Practical Experiences & ATM Workshop ATM Requirements Setting the Scene
ATM Requirements Forum - INTRO 2 Issue Many Issues (and many solutions) This Forum s central theme MIXED MODE One of the thorniest problems to solve
ATM Requirements Forum - INTRO 3 What is mixed mode? In PBN, mixed mode refers to an ATM environment where procedures designed and operations permitted accommodate more than one kind of navigation qualification Examples include: RNAV 1 SIDs/STARs + Conventional SIDs/STARs RNAV 5 + Conventional ATS Routes RNP AR APCH procedures + ILS RNP APCH Baro procedures + GLS
ATM Requirements Forum - INTRO 4 The Implementation Challenge Mixed Mode Phased Implementation is a more popular solution with airspace users but creates mixed mode. Currently very difficult for ATC to manage effectively Mandates of Airborne equipment are the favoured option for efficient ATM But can be costly for Airspace users (if the mandate Is too demanding.) Differences allowed Everyone must be the same
ATM Requirements Forum - INTRO 5 Why have mixed mode? - $ Even if fleet can be retrofitted, it may cost too much Physical limitations of older aircraft Physical/Cost limitations of other aircraft E.g. military E.g. bizjets E.g. GA
ATM Requirements Forum - INTRO 6 Why s it a challenge? Specific routes to accommodate different performance Which route spacing? How does ATC know which clearance to issue? The ATC FPL is key. How can it be managed from a procedure design perspective? What about the data base coding and retrieval?
7 This Forum ATM Requirements 14h35 17h05 ATM Requirements Forum - INTRO 14h35-14h45: Intro x Forum Champion 14h45 14h55: Airspace Design (Franca) 14h55-15h10: IFP (Noppadol) 15h10 15h25: AIM & Charting (Sorin) COFFEE 15h50 1605: Practical PBN Example 16h05-16h20: ATC Operating Procedures 16h20-16h55: Questions (David) 16h55 1705: Summary & Closing (Doug) (Franca) + Geoff + Aline (Walter) (Franca & David)
8 MIXED MODE Airspace Design ATM Requirements Franca Pavličević Head of Navigation & CNS Research Unit (EUROCONTROL/DSR) In cooperation with FINAVIA
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 9 Helsinki, Finland 2000 First thoughts Vantaa had two runways (X) Parallel Runway to be added to 04/22 TMA re-design needed
10 Helsinki, Finland 2000 Principles ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design
11 Helsinki, Finland 2000 Airspace Concept ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 12 Helsinki, Finland 2002 - Challenge RNAV 1 needed (pre-pbn P-RNAV in Europe) Early adopter => lack of guidance material / specs Knowing which aircraft are RNAV 1 approved Only approx. 50% of operations in the beginning => mixed mode operations only option
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 13 Actions RNAV 1* STAR s designed in 2000 using vectored tracks of A/C as a basis => Same track miles to all (RNAV 1/non-RNAV 1) Implemented despite low RNAV 1 approval rates At first, ATCOs had to know which A/C were approved: Easy to learn due limited A/C variety A/C informed EFHK APP on initial contact if following RNAV 1 STAR or if on heading Currently RNAV 1 approval indicated by system, based on FPL data
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 14 Helsinki, Finland Implemented routes
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 15 Actions RNAV 1 SID s introduced in 2003 Less than 50% of operations capable of flying them A/C departed on headings => problems with noise => reverted back to conventional SID s Currently RNAV 1 SID s in use Reduced noise impact A/C shall inform ATC if unable to follow RNAV 1 SID => will be given an initial heading as part of clearance
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 16 Results Benefits Shorter tracks inside TMA CDO Noise impact reduced AMAN Reduced workload in HK Increased efficiency in airspace use Glider areas Danger areas
ATM Requirements Forum Airspace Design 17 Lessons Learned Operating in mixed mode operations in EFHK not difficult and does not increase ATC load Since STAR s are based on actual tracks used when vectoring, mixed mode operations not a problem Benefits outweigh risks/challenges Introduction of RNAV 1 SID s/star s has helped in reducing noise impact RNAV 1 SID s should not be implemented before sufficient A/C approval rate is achieved
18 MIXED MODE Procedure Design Noppadol Pringvanich Manager, ICAO APAC Flight Procedure Programme 17 October 2012
ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design 19 Challenges In mixed traffic environment, different aircraft may have different equipment and PBN approvals. Some GNSS equipped aircraft are capable of RNP AR. Some only are capable of RNP APCH. Non-GNSS equipped aircraft are still in operation. ILS is still required for their operations and often ILS approaches have lower operating minima than RNAV(GNSS) Having different aircraft flying different flight paths increase ATC workload and may result in increased safety risks.
ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design 20 Challenges How can we design terminal area procedures to support aircrafts with different equipmentsand PBN approvals, while harmonizing traffic pattern and controlling ATC workload?
ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design 21 Typical Scenario Airport with VOR and ILS Conventional ATS routes connecting to the VOR Current operation RADAR vector to intercept ILS All aircrafts have VOR and ILS 80% of aircrafts are approved for RNAV 1 or RNP 1 60% are approved for RNP APCH 10% are approved for RNP AR
22 Typical Scenario ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design 23 Design Considerations Proper design of RNAV 1 or RNP 1 SID/STAR Consider proper altitude for crossing points between ARR/DEP Common IAFs of VOR/ILS/RNAV (GNSS) approaches As much as practicable Common IFs of VOR/ILS/RNAV (GNSS) approaches As much as practicable Consistent Missed Approach Procedures and Holdings
24 Segregating ARR/DEP ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
25 Linking to VOR approach ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
26 Linking to ILS approach ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
27 Linking to RNAV(GNSS) approach ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
28 How about RNP AR? ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
29 Overall Mixed Operations ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design
ATM Requirements Forum Procedure Design 30 Suggestions for ICAO PANS-OPS Design criteria and practical examples for joining RNAV-1/RNP-1 with ILS or VOR approaches? Reduced Area-semi width for GNSS-based procedure? RNP 0.3 for Intermediate and Missed Approach Segment for RNAV(GNSS) procedures?
31 MIXED MODE Database Coding and Publication Sorin-Dan Onitiu Jeppesen 17 October 2012 An inter-disciplinary overview of PBN design, coding and charting
32 Issue: Chart, Database, and Avionics Harmonization Generally, basic procedure design has been created for the analog world ; The art of procedure coding is one that balances the intent of design and the FMS requirements Virtually all the aeronautical databases are loaded according to ARINC 424 standard which specs cover a large percentage of aeronautical requirements, No but common not all combinations standard implemented to have same information charts vs. database
33 Challenge: Role of database & evolution of PD criteria Ground-Navaid, Complicated, Rigid paths, Non-standard, Manually flow: Analog World Satellite, Simple, Flexible paths, Standard shape, database-driven: Digital World
34 Results: Charts & Procedure coding 32
35 Approach Coding & Design Route Type concept includes a primary route type and up to two route type qualifiers Q1& Q2; Description: a) Approach Transition (Route Type A ); b) Final Approach Transition (Route Type R = APV, H = RNP PBN or J = GLS) c) Missed Approach Transition (Route Type Z ); 35 ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication
ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication 36 Approach Coding Structure Fixes associated with approach coding ARINC 424 PANS-OPS Approach Transition IAF FACF* Initial Segment IAF - IF Final Transition FACF* MAP Intermediate and Final Segments * FACF (ARINC) = IF (PANS-OPS) IF FAF - MAPt Missed Approach Transition MAP MAHP or end of MA Initial/Intermediate/ Final MA Segments MAPt end of MA phase Final Approach Transition: As a minimum, the coding of final segment must include a fix for the FAF and MAP. A third fix called FACF has to be always included when design IF is published.
37 PBN design/charting & coding considerations Mixed mode (RNAV/Conventional) coding Primary/Secondary Missed Approach MIXED MODE 37 ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication
38 PBN design/charting & coding considerations MIXED MODE Conventional Initial Departure of RNAV 1 SID 38 ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication
ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication 39 Coding PBN design/charting & coding considerations Vertical Angle for NPA is always included in all straight-in NPA coding solution; An FMS usually builds a profile backwards from a point 50ft above the threshold to the initial (FAF and/or SDF); Altitude at MAP fix is NOT any of procedure MDA, but it s a computed mandatory value; MDA and DA are NOT part of the approach coding solution!
