#PBNTF-ECTL RAISG/2 - Draft SoD - International Civil ... Meetings Seminars and... · Web viewThere is pressure from Operators for the publication of RNP AR APCH, sometimes for environmental

Joint ICAO PBN TF &

RNAV Approach implementation Support Group

Doc. Ref.DSR/CMN/NAV/PBN TF RAISG/2/minutes

Issue1.0

Date3rd April 2014

Second joint ICAO PBN TF and EUROCONTROL RNAV Approach implementation Support Group meeting (2nd joint PBN TF / RAiSG)

Minutes

EUROCONTROL – Brussels (Belgium)12th – 14th March 2014

Annexes:A – Action itemsB - AgendaC - Participant list

1. Item 1- Opening R. Farnworth (EUROCONTROL)

IP1: [Convening PBNTF RAiSG2_12-14March2014.pdf]

The 2nd joint ICAO EUR PBN TF and EUROCONTROL RNAV Approach implementation Support Group (RAISG) meeting took place at EUROCONTROL in Brussels / Belgium from the 12 th to 14th

March 2014.

All material related to the meeting is available on the RNAV Approach implementation Support Group pages under the EUROCONTROL OneSky Teams (https://ost.eurocontrol.int/sites/RAISG/) and also on the ICAO Paris website.

2. Item 3 – ICAO latest developments/outcomes of the EANPG COG E. Nahmadov (ICAO)

WP:[PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP02_ PBN approvals EUR Doc 029.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP02_ App A Doc 029 RNAV 10-RNP 10 ENfinal.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP02_App A Doc 029 RNAV 10 RNP 10 RU.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP02_App B Doc 029 RNP 4 EN final.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP02_App B_Doc 029 RNP 4_RU.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP06 SoDPBNTF ECTL RAISG1.pdf]

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP02_GASP.pdf] [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP03_38th Ass Resolutions.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP04_GANP 4th Ed.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP05_EANPG55_Report and Appendices.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP06_EB 2013-38.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP07_ANB Publications.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP15_SL AN-13-2-5-13-85 - PFA PANS ATM.pdf]

document.doc April 2014

https://ost.eurocontrol.int/sites/RAISG/

-2- PBNTF-ECTL-RAISG/2 - SoD

ICAO guided the group through the list of papers distributed under this agenda item. These papers illustrate the relevant developments in ICAO since the first joint ICAO PBN TF and EUROCONTROL RAISG meeting in September 2013. Some of the papers were considered in more depth than others.

IP3 lists the resolutions of the 38th ICAO Assembly in November 2013.

IP4 is the Global Air Navigation Plan (2013-2018). PBN as well as CCO/CDO are priorities in the plan. PBN is also identified as a key mitigation to CFIT.

IP6 is the ICAO Electronic Bulletin which lists the amendments to ICAO documents which will be published in July 2014 and will become applicable from November 2014.

IP7 lists the ICAO manuals which have been published or updated in 2012 and 2013, as well as updates planned for 2014. Attention of the group was brought in particular to the 4th edition of the PBN manual, doc 9905 on RNP AR, doc 9906 (more), doc 9992 (more) and doc 9997 (more)

IP5 which reports on the conclusions of EANPG 55 in November 2013 was presented in more detail addressing the following:

- The PBN airspace design workshops and Go Teams conducted in August 2013 in Kazakhstan, in December 2013 in Cyprus, in January 2014 in Sweden and in February in Tunisia.

- The proposed Memorandum of Cooperation for sharing procedure design expertise which was drafted with the help of the joint PBN TF and RAISG in September 2013. This MoC, which was accepted by EANPG 55,, is provided in the appendix to IP5 and all are invited to use it. The publication of the MoC was accompanied by other recommendations on ICAO to consider repeating a procedure design training course in 2014 and on EC to consider financial mechanisms to support the development of procedure design expertise in Europe. The joint PBN TF / RAISG group was also tasked to conduct a survey of procedure design expertise in Europe. It was proposed that a questionnaire for the survey would be drafted by ICAO and EUROCONTROL, circulated to the group for review and finally sent out for collecting the information.

It was asked why the set up of a procedure design office like in other regions of the world was not considered in Europe. It was clarified that this option cannot be considered without a financial commitment from the countries of the region. The potential for such a commitment in Europe has not been identified so this option is not pursued any further for the moment.

Following a comment from the group, it was clarified that the EANPG conclusions cover the need for expertise in both procedure design and the safety oversight of procedure design.

Action ID Action on Description of the action Due date

PBN TF RAISG /2 /1

ICAO and EUROCONTROL

To draft a questionnaire in cooperation with the group in order to conduct a survey on procedure design expertise in Europe (according to EANPG 55 conclusions)

ASAP

- The group was also informed that EANPG 55 endorsed the priorities proposed last September for the implementation of RNP APCH in Europe. These are currently being discussed at ANC level and could potentially result in an update to the Assembly Resolution 37-11.

WP2 and attachments provide guidance material for PBN operational approval for States outside EASA coverage area.

IP15 includes proposed amendments to PANS-ATM for reduced separation minima in en-route.

It was also clarified to the group that proposed amendments to ICAO annexes for the adoption of the new approach classification have been accepted and will become applicable from November 2014.

3. Item 4 – EUROCONTROL latest developments F. Pavlicevic (EUROCONTROL)

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP10_Report NSG 18.pdf]



Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 04_EUROCONTROL NAV and PBN related trainings.pdf]

For the purpose of ensuring a cross-feed of information between navigation working groups dealing with PBN outside the final approach PBN as well as transversal PBN topics, Franca Pavlicevic, chairman of the EUROCONTROL Navigation Steering Group (NSG), provided an update on what was discussed at the last NSG meeting in October 2013 as well as on what has happened on these points since then. IP10 is the report of NSG 18.

Status report on the PBN Implementing Rule (PBN IR). Whereas the draft SES PBN IR was planned to be sent for formal consultation in December 2013, this has not yet taken place. The situation is that EC, EASA and EUROCONTROL have been discussing their respective roles in the process and the place for a SES PBN IR in the current regulation context (including the PCP IR). Agreement has been reached recently and an official communiqué is under preparation to explain the changes which will happen on the drafting of the PBN IR. More information will be shared with the group in the following weeks, but the group was informed that EASA will now take the lead in the development of the IR within the EASA regulatory framework with the technical support from EUROCONTROL. The IR will consequently be published under EASA formats and proceedings (NPA, rule making arrangements). The work already done under the management of EUROCONTROL (RAD and attached justification material including impact assessments) will be the basis of the drafting of the rule by EASA. An updated calendar will be communicated soon to external partners.

The need for a PBN IR action plan has been identified and discussed in the context of NSG. The objective was to identify the actions needed and actors involved so that the objectives set in the PBN IR are met. The discussion was brought to NETOPS, who supported the idea, and then to the EUROCONTROL Agency Advisory Board (AAB). It was concluded there that a strategy could be developed in order to achieve that goal, but that no Programme would be set for the management of the actions.

Analysis of GPS reversion scenarios. RNP 1 and Advanced RNP are candidate navigation applications for deployment in the Terminal area and in the en-route. GPS is currently the only system able to support RNP applications and there is discussion on what should be required in degraded conditions. Some are of the opinion that the backup more should be as good as the nominal situation, others think that a degraded mode for the backup would be acceptable (what this degraded mode should be is also part of the discussion). Whereas it is agreed that multiconstellation/ multifrequency GNSS is the way to go, an interim solution needs to be looked at. EUROCONTROL undertook a desktop analysis of the probability and impact of GPS-based service degradation. Real time simulations will be organised in summer 2014 in complement to analyse the impact of area wide GPS unavailability, what can be done in such a situation and the acceptability of mitigations measures. In the meantime it has been identified that current route spacing minima for RNP 1 and Advanced RNP have taken account of DME/DME performance. Nevertheless, as GPS is still the only recognised OPMA system, work is on going under the auspices of SESAR, to demonstrate that DME/DME provides sufficient integrity to provide integrity monitoring required by OPMA. The intended real-time simulation exercises planned for the summer 2014 were of interest to the group and EUROCONTROL can be contacted to discuss further the scope of the analysis.

