UK Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Status

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UK Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Status"

Stephanie Nichols
6 years ago
Views:

1 UK Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Status Geoff Burtenshaw Technical Advisor, Navigation Systems Directorate of Airspace Policy 1

2 Current Implementation of PBN in UK Airspace 2

3 Current Status En-route From 7 April 2011, RNAV 5 (B-RNAV) became applicable on all UK ATS routes at all levels/altitudes in controlled airspace as promulgated in the UK AIP 3

4 Current Status Terminal Airspace Still no RNAV 1 (P-RNAV) SIDs or STARs implemented, although STARs are largely covered by the extension of the RNAV 5 mandate Gatwick RNAV 1 SIDs imminent (transposing trials to permanent procedures) NATS London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP) and Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA) Projects Newcastle, Luton, Birmingham, Southend, Leeds Bradford, Farnborough RNAV 1 procedures 4

5 Trial of RNP 1 Departures with Radius to Fix (RF) Establishing RNP 1 with Radius to Fix (RF) Departure trials at London Stansted RWY 04 DVR and RWY 22 CLN Trial commencement Q

6 SID/NPR Task Force A number of recommendations related to the implementation of PBN SID Procedures with intent to promulgate guidance to key industry stakeholders Recommendations focused on replication of conventional SIDs Define PBN SID replication as The design of an RNAV or RNP procedure that follows the path over the ground of the nominal centreline for the existing conventional procedure as closely as possible Make the distinction between this and an overlay 6

7 SID/NPR Task Force Also considering the replication of a conventional procedure, using an optimised form of the coding used in overlays and applying customised IFP design criteria (which might not be PANS-OPS compliant but still provides an obstacle-safe departure) is a valid national standard in UK airspace where a PANS-OPS compliant replication causes negative environmental impact (Note: this method is still under development) Where replication can be shown, then environmental consultation satisfied through established consultative committees / forums where they are representative of communities living under the replicated procedure; where this is not the case additional representation should be incorporated 23 January 2013 ICAO-EUR PBN TF/8 7

8 Process for Implementation of PBN SID Procedures 8

9 Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) NPR work resulted in identification of a number of future options: Do nothing leave NPRs as they are Moveable NPRs Fixed NPRs Pros and Cons for each option Next step Industry group (CAA, NATS, Airports) to engage with Government Department to determine next steps 9

10 RNAV Route Spacing and Holding Policy Terminal Airspace Route Spacing: Key to LAMP and NTCA development Link to European Airspace Concept Handbook and existing Collision Risk studies Apply Route Spacing Analysis Methodology as developed by NATS in TC North with RTS validation (5 NM parallel route spacing as target) RNAV Holding Policy Ensure that the RNAV hold and STAR is at least as safe as the current conventional procedures Hold separation standards Hold to adjacent hold Hold to route or edge of Controlled Airspace 10

11 Current Status RNP APCH implementation High levels of interest to implement RNAV (GNSS) Approaches Profile raised by EC 7 th Framework Funding call for LPV implementation (ACCEPTA Phase II) 12 aerodromes successful in UK All will include LNAV Reversion CAA encouraging inclusion of LNAV/VNAV Minima on charts where beneficial Runway ends LNAV Runway ends LNAV/VNAV Runway ends LPV In Service In Design 2013/ January 2013 ICAO-EUR PBN TF/8 11

12 A37-11 Metric A high number of ILS at runways in the UK ICAO Assembly Resolution calls for APV (LNAV/VNAV or LPV) at all instrument runway ends by 2016 But is this the right metric? The primary objective is one of access for all and safety i.e., providing a stabilised 3D approach path to the runway xls (ILS, MLS or GLS) satisfies this requirement, so why not include it in the metric? It is also consistent with the recent ICAO approach classification changes where we now talk about 3D operations and not APV Note: Resilience is highlighted in the resolution as an issue, but is more of a business continuity consideration 23 January 2013 ICAO-EUR PBN TF/8 12

13 Current Situation (Jan 2013 AIRAC) Total Percent Runway Ends 122 ILS Runways LNAV/VNAV LPV APV ILS or APV January 2013 ICAO-EUR PBN TF/8 13

14 Planned Situation (end 2014) Total Percent Runway Ends 131 (122 Instrument and 9 non-instrument) ILS Runways LNAV/VNAV LPV APV ILS or APV Runways without ILS or Planned APV (19) at more remote locations with little public transport movements or rarely used i.e., cross-runway etc. 23 January 2013 ICAO-EUR PBN TF/8 14

15 LPV Flight Procedure Validation Have seen recently that the cost of LPV flight procedure validation is a potential deterrent to implementation of LPV procedures A development navigation data base costs: $5000 for the build incorporating the flight procedure in the data base $1500 per runway end $500 per host configuration i.e., copies of build for different equipment Cost is difficult to justify to a private aerodrome where the customer base is GA and little chance of cost recovery CAA/NATS trying to coordinate flight validation exercise so that aerodromes share the costs and incorporate as many LPV procedures as possible in a given development navigation data base build 23 January 2013 ICAO-EUR PBN TF/8 15

16 CAA Policy Regarding Instrument Approach Procedures To Aerodromes Without an Instrument Runway and/or Approach Control Development of Policy and Guidance (CAP) Consultation in Spring of 2013 Publication by mid

