450 likes | 593 Views
Aerodrome Operating Minima Head-Up Displays Enhanced Vision Systems. NPA-OPS 41. Presenters. Mr Bo Eckerbert (LFV Sweden) Chairman, AWOSG SFO Tim Price (AEA / British Airways) Secretary, AWOSG. Contents. Background: Contents of NPA 41 NPA OPS 20 to NPA OPS 41
E N D
Aerodrome Operating MinimaHead-Up DisplaysEnhanced Vision Systems NPA-OPS 41
Presenters • Mr Bo Eckerbert (LFV Sweden) • Chairman, AWOSG • SFO Tim Price (AEA / British Airways) • Secretary, AWOSG
Contents • Background: • Contents of NPA 41 • NPA OPS 20 to NPA OPS 41 • Stabilised Instrument Approach • Continuous Descent Final Approach • Head Up Display • Enhanced Vision Systems • Detailed Rule and ACJ Changes • Regulatory Impact Assessment
NPA-OPS 41 • The proposal contains draft texts for: • Aerodrome Operating Minima (1.430) • Comments received post NPA 20 • JAA / FAA AWOHWG work (ongoing) • Requirements for Cat III Operations (1.440) • JAA / FAA AWOHWG work • Introduction of HUD & HUDLS • Introduction of EVS • Training and qualification requirements for all of the above (1.450)
NPA 20 to NPA 41 • OST endorsed NPA 20 in March 2004 • Including: • Rule material • Explanatory Note • RIA • OST also endorsed HUD / HUDLS Rule material • Today’s presentation highlights the differences between NPA 20 and NPA 41
Comments from NPA 20 • NPA 20 produced 290 comments • Mostly concerning Rule • Some about ACJ • Comments Response Document thoroughly reviewed over 4 meetings of AWOSG • NPA re-issued
Stabilised Instrument Approach - Background • CFIT & ALARP programmes encouraged authorities to prescribe stabilised instrument approaches: ‘SAp’ • SAp: an approach which is flown in a controlled and appropriate manner in terms of configuration, energy and control of the flight path, from a pre-determined point or altitude/height, without any segment of level flight at MDA(H) • Considered to be much safer than a Non-Precision Approach (NPA) flown as ‘dive & drive’
Stabilised Instrument Approach and CDFA • NPA 20 / 41 defines a new variant of the Stabilised Approach: the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) • An approach with a predetermined approach slope which enables a continuous descent to DA(H) • CDFA includes precision approaches, non-precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance (APV)
CDFA - Benefits • The CDFA concept aims to increase the safety of Non-Precision Approaches by eliminating level flight at MDA, ie close to the ground • Pilot workload is reduced as a/c attitude, power and energy are stabilised • One decision point for the pilot • The intention is that all approaches should be flown as CDFA (if possible)
CDFA NPA DH ICAO MDH THR CDFA v ‘Traditional’ NPA
HUD • Background: • Currently no rules in Sub Part E • But ... HUDs becoming more commonplace • Pilot-training is key • Cat I RVRs can be reduced • Cat II can be allowed without TDZ lights or centreline lights • Current approvals based on TGL 20 with formal exemptions from Sub Part E • (Similar operational credit for use of autoland) • HUDLS chosen as preferred term
HUD - Proposal • Manually-flown Cat II approaches • Manually-flown Cat IIIA approaches • ‘Lower than standard Cat I’ • DH of 200ft but min RVR of 400m on current Cat I runways • ‘Other than standard Cat II’ • DH of 100ft, min RVR of 350m on Cat II runways which lack TDZL and CLL • Equipment and airframe requirements • Training requirements • Credits for autoland ops of the same values as HUDLS
HUD - Safety • Safety levels not reduced with reduced RVR minima: • Compensation by improved guidance (HUD or autoland) • Adequate visual reference still required • Simulator trials: • Go-around rate not significantly increased • Landing footprint is equal or better • Suitable ILS performance still required
HUD - Harmonisation • Other than standard Cat II in line with FAA • Lower than standard Cat I deviates from ICAO, but... • ILS requirements specified • Difficulty with label vs aerodrome requirements • Current categorisation under debate in AWOHWG and OPSP • Current categorisation hinders operators from installing equipment
EVS Sensor window EVS • Popular with the AWOSG!