The group was informed that a Route Spacing study has been started to look at spacing minima to apply between routes specifying requirements for different navigation applications for both parallel and n on-parallel routes. Spacing minima are currently defined only for parallel routes of the same navigation specification.

RF and FRT. A data collection campaign has been performed to compare actual performance on turns against expected behaviour as defined in the standards. The conclusions of the analysis are that guidelines need to be developed so that RF and FRT are used as expected and predictability and repeatability of path in space of the aircraft on such segments of flight is improved.

The group was informed that there is no progress to report on the topic of SES applicability to GNSS. NSG also discussed Navigation Infrastructure (e.g. guidance for rationalisation/optimisation of conventional navaids are planned to be developed), transition to Final (RNP to XLS), GBAS use for Terminal Approach Procedures (TAP).

FPL and PBN, also presented in the context of NSG, will be covered in more details later on in the agenda of this meeting.



Finally a few slides on the EUROCONTROL Navigation and PBN related training material (including classroom courses and web based training packages) available and how to access these were presented (see ppt or directly access http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/training). ICAO complemented this information with a reference to 3 ICAO web-based training modules available on the ICAO website where links to other external training initiatives are also provided (see http://www.icao.int/safety/pbn/).

4. Item 5 - Status report on SDCM and GLONASS V. Korchagin (Russian Federation)

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP08_ GLONASS Status.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP09_PBN PLAN RF.pdf]

The group was guided through IP 8 and IP 9.

Since November 2011, GLONASS has reached full operation capability again with 24 satellites in orbit. 3 spare satellites are also available since February 2014. Maintenance plan and upgrades to the systems are also described in the paper. Deployment plans for the Russian SBAS system SDCM materialised with the launch in December 2011 of the first GEO satellite. A second GEO was launched in December 2014 and normal operations based on these 2 GEO is planned in April or May 2014. The launch of a 3rd GEO is planned in April 2014.

IP9 provides information on the national Russian PBN implementation plan and activities of the implementation Support Group, in line with the ICAO and IATA Go Team recommendations in September 2012. A revised implementation plan is in the approval process of the aviation authority. This targets the implementation of PBN in all phases of flight.

In complement it was clarified that the service area of SDCM is expected to be Russia. MOPS for GLONASS / GPS receiver are under development and a draft version should be available in Autumn 2014.

5. Item 6 – EGNOS system status report C. Neville (GSA)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 06_EGNOS system status by GSA.pdf]

The GSA provided an update on the EGNOS system status. The current version of the system is v2.3.2 and was deployed in November 2013. This includes for instance 2 additional RIMS in Abu Simbel (Egypt) and Agadir (Morroco) and optimised ionospheric algorithms. The deployment of a 3 rd

RIMS is planned in 2016 in Haifa (Israel) as part of EGNOS v2.4.1P. Before that, the deployment of EGNOS v2.4.1M in 2015 will resolve some obsolescence problems and introduce new missions for EGNOS (including the LPV200 service level).

Concerning LPV200 in particular, the presentation provided a map of the targeted coverage area. Steps to reach the deployment of EGNOS v2.4.1M were clarified. LPV200 performance will be available as soon as the new system release is deployed. The updated EGNOS SDD declaring LPV200 service will be available later, and not before the conclusions of a 6 month observation period. Such an observation period is required before any update to the SDD can be made.

LPV procedures published before the declaration of LPV200 service (design according to APV-I design criteria) will have to be redesigned according to LPV 200 design criteria in order to achieve the lower minima. LPV approaches designed according to APV-I criteria will still be valid and safe to fly. IOnly one LPV minima will can be published on a single RNAV (GNSS) chart. The Alarm Limits contained in the FAS DB will determine the integrity monitoring levels to be used by the avionics (APV-I or LPV 200). No modification to the avionics will be required.

Different scenarios for further EGNOS extension are being developed and discussed in the context of the EGNOS MRD CCB. Whereas the coverage of EU 28 remains the priority; other surrounding countries will benefit from these plans, including Georgia, Armenia and the eastern part of the European region.

6. Item 7 – Status report on EGNOS service provision FJ. De Blas (ESSP)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 07_EGNOS status LPV implementation by ESSP.pdf]


http://www.icao.int/safety/pbn/

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/training


The presentation reported on the status of the EGNOS Safety of Life service and of the deployment of EGNOS-based operations in Europe.

The current SoL service is based on EGNOS System Release 2.3.2. The presentation provides availability maps of the service from December and January. These show that the system covers EU 28 in nominal conditions. The EGNOS communication network (TWAN) was successfully conducted in January. These upgrades aiming at improving EGNOS robustness have had no negative impact on the service provided to airspace users. More information is available in the EGNOS Service Notice #9.

Since February EGNOS SoL availability and continuity performance degradations have been observed in the North and South-West of Europe. Integrity of the service continues to be provided. Similar degradations have been observed on the WAAS service in the USA. Geomagnetic activity peaks (linked to high solar activities) over the period are the cause for the service degradations. EWA partners were closely informed according to the ESSP contingency communication plan for EGNOS. Only the LPV procedure published in Joensuu (Finland) has been impacted, without any impact on operations as the procedure is currently NOTAMed out waiting for flight validation later this year. EGNOS Warning NOTAM proposals were nevertheless sent to Finland. More information is available in the EGNOS Service Notice #10.

Concerning the status of the deployment of EGNOS-based operations, ESSP reported that a total of 17 EGNOS Working Agreements (EWA) are now in place. The 6 most recent signatures involved HIAL, Nav Portugal, Finavia, LFV, Avinor and an airport in the UK. More agreements are planned for the near future. This sets the context for a total of 179 EGNOS-based procedures over Europe, including 103 LPV and 76 APV Baro approved to be flown using EGNOS (in Germany, France, Czech Republic and soon in the UK). Spain recently published their first LPV procedure. The first LPV in Finland and Norway will be operational in the near future. This information is available on the map in the ESSP website. The consistency of this map and the EUROCONTROL PBN Approach map tool is checked periodically.

The UK CAA clarified that they are in the process of writing a letter to AIS and Data houses to inform about the approval of the use of SBAS for vertical guidance on all APV Baro procedures published in the country.

Comment was made that despite the lack of robustness of SBAS systems against Solar activity is a known, there looks unfortunately not to be much progress made to avoid such situations like the ones currently being faced. The ESSP assured the group that robustness against iono disturbances was being addressed and would improve in future versions of EGNOS.

A question was raised on the publication of LPV procedures on non precision instrument runways and in particular on the restrictions to the OCH that could apply in that case. Whereas restriction to 300 ft OCH on such a runway clearly appears for Baro-VNAV in the PANS-OPS, such a restriction couldn’t be found in the section dedicated to LPV. Information will be collected in order to clarify the situation.


PBN TF RAISG /2 /2

All To share information on rules/standards that would define restrictions to the OCH for LPV procedures published on Non Precision instrument runways.

ASAP

Questions on future extensions of the EGNOS service area were addressed in the context of the presentation on the EGNOS systems status by the GSA (agenda item 6).

7. Item 8 – RNAV routes data quality monitoring - status report L. Kovacova (EUROCONTROL)

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP11_RNDSG-81 WPA Airspace publication.pdf]

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 08_RNAV routes data quality monitoring by EUROCONTROL.pdf]

EUROCONTROL reported to the group on the "RNAV route data quality improvement campaign" launched by the agency. The presentation focused on the progress made since last September 2013



when the topic was first introduced to the joint RAISG/PBN TF. This initiative is a joint Airspace Design and AIS/AIM domain activity.

IP 11 provides a description of present progress as presented in February 2014 to the last EUROCONTROL RNDSG (subgroup to NET OPS team). As a result of the publication in summer 2013 of the ECAC States Airspace AIP publication issues some corrective actions have already been undertaken and some States have started correcting publications. More actions and corrections are also planned for the future. The list and description of the publication improvements are available on the ERNIP database under the topic "AIP".

IP 11 Annex 2 provides a list of tasks to be performed for publication improvements. This distinguishes between actions to be performed without delay (Category I) as well as actions for the longer term (Category II).

Concerning RNAV routes in particular, actions should be taken for harmonized publication of RNAV routes in section ENR 3.3. Today, only 5 states publish in accordance with Annex 15 requirements, but the proposed adapted specimen (doc 8126) for route publication is expected to help correct the situation.

