International Civil Aviation Organization FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 7/10/14 WORKING PAPER FLIGHT OPERATIONS PANEL (FLTOPSP) FIRST MEETING Montréal, 27 to 31 October 2014 Agenda Item 4: Active work programme items 4.3: PBN operational implementation issues CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS VISUAL RNAV (Presented by Mario Chaves, prepared by Theo Van de Ven and Claude Godel) SUMMARY This working paper describes both the Concepts of Operation and Operational Considerations. Both must be seen as the basis information, needed to come to a manual with sufficient information available for those responsible for the design, dissemination and use of a new type of approach using the RNAV capabilities of the aircraft in visual conditions. We ask Flight Operations Panel (FLTOPSP) members to study the concept, think about possible operational issues related to the application of visual RNAV approaches that should be resolved and seeks answers to questions Instrument Flight Procedure Panel (IFPP) members identified in the operational field. Action by the FLTOPSP is in paragraph 6. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Visual approaches are commonly used at a number of international aerodromes for shorter and more efficient routings and environmental reasons. To improve the accuracy, predictability, repeatability and safety of these operations, Operators and States are developing and publishing visual approach procedures supported by RNAV (generally published as RNAV visual ). 1.2 However, there are no existing criteria in Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168) or any other relevant ICAO documentation to support standardization of these procedures to provide consistent application on a worldwide basis; consequently development of non-standard operational concepts, procedures and charting occurs. It becomes most important that the approach design, publication and operational use of those approaches are standardized. (14 pages) FLTOPSP 1 WP 3 Concept of Operations Visual RNAV.docx
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3-2 - 2. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING VISUAL APPROACHES 2.1 Visual approaches are not new. They exist uncharted, based on ad-hoc traffic handling methods by ATC and they exist in the form of published, charted procedures. 2.2 Until recently, published visual approaches are primarily based on visual navigation. Therefore, specific landmarks are used to be able to navigate along a desired flight path. There are no requirements of lateral and vertical protection around the published nominal path. Approaches exist where supporting use is made of ground based navigation systems such as VOR radials and DME distances, to mark points to define the route more accurate in the lateral and vertical sense. 2.3 With the emerging RNAV system capability of many aircraft, these supporting instrumental navigation based on ground based systems were replaced by RNAV, providing for more flexibility in the design of the route and a higher accurate and predictable flight path. The development of visual approaches supported by the RNAV capability of the aircraft should therefore be seen as a natural evolution of an already existing use of instrumental navigation support to a visual approach. 2.4 However, ICAO did not yet pick up this development and currently a proliferation of design criteria and publications take place. Design criteria, charting, coding and use of the procedures are non-standardized. This is an undesired situation as the design, publication and database storage are not embedded in the required aviation environment. 3. IFPP INITIATIVE FOR VISUAL RNAV CRITERIA 3.1 The IFPP is in the process of developing criteria for the design and publication of visual RNAV approaches. Despite already extended use of the terminology RNAV visual it seems still worth to decide if Visual RNAV would not be the better naming. 3.2 There are two different views on the status of a visual RNAV approach: a) one stream sees a visual RNAV approach as an RNAV approach, only to be used under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC); and b) the other sees the visual RNAV approach primarily as a conventional visual approach, supported by an RNAV system (in this case RNAV visual would be better). 3.3 It is necessary to clarify and decide in what category approach the visual RNAV approach should be classified. This question is put forward in paragraph 6.1 of this working paper. The outcome may have an effect on some wording used in this document. 3.4 It has been decided to publish the information in the form of a manual. The advantage of a manual is the possibility to provide more supporting information in a narrative form and information of a much wider spectrum than the design criteria alone. Standardization in design, publication, development and operational use of a visual RNAV, training and system handling issues requires a broad spectrum and requires more than the separate elements only. A manual allows all these elements to be touched upon in one place. In a second stage, references and/or elements of the criteria can be published in existing ICAO documentation, when consolidated and matured.
