1

UK PBN Implementation Status

ICAO EUR PBN TF & ECTL RAiSG/1

Geoff Burtenshaw

11-13 September 2013

2

Presentation Overview

• UK Future Airspace Strategy (FAS)

• En-route status

• Terminal airspace developments − London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP)

− Location specific mandate

− Departure trials

• RNP APCH operations − Inferior runways / no approach control

• Infrastructure

• Challenges

• Summary

3

UK Future Airspace

Strategy (FAS)

4

FAS sets out the UK’s ambition to modernise the airspace system

in line with SES II and SESAR goals and the UK / Ireland FAB.

FAS Context

• by CAA, NATS,

MoD and DfT

FAS

Developed

Gathered

Feedback

Planned for

Deployment

Deployment of Phase 1

Priorities

• Public Consultation

• Industry Responses

• 21st CN Class G

• Aligned Industry

Investment Plans

• Produce Network

Benefits Case

• Define Policy and

Regulatory Enablers

• Redesign the Route Network in

Terminal Airspace

• Manage queuing across every

phase of flight

• Connect Airports into the

Network

• Implement Performance Based

Navigation

Stages of FAS Development

2012 2010 2011

Airspace Transport

Select Committee

2009

2013 - 2020

4

5

2013 2015 2020

Reference Period 1 Reference Period 2

PBN Trials / Early Implementation

Upper Sectors Development

AMAN/DMAN in the FAB, Airport DPI Provision, A-CDM

LAMP Design & Consultation LAMP 1

16 17 18 19

NTCA Design & Consultation

Queue Mgmt. cross FAB / Long Term System Optimisation*

Full UK PBN Implementation PBN IR

Direct & Free Route and Enhanced FUA across the FAB

(pre TA changes)

Short Term System Optimisation*

PBN Mandate for LAMP Airspace

Harmonise TA (18,000ft?)

FAS Deployment Timeline

Key Airport Related Initiatives

NTCA (Benefits dependent on TA change)

*System Optimisation: Building airspace system constraints into airport slot allocations,

scheduling, flight planning, required times of arrival etc. to improve network performance.

LAMP 2 (post TA changes)

Initial NTCA

5

6

En-route Status

7

En-route Status

• From 7 April 2011, RNAV 5 (B-RNAV) became

applicable on all UK ATS routes at all

levels/altitudes in controlled airspace as

promulgated in the UK AIP

• Investigation of wider application of DCTs in

coordination with FAB partner

7

8

Terminal Airspace

Developments

9

Terminal Airspace Developments

• STARs are largely covered by the extension of the

RNAV 5 mandate

• Gatwick RNAV 1 SIDs (19 procedures) approved and

effective from November 2013

− Replication of conventional departure tracks

• NATS London Airspace Management Programme

(LAMP) and Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA)

Projects

• Newcastle, Luton, Birmingham, Southend, Bristol,

Leeds Bradford, Farnborough RNAV 1 procedures

under development

• NATS Departure Enhancement Programme (DEP) trials

• London Stansted CLN and DVR RNP 1 SID trial with RF

10

What LAMP will do?

• Improve safety by reducing complexity and tactical intervention

and therefore reduce controller / pilot workload

• Improve flight efficiency by introducing more Continuous Climb

and Continuous Descent Operations and through new concepts

such as Point Merge

• Phase 2 linked to higher TA

• Provide enhanced navigation capability through a Performance

Based Navigation (PBN) design (RNAV 1 minimum)

• Introduce Queue Management to eliminate stack holding in

normal operations

• Provide capacity to meet future demand

• LAMP is a once in a lifetime opportunity to modernise the

airspace in the London Terminal Control region

11

LAMP and PBN

• Overall intention to design LAMP to PBN standard, with

no conventional alternative

• A conducive airspace environment through:

− CAA AIC with Guidance on Application of PBN in UK

(published in March 12)

− Localised mandates to be implemented with LAMP phases

• For Phase 1a in 2015, minimum standard is RNAV 1, but

elements could be to a higher spec level if appropriate

• For Phase 2 (2017+) RNP 1 will be minimum as close to

SES PBN IR with anticipated RNP 1 mandate

• Operators not compliant with any mandate may receive

tactical routeings which may involve delay / re-route

12 NATS PRIVATE Slide 12

LAMP Draft Implementation Plan: Phase 1

13 NATS PRIVATE Slide 13

LAMP Draft Implementation Plan: Phase 2

14

Location Specific Mandate

• Development of a mandate to enforce

compliance supporting airspace change at

specific locations (airports)