Other issues were reported on current publication of Navigation specifications (RNP/RNAV) as required by ICAO Annex 15. Some examples of the different issues identified are available in the presentation.

In conclusion, the group was asked to consider the content of the presentation and invited to coordinate actions with national AIM units. EUROCONTROL also expressed its readiness to undertake joint actions to resolve the problems.

The group commented that standards relevant to RNAV and RNP publication, including charts, do not cover for the type of applications that ANSP need to publish today and that this probably explains why States have difficulties populating the documentation. More specifically, one country reported that despite Annex 15, route publication is made under section EN R 3.1 and 3.2 and not ENR 3.3. Others pointed out that the publication of VOR/DME fixes is not necessarily relevant for a route as well as VOR information if this is not expected to support navigation on the route (e.g. if a VOR is far away from the route). Updates to ICAO standards as well as more guidance and examples on how to publish would be welcome.

EUROCONTROL concluded that these comments will be shared with the unit in charge of the data quality improvement campaign so that appropriate solutions are found for better and harmonized publications in the future.


PBN TF RAISG /2 /3

EUROCONTROL and ICAO

To identify the forum where guidelines for better and harmonised route publications should be developed.

ASAP

8. Item 9 – Monitoring RNP APCH deployment A. Troadec (EUROCONTROL)and E. Nahmadov (ICAO)

WP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP03_Updated CNS4b table.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP07 Update of CNS 4b table - PBN Status 2014.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP08_PBN approach map tool.pdf]

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 09_RNP APCH implementation monitoring by EUROCONTROL.pdf]

ICAO first presented the latest information collected as a result of the State Letter reference EUR/NAT 13-0783.TEC (NAE/DAC) dated 19 December 2013 contained in WP7 and attachments.

WP 7 Attachment B provides an overview of the PBN implementation plans available in each country in the EUR/NAT region. Significant progress has been made since last year. The group was invited to check the validity of the information. ICAO commented that LSSIP reporting was accepted as an initial



assessment of a plan. However “completed in the framework of LSSIP” would no longer be considered as acceptable solution and an implementation plan should rather be developed in each country.

WP7 Attachment A provides the updated CNS 4b table according to latest information provided by States in early 2014. The table shows significant progress has been made. A colour code indicates the countries for which no update to the table has ever been provided by the State (red) and the countries where no information about PBN approaches is provided (brown). It can be observed that different names and designators can be used for the same approach type and it is expected that harmonised reporting will be achieved with the adoption of the new CNS 4b table format proposed in WP3. Last year, States reported 700 PBN approaches were published or planned. Latest reports to ICAO indicate that there are 900 today.


PBN TF RAISG /2 /4

All To check the validity of the information collected by ICAO in WP7 Attachment A (CNS 4b table) and B (PBN implementation plans)

ASAP

EUROCONTROL then presented information contained in WP3. This paper provides an updated version of a new CNS 4b table used by ICAO in order to collect information on the status of final approach procedure deployment and plans. This covers approaches based on conventional navaids as well as on GNSS (RNP APCH and RNP AR APCH). The new table accounts for the comments collected since the 1st joint EUROCONTROL RAISG and ICAO PBN TF meeting (September 2013). The paper also provides guidelines on how to fill in the table.

The objective is to use this new table from the next reporting cycle to ICAO in January 2015. Latest feedback from States to ICAO State Letter reference EUR/NAT 13-0783.TEC (NAE/DAC) dated 19 December 2013 (see WP7) will be converted into this new format for use from the next reporting cycle in 2015.

A few more comments were collected during the meeting on the new proposed table and guidelines (“GBAS” would rather be used instead of “GLS”, status “impossible” wouldn’t be used only for the RNP APCH). These will be accounted for in the future. The group asked that the table is made available in Excel format so that they can already start using it.

The RAISG and PBN TF members agreed with this new proposed format and guidelines (to be amended according to latest comments) to be used from next reporting cycle to ICAO in early 2015.


PBN TF RAISG /2 /5

EUROCONTROL

To update the proposed template for CNS 4b table with the latest comments made by the group

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /6

EUROCONTROL

To distribute the updated template for CNS 4b table in Excel format so that countries could start to use it.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /7

EUROCONTROL

To convert the latest CNS 4b table (WP7 attachment A) into the new format for use from the next reporting cycle to ICAO

Q4 2014

Finally, EUROCONTROL presented the status of and plans for PBN approach deployment as monitored with the PBN Approach Map Tool. Today 16.6% of the total number of instrument runway ends have an APV (APV SBAS or APV Baro). 43.8% of them should have one by the end of 2016. Some graphs were shown illustrating the growth in the number of different approach types (LNAV, LNAV/VNAV; LPV and AR) planned to be published. Maps also gave an idea of the geographical



distribution of publications and plans captured by the tool. The monitoring of plans communicated to EUROCONTROL show that 15% of the plans for 2012 were not met at the end of 2012. At the end of 2013, 34% of the plans for the year have not been achieved.

In order to better analyse, track and report the deployment status, additional functionalities are planned to be built in the tool. For instance, the availability of Precision approach will also be captured so that the availability of a vertically guided approach (APV or Precision Approach) can be provided. More details are available in the presentation.

The presentation was the opportunity to recall how the information in the map is updated. The question was raised to the group whether a closer link with the national Aeronautical Information Service Providers would useful and feasible in that context. Members of the group were also invited to review the list and details for the National Points of contact for information captured in the map tool.

EUROCONTROL will update the map tool according to the information reported to ICAO in the form of the CNS 4b table. This will allow the consolidation of the list of runway ends to be covered in the map tool.

Finally and as a result of the interest shown by countries not covered yet by the map, EANPG will be consulted on the potential extension of the scope of the Map Tool to non-ECAC countries. It was explained that there is no technical limitation to adding more countries to the map, but that it would not be advised to do so without the commitment of the country to provide a minimum set of data (point of contact, consolidated list of instrument runway, actual publication and plans) and to maintain it in line with publication AIRAC cycles.

The group requested that at next joint PBN TF and RAISG meeting an update on the differences between the ICAO PBN map and the EUROCONTROL PBN Approach Map tool is provided.


PBN TF RAISG /2 /8

All To provide an opinion on the usefulness and feasibility of a closer link with national AIS Provider to feed the map tool.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /9

All To review the list of National Contact points for the map tool contained in WP6.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG/2/10


To consult EANPG on the potential extension of the scope of the Map Tool to non-ECAC countries.

EANPG 56 (November 2014)

PBN TF RAISG/2/11


To provide the group with update on the differences between the ICAO PBN map and the EUROCONTROL PBN map tool.

3rd joint PBN TF and RAISG meeting

9. Item 10 – PANS-OPS OAS software for APV I SBAS P. Bizet (DSNA/DTA)

WP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP04_PANSOPS_OAS_software.pdf]

WP4 was presented to the group. The paper reports on a problem identified in the ICAO PANS OPS Obstacle Assessment Surface (OAS) tool for APV I. Indeed this shows some differences with the current obstacle assessment surfaces as described in PANS-OPS. France is concerned about the risk of using other tools which can no longer be validated against a reference tool. The ICAO tool should be corrected so it can be used as the reference. It was agreed that the concerns expressed in WP4 would be brought to the attention of EANPG so that they can be relayed to ICAO at a Global level.

Under agenda item 6 dedicated to EGNOS system status report, the potential for EGNOS to support LPV 200 procedures in the future was presented. Only LPV procedures designed according to LPV



200 procedure design criteria will have the potential to provide lower minima. Adequate tools, including upgraded OAS tool, will also have to be made available to allow the publication of these procedures.


PBN TF RAISG/2/12


To bring to the attention of EANPG concerns on inconsistencies between the ICAO OAS software and the PANS OPS (WP4)


The presentation was the opportunity for one member to ask whether the publication of an LPV with 3° descent angle would cause a problem on a runway which is also provided with an ILS approach with low glide slope (2.5°). The problem in such a situation could be that the indications from the PAPI in line with the ILS slope would not be consistent with the slope of the LPV and could cause confusion for the pilots. The design of an LPV approach with such a low descent profile is not covered by current PANS OPS criteria. The group advised to investigate the reasons why a low ILS was put in place before considering some alternative approach solutions there (low descent gradient can be to accommodate specific aircraft performance of some old military aircraft – a lower slope for an acceptable approach speed). Advice could also be sought from the USA where a number of military airports with 2.5° glide slope are published.

