PBN Performance Based Navigation Seminar Case Studies Days 1, 2 & 3 1
Overview 2 Case Study - Day 1 Case Study - Day 2 Case Study - Day 3
3 Case Study - Day 1 Learning Objectives Identify navigation performance requirements after describing an Airspace Operational Concept.
Reference: BERET Airport 4 Input to Process 1 BERET AIRPORT
Chapeau TMA 5 Input to Process 1
CHAPEAU CURRENT 6 Input to Process 1
1 st Change: Chapeau TMA 7 Input to Process 1 From 120 to 400 IFR Movements per day
2 nd Change: Chapeau TMA 8 Input to Process 1 Growth of Homberg Town Spread of Turn Performance Complaints from Homberg & political pressure re Noise
3 rd Change: Chapeau TMA 9 Input to Process 1 NDB withdrawn Strong GA lobby want replacement procedure on 03R
Process 1 10 Set up Project Team [Regulator]
P1: Strategic Objectives 11 Safety? Capacity? Efficiency? Environment? Access? From 120 to 400 a/c per day Growth of Homberg Town Spread of Turn Performance Complaints from Homberg re Noise NDB withdrawn NDB withdrawn Strong GA lobby want replacement procedure
P1: Airspace Requirements 12 Safety? Capacity? Efficiency? Environment? Access? Accommodate increased traffic Minimise noise impact over Homberg Town & City of Chapeau GA requires IFR approach for RWY03R VFRs want continued access to/from BERET
P1: Analyse Traffic Distribution Step 1 13 40% 35% 15% 10% 10% 40% 15% 35% 60% 40%
P1 Airspace Concept Step 1 14 40% Route A 35% Route B 10% 15% 10% 15% 40% 60% 35% 40%
P1 Airspace Concept Step 1 15 TMA W TMA E Initial Analysis by PANS-OPS Specialist: RNAV or RNP SIDs/STARs required to achieve Airspace Concept
P1 Assess Fleet Capability Step 2 16 Aircraft Performance Mix : 70% jets (IFR) 28% Twin Turbo Prop (IFR) 2% Single-engine engine trainers (VFR only) NAV Capability of IFR Operations: 85% with RNAV-type system + database 30% (mainly GA) have GNSS + VOR 70% (mainly Commercial Transport) have D/D/I + VOR 15% conventional VOR/DME only (IFR mix). Further Analysis by PANS-OPS Specialist: Take advantage of GPS equipage for APCH RWY03R
P1 Assess Nav Infrastructure Step 2 17 Two DMEs HOM (Homberg) BER (Beret) Two VORs HOM (Homberg) BER (Beret) NDB (HAT)
P1 Assess COM/SUR Infrast. Step 3 18 Primary SUR Radar 15 r.p.m. 1 MSSR 15 r.p.m. COM = VHF Voice ATM Modular Sectorisation: Max 4 Sectors Flight Data Processor Radar Data Processor
Limited Listing P1 Navigation Functionalities Required for SID/STARs Step 4 RNAV System Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base Navigation Performance Accuracy 1 NM constrained track keeping in the turn Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; CF; TF Load RNAV ATS route from database 19
Limited Listing P1 Navigation Functionalities Required for Final Approach Step 4 RNAV System Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base Display of desired flight path Navigation Performance Accuracy 0.3 NM on Final Approach Accuracy 1 NM elsewhere Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; DF; TF; Conventional or RNAV missed approach required 20
Summary: Process 1 21 Problem Identified at Beret Airport Traffic growth Environmental issues (noise) Withdrawal of NDB Project Team set up New Airspace Concept described COM, SUR assumptions detailed NAV performance requirements identified Next.DAY 2..Selection of ICAO Navigation Specification
22 Case Study - Day 1 Learning Objectives Identify navigation performance requirements after describing an Airspace Concept.
23 Questions & Feedback
24 Case Study - Day 2 Learning Objectives Selecting an ICAO Navigation Specification for Terminal Airspace to satisfy the Airspace Concept.
