pbn implementation project at greek (island) airports

PBN implementation project at Greek (Island) airports

Anthony van der VeldtAssistant Director Safety, Operations & Infrastructure

IATA, European Regional Office Brussels

BRU, 30 May 2012RATF Meetring 2

PBN BenefitsThe full usage of the available on-board avionic PBN capabilities provides for the following safety and economic benefits:

Reduce fuel consumption/ environmental impact by using stabilized approachesImprove safety by

Simplifying and standardizing design and training Reducing cockpit workload Replacing Circling, NDB approaches (avoiding NPA)

Enhance efficiency by shortening of routingsImprove continuity of airline operationsImprove access to runways

LNAV/VNAV minima as low as, i.e. 250 ft AGL and above Less diversions


Airline expectations PBN Approach Procedures Airlines are very much interested in PBN procedures:

Implementing ICAO Resolution A37-11 RNP APCH including APV BaroVNAV procedures acc. EASA AMC 20-27 SBAS approaches not emphasized as most IATA members do not have such

capability and will not invest either due to negative Business Case

PBN offers RNP AR procedures to cope with mountainous terrain RNP AR APCH acc. EASA AMC 20-26 RF-legs and RNP smaller than 0.3 (down to 0.1)

(e.g. Airberlin has excellent experience at Innsbruck, ie. less diversions, less complex approach)

RNP AR has stringent requirements for airline/crew, similar to ILS CATII/III


Eligible Airports for PBNAirport Number of flights 2011 Number of flights by Aircraft types Actual Nav Proc

Heraklion 27.793 A3: 5.303; AO: 4.892 A320; RJ100, DHC8-400 VOR, DME

X3: 1.904; AB:1.038 B737-8; A320

Korfu 10.677 A3: 2.212; AO:1.234 A320, RJ100 DHC8400 VORAB: 918; X3: 611 B737-8

Kos 10.272 OA: 2.496; A3:1.254 DHC8; A320 VOR NDBX3: 951; AB 741 B737-8

Santorini 5.941 OA: 2.026; A3: 1.776 A320, DHC8-400 VOR/DME, NDBAB: 124 B737-7/8

Samos 4.321 OA: 1.632; A3: 992 A320, RJ800 VOR/DME, NDBAB: 355;


ATM Hurdles Constraints

Possible impact on PBN implementation

Lack of specialised personnel Training is required at all levels in HCAA for Instrument Procedure Designers, Air Traffic Controllers and Technical staff

Old software

Not able to deliver support for PBN procedures

Absence of Digital Terrain Model of Greece as a cartographic source data

Does not improve the accuracy of the data and the easiness of use and implementation of the software.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Enh

ance

d V

isio

n S

yste

m (E

VS

)

LPV

SB

AS

GB

AS

FAN

S 1

/A -

VD

L M

ode

2

FAN

S 1

/A H

FDL

Hea

dup

Dis

play

(HU

D)

ATN

- V

DL

Mod

e 2

Ele

ctro

nic

Flig

ht B

ag (E

FB)

FMS

WP

R

AD

S-C

FAN

S 1

/A S

atC

om

FAN

S 1

/A -

AC

AR

S V

DL

Mod

e A

Oth

er M

ulti-

Func

tion

Dis

play

(MFD

) fitt

ed

RN

P A

R A

ppro

ach

AD

S-B

OU

T

Fixe

d R

adiu

s Tr

ansi

tion

(FR

T)

AP

V B

aro

VN

AV

(LN

AV

- V

NA

V)

Req

uire

d Ti

me

of A

rriv

al (R

TA)

AR

INC

623

RN

P A

ppro

ach

(LN

AV

)

8kH

z33

VH

F ra

dios

Fixe

d R

adiu

s Tu

rn (R

F)

Mul

ti M

ode

Rec

eive

r - M

MR

RN

AV

10

GN

SS

MO

DE

S

AC

AR

S

RN

AV

1 /

P-R

NA

V

RN

AV

5

INS

- IR

S

DM

E -

DM

E p

ositi

on u

pdat

e

Aut

othr

ust (

A-T

HR

)

Aut

opilo

t - F

light

Dire

ctor

VN

AV

EFI

S

Aut

opilo

t - F

light

Dire

ctor

LN

AV

FMS

Deg

ree

of E

quip

age

Capability

IATA-EUROCONTROL Avionic Survey Results - 2010Based on a sample of 2202 (B737, B777, A320, A340 etc type of aircraft)

Not AvailablePlannedAvailable

These figures are based on the data received from operators who replied to the survey. This represents only a snapshot (2202 aircraft) of the total amount of aircraft flying in ECAC (18621 aircraft in 2008). Especially regional


Aircraft NAV capabilitiesAir Berlin

B737 700/800

A319/320/321.