10. Item 11 – Status report from EASA EASA finally couldn’t attend the meeting and this item was not covered.

11. Item 12 – National PBN implementation report

1.1. Item 12.1: PBN implementation status in Portugal V. Estrella (NAV Portugal)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 12 1_RNP APCH status reporting from NAV Portugal.pdf]

After a quick introduction on PBN deployment status in all phases of flight in Portugal, the presentation focused on RNP APCH publications. LNAV procedures are published since November 2009 in Corvo and Vila Real. An additional LNAV procedure is planned in Ponta Delgada, this won’t have an LNAV/VNAV procedure attached to it because this is an offset procedure. It will be published when the VOR maintenance will be finished (the VOR is to be available for backup purposes). The first LNAV/VNAV procedure in the country will be published in Faro airport in April 2014. LNAV/VNAV and LPV procedures are currently being prepared for both runway ends at Lisbon airport. The design of the LPV procedure is part of the ACCEPTA project.

The presentation provides views of the chart (existing or draft), details of the characteristics of the approaches, missed approaches and holdings, information about the use of GPS and/or conventional navaids on each segments and about the position of the Missed Approach Point with respect to the runway threshold.

The method for RNP APCH publication in Lisbon airport is also described in details. Ground validation and flight validation have successfully been conducted. Flight validation consisted in 1 run for LNAV, 1 for LNAV/VNAV and 2 runs for LPV including one simulating the loss of EGNOS 200ft above minima. The safety assessment is planned for April and the dossier will then be submitted to the CAA for approval. The target date for the publication of the procedure and the AIC is around October 2014.

Mitigation measures put in place in order to cope with the fact that EGNOS does not meet ICAO requirements have been looked at. AIC and ATC training address these points in particular.

CAA Portugal questioned the group on experience in Europe concerning the coding and charting of SDF and MAPT before the runway threshold. It was clarified that these points should rather be charted as distances to the threshold and not be named so that they are not coded in the database and distance to the threshold is readily available to the pilot when flying the approach.



NAV Portugal made reference to the letter received from IATA requesting APV baro publications. It was clarified that APV baro publication plans exist for other airports than the ones presented in the presentation but that the outcomes of operator surveys indicate that only 30% of the local operators are capable and have just started to get approval. IATA confirmed that they are addressing in parallel both the airborne (the need for operators to get approvals) and the ground aspects (the need for ANSP/airports to publish APV Baro procedures) in order to break the recurrent “chicken and egg” problem. IATA reminded the group that the reason for IATA to ask for APV Baro is improved safety (availability of vertical guidance) and not lower minima. Concerning LPV, this is a highly costly solution for IATA members, which does not bring sufficient benefits.

Some ANSPs took the opportunity to explain that from a procedure design perspective, 80% of the work done for an RNP APCH procedure is relevant for both the LNAV/VNAV and LPV procedures. Consequently, the support to the deployment of LPV procedures should maybe not be considered as an obstacle to LNAV/VNAV procedures deployment, but rather as a facilitator.

Some other ANSP explained that the publication of LNAV/VNAV does present an extra cost in order to cope with the safety assessment and regulation of such procedures.

Item 12.2: PBN implementation status in Norway E. Haugen (AVINOR)Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 12 2_PBN Implementation plan in Norway - Rev 1.pdf]

Norway developed its first PBN implementation plan in December 2009. This was last updated in June 2013. It is freely available for download. PBN deployment according to ICAO Assembly Resolution 37-11 is part of the national regulation, consequently the CAA and AVINOR closely cooperate to take coordinated actions to reach that goal.

The deployment of P-RNAV is the target in most of the controlled TMA. One slide in the presentation provides the SID and STAR publication status on AIRAC 06 MAR 2014. This provides a list of conventional SID and STAR which are planned to be replaced by P-RNAV procedures (in yellow) the list of TMA where SID and STAR will be introduced (yellow) and the TMA which are not planned to have P-RNAV procedures. Publication plans are for mid 2015.

Concerning the deployment of PBN on final approaches, the applicability of current LNAV/VNAV and LPV PANS-OPS procedure design criteria to the 108 runway ends in the country was assessed. This concluded that APV can be implemented at 77 runway ends and 8 runway ends are possible additional candidates. 23 LNAV/VNAV and 13 LPV are planned to be published on AIRAC 13 NOV 2014. Implementation plans for 2015 and 2016 on the remaining runway ends are under development. The deployment of RNP AR and Advanced RNP will be made as necessary in 2015-2016. There is pressure from Operators for the publication of RNP AR APCH, sometimes for environmental reasons.

GNSS is the primary supporting infrastructure for all PBN applications. Radar; VOR/DME and DME/DME will backup GNSS in case of GNSS unavailability, whereas in the final approach the number and type of conventional approaches will be analysed for backup purposes.

The second part of the presentation was focused on the technical challenges faced during the implementation of PBN final approaches:

- The deployment of EGNOS-based operations is currently not possible in the northern part of the country: EGNOS coverage is limited to latitudes up to 70°N and receivers are expected to suffer from reception problems due to the low elevation of the Geostationary satellites.

- The absence of LPV equipped operators is also an issue for LPV deployment.

- The deployment of APV Baro will require the publication of “winter” and “summer” procedures in some airports in order to cope with hot summers and extremely cold winters. Both “Z” and “Y” procedures will be published and ATC will allocate one of the procedures as a function of the time of the year.

More details are available in the presentations.

Concerning the northern limit of the EGNOS coverage, information was provided that this is planned to be extended to 72°N. Comment was made also that a cut-off elevation angle of 15° is perhaps valid for



a SCAT 1 ground station but in the case of GPS and SBAS receivers this would be less of an issue as the cut-off angle would be much lower.

1.2. Item 12.3:PBN implementation status in UK G. Burtenshaw (UK CAA) & K. Ashton (NATS)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 12 3_UK PBN Implementation Status.pdf]

The presentation by the UK covered the following topics:

The UK Future Airspace Strategy (FAS)

The FAS defines the UK’s ambition to modernise the airspace system. Its development was initiated in 2010 and UK is now in the deployment stage which will last until 2020. PBN is one of the components of the FAS: until 2015, PBN Trials and early implementations will take place; then from 2015 onwards a full PBN implementation is expected to take place in preparation for meeting the goals set in the PBN IR under development.

The RNAV 1 mandate in the London TMA

The consideration of an RNAV 1 mandate in the London TMA is in the context of the LAMP (London Airspace Management Programme). Whereas the operation of a mix of new PBN routes and conventional routes in the TMA has been assessed as an expensive, risky and inefficient transition period towards a fully systemised airspace, agreement has been reached on the need for an RNAV 1 mandate. Mandates by the end of 2017 and the end of 2019 will target the airborne and the airspace sides respectively, so that a complete shift to new optimised PBN operations is coordinated between the different actors. The mandates for RNAV 1 are expected to prepare for the transition to RNP 1 in the longer term, in line with the PCP and PBN IR. A consultation with aviation stakeholders is planned in order to define the exact geographical scope of the mandate, the exact technical standards to be used and the enforcement and exemption policies to be applied.

TMA trials in support of the development of enhanced route spacing standards

A series of trials has been started in order to collect lessons learned and data in support of the development of enhanced route spacing standards. This includes Departure trials at Heathrow (spacing between departure routes and holding patterns – 6 month duration from December 2013), Departure trials at Gatwick (reduced angles of divergence on departure – 6 month duration from February 2014), RNP 1 and RF legs in Stansted (12 month duration with 5 selected operators) and the FAS PBN Arrivals Programme looking at advanced procedures. Enhanced route spacing standards are expected to be published in March 2015 so that they can be used in the context of LAMP.

Implementing PBN solutions

The UK CAA is preparing for a web-based repository of issues, lessons learned, policies and guidance developed related to PBN, including references to CAA publications. The catalogue of PBN solutions is expected to ease the deployment at a later stage.

