1

IATA / Airline Views on

Performance Based Navigation

Theo van de Ven/KLM Anthony van der Veldt/IATASenior Manager Strategy & User Charges Asst Dir Safety Operations&InfrastructureAmsterdam Brussels

IATA SAFETY, OPERATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE

Safety Security and facilitation Flight operations and maintenance Infrastructure and airports Consulting Regionally organized

3

Traffic growth forecast: need for efficient airspace use

4

12 Months12 Months

Rising fuel prices, marginal benefits in a competitive market

5

IATA supports global implementation of the concept of PBN developed by ICAO Global harmonization is a must

We cannot do without it

Clarity in the field of navigation options is fully supported Differences between RNAV and RNP become clear and manageable Shows a comprehensive overview of all available options

CNS correctly addressed in the manual, but it is mainly about the Navigation element Only in a “true CNS environment” will gate to gate capacity increase

IATA Position on PBN

6

Safety benefits of PBN

CFIT Reduction Vertically Guided Final Approaches Laterally Guided Missed Approaches Less stress on flight crews More consistency and standardization Back-up landing option

For a reliable and sustainable operation

PBN promises to increase capacity while enhancing safety

7

Airlines continue to acquire or equip existing aircraftwith improved and more capable avionics, but based on sound Cost-Benefit Analysis

8

The use of satellite technology has allowed the aviation industry

to move away from its dependence upon ground based navigation systems

and gain more airspace

Increased AirspaceEfficiency

Highly OptimizedUse of AirspaceLimited Design

Flexibility

Current GroundNav aids

“curved”paths

SeamlessVertical

Path

Waypoints RNAV RNP

9

RNAV procedure design is a collaborative process With common responsibility Needs involvement of chart provider, data base supplier, ATC, Airline/pilot,

State, Aerodrome Operator, local communities

Restrict number of SIDs/STARs to a minimum for safety reasons Abundance creates complexity for pilots and may create FMC storage

overload Balance between environment, safety and efficiency

RNAV cannot improve the physics of flying Physical flight limitations do not change

Conversion from P-RNAV to RNAV1 must NOT lead to additional ops certification requirements for airlines

Generic RNAV issues

10

New Generation aircraft have RNP 0.3 to 0.1 functionality available for final approach

RNP design based on the monitoring & alarming function to protect the narrow airspace Higher integrity extremely valuable element Therefore less airspace needed

Generic RNP issues

11

RNP allows further SID design flexibility Consequently runway capacity increase

Aircraft capabilities to be used to the maximum extent possible VNAV function merits a Chapter i.s.o. to be an Attachment

RF-leg option needed for RNAV 1 Recommended function for P-RNAV (TGL10) Powerful tool for environment and efficiency High degree of flight path predictability Example of Pilot project Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

Specific comments on PBN

12

All aircraft: SPY RW 24 SPL

13

Green: KLM 737 utilizing RF leg

14

KLM 737 aircraft only utilizing RF leg based on ADS-B output

18

PBN and the GREEN “APPROACH” Saves fuel

Relieves congestion, alleviates choke points and reduces delays

Cornerstone for a seamless environment that allows standard aircrew procedures whilst allowing the most efficient operations

Accurate navigation means that people on the ground perceive less jet noise

Provides significant benefits in safety, efficiency and for the environment

19

PBN prerequisite for user-preferred routings and business trajectories

PBN inherent requirement for flow optimization of the network by fully observing the environmental constraints

Allow ANSP’s to offer the most cost-effective

solutions to users

PBN and SESAR

20

APPROACH PROCEDURES

Non Precision Approach(NPA)

Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance

(APV)

Precision Approach (PA)

1.LOC2. VOR3. NDB4. SRE5. RNAV6. Circling

RNAV 1. APV/Baro-VNAV2. APV I (GNSS-A vertical)

3. APV II (GNSS-A vertical)

4. RNP AR (with barometric or future GNSS vertical)

1. ILS2. MLS3. GLS4. RNP?

Chart title:

1. LOC2. VOR3. NDB4. SRE5. RNAV6. Circling

Minima line:(MDA)

1. LOC or LLZ2. VOR3. NDB4. SRE5. LNAV6. Circling

Minima line:(DA)

1. ILS2. MLS3. GLS4. RNP?

Minima line:(DA)

1. LNAV/VNAV2. LPV3. LPV4. RNP0.x

Chart title:

1. ILS2. MLS3. GLS4. RNP?

Chart title 1):

1-3: RNAV (GNSS)

4: RNAV(RNP)

1): Annotation of GNSS indicates that the approach procedure has been designed according to GNSS obstacle clearance criteria. DME/DME update is not allowed.

APV between

PA and NPA

21

ICAO PBN targets APV implementation

Spotlight on cost and efficiency in TMA’s T-Y Type approaches

Approaches with Vertical Guidance to replace Non Precision Approaches 30 % to be achieved in 2010 and 70 % in 2014

IATA identified 100+ airports where RNAV SIDs STARs and approach procedures can be improved using PBN

22

AMC 20 xx is European certification material for Airlines Maturing draft material now available

APV/Baro-VNAV is a mature navigation function Real improvement over existing NPA Not lowering the landing minima yet, but definitely increasing flight

safety and efficiency

IFPP working on: Harmonization of the APV/Baro-VNAV design criteria with AMC20 xx

AMC 20 xx EASA OPS ApprovalAPV/Baro-VNAV

23

Position on SBAS SBAS is not yet a global solution and does not provide suitable

operational benefit Large commercial aircraft are equipped with precision inertial

systems and SBAS investments cannot be justified

Most of the major transport airlines are not collectively willing to pay for SBAS services SBAS related costs shall not be allocated to airspace users not

equipped with SBAS Other means of funding should be found to support this technology,

including current users Revision of the current Charging Regulation – user pays principle

IATA requires that whenever States are providing SBAS guidance at a certain airport such procedures must be complemented by APV/Baro-VNAV approaches

24

Cooperation & Harmonisation is a MUST

ICAOStates

State Aviation OrganisationsCIVIL / Military

European CommissionAirspace Users

Service providersAirports

Aerospace industryStandardisation-Bodies

Research and development organisations