The PROuD project - Flying into the future with the PBN flight procedures

Stefano Bonelli

Human Factors expert, Deep Blue

Flying into the future

The PROuD Project

Casa dell’Aviatore, Rome

30th September 2016

Introduction

• Nowadays, many critical services, such as Helicopter Emergency Medical Service

(HEMS) and Search and Rescue (SAR), are carried out in very challenging

environments, requiring helicopters to often fly in adverse weather conditions and in

unfavourable contexts (e.g. mountainous areas, urban environments).

2

Introduction

• In many cases, helicopters are not supported by any navigation aid, as small airports

and landing sites are not equipped with ground based facilities enabling

instrument flight.

3

• Pilots mainly fly visually, thus

limiting the number of missions

that can be completed

successfully when visibility is

low.

Project Summary

4

• The PROuD project is one of the 15 Large Scale Demonstration projects that have

been selected by the SESAR JU (SJU), the public-private partnership responsible for

coordinating ATM research & development in Europe.

• SJU Call for Proposal for Large Scale Demonstration activities (2014-2016), Lot2:

“Precision Arrival and Departure Procedures” bringing safety and economic

improvements to small size airports and heliports already applying or implementing

satellite rotorcraft operations.

Project Summary - Objectives

5

• The objective was to demonstrate, in a live trial

environment, how the adoption of PBN flight procedures

improves the safety and reliability of operations and

landing site accessibility in challenging environments.

– Provide instrument approach capabilities to locations where

conventional navigation facilities are not available

– Enable continued access to heliports in difficult to reach areas

during reduced visibility conditions

– Guarantee the continuity of vital services such as patients’

transport and mountain rescue, enhancing safety and saving

costs for communities.

Project Summary - Consortium

6

IDS Ingegneria Dei Sistemi S.p.A - Consortium coordinator

Management activities, Helicopter RNP procedures design, data analysis and

reporting

Swiss Air-Rescue (Rega) - HEMS operator

Ground and flight procedure validation, avionics DB preparation, flight campaign

plan and execution, flight data collection

Deep Blue - Dissemination Leader

Communication management, human performance and safety assessment,

data analysis and reporting

Norsk Luftambulanse (NLA) - HEMS rotorcraft operator

Ground and flight procedure validation, avionics DB preparation, flight

campaign plan and execution, flight data collection

Skyguide - Swiss Air Navigation Services Provider

Procedures design and validation, CNS engineering, safety assessment of

ATM aspects

https://www.idscorporation.com/

http://www.rega.ch/

http://www.norskluftambulanse.no/

http://www.dblue.it/

http://www.skyguide.ch/

Project Summary - Consortium

7

The European HEMS & Air Ambulance Committee and the European Helicopter Association contributed to PROuD, representing relevant airspace users

Project Summary – 3 Phases

8

Procedures design and validation

PROuD developed new instrument approach and departure procedures

for specific sites in Europe

Flight trials

The designed procedures have been flown by REGA and NLA helicopters

During flights, information about flight performances, EGNOS coverage

reliability and human performance have been collected.

Data analysis and results

Based on data gathered during the trials, PROuD assessed the impact of

the new procedures on selected Key Performance Areas and compared

them with current operations performances

Project Summary – 1.Design&Validation

• Procedures design

– IDS

– Skyguide

• Procedures validation

– Rega

– NLA

Project Summary – 2.Flight Trials

10

Switzerland (two campaigns) Norway (one campaign)

Project Summary – 3.Data analysis

• Key Performance Areas

– Safety

– Accessibility

– Availability

– Predictability

– Efficiency

– Environmental Sustainability

– Impact on Human Performance

• Results

– Per procedure type

– Per scenario

Agenda of the day

12

Start End Title Main presenter

10.00 10.20 Welcome and coffee

10.20 10.40 Introduction to the PROuD project Deep Blue

10.40 10.55 SESAR Demonstration Projects - Overview SESAR

10.55 11.15 Necessities, Challenges and Opportunities Rega

11.15 11.35 PROuD demonstration scenarios and objectives IDS

11.35 11.50 Summary of results per operational solution: Deep Blue

11.50 12.00 Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure


12.10 12.20 PinS Departure

12.20 12.30 Low-Level IFR Routes

12.30 13.30 Lunch

13.30 13.40 Swiss scenarios: Skyguide

13.40 13.55 Flight procedures design IDS

13.55 14.05 Flight procedures design (Samedan) Skyguide

14.05 14.20 Flight campaigns & demonstration results Deep Blue

14.20 14.35 Flight track analysis results (Samedan) Skyguide

14.35 14.45 Next Steps Skyguide

14.45 14.55 Supporting ground equipment IDS

14.55 15.05 Norwegian scenarios: NLA


15.20 15.35 Flight campaign & demonstration results Deep Blue

15.35 15.45 Next Steps NLA

15.45 16.00 Conclusions and recommendations IDS+Skyguide+NLA

16.00 16.20 Open discussion on demonstration results

16.20 17.00 Coffee and networking

Start End Title Main presenter

10.00 10.20 Welcome and coffee

10.20 10.40 Introduction to the PROuD project Deep Blue

10.40 10.55 SESAR Demonstration Projects - Overview SESAR

10.55 11.15 Necessities, Challenges and Opportunities Rega

11.15 11.35 PROuD demonstration scenarios and objectives IDS

11.35 11.50 Summary of results per operational solution: Deep Blue



12.10 12.20 PinS Departure

12.20 12.30 Low-Level IFR Routes

12.30 13.30 Lunch

13.30 13.40 Swiss scenarios: Skyguide


13.55 14.05 Flight procedures design (Samedan) Skyguide

14.05 14.20 Flight campaigns & demonstration results Deep Blue

14.20 14.35 Flight track analysis results (Samedan) Skyguide

14.35 14.45 Next Steps Skyguide

14.45 14.55 Supporting ground equipment IDS

14.55 15.05 Norwegian scenarios: NLA


15.20 15.35 Flight campaign & demonstration results Deep Blue

15.35 15.45 Next Steps NLA

15.45 16.00 Conclusions and recommendations IDS+Skyguide+NLA

16.00 16.20 Open discussion on demonstration results

16.20 17.00 Coffee and networking

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

ANY QUESTIONS?