PBN approach deployment status

35 LNAV, 20 LNAV/VNAV and 2 LPV are currently in service. There are respectively 56, 19 and 56 minima in the design stage. More details about the publication plans in Bristol, Exeter, Glasgow, Southampton, Southend, Belfast, Campbeltown, Benbecula and Barra are available in the presentation. Concerning the consultation on CAP 1122 addressing the publication of Instrument Approach Procedures at Aerodromes without an Instrument Runway and/or Approach control, 55 comments have been received. Views expressed were both positive and negative. A CRD is now under preparation and should be published around June 2014.

Challenges for PBN implementation

One new issue was added to the list of challenges. This relates to the management of the 5 Letter Name Codes (5LNC) scarce resource. This involves a discussion on the need for T and Y approaches whereas GNSS IAP could start at the IF, the use of 5LNC in the context of free routes and several other things. FMS database capacity is another limiting factor. It was agreed that a memo would be written in order to bring the problem to the attention of the National and regional focal points on ICARD where waypoint naming problems are being discussed.




PBN TF RAISG/2/13


To initiate the drafting of a memo that would bring the waypoint naming problems raised by the group to the attention of the National and regional focal points on ICARD for discussion.


1.3. Item 12.4: PBN implementation status in Finland S. Tuparinne (Finavia)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 12 4_PBN implementation status in Finland.pdf]

Finavia has defined Standard IFR aerodrome concept for use throughout the country. This plans for the progressive deployment of PBN operations in combination with, and then as a replacement of operations based on conventional navaids when they come to the end of life and are not replaced. This includes the deployment of RNAV 1 SIDs and STARs linking with the network of BRNAV routes as well as the deployment of RNP APCH procedures.

Now that LNAV is published at all Finish airports and LNAV/VNAV covers 65% of them, the deployment of LPV procedures for non-baro-VNAV capable aircraft has started. The first LPV procedure was published in December 2013 in Joensuu in the context of the ACCEPTA project. The procedure is currently NOTAMed out until flight validation is completed in summer 2014. Experience will be gained for future LPV publications. Allowing the use of EGNOS on APV Baro procedures could also be a solution for the provision of vertically guided approaches to non Baro VNAV capable aircraft. A comment was made that actual EGNOS performance is generally better than that published in the SDD. However the recent degradation of the APV I service could challenge the promotion of EGNOS-based operations in Northern Europe.

Finavia informed the group that, in response to requests from operators, the introduction of RF legs to ILS final has been initiated. Because of the unavailability of RNP 1 certification material, Finavia chose the RNP APCH navigation specification for the design of this curved transition to ILS.

Finally, Finavia took the opportunity to consult the group on a problem faced in the publication of RNP APCH procedures. Whereas the intermediate and final approach fixes are expected to be located on the runway centreline, the geodetic track from a point on the extended runway centreline towards the runway threshold may vary as a function of the distance. But ARINC 424 does not allow the publication of different track angles to be published, meaning that the segments would consequently be misaligned. The group was invited to share their views on how the “alignment” required in PANS-OPS should be understood.


PBN TF RAISG/2/14

All To share their views on how the “alignment” required by the PANS-OPS for the intermediate and final approach segments of an RNP APCH procedure should be understood.

ASAP

1.4. Item 12.5: PBN implementation status in Switzerland M. Troller (Switzerland)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 12 5_PBN implementation Status in Switzerland.pdf]

The latest developments on GNSS and PBN in Switzerland include:- The publication of an LNAV approach in Buochs airport (LPV is also planned there)- The publication of an LNAV approach for helicopers in Alpnach- The publication of LNAV and LPV approach planned in April 2014 in Emmen in order to

compensate for the unavailability of the ILS which is being replaced. 7 months also were needed for the publication.

- Plans for the publication of an RF leg to the RNP APCH in Dubendorf.



- The availability of GBAS Precision Approach operations in Zurich from October.

Skyguide indicated that although some operators are equipped with GLONASS capable avionics and may be interested in using GLONASS for GNSS-based operations, their current AIP only approves the use of GPS and its augmentation systems (ABAS, SBAS and GBAS).

Then the GNSS interference detection process was described. This includes a 7 days static monitoring on the ground and an inspection flight prior to any publication of a GNSS-based procedure. Data analyses cover GNSS performance evaluation, GNSS carrier-to-noise analysis and spectrum analysis. Typical results obtained were shown to the group, as well as the results of the measurement campaign in Lugano where interference issues were identified and passed to the regulator to solve. The publication of GNSS-based operations in Lugano is currently being delayed for other reasons and these interference problems are consequently not delaying deployment. However, the detection of interference events would definitively impact publication plans or the availability of GNSS-based operations. The regulator has yet to define the measures to be put in place in such cases. In the meantime, further measurement campaigns are being undertaken in order to characterise the problem.

A wider data collection and analysis campaign has also been launched: the Helicopter Recording Random flights (HRRF) project. At the end of 2014 a total of 18 helicopters from the Swiss Air Force and 17 helicopters from the Swiss Air Rescue Service (REGA) should be suitably equipped to support the campaign. Collected data will support GNSS availability monitoring and interference detection, as well as FTE and TSE analysis.

Finally, Skyguide presented the outcomes of the analysis of PBN and CNS data contained in FPL. The objective is to analyse fleet equipage and capability status in order to support navigation infrastructure and airspace/procedure development planning. RNAV 5, RNAV 1 and RNP 1 capability was looked at for the Zurich TMA and airport. Traffic characteristics for Saint-Gallen Altenrhein and Grenchen airports were analysed and show that LPV publication is probably more relevant in the 1st airport (20% and a majority of LPV approved aircraft) than in the 2nd (less than 10% of LPV approved and a majority of APV-Baro approved aircraft). It was clarified that no targeted action against operators filling wrongly/strangely the FPL has been undertaken yet. The data is consequently as good as filled in the FPL by the operators.

1.5. Item 12.6: PBN implementation status in Italy (ENAV)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 12 6_PBN implementation status in Italy.pdf]

PBN deployment in Italy is handled by a national PBN task Force. PBN deployment started in 2011 with the implementation of P-RNAV procedures. Since the end of 2012, the deployment continues with the publication of RNP APCH procedures.

In the TMA, one of the drivers of PBN implementation is improved flight efficiency. A few slides provide chart examples and more details on the average gain in track mileage for the RNAV 1 SID and STAR procedures published since January 2012 in LIRF, LIPX, LIEO and LIPZ or planned to be published in 2014 in LIRQ and LIPE. In 2014, RNAV 1 procedures should also be published in LIMC, LIML, LIME, LIMF and LICJ airports. PBN is considered as an enabler for airspace reorganisation and optimised use of airspace. For instance this will allow deconfliction of arrival and departure tracks for improved air traffic management by ATC. Ultimately RNAV 1 procedures are planned to be deployed in all areas provided with radar approach services. RNAV 1 procedures will first be available on demand (in complement to other procedures). A more systematic use of these procedures is planned in the medium to longer term.

Concerning the deployment of PBN on final approaches, LNAV and LPV publications were first targeted waiting for the latest APV Baro procedure design criteria (more conservative) to be available. Introduction of APV Baro will consequently start in Q3 2014. Currently, a total of 9 runway ends at 5 airports (Linate - LIML, Malpensa - LIMC, Fiumicino - LIRF, Venice – LIPZ and Bergamo - LIME) are covered with LNAV and LPV procedures. RNP APCH deployment in the airports of Turin – LIMF, Palermo – LICJ, Bologna – LIPE and Florence – LIRQ are planned in 2014 for a total of 20 runway ends covered. The goal is to have all eligible instrument runways covered by 2016.

A comprehensive training programme has been defined for ATC, designers or any other actor involved in the PBN deployment in order to suitably accompany the deployment of RNAV 1 and RNP APCH operations. ATC training started in early 2014.



On the navigation infrastructure side, Italy is revisiting a DME/DME coverage assessment, including low altitude coverage to support RNP APCH missed approach procedures.

Finally a high level description of the MEDUSA project and the ENAV contribution to it was provided; as well as more information on where PBN stands in the BLUE MED FAB initiative.