Tuifly B737 Olympic Air

A319/320

Q400 NG:Q400 - same as Q400 NG

Dash8-100

Approved for PRNAVRNP APCH incl. BaroVNAV

RNP ARCapable of: RF

Approved for PRNAVRNP APCH incl. BaroVNAVCapable of: RF

Approved for PRNAV

RNP APCH incl. BaroVnavCapable of RF

Approved for PRNAV

Capable but not approved for RNP APCHCapable of RF

Approved for PRNAVCapable but not approved for RNP APCH; Capable of RF

Approved for No PRNAVNo RNP APCHNo RF


Airports Actual Minima HeraklionRWY 09 Min 0990 ft AGL CIRCRWY 27 Min 1020 ft AGL VORDME

CorfuRWY 17 Min 1700 ft AGL CIRCRWY 35 Min 2000 ftAGL VORDME

SantoriniRWY 14 Min 0510 ft AGL VORDMERWY 32 Min 0510 ft AGL VORDME

RhodosRWY 07 Min 1090 ft AGL VORDME

Thessaloniki RWY 34 Min 1280 ft AGL VORDMERWY 28 Min 1380 ft AGL CIRC


Summary Report 5 Apr 12 Meeting (2)

Airport selection and PBN procedures:

Heraklion (HER) and Korfu (CFU) airports were selected to start with and gain experience

As a first priority RNP APCH (straight-in) procedure implementation was emphasized for HER RWY27 and CFU RWY35.

Additionally, RNP AR procedures at HER RWY09 and CFU RWY17


Heraklion Heraklion (LGIR) the second busiest airport in Greece during summer

PBN RWY27: RNP APCH

Complement or replace existing straight-in VOR or NDB approaches Straight-in RNP APCH APV BaroVNAV approach (RNAV GNSS approach)

RWY 09: RNP AR Approach procedure (only visual procedures are actually available)


CorfuActual situation / procedures Corfu (LGKR) has big percentage of diverted aircrafts due to weatherStraight in procedure starting from 9NM with an RNAV IAF. Most often visibility is good and a right hand visual pattern to RWY35 is flown east of the airport. West of the airport is not possible due to terrainMedium intensity approach lights of 500 m length, no runway center lights VOR Y approach chart, the landing minimum is 2000 ft AGL, due to the obstacles and the lateral inaccuracy of the VORObstacles near RWY17, i.e. antenna of 600ft height at only 500 m (0.25 NM) from the threshold. RWY 17: No approach lights, No RWY center line lights.Approach minima are highly dependent on the available lighting, if no lighting to one RWY-end minima are high...Absence of centerline lights does not improve awareness during night approaches, the runway really appears as a black box in front of the pilot, making visual 3D perception during approach and flare difficult.


CorfuPBN implementationRWY35: RNP APCH

Complement or replace existing straight-in VOR or NDB approaches

Straight in RNP APCH APV BaroVNAV approach (RNAV GNSS approach)

RNP approach More precise lateral navigation (0.3 NM) Reduce landing minima .

Thorough obstacle analysis is absolutely needed to provide for a optimum approach design and allow optimum identification of MDAs/DAs.


Corfu RWY 17: Draft RNP – AR procedure design Replaces the visual circling to RWY17Includes RF-legs in the final approach segment, and turn radius is calculated / designed to provide for CAT D aircraft Procedure based on RNP 0.3

Future lower RNP down to 0.1, improving obstacle clearance and leading to lower minimums

Successful Simulator Flight validation mandated by AMC 20-26

Missed Approach: as officially published (VOR A Circling).


Way forwardCreate road map

Outlining the steps to be taken for RNP APCH (& AR) introduction at HER and CFU, incl.:

Airline accountabilities, e.g . what is needed for pilot training, documentation, aircraft approval, cost benefit analysis, etc.

Regulatory and ANSPs accountabilities, i.e. what/how needs to be proven and by whom.


Actions by HCAA:Establish PoCs accountable for PBN introduction Become familiar with AMC 20-27 RNP APCH Approval & CertificationLiaise with German regulator LBA to share experiencePBN software design should also be capable of RNP AR procedure designStart familiarization of ANSP management and ATCO’s at HER and CFU by means of e.g. e-training; PBN courses etc.

