CHARTING Regulation and issues

1. CHARTINGRegulation and issues ACAC RNAV Procedures Workshop ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR

2. CONTENTS • Charting in the RNAV context • Regulation • Charting objectives • User needs • RNAV procedure identification • Objectives and standards • RNAV procedure identification • Standards evolution proposals • Waypoint naming and symbology • The issues • Waypoint symbology • Waypoint naming

3. Pans-Ops (vol. I and II) Annex 4 Annex 15 REGULATION • The ICAO defines the SARPS in the charting area, both for conventional and RNAV procedures • These standards are regularly updated, but with a low frequency • Technical work is conducted in specific international working groups (Obstacle Clearance Panel, AIS/MAP section) • ICAO Air Navigation Commission approval • Consultation of Member States

4. EUROCONTROL Charting guidelines for RNAV procedures (TARA) User recommendations for AIS (ED77 / DO201A) Maps MOPS REGULATION (2) • Some other regional or industry standards have been developed for : • Support of new RNAV operations in terminal airspace • Harmonization with on-board map displays … and various national reference documents (SAE G10, etc.)

5. DEPICTION OF ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ACCORDING TO USER NEEDS CLEARLY CHARTING OBJECTIVES

6. TECHNICAL SUPPORT USERS OPERATIONAL USERS Flight planning support Pilots Navigation database providers RNAV system manufacturers Air Traffic Control Commercial charting providers USERS

7. OPERATIONAL USER NEEDS • Sufficient data to conduct operations. • Charts • easy to read • unambiguous • only data which is necessary for the operation. • Coordinates, bearings and distances to a resolution that is compatible with the operational system displays

8. TECHNICAL SUPPORT USER NEEDS • Sufficient data to define instrument procedures. • Data resolution appropriate to meet the operational system’s computational requirements. • Charts used to validate the output from the operational systems.

9. THE NECESSARY INFORMATION • Procedures are currently published as charts and as textual descriptions • The charts are used by the pilots and ATC • Database providers require clear, and unambiguous procedure descriptions and use the charts to validate/check

10. RNAV SPECIFIC INFORMATION • RNAV procedures are defined by: • Sequence of waypoints • Identifier • Coordinates • Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius • Path Terminators - ARINC 424 • Altitude restrictions • Speed restrictions • Direction of turn • Required navaid

11. Distance,gradient, orientation, Waypoint name and sequence Speed and altitude restrictions Fly-over or fly-by Systems/sensors IAF, FAF, Mapt Navaids OCA/H INFORMATION FOR PILOTS

12. Distance,gradient, orientation, Waypoint name and sequence Segregation Altitude, IAS IAF, FAF, Mapt Holding levels available OCA/H Navaids INFORMATION FOR ATC

13. Turn directions Waypoint identifiers, sequence and coordinates Speed and altitude restrictions Fly-over or fly-by Distance,gradient, Orientation (true °) Navigation system req’ts (path terminators) Navaids INFORMATION FOR NAVIGATIONDATABASE SUPPLIERS

14. SUMMARY • Waypoint sequence Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius Speed/Altitude Restrictions Leg distance & magnetic track Fix information Turn direction

15. ADDITIONAL TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION • Textual description is usually used to provide formal statement of procedure • Often open to interpretation • RNAV procedures require more specific details including path terminators • Can result in lengthy descriptions • Alternative descriptive methods are being considered : • Tabular layout • Formalised textual description • Formalised short-hand description

16. RNAV Approach RNAV SID TABULAR DESCRIPTION

17. FORMALIZED DESCRIPTION Climb on track 047° M to 800ft, turn right [A800+; M047; R]- FA Climb on heading 123° M to 1000ft, turn right [A1000+; M123; R]- VA Direct to ARDAG at or above 3000ft ARDAG[A3000+]- DF To PF035 at or below 5000ft, then turn left -PF035[A5000-;L]- TF (Fly-over) To OTR on course 090°M at 210kts -OTR[M090; K210]- CF To STO at or above FL100, turn left STO[F100+; L]- TF (Fly-over) direct to WW039 at or above FL070, WW039[F070+]- DF to WW038 at 5000ft WW038[A5000] TF

18. CONTENTS • Charting in the RNAV context • Regulation • Charting objectives • User needs • RNAV procedure identification • Objectives and standards • RNAV procedure identification • Standards evolution proposals • Waypoint naming and symbology • The issues • Waypoint symbology • Waypoint naming

