1 / 10

B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS CNS/ATM Steering group meeting Brussels 01-02 July 08

USE OF GNSS DISTANCE FOR AIRSPACE OPERATION PP 048. B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS CNS/ATM Steering group meeting Brussels 01-02 July 08. PP 48 Amendment. Comments from Gatwick meeting taken into account Clarification of the different airspace operations Structure of the document reviewed.

phuc
Download Presentation

B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS CNS/ATM Steering group meeting Brussels 01-02 July 08

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. USE OF GNSS DISTANCE FOR AIRSPACE OPERATION PP 048 B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS CNS/ATM Steering group meeting Brussels 01-02 July 08

  2. PP 48 Amendment • Comments from Gatwick meeting taken into account • Clarification of the different airspace operations • Structure of the document reviewed

  3. The possible airspace use • Use of GNSS distance in lieu of DME for enroute and terminal operations • Determining a/c position over a DME fix or for flying DME arc • Use of GNSS distance on a conventional approach • In lieu of a DME distance (e.g for VOR/DME, ILS, LOC-DME approaches) • Aircraft separation based on GNSS distance • Longitudinal separation based on GNSS distance

  4. Use of GNSS distance in lieu of DME for enroute and terminal operations • For conventional enroute operation • Acceptable if proposed airborne requirement are satisfied (PP 48 para 3.6)  Details discussed hereafter • For conventional SID and STAR • Specific crew procedure should be respected • Should be validated at EASA level • Detailed in PP 48 appendix A

  5. Use of GNSS distance in lieu of DME for enroute and terminal operationsAppendix A content (1/2) • Aeronautical information • A rule should authorise GPS substitution • At the AIP level or indicated on the published procedure • DME fix should be referenced by the DME facility establishing this fix. • The DME facility is indicated on the chart for crew selection • A DME fix with 5 letter name could be selected directly • Aircrew procedure • RAIM prediction • Non-GNSS approach at the alternate or destination airport should be available • If the non-GNSS approach is based on DME, aircraft must be DME equipped

  6. Use of GNSS distance in lieu of DME for enroute and terminal operationsAppendix A content (2/2) • Aircrew procedure (Cont’d) • To determine aircraft position over a DME fix: • If fix is a 5-letter name select either the named fix or the facility establishing the DME fix as the active waypoint • If fix is not named or the 5-letter name is not in the data base select the facility establishing the DME fix as the active waypoint • When selecting a named fix, pilot is over the fix when the GPS system indicates the overfly of the active WPT. • When selecting the facility establishing the DME fix, pilot is over the fix when the GPS dist equals the charted DME value. • To Fly a DME Arc: • Select the facility providing the DME arc as the active WPT. • If this facility is not in the database, crew is not authorized to perform this operation. • Maintain position on the arc by reference to the GPS distance instead of a DME readout.

  7. Use of GNSS distance on a conventional approach • Such operation raises several issues • Selection of the reference waypoint • For DME not collocated with a VOR • For DME ground station with range offset • Human factor and crew workload aspect • Selection not associated with the ILS or VOR frequency selection • Possibility to mix the different distance (DME dist, Rwy dist,) • The position paper does not propose any solution • IFPP has discussed these issues in Jan 08 • The problem is not easy to solve • New Charting criteria was used in Australia to solve the problem

  8. Aircraft separation based on GNSS • In accordance with PANS ATM • Acceptable if proposed airborne requirement are satisfied (PP 48 para 3.6)  Details discussed hereafter

  9. Airborne requirement (3.6) • IFR RNAV/GNSS system approved for the related phases of flight (e.g. BRNAV, PRNAV) • Integrity provided by Enroute RAIM (or equivalent). • Identification of the “distance origin” should be clearly indicated to the crew (e.g. waypoint name indicated on the RNAV/GNSS Control Display Unit ) • Distance should be continuously displayed in the pilot primary field of view • Distance should be indicated in 1/10th of NM when distance is less than 100 NM

  10. Conclusion • Use of GNSS distance in lieu of DME distance for Enroute and Terminal operations for determining aircraft position over a DME fix or for flying DME arc: • For Enroute operation GNSS distance could be used if proposed airborne system is compliant with para 3.6 • For Terminal operation, the operational procedure provided in appendix A should be validated by EASA in order to authorise such use • Use of GNSS distance on a conventional approach (e.g ILS, LOC/DME,..) • Use of GNSS distance for this operation is not acceptable before all issues described in 3.2 being solved • Aircraft separation based on GNSS • Use of GNSS is possible if proposed airborne system is compliant with para 3.6

More Related