12. Item 13 – APV at visual airfields P. Haro (AENA)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 13_APV at visual airfields by Aena.pdf]

The publication of Instrument Approach Procedures based on GNSS opens up the potential to serve more airports; especially the smaller and less well equipped aerodromes where APV could offer increased safety and accessibility. However it seems that current regulations limit this potential and do not allow a cost-beneficial solution for such aerodromes.

La Perdix in Spain is one of these candidate aerodromes for APV publication. In the context of the ACCEPTA project, an assessment of current regulations applicable to APV publication and to the public or restricted use of aerodromes in Spain was undertaken. This concludes that because of the upgrades to the runway, the lighting and the AFIS, Communication and Meteo services required in association with the publication of an APV IAP, such a publication would not be cost beneficial.

In November 2014 ICAO will introduce changes to the definition of a non-instrument runway allowing the publication of IAP down to minima equal to or better than VMC and AENA has initiated discussions with the National Authority on how current regulations could be adjusted so that APV publication to places like La Perdix could be made possible. More details are available in the presentation.

This presentation highlighted the need for new and harmonised regulations in Europe to support IAP publication to non instrument runways. Building such regulations could start on the basis of the experience gained by the UK in the development of CAP 1122 (see agenda item 12.3). The group agreed that such a regulation should not target exclusively fixed wing aircraft and experience gained by Switzerland on RNP APCH IAP for helicopters would also be useful in the process. ICAO and EUROCONTROL agreed to explore how and who could develop regulations / guidelines or standard set of assumptions in order to prevent the proliferation of tailor-made solutions.


PBN TF RAISG/2/15


To explore how and who could develop regulations / guidelines or a standard set of assumptions for the publication of IAP on non-instrument runways.


13. Item 14 – Introduction to draft ICAO Concept of operations for RNAV visual approaches R. Farnworth (EUROCONTROL)

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP12_OPSP WHWHL 16 WP-19 Concept of ops.pdf]

Before the presentation by DSNA on activities performed in France on RNAV Visual, EUROCONTROL introduced the ICAO draft concept of operations for RNAV visual approaches contained in IP12. This paper, prepared by the ICAO IFPP, was presented at the last ICAO OPS Panel meeting in December 2013.

The discussion on RNAV visual approach was initiated by the ICAO IFPP: indeed, although many visual procedures supported by RNAV have been developed, there is no harmonisation of how they should be developed and published and there are no design criteria available for such procedures in PANS OPS. IFPP would like to define a common set of rules which will support harmonised publications and operations.

The first challenge is to agree on what RNAV visual approaches are. A consensus appears to have been reached in the fact that RNAV visual approaches are visual approaches with RNAV aiding. Such procedures are coded in the navigation database and there is discussion as to whether pilots should expect any protection from obstacles on the published path.



IP12 provides a number of different examples of charts, highlighting the need for harmonisation. Very little feedback was so far collected from the OPS Panel but the subject will be raised again at their next meeting. RAISG and PBN TF members and pilots in particular were invited to contribute to the discussion.

14. Item 15 – "RNAV visual" trials in France C. Bousquet (DSNA/DTI)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 15_Visual RNAV evaluation in France.pdf]

In France, the activities on RNAV visual approaches were initiated following a letter of interest by Air France. RNAV visuals offer several advantages including the predictability of aircraft path in space for the ATC and the crew, improved safety of operations with a verified flyability of the procedure, and a lower impact on the environment for these optimised tracks and/or CDO enabling reduced noise and fuel emissions. Air France already flies such procedures and is interested in the harmonisation, the deployment and the growing use of them.

A dedicated working group was set up with Air France, the ANSP, the Surveillance services and regulatory authorities. The objective of the group is to gather some lessons learned through a case study and operational evaluation exercises in order to feed the development of harmonised regulation and guidance on the topic.

One of the tasks of the group has been to identify the regulatory context for such procedures and it was clarified that the rules defined for visual approaches will apply. An approach was designed and published for Bordeaux airport, tested in simulators and a 6 month evaluation period involving the partner airline will start in summer 2014.

The final draft of the approach chart (RNAV Visual SOGBO) is provided in the presentation. This is planned to be published in the AIP supplement for the period of the evaluation. Obstacles and visual references are displayed on the chart and the intended path is indicated with continued arrows (instead of a continuous line as on a standard RNAV approach plate). The procedure design criteria for VPT and for RNAV-1 have been used. This consists in an RNAV 1 STAR followed by an RNAV approach. The initial part of the approach will allow CDO. Either the pilot or ATC can request or propose the approach. ATC will clear for the visual approach to be conducted under the responsibility of the crew.

In case the RNAV visual cannot be flown, a standard RNAV IAP is available as a fallback solution. The trials are restricted to one company only, but the longer objective is to extend them to other operators.

Some concerns on the use of RF legs instead of fly by waypoints were raised as there is a lack of knowledge in the pilots’ community as to whether it is allowed to use these or not. It was clarified that an RF leg was included in the procedure following a request by Air France interested in gaining experience on them.

There were some questions on the reasons why such a procedure would be published instead of a standard IFR RNAV approach. It was said that an RNAV visual approach could allow a few NM reduction in track mileage, while ATC would be aware of the intended path this being a public procedure. Another example from Cyprus was given where because of airspace restrictions no proper IAP can be designed and the RNAV Visual (also using RF leg) provides a better service than nothing.

Discussions on the presentation illustrated the fact that the concept needs to be clarified and better awareness needs to be achieved. Indeed the use of the word “RNAV” in the approach name may mean for pilots this can be flown in IMC whereas it is intended to be a “visual” approach. An RNAV visual approach is a new type of procedure that would probably require about 25% heads’ up time and 75% heads’ down, whereas a standard visual approach is more a “90% up and 10% down” type of procedure.

The initiative from France was welcomed and they were encouraged to continue so that this new type of procedures can be better defined in the future.

15. Item 16 – French implementation of the ESSP APCM tool (Airports Performances Continuous Monitoring tool) C. Bousquet (DSNA/DTI))



Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 16_French experimental implementation of ESSP APCM tool.pdf]

This presentation was prepared by DSNA and ESSP. It provides an overview of the pilot study conducted in France with the help of ESSP on the technical feasibility of the provision of LPV approach operational status information to ATC.

Today Annex 10 and other ICAO reference documents require the provision of information on the operational status of essential radio navigation services supporting approach and landing (the term “essential” is also defined in annex 10). These requirements were initially written for conventional navaids and their applicability to GNSS-based services could be discussed. Here, the experiment aimed to assess whether a technical solution to the requirement could be provided. Le Bourget airport, where LPV publication could be considered as essential (in case of ILS unavailability, LPV is the only approach type able to support independent parallel runway operations in Le Bourget and Roissy CDG airports) is considered as a relevant case for such an evaluation. DSNA cooperated with ESSP on the study and the APCM (Airports Performance Continuous Monitoring) tool was developed.

The presentation provides a high level description of the APCM tool as well as a screenshot of its interface. APCM uses real EGNOS messages (obtained directly from the EGNOS system network instead of from the SiS) and calculates the availability of the EGNOS APV 1 service level at the airport. The interface mainly consists of one indicator with a colour (red / green as a function of the availability of EGNOS APV 1 service level). The tool also provides an audio alert in case of unavailability. Availability is calculated every minute and archived for future assessment.

For the purpose of the experiment the APCM tool was installed on a standalone computer in a technical room in Roissy rather than in the ATC room and integrated with a Maintenance Alert Panel. Two observation periods were conducted (2 months and 1 week each) and the percentage of samples available and the proportion of these when EGNOS is unavailable were calculated. The reasons for missing samples could all be explained and these could have been avoided if the tool was used in real operations. Concerning LPV availability over the observation periods, this was verified to be within the expected availability requirements set in the SARPS (above 99% availability).

In conclusion, the study shows that meeting current ICAO requirements is achievable (a technical solution exists). The concept on how to use it in operation would need to be further developed before such a tool can be deployed and used by ATC. ATC have not been involved in the experiment.

Comments from the group included the following elements:

- Using a local SBAS receiver instead of calculating the availability of the service for a fault-free receiver should also be considered. Different views were expressed concerning the suitability of one or the other solution to meet the ICAO requirements. It may be necessary that the monitoring is conducted independently from the service provision.