Overview

SESAR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Common objectives

accelerating the operational acceptance and the industrialisation of the SESAR solutions

capitalising on the SESAR delivery approach by going beyond the SESAR validation activities (V3)

de-risking future operations/approval by involving authorities

to confirm the interoperability of SESAR Solutions

raise awareness regarding SESAR activities related to ATM performance issues and their results

Or in more practical terms …

Each project shall:

identify and report the environmental, safety, capacity and economic benefits that the adoption of the demonstrated solution will bring to air transport;

allow for the performance of a maximum amount of flight trials (with a minimum of 50 flight trials per targeted focus area) in order to be able to draw stable conclusions;

highlight the solution advantages compared to the current situation, paving the way towards implementation;

provide any necessary feedback to related SESAR deliverables; provide additional inputs to related standardization activities; raise awareness regarding SESAR activities related to ATM

performance issues and their results: ‘Seeing is believing’

The execution of the live trials has to be considered as a full “Proof of Concept”

Required safety arguments and/or safety assessments have to

be specifically documented, comprising contingency procedures and reversion to conventional modes of operation where

applicable

The necessary agreements with EASA and the affected National Authorities, as well as the required approvals or permissions

have to be set up and documented

Important

Covering a number of key operational focus areas, now also focusing on bringing change into complexity areas

Arrival Departure

OPD Budapest

Rise PROuD

iSTREAM Augmented

Approaches to Land

Surface Surface

E-CRA

RACOON Remote Towers

RTO

En Route Oceanic En Route

Free Solutions Pegase

Toplink 1 Toplink 2

EVA

Thanks for your attention

7

Demonstration projects in total…

Traffic synchronisation covers all aspects related to improving arrival/departure management and sequence building in en route and TMA environments. It aims to achiev an optimum traffic sequence

8

Project name Domain Topic

iStream Airport and NOP TTA

E-CRA Airport A-CDM

Augmented Approaches to Land Airport GBAS/SBAS & SVGS advanced procedures, EFVS Advanced procedures

RACOON Airport Remote Tower

Remote Towers Airport Remote Tower

RTO Airport Remote Tower

Optimised Descent Profiles (OPD) TMA CDO

Budapest 2.0 TMA RNP

RISE TMA RNP

PROuD TMA PBN

Free Solutions En-route and NOP Free Route

Pegase En-route SWIM, ADS-C EPP

Toplink - L1 En-route SWIM

Toplink - L2 En-route SWIM - MET and AIM

EVA En-route and NOP Low cost surveillance equipment

PROuD – PBN Rotorcraft Operations under Demonstration

OBJECTIVE:

The demonstration proposes to enhance rotorcraft operations, particularly for HEMS flights, by the implementation of PBN approaches for arrivals, departures and connection to low-level IFR routes. A programme of a minimum of 80 flight tests, in Switzerland and Norway, with a view to demonstrating improved safety, availability and weather resilience.

Routes and procedures designed for this demonstration will remain operational after the demonstration finishes.

Validation result used as input for to the project:

•“Optimised 2D/3D Routes”

– PCP AF#1 (Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based Operations consists of the implementation of environmental friendly procedures for arrival/departure and approach using PBN in high-density TMAs)

– Solution#10, Solution#103

PARTNERS

The consortium is led by IDS Ingegneria dei Sistemi S.p.A and consist of Swiss Air-Rescue (Rega), Norsk Luftambulanse (NLA), Skyguide and Deep Blue Srl (DBL)

Budapest 2.0 - LOT 2

OBJECTIVE: The proposal seeks to demonstrate 3 elements of SESAR activities:

1. Use of ‘merge-strip’ to assist with CDA/CCD.

2. Implementation of RNP procedures at Budapest airport

3. Implementation of Remote Tower operations at Budapest.

The team includes technical, operational, ground and air stakeholders and the proposal is clearly defined, with links to the SESAR programme. They have a solid communications plan.


Budapest 2.0 will demonstrate, - not limited to the actual scope within the SESAR Programme - , a set of solutions and concepts of operations for Small/Medium Size Airport users and stakeholders such as:

•MergeStrip

•RNP

•Remote Towers

PARTNERS

The consortium is led by Pildo Labs (Pildo Consulting S.L.) and consists of Hungarocontrol, Wizzair Air Hungary Airlines, Jetstream LLC, Slot Consulting and UPC

RISE - LOT 2

OBJECTIVE: This tender proposes a programme to define, test and demonstrate RNP procedures at 10 airports in Greece, France, Cyprus and the Azores. More than 160 flight trials are foreseen.

Full engagement will be undertaken with the regulator, airlines and service providers, using formal procedure design and safety processes.

The aim is to break the ‘chicken and egg’ situation where neither airlines nor airports/ANSPs are willing to commit till there is wider commitment from other stakeholders


•OFA 02.01.01: “Optimised 2D/3D Routes”

•OFA 02.02.04: “Approach procedures with vertical guidance ”

PARTNERS

The consortium is led by Airbus Prosky and consists of DCAC, Nova Airlines AB, TAP Portugal, DSNA, NAV Portugal, HCAA and Société Air France

Carla Menciotti

Project Manager, IDS

Francesco De Santis

Services Dept Manager, IDS

PROuD Demonstration scenarios and

objectives

Rome

30/09/2016

PROuD operational solutions overview

• PinS RNP approach procedure with LPV minimum/a

• Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure

• PinS Departure

• Low-Level IFR Routes


What is a Flight Procedure? A trade-off solution that (tries) to combine and optimize…

• Flight Safety;

• User expectations (air and land sides);

• Environmental constraints (geographic, weather conditions, pollution

level, fuel consumption, populated area, airspaces…);

• (available) Technology;

• ATC & Pilot needs and workloads;

• Efficient use of the airspace;

• …


What a Flight Procedure represents? The best synthesis of such “ingredients” in terms of established

sequence of route segments that links established fixes that must be

flown within specific altitude values (not above and not below).

How? Choosing the IFP design criteria that best fits such “ingredients”

• Flight Safety;

• User expectations (air and land sides);

• Environmental constraints (geographic, weather

conditions, pollution level, fuel consumption,

populated area, airspaces…);

• (available) Technology;

• ATC & Pilot needs and workloads;

• Efficient use of the airspace;

• …

ICAO PBN

PinS RNP approach procedure with LPV

minimum/a

PinS: Point in Space → Mapt:

• Last point along the IMC portion of the

IFP before enter into VMC portion.

• It can be placed “everywhere”..

• Specific for helicopter IFP

LPV minimum/a:

• Lower altitude reachable along the final

segment.

• Horizontal & Vertical navigation

• GNSS based


minimum/a

+ +

+ + + =


minimum/a

Landed…

Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure RNP AR:

• Based on high level RNP capabilities required

by the helicopter, pilot, ATC and Nav. Sig.

