Performance Based Navigation Implementation of Procedures Dr. Daniel Schaad Head of Instrument Flight Procedures (ATM/IFP) Minsk, April 10th, 2015 DIESER TEXT DIENT DER NAVIGATION
First of all thank you very much for your invitation to Belarus! I am happy to be in your beautiful country! 2
The Concept of PBN 3
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 NAV Application NAV Specification NAV Infrastructure 6
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 spacebased) 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
Implementing a PBN Procedure from the initial idea to its publication 18
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 processoriented 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
THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Thank you very much! Please ask questions! PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS! 34