- The availability of GNSS services may become even more important in the context of a PBN mandate (PBN IR).

- One challenge for the setting up of such a monitoring tool will be the fact that onboard receivers also independently monitor GNSS availability for the flight crews and this could provide conflicting information.

- Should such a monitoring tool be established for GPS only instead of for EGNOS? EGNOS is already a monitoring system of GPS.

- With the introduction of PBN, there is a transition from a period when ATC was knowledgeable about the status of individual navaids (and consequently about the availability of a procedure) to a situation where onboard systems provide real time availability information to pilots. It may be that the standards need to be reviewed to account for these changes.

16. Item 17 – EGNOS NOTAM service status FJ. De Blas (ESSP)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 17_EGNOS NOTAM Proposals by ESSP.pdf]

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13_AI Operations inputs on GNSS NOTAM .pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13_Attachment A_AIO9 AP6.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13_Attachment B_AIO9 AP6 Att 1.pdf]



[PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13_Attachment C_AIO9 AP6 Att 2.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13 Rev_Attachment D_AIO9 AP6 ppt.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13 Rev_Attachment E_AIO9 conclusions.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP13 Rev_Attachment F_AIO9 ACT10 outcomes.pdf]

ESSP provided an overview of the status of the EGNOS NOTAM service provision.

References to the relevant sections of ICAO annex 10 which define the need, the scope and the characteristics of GNSS NOTAM services were first provided. It was then recalled that the definition of the European concept for both GPS RAIM and EGNOS NOTAM started in 2006 and clarified the tasks in this concept document covered by ESSP with the EGNOS NOTAM proposal service (detection of events on EGNOS and GPS systems, prediction of EGNOS service unavailability periods, formatting of the information into a NOTAM proposal and transmission of the proposal to the NOTAM office for future publication).

The EGNOS NOTAM service has been provided since the EGNOS SoL declaration of service in March 2011. The service is regularly upgraded so that it can ultimately meet the ICAO definition of a GNSS NOTAM service. Service Level 4 is currently being provided. This covers both scheduled and unscheduled events with a maximum notification delay of 2 hours for unscheduled events. Service Level 5 will meet the 15 minutes reaction time specified by ICAO.

The EGNOS NOTAM Service benefits from a feed from a dedicated real-time interface with the EGNOS system. This interface informs within a maximum of 2 hours the EGNOS NOTAM tool of any change in the status of the GPS constellation, the EGNOS geostationary satellites or the network of ground monitoring stations of EGNOS (RIMS). A table in the presentation summarises the events covered by the EGNOS NOTAM service today.

The case of ionospheric events is special. By nature these are unscheduled and no prediction model for the impact on the service exists. In order to cover such situations a contingency communication process with EWA partners was put in place. This includes the provision of warning NOTAMs which, in case a contingency situation is declared, are sent for the airports expected to be impacted by the event. No agreement on the provision of warning NOTAM as defined in the GNSS NOTAM concept document could be obtained in the last years and the opinion of Aeronautical Information experts was requested on the topic. IP 13 and attachments contain the information submitted to the 9th meeting of the AI OPERATIONS subgroup in November 2013. Their opinion is that “Warning GNSS NOTAM should not be issued based on the nature of the event not being operationally significant (not NOTAM worthy information)”. The impact on the EGNOS service of these opinions against the provision of Warning NOTAM needs to be agreed with EASA. The intention of ESSP is to organise a dedicated workshop with EASA in Q3 2014 in order to resolve the situation. EWA partners, EUROCONTROL, Navigation and Aeronautical experts will be invited to participate to the workshop.

IP13 attachment F contains more consolidated comments from the AI OPERATIONS subgroup on the applicability of current standards to GNSS-based operations and PBN in general. These initial considerations, sent for information to the joint PBN TF and RAISG, will be reported to the AIM/SWIM team at the end of March 2014. Part of this is also relevant to the discussion taking place on Warning NOTAM. ESSP plans to provide comments on the material submitted for consultation of AI OPERATIONS in order to support further discussions on the subject. See also discussion under agenda item 22 hereafter.

Concerning future evolutions of the EGNOS NOTAM service, ESSP informed the group that a User Application has been developed in order to simplify, automate and secure the exchange of airport data required for the NOTAM service. ESSP is also investigating the possibility to add EGNOS NOTAM proposals for RNP 0.3 routes to the service, in line with the PBN Manual Volume II chapter 7. ESSP is asking for inputs from the group to help in the development of this service according to the needs.


PBN TF RAISG/2/16

All To support ESSP in the development of EGNOS NOTAM proposals for RNP 0.3 operations




17. Item 18 – PBN and FPL A. Troadec (EUROCONTROL)

Item 18 was addressed immediately after Item 19. Please refer for the minutes on Item 19 for more information

18. Item 19 – PBN fleet equipage according to FPL content M. Roelandt (EUROCONTROL)

IP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_IP14_PBN 2013 Data collection.pdf]

Presentation:[PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 19_PBN fleet equipage according to FPL content by EUROCONTROL.pdf][PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 18_FPL and PBN.pdf]

EUROCONTROL quickly reminded the group about the ICAO FPL 2012 provisions where new codes for PBN were introduced. Information contained in Item 18 (PBN approvals) and in Item 10 (Navigation equipment) provides a unique source for a PBN Fleet Capability Assessment without needing to conduct operator surveys. One should keep in mind that the information is only as good as that filled in by the operators in the FPL. IP 14 is the full assessment report.

IP14 is an updated and corrected version of the report provided to the 1st joint PBN TF and RAISG meeting in September 2013. All FPL for 2013 seen by CFMU, have now been analysed and correlated with information contained in the PRISME database (aircraft fleet characteristics). The report informs on the proportion of both the flights and the aircraft equipped with the different navigation equipment or capable of the different types of PBN applications. It also provides statistics for the different segments of airspace users and for the main European airports. The intention is to update this report every 6 months. All the statistics are available in IP14

A question was asked whether it would be possible for EUROCONTROL to provide more statistics for other airports. It was clarified that this was possible and that internal coordination is taking place in order to set up the appropriate tools like a dashboard so that we can more systematically and easily respond to this type of question.

The analysis of FPL data shows that some FPL are not correctly filled or not complete. For instance, RNP 1 capability on DME/DME and DME/DME/IRS are suspicious data. Moreover, RNAV 5 capability should systematically appear. The Dashboard is expected to assist in the identification of errors. This could also help in identifying and taking targeted actions so that things get corrected.

Better flight planning could also be achieved with the development of additional guidelines for flight dispatchers and pilots. Some ideas could to be discussed with EASA where explicit links between codes to be filled in the FPL and equipage with a particular piece of equipment (TSO) or approval against a particular operational approval standard (AMC) could be made. ICAO and IATA indicated that they would be ready to support any action that would help in that direction.

Concerning the lack of codes for the navigation specifications which were introduced in the latest amendment to the PBN manual, the problem could be addressed at ICAO global level only in the context of FF-ICE (target date around 2020). In the meantime, missing codes could be defined at regional level in ICAO doc 7030. Although doc 7030 is a regional supplement, it is reviewed at ICAO global level. Therefore harmonisation of codes at Global level will also be taken care of with this approach. A proposal for new codes has already been circulated in ICAO NSP and ATM RPP. It is planned to discuss this with the FAA and it could be used as a basis for the development of proposed amendments to doc 7030.


PBN TF RAISG/2/17


To prepare proposed amendment to doc 7030 so that codes for all navigation specs in the PBN Manual are available.


Finally the group was informed about the need to upgrade FPL systems so that PBN and CNS data in FPL are used for Flow and Capacity management. The decision to change NM systems was taken by NM in May 2013. The details of the changes have yet to be defined. The first needs have started to be



expressed such as in France the ATC would like to restrict access to Nice airport in particular weather conditions when only an RNP APCH is available to land there. Such changes in the systems cannot be expected before 2015. The joint PBN TF and RAISG members were invited to provide information on how PBN content in FPL is expected to be used in the future in order to prepare for the systems changes.


PBN TF RAISG/2/18

All To provide information on how PBN content in FPL is expected to be used in the future in order to prepare for the FPL systems changes.