Supplier;

• Reduced width for the protection

areas/surfaces;

• Requires Barometric and RF capabilities;

• Temperature effect

• Full IMC/IFR IFP

DA “minimum/a”:

• Lower altitude reachable along the final

segment.

• Horizontal & Vertical navigation

• GNSS based

• No Standard for Cat H

Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure

PinS Departure

PinS Departure Visual Seg. →

IDF:

• Equivalent to PinS APCH but the first

segment is in VMC condition, then

IMC.

• It can be placed “everywhere”..

• Specific for helicopter IFP

Proceed visually:

• Direct Visual

• Maneuvering Visual

• Proceed VFR

• GNSS based

Low-Level IFR Routes

Low-Level IFR Route:

Dedicated network of low level IFR routes

optimized for helicopter operations.

These routes integrated into the airspace

system utilizes flight levels where icing

conditions are not normally experienced

and where a pressurized cabin or oxygen

would not be required.

Design rules:

• Equivalent to the SID/STAR/APCH

• Only IMC/IFR

• GNSS based

PROuD Demonstration scenarios

• Swiss scenarios – Samedan (LSZS) airport area

– Chur (LSHC) hospital area

– Switzerland area for simulated IFR heliport to hospital connection

between Samedan and Chur

• Norwegian scenarios – Lørenskog (ENLX) heliport area

– Ullevål (ENUH) heliport area

Swiss scenario - Samedan airport area

Samedan airport is situated in the Engadine valley and is surrounded by a mountainous region. It is the

highest elevated airport in Europe (elevation 5.600ft AMSL) and it represents one of the Rega bases.

Reference scenario

• At Samedan airport only VFR operations are currently allowed for both fixed wing and rotary wing

aircraft.

• No IFR approach procedure is available, IMC approaches are prohibited.

Samedan airport overview: direction south-west

(picture is provided by the Samedan Airport Authority)

Solution scenario

• RNP AR APCH in Samedan airport

with RNP navigation accuracy

requirement 0.1 NM along the initial,

intermediate and final segments, and

0.3 NM respect 1 NM for the missed

approach;

• PinS non-standard departure in

Samedan.

Swiss scenario - Chur hospital area

The hospital is situated in the Chur Rhine valley and is surrounded by a mountainous region. In terms

of number of HEMS movements, Chur hospital ranks amongst the top 3 hospitals in Switzerland.

Chur Hospital (picture is provided by REGA)

Reference scenario

At the Chur hospital, only rotary wing VFR

operations are currently possible. Neither an

IFR approach nor an IFR departure

procedure is available.

Solution scenario

• PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum

• PinS departure procedure

Swiss scenario – Switzerland area

between Samedan and Chur Valleys between Samedan and Chur are separated by mountain ridges exceeding 11’000ft AMSL.

The distance between Samedan airport and Chur hospital is approximately 24 NM.

Samedan airport and Chur hospital sites overview (source: Google)

Reference scenario

No IFR routes available for helicopters in that

region.

Solution scenario

Implementation of a connection between

Samedan Airport and the Chur hospital

landing site through Low-Level IFR Route,

linking the PBN approach and departure

procedures to/from Samedan airport and

Chur hospital.

Norwegian scenario - Lørenskog heliport area

The heliport is located in the Southern of Norway where a low level routing structure exists for use by the

Norwegian Air Ambulance to connect hospital heliports throughout the region.

Lørenskog heliport is the home base for two of the helicopters of NLA fleet. These serve approximately

35% of the Norwegian population when it comes to severe injuries such as brain traumas, cardiac arrest.

Lørenskog position

Reference scenario

• NLA operations are currently conducted in

IFR/IMC conditions and already use PinS

approach procedures with LNAV minima

for approach course 025°.

Solution scenario

• RNP APCH PinS approach procedures

with LPV minima, with approach standard

gradient (GPA≤6.3°) for the arrival and

approach segments;

• PinS departure with the adoption of the

0.3 Navigation Specification

Norwegian scenario - Ullevål heliport area

The heliport is located in the Southern of Norway where a low level routing structure exists for use by the

Norwegian Air Ambulance to connect hospital heliports throughout the region.

Ullevål heliport (ICAO code ENUH) is the national trauma hospital for southern parts of Norway and is

the delivery site for 5 EMS helicopters in addition to military rescue helicopters when it comes to severe

injuries.

Reference scenario

NLA operations are currently conducted in

IFR/IMC conditions and already use two PinS

approach procedures with LNAV minima for

approach course 279° and 070°. One is

proceed visually and one is proceed VFR.

Solution scenario

RNP APCH PinS approach procedures with

LPV minima, with approach standard gradient

(GPA≤6.3°). A different direction (final

approach track 350°) was chosen. Ullevål position

PROuD operational solutions

• PinS RNP approach procedure with LPV minimum/a

– at Chur hospital – Switzerland

– at Lørenskog heliport – Norway

– at Ullevål heliport – Norway

• Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure

– at Samedan airport – Switzerland

• PinS Departure

– at Samedan airport (“non-standard”) – Switzerland

– at Chur hospital – Switzerland

– at Lørenskog heliport – Norway

• Low-Level IFR Routes

– between Samedan airport and Chur hospital

PROuD objectives

• Demonstrate how PinS RNP APCH to LPV minima, helicopter RNP AR APCH, PinS departure

procedures allow the implementation of IFR operations in small non-IFR airports/heliports

located in challenging environment;

• Contribute to adopt RNP 0.3 and RF leg capability for missed approach segments;

• Evaluate the improvement in overall airspace usage of gate to gate rotorcraft IFR flights,

connecting the PBN approaches and departures with Low-Level IFR Routes;

• Contribute to the evaluation and standardization of ICAO PANS OPS amendments for flight

procedure design criteria for LPV PinS approach procedures [GPA > 6.3°].

PROuD objectives and KPAs Four types of procedures and several phases of flight have been assessed within the PROuD

project, aiming at demonstrating the real operational and safety benefits for HEMS operators.

The following KPAs have been addressed and for each KPA, a set of KPI has been used to

qualitatively and quantitatively estimate the benefits by introducing of the new PBN procedures.

• Safety (phases of flight)

• Accessibility (all phases of flight)

• Environmental Sustainability (all phases of flight)

• Efficiency (in all phases of flight)

• Efficiency and service availability (heliport-to-hospital)

• Predictability (heliport-to-hospital)

• HP (Operating methods) (approach/ departure)

• HP (Pilots' task performance) (all phases of flight)

• HP (Performance of the technical system) (Arrival-Approach)


ANY QUESTIONS?

