2012 icao pbn symposium -workshop a- atm ......arinc 424 is the encoding standard for navigational...
TRANSCRIPT
Practical Experiences & ATMWorkshop
ATM Requirements
Setting the Scene Setting the Scene …………
2Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Issue
• Many Issues (and many solutions)• This Forum’s central theme
MIXED MODEOne of the thorniest problems to solveOne of the thorniest problems to solve
3Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
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
4Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
The Implementation Challenge
Mandates of Airborne
equipment are the favoured
option for efficient ATM …
But can be costly for
Airspace users
(if the mandate Is too
demanding.)
Phased Implementation
is a more popular solution
with airspace users but
creates mixed mode.
Currently very difficult for
ATC to manage effectively
Mixed Mode
Everyone must be the sameDifferences allowed
5Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
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
6Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
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?
7Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
This Forum – ATM Requirements14h35 – 17h05
• 14h35-14h45: Intro x Forum Champion• 14h45 – 14h55: Airspace Design• 14h55- 15h10: IFP• 15h10 – 15h25: AIM & ChartingCOFFEE• 15h50 – 1605: Practical PBN Example• 16h05-16h20: ATC Operating Procedures• 16h20- 16h55: Questions• 16h55 – 1705: Summary & Closing
+ Geoff+ Geoff+ Aline+ Aline
(Franca)(Franca)
(Franca)(Franca)
(Noppadol)(Noppadol)
(Sorin)(Sorin)
(Doug)(Doug)
(Walter)(Walter)
(David)(David)
(Franca & David)(Franca & David)
Airspace Design
ATM Requirements Franca Pavličević
Head of Navigation & CNS Research Unit (EUROCONTROL/DSR)In cooperation with FINAVIA
MIXED MODE
9Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Helsinki, Finland – 2000 – First thoughts
• Vantaa had two runways (X)• Parallel Runway to be added to 06/24• TMA re-design needed
10Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Helsinki, Finland – 2000 – Principles
11Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Helsinki, Finland – 2000 – Airspace Concept
12
• 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
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Helsinki, Finland – 2002 - Challenge
13
• 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
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Actions
14Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Helsinki, Finland – 2000 – Airspace Concept
15
• 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
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Actions
16
• Benefits– Shorter tracks inside TMA– CDO– Noise impact reduced – AMAN– Reduced workload in HK– Increased efficiency in airspace use
• Glider areas• Danger areas
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Results
17
• 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
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Lessons Learned
Procedure Design
Noppadol PringvanichManager, ICAO APAC Flight Procedure
Programme17 October 2012
MIXED MODE
19
• 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.
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Challenges
20
How can we design terminal area procedures to support aircrafts with different equipmentsand PBN
approvals, while harmonizing traffic pattern and controlling ATC workload?
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Challenges
21
• 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
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Typical Scenario
22Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Typical Scenario
23
• 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
Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Design Considerations
24Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Segregating ARR/DEP
25Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Linking to VOR approach
26Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Linking to ILS approach
27Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Linking to RNAV(GNSS) approach
28Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
How about RNP AR?
29Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Overall Mixed Operations
30Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Suggestions for ICAO PANS-OPS
• Design criteria and practical examples for joining RNAV-1/RNP-1 with ILS or VOR approaches?
• Linear containment (not spray-shape) for RNAV(GNSS) procedures?
• Reduced Area-semi width for GNSS-based procedure?
• RNP 0.3 for Intermediate and Missed Approach Segment for RNAV(GNSS) procedures?
Database Coding and Publication
Sorin-Dan OnitiuJeppesen
17 October 2012
An inter-disciplinary overview of PBN design, coding and charting
MIXED MODE
31
Issue: Chart, Database, and Avionics Harmonization
17
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
No common standard implemented to have same information charts vs. database
Virtually all the aeronautical databases are loaded according to ARINC 424 standard which specs cover a large percentage of aeronautical requirements, but not all combinations
33
Ground-Navaid, Complicated, Rigid paths, Non-standard, Manually flow:
Analog World
Satellite, Simple, Flexible paths, Standard shape, database-driven:
Digital World
Satellite, Simple, Flexible paths, Standard shape, database-driven:
Digital World
Challenge: Role of database & evolution of PD criteria
Results: Charts & Procedure coding
34
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
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
IF – FAF - MAPt
Missed Approach Transition MAP – MAHP or end of MA
Initial/Intermediate/Final MA Segments
MAPt – end of MA phase
* FACF (ARINC) = IF (PANS-OPS)
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.
21
PBN design/charting & coding considerations
Mixed mode (RNAV/Conventional) coding
Primary/Secondary Missed Approach
37
MIXED MODE
PBN design/charting & coding considerations
Conventional Initial Departure of RNAV 1 SID
38
MIXED MODE
Coding
✈ 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);
MDA and DA are NOT part of the approach coding solution!
✈ Altitude at MAP fix is NOT any of procedure MDA, but it’s a computed mandatory value;
PBN design/charting & coding considerations
39
PBN design/charting & coding considerations
Coding of speed restrictions
Speed/Altitude restrictions applied at the waypoint: general situation like ‘Below FL100/IAS 250KT’ has no procedure coding solution;
For approaches, speed limit in FMS will be applied forwardthroughout the procedure until superseded by another speed limit.
40
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
PBN design/charting & coding considerations
Charted Information not provided in NavData database
42
43Database Coding & Publication
Lessons Learned/Summary
Collaboration of all team players is highly recommended!
✈ 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);
43
Air Traffic ControlOperating Procedures
Walter WhiteICAO PBN Technical Officer
17 October 2012
<sub-title>
MIXED MODE
45
Issue/Challenge
i1 – ATC is a key component in a successful PBN implementation.
i2 – ATC operating procedures to accommodate PBN.•Standards & methods•Phraseology•Education
i3 – PBN sequencing and transitional environments.
46
Action i1 – ATC key component in successful PBN implementation.
•Buy in - Benefits described in terms of ATC•Clear responsibilities defined•Transition plan implemented•ATC is sometimes an afterthought in the PBN design process• Good design enables ATC participation• Include ATC early in a collaborative design process
47
Action i2 - ATC operating procedures to accommodate PBN.
i2 – ATC operating procedures to accommodate PBN.• Design in updated techniques
• CDO• CCO
• Phraseology• Proposed “Descend on”, “Climb on” phraseology
• Education• Concept of operations• In terms of ATC benefits• Reduced radio transmissions• Increased track predictability• Increased safety
48
ction i3 – PBN sequencing and transitional environments.
• Point merge
• Structured decision points
• Defined Interval
• Required Time of Arrival
Managed by design, education and technique
Practical Experiences and
Air Traffic Management
Doug MarekFAA Operations Manager,
17 October 2012
Greener Skies over Seattle
MIXED MODE
50Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN – Greener Skies over Seattle
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.
51Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN – Greener Skies over Seattle
Actions
Connect RNAV STARs with all RNAV, RNP,
RVFP, and ILS Approaches.
Keys to Success:ATC/Pilot use
Repeatable in all WXTFM
52Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN – Greener Skies over Seattle
Connecting RNAV STARs with RNP, RVFP,
and ILS Approaches
RNAV vs. Conventional STAR
Build speeds and altitudes into procedures
54
Results
Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN – Greener Skies over Seattle
•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
55
Lessons Learned
Collaboratively Innovating and Implementing PBN – Greener Skies over Seattle
• 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
56Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)
Question Time
THE FLOOR IS YOURSTHE FLOOR IS YOURS