EVS - Background • New technology – currently IR sensor-based • Rule material required • Members of the AWOSG flew EVS-equipped aircraft to obtain experience of system in use • Approaches flown in variety of conditions • Fog, mist, snow • Night, mountainous terrain • Benefits of the system can vary depending on met conditions (certain IR wavelengths absorbed by water drops in atmosphere)
EVS – Rule • Accommodate variety of performance • HUD believed to be essential element of total EV System • Two Decision Gates • Enhanced view of visual references allowed at normal DH • ‘Natural’ (ie unaugmented) view required by 100ft ARTE • Controlling RVR reduced to give credit for EVS • No ICAO rule at present – OPSP may draw on JAA and FAA work
Rule Changes • (a) Note deleted • (b)(9) Refers to flight technique = CDFA • (d)(1) Mandates use of CDFA (inc SAp) • (d)(2) Prescribes RVR add-on if approach not flown as CDFA • (d)(3) Allows Authority to exempt operator from add-on prescribed in (d)(2) • (d)(4) Limits use of exemptions • 1.430 Aerodrome Operating Minima – General
Rule Changes • 1.430 Aerodrome Operating Minima – General • (e)(1) Prescribes use of either Appendix 1 (Old) or (New) until end of transition period • (e)(2) and (e)(3) similar exemptions to (d)(3) and (d)(4) but related to use of upper cut-off values [Tables 5 and 6 in Appendix]
Rule Changes • 1.435 – Terminology • Clarify relationship between SAp and CDFA • Introduce and/or clarify definitions relating to HUD & EVS • 1.440, 1.450, 1.455, 1.460 • Introduces: • ‘Lower than Standard Category I’ • ‘Other than Standard Category II’ • (NB: these definitions previously endorsed by OST)
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • Philosophy: • Two versions of the Appendix (Old & New) active in parallel for 3 years • Operators who cannot comply with CDFA concept immediately can use existing criteria • App 1 (Old) will be withdrawn after 3 years
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • Table 2 ‘Assumed engine failure height’ reinstated • (b)(1) ICAO terminology for GNSS introduced • (b)(2) Use of MDA(H) as DA(H) • (b)(3) APV defined; ‘OCL’ deleted • (b)(4) ‘Cat I Precision’ deleted; DH is not exclusive to precision approaches • (b)(5) Reference to procedure minimum in AFM added • (b)(6) ‘Non Precision’ deleted
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • Table 3 system minima revised considerably: • RNAV (VNAV) deleted • NDB minimum raised • NDB/DME added • VDF raised • (c)(1) Outlines criteria which approaches must fulfil to use Tables 5 & 6 • Max approach slope (Cat C & D a/c) limited to 3.77 degrees (=400ft per nm)
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • (d)(2) Note 2. Explanation of how RVR values calculated (methodology moved to ACJ) • (d)(5) Conditions for using RVR <750m for Cat I • (d)(6) Credits for HUDLS and autoland • Table 4. Changes made following comments from FAA • Table 5. New minima • Developed during harmonisation work with FAA • Logical and consistent; rounding values changed • Formula used: • Required RVR/Visibility (m) = Minimum height (ft x 0.3048 / tan) - length of approach lights [ = approach angle] • But... should the formula be in the ACJ?
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • Calculation of visual segment
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • Table 6: • Upper and lower cut-off RVR values • Upper? • Type of approach and CDFA • Lower? • Aircraft Category and approach type • ILS facility requirements greatly standardised
Appendix 1 to 1.430 – Para (c)(2)(ii) • CDFAs with a nominal vertical profile, up to and including 4.5 for Category A and B aeroplanes, or 3.77 for Category C and D aeroplanes, unless other approach angles are approved by the Authority where the facilities are NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LLZ, LLZ/DME, VDF, SRA or RNAV(LNAV), with a final-approach segment of at least 3NM, which also fulfil the following criteria: • (A) Final approach track is off-set 5 degrees, except that, for Category A and B aeroplanes, the upper cut-off value (RVR 1500 m) applies if the final approach track is off-set 15 degrees; and • (B) The FAF or another appropriate fix where descent is initiated is available, or distance to THR is available by FMS/RNAV or DME; and • (C) If the MAPt is determined by timing, the distance from FAF to THR is 8 NM.
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • (d) [Several places]: • Minimum autopilot disengage height: • 80% of DH, but not less than 150ft ARTE • Note 4 to Table 8 deleted; AWOSG believes should be part of Sub Part F • (e) & (f) Introduction of HUDLS (and some EVS) material: • ‘Lower than standard Cat I’ • ‘Other than standard Cat II’
Appendix 1 to 1.430 • (h) Introduction of EVS-specific material • 2 decision gates as outlined earlier • Steep approaches still to be discussed in AWOHWG • (j) [formerly (g)] Circling: • One set of minima presented • ACJ being developed to clarify circling in more detail • (l) Conversion of Met Vis to RVR no longer permitted below 800m
Other Appendices • 1.440: • Clarification of requirements needed to qualify for Cat III • 1.450: • ‘HGS’ abandoned, now HUDLS • HUD and EVS will create additional training requirements • 1.455: • References to HUD and EVS added
ACJs • 1.430 [edited]: • Explains SAp and CDFA concepts • Edited in response to comments (53, of which 43 accepted) • Appendix 1 New [new]: • Explain derivation of new minima • Cat I operations <750m RVR • Single-pilot ops • 1.430 (h) [new]: • Describe EVS and concept of operations
RIA • Scope: • Discussed already • Relevant ICAO / JAA decisions: • SAp / CDFA • HUD (JAA TGL) • HUD minima: conflict with Annex 14 (RVR not DH) • NPA may well be used by ICAO OPSP • Operations <550m RVR: definition (Cat I or Cat II?)
RIA • Objectives: • Enhance safety – especially CDFA • HUDLS / autoland • EVS • Who will be affected? • All JAR-OPS operators, and probably most GA • Training
RIA • Options • Do nothing • Introduce Rule, but no reduction in RVR • Introduce Rule and reduce required RVR • Mandate CDFA / SAp, but no change in AOM • Mandate CDFA / SAp and change in AOM
RIA • Impacts identified: • Safety • Economic • Harmonisation • Environmental • Social (nil) • Other Aviation Requirements (nil)
RIA • Consultation: • Industry • Flight-crew • FAA • Comments Response Document • Summary & Final Assessment
Questions?? Bo Eckerbert (bo.eckerbert@luftfartsstyrelsen.se) Tim Price (tim.price@britishairways.com)