- 3 - FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 3.5 The aim of the manual is to present a standard concept of operations, design criteria and charting examples for the application of published visual RNAV approaches following up on already existing procedures and criteria. This concept of operations, standardized design criteria and charting methodology can be applied for dedicated use (limited to authorized aircraft operators only) or when so desired, used for public use and thus assists in removing inconsistencies that currently exist. 4. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS 4.1 Basic assumptions: a) they are primarily an ATM tool targeting safety, efficiency (and potentially environmental) gains; b) when cleared for a visual RNAV, the pilot will follow the coded RNAV path or inform ATC if it is no longer possible; c) they will be developed only where visual approaches are already in use by ATC for ATM reasons, or are considered by ATC and other Stakeholders as an operationally beneficial means of managing traffic in VMC; d) visual RNAV approach is an enhancement of the standard visual approach, made possible by utilising the RNAV capability of the contemporary passenger transport aircraft; e) the approaches are incorporated into the terminal area procedures and may be preceded by a STAR. They are used in lieu of instrument approach when the weather conditions are suitable for the operation; and f) traffic separation remains the responsibility of ATC throughout the operation. 4.2 Visual RNAV approach is not intended to be used in marginal weather conditions. 4.3 There is a need to have a common understanding of how visual RNAV approaches will be designed and utilized. Therefore, for visual RNAV approaches, the following concept of operations is applicable and must be part of the requirements for the publication of visual RNAV approaches: a) a visual RNAV approach can be developed where there is an identifiable operational or safety benefit and it has been requested by a stakeholder (ANSP, air operator, airport authority or ATC); b) the RNAV guidance is to be seen as a technical support to the visual navigation. The aircraft navigates through the RNAV system, but the terrain clearance is monitored by visual reference to the ground, and optionally to other preceding traffic; c) the nominal track is protected with an aircraft dependent corridor in order to provide for a Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitude (MOCA) along the flight path and to guarantee the safe publication of procedure altitudes along the track taking the MOCA into account;
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3-4 - d) depending on the complexity of the procedure, prior to publication, the fly-ability of the procedure may have to be tested in a full flight simulator and if deemed necessary in actual conditions when critical environment is involved; speed and/or altitude constraints may be necessary; and e) ATC responsibilities remain the same as per published visual approaches. Pilots are responsible for accurate navigation along the coded path and shall inform ATC if this is no longer achievable. 5. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The following operational factors must be considered and published as deemed necessary, when conducting visual RNAV approaches: a) both ATC and the pilot are aware of their roles and responsibilities (e.g.: IR rating required) regarding a visual approach (navigation, separation, required visual meteorological conditions); b) the visual RNAV approach must be stored and retrievable from the database and the pilot must verify that the aircraft capability matches the navigation requirement(s); c) the pilot understands that although RNAV is used for navigation, aircraft position verification is primarily based on visual references; d) the pilot can request a visual RNAV approach provided the required visual meteorological conditions exist and he/she can comply with the navigation requirements; e) if ATC offers the visual RNAV approach, the navigation requirements must be met, and the aircraft must be in a position from where the approach can be initiated and expected to be flown within the envelope of a normal operation; f) the pilot understands that an offer of a visual RNAV approach by ATC can be refused at any time if unable to meet the required conditions; g) a specific waypoint (e.g at the end of a STAR, preceding the visual RNAV Approach segment) shall be clearly identified in the procedure as the visual approach commencement point from which visual approach conditions must be fulfilled or the approach must be abandoned as indicated on the chart; h) the pilot adheres to all route, speed and altitude limitations and instructions as published if visual RNAV is accepted, the aircraft must remain on the published track; i) the course of action in case of inability to complete the approach to landing need to be included with the procedure; j) the design may take aircraft category into account, where there is a need for, based on speed, altitude or usage need; and k) the pilot must be trained for visual RNAV approaches.