Stefano Bonelli

Human Factors Expert, Deep Blue

Summary of results per

operational solution


30th September 2016

Project overall results – Data collection

– On board adaptations

• REGA Helicopter – Flight Inspection equipment

– ADS-B transponder

• NLA Helicopter – Flight validation equipment

– On-ground equipment – Samedan Airport

• GNSS Operative Monitoring Equipment (GNOME) System

• APM tool – Approach Path Monitoring tool

– Observations

– Questionnaire and analysis tool

– Debriefings

– Weather data analysis

Project overall results – Impact on SAFETY

– Significant safety improvements have been identified, especially in bad

weather conditions and during night operations.

Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on safety

respect to current procedures.

– Flight Track adherence: performances compliant with PBN

requirements -> Example: Samedan approaches

Project overall results – Impact on SAFETY

According to PBN manual ([5] - see 6.3.3.2.3), all aircraft operating on RNP AR APCH procedure

must have a cross-track TSE navigation error no greater than the applicable RNP navigation

accuracy requirement (0.1 NM to 0.3 NM) for 95 per cent of the flight time.

– Both the possibility to take off and land are enhanced, thanks

to the reduced minima. In IMC, the procedures contribute to

the increase of inter-hospital transfers and HEMS operations.

Project overall results – Impact on OPERATIONS

* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on possibility

to land and take off and predictability of Low-Level IFR Routes respect to current procedures.

– Meteo data analysis: how much difference in the

possibility to operate would be experienced if the new

procedures were used instead of the current ones in the

past 4 years? Source: METARs.

– Example:

Lørenskog approach (RNP APCH PinS approach

with LPV minima

with GPA < 6.3°)


DAY

VFR

– Visibility: 800 m

– Ceiling: No ceiling (up to 2500ft)

LNAV


– Ceiling 544 ft

LPV


– Ceiling: 374 ft


Analysis of meteo data from Oslo, Gardermoen (ENGM), close to Lørenskog: number of 2012-

2015 METAR reports with visibility and ceiling conditions respecting day and night minima for the

VFR procedures, LNAV procedures and the new RNP APCH PinS approach with LPV minima

vs VFR + 26,38% + 44,48%

vs LNAV + 2,90% + 16,62%

– The changes introduced by the new procedures did not impact

pilots’ performance. Crew workload and situation awareness

remained within acceptable levels.

Project overall results – Impact on

PILOTS’ PERFORMANCE

* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on workload, respect to current ones


PILOTS’ PERFORMANCE

* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on situation

awareness respect to current procedures.

– The changes in operating methods introduced by the new

procedures do not have a negative impact on the flight

operations. The feasibility, consistency and acceptability

remain in a range of acceptable values.


OPERATING METHODS

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

Operating methods

* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on operating

methods respect to current procedures.


ANY QUESTIONS?

Advanced Helicopter procedures The Swiss scenarios – The ANSP

Final Communication Event

1

Laurent Delétraz skyguide, DDS

IFP Expert

30.09.2016

2

History & Present

99,91%

29 %

7 %

3

Airspace and locations

movies/24hSwiss.m4v

Value chain

4

5

PBN is a key enabler for HEMS operations

› RNP 0.3 all phases of flight

En-route

Point-in space approach

Point-in-Space departure

RNP 0.3 Initial, intermediate, final and missed approach

› RNP AR

May be required for challenging environment

PROuD SESAR Demonstration project

6

RNP 0.3 Low Flight Network WEF JUN 2015

7

LPV PinS Approach & Departure Supports today the Insel Hospital Bern

8

RNP 0.3 missed approach PinS Cloud break procedure WEF OCT 2015

Helicopter Approach in Fog • From VFR on top • To Special VFR below the clouds • Full IFR final approach and missed

approach • 8° Flight path angle • Rega SFOCA Ops Approval • AW109SP (2xSBAS)

PROuD Flight Trials - Switzerland

The Swiss trials specifically demonstrated

the benefits of the usage of :

- newly designed RNP APCH AR and

PinS approach procedures, PinS

departures and RNP 0.3 Low Flight

Network connecting Samedan and Chur

sites

- an innovative ground-based safety net

based on ADS-B for improving

awareness for ground operators and

reduce CFIT probability

Swiss first trial campaign, executed in

July 2015, provided important preliminary

output supporting future evaluation by the

Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation

(FOCA) for the use of IFR procedures in

class-G uncontrolled airspace.

9

10

RNP 0.1 Flight trials at Samedan

TSE : < 10m !

Francesco De Santis


Swiss Scenarios:

Flight procedures design

Rome

30/09/2016

Swiss Scenarios: Flight procedures design

Swiss scenarios: • Samedan (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach and Departure)

• Chur hospital (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach and Departure)

• Chur ↔ Samedan (RNAV/RNP GNSS Low-Level IFR Routes)

Samedan airport and Chur hospital sites overview (source: Google)

Swiss Scenario: Samedan

High Complexity

Source: Google


High Complexity (pool scenario)

≈ 10k ft

≈ 9k-10k ft

≈ 5.6k ft

≈ 7k-8k ft ≈ 8k-9k ft

≈ 10k ft

≈ 8k-9k ft

Source: Google


High Complexity (pool scenario)

Approach phase

Missed Approach

Samedan Airport

Source: Google


APCH initial target: PinS RNP approach to LPV minimum

Design requirements: • Calculate an LPV minima based on the SBAS APV design techniques;

• Use the standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments

(Initial/Intermediate/M.A.);

Source: ICAO PANS OPS


Four attempts - #1: “Extended” SBAS APV OAS IAF#1

• customized SBAS APV OAS to a GPA 9°.

OAS on final segment, have been “limited”

at FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)

• Final Course: M38.423° (+11.229° offset)

• FHP: @5600’ - 800 meters from

PinS/MAPt – 1.93 NM from HRP.

• FHPCH (Height on FHP): ≈1855’

• GPA (FAF – PinS/MAPt): 9° - FAF +9500’

@ 4 NM from HRP.

• VSDA (PinS/MAPt – HRP): ≈9°

• FPAP: @ Fictitious opposite HRP

• GARP: @ 305 m from FPAP

• M.A. CG: 6%.