Actions by OA and A3Become familiar with AMC 20-27 requirements and prepare for approval for eligible fleetBecome familiar with PBN procedures for pilots by means of e-learning packages e.g. available with ICAO, IATA, EurocontrolLiaise with AB and A3 for sharing experience


IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH

State

Airport TMA/Runways

Austria

VIE PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Belgium

BRU PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Czech Republic

PRG PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Denmark

CPH PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Finland HEL PRNAV SIDs/STARsOUL PRNAV SIDs/STARs

France

CDG PRNAV SIDs/STARsLYS PRNAV SIDs/STARsNCE PRNAV SIDs/STARsNCE

Arr RWY22L/R



Germany FRA

Arr RWY25L/RDep 07L/R

FRA PRNAV SIDs/STARsCGN PRNAV SIDs/STARsDUS PRNAV SIDs/STARsHAJ PRNAV SIDs/STARsHAM PRNAV SIDs/STARsMUC PRNAV SIDs/STARsNUE PRNAV SIDs/STARsSTR PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Greece

ATH PRNAV SIDs/STARsCHQ PRNAV SIDs/STARsHER PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Hungary BUD PRNAV SIDs/STARsBUD Dep 31L/R



Ireland

DUB PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Italy

FCO PRNAV SIDs/STARsLIN PRNAV SIDs/STARsMXP PRNAV SIDs/STARsBLQ PRNAV SIDs/STARsCTA PRNAV SIDs/STARsLIN RWY36 SIDs/STARsPMO RWY 07 APV BaroVNAV

BRI RWY 25 APV BaroVNAV

AOY ILS RWY22 APV BaroVNAV

MXP Dep RWY35L/R

PSA

Dep RWY 04L/RDesign Arr RWY 22L/R because there are none

VCE Dep 04R



Luxembourg

LUX PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Netherlands

AMS PRNAV SIDs/STARsAMS

APV APCH Arr RWY27 Dep RWY24, 36C, 18C

Norway

OSL PRNAV SIDs/STARsSVG PRNAV SIDs/STARsTRD PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Poland

WAW PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Portugal

LIS PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Romania small / medium airports

APV APCH procedures



Spain MAD PRNAV SIDs/STARsPMI PRNAV SIDs/STARsBCN PRNAV SIDs/STARsAGP PRNAV SIDs/STARsTFS PRNAV SIDs/STARsLPA PRNAV SIDs/STARsBCN Dep RWY 25L/RMAD Dep RWY36L/R

MAD

RNP APCH APV 33L/R

Sweden

ARN PRNAV SIDs/STARsGOT PRNAV SIDs/STARsMMX PRNAV SIDs/STARsAGH PRNAV SIDs/STARs

Switzerland

GVA PRNAV SIDs/STARsZRH PRNAV SIDs/STARsZRH

Dep RWY16


IATA LISTPRNAV and RNP APCH

UK

LHR PRNAV SIDs/STARsSTN PRNAV SIDs/STARsLTN PRNAV SIDs/STARsBHX PRNAV SIDs/STARsEDI PRNAV SIDs/STARsLGW PRNAV SIDs/STARsMAN PRNAV SIDs/STARs


IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002

Aircraft airworthiness and approval criteria are too stringent overly conservative for airlines and for aircraft manufacturers to comply with interpreting the ICAO PANS-OPS design criteria improperly

No consultation with experts or with aircraft operators As a consequence

a proper proliferation and implementation of RNP APCH including APV/Baro-VNAV are stalling and safety improvements have to wait unacceptably long

investments of airlines in costly navigation avionics cannot be recouped.



Stringent elevation criteria of airports with surrounding terrain above 5000 ft MSL will jeopardize airline operations into airports like ADD, JNB, JRO, NBO, Quito

operations are heavily dependent on the availability of the vertical guidance APV/BaroVNAV

circling approach and/or NPA are the only alternatives

The ban of BaroVNAV operations above 5000 ft altitude is artificial aircraft operators compliant with FAA AC20-129 are not confronted with such

limitations which after all are based on the same data (non level playing field)



Getting out of the stalemate by accepting airline and OEMs expertise

Focus on the implementation of targeted safety measures instead of adding costly and cumbersome regulations that do little to improve safety

Compliance with ICAO PBN

pbn implementation project at greek (island) airports

Documents

diversions ratf meetringbru

prnavrnp apch

rnp ar procedures

pbn benefitsthe

rnp smaller

barovnav rnp arcapable

pbn implementation project

ft agl circrwy