New generation aircraft in the instrument approach · PDF fileNew generation aircraft in the instrument approach domain Jean-Christophe Lair Airbus Test pilot 1st Feb. 2017 . ... performance,

New generation aircraft in the instrument approach domain

Jean-Christophe Lair

Airbus Test pilot

1st Feb. 2017

Agenda

Video

A little bit of history

Today’s situation

A350 XWB solutions for final approaches

Way forward and conclusion

ECTL Final Approach Operations Symposium 2017 Feb 2017

Agenda

Video


Today’s situation





Quiz (sorry about that )

1/ Airport where the video was made?

2/ Type of aircraft?

3/ Operator?

4/ Type of approach flown?????

Some cues:

- Radar vectors to the final approach (as for standard ILS)

- LOC and GS modes to capture and track the final (as for standard ILS)

- Barometric DA equivalent to 200ft AGL (as for standard ILS)


Quiz

4/ Type of approach flown?????

The approach flown was an RNAV(GNSS) approach with LPV minima,

also known as:

- RNP APCH with LPV minima

- APV SBAS, LPV 200, or SBAS Cat1

It was flown based on an airborne function called SLS

=> This approach has all the assets of a GLS precision approach (or

an ILS), but that’s very hard to guess from the current approach

classification and charting


LFPG RNAV(GNSS) 26L


Approach name

Minima

(Other charts on next slide)

Agenda

Video


Today’s situation

Way forward


A little bit of history Long time ago, we were flying happily with only 2 types of approaches:

- Precision approaches = ILS

- Non Precision Approaches = mainly VOR or NDB

ILS was (and still is) the pilot’s preferred type of approach, due to its

accuracy, reliability, and ease of operation

NPAs were treated with many precautions… and avoided as much

as possible!!

For pilots the situation was simple (you knew what to expect!)


A little bit of history Industry worked on improving the NPA situation, and more particularly

accuracy, reliability, and ease of operation

1st generation FMS gave a means to fly all NPA variants with the

same A/C modes and displays (overlaying the original approach),

2nd generation FMS provided Baro-VNAV guidance (what would be

called now a 3D service)

From mid 90’s GPS allowed a very significant step in accuracy and

integrity


A little bit of history FMS area navigation (RNAV) capability, associated with GPS

performance, allowed the design of straight-in approaches (solving

the offset approach scenario, frequent with conventional NPAs)

ILS look-alike HMI (such as Airbus FLS function) developed on

large transport A/C, applying to all straight-in final approaches, and

helping significantly pilots (and controllers), by its similarity with ILS

Based on the RNAV technique, RNP-AR concept was introduced to

address complex approaches scenarios including curved legs

(solving operational cases with difficult ground environment)


ECTL_Feb2017_FLS.pptx





ECTL_RNP-AR_concxept.pptx



02/02/2017

FLS beam FAF

Anchor Point

Course

FAF

FLS beam

Slope

Anchor Point

NDB: Navigation Data Base

230 220

FLS -

Non-Precision Approach

harmonization

FMS Landing System

• Guidance mode to fly RNAV(GNSS) & conventional approach (chart minima remain

applicable)

• Aircraft is guided along a virtual beam computed by the FMS without ground infrastructure

(based on FMS NDB)

• Vertical profile corrected for cold temperature

• Certified on all Airbus families

A little bit of history Finally differential GPS technology provided the missing elements

for a full Precision approach service based on GNSS

GBAS, based on a local ground station at the airport

SBAS, based on a network of regional ground stations and geostationary

satellites

So over 40 years, and although ILS, VOR, and some NDB approaches

are still in place, the final approach picture has changed completely

with new technologies and operational concepts

But a large majority of pilots still favours the old good ILS…


ECTL_GBAS.pptx

ECTL_SBAS.pptx

Agenda

Video


Today’s situation




Today’s situation

Today’s pilots are faced with new approach types, with unclear (and

changing) naming, classification, and regulations

The new situation does bring technical enhancements, but the way it is

introduced (including by some of the training material) prevent many

pilots from taking benefit of these novelties

Understanding new approaches can create an operational burden

(generally not at the best moment of the flight!), and may be prone to

errors (e.g. type of approach, minimums)


Today’s situation: what’s wrong?

