IP/2 Combined ASIOACG and INSPIRE Working Group Meeting, 2013 Dubai, UAE, 11 th to 14 th December 2013 Agenda Item 2: Action Item from ASIOACG/7 Indian Ocean RNP4 (Presented by Airservices Australia) SUMMARY This Paper summarises the work completed to implement RNP 4 in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs and considers the possibility of leveraging this work to implement RNP 4 in Mauritius and Malé FIRs. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 At ASIAOCG/7 DCA Mauritius informally approached Airservices Australia regarding the possibility of leveraging the work done to implement RNP 4 in Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs to implement RNP4 in the Mauritius FIR. 1.1.2 Airservices took an action to investigate the opportunities to extend work already completed by Airservices to implement RNP4 for the benefit of other ASIOACG members. 1.2 RNP4 Context 1.2.1 On 20 Jun 2004 the President of ICAO on behalf of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission authorised the use of 30 NM lateral and longitudinal separation standards between aircraft meeting the RNP 4 criteria; RNP 4 was subsequently implemented in Oceanic Airspace in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs. 1.2.2 ICAO Doc 7030 was amended for the MID/ASIA region to state that 30 NM separation standards may be applied in the Brisbane, Melbourne and other FIRs in the Pacific Ocean region between RNP 4 approved aircraft. 1.2.3 Note: ICAO Doc 4444 chapter 5 now contains instructions for longitudinal and lateral spacing using RNP 4 navigation tolerances. 1.2.4 ISPACG determined that a working group be established to implement RNP 4 in accordance with the provisions of ICAO Doc 7030 and 4444; the 30/30 Implementation Project was established and it achieved the implementation of RNP 4 in Auckland Oceanic, Brisbane, Honiara, Nauru and Nadi FIRs on 20 Jan 2005.
1.2.5 Following on from the successful implementation of RNP 4 by the 30/30 Implementation Project, RNP 4 separation standards were introduced in the Melbourne FIR on 11 Mar 2009. The implementation of RNP 4 in the Melbourne FIR was accelerated by leveraging the work completed by the 30/30 Implementation Project. 1.2.6 The sum of this work in both the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs may provide a basis for a similar regional implementation of RNP 4 in the Indian Ocean area, including Mauritius and Malé FIRs. 1.3 Scope 1.3.1 This Information Paper details the work that was completed to implement RNP 4 in the Pacific Ocean area (including the Brisbane FIR) and subsequently the Melbourne FIR. It aims to summarise ANSP considerations related to a future regional implementation of RNP 4 similar to that which was completed in the Pacific Ocean area. 1.3.2 Both aircraft and aircrew must be certified to the RNP 4 approval in order to be eligible for application of the standard to that aircraft. ICAO Doc 9613 details the requirements that must be satisfied by both an aircraft and its crew in order to meet the RNP 4 approval. 1.3.3 Reference and related documents: a) ICAO Doc 4444 Procedures for Air Navigation Services Air Traffic Management b) ICAO Doc 7030 Regional Supplementary Procedures c) ICAO Doc 9426 Air Traffic Services Planning Manual d) ICAO Doc 9613 Performance Based Navigation Manual e) ICAO Doc 9689 Manual on Airspace Planning Methodology for the Determination of Separation Minima f) ICAO Doc 9869 Manual on Required Communication Performance g) ICAO Annex 11 to the Convention on Civil Aviation - Air Traffic Services h) Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) i) Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) j) En Route Monitoring Agency (EMA) Handbook k) Global Operational Data Link Handbook (GOLD) 2 DISCUSSION 2.1 Characteristics of RNP 4 2.1.1 RNP 4 is a navigation approval based on a total system error (TSE) of ±4 NM along track and ±4 NM cross track for 95% of flight time 1 ; RNP 4 allows the use of 30 NM lateral and longitudinal separation standards between RNP 4 approved aircraft subject to a number of requirements. 2.1.2 The requirements for the use of the 30 NM standards may be summarised as 2 3 : 1 ICAO Doc 9613 p. II-C-1-6 2 ICAO Doc 9613 p. II-C-1-2 Page 2 of 7
a) both aircraft are RNP 4 approved; b) both aircraft are reporting by ADS-C at least every 14 minutes when applying longitudinal separation; c) a data link event contract is set for lateral deviations greater than 5 NM; d) direct controller pilot communications exist with both aircraft (VHF or CPDLC); and e) when an expected ADS-C report is not received, an alternative separation standard must be implemented within 14 minutes from the time the report was expected. 2.1.3 ICAO Doc 9869 specifies communication specifications in the Required Communication Performance framework. The RCP 240 specification is currently envisaged as a specification for communications supporting the application of lateral and longitudinal separation of 30 NM. 4 2.2 Implementation of RNP 4 in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs 2.2.1 ICAO Doc 9613 sets out a process for developing an airspace concept based on PBN and provides guidance for implementation of each recognised PBN specification. 