,
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or
when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers
and crew; or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,
except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or
accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small
dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.
E.2 Emergency Landing
E.2.1 An unscheduled landing that is made under circumstances that are not under
the pilot's control. Emergency situations may develop as a result of one or more
factors within or outside an aircraft, for example:
• Fire on board the aircraft

• Aircraft component failure or malfunction (e.g. engine failure, landing
gear malfunction or loss of pressurisation)
• Shortage of fuel (or other essential consumable substance)
• Worsening weather
• Pilot incapacitation (e.g. as a result of illness)
• Aircraft damage (e.g. as a result of collision, bird strike or extreme
weather)
E.2.2 An emergency or abnormal situation may result in it being impossible to

continue the flight to destination as planned, resulting in one or more of the
following outcomes:
• Loss of altitude;
- 99 - Final Report
• Diversion to a nearby aerodrome;

• Forced landing.
E.2.3 This description is in accordance with EUROCONTROL’s Skybrary.
E.3 Statistical Model
E.3.1 According to [20]:

Statistical modelling is the attempt to describe variability in observed data by mathematical means.
Any such model can only be an approximation to reality, but it is an attempt to elucidate the
underlying mechanism which generated the data. In a scientific context, the observations must be,
at least, imagined to be repeatable, so that a model may be expected to remain suitable under such
recurrence.
- 100 - Final Report

Airsight - Study On Maximum Wind Component Limits Aplicable at BRU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Airsight - Study On Maximum Wind Component Limits Aplicable at BRU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY ON THE MAXIMUM WIND COMPONENT LIMITS

APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF RUNWAYS AT THE BRUSSELS

Prepared by: airsight GmbH

COPYRIGHT & CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

New Issue Date Change Reference Details

0.9 10 July 2009 Interim Report Draft for Review

0.91 20 August 2009 Interim Report Section 6.10. added

1.1 5 October 2009 Final Report Section 3.6 reviewed

CONTROLLED COPY DISTRIBUTION LIST

Copy Number Ownership

1 Secretary of State for Mobility and Transport

Approved by: Holger Schulz

Date: 5 October 2009

airsight GmbH – Managing Director

-1- Final Report

-2- Final Report

6.8 Crosswind Risk Model................................................................................................. 45

-3- Final Report

-4- Final Report

-5- Final Report

1.3 Aim of the Study

1.4.1 Firstly, information related to specific operational characteristics of Brussels

-6- Final Report

-7- Final Report

Part I System Definition

2 Current Situation at Brussels National Airport

Figure I-1: Airport Layout [2]

RWY Equipment ASDA LDA Direction

-8- Final Report

Crosswind Tailwind Gusts incl. Runway Remarks

20kts 7kts yes 25R, 25L, 07R, 07L

15kts 5kts yes 20/02 for landings

15kts 5kts yes 20/02 for take-offs from 2200 to 0459

15kts 0kts yes 20/02 for take-offs from 0500 to 2159

-9- Final Report

2.2 Wind data for Brussels Nation Airport

2.3 Movement Data BRU Airport 2008

Rwy02 Rwy07L Rwy07R Rwy20 Rwy25L Rwy25R

Figure I-3: Distribution of the Traffic along the Runways

3 Legislation, Standards and Recommendations

3.1 ICAO Standards and Recommendations

3.1.1 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) states information

• ICAO Annex 14 Vol. 1, Aerodromes

ICAO Annex 14 Vol. 1

• 20 kts in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1500

ICAO PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM

• 15 kts crosswind, including gusts

3.2 EASA & FAA Certification Specifications

3.3 FAA Recommendations

• clear and dry runways:

3.4 Operational Rules

3.5 Overview of Cross- and Tailwind Limits

Regulation / Guideline / Crosswind Tailwind incl. Gusts

ICAO Annex 14 10 kts - 20 kts - -

ICAO PANS-OPS / 15 kts 5 kts Yes / Yes

FAA Order 8400.9 15 kts - 20 kts 0 kts - 7 kts Yes / -

EASA AMC 25.1581 / - 10 kts -

Certification Specifications of 20 kts or - -

3.6 Statements from the Belgian Cockpit Association BeCA

4 Inventory of Cross- and Tailwind Criteria

4.1 Survey of Aircraft Types and Frequency of Operations

4.2 Demonstrated Cross- and Tailwind Capabilities

Manufacturer Aircraft Model Demonstrated (Demonstrated)