RNAV / RNP approaches include several variants, each with strong

operational implications:

RNAV(GNSS) aka RNP APCH -> may benefit from on board ILS look-alike

solution (pilots and ATC can then handle such procedures similarly to ILS)

LPV -> full “precision approach” service (ILS look-alike solution)

RNP-AR -> require specific authorization for aircraft, airline, and crew;

may require a specific a/c solution; specific handling from ATC to join the

procedure

RNAV Visual??

Unlike previously with ILS, listening to the ATIS (e.g. “RNAV26L in

use”) is not enough => crew now needs to interpret the chart

ECTL Final Approach Operations Symposium 2017


2D / 3D wording is very attractive, but is often misinterpreted as an

indication of the criteria used for procedure design (e.g. LNAV or

LNAV/VNAV)

All approaches indeed include a final descent

All approaches can thus be operated as “3D” as long as the aircraft (and Nav Data

Base) provide the adequate service

What makes the difference between 2D and 3D is the use of on-board guidance

for the descent, and not the way the minimums are titled



APV terminology seems to imply that the 2 variants (Baro-VNAV and

SBAS) are similar, but from a pilot point of view, it’s not so much the

case:

APV SBAS profile is geometric, while the Baro-VNAV profile is linked with the QNH

setting: QNH error could remain undetected, even with crew monitoring!

Baro-VNAV profile is affected by differences in temperature (compensation

needed to maintain obstacle clearance with low temperatures)

LPV approaches benefit from a FAS Data Block (similarly with GLS), which is a

more robust process than basic FMS NDB coding


Agenda

Video


Today’s situation





The A350 XWB had from its entry into service the largest approach

capability for a civilian large transport aircraft:

ILS and conventional NPA (VOR, NDB,..)

“Standard” RNAV(GNSS) (aka RNP APCH)

GLS

RNP-AR

RNAV(GNSS) approaches with LPV minima



The A350 design applies the xLS concept for all straight-in approaches (i.e.

all approaches except RNP-AR)

xLS concept is based on:

Definition of the “beam” associated with final approach (lateral and vertical)

Computation of angular deviations w.r.t. this beam

Re-use of well known ILS elements (displays and control laws)

Pilots get a consistent and user friendly operational solution for all xLS

applications

RNP-AR approaches (and departures) benefit from a specific and highly

redundant function, adequate for these specific operations (and also subject

to specific training)


ECTL_ILS-PFD.pptx

ECTL_ILS-PFD.pptx

ECTL_xLSconcept.pptx



ECTL_RNP-ARsolution.pptx



02/02/2017

xLS concept -

Similar displays and guidance modes for

all straight-in final approaches

Cockpit by Airbus, Today and Tomorrow

RNP AR label L/DEV

V/DEV

Numeric XTK Active RNP value

Procedure title

RNP-AR Function and HMI


This was achieved by additional mentions in

parenthesis, defined with the help of our an

HF experts

The following picture provides a typical FMS

ARRIVAL page:


The A350 allows the crew to precisely identify the type/variant of the

RNAV / RNP approach and the corresponding aircraft function

RNP-AR

RNAV(GNSS) approach published with

LPV minimums

Agenda

Video


Today’s situation





Airbus believes that today’s standardization is too much driven by

procedure design considerations, not enough by the needs of the

end users (pilots and controllers)

Standardization doesn’t mean that aircraft solutions shall stop

evolving, because cockpit design is a key element for safety

New technology and concepts are here, but for many pilots, it’s

still “ILS for ever”

Let’s use advance cockpit designs, let’s listen to the pilots and

controllers, to finally get the expected benefits from the new

technologies!!


Thank you

© Airbus S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of AIRBUS. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this

document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of AIRBUS S.A.S. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose

other than that for which it is supplied. The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements

are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof.

AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.

Documents

New generation aircraft in the instrument approach · PDF fileNew generation aircraft in the instrument approach domain Jean-Christophe Lair Airbus Test pilot 1st Feb. 2017 . ... performance,