IATA / Airline Views on Performance Based Navigation

1. IATA / Airline Views on Performance Based Navigation Theo van de Ven/KLM Anthony van der Veldt/IATA Senior Manager Strategy & User Charges Asst Dir Safety Operations&Infrastructure Amsterdam Brussels

2. IATA SAFETY, OPERATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE • Safety • Security and facilitation • Flight operations and maintenance • Infrastructure and airports • Consulting • Regionally organized

3. Traffic growth forecast: need for efficient airspace use

4. Rising fuel prices, marginal benefits in a competitive market 12 Months

5. IATA Position on PBN • IATA supports global implementation of the concept of PBN developed by ICAO • Global harmonization is a must • We cannot do without it • Clarity in the field of navigation options is fully supported • Differences between RNAV and RNP become clear and manageable • Shows a comprehensive overview of all available options • CNS correctly addressed in the manual, but it is mainly about the Navigation element • Only in a “true CNS environment” will gate to gate capacity increase

6. Safety benefits of PBN • CFIT Reduction • Vertically Guided Final Approaches • Laterally Guided Missed Approaches • Less stress on flight crews • More consistency and standardization • Back-up landing option • For a reliable and sustainable operation • PBN promises toincrease capacity while enhancing safety

7. Airlines continue to acquire or equip existing aircraft with improved and more capable avionics, but based on sound Cost-Benefit Analysis

8. Current Ground Nav aids Waypoints Seamless Vertical Path “curved” paths Increased Airspace Efficiency Limited Design Flexibility Highly Optimized Use of Airspace RNP RNAV The use of satellite technology has allowed the aviation industry to move away from its dependence upon ground based navigation systems and gain more airspace

9. Generic RNAV issues • RNAV procedure design is a collaborative process • With common responsibility • Needs involvement of chart provider, data base supplier, ATC, Airline/pilot, State, Aerodrome Operator, local communities • Restrict number of SIDs/STARs to a minimum for safety reasons • Abundance creates complexity for pilots and may create FMC storage overload • Balance between environment, safety and efficiency • RNAV cannot improve the physics of flying • Physical flight limitations do not change • Conversion from P-RNAV to RNAV1 must NOT lead to additional ops certification requirements for airlines

10. Generic RNP issues • New Generation aircraft have RNP 0.3 to 0.1 functionality available for final approach • RNP design based on the monitoring & alarming function to protect the narrow airspace • Higher integrity extremely valuable element • Therefore less airspace needed

11. Specific comments on PBN • RNP allows further SID design flexibility • Consequently runway capacity increase • Aircraft capabilities to be used to the maximum extent possible • VNAV function merits a Chapter i.s.o. to be an Attachment • RF-leg option needed for RNAV 1 • Recommended function for P-RNAV (TGL10) • Powerful tool for environment and efficiency • High degree of flight path predictability • Example of Pilot project Amsterdam AirportSchiphol

12. All aircraft: SPY RW 24 SPL

13. Green: KLM 737 utilizing RF leg

14. KLM 737 aircraft only utilizing RF leg based on ADS-B output

15. PBN and theGREEN “APPROACH” • Saves fuel • Relieves congestion, alleviates choke points and reduces delays • Cornerstone for a seamless environment that allows standard aircrew procedures whilst allowing the most efficient operations • Accurate navigation means that people on the ground perceive less jet noise • Provides significant benefits in safety, efficiency and for the environment

16. PBN and SESAR • PBN prerequisite for user-preferred routings and business trajectories • PBN inherent requirement for flow optimization of the network by fully observing the environmental constraints • Allow ANSP’s to offer the most cost-effective solutions to users

17. APPROACH PROCEDURES Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance (APV) Precision Approach (PA) Non Precision Approach (NPA) 1.LOC 2. VOR 3. NDB 4. SRE 5. RNAV 6. Circling • RNAV • APV/Baro-VNAV • APV I (GNSS-A vertical) • APV II (GNSS-A vertical) • RNP AR (with barometric or future GNSS vertical) • ILS • MLS • GLS • RNP? APV between PA and NPA • Chart title: • LOC • VOR • NDB • SRE • RNAV • Circling Chart title 1): 1-3: RNAV (GNSS) 4: RNAV(RNP) • Chart title: • ILS • MLS • GLS • RNP? 1): Annotation of GNSS indicates that the approach procedure has been designed according to GNSS obstacle clearance criteria. DME/DME update is not allowed. • Minima line: • (DA) • LNAV/VNAV 2. LPV 3. LPV 4. RNP0.x • Minima line: • (DA) • ILS • MLS • GLS • RNP? • Minima line: • (MDA) • LOC or LLZ • VOR • NDB • SRE • LNAV • Circling

18. ICAO PBN targets APV implementation • Spotlight on cost and efficiency in TMA’s • T-Y Type approaches • Approaches with Vertical Guidance to replace Non Precision Approaches • 30 % to be achieved in 2010 and • 70 % in 2014 • IATA identified 100+ airports where RNAV SIDs STARs and approach procedures can be improved using PBN

19. AMC 20 xx EASA OPS Approval APV/Baro-VNAV • AMC 20 xx is European certification material for Airlines • Maturing draft material now available • APV/Baro-VNAV is a mature navigation function • Real improvement over existing NPA • Not lowering the landing minima yet, but definitely increasing flight safety and efficiency • IFPP working on: • Harmonization of the APV/Baro-VNAV design criteria with AMC20 xx

20. Position on SBAS • SBAS is not yet a global solution and does not provide suitable operational benefit • Large commercial aircraft are equipped with precision inertial systems and SBAS investments cannot be justified • Most of the major transport airlines are not collectively willing to pay for SBAS services • SBAS related costs shall not be allocated to airspace users not equipped with SBAS • Other means of funding should be found to support this technology, including current users • Revision of the current Charging Regulation – user pays principle • IATA requires that whenever States are providing SBAS guidance at a certain airport such procedures must be complemented by APV/Baro-VNAV approaches

21. Cooperation & Harmonisation is a MUST ICAO States State Aviation Organisations CIVIL / Military European Commission Airspace Users Service providers Airports Aerospace industry Standardisation-Bodies Research and development organisations