Certification Criteria Supporting RNAV Approach Operations in ECAC

1. Certification Criteria Supporting RNAV Approach Operations in ECAC Geoff Burtenshaw, Safety Regulation Group - U.K. CAA

2. Presentation Overview • Today • Problems with today’s non-precision approach operations • Safety initiatives • Tomorrow • The environment • Regulatory actions • Changes to JAR-OPS 1 Subpart E • RNAV Approach Operations, TGL XY • RNP-RNAV Approach Operations, TGL XZ

3. Presentation Overview cont. • The Future • Within ECAC • International developments – Annex 6, RNP • A common set of objectives • Issues • Implementation • Terminology • Possible solutions • Re-categorisation of All Weather Operations • Grouping of RNP capabilities • Summary

4. Evolution of Approach Types “Today” ILS VOR LOC NDB VOR-DME LOC-DME BCRS LDA SDF NDB-DME VOR on Arpt VOR-ARC NDB-NDB NDB on Arpt RNAV 2-D SRA RNAV 3-D Discrete

5. Problems with Today’s Non-Precision Approach Operations • Accuracy dependent upon the underlying navaid • Constructed and flown with “Dive and Drive” philosophy • Can lead to de-stabilised approaches • Procedures have become outdated • Too many types: • Flight crew recency • Cost of training for multiple procedure types • Equipment maintenance costs and restricted capacity of navigation database

6. Safety Initiatives • Joint Safety Strategy Initiative (JSSI) • CFIT, Approach and Landing • Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) • Implementation plan for 21st Century Instrument Approaches • RNAV and GNSS are the technology enablers for safer operations • Adding to the proliferation of approach types • Rationalisation required

7. Evolution of Approach Types “Today” “Tomorrow” ILS VOR LOC NDB VOR-DME LOC-DME BCRS LDA SDF ILS/MLS/GLS (xLS) NDB-DME VOR on Arpt Overlay with CDFA VOR-ARC NDB-NDB RNAV RNP-RNAV NDB on Arpt RNAV 2-D SRA RNAV 3-D Discrete

8. Tomorrow's Environment • Non-precision approaches are not going to disappear overnight • But they can be made safer • Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) as an overlay on existing non-precision approaches • New instrument approach procedure types based around: • RNAV principles • RNP-RNAV principles • Progressive rationalisation of procedure types

9. Regulatory Actions • JAA working on 2 fronts: • Changes to JAR-OPS 1 Subpart E • Under revision to take into account harmonised Aerodrome Operating Minima • New approach concepts introduced • Two new Temporary Guidance Leaflets • RNAV Approach Operations, TGL XY • RNP-RNAV Approach Operations, TGL XZ

10. JAR-OPS 1.435 and ACJ OPS 1.430 • Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) : An approach with a predetermined approach slope that enables a continuous descent to MDA(H) or DA(H). The approach is flown as a stabilised approach to MDA(H) or DA(H) upon which the decision to land or go-around is made. • Stabilised Approach : An approach which is flown in a stabilised manner in terms of configuration, energy and control of the flight path

11. New Temporary Guidance Leaflets (TGLs) • Building on existing guidance material • ACJ 20X4 for Basic RNAV • TGL No. 10 for Precision RNAV • Contains both airworthiness and operational criteria • Completes family of JAA RNAV guidance leaflets from departure to final approach • Guidance on use of GPS for approach operations (formerly contained within TGL No. 3) superseded by RNAV Approach TGL

12. JAA Criteria Supporting RNAV and Category I, II, III Operations JAR-AWO and JAR-OPS 1 ACJ 20X9 RNP 10 Operations TGL No. XY TGL No. 10 RNAV Approach Precision RNAV (P-RNAV) Category II, III and Takeoff Operations and En-route (in designated airspace) Standard Instrument Departures (SID)Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STAR)Initial Approach and Intermediate Approach to FAWP ACJ 20X4 TGL No. XZ RNP-RNAV Approach Based on DME/DME, B-GNSS & S-BAS sensors and LNAV, LNAV-VNAV guidance JAR-AWOSubpart 1 - Automatic Landing System Subpart 2 - Category II ILS/MLSSubpart 3 - Category III ILS/MLSSubpart 4 - Take-off in Low VisibilityHUD Information Leaflets formerly TGL No. 2Rev 1 Basic RNAV(B-RNAV) Oceanic RNP 10 and En-route JAR-OPS 1Subpart E - All Weather Operations DescentRNP 1 ClimbRNP 1 FAWP ApproachRNP.5 RNP.3 TakeoffRNP .3 LOW VIS T.O. DH 200 DH 100 RVR <200m Note: xLS encompasses ILS, MLS and GLS CAT III

13. Common Structure Between TGLs XY and XZ • Assumptions • DME/DME, Basic GNSS or SBAS • System description • LNAV or LNAV/VNAV • Airworthiness approval objectives for: • accuracy, integrity, continuity of function • Functional criteria • Acceptable means of compliance

14. Common Structure Between TGLs XY and XZ • Aircraft Flight Manual • Operational criteria • Normal, abnormal procedures • Reportable events • Flight crew training • Navigation database integrity • Documentation • Fleet approvals

15. Specific Features of TGL XY • Scope • “Plain vanilla” RNAV procedures • Applicability • Includes stand-alone GPS/map equipments and FMS without RNP-RNAV functionality • Accuracy determined by sensor updating, but typically +/- 0.3 NM laterally • Vertical accuracy consistent with performance of Baro VNAV

16. Specific Features of TGL XY • Operational integrity applied as an alleviation of safety objective from Extremely Remote to Remote • Taking into account the safety contribution from flight crew procedures, IAP design etc. • Vertical integrity introduced • Limited set of functional criteria • Reliance on existing installation advisory material for demonstration of compliance