17 Navaid Rationalisation NATS programme to right-size the UK conventional navigation infrastructure compatible with a PBN environment Consistent with changes to require RNAV 5 on all UK ATS routes since April 2011 and AIC Yellow 107/2011 allowing Routes and Procedures to be flown with an equivalent to ADF Removal of 8 en-route NDBs by 2018 Reduction of en-route VORs from 46 to 19 by 2018 VOR dependencies: Terminal airspace conventional procedures e.g., SIDs Instrument Approach procedures Use for training (civil and military) Means of procedural separation Mitigation against controlled airspace infringements Fragmented ownership of airports/procedures 17

18 Proposed Rationalised VOR Network and Coverage 18

19 Future Implementation of PBN in UK Airspace 19

20 The Implementation Decision Making Process Options for an airspace change: Servicing those equipped and capable Wait for natural equipage rate Airspace Notification at least we know where we are Driven by the ANSP Consulted upon with: Airspace users and airports Consideration for the environmental impact 20

21 Regulatory Enablers UK Air Navigation Order Articles 124/125 Area navigation and required navigation performance capabilities Aircraft registered in the UK (124) Aircraft registered elsewhere than the UK (125) Policy for the Application of PBN in UK/Irish Airspace AIC (Y) 023/ Application of PBN in UK Airspace 21

22 What on-the-ground events are telling us: It was anticipated that the combination of primary legislation, policy and guidance would be sufficient to encourage PBN implementation The case for requiring RNAV 1 for LAMP airspace in 2015 is unlikely to be an issue; high fleet compliance; strong benefits case Impact Assessment still required 22

23 What on-the-ground events are telling us: Natural adoption is not driving PBN implementation across rest of the UK: Mixed equipage levels and uncertainty around fleet investment plans make it difficult to re-design the airspace for maximum benefit Dependency on LAMP and NTCA Need to maintain conventional procedures for a period of time can result in additional cost, complexity, workload and safety risks that are a barriers to change Early adoption is deterred by last mover incentives Airports generally supportive & progressive not all aircraft operators are the same 23

24 What on-the-ground events are telling us: Focus group meetings indicate some operators are reluctant to become PBN compliant unless mandates are in place across Users, Airports and ANSPs Feedback from UK Industry Coordination Group (FASIIG) Mandate needs stronger consideration Regulatory intervention required 24

25 Options for Coordinating PBN Implementation 1. Do Nothing (Natural Adoption) 2. Full UK wide Mandate for PBN in Terminal / Airport Environment 3. Locally Supported Mandate CAA Board Approval (November 2012) 25

26 Why Option 3? Build on local knowledge and requirements and provides support where needed Ensures consistency with the national PBN policy Would still require evidence of equipage levels and navigation performance capabilities through an impact assessment together with benefits derived Standard template to be made available to ANSPs and airports Proposal for a mandate considered on basis of impact assessment Scalable to a TMA or an airport No change to legislation required The most viable Option 26

Issues Mandate needs to be on all parties Alignment of investment and upgrade plans Need to have greater national co-ordination Accommodating non-equipped aircraft Capturing the operators will be

27 Issues Mandate needs to be on all parties Alignment of investment and upgrade plans Need to have greater national co-ordination Accommodating non-equipped aircraft Capturing the operators will be critical to the success of the mandate and therefore the impact assessment is key Provision of conventional arrival/departure alternatives as a time-limited option, or with non-preferential routes/timings Consider State Aircraft and General Aviation/Business Aviation 27

28 Costs / Benefits and Risks The benefits are there LAMP development estimated at 70M to 90M 5% reduction in fuel burn ( 50M p.a.) Non-delivery of UK Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) is the biggest risk Could stall other FAS deployments A national PBN roadmap is designed to ensure that developments fit within a co-ordinated and sequenced plan and minimises risks Other risks include costs of operator equipage (and certification) and ANSP/airport infrastructure Option 3 helps mitigate costs by requiring a local impact assessment Risk of CAA adopting a mandate process Plan to consult on proposals May only be until European mandate comes into effect (circa 2020?) 28

In Summary Despite delivering a set of regulatory enablers in line with the FAS it is highly unlikely that PBN implementation will take place in the absence of some form of mandate Schiphol RNAV 1

29 In Summary Despite delivering a set of regulatory enablers in line with the FAS it is highly unlikely that PBN implementation will take place in the absence of some form of mandate Schiphol RNAV 1 Mandate in November 2012, a good example of how to encourage operators to seek approval PBN is a key FAS enabler Stalemate a real risk without regulatory intervention Will require close co-operation and co-ordination and greater interaction on the ground with operators/ansps and airports 29

30 Other Actions Development of an Impact Assessment template to assist ANSPs and Airports better understand and present the arguments for a mandate Outside of the Airspace Change process but key to establishing the cost / benefit case PBN Communication Plan PBN Co-ordination Plan 30

31 Impact Assessment Template Note: Points A and B are merely start /end points for the process and the ongoing review. 31

32 Questions? Point of contact: 32

UK Implementation of PBN

UK Implementation of PBN Geoff Burtenshaw Directorate of Airspace Policy UK Civil Aviation Authority 1 UK airspace context Presentation Overview Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) (FAS) Industry Implementation