• Minima set to 7870’ (DH 2270’)

• MAPt @ 2.36 NM from HRP

• RDH set to 50’

• VSDA = 8.81°

• HRP – MAPt= 038° Mag

Sou

rce:

Goo

gle


Four attempts - #2: “Extended” SBAS APV OAS IAF#2

• Extended SBAS APV OAS to a GPA 9°.

OAS on final segment, have been “limited”

at FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)



PinS/MAPt – 1.93 NM from HRP.



@ 3.74 NM from HRP.




• M.A. CG: 6%.




• VSDA = 8.81°


Sou

rce:

Goo

gle


Four attempts - #3: “Extended” GBAS OAS IAF#1

• Extended GBAS OAS to a GPA 9°. OAS

on final segment, have been “limited” at

FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)



PinS/MAPt - 1.49 NM from HRP.



@ 4.0 NM from HRP.




• M.A. CG: 6%.




• VSDA = 8.77°


Sou

rce:

Goo

gle


Four attempts - #4: “Extended” GBAS OAS IAF#2

• Extended GBAS OAS to a GPA 9°. OAS

on final segment, have been “limited” at

FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)



PinS/MAPt - 1.49 NM from HRP.



@ 3.74 NM from HRP.




• M.A. CG: 6%.




• VSDA = 8.77°


Sou

rce:

Goo

gle


Trade-Off Solution → RNP AR applied to Cat H

• No PinS technique

• No LPV minimum

• Cat H approx. as Cat A

• RNP AR capability (down to 0.1)

• RF turn capability




6. M.A. left not

finalized for

operational evaluations

1. RNP values and RF

turn allowed to apply a

«snake» approach and

enter into the «pool»

2. Final Track not

aligend with RWY to

reduce the minimum due

to the terrain elevation

on east side

3. Steep approach

applied thanks to cat H

4. 150’ std HL for Cat H

rounded up to 130’ due

to hight field elevation

5. Transition form

final RNP to M.A.

RNP with a new

formula



1. Lower FAF

3. Optmiized minimum

but high M.A.CG

2. Range of

appicable

Temperature

calcaulted by

«enginnering»

assumptions

4. «Std» RDH


Design requirements: • Standard RNAV/RNP (GNSS) PinS;

• Use the standard protection area;

Departure initial target: PinS Departure Proceed Visually



Several attempts to avoid Prot. Areas penetrations - #1: Aligned, with 10% CG

Direct Visual Segment:

• CG = 10%

• IDF= DEP01

• MCA 6213.86’

• Length 1NM

• Course= 207 Mag

• Penetration: NO

TF to DEP02:

• CG = 10%

• Altitude= 7429.48’

• Length = 2NM

• Course= 207 Mag

• Penetration: YES

TF to DEP03:

• CG = 10%


• Length = 4NM

• Course= 207 Mag


Source: Google


Several attempts to avoid Prot. Areas penetrations - #2: Aligned, with std. CG

Direct Visual Segment:

• CG = 5%

• IDF= DEP01

• MCA 5906.93

• MCH= 306.93

• Length 1NM

• Course= 207 Mag


TF to DEP02:

• CG = 5%


• Length = 2NM

• Course= 207 Mag


TF to DEP03:

• CG = 5%


• Length = 4NM

• Course= 207 Mag


Same results with:

• Aligned CG 15%

• Offset 13%

• … Source: Google


“Trade-Off” Solution → Inherited RNP AR concepts for protection areas

• Std. RNAV/RNP PinS Dep up to the

Lower min CG

• “simulated RNP AR” technique (only

primary area based on RNP 0.3)

• No Obst. Assessment on secondary

areas


1. Standard Visual

Segment, but high CG

value

2. 10000’ top level for

operational requirement

(ice effect)



1. Standard Visual

Segment, but high CG

value


Swiss Scenario: Chur

Medium Complexity

Source: Google


≈ 6k-7k ft

≈ 9k-10k ft ≈ 2k ft

≈ 7k ft

≈ 7k-8k ft

≈ 5k-6k ft

Medium Complexity (but still pool scenario)

≈ 6k ft

≈ 5k-7k ft

≈ 4k ft

Source: Google


Approach phase

Missed Approach

Chur hospital

Medium Complexity (but still pool scenario)

Source: Google


APCH target: PinS RNP approach to LPV minimum

Design requirements: • Calculate an LPV minima based on the SBAS APV design techniques;

• Use the Standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments




APCH target: PinS RNP approach to LPV minimum → OK



1. Proceed Visually

2. No RF required

3. High M.A.CG required

4. No issues along init/inter.



2. No std. Approach gradient

4. Minimum not so low

4. «Std» RDH


Design requirements: • Standard RNAV/RNP (GNSS) PinS;

• Use the Standard protection area;




DEP initial target: PinS DEP Proceed Visually → OK





Swiss Scenario: LLR Samedan ↔ Chur

Same Complexity (but no need to swim)

Source: Google

Route target: based on RNP 0.3 ATS route

Design requirements: • Calculate minima based Standard RNP0.3




Route target: based on RNP 0.3 ATS route → OK

Chur → Samedan

Samedan → Chur

Source: Google

Source: Google


ANY QUESTIONS?

Flight procedure design RNP AR APCH Samedan – Second campaign

Final Communication Event

1

M. Nyffenegger, skyguide, OOLZ

IFP Expert

30.09.2016

RNP AR APCH Samedan – First campaign

› Procedure complexity

› Design compliance issues

› No approach available from the north

› Missed approach with "dead end"

› Publication in AIP standard

2

RNP AR APCH Samedan – Second campaign

Location Samedan (Rega Base)

Program

User Rega (AW109SP)

Procedure type Trial helicopter instrument approach procedure

Procedure name RNAV (RNP) RWY 03/21

Navigation specification RNP AR APCH

Navigation accuracy

requirement

0.3 NM (where possible)

0.1 NM (where required)

Navigation sensors/

augmentation

GNSS/RAIM

Required functionality RF, Baro-VNAV, "no single point of failure"