19. HARMONIZATION OBJECTIVES

20. REGULATORY STANDARDS EVOLUTION • OCP 12 + AIS/MAP : RNAV procedure identification - validation and publication (Annex 4, amendment 51) • OCP 13 + AIS/MAP : Conventional and RNAV procedure identification • Titles • Required equipment • Operational minima

21. RNAV PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATION All RNAV procedures (departures, arrivals and approaches) must be identified as such

22. Both DME/DME and Basic GNSS (GPS) may be used. • Reversion to VOR/DME or IRS is acceptable in accordance with JAA guidance. • If more than 2 DME inputs cannot be guaranteed at all times, this should be highlighted in explanatory text. • Where reversion to a specific VOR/DME is required for part of the procedure, the navaid must be clearly identified as the recommended navaid. • Where a reversion to VOR/DME is allowed but is NOT mandated, recommended navaids are NOT required.

23. RNAV PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATION • Identification may also include reference to the navigation infrastructure available: • RNAV(DME/DME) • RNAV(GNSS) • RNAV(Except Class A GNSS) • RNP(x)

24. Only DME/DME may be used. • Reversion to VOR/DME is not allowed. • Reversion to IRS is acceptable in accordance with JAA guidance. • If more than 2 DME inputs cannot be guaranteed at all times, this should be highlighted in explanatory text

25. Only GNSS may be used. • When Galileo and the Space Based Augmentation Services are available, it is anticipated that the generic terms B-GNSS, or ABAS, and SBAS will be used instead. • Reversion to VOR/DME is not allowed. • Reversion to IRS is acceptable in accordance with JAA guidance.

26. Both DME/DME and Class B and C GNSS may be used. • Reversion to VOR/DME or IRS is acceptable in accordance with JAA guidance. • If more than 2 DME inputs cannot be guaranteed at all times, this should be highlighted in explanatory text. • Where a reversion to a specific VOR/DME is required for part of the procedure, the navaid must be clearly identified as the recommended navaid. • Where a reversion to VOR/DME is allowed but is NOT mandated, recommended navaids are NOT required.

27. The procedure is for RNP 0.3 RNAV capable aircraft only.

28. RNAV SID & STAR • Where part of a SID or STAR is to be flown conventionally and part is designated as appropriate for B-RNAV, P-RNAV or RNP (x) RNAV capable aircraft, it should be annotated on the chart itself.

29. STANDARDS EVOLUTION PROPOSALS • Current situation : conventional procedure should be named according to the navaid(s) to be used • This standard causes : • many variations in chart titles from State to State • pilots to hear different clearances from State to State • different expectations for equipment requirements • In the future • title of approach procedure will be the same as the navigation system providing the final approach lateral guidance (LLZ, VOR, NDB) or the precision approach system (ILS, MLS). • Other navaids required for the procedure will appear on the chart (not in the title)

30. STANDARDS EVOLUTION • Guidance for procedure designers, to be included in PANS-OPS Volume II • References to PANS-OPS Volume II to be included in Annex 4 • OCP 13 + AIS/MAP : Conventional and RNAV procedure identification • Information to be contained in the titles • Navigation equipment requirements • Navigation equipment optional to obtain better minimums • Applicable in November 2004

31. PROPOSED NEW PROCEDURE TITLES (EXAMPLES) • ILS or LLZ Rwy 25 - localizer required and glide slope available • When glide slope available, clearance from controller would be for ILS Rwy 25. • When glide slope not available, clearance from controller would be for Localizer Rwy 25 • ILS Rwy 25 - localizer required and glide slope required. (There are cases where the glide slope must be used because of final approach segment obstacles.) • ILS or LLZ Rwy 07L - localizer and DME required and glide slope available. Note on chart for DME required. • VOR Rwy 04 - only VOR required - also used when DME available for better minima or stepdown fixes, etc. • VOR Rwy 11 - VOR and DME required. Note on chart for DME required • NDB Rwy 17R - NDB or locator and DME required. Note on chart for DME required.