- 5 - FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 6. ACTION BY THE FLTOPSP 6.1 The FLTOPSP is invited to: a) take note of the information in this paper; b) consider appropriate follow-up actions; and c) provide answers on the following (not limited to) the following questions identified by the IFPP: 1) Is the visual approach to be seen as an RNAV approach usable under limited visibility and ceiling conditions, or to be seen as a visual approach with RNAV support? 2) Use of autopilot or flight director: is this advisable not advisable or should it be even required? 3) Use of RNP: is this advisable (if available) and if so what value to be set? 4) Is there a need for publication and storage of a missed approach at the end of a visual RNAV approach? d) In agreement with the IFPP, create a job card to undertake the above task before submitting the conclusions and recommendations to the IFPP for incorporation within their own tasks. A proposed job card is attached in Appendix B to this working paper.
APPENDIX A FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix A
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix A
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix A
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix A
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix A
APPENDIX B FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix B Working Group on Strategic Review and Planning ANWP Amendment Input Form (Job-card) PART I Category Safety Sustainability Implementation Reference: Title Proposed by Problem Statement Specific Details (including impact statements) PART II Develop operational concepts and propose high level criteria to the IFPP related to the conduct of visual approaches aided by the use of on board aircraft coded procedures IATA Ops Panel Member Since the introduction and widespread implementation of PBN, new types of procedures have emerged that seek to simplify the pilot and ATC task to improve cost effectiveness and environmental impact or to remove airport access limitations. These types of operations are based on utilizing PBN but introduce new combinations of means of navigation to, from and throughout final approach and departure. The currently named RNAV Visual or Visual RNAV approach is one such operation. It is an especially useful tool potentially giving lateral and vertical guidance to pilots when conducting an approach in visual conditions either to a challenging runway or assisting in preventing un-stabilized approaches. Being an approach coded in the aircraft s navigation database, but only flown in visual conditions, it falls into a potential no-man s land in that the pilot may mistakenly understand normal instrument criteria have been applied to the procedure and ATC may believe that when clearing a flight for the RNAV Visual or Visual RNAV approach, the crew will understand that separation from terrain and other traffic are solely the responsibility of the operating crew. Any misunderstanding by either could potentially lead to a hazardous situation developing. One particular concern is if at some point the crew should lose their visual reference they may believe their approach is protected. Furthermore, being visual, should such an approach contain a missed approach and/or missed approach instructions? Develop operating procedures, define weather conditions for issuance of such an approach and propose outline or high level design criteria for the RNAV Visual. Part of this process may require developing a more appropriate name for the approach type that clearly defines this approach type as being separate from a standard RNAV procedure, but still contains the basic requirements so that it may be coded for the FMS NDB and, where appropriate, published in a States AIP The work may also require guidelines for an alternative method to create and gain approval of such visual procedures by individual operator s or groups of operators outside the conventional method where States may not be able to, or wish to, commit to providing such approaches for universal use. All work should take into account not only the needs of the flight crew, but ATC along with some form of design criteria. There is also a need to clarify the (RNAV) track keeping accuracy and separation responsibilities expected by ATC whenever clearing an aircraft for this visual procedure. Potential impact: increased flight safety and crew awareness, repeatable flight paths with reduced ATC workload, cost effectiveness through shorter routings, reduced environmental impact and improved airport access. Rating High Medium Low Rationale for acceptance/rejection Action already in progress
FLTOPSP/1-WP/3 Appendix B B-2 Interdependencies/References Annex 4, Annex 6, Annex 11, PBN Manual, Doc 9905 Required Action By Whom/Resources Deliverables Timescales (for deliverable) 1 Develop provisions for application of RNAV Visual approach procedures Dedicated WP or the PBN OPS WG Proposed amendments to Doc 8168 Volumes I and II, Doc 8697 and Annex 4 2 3 Issue Date: Date Assessed by SRP: Date Approved by ANC: Next Review Date: Completed Date: Version 2.0 (01 May 2012) END