DIESER TEXT DIENT DER NAVIGATION

Performance Based Navigation Implementation of Procedures

Dr. Daniel Schaad – Head of Instrument Flight Procedures (ATM/IFP)

Minsk, April 10th, 2015

First of all…

…thank you very much for your invitation to Belarus!

2

I am happy to be in your beautiful country!

3

The Concept of PBN

The concept of PBN – what is there to learn?

Components of the PBN Concept

Why PBN?

Questions?

4

The concept of PBN

the PBN concept aims at harmonizing the historically grown

RNAV/RNP environment and adds further (future) elements,

such as SBAS under the same umbrella

the overall philosophy of PBN is to define navigation

PERFORMANCE which can then be achieved by various

accepted sensors

PBN also aims at harmonizing charting, naming conventions,

terminology, etc.

in the approach domain, PBN shall become the first layer of

non-precision approach environment (replacing NDB and VOR

approaches). However, ILS remains the standard of precision

approach!

5

The concept of PBN

6

NAV Specification

NAV Infrastructure

NAV

Application

The concept of PBN – Navigation Application

the APPLICATION (i.e. use of) the Navigation Specification

and NAVAID Infrastructure

mainly an ANS topic

examples:

– routes based on RNAV and RNP specifications (based on a

particular NAVAID infrastructure)

– SIDs/STARs based on RNAV

– Approach procedures based on RNP specifications

7

The concept of PBN – Navigation Specification

a SPECIFICATION (i.e. definition) of a particular standard (like

RNAV1, RNP0.3, etc.) including elements like

– navigation performance

– functionalities (like certain path terminators)

– accepted navigation sensors

– air crew requirements (if applicable)

mostly relevant to the aircraft operator

8

The concept of PBN – Navigation Infrastructure

The INFRASTRUCTURE required (both land-based and space-

based) to fulfill a given NAV specification to enable a NAV

application. Examples are

– GNSS (GPS, GLONASS, Gallileo)

– DME stations

– VOR stations (for the European P-RNAV only)

mostly a technical CNS topic

9

The concept of PBN – Standardization and

Structuring

10

The concept of PBN – performance is the key

concept moves away from the direct technical description of

navigation

nav performance is the requirement (e.g. +/- 1nm for 95% of

flight time in RNAV1, etc.)

technical realization provides various options (e.g. DME-DME

or GPS, etc.)

more options on avionics side, better flexibility and airspace

capacity for ANS providers

11

The concept of PBN – a new second layer

world of non-precision approaches to be replaced by PBN

approaches

conventional non-precision approaches to become “third-layer”

back-up for low-equipage aircraft

changes in flight training will reflect that (no more NDB training)

12

The concept of PBN – new trends

standard equipage drives the procedure landscape

If LPV/SBAS capability becomes standard on large commercial

airliners, this may chance the approach landscape on hub

airports (same with GBAS, yet not a PBN topic)

mixed conventional/PBN procedures can sometimes provide

benefits – ICAO in the process of producing guidance material

Example:

13

The concept of PBN – risks

nomenclature complex

wording partly not yet fully standardized

terms may be misleading (e.g. any RNAV approach is an RNP

approach, why does „RNAV(RNP)“ only refer to RNP AR?)

“overcoding” of conventional procedures “blurs” the line

between conventional and PBN sometimes (esp. to the end

user in the cockpit

14

The concept of PBN – coded is not necessarily

PBN!

avionics capabilities like Airbus FLS (FMS landing system) with

FMS LOC (F-LOC) and FMS glideslope (F-G/S) modes enable

the use of conventional 2D non-precision approaches like

3D approaches

yet, these are still conventional non-precision approaches!!!

Boeing has similar elements (Final Approach Course – FAC

and Glide Path - G/P) in its Integrated Approach Navigation

(IAN) concept

no precision like in RNP!

different procedure design criteria in the background

a very good link to an article also addressing this topic:

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/596.pdf

15

The concept of PBN – Doc 9613, Performance-

Based Navigation (PBN) Manual

16

The concept of PBN - European Airspace Concept

Handbook for PBN Implementation

17

18

Implementing a PBN Procedure

from the initial idea to its publication

Implementing RNP Procedures

identifying needs

Where does the need for a new procedure come from?

It all starts with an identified demand:

Airspace changes?

Potentially improved minima?

Better accessibility of the airport?

Changes in fleet and/or equipage?

Requests from operators?

What options are there to accomodate the identified need?

Type of approach

Connection to SID/STAR structure

Approach layout

19

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

Where does the need for a new procedure come from?

Innsbruck has a long history of RNP procedures: Europe’s first

RNP-AR Approach was published there in 2004

However, in recent years winter weather patterns have changed

and caused a significant number of winter days with very low

ceiling in Innsbruck, which made the existing minimum of the RNP

AR RWY 26 (DH 710‘) insufficient.

Innsbruck subsists on winter charter traffic, and the issue of

diversions are critical to the economic survival of the airport.

Hence, the demand for a new procedure is:

ACCESSIBILITY through lower approach minima

20

Implementing RNP Procedures

analyzing procedure options

What procedures can address the identified needs?

Lower Minima? – change from non-precision to precision or RNP

Fleet and Equipage demands? – check available capability

Airspace Changes? – maybe just lateral/vertical changes

necessary

Operator Demands? Is there a procedure type that suits their

demands?