17. Specific Features of TGL XZ • Scope • To support RNP 0.3 RNAV approvals but also airworthiness demonstration for < 0.3 NM • Special aircraft and aircrew authorisation requirements not identified • Applicability • RNP-RNAV compliant systems (MASPS ED-75()/DO-236() • Description of RNP and RNP-RNAV

18. RNP-RNAV Concept (Total System) RNP-RNAV system provides: • 10-5 /2xRNP assurance of • navigation performance, • as a tool to facilitate safety • assessments for separation • and obstacle clearance • 95% performance accuracy • 10-4 continuity of RNP • capability for an RNP type • Situation information, • flight planning capabilities, • checks/alerts to minimise • exposure to manual errors

19. Specific Features of TGL XZ • Traditional 1309 integrity assessment plus operational integrity, augmented with an assessment of system performance assurance (containment integrity) • Containment continuity • Baro VNAV performance • MASPS functional criteria • Operational criteria very similar to RNAV approach TGL XY except for RNP specific items on the flight deck e.g. display of Estimated Position Uncertainty (EPU)

20. Specific Features of TGL XZ • Annexes containing: • Operational issues • Training and crew qualification issues • Further background material on RNP • RNP-RNAV < 0.3 NM • Guidance material for assessment of flight technical error for RNP • Stabilised approach criteria to allow a continuous descent final approach to be flown

21. TGL Status • Preliminary Draft of TGL XZ (RNP-RNAV) distributed at TARA/25 and to members of the JAA AWO Steering Group • Formal distribution end of November/early December • TGL XY available early 2004

22. Evolution of Approach Types “Today” “Tomorrow” “The Future” ILS VOR LOC NDB VOR-DME LOC-DME BCRS LDA SDF ILS/MLS/GLS (xLS) NDB-DME VOR on Arpt xLS, RNP, RNP-RNAV Overlay with CDFA VOR-ARC NDB-NDB RNAV RNP-RNAV NDB on Arpt RNAV 2-D SRA RNAV 3-D Discrete

23. The Future • Within ECAC a 4-D RNP-RNAV environment plus precision landing systems using xLS (ILS/MLS/GLS) • Regulatory actions described thus far are largely in response to an ECAC Navigation Strategy and Implementation Plan • But what are ICAO regions planning? • Harmonisation? • The issues • Some possible solutions

24. International Developments • ICAO Annex 6 approach classifications: • Non-precision approach and landing operations • Approach and landing operations with vertical guidance (APV) • Precision approach and landing operations • JAA TGLs XY and XZ are consistent with APV concept • But other service provider terms are emerging: • APV I, APV II, LPV

25. Required Navigation Performance • Term is imprecisely used: • 95% accuracy? • Functional requirements? • RNP-RNAV definition (including containment)? • Full MASPS compliance? • Allowable derogations?

26. A Common Set of Objectives • Access for all • Take advantage of a range of aircraft capabilities • Get away from designing instrument procedures around technology/infrastructure • Have a common schema for approach procedures • Minimise the risk of human error in charting/ phraseology – a safety concern • Move towards performance-based operations

27. Issues • We have global agreement on the concept, it is the implementation we are struggling with • Terminology and definitions are big issues and need to harmonised • Otherwise implementation becomes selective and regional and that is detrimental to a global / seamless airspace • Costs would be prohibitive for the air carrier community • Within a State have a co-ordinated implementation process across the various domains – project management

28. Possible Solutions (Categories of Approach) • As discussed at the recent JAA/FAA AWO Harmonisation Working Group meeting • Annex 6 terms NPA, APV and PA are outdated and don’t have relevance in a future performance-based air traffic management system • Technology is evolving too quickly • The important points are: • Aircraft capability • Level of minima that the infrastructure, procedure design and airport can support • Essentially DA(H) and RVR

29. Possible Solutions(Categories of Approach) • Suggest suppressing Annex 6 terms, including APV • Introduce sub-divisions within existing Categories of approach to reflect performance levels e.g. CAT I a, b, c, d • Would include both non-precision and precision • Divisions based around aircraft capability e.g. LNAV or LNAV and VNAV, DA(H) and RVR • Not just in the CAT I arena, divisions of CAT II and CAT III could be made taking account of flight guidance augmentation e.g. HUD, EVS, SVS

30. Possible Solutions (RNP) • A homogeneous RNP fleet is unlikely • Consider a number of discrete groupings reflecting aircraft capability from small GA to modern large air transport aircraft • Groupings in terms of navigation and flight guidance • Used in RNP based operations to ensure only appropriately qualified aircraft are allowed to fly the procedures • Aid to understanding which aircraft can do what • Simplify charting

31. Summary • The presentation has looked at approach operations in terms of “Today”, “Tomorrow” and “The Future” • Safety concerns associated with existing dive and drive non-precision approaches are being addressed • New JAA RNAV and RNP-RNAV Temporary Guidance Leaflets should enable rationalisation of approach types within ECAC

32. Summary cont. • Move to performance-based operations criteria • Still issues surrounding terminology and definitions • Harmonisation through ICAO, JAA, FAA etc. is essential • ICAO requested to consider amending instrument approach and landing procedure classifications • Introduce sub-divisions within existing operational categories

33. Summary cont. • Recognise that RNP may well exist in a number of guises • Introduce groupings to reflect aircraft capability and then mapping to the procedures • Ensure regional strategies and implementation plans take account of evolving standards and criteria

34. RNAV in Terminal Airspace Workshop Questions? 04-06 November 2003 34