• Resulted from on-the-ground experience and

request from ANSPs for regulatory support

• If no intervention - FAS goals at risk

• Based on Impact Assessment with costs and

benefits articulated

• LAMP Phase 1A mandate for 2015 to be

presented to CAA Board in November 2013

15

ATC Flight Plan 2012

Breakdown of EGLC Flight Plans without RNAV 1 Capability by Aircraft Type

FOKKER 50

DORNIER 328

SAAB 2000

CESSNA 560XL Citation Excel

CESSNA 525A Citation CJ2

DASSAULT Falcon 2000

• Field 18 providing

valuable

information

regarding airline

and fleet capability

• Some mis-filing of

flight plans

• Helps us know who

we have to talk to

• An important

planning tool

16

• US best practice (e.g., Atlanta) is shaping

FAS airport plans

• The Departure Enhancement Programme

(DEP) is the first step towards systemisation

• RNAV 1 angle of separation for a 1 minute

split

• USA uses as little as 10 degrees divergence

• Re-design SIDs to match current RADAR

vectors and improve further

• Potential to increase runway departure

capacity, flight efficiency and offer noise

mitigation (respite)

International Best Practice

17

Benefits

• Reduce tactical intervention

• Reduce noise impact and NPR swathes

• Opportunities to develop reduced

departure splits & independent arrivals

• Systemisation of TMA

Principles

• Joint FAS project across CAA, NATS, Airlines

and Airports.

• Develop industry standards for PBN, in

particular, route spacing

• Maximise near term benefits of PBN

• Adopt international best practice

• Enhance the benefits of major terminal airspace

re-designs (LAMP & NTCA) TC South East 55 minute Sim – Standard Vectoring

TC South East 55 minute Sim – RNAV1 Departures

Departure Enhancement Project (DEP)

17

18

• Heathrow Midhurst (DOKEN) – RNAV 1 track keeping and separation to

a hold

• Heathrow Compton offload – reduced angle of separation for 1 minute

split

• Heathrow Easterly SID Package – RNAV 1 interactions

• Gatwick BOGNA – reduced divergence at point of departure and

reduced separation to hold

• Stansted RNP 1 – RNP 1 Radius to Fix turn departure trial

• Luton – RNAV 1 track keeping on departure for noise benefits

• Additional trials proposed and will be scoped further in the first phase

of project (London City, Manchester, Leeds Bradford, Cambridge)

DEP Project - Planned Trials

18

19

London Stansted RNP 1 SIDs Trial

Joint project - Stansted, CAA, easyJet, local NATS ATC

• 1 year trial May 2013 to May 2014

• ATC / operator experience of RNP Radius to Fix (RF)

• Assess lateral track keeping accuracy

• Assess impact of aircraft noise with / without RNP

• Set parameters for future design standards

20

Trial Participants

• easyJet A319/A320

• German Wings A319

• Pegasus Airways B737-800

• Atlas Air B747-8

Planned Participants

• FedEx MD-11

• UPS B767-300ER Freighter

• Ryanair B737-800

21

Quote from Atlas Air - Senior Director

Flight Operations Support Group, Miami

“Looking at those tracks makes me feel very

good. This is the right direction. The

procedure is simple for crews to load and

follow which takes away the anxiety many

felt when departing EGSS.”

22

Stansted RNP 1 RF Trial Data

22

Stansted (EGSS) DVR 1D RWY 04 Atlas Air B747-8

23

Approach Operations

24

RNP APCH Operations - Status

• High levels of interest to implement RNAV (GNSS) Approaches

• All will include LNAV Reversion

• CAA encouraging inclusion of LNAV/VNAV and LPV as standard

• Final (business) decision rests with aerodrome

• Assessment of use of SBAS on LNAV/VNAV procedures complete

• Promulgation and notification to data houses in-work

Runway ends

LNAV

Runway ends

LNAV/VNAV

Runway ends

LPV

In Service 33 18 2

In Design 54 24 52

24

25

UK Implementation (AIRAC 4/2013)

LNAV/VNAV (Baro) LNAV LPV

Planned Partial (One Runway) Full (All Runways) 25

26

Instrument Approach Procedures For

Aerodromes Without an Instrument

Runway and/or Approach Control

27

Scope – Public Transport Operations

28

Policy Highlights

• A move from a standards-based application to a more risk-based

application where judgement required ...both by applicant and the

regulator

− Applicant conducts a location-specific safety assessment in support of an application for an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) based upon alternative safety mitigations

− Early ‘Preliminary Assessment’ to reduce business risk

− Single CAA point of contact for applicants

− Post Implementation Review – Ongoing Monitoring & Feedback

− This work applies equally to both traditional instrument approaches using conventional aids and newer GNSS approaches

