IATA EUR Airline PBN implementation requirements - March 2011 PBN covers a variety of aircraft and pilot qualifications. Avionics and crew authorizations no less than RNP 0.3 for approaches and RNP 0.6 for Missed Approaches should not present any difficulties for the 2014 year.np values smaller than these have the potential of limiting operating flexibility due to avionics or pilot authorizations State Airport TMA/Runways Specifics Austria VIE Belgium BRU Czech Republic PRG Denmark CPH Finland HEL OUL CDG Airspace issues CDG France LYS NCE NCE Arr RWY22L/R Terrain Germany FRA STR FRA FRA CGN Arr RWY25L/R Dep 07L/R Noise Terrain Airspace design
Greece DUS HAJ HAM MUC NUE STR TXL ATH CHQ HER Hungary BUD BUD Dep 31L/R Noise Ireland DUB Italy FCO LIN MXP BLQ CTA LIN RWY36 SIDs/STARs PRNAV design incl considering. CDO Trials conducted as overlay of existing procedures at locations where Alitalia traffic is significant present PMO BRI RWY 07 APV BaroVNAV RWY 25 APV BaroVNAV APV for runways provided with approaches based on the over-flying of a conventional facility, such as VOR approach APV for runways provided with approaches based on the over-flying of a
AOY ILS RWY22 APV BaroVNAV MXP Dep RWY35L/R Terrain conventional facility, such as VOR approach APV for runways provided with approaches based on the over-flying of a conventional facility, such as ILS approach PSA Dep RWY 04L/R Terrain Design Arr RWY 22L/R because there are none VCE Dep 04R Airspace Design Luxembourg LUX AMS AMS Arr RWY27 arrivals Netherlands Dep RWY24, 36C, 18C OSL Norway SVG TRD Poland WAW Noise Portugal LIS Romania small / medium airports MAD APV APCH procedures For procedures that do not have precision approach procedures
Spain PMI BCN AGP TFS LPA BCN Dep RWY 25L/R Noise MAD Dep RWY36L/R MAD Arr 33L/R Airspace Design Sweden Switzerland ARN GOT MMX AGH GVA ZRH ZRH Dep RWY16 Noise ZRH LHR Terrain MAN Noise UK LHR/LGW LHR STN LTN Airspace design
BHX EDI LGW MAN For CDOs/CCDs: Any airport with plans for CDOs/CCDs should coordinate PBN design concurrently with CDO/CCD design. On October 4, 2010 Italian CAA ENAC established the PBN Working Group chaired by ENAC itself targeted to the definition of the PBN implementation plan within national airspace, to the definition of detailed PBN programs and to the monitoring of each program implementation. The WG scope has then been extended to outline the road map to carry out the P-RNAV implementing plan. Main outcomes so far: Delay on implementation compared to what has been outlined in the plan presented to ICAO EUR NAT. ENAC currently considers the certification of GPS provider an open issue, anyway Alitalia proposed that this could be something to be addressed in a special session and highlighted that some EU Member States have already issued RNP APCH procedures and that some European Aircraft Operators have already been authorized under EASA AMC 20-27. Consequently ENAC gave its approval to ENAV to develop trials (see below). Mitigation solutions and contingency procedures in case of loss or inaccuracy of GPS signal will be appropriately addressed, so as the design of procedures will take into due consideration aircraft FMS capabilities after loss of GPS (as an example in DME environments). ENAV will issue an AIC on the footprints of what has already been done by e.g. France, Netherlands and Germany, stating where and when RNP APCH and RNP APCH with BARO VNAV trials will be conducted as overlay of existing procedures by summer 2011 and it will identify a specific location where a standalone trial RNP APCH procedure will be deployed. Alitalia will support ENAV in the designation of the procedures and by contributing in drafting the AIC.
Few words on P-RNAV: ENAV, following the RNAV implementation plan dated 3.6.2010, has submitted to ENAC the proposal for an AIC ( Introduction of P-RNAV ). Final approval to P-RNAV procedure design and implementation has now been given by ENAC. Alitalia will support ENAV in SID and STAR P-RNAV design by means of pilot consultancy and dedicated simulator sessions to help developing feasible descent profiles considering a CDO approach. Trials will most probably be conducted as overlay of existing procedures at locations where Alitalia traffic is significant (e.g. VOR RWY36 at LIML). This is also due to the fact that ENAC would like at the same time to collect data on GPS coverage availability within terminal areas. Alitalia has given its availability to support data collection and this is why trials will be conducted at such locations. Anyway, APV will give added value to operations for those runways currently provided with approaches based on the over-flying of a conventional facility, such as VOR approach to RWY07 PMO, RWY25 BRI or even ILS22 AOY. P-RNAV procedures have been considered by the Spanish Authorities as a mean to solve environmental issues, instead of their real purposes aimed at improving navigational issues of SID and STAR manoeuvres. Because of this, Spanish authorities try to make full use of P-RNAV capabilities, probably too much demanding (or in the edge) for the actual capabilities of current aircraft. The NavDataBase is a key element and has to be 100% perfect. We have had big problems due to relative small mistakes or inaccuracies in the NavDB. In other words, MAD is like an amplifier. This creates a big added extra work to us. The design of P-RNAV procedures should be reviewed by a high level body to review how the different ANSP design P-RNAV procedures. In this way, harmonisation through Europe would be better achieved. Romania: We are planning APV APCH procedures for a national implementation for small / medium airports that do not have precision approach procedures at first.
List of airports requested by airline associations and their member airlines for P-RNAV implementation as soon as possible and where a cost benefit analysis shows benefits.