32. CONTENTS • Charting in the RNAV context • Regulation • Charting objectives • User needs • RNAV procedure identification • Objectives and standards • RNAV procedure identification • Standards evolution proposals • Waypoint naming and symbology • The issues • Waypoint symbology • Waypoint naming

33. WAYPOINT SYMBOLOGY ISSUES • Need to standardize the symbology used both for charts and onboard equipment • The symbology shall encompass the different kinds of waypoints • Fly-over waypoints • Fly-by waypoints • The waypoint symbology shall accomodate other symbols such as the navaids or the significant points (fixes) ones

34. OCP 12 PROPOSALS consistency with navaids and fixes symbology Fly-by with VOR/DME Fly-over with Reporting Point WAYPOINT SYMBOLOGY

35. WAYPOINT SYMBOLOGY PROPOSALS

36. Direct to NDB « R » ILLUSTRATION OF NAMING CONVENTION ISSUES • High workload due to runway change. • ATC clears to Rozo • Rozo is “R” NDB on the chart. • Crew enter “R” in the FMS, Bogota Romeo NDB (Romeo, 1st “R” on the list as the closest of the data base, among 12 other “R”) • Romeo and Rozo are about 150 Nm away from each other. • The plane starts a left turn, which is detected and corrected after a 90° turn. • A GPWS alarm is triggered • Despite a quick crew response the plane crashed into a 12000 ft summit.

37. NAMING CONVENTION ISSUES • The information created by States may work very well in the paper world but the electronic world creates new challenges. • It is essential to create new awareness of the differences that happen between the charts and what pilots see on their avionics • The consistency of wording for waypoints used by ATC, Airspace Authorities, and database providers is a major issue • This issue is a top level/cross border issue involving every speciality (not only FMS Safety Assessment)

38. WAYPOINT NAMING ISSUES • The current ICAO naming convention is based upon the use of 5 letter name codes (5LNC) • This convention ensures global uniqueness… • … but it does not provide the flexibility required for RNAV procedures • Waypoints correlation within a given procedure • Ease for pilots / controllers to recognize the sequence of waypoints • Hence, extension (not amendment) to the ICAO convention is proposed • The extension is already applied in several States

39. WAYPOINT IDENTIFICATION • Waypoints are used to define ‘RNAV routes and flight paths of aircraft employing RNAV systems’. • Significant points are used to describe a ‘specified geographical location used in defining an ATS route or the flight path of an aircraft and for other navigation and ATS purposes’. • All waypoints = significant points.

40. WAYPOINT IDENTIFICATION • Significant points identified by co-located navaid or by unique five-letter pronounceable “name-code” (5LNC). • However some waypoints in the terminal area used for vectoring or for sequencing and must be easy to enter in an RNAV system. • 5LNCs are not appropriate for this. • Some regional organizations (EUROCONTROL, AUSTRALIA CAA, ECAC States) have adopted a concept of strategic and tactical waypoints to address this problem • The proposals are being examined, harmonized and submitted for approval by OCP (OCP 13)

41. TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC WAYPOINTS • A strategic waypoint is a waypoint in the terminal area which is: • of such significance to the ATS provider that it must be easily remembered and stand out on any display, or • used as an ‘activation point’ to generate a message between computer systems when an aircraft passes it. • Strategic waypoints are identified with 5LNCs unless they are co-located with a navaid, when the 3 letter navaid ID is used. • A tactical waypoint is a waypoint which is defined solely for use in the specific terminal area and has not been designated a strategic waypoint.

42. TACTICAL WAYPOINT NAMING CONVENTION • Identified as AAXNN, where: • AA - the last two characters of the aerodrome location indicator, • X - a numeric code from 0 to 9 (N, E, W and S may be used instead if a State has a requirement for quadrantal information) • NN - a numeric code from 00 to 99. • If co-located with a navaid, the navaid three letter identifier is used. • If co-located with the runway threshold, an identifier in the format RWNNA is used, where: • NN - a numeric code from 01 to 36 and • A is an optional alphabetic code of ‘L’, ’C’ or ‘R’.

43. WAYPOINT VERSUS FIX • A waypoint is defined by coordinates. • A fix may be defined by the intersection of 2 radials or radial and distance. • HOWEVER, on RNAV approaches: • Initial approach waypoint - IAF • Intermediate waypoint - IF • Final approach waypoint - FAF • Final approach point (ILS/Baro VNAV) - FAP • Missed approach waypoint - MAPt.

44. Proposed waypoint symbology Waypoint naming convention WAYPOINT NAMING AND SYMBOLOGY

45. SUMMARY

46. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONANY QUESTION?