3

RNAV (RNP) RWY 03 LSZS – Plan view

4

RNAV (RNP) RWY 03 LSZS – Profile view

5

RNAV (RNP) RWY 21 LSZS – Plan view

6

RNAV (RNP) RWY 21 LSZS – Profile view

7

RNAV (RNP) RWY 03/21 LSZS – Missed approach

8

RNAV (RNP) RWY 21 LSZS - Video

9

LSZS APP RNAV 21 – Approach incl. partial MA.ppsx

Stefano Bonelli


Swiss scenarios: Flight campaigns &

demonstration results


30th September 2016

Exercises execution

2

Exercise Country Scenario PROuD Procedure Number of trials

EXE-02.09-D-001 Switzerland Samedan airport

(SCN-0209-001) RNP AR APCH

14 flights (first campaign) and

11 flights (second campaign)

using the helicopter and 2

flights using the FFS

EXE-02.09-D-002 Switzerland Samedan airport

(SCN-0209-001) PinS “non-standard” departure

13 flights using the helicopter

and 2 flights using the FFS

EXE-02.09-D-003 Switzerland

Samedan/Chur

airport to hospital

(SCN-0209-002)

Low-level IFR routes 12 flights using the Helicopter


EXE-02.09-D-007

Switzerland

Chur hospital

(SCN-0209-005)

PinS RNP APCH to LPV

minimum



EXE-02.09-D-008

Switzerland

Chur hospital

(SCN-0209-005) PinS departure



69 Flights

+ 10 Simulated Flights

Demonstration objectives

3

• Investigate the impact of the new procedures on SESAR Key Performance Areas

• The reference was current operations

• Demonstration Objectives are considered meet when there is an improvement respect

to current operations (e.g. Safety) or there is no negative impact (e.g. crew workload)

• Otherwise they are considered as not meet.

PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum/a (Chur)

• Results highlights for selected KPA

4

Objective ID KPA Result of the demonstration

OBJ-0209-002

Safety The results confirmed a positive impact in terms of several indicators used for the assessment.

OBJ-0209-004 Accessibility The results confirmed the accessibility is increased respect to the existing procedures.

OBJ-0209-006 Environmental Sustainability The flight track for the PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum procedure is longer compared to VFR approach; the environmental impact is not reduced but the accessibility to the airport will increase in bad weather and HEMS service availability.

OBJ-0209-008 Efficiency The results showed that, limited to VMC. PinS approach procedures are less efficient in terms of flight time, compared to VFR flights.

Nevertheless this new procedure is an additional solution to permit life-saving flights in IMC as it ensures the approach operation in emergencies /catastrophic situations from an additional direction and with also lower minima.

Helicopter RNP AR APCH (Samedan)

5


OBJ-0209-102 Safety Slight increase of safety level. New procedures are considered safer than the current ones are especially marginal weather situations and night operations.

OBJ-0209-010

Accessibility New procedure will permit to fly through a cloud or fog layer, when there are bad weather conditions thus improving site accessibility.

OBJ-0209-106 Environmental Sustainability

The flight track for the RNP AR procedure is longer and the approach speed is slower compared to VFR approach. The environmental impact is not reduced but the accessibility to and from the airport will increase in bad weather.

OBJ-0209-108

Efficiency The new procedure has a negative impact on efficiency, as the IFR approach requires more miles to be flown and takes more time with respect to current VFR operations.

Nevertheless, pilots will be able to operate in adverse weather conditions, thus increasing the number of missions performed.

PinS Departure (Chur, standard and Samedan, non standard)

6


OBJ-0209-011

Safety The average results confirmed a slight positive impact in terms of several indicators used for the assessment.

For Samedan Departure, taking into account that non-standard design criteria have been adopted, safety implications and additional potential hazards need to be properly deepened.

OBJ-0209-012 Availability The increase of the availability for all the sites under assessment has been demonstrated.

OBJ-0209-013

Environmental Sustainability

The flight track for the PinS departure is longer than VFR one; the environmental impact is not reduced, but the availability of the airport will increase in bad weather and HEMS service availability is improved.

OBJ-0209-014

Efficiency Compared to VFR flights PinS departure procedure is less efficient in terms of flight time, limited to VMC conditions, with regard to the aviation view. Nevertheless these new procedures are often the only solution to permit life-saving flights in IMC.

Low-Level IFR Routes (Chur <-> Samedan)

7


OBJ-0209-116 Safety The results of the data analysis demonstrate that, the implementation of the Low Level IFR Route is expected to increase the safety level with respect to the current VFR operations mainly in bad visibility conditions.

OBJ-0209-015 Service availability IFR connection provides the possibility to operate also in bad weather conditions, thus significantly increase the HEMS service availability, in particular in bad weather conditions, increasing the number of saved lives.

OBJ-0209-016 Predictability The results demonstrated that IFR GNSS navigation allows to increase the adherence to the nominal path and the possibility to precisely calculate the time needed to perform heliport to heliport HEMS operations.

Impact on Pilots’ Performance

8

Objective ID

KPA Success Criterion / Expected Benefit Result of the demonstration Phase of Flight

OBJ-0209-017

Operating methods

Feasibility, consistency and acceptability of the changes of the current operating methods with the introduction of the new procedures, with respect to existing operating methods in relation to the overall environment, are expected to be within acceptable margins.

No negative impact on the flight operations. Feasibility, consistency and acceptability remain in admissible margins.

Approach/ Departure

OBJ-0209-018

Pilots' task

performance

Errors and untimely actions related to the new concept as well as the level of workload and situational awareness are expected to be within acceptable margins.

Errors and untimely actions related to the new concept, the level of workload and situational awareness do not overcome the acceptable margins.

All

OBJ-0209-019

Expected impact of technical system

failure on HP

Pilot’s performance is expected to be within acceptable margins, even in case of degraded accuracy and timeliness of system information.

Technical hazards have been identified and mitigations proposed that will allow pilots’ performance to remain within acceptable margins in case of technical failures.

Arrival- Approach

Results Highlights - Samedan Approach First Campaign vs Second Campaign

• Samedan Approach (first campaign)

9

Questionnaires results for EXE-02.09-D-001 (Approach Samedan). Flight Trials Pilots' expected impact of the new procedures

on safety (subjective feedback), situation awareness and workload, compared with the current ones (answers' average).

• Main contribution to increased workload: different descent angles used along the legs of the

approach procedure before the FAF segment

• Samedan Approach (second campaign)

– WORKLOAD: 3/5 -> no impact respect to current situation


ANY QUESTIONS?

