PBN implementation project at Greek (Island) airports

1. PBN implementation project at Greek (Island) airports Anthony van der Veldt Assistant Director Safety, Operations & Infrastructure IATA, European Regional Office Brussels

2. PBN Benefits The full usage of the available on-board avionic PBN capabilities provides for the following safety and economic benefits: • Reduce fuel consumption/ environmental impact by using stabilized approaches • Improve safety by • Simplifying and standardizing design and training • Reducing cockpit workload • Replacing Circling, NDB approaches (avoiding NPA) • Enhance efficiency by shortening of routings • Improve continuity of airline operations • Improve access to runways • LNAV/VNAV minima as low as, i.e. 250 ft AGL and above • Less diversions RATF Meetring

3. Airline expectations PBN Approach Procedures • Airlines are very much interested in PBN procedures: • Implementing ICAO Resolution A37-11 • RNP APCH including APV BaroVNAV procedures acc. EASA AMC 20-27 • SBAS approaches not emphasized as most IATA members do not have such capability and will not invest either due to negative Business Case • PBN offers RNP AR procedures to cope with mountainous terrain • RNP AR APCH acc. EASA AMC 20-26 • RF-legs and RNP smaller than 0.3 (down to 0.1) • (e.g. Airberlin has excellent experience at Innsbruck, ie. less diversions, less complex approach) • RNP AR has stringent requirements for airline/crew, similar to ILS CATII/III RATF Meetring

4. Eligible Airports for PBN Airport Number of flights 2011 Number of flights by Aircraft types Actual Nav Proc Heraklion 27.793 A3: 5.303; AO: 4.892 A320; RJ100, DHC8-400 VOR, DME X3: 1.904; AB:1.038 B737-8; A320 Korfu 10.677 A3: 2.212; AO:1.234 A320, RJ100 DHC8400 VOR AB: 918; X3: 611 B737-8 Kos 10.272 OA: 2.496; A3:1.254 DHC8; A320 VOR NDB X3: 951; AB 741 B737-8 Santorini 5.941 OA: 2.026; A3: 1.776 A320, DHC8-400 VOR/DME, NDB AB: 124 B737-7/8 Samos 4.321 OA: 1.632; A3: 992 A320, RJ800 VOR/DME, NDB AB: 355; RATF Meetring

5. ATM Hurdles RATF Meetring

6. RATF Meetring

7. Aircraft NAV capabilities Approved for PRNAV RNP APCH incl. BaroVNAV RNP AR Capable of: RF Approved for PRNAV RNP APCH incl. BaroVNAV Capable of: RF Approved for PRNAV RNP APCH incl. BaroVnav Capable of RF Approved for PRNAV Capablebut not approved for RNP APCH Capable of RF Approved for PRNAV Capablebut not approved for RNP APCH; Capable of RF Approved for No PRNAV No RNP APCH No RF Air Berlin B737 700/800 A319/320/321. Tuifly B737 Olympic Air A319/320 Q400 NG: Q400 - same as Q400 NG Dash8-100 RATF Meetring

8. Airports Actual Minima Heraklion RWY 09                Min 0990 ft AGL             CIRC RWY 27                Min 1020 ft AGL            VORDME Corfu RWY 17                Min 1700 ft AGL              CIRC RWY 35                Min 2000 ftAGL               VORDME Santorini RWY 14                Min 0510 ft AGL              VORDME RWY 32                Min 0510 ft AGL              VORDME Rhodos RWY 07                Min 1090 ft AGL             VORDME Thessaloniki RWY 34                Min 1280 ft AGL               VORDME RWY 28                Min 1380 ft AGL               CIRC RATF Meetring

9. Summary Report 5 Apr 12 Meeting (2) Airport selection and PBN procedures: • Heraklion (HER) and Korfu (CFU) airports were selected to start with and gain experience • As a first priority RNP APCH (straight-in) procedure implementation was emphasized for HER RWY27 and CFU RWY35. • Additionally, RNP AR procedures at HER RWY09 and CFU RWY17 RATF Meetring

10. Heraklion • Heraklion (LGIR) the second busiest airport in Greece during summer PBN • RWY27: RNP APCH • Complement or replace existing straight-in VOR or NDB approaches • Straight-in RNP APCH APV BaroVNAV approach (RNAV GNSS approach) • RWY 09: RNP AR • Approach procedure (only visual procedures are actually available) RATF Meetring

