1 / 8

Step Down Fix issue PP 49

Step Down Fix issue PP 49. B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS CNS/ATM Steering group meeting Brussels 01-02 July 08. SDFs Background. Used on Conventional and RNAV procedure without vertical guidance A procedure designer tool (e.g. for clearing an obstacle  enable lower MDA )

selima
Download Presentation

Step Down Fix issue PP 49

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. Step Down Fix issuePP 49 B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS CNS/ATM Steering group meeting Brussels 01-02 July 08

  2. SDFsBackground • Used on Conventional and RNAV procedure without vertical guidance • A procedure designer tool (e.g. for clearing an obstacle  enable lower MDA) • No more than 2 SDFs within the Final segment • APV procedures (LNAV/VNAV and LPV) don’t use SDF SDF • Concern is related to the coding of SDF in the navigation data base between FAF and MAPt

  3. Potential issues associated to SDF coding • Coding of SDF could be unsafe: • Risk of not presenting distance to the MAPt after passing the FAF. • Risk of missing the basic intent of a SDF from a crew prospective • to respect the SDF constraint (altitude/distance) independently from the RNAV system in order to improve the safety of LNAV operation. • RNAV systems should manage SDF identically from one system to another one • Not the case today. • Standardization in this area is necessary. SDF located at 1.8 Nm to RW threshold

  4. How to address this SDF Issue • EASA/FAA/Eurocontrol meeting held the 16th of April 08 • Different view between US and Europe • SDF coding in nav data base is a request from US airspace users (AOPA) •  dive and drive concept • SDF coding is a problem for European •  CDFA concept • But a consensus was found during this meeting • A decision was made to issue a CNS/ATM Steering group Position paper (PP 49) based on the meeting discussion • PP addressing SDF within « straight In » Final Approach Segment • Explain the difference between European and US publication • Provide a way forward to solve the issue • PP submitted to ICAO IFPP (former OCP)

  5. How to address this SDF Issue Different charting between Europe and US SDF US *No distance/Altitude table *Dist between FAF and SDF indicated SDF Europe • Dist between FAF and SDF not indicated • Distance/Altitude table provided

  6. PP 49 content • Current situation • From an ICAO point of view (PANS OPS) • From a FAA point of view (FAA Order 8260.19D) • Statement of issue • Possible misleading information (distance to SDF and not to MAPt) • The SDF operational role • Consistent use of SDF by RNAV system • The German example • Discussion • The rationale for CDFA and Dive and Drive technique • The difference between LNAV and VNAV • Conclusion and proposed resolution • Addressing SDF naming, SDF coding and SDF use by RNAV system • Two cases (case 1:the European one and case 2: the US one) • A summary table • The resolutions

  7. PP 49 contentConclusion and Proposed Resolution (1/2) • Proposed Resolution for states. • PR#S1: SDF unnamed for procedure with chart having a continuous descent path and a dist/alt table. • PR#S2: IFPP to consider an amendment to PANS OPS to request publication of a distance/Altitude table for all “LNAV approaches”. • Proposed Resolution for Navigation Database Suppliers. • PR#NDB1: Navigation Database supplier should not code unnamed SDF in their NDB. • PR#NDB2: Navigation Database supplier should code named SDF in their NDB. • PR#NDB3: Navigation Database supplier to consider an ARINC 424 amendment (PR#NDB1 and PR#NDB2)

  8. PP 49 contentConclusion and Proposed Resolution (2/2) • Proposed Resolution for equipment supplier. • PR#EQT1: LNAV/VNAV system should not manage SDF as a waypoint whether it is named or unnamed. • Proposed Resolution for the operational aspect. • PR#OPS1: Crew should be trained to respect SDF constraint whether SDF is coded or not. • PR#OPS2: Crew should be able to fly an LNAV approach using the CDFA technique when SDF is coded (e.g a European operator conducting an RNAV approach in the US).

More Related