40 PBN design/charting & coding considerations 40 ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication Coding of speed restrictions Speed/Altitude restrictions applied at the waypoint: general situation like Below FL100/IAS 250KT has no procedure coding solution; Speed limitation depicted somewhere during a turn shall be associated with a waypoint. For approaches, speed limit in FMS will be applied forward throughout the procedure until superseded by another speed limit.
41 PBN design/charting & coding considerations Coding of altitude constraints Altitude constraints have to be clearly associated to a fix; No appropriate coding solution for minimum segment altitude or MEA s. Expect altitude, Recommended, Tactical procedure altitude cannot be translated appropriately in FMS box language; 41 ATM Requirements Forum Database Coding & Publication
42 PBN design/charting & coding considerations Charted Information not provided in NavData database 42
43 Lessons Learned/Summary ARINC 424 is the encoding standard for navigational database consumed by FMS; For the data houses, ARINC 424 provides the measure of standardization they can apply; However: All things are not equal in the world of FMS & how they execute a procedure defined with Path & Terminator legs; Most of limitations are coming from the FMS execution logic and not procedure design constraints; ARINC 424 is not a charting standard file structure (it maybe addressed by the NDB industry group; Challenges DB/Publication, specifically for Mixed Mode operations (cannot properly be reflected in the FMS); Collaboration of all team players is highly recommended! Database Coding & Publication 43
44 MIXED MODE Air Traffic Control Operating Procedures Walter White ICAO PBN Technical Officer 17 October 2012
ATM Requirements Forum ATC Operating Procedures 45 Issue/Challenge i1 ATC is a key component in a successful PBN implementation. i2 ATC operating procedures to accommodate PBN. Integrated Design Phraseology Education i3 PBN sequencing and transitional environments.
ATM Requirements Forum ATC Operating Procedures 46 Overview We make successful what we want to do Simplify we tend to make this more complicated than it is Watch your assumptions The devil is in the details good design vs. poor design We must change our work habits to take advantage of new technologies We have managed change before
47 Why PBN? 47
48 ATC key component in successful PBN implementation. Buy in - Benefits described in terms of ATC Reduced radio transmissions Increased track predictability Increased safety ATM vs AT Vectors ATC is sometimes an afterthought in the PBN design process Good design enables ATC participation Include ATC early in a collaborative design process Consider existing VA tracks for RNAV(RNP) Guided Visual Approach Transition plan implemented 48
49 ATC operating procedures to accommodate PBN. Design in updated techniques CDO CCO Education Concept of operations ATC benefits Phraseology Clear responsibilities defined START 49
50 PBN sequencing and transitional environments. Managed by design, education and technique Point merge Defined Interval Structured decision points Required Time of Arrival DI Target Level of Safety 50
51 MIXED MODE Practical Experiences and Air Traffic Management Doug Marek FAA Operations Manager, 17 October 2012 Greener Skies over Seattle
ATM Requirements Forum Practical Experiences & ATM 52 Issue/Challenge i1 Design/Implement PBN instrument procedures into a complex airspace, with a mixed fleet, all while providing an environment for research. i2 - Evaluate concepts, research alternatives and establish requirements resulting in full implementation of PBN technologies within SEA/BFI airspace and NAS-wide. i3 - Implementation of new procedure, rule making, and TFM/training.
53 Actions Connect RNAV STARs with all RNAV, RNP, RVFP, and ILS Approaches. Keys to Success: ATC/Pilot use Repeatable in all WX TFM Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN Greener Skies over Seattle 53
54 Connecting RNAV STARs with RNP, RVFP, and ILS Approaches Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN Greener Skies over Seattle 54
55 RNAV vs. Conventional STAR Build speeds and altitudes into procedures
56 Results Predictable tracks, speeds, and reduced radio communications Allows ATC to clear aircraft on any instrument approach procedure to all runways Overlay different types of PBN IFP, covering all weather conditions, keeping ATC/flight deck/tfm simple Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN Greener Skies over Seattle
57 Lessons Learned Integrate new PBN flight procedures alongside conventional routes in collaboration with all stakeholders Connect STARs to all approaches and runways Build in speeds to allow for ATM/TFM predictability Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN Greener Skies over Seattle
58 Question Time THE FLOOR IS YOURS