From P1 Airspace Concept 25
Limited Listing P1 Navigation Functionalities Required for SID/STARs RNAV System Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base Navigation Performance Accuracy 1 NM constrained track keeping in the turn Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; CF; TF Capability to Load RNAV ATS route from database 26
P1 Navigation Functionalities Required for Final Approach 27 Limited Listing RNAV System Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base Display of desired flight path Navigation Performance Accuracy 0.3 NM on Final Approach Accuracy 1 NM elsewhere Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; DF; TF; Conventional or RNAV missed approach required
P2 Find suitable Nav Spec 28 Step 1 Volume II Part A: Overview and Generalities of Nav Specs Part B: Implementing RNAV Part C: Implementing RNP
P2 Find suitable Nav Spec 29 Step 1 RNAV 10 RNAV 5 RNAV 2 RNAV 1 RNP 4 BASIC-RNP 1 RNP APCH Day 3 RNP AR APCH
Limited Listing P2 Assess Fleet Capability for RNAV 1 functional requirements Step 1a 2 RNAV System 30 Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base 85% of IFR can Navigation Performance satisfy RNAV 1 with DME/DME/ Accuracy 1 NM IRU or GNSS Constrained performance on turn Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; DF; TF; CF; Capability to Load RNAV ATS route from database
Limited Listing P2 Assess Fleet Capability For Basic RNP 1 functional requirements Step 1a 2 RNAV System 31 Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base 3% of IFR having Navigation GNSS satisfy Performance B-RNP 1 Accuracy 1 NM requirements Constrained performance on turn Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; DF; TF Capability to Load RNAV ATS route from database
P2 Nav Infrastructure for RNAV 1? 32 Step 1a 2 Two DMEs HOM (Homberg) BER (Beret) Two VORs HOM (Homberg) BER (Beret) NDB (HAT) Further Analysis by PANS-OPS Specialist Additional DME needed to support RNAV 1 D/D/I
P2 Nav Infrastructure for RNAV 1? 33 Is it more cost Effective for Aircraft to Retrofit GPS? Consult AOs Step 1a 2 x No retrofit in this case ADDITIONAL DME REQUIRED AT LOCATION X
P2 Nav Infrastructure for RNAV 1? 34 Introduction of CAP DME = coverage for the TMA (no obstacles) With 3 DMEs: provision for limited Redundancy in most areas. Step 1a 2 CAP
P2 Nav Infrastructure for RNAV 1? 35 Step 1a 2 All proposed routes lie within the service volume CAP
P2 Compare COM/SUR Infrast. To requirements in RNAV 1 spec. Step 1a 2 Primary SUR Radar 1 MSSR COM = VHF Voice ATM System Modular Sectorisation: Max 4 Sectors Flight Data Processor Radar Data Processor Further Analysis by project team Approach Radar is Required for RNAV 1 1 (OK) 36
P2 Apply Trade-offs 37 Not all aircraft Can achieve RNAV 1 (15%) Step 3 Consult ATC Mix of 85% - 15% OK Need Some Conventional SID/STARs
P3 Safety Plan 38 Step 1 Having Selected RNAV 1.. 1 Formulate Safety Plan How will safety be measured? How will safety be assessed? What factors need to be considered?
P3 Validate Airspace Concept 39 Step 2
P3 Procedure Design & Validation 40 Step 3 + 4 HOM SID
P3 Prepare for Implementation 41 Step 5 8
P3 Training from RNAV 1 Spec 42 Steps 8a & 8b Core & Specific Training as per RNAV 1 Specification Pilot Knowledge & Training as per RNAV 1 Specification
P3 Implementation & Review 43 Steps 9 & 10
Summary: Process 2 & 3 44 In Process 2 we identified the possibility of designing SIDs & STARs based on RNAV 1 The fleet was assessed (OK); COM/SUR assessed (OK) Navaid Infrastructure was found needing a DME (cheaper than GPS reftrofit). Process 3 focused on realising the implementation of RNAV 1 specification. The Airspace Concept was validated. Procedures were designed ATC and Pilots were Trained and Implementation Achieved Next.DAY 3 IFP for RWY03R
45 Case Study - Day 2 Learning Objectives Selecting an ICAO Navigation Specification for Terminal Airspace to satisfy the Airspace Concept.
46 Questions & Feedback
47 Case Study - Day 3 Learning Objectives Selecting an ICAO Navigation Specification for Approach to satisfy the Airspace Concept.
