IATA / Airline Views
on
Performance Based Navigation
Theo van de Ven/KLM
Senior Manager Strategy & User Charges
Amsterdam
Anthony van der Veldt/IATA
Asst Dir Safety Operations&Infrastructure
Brussels
1
IATA SAFETY, OPERATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE
 Safety
 Security and facilitation
 Flight operations and maintenance
 Infrastructure and airports
 Consulting
 Regionally organized
Traffic growth forecast: need for efficient airspace use
3
Rising fuel prices, marginal benefits in a competitive market
12 Months
4
IATA Position on PBN
 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
5
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
6
Airlines continue to acquire or equip existing aircraft
with improved and more capable avionics, but based on sound
Cost-Benefit Analysis
7
The use of satellite technology has allowed the aviation industry
to move away from its dependence upon ground based navigation systems
Current Ground
Nav aids
and gain more airspace
RNAV
RNP
Waypoints
Seamless
Vertical
Path
“curved”
paths
Limited Design
Flexibility
Increased Airspace
Efficiency
8
Highly Optimized
Use of Airspace
Generic RNAV issues
 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
9
Generic RNP issues
 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
10
Specific comments on PBN
 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
11
All aircraft: SPY RW 24 SPL
12
Green: KLM 737 utilizing RF leg
13
KLM 737 aircraft only utilizing RF leg based on
ADS-B output
14
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
18
PBN and SESAR
 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
19
APPROACH PROCEDURES
Non Precision Approach
(NPA)
1.LOC
2. VOR
3. NDB
4. SRE
5. RNAV
6. Circling
Chart title:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
LOC
VOR
NDB
SRE
RNAV
Circling
Approach Procedure with
Vertical Guidance
(APV)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Precision Approach
(PA)
RNAV
APV/Baro-VNAV
APV I (GNSS-A vertical)
APV II (GNSS-A vertical)
RNP AR (with barometric
1.
2.
3.
4.
ILS
MLS
GLS
RNP?
or future GNSS vertical)
Chart title 1):
1-3: RNAV
Chart title:
1.
2.
3.
4.
(GNSS)
4: RNAV(RNP)
APV
between
PA and NPA
ILS
MLS
GLS
RNP?
1): Annotation
Minima line:
(MDA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
LOC or LLZ
VOR
NDB
SRE
LNAV
Circling
Minima line:
(DA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Minima line:
(DA)
LNAV/VNAV
LPV
LPV
RNP0.x
1.
2.
3.
4.
20
ILS
MLS
GLS
RNP?
of GNSS
indicates that the approach
procedure has been designed
according to GNSS obstacle
clearance criteria. DME/DME
update is not allowed.
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
21
AMC 20 xx EASA OPS Approval
APV/Baro-VNAV
 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
22
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
23
Cooperation & Harmonisation
is a MUST
ICAO
States
State Aviation Organisations
CIVIL / Military
European Commission
Airspace Users
Service providers
Airports
Aerospace industry
Standardisation-Bodies
Research and development
organisations
24