2.2.2 An airspace concept describes the intended operations within an airspace volume; this airspace concept is driven by strategic objectives which are identified by airspace stakeholders the ANSP, airspace users, environmental and government policy. The most common strategic objectives driving airspace concepts are safety, capacity, efficiency, environment and access. 5 2.2.3 RNP 4 was implemented in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs to address capacity, efficiency and environment strategic objectives. The resulting airspace concept was Oceanic Airspace with a sparse route structure, user preferred routes and a mixed navigation environment including RNP 4 and RNAV 10. This airspace concept aligns with the ICAO Doc 9613 Oceanic/Remote Continental airspace concept. 6 2.2.4 ICAO Doc 9613 identifies the enablers to the airspace concept and the role that each enabler plays in facilitating the airspace concept; enablers include navigation and communication. 7 ICAO Doc 9613 also details how PBN, exposure to risk and intervention capability must be taken into account by airspace planners when determining separation minima and route spacing. 3 ICAO Doc 4444 p. 5-29 4 ICAO Doc 9869 3.2.1 and 3.2.6 5 ICAO Doc 9613 p. I-A-2-1 6 ICAO Doc 9613 p. I-A-2-3 7 ICAO Doc 9613 p. I-A-2-3 fig. I-A-2-2 Page 3 of 7
2.3 Safety assessment 2.3.1 A collaborative safety assessment was carried out by Airservices Australia and Airways New Zealand prior to the implementation of RNP 4 in the Pacific Ocean area including the Brisbane FIR. RNP 4 was found to meet the target level of safety (TLS) requirement 9 of no more than 5 10 fatal accidents per flight hour for application in the Pacific Ocean area (separate calculations were performed by Airservices Australia and Airways New Zealand and both resulted in figures lower than that required). 8 The method of safety assessment prior to implementation was the evaluation method as described in ICAO Doc 9689. 2.3.2 A safety assessment was carried out prior to the implementation of RNP 4 in the Melbourne FIR and was similar to the ICAO Doc 9689 comparison with a reference system method 9 because the system being introduced in the Melbourne FIR was similar to that introduced in the Brisbane FIR. 2.3.3 ICAO Doc 9689 specifies the requirements for a proposed system to be considered sufficiently similar to a reference system in the proposed system, when compared to the reference system: a) the separation minima must not be less; b) communications and surveillance must not be of worse accuracy, reliability, integrity or availability; c) frequency and duration of application of the minimum separation between aircraft must not be greater; and d) navigation performance of the population aircraft must not be worse. 2.3.4 Doc 9613 Attachment B contains sample safety assessments for the implementation of 30 NM separation in oceanic and remote airspace. 2.4 Method of implementation 2.4.1 The method of implementation chosen for the Melbourne and Brisbane FIRs was the no mandate mixed navigation capability method as described in ICAO Doc 9613 ie aircraft without RNP 4 approval may continue to operate in the Melbourne and Brisbane FIRs without RNP 4 approval although such aircraft are not eligible for application of RNP 4 separation standards. A mixed navigation capability environment dictates that there must be procedures to notify controllers of navigation capability 10 because the separation minima that may be applied between each aircraft pair will vary depending on the navigation capability of both aircraft. 2.4.2 Doc 9613 suggests other methods of implementation including mandate and mixed mandate. While the mandate method is simpler to administer from the perspective of the ANSP, it may be impractical for operators to upgrade all aircraft to RNP 4 standards. 2.5 Performance monitoring 8 9 The RGCSP recommends that 5 10 fatal accidents per flight hour is used as the assessment TLS for systems introduced after 2000 (see ICAO Doc 9689 p. 25) 9 ICAO Doc 9689 p. 19 10 ICAO Doc 9613 p. I-B-3-5 Page 4 of 7
2.5.1 A multi ANSP navigation error and communication difficulty reporting programme was established to compile data relating to gross errors in navigation and loss or difficulty of direct controller pilot communication (via CPDLC) prior to the initial implementation of RNP 4 in the Brisbane FIR; ICAO Doc 9613 dictates that monitoring be completed before implementation of RNP 4. 11 Collection of this data relies on radar, ADS-C and CPDLC data as well as crew reports (RNP 4 requires performance monitoring by aircrew). 2.5.2 Monitoring of navigation performance in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs is now carried out by the Australian Airspace Monitoring Agency (AAMA), a division of Airservices Australia. AAMA is progressing towards a monitoring programme in accordance with the En Route Monitoring Agency (EMA) Handbook - a document published by the ICAO Bangkok Regional Office. Work on global guidance material for conducting monitoring programmes is ongoing and is currently in draft form. 2.5.3 AAMA collects traffic samples and assesses collision risk in the Brisbane, Honiara, Jakarta, Melbourne, Nauru, Port Moresby and Ujung Pandang FIRs and reports results to State authorities and ICAO. 2.6 Information to operators 2.6.1 The Australian AIP was updated by Supplementary Publication (AIP SUP) before the implementation date of RNP 4; the AIP SUP notified operators that RNP 4 separation was available, directed them to avenues of obtaining approval from aviation regulators and provided information on specific flight planning and reporting requirements. 