From P1 Airspace Concept 48
3 rd Change: Chapeau TMA 49 Input to Process 1 X NDB withdrawn Strong GA lobby want replacement procedure on 03R Suggested that GNSS equipage could enable this
Limited Listing P1 Navigation Functionalities Required for Final Approach RNAV System Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base Display of desired flight path Navigation Performance Accuracy 0.3 NM on Final Approach Accuracy 1 NM elsewhere Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; DF; TF; Consistent with CA & FM 50
P2 Find suitable Nav Spec 51 Step 1 Volume II Part A: Overview and Generalities of Nav Specs Part B: Implementing RNAV Part C: Implementing RNP
P2 Find suitable Nav Spec For Final Approach Step 1 52 RNAV 10 RNAV 5 RNAV 2 RNAV 1 RNP 4 BASIC-RNP 1 RNP APCH RNP AR APCH
Limited Listing P2 Assess Fleet Capability to RNP APCH functional requirements 53 Step 1a 2 30% of GA RNAV System have GPS Computation of Desired Flight Path With Data Base Display of desired flight path All can meet Navigation Performance RNP APCH Accuracy 0.3 NM on Final Approach Accuracy 1 NM elsewhere Automatic execution of leg transitions IF; DF; TF; Conventional missed approach possible (single system)
P2 Compare COM/SUR Infrast. To requirements in RNP APCH spec. Step 1a 2 54 COM = VHF Voice (not required for RNP APCH) NAV = GNSS Required Radar (not required for RNP APCH) ATM - n/a COM/NAV/SUR infrastructure OK
RNP APCH Procedure RWY03R 55 DESIGN VALIDATE
P3 Prepare for Implementation 56 Step 6 Flight Inspection & Flight Validation Step 7 ATC System Integration Considerations Step 8 Awareness & Training Material Step 8a Train ATC Step 8b Train Flight Crews Step 9 Establish Operational Implementation Date Step 10 Post Implementation Review
Summary: Process 2 & 3 57 In Process 2 we identified the possibility of designing a procedure for Final Approach using RNP APCH The fleet and Navaid Infrastructure was assessed (OK). Process 3 focused on realising the implementation of RNP APCH. The Procedure was designed The Procedure was validated & Integrated into ATC System ATC and Pilots were Trained and Implementation Achieved
58 Case Study - Day 3 Learning Objectives Selecting an ICAO Navigation Specification for Approach to satisfy the Airspace Concept.
59 Questions & Feedback
60 -END -
Reference: BERET Airport 61
Determine a suitable Navigational Specification For Final Approach to Runway 03R 62 Given the desire to create an RNP approach (Phase 1 decision), two navigation specifications are appropriate for the final segment RNP approach RNP AR approach RNP AR is more flexible than RNP alone in that it can Accommodate Radius to Fix (RF) turns in all segments including final approach Allow a narrower Obstacle Evaluation Surface (OES) to be applied However, RNP AR requires More stringent equipment and flight crew training requirements compared to RNP alone Special authorization for each airframe and operator
RNP Final and Missed Approach Surfaces 63
RNP 0.3 AR Approach 64
RNP Versus RNP AR Approach Both types of procedures can serve the needs of the airport Since there are no terrain or obstacle issues, both procedures can be designed with a Decision Altitude (DA) as low as 250 feet above the airport. The additional flexibility of the narrower surfaces and the application of RF legs available with RNP AR are not necessary to achieve the objective of accommodating the GA traffic to Runway 03R Because of the additional equipment and training requirements necessary for RNP AR, significantly fewer operations will be initially capable of flying such a procedure Given these considerations, the best choice for Beret Airport is to develop the RNP approach 65
RNP and RNP AR Surfaces Combined Showing Obstacle 66 RNP DA = 280 feet above the airport RNP AR DA = 250 feet above the airport Obstacle A Blue final and magenta missed approach = RNP AR 0.3 Red final and green missed approach = RNP approach
Summary 67 In many applications both RNP approaches and RNP AR approaches may be considered Due to additional flexibility in the procedure design, use of curved segments and narrower OES surfaces, RNP AR allows for greater flexibility than RNP alone However, careful consideration should be given to each situation to determine if any gain in lower minima or curved segments is offset by the additional aircraft, aircrew and flight operation requirements demanded by RNP AR Initially, significantly fewer aircraft and operators will be qualified for RNP AR than will be able to fly RNP approaches, overshadowing the benefits of RNP AR in this case