pbn implementation in the uk meetings seminars... · • runway orientation at stansted makes...

06 October 200906 October 2009 1PBN TF/3

PBN Implementation in the UKPBN Implementation in the UK

Geoff BurtenshawTechnical Advisor, Navigation Systems

Directorate of Airspace PolicyUK Civil Aviation Authority


Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

• UK PBN implementation policy• En-route airspace• Terminal Airspace• Instrument approaches• Infrastructure• Future technology initiatives• Summary


EUR PBN StrategyEUR PBN Strategy• Implementation of any RNAV or RNP application shall be in compliance with ICAO

PBN Manual (Doc 9613);• Recognising that B-RNAV/P-RNAV can be regarded as equivalent to RNAV5/RNAV1,

as defined in the ICAO PBN Manual, their use will be continued for en-route and terminal applications at least until 2015;

• The target date for the completion of implementation for the Approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV) (APV/Baro-VNAV and/or APV/SBAS) for all instrument runway ends is 2016;

• Replacement of RNAV 5/RNAV 1 (B-RNAV/P-RNAV) specification by RNP specifications (e.g. Basic RNP-1 and Advanced-RNP) for the use in the en-route and terminal airspace to commence by 2015.

• ICAO PBN Manual compliant terms, e.g. RNAV 1 and RNAV 5, shall be implemented for all new aeronautical information publications and as an update to existing publications until 2014.

NOTE: Although APV/SBAS is currently not referenced in ICAO Doc 9613, in accordance with the General Assembly Resolution (A36-23) it is included in this Strategy as part of APV.


UK PBN Implementation PolicyUK PBN Implementation Policy

• UK CAA is fully supportive of the ICAO PBN concept

• State implementation plan under development

• UK is already a signatory to European Navigation Strategy which captures PBN concepts and specifications

• Also worth noting that the General Assembly Resolution A36-23 is not a mandate


UK PBN Implementation PolicyUK PBN Implementation Policy• In the UK, provision of ATS is separate from policy and regulatory

oversight• NATS En-Route Ltd (NERL) has a licence to operate services in the

en-route and London terminal control• CAA can therefore influence PBN implementation for en-route and

London terminal airspace through this mechanism• Ownership of aerodromes is privatised from the State• Therefore it is impracticable to assure implementation of APV at all

aerodromes by 2016• Implementation of APV should be considered, not only on the

grounds of safety, but also as part of wider business case i.e.,operator equipage, access requirements

• CAA will continue to be proactive in support of APV


En-Route AirspaceEn-Route Airspace

• Mandate in place for Basic RNAV (RNAV 5) on all ATS routes aboveFL95 since 1998

• Proposed lowering of B-RNAV level to the base of all ATS routes• Correction of an anomaly - inside terminal airspace will require B-

RNAV above FL95

• Legislation (UK Air Navigation Order) being amended to modify equipment carriage rules and better define what performance requirements apply to different airspace

• Will recognise carriage of GNSS and permit non-carriage of ADF• Consultation with industry completed• Publication in late 2010


Terminal AirspaceTerminal Airspace• CAA recommends that future designs of SIDs and STARs

and Runway Transitions should accommodate Precision RNAV (RNAV 1) and Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) in accordance with the Government White Paper

• CAA policy contained in AICs 92/2003 and 125/2006 with AIP GEN Section to be updated

• Mix of conventional procedures and B-RNAV on STARs i.e., to facilitate connectivity with the en-route

• Trials of RNAV and latterly P-RNAV, on runway transitions, and SIDs– No permanent procedures to date

• Holds still conventional


Terminal Airspace TrialsTerminal Airspace TrialsAirport Type Date Introduced Comments

Luton SID 1992 and 2002 Revised

Newcastle Arrivals and Transition

1998 B737, B757 and A320

Gatwick RNAV (GNSS) final approach (LNAV/VNAV)

2000 US Airways A330

Heathrow Arrivals and transition to ILS

2004 P-RNAV compliant

Gatwick Transitions and RNAV (GNSS) final approach

2005 P-RNAV compliant Transitions


Terminal Airspace TrialsTerminal Airspace Trials

Airport Type Date Introduced Comments

NEMA Transitions to ILS 2006

Shoreham, Exeter, Gloucester, Blackpool, Durham Tees Valley, Inverness

RNAV (GNSS) approach

2006 NPA procedures only, targeted at General Aviation

Gatwick SID 2007 P-RNAV compliant


Terminal Airspace TrialsTerminal Airspace Trials

• Each trial in its own way has provided valuable data to help understand and resolve issues:

– Procedure design and charting, flyability

– Aircraft limitations

– ATC procedures

– Flight operations (the need for specific training)

– But trials can only go so far - an artificial environment

– Ultimately the ANSP has to launch an airspace change


Terminal AirspaceTerminal Airspace

• Original plans for large scale RNAV 1 implementation in London TCNorth for 2009

• Strategic objectives were:– Environmental

CDA– Capacity increase

• Numerous issues has led to a review of planning for the whole LTMA

• TCNorth now envisages RNAV 1 SIDs and transitions for Luton and Stansted plus new RNAV holds


Lessons LearnedLessons Learned• When introduced as a specification in 2000, P-RNAV was

not mandated for terminal airspace– A voluntary adoption (remains the case today)

