The Challenges of Modern Approaches, from NPA/PA to 2D/3D operations airborne perspective A Pilot s perspective Stefan Fiedler IFALPA, VC German Cockpit
IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) IFALPA welcomes this development for the next generation navigation application recognizing that PBN is necessary to resolve the current effects on flight operations with an increase in traffic, demands on airspace capacity, an increased concentration on efficiency and environmental requirements.
IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) IFALPA further recognizes that several of the new PBN approaches have made some airports more accessible and replaced hazardous, slow, steep turn departures with a defined vertical performance rate with minimal turns and therefore increased climb performance.
IFALPA Position on Final Approaches Recognising the inherent deficiencies of conventional (stepdown) Non Precision Approaches (NPA), IFALPA supports the early implementation of APV Baro VNAV and RNAV NPA / Baro VNAV approaches employing the CDFA (Continuous Descent Final Approach) concept as a means to immediately enhance safety through stabilised final approaches.
IFALPA Position on Final Approaches IFALPA recognises the positive effect the increased horizontal accuracy and improved lateral path definition of LNAV RNAV approaches may have on the operating minima, but objects to lowering minima with Baro VNAV without taking account of the continuing integrity issues of the barometric altimeter system. For these reasons, APV Baro-VNAV should be accepted only as a developmental step towards full APV I/II (Approach with Vertical Guidance based on geometric vertical paths and onboard self-contained performance monitoring and alerting) to enhance the integrity of the operations and to support lower operating minima.
HOWEVER IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) However, IFALPA has concerns regarding the quality and levels of training that will be provided for aircrews. Globally pilots will not have the same knowledge level and not all flight operations departments understand the complexity, requirements, benefits and capabilities. Therefore, there is a need to establish a common level of proficiency by the users.
Example THE MAXIMUM VERTICAL DEVIATION FOR A BARO VNAV IS 60 53 50 40 30 30 20 18 10 0 I DO NOT KNOW '+/-75ft' '+/- 1 '
IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) IFALPA recommends that PBN issues and proficiency are integrated into the flight training curriculum. For example some companies already do this with an initial two-day ground school followed by the practical instruction in the simulator, while others have up to five days of training and some have minimal mention or scenarios. A common standard of proficiency should be defined by the state regulator, complied with by the operator, and demonstrated by the air crews. The training should be taught by qualified personnel with a deep understanding in procedures and regulations. The training media must include conceptual overview, procedures and demonstrated proficiency in full motion simulators.
IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) Training by bulletin is NOT an option and distance learning is NOT an option for acceptable proficiency demonstration.
IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) The training needs to cover: Realistic setup/ briefing Required equipment on-board and on the ground. Navigation System/ FMC cross-checks FMC Database integrity checks Phraseology differences FMC as sole navigational source Less or No opportunity to revert to raw data System Degradations/ Failure PBN requirements PBN technologies and procedures create unique failures and most failures require synthetic familiarization Dual FMC failures Loss of vertical guidance path Continue/ Discontinue decision In addition, contingencies require a greater understanding of abnormal procedures and a mental picture and situational awareness.
IFALPA appreciates therefore COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/539 of 6 April 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 as regards pilot training, testing and periodic checking for performance-based navigation
However Regulation 539/2016 Commission Regulation (EU): No 1178/2011 is amended as follows: (1) the following Article 4a is inserted:... 3.The requirements of paragraph 2(a) and (b) shall be deemed to have been fulfilled where the competent authority considers that the competence acquired, either through training or from familiarity with PBN operations, is equivalent to the competence acquired through the courses referred to in paragraph 2(a) and (b) and the pilot demonstrates such competence to the satisfaction of the examiner at the proficiency check or skill test referred to in paragraph 2(c).
IFALPA Position on PBN (December 2014) 4. Charting and information display Charting requirements are changing, as one chart contains different types of approaches for example: RNAV GPS VNAV = Approach Procedure with vertical guidance (APV) will have a Decision Altitude (DA). RNAV GPS LNAV = Approach Procedure without vertical guidance (NPA) will have a Minimum Descend Altitude (MDA). RNAV GPS LPV = Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance by SBAS. RNAV GPS RNP 0.1 = RNP AR Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance by BaroVNAV.
Example RNAV (GPS) Z RNAV GNSS RNP
IFALPA therefore supports ICAO Circular 336 Area Navigation (RNAV) to Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Instrument Approach Chart Depiction as this will simplify the Chart naming. However, again training is needed to do the transition from the old to the new Chart naming and the underlying philosophy.
Conclusion IFALPA supports the Introduction of PBN. IFALPA s major concern with PBN is training and understanding PBN as a pilot
Thank you for your time