Marc Troller, Maurizio Scaramuzza

Skyguide

RNP AR APCH Track Analysis

Rome

30.09.2016

Avionics Data Recording

• Installation of miniQAR access

recorder

• Collection of GPS/SBAS, FMS

and AHRS data

• Determination of Navigation

System Flight Path and

Derivation of Flight Technical

Error (FTE)

2

Temporary Measurement Setup

• Temporary installation of

geodetic GPS/GLONASS

receiver

• Mounting of GNSS antenna

with vacuum cap to the

window

• Collection of independent

raw GPS/GLONASS data

• Determination of Actual

Flight Path and Derivation

of Total System Error (TSE)

3

4

Flight Paths and Errors

• Navigation system flight path: miniQAR data

• True flight path: JAVAD Sigma GNSS receiver

RNP 0.1 Procedure RWY 21 Samedan

5


6


7


8


9


10

Terrain RNP 0.1 Procedure Samedan

11

ZS703 ZS704 ZS705 ZS706 (FTP) ZS707 ZS708 ZS709

Azim

uth

[°]

0°

240°

60°

120°

180°

300°

360°

Ele

va

tio

n [°]

RNP 0.1 RWY 03 Samedan

Missed Approach

12

Partner logo

here


ANY QUESTIONS?

Giuseppe Di Bitonto

GNOME Product Manager, IDS

Swiss scenarios:

Supporting ground equipment

Rome

30/09/2016

• On-ground equipment installation

• GNOME system

• Approach Path Monitoring

• Flight trials main results

Agenda

On-Ground equipment Installation

Approach Path Monitoring

Samedan – July 2015

GNOME

4

5

GNSS Monitoring

GNSS performance assessment

GNSS Real-time

monitoring

GNSS interference monitoring

GNSS recording

Proposed changes to GNSS Manual (ICAO DOC 9849)

GNSS ddddconcept GNSS Monitoring Concept

6

The solution : GNOME

DF Antenna

GNOME Sentinel GNOME Sentinel main components:

• GNSS Antenna

• DF Antenna

• SDR Kernel (the core of the

GNOME sentinel)

• GNSS standard receiver

Distributed network of sentinels

…

GNSS Operative Monitoring Equipment

GNOME: Modes of operations

• Real-Time Inspector (RTI): live, continuous

visualization of performance analyses and integrity

alarms

• Virtual-Time Inspector (VTI): supports "post

incident/accident" investigations, play back data flow,

anomaly investigation

• Statistical Inspector (StI): processing of large

observation data sets (up to several months); generation

of long-term performance statistics

• GNSS Operational Display (GOSD): support to

operational personnel in determining GNSS procedures

usability (experimental)

all rights reserved 7

GNOME Modes of Operation

GNSS Monitoring

GNSS performance assessment

GNSS real-time monitoring

GNSS interference monitoring

GNSS recording

GNOME in GNSS Monitoring Concept

http://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/yes-symbol.html&ei=rdfIVNCbL6LvywOc4IHIAw&bvm=bv.84607526,d.bGQ&psig=AFQjCNHaT_HN4WVr3dJ-FnSF_Gxmzw7Q9w&ust=1422534957803809




Approach Path Monitoring

• APM (Approach Path Monitoring) is an experimental ground safety net to

support airport operators in small airports

• APM allows monitoring approaching aircraft and provides an RNP tunnel-

incident detection alarm in the case of tunnel infringement along the flight path,

using ADS-B data.

• APM tool was used during the

flight trial execution in Samedan

airport (July 2015) to monitor the

capabilities of the Rega

helicopter to remain within the

RNP 0.1 tunnel (July 2105)

Installation site

Main results (1/2)

Satellite tracks

Main results (2/2)


ANY QUESTIONS?

Norway procedures

CAA approval

Design process

Visual segment film

Operational use

• Integrated consept

• Departure

• Enroute

• Approach

What is next?

• Training

• Certification/airworthiness

• Validation prosess + validation equipment

• Approval

• Implementation

• ESSP working agreement

Wx reporting

• Visibility

• Cloud base

• Temperature

• Altimeter setting

• Fault monitoring

• Historic pictures

Francesco De Santis


Norwegian scenarios:

Flight procedures design

Rome

30/09/2016

Norwegian Scenarios: Flight procedures design

Norwegian scenarios: • Lørenskog (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach and Departure)

• Ullevål (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach)

Ullevål

Lørenskog

Norwegian Scenario: Lørenskog

Low Complexity but Urban Area

Source: Google



≈ 1k ft

≈ 800-1k ft ≈ 600 ft

≈ 500 ft

≈ 500 1k ft

≈ 800-900 ft

Source: Google



Lørenskog Airport

Source: Google

Approach phase

Missed Appr.


APCH initial target: PinS RNP APCH to LPV/LNAV minima

Design requirements: • Calculate an LPV minima based on SBAS APV and RNP APCH design

techniques;

• Use the standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments






5. Multiple Minima

4. RNAV PinS

1. T-Bar Schema

2. STAR transition

3. Std TAAs



1. Multiple Minima with

different M.A. CG

3. GPA 5° 2. STAR transitions

4. Final IFR and Visual Seg.

Not aligned

5. Manouvering Visual Seg



Design requirements were: • Standard RNAV/RNP (GNSS) PinS;

• Use the Standard protection area;







1. VMC condition for

Visual Seg. (main

penetrating obstacles)



Norwegian Scenario: Ullevål


Source: Google



≈ 1k ft

≈ 1k ft

≈ 300 ft

≈ 1k ft

≈ 400 1k ft

≈ 500 ft

Source: Google



Approach phase

Missed Appr.

Ullevål Airport

Source: Google


Design requirements were: • Calculate an LPV minima based on SBAS APV and RNP APCH design

techniques;

• Use the Standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments







5. Multiple Minima

4. RNAV PinS

1. T-Bar Schema

2. STAR transition

3. Std TAAs



1. Multiple Minima with

different M.A. CG

3. GPA 5.5° 4. Final IFR and Visual Seg.

Not aligned

5. Manouvering Visual Seg



ANY QUESTIONS?

Stefano Bonelli


Norwegian scenarios: Flight campaigns

& demonstration results


30th September 2016

Exercises execution

2

Exercise Country Scenario PROuD Procedure Number of trials

EXE-02.09-D-004 Norway Lørenskog heliport

(SCN-0209-003) PinS RNP APCH to LPV minima 11

EXE-02.09-D-005

Norway

Lørenskog heliport

(SCN-0209-003) PinS departure 6

EXE-02.09-D-006 Norway Ullevål heliport

(SCN-0209-004) PinS RNP APCH to LPV minima 11

28 Flights

Demonstration objectives

3

• Investigate the impact of the new procedures on SESAR Key Performance Areas

• The reference was current operations

• Demonstration Objectives are considered meet when there is an improvement respect

to current operations (e.g. Safety) or there is no negative impact (e.g. crew workload)

• Otherwise they are considered as not meet.

PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum/a (Lørenskog, Ullevål )

4


OBJ-0209-001

Safety The result is an increase of Safety level, of the new approach operations.

OBJ-0209-003 Accessibility Improvement of site accessibility.

OBJ-0209-005 Environmental Sustainability The new procedures did not allow more environmental friendly operations. IFR procedure generally includes more track miles. However the fact that the pilot can choose a direct routing in clouds instead of flying around the terrain when weather is below VFR minimum, can bring a benefit from an environmental point of view.

OBJ-0209-007 Efficiency The results showed that, limited to VMC. PinS approach procedures are less efficient in terms of flight time, compared to VFR flights.

Nevertheless this new procedure is an additional solution to permit life-saving flights in IMC as it ensures the approach operation in emergencies /catastrophic situations from an additional direction and with also lower minima.

PinS Departure (Lørenskog)

5


OBJ-0209-011

Safety The average results confirmed a slight positive impact in terms of several indicators used for the assessment.

OBJ-0209-012 Availability The increase of the availability for all the sites under assessment has been demonstrated.

OBJ-0209-013

Environmental Sustainability

The flight track for the PinS departure is longer than VFR one; the environmental impact is not reduced, but the availability of the airport will increase in bad weather and HEMS service availability is improved.

OBJ-0209-014

Efficiency Compared to VFR flights PinS departure procedure is less efficient in terms of flight time, limited to VMC conditions, with regard to the aviation view. Nevertheless these new procedures are often the only solution to permit life-saving flights in IMC.

Impact on Pilots’ Performance

6

Objective ID

KPA Success Criterion / Expected Benefit Result of the demonstration Phase of Flight

OBJ-0209-017

Operating methods

Feasibility, consistency and acceptability of the changes of the current operating methods with the introduction of the new procedures, with respect to existing operating methods in relation to the overall environment, are expected to be within acceptable margins.

No negative impact on the flight operations. Feasibility, consistency and acceptability remain in admissible margins.

Approach/ Departure

OBJ-0209-018

Pilots' task

performance

Errors and untimely actions related to the new concept as well as the level of workload and situational awareness are expected to be within acceptable margins.

Errors and untimely actions related to the new concept, the level of workload and situational awareness do not overcome the acceptable margins.

All

OBJ-0209-019

Expected impact of technical system

failure on HP

Pilot’s performance is expected to be within acceptable margins, even in case of degraded accuracy and timeliness of system information.

Technical hazards have been identified and mitigations proposed that will allow pilots’ performance to remain within acceptable margins in case of technical failures.

Arrival- Approach

Results Highlights –

Lørenskog Departure

• Impact of the new procedures on the possibility to take off

7

Analysis of meteo data from Oslo, Gardermoen (ENGM), close to Lørenskog: number of 2012-2015 METAR reports with

visibility and ceiling conditions respecting minima for the VFR procedure and the new PinS departure one.

• +23,73% compared to VFR

procedure at nigh (no difference

during the day)

LPV VFR

Results Highlights –

Impact of de-icing equipment

8

• Impact of the availability of

helicopters de-ice

equipment on the

Accessibility of the

Lørenskog site using IFR

procedures (same Meteo Data

Analysis, considering also temperature*)

*We considered +4° as a threshold temperature under which it is not possible to fly IFR

procedures unless helicopters are equipped with de-ice system

• the presence of de-icing

equipment increase

the impact on

accessibility of LPV

approach procedures

by

+31% during day

+141% during night.


ANY QUESTIONS?

Norway next steps RNP procedures

Operational use

• Integrated consept

• Departure

• Enroute

• Transitions

• Approach

Design development

• LNAV to LPV

• Enroute entire country

• PINS departures at some locations

• RNP 0,3 transitions from enroute

• RNP0,3 with RF-legs

OPS approval - regulation

• Based on PANS OPS – no EASA regulation RNP0,3

• Additional position sensor to allow for RNP AR procedures

• RF-legs in all segements except from final approach

• RNP AR to RNP0,1

• EGNOS working agreement

Others

• Training of crew and other operators

• Flight information service improvements

• Certification/airworthiness of elder HCP

• Multiple operators on same procedures – EMS/SAR/POLICE • Common procedures

• Implementation – AIP publication

Wx reporting

• Visibility

• Cloud base

• Temperature

• Altimeter setting

• Fault monitoring

• Historic pictures

PROuD Consortium

Conclusions and

recommendations


30th September 2016

Conclusions (1/2)

• By the introduction of the new PBN operational solutions, the safety improvement

is mainly in bad weather conditions and during night operations.

• The flight campaigns demonstrated improved accessibility for sites affected by low

visibility and challenging environment in terms of reduction of landing minima and

number of diversions and missed approaches.

• New PBN procedures can definitely improve HEMS service availability and

continuity mainly under adverse meteorological conditions.

• The changes in the current operating methods (basically the shift from visual to

instrumental flight) are considered acceptable. Regular training is considered

needed to develop the necessary skills and practice.

Conclusions (2/2)

• The PROuD project provides important output to support future evaluations by the

Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) for the use of IFR procedures in

class G uncontrolled airspace, currently prohibited by the Swiss regulation.

• The results of the PROuD trials have been used to convince the Norwegian CAA

that the operational implementation of RNP 0.3 navigation specification in all

phases of flight needs a specific EASA AMC so that European operators can

utilized this navigation specification.

• The Norwegian CAA attended the flight trials and has approved the approach

procedures with LNAV and LPV minima for operational use by Norsk

Luftambulanse.

• NLA has received a temporary approval based on the PinS departure criteria

together with some other company approval based on the ICAO DOC 8168 Vol. 2.

Recommendations

– Procedure design improvements RNAV (RNP) RWY 03 Samedan

– Additional SBAS requirement supports navigation performance

– Foster the development of helicopter specific RNP AR design criteria

– ATM integration of new procedures and regulatory pioneer work are the main

challenges

Mathias

Recommendations

Laurent

› Technology exists to support advanced helicopter PBN operations

› Massive investment is made on the development and implementation of PBN Heli

applications

Helicopter Flights Inspection / - validation capability

AW109SP FFS Simulator

Pilot PBN training

Safety assessment

Helicopter RNP 0.3 in all phases of flight certification

› Requires close collaboration of all stakeholders

Helicopter operators

Regulators -> including ICAO IFPP PANS-OPS Criteria

Aircraft manufacturers

ANSP

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND NOW… OPEN DISCUSSION ON DEMONSTRATION RESULTS