• Each case is location-specific – not possible to assume what the

outcome would be at specific aerodrome locations until safety

analysis has been conducted

• Public consultation anticipated Oct- Dec 2013

• Publication of CAA Publication early 2014

29

Infrastructure

30

Navaid Rationalisation

• NATS programme to “right-size” the UK conventional navigation

infrastructure compatible with a PBN environment

• Programme to reduce en-route DVORs from 46 to 19 by 2018

• Co-located DMEs to remain in operation when DVOR withdrawn

– DMEs may be relocated in the future to optimise coverage and geometry

• Consistent with changes to require RNAV 5 on all UK ATS routes

since April 2011 and AIC Yellow 107/2011 allowing Routes and

Procedures to be flown with an equivalent to ADF

2013 Objectives

• First VOR (CFD) to be decommissioned 19th September

• Dependency on Scottish VORs for all NATS en-route procedures

removed 30

31

VOR Dependencies

• Terminal airspace conventional procedures e.g., SIDs

• Waypoint naming

• Holds

• Instrument Approach procedures

• Use for training (civil and military)

• Means of procedural separation

• Mitigation against controlled airspace infringements

• Fragmented ownership of airports/procedures a

major challenge for NATS

32

Proposed Rationalised VOR Network

and Coverage

32

33

Challenges

34

Challenges (1)

• Route spacing

− Current published “generic” route spacing values

deemed too conservative

− Lack of an up-to-date “gold” standard data set

− How much data?

− Collection of Operational error data

− Purpose of the DEP and Stansted trials is to gather

sufficient data in order to develop “enhanced”

route spacing guidance

− NATS also looking at an alternative approach to

CRM

35

Spacing Minima Values that Remain Unknown

36

PBN Route Spacing Guidance

“Develop guidance to support the design and implementation of

new RNAV and RNP terminal procedures”

CAA / NATS joint business plan objective; ‘MOCOR 2’ project – working in collaboration

Key Milestones

1. October 2013: Publish UK guidance on route spacing for the implementation RNAV

1 terminal procedures based upon EUROCONTROL route spacing studies and the

methodology developed for TC North (CAA)

2. 2013/2014: Enhance the published UK guidance on route spacing for the

implementation RNAV 1 terminal procedures (see 1. above) to include RNP 1 route

spacing and the output of analysis, trials and early implementations (FAS DSG Sub-

Group to establish the programme of work)

3. End 2014: Publish the enhanced UK guidance on route spacing for the

implementation for RNAV 1 and RNP 1 terminal procedures, including the output of

2. above (CAA)

37

Challenges (2)

• Validation of instrument flight procedures

− Ground vs Flight validation

− Use of desktop tools

Purpose of use i.e., what credit?

Qualification of tool as fit-for-purpose

Gross-error check of IFP design or suitable for demonstration of Flyability

EUROCONTROL RVT vs. DWINT eRVT?

For large scale airspace developments what % of procedures require flight validation?

Are there such things as benign designs?

Cost a major factor as alternatives to desktop assessment are expensive

An on-going discussion with ANSP

38

Challenges (3)

• Cost and access to development navigation data bases − For flight validation purposes pre-publication

− Stand-alone equipment costs

$5,000 per data base + $1500 per runway end

Packing and release costs to operator

− A proposal to capture IFP design changes in periodic data base releases e.g., 4 x per year

− Pooling of procedures and sharing of costs

− Approach your “friendly” airline and ask them to have development procedures coded by the data houses

− Have airline conduct flight simulator validation

− For large scale airspace developments can’t keep going to the major airlines, or can we?

− Cost for individual operators / airports for validation data bases and simulator time is becoming prohibitively expensive

− Someone has to pay for time and effort

39

Summary

40

Summary

• UK Future Airspace Strategy provides a framework for the modernisation and

restructuring of UK airspace

• PBN is a key enabler (but not the only one (DPI, TA)

• First UK RNAV 1 SIDs (at London Gatwick) now approved

• LAMP Phase 1A in 2015 well advanced

• Extensive trials programme underway supporting Phase 2 design

• Mandate based on Impact Assessment by end of 2013

• RNP Approaches slowly appearing

• Use of SBAS on LNAV/VNAV now assessed

• Policy and guidance for non-instrument runway/non-approach service ready for

consultation

• First VOR in rationalisation programme about to be decommissioned

• Challenges still lie ahead

− Route spacing

− Validation methods for new IFP designs supporting large-scale airspace changes

− Cost of flight validation – development data base for flight validation and cost of

simulator time

41

Questions?

Geoff.Burtenshaw@caa.co.uk