11. Corfu Actual situation / procedures • Corfu (LGKR) has big percentage of diverted aircrafts due to weather • Straight in procedure starting from 9NM with an RNAV IAF. • Most often visibility is good and a right hand visual pattern to RWY35 is flown east of the airport. • West of the airport is not possible due to terrain • Medium intensity approach lights of 500 m length, no runway center lights • VOR Y approach chart, the landing minimum is 2000 ft AGL, due to the obstacles and the lateral inaccuracy of the VOR • Obstacles near RWY17, i.e. antenna of 600ft height at only 500 m (0.25 NM) from the threshold. • RWY 17: No approach lights, No RWY center line lights. • Approach minima are highly dependent on the available lighting, if no lighting to one RWY-end minima are high... • Absence of centerline lights does not improve awareness during night approaches, the runway really appears as a black box in front of the pilot, making visual 3D perception during approach and flare difficult. RATF Meetring

12. Corfu PBN implementation RWY35: RNP APCH • Complement or replace existing straight-in VOR or NDB approaches • Straight in RNP APCH APV BaroVNAV approach (RNAV GNSS approach) • RNP approach • More precise lateral navigation (0.3 NM) • Reduce landing minima . • Thorough obstacle analysis is absolutely needed to provide for a optimum approach design and allow optimum identification of MDAs/DAs. RATF Meetring

13. Corfu RWY 17: Draft RNP – AR procedure design • Replaces the visual circling to RWY17 • Includes RF-legs in the final approach segment, and turn radius is calculated / designed to provide for CAT D aircraft • Procedure based on RNP 0.3 • Future lower RNP down to 0.1, improving obstacle clearance and leading to lower minimums •  Successful Simulator Flight validation • mandated by AMC 20-26 • Missed Approach: as officially published (VOR A Circling). RATF Meetring

14. Way forward Create road map • Outlining the steps to be taken for RNP APCH (& AR) introduction at HER and CFU, incl.: • Airline accountabilities, e.g . what is needed for pilot training, documentation, aircraft approval, cost benefit analysis, etc. • Regulatory and ANSPs accountabilities, i.e. what/how needs to be proven and by whom. RATF Meetring

15. Actions by HCAA: • Establish PoCs accountable for PBN introduction • Become familiar with AMC 20-27 RNP APCH Approval & Certification • Liaise with German regulator LBA to share experience • PBN software design should also be capable of RNP AR procedure design • Start familiarization of ANSP management and ATCO’s at HER and CFU by means of e.g. e-training; PBN courses etc. Actions by OA and A3 • Become familiar with AMC 20-27 requirements and prepare for approval for eligible fleet • Become familiar with PBN procedures for pilots by means of e-learning packages e.g. available with ICAO, IATA, Eurocontrol • Liaise with AB and A3 for sharing experience RATF Meetring

16. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH RATF Meetring

17. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH RATF Meetring

18. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH RATF Meetring

19. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH RATF Meetring

20. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH RATF Meetring

21. IATA LISTPRNAV and RNP APCH RATF Meetring

22. IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002 • Aircraft airworthiness and approval criteria are • too stringent • overly conservative for airlines and for aircraft manufacturers to comply with • interpreting the ICAO PANS-OPS design criteria improperly • No consultation with experts or with aircraft operators • As a consequence • a proper proliferation and implementation of RNP APCH including APV/Baro-VNAV are stalling and safety improvements have to wait unacceptably long • investments of airlines in costly navigation avionics cannot be recouped. RATF Meetring

23. IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002 • Stringent elevation criteria of airports with surrounding terrain above 5000 ft MSL will jeopardize airline operations into airports like ADD, JNB, JRO, NBO, Quito • operations are heavily dependent on the availability of the vertical guidance APV/BaroVNAV • circling approach and/or NPA are the only alternatives • The ban of BaroVNAV operations above 5000 ft altitude is artificial • aircraft operators compliant with FAA AC20-129 are not confronted with such limitations which after all are based on the same data (non level playing field) RATF Meetring

24. IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002 • Getting out of the stalemate by accepting airline and OEMs expertise • Focus on the implementation of targeted safety measures instead of adding costly and cumbersome regulations that do little to improve safety   • Compliance with ICAO PBN RATF Meetring