Perform a first feasibility study with a first minimum estimate, if

possible

Can you achieve better or equal minima with the procedure?

Does it fit into the obstacle/terrain environment?

Do the runway characteristics and infrastructure support the

planned procedure type (i.e. lighting, etc.)

21

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

What procedures can address the identified needs?

Coming from an RNP-AR procedure which even has an RNP 0.15

minimum published, it is difficult to find options for improvement

What options are there to accomodate the identified need for a

lower minimum?

With the highest RNP approach type already in place and no

option for a precision approach (i.e. ILS) due to the Inn-Valley, the

only identified option was a change to the existing RNP approach

When analyzing the obstacle situation and the existing LOC and

RNP-AR approaches, a revolutionary idea was born:

Combining a LOC (final) approach with an RNP missed approach

might lead to a lower minimum!

22

Implementing RNP Procedures

including the stakeholders

As early as possible, it is important to get the affected

stakeholders on board

The users: airlines, general aviation, flight schools, etc.

The controllers: all involved ATC units, usually APP and TWR for

terminal ops

The regulators: the national regulatory authority, usually referred to

as CAA

Presenting the initial concepts and ideas to the stakeholder

community during workshop sessions

A key step to ensure early identification of problems (from minor

issues to “show stoppers”) and get people “on board” to avoid later

obstacles to implementation

23

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

As early as possible, it is important to get the affected

stakeholders on board

We held separate workshops with ATC personnel from Innsbruck

and airline representatives (mostly flight ops experts, pilots) from

the major carriers flying into Innsbruck

Moreover, we informed the Austrian CAA (BMVIT) about our

project and the proposed proceedings at an early stage and got

approval to proceed, with the safety assessment being the final

check-mark

24

Implementing RNP Procedures

the design process

Procedure Design Steps (software-based approach)

Initial design with software to establish protection areas

Obstacle assessment based on the protection areas

Iterative adaptation of design to improve procedure characteristics

Initial Desktop Validation

Options like RVT (RNAV Validation Tool) for SIDs and STARs,

Desktop Flight Simulators for Flyability Assessment of Approach

Procedure Trainer/Simulator Trials, if available in organization

Consultation of pilots, flight ops experts

25

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

Procedure Design Steps (software-based approach)

Obstacle evaluation showed critical obstacle exclusion from

localizer protection area and thereby supported initial expectation

to achieve lower approach minimum

Feasibility of transition from localizer-tracking to RNP Missed

Approach mode was still in question

Initial Desktop Validation

Difficult due to existing FMS/flight guidance questions which could

only be answered by real avionics system application

26

Implementing RNP Procedures

flight validation and stakeholder feedback for

safety case (1/2)

Flight Validation

Can be performed either in real flight or in full flight simulators and

provides final certainty about flyability and handling issues.

Real flight validation can also serve as a final confirmation of

obstacle clearance, if obstacle database incomplete

ICAO Doc 9906 Vol. 5 (Quality Assurance for Procedure Design)

states

27

Implementing RNP Procedures

flight validation and stakeholder feedback for

safety case (2/2)

Safety Case

Promulgation of procedure in AIP requires safety assessment for

which the flight validation and stakeholder feedback (both ATC and

A/Os) is a key input

In some states, supervisory authority may audit individual

procedure (“product audit”) or the process of safety management

as part of the publication process (“process or organizational

audit”)

The successful safety assessment (as published in a safety case

release) is the prerequisite for approval of a procedure by the

regulator (i.e. CAA)

28

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

Flight Validation

All major carriers involved in the initial stakeholder workshops were

provided with the procedure design (chart and coding table) to

have the procedure coded by their datahouses for simulator trials

A special focus was directed to the issue of mode change from

LOC tracking to RNP MApp Mode

Sim checkflights were performed on A320, B737 and DHC8 types

Flight Validation Reports were collected for the safety assessment

and additional questions submitted to the operators to complement

the safety assessment

29

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

Safety Case

The results of safety assessments proved that with a minor

alteration in the missed approach description, the procedure was

perfectly flyable and the mode change issue was technically and

operationally easy to handle.

The safety assessment also identified requirements for the AR

process (individual authorization of the use of this procedure by

ANSP) as a mitigation of risks

Whilst in most states, a final approval of the procedure by the state

CAA would be required prior to publication in the AIP, this process

is delegated in Austria, so that the publication went ahead directly

after the successful completion of the safety assessment

30

Implementing RNP Procedures

our real-world example: LOWI LOC R RWY 26

31

Organizational Requirements

Procedure Design Office with qualified designers and

infrastructure

Charting Office

Interface to regulator for approval of IFP work (either process-

oriented or product-oriented)

Safety Office (to carry out and accompany safety assessment

process)

Interface to operational unit (TWR/APP)

Interface to operators (airlines, general aviation, flying

associations/clubs, airport operators, etc.)

Ability to provide operationals approvals for AR operations

(either through CAA or ANSP)

32

Infrastructural Requirements

Procedure Design Software with Obstacle and Terrain

Database

Data Exchange with Charting Office

Ability to provide coding tables for preliminary coding in flight

tests

Simulator or test aircraft access (can be done through a

partnering airline operator

GNSS coverage assessment (esp. in mountainous terrain, with

particular criticality in case of LPV procedures)

Provision of GNSS NOTAM service (can be outsourced)

33

34

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS!

Thank you very much!

Please ask questions!