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

Transcription

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

2 Agenda Video A little bit of history Today s situation A350 XWB solutions for final approaches Way forward and conclusion

3 Agenda Video A little bit of history Today s situation A350 XWB solutions for final approaches Way forward and conclusion

4

5 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)

6 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

7 LFPG RNAV(GNSS) 26L Approach name Minima (Other charts on next slide)

8

9 Agenda Video A little bit of history Today s situation Way forward

10 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!)

11 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), 2 nd 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

12 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)

13 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 FLS - Non-Precision Approach harmonization FLS beam Anchor Point FAF Slope FLS beam FAF Course Anchor Point 02/02/2017 NDB: Navigation Data Base

14 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

15 Agenda Video A little bit of history Today s situation A350 XWB solutions for final approaches Way forward and conclusion

16 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)

17 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

18 Today s situation: what s wrong? 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

19 Today s situation: what s wrong? 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

20 Agenda Video A little bit of history Today s situation A350 XWB solutions for final approaches Way forward and conclusion

21 A350 XWB solutions for final approaches 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

22 A350 XWB solutions for final approaches 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)

23 02/02/2017 xls concept - Similar displays and guidance modes for all straight-in final approaches

24 RNP-AR Function and HMI Procedure title V/DEV L/DEV RNP AR label Numeric XTK Active RNP value Cockpit by Airbus, Today and Tomorrow

25 A350 XWB solutions for final approaches The A350 allows the crew to precisely identify the type/variant of the RNAV / RNP approach and the corresponding aircraft function 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: RNAV(GNSS) approach published with LPV minimums RNP-AR

26 Agenda Video A little bit of history Today s situation A350 XWB solutions for final approaches Way forward and conclusion

27 Way forward and conclusion 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!!

28 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.