2.6.2 As implementation was through a no mandate mixed navigation capability method, the Australian AIP now lists RNP 4 as a PBN approval recognised (rather than required) in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs. 2.7 Training, internal operational documents and regional agreements 2.7.1 Guidelines relating to the minimum topics of training for controllers are specified in ICAO Doc 9613. In Australia, controllers were provided with an RNP 4 specific training programme prior to the implementation of RNP 4. The programme ensured that controllers were proficient with the following: a) CPDLC knowledge; b) ADS-C knowledge; c) the effect of periodic reporting delays and failures on longitudinal separation; d) other ATM automation system and location specific procedures and knowledge eg changes to coordination requirements to surrounding units; and e) requirements for the application of RNP 4 separation standards as included in the Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS). 2.8 Regulatory authorities 2.8.1 Airservices Australia aligned the implementation of RNP 4 with the introduction of procedures by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia (CASA) for Australian operators to obtain RNP 4 approval; the work of the 30/30 Implementation Group for the initial implementation of RNP 4 was also forwarded to CASA. 11 ICAO Doc 9613 p. II-C-1-3 Page 5 of 7
2.9 Potential for leveraging 2.9.1 The implementation of RNP 4 in the Melbourne FIR was able to rely extensively on the work completed by the ISPACG 30/30 Implementation Project for the Pacific Ocean area including the Brisbane FIR. 2.9.2 The development of strategic objectives and the resulting airspace concept applied equally to the Melbourne and Brisbane FIRs due to their similar operations. The monitoring programme conducted by the 30/30 Implementation Project was directly applicable to the Melbourne FIR due to the similar aircraft population and airspace characteristics and the resulting safety assessment completed prior to implementation in the Melbourne FIR was able to be based on the comparison with a reference system method which is less complex and less time consuming to complete than the evaluation method.12 2.9.3 Some of the work completed for the implementation of RNP 4 in the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs may now provide a basis for a similar regional implementation of RNP 4 in the Indian Ocean area including in the Mauritius and Malé FIRs. 2.10 Potential for leveraging exists in the following areas: 2.10.1 The development of strategic objectives, airspace concepts, and identification and specification of the enablers to the airspace concept. 2.10.2 The regional implementation of RNP 4 in the Pacific Ocean area may be similar in its strategic objectives and resulting airspace concept to a regional implementation of RNP 4 in the Indian Ocean area i.e. Oceanic Airspace with sparse route structures and satellitebased navigation. 2.11 Safety assessments 2.11.1 Where the airspace meets the requirements to be considered as a suitable pair with an existing reference system, savings may be made by utilising the comparison with a reference system safety assessment method prior to implementation. 2.12 Performance monitoring 2.12.1 Significant work was completed prior to implementation regarding monitoring of navigation and communication performance of the population aircraft and ANSP equipment. However, the commonality of the population aircraft with the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs should be determined. 2.13 Training, internal documents and regional agreements 2.13.1 Training of controllers may be similar to that conducted prior to the implementation of RNP 4 in the Melbourne FIR especially where common equipment and procedures exist. 2.13.2 Letters of Agreement, local instructions and changes to AIP that were completed prior to implementation of RNP 4 in the Pacific Ocean area may provide a model on which to base changes for a regional implementation of RNP 4 in the Indian Ocean area. 2.14 Conclusion 12 ICAO Doc 9689 p. 19 Page 6 of 7
2.14.1 The implementation of RNP 4 in the Melbourne FIR was able to rely extensively on the work completed by the ISPACG 30/30 Implementation Project for the Pacific Ocean area including the Brisbane FIR. 2.14.2 The successful leveraging of earlier work completed by ISPACG for the implementation of RNP 4 in the Melbourne FIR may be replicated in the Indian Ocean area including Mauritius and Malé FIRs. 2.14.3 Components of implementation as described in ICAO documents including safety assessment, performance monitoring, training, internal documents and regional agreements may all benefit from comparison with, or reliance on the work completed for the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs. Therefore, the opportunity exists for the regional implementation of RNP 4 in the Indian Ocean area in order to achieve improvements in capacity, efficiency and environmental benefits similar to those achieved in the Pacific Ocean area as well as the Brisbane and Melbourne FIRs. 3 ACTION BY THE MEETING 3.1.1 The meeting is invited to consider the information presented in this paper as a means of accelerating RNP4 implementation in the ASIOACG region. ---------------------- Page 7 of 7