• Operators did not seek equipment changes and operational approval because P-RNAV procedures were not there

• ANSPs did not move forward with plans to implement P-RNAV because operators were not approved in sufficient numbers to justify change, and

• A mixed environment (conventional and P-RNAV procedures) in a congested airspace, was not considered viable

• Stalemate, until NATS proposed airspace changes to TCNorth


Lessons LearnedLessons Learned• With the benefit of hindsight, TCNorth plans were over

ambitious– Consultation objections not anticipated– Simulation revealed controller concerns– Pilot concerns with SIDs terminating at a FL with stop at altitude

(Standard Operating Procedure compatibility) – Aircraft performance limitations– Shear complexity of airspace a major stumbling block

• TCNorth not viable on the scale envisaged• Insufficient airspace to account for vertical interaction of

departing and arriving aircraft• Location of holds too close-in• Runway orientation at Stansted makes matters worse• Transition altitude seen as too low


Where RNAV 1 WorksWhere RNAV 1 Works

• Medium density airspace• Low complexity airspace i.e., optimum tracks• SIDs (under certain conditions as a workload

relief)• Arrivals and runway transitions where track

miles, capacity, throughput not impacted• Remaining issues

• SIDs terminating in a flight level• Step climbs and Mode S selected flight level


Where RNAV 1 Doesn’t WorkWhere RNAV 1 Doesn’t Work

• Arrivals, runway transitions and SIDs where due to airspace complexity the track miles are increased

• In high throughput periods, where a controller using radar vectors is more efficient

• In less busy periods, where direct routings can be offered


Future of RNAV 1Future of RNAV 1• There remains a place for RNAV 1 within future

implementation plans

• RNAV 1 alone will not deliver the solution to all of the UK’s existing constraints on the use of airspace

• It has to be considered as one tool amongst a number of other factors affecting capacity, flight efficiency, safety and the environment

• Note: Systematic implementation of RNAV 1 environmentin airspace as densely utilised or as complex as that in the south-east of England, not to be under-estimated


ATM ModelATM Model

Navigation Specificatione.g., RNAV 1Airspace StructureAirspace Tools

e.g., AMAN

Capacity, Safety, Flight Efficiency, Environment

Infrastructure

ATC Procedures

Flight Crew Procedures

Aircraft Capability


APV in the UKAPV in the UK

• APV Baro VNAV already implemented at LHR and LGW

• Text populated in AIP GEN 1.5, Paragraph 4 – RNAV(GNSS) Instrument Approach Procedures

• APV SBAS not available until 2010 (awaiting certification and commissioning of EGNOS across ECAC


RNAV Instrument Approaches Elsewhere in the UK


• APV Baro proposals for Manchester and Belfast• RNAV (GNSS) NPAs at Shoreham, Lydd,

Gloucester• Exeter, Blackpool, Durham Tees Valley

approvals all pending• Possible interest in APV SBAS at Southampton,

Shoreham and trial at Alderney (Channel Islands)




• UK will likely struggle to meet the ICAO General Assembly Resolution for APV at all (public transport) runway ends, by 2016– Criteria is available– But no incentive for operators

Therefore, no pressure on airport operators– Consultation concerns– IFP outsourcing and who pays?

• CAA and NATS launching an APV Implementation Initiative to better make the business case to the aerodrome operators


RNP Authorisation Required (RNP AR)RNP Authorisation Required (RNP AR)

• NATS researching application of “AR” in a concept of environmentally optimised arrivals and approaches in simultaneous operations on (parallel) runway scenario

• UK carriers seeking US Ops Spec approval for Public SAAAR in the U.S.


InfrastructureInfrastructure

• With previously mentioned ANO changes, NERL plans to rationalise numbers of conventional navigation aids– Withdraw en-route NDBs and reduce numbers of

VOR– Implications of navaid removal

Dependent terminal airspace proceduresConsultationImpact on low end users


Future Technology InitiativesFuture Technology Initiatives

• Possible use of RNAV 1 in the en-route with benefits through reduced route spacing

• APV SBAS– Will provide access to GA and we could have the

situation that smaller airfields are better served than regional aerodromes used by public air transport

– Could be a bow wave of applications in 2010


SummarySummary

• CAA commitment to PBN and development of a State Implementation Plan

• CAA will facilitate PBN implementation and provide policy and regulatory oversight

• RNAV 1 implementation likely to be piece-meal and only where absolutely necessary i.e., due to infrastructure changes

• UK experience so far is that RNAV 1 will not work (easily) in complex terminal airspace structures e.g., LTMA

• But valuable lessons learned on implementing RNAV in the UK

• NERL conducting another LTMA review


SummarySummary

• APV being promoted in-line with ICAO implementation goals• Commitment and active involvement required from all stakeholders• APV implementation will come eventually, but not in-line with the

ICAO 2016 date• Technology will likely be the catalyst for future change• UK developments tied to SESAR and European ATM Master Plan• Until then, unlikely to make any significant short term gains on

capacity, efficiency and environmental benefits• Costs and consultation still the issues• CAA, NATS, DfT and MoD cooperating on a Future Airspace

Strategy (FAS) with a roadmap to take UK towards SESAR

pbn implementation in the uk meetings seminars... · • runway orientation at stansted makes...

Documents