It was indicated that using the information in FPL on the sensors supporting RNP applications could be useful to support mitigation measures in case of GPS wide area outages. Such information could for instance be used to deny access to GPS-only equipped aircraft to a particular airspace in case of GPS outage. A comment was made that actions for improved FPL data quality need to be taken in addition to setting up such use of FPL data in operations.

19. Item 20 – IATA priorities for RNP APCH implementation A. Van De Veldt (IATA)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 20_PBN Implementation by IATA.pdf]

IATA launched in December 2013 a campaign with IATA member airlines to identify the priorities for where RNP APCH implementation should take place in Europe. Priorities from IATA member airlines are in line with the priorities proposed by the 1st Joint PBN TF and RAISG meeting in September and accepted by EANPG 55 in November 2013. The deployment of vertically guided approaches is the highest priority and consequently runway ends that only have conventional NPA published are the first ones targeted. The deployment of APV as a backup to ILS is the second priority. IATA members have targeted runway ends longer than 2000m and APV Baro is the only priority for them.

IATA has already sent 11 letters to CAAs requesting implementation on the runway ends with highest priority. 7 additional letters are under preparation. 25 other countries will be addressed in a next step. The list of targeted countries and the number of runway ends targeted are available in the presentation.

IATA then took the opportunity to present to the group the outcome of a survey conducted in 2012 on aircraft capabilities. 27 airlines participated covering a total of 1301 airframes. PBN capabilities as well as the availability of FRT, RF and RTA functions and of different navigation sensors GNSS, VOR/DME and DME/DME/IRU were looked at. The outcomes of the survey are available in the presentation.

Finally IATA reported in the progress made on the implementation of PBN approaches in the Greek Islands. Heraklion and Corfu are the 2 airports studied by this project initiated by airspace users. 3 RNP APCH (HER and CFU) and 1 RNP AR APCH (HER) are under preparation. AR was chosen only where RNP APCH was not possible to implement. Procedure design, simulator test and flight validation for both RNP APCH and RNP AR APCH were all conducted successfully in 2013 with the help of Aegean and Novair. The activities remaining before the procedures are published are described in the presentation.

Some countries expressed their concerns on the list of candidate runway ends provided by IATA. Indeed some airports of interest are under military responsibility and the CAA cannot decide what should happen there. Moreover, States may define other priorities like implementing on preferable runway first or where conventional navaids maintenance is planned.

The GSA took the opportunity to say that because the recommendation is that both APVs should be published, support to LPV deployment should not be considered as an obstacle to the deployment of LNAV/VNAV procedure but rather as an opportunity for the deployment of these as well. IATA commented that indeed their needs could be addressed if LPV publication (to be accompanied with LNAV/VNAV) was targeted at airports where IATA members operate.

20. Item 21 – EGNOS adoption projects funded by EC C. Aguilera (GSA)



Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 21_EU funded initiatives for EGNOS in aviation.pdf]

The presentation from the GSA covered 3 points:

- Support to first LPV implementation. GSA’s intention to support such initiatives was first presented to RAISG group in April 2013. 7 airports in 7 different countries have been selected. None of these countries had yet published LPV procedures and benefited from any EC funds for that purpose in the past. This project will support Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Croatia and Romania. More details on the nature of the project (self managed or assisted), the scope and the progress made by each of them is given in the presentation. All publications are expected to take place in 2014.

- EGUS 2 – Open support schema for LPV implementation. EGUS is a 12 month long project divided into two phases. Phase 1 aims at identifying candidates for support. ANSP, airports, operators, flight schools, STC holders can all benefit from this schema; either for financial support or for technical support by INECO and ESSP. Phase 2 will be dedicated to conducting the support activities identified.

- Horizon 2020. The call for proposals will close on 3rd April 2014. Selection will take place until June 2014. More information on topics relevant to the call and funds available in support to the activities is available in the presentation.

Another call for proposals to facilitate EGNOS operational implementation is under preparation. PBN TF and RAiSG members will be informed when this is published.

21. Item 22 – Discussion on GNSS information distribution A. Troadec (EUROCONTROL)

WP: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_WP05 GNSS info distribution.pdf]

EUROCONTROL introduced WP5 to the group. Discussions which have taken place over several years, where ICAO standards applicable to GNSS NOTAM have been questioned. However, very little progress has been made in agreeing on what these requirements should really be.

The latest inputs to the discussion from AI Operations sub-group in February 2014 (see 2 nd RAISG / PBN TF meeting IP 13 and IP 13 Attachment F) show once more that something should be done to address the issues and WP5 proposes a pragmatic approach to try to unblock the situation.

In fact NOTAM is only one way to make such information available. There are other means of communication that could be used to provide GNSS information. Choosing the right means of communication (NOTAM or else) is a matter of the nature of information to share and the audience.

WP5 proposes a 2 step approach; (1) for Navigation and GNSS experts to define the operational needs (what information should be provided and for what purpose) and (2) for Aeronautical Information experts to decide on the most appropriate way to distribute the information. It is understood that conducting this analysis is a prerequisite to formally challenge the Standards at ICAO level. Until the standards are updated (if they ever are), GNSS-based services are expected to meet current standards.

What is proposed to RAiSG and PBN TF members is to set up a dedicated Task Force which would be tasked to address step 1 of the approach. The discussion within this TF should be free of any a priori on the solution(s) to be discussed under step 2 of the approach, which is the competence of AI experts. A first description of the information expected to be collected in step 1 is provided in WP5. This includes information on the events known to influence GNSS performance, on the impact of events on GNSS-based service levels, and finally the impact of service degradations on operations.

A few volunteers agreed to join the initiative. All inputs to the process will be welcome. EUROCONTROL will animate the group and collect inputs for a first report to the next joint meeting of the PBN TF and RAISG in September 2014. AI experts in EUROCONTROL are aware of the initiative. Their involvement within step 2 of the approach will depend on the outcomes of the work undertaken by the Navigation and GNSS experts first.




PBN TF RAISG/2/19

All To express their interest in contributing to the analysis proposed on GNSS Information Distribution (Identification of the operational need)

2nd May 2014

22. Item 23 – Guidelines for RNP APCH implementation (doc 025) The intention behind this agenda item was to stimulate inputs for an update to the ICAO doc 025. However because of lack of time, the item could not be presented. It will be put on the agenda of the next joint meeting in September 2014.

23. Item 24 – FAQ and lessons learned

1.6. Operational use of VOR G. Berz (EUROCONTROL)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 24_Operational Use of VOR by EUROCONTROL.pdf]

In the transition from navigation based on conventional aids to Area Navigation and PBN, the role of VOR is evolving and decisions on future evolutions to the terrestrial navigation infrastructure need to be made.

The presentation highlights the urgency of the situation: VOR obsolescence is already a problem and a decision to renew a VOR is a decision for the next 20 years. Based on a list of future roles of VOR and a set of cockpit assumptions discussed in the context of the ICAO NSP (see slides 4 and 5 of the presentation in particular), EUROCONTROL proposes to push for a Minimum Operational Network based on VOR/DME, with priority given to VOR/DME located at airports. Rationalisation of 50% of the VORs could be achieved in high density areas.

The PBN TF and RAISG members were invited to provide their views on the future roles of VOR and assumptions listed in the presentation as well as on the proposed way forward. Advice on how to further validate this information would also be welcome. Feedback received will feed future discussions at ICAO level.

Feedback from the group included the following elements:

- Keeping the electronic record of a VOR even if they are discontinued on the ground could still support situational awareness for pilots.

- With or without coordinates available onboard, VOR signals are useful to pilots

- Keeping both VOR and waypoint coordinates may be a concern from an onboard database capacity perspective.

- Some legacy FMS may not be able to cope with collocated DME/VOR facilities.

- Some countries will start removing VOR only when robust GNSS is available and VOR is no longer needed for backup purposes.

- VORs located on airports are the most difficult to maintain (difficult to protect against airfield modifications)

- Some FMS use a 70NM cut off instead of the 25 NM made reference to in the presentation. Moreover some of them exclude VOR when closer than 10NM to the VOR.

- The use of DME/DME to support RNAV 1 may not be possible at low altitudes.

- MSA reference should now be the airport or heliport reference point (not a VOR any longer)

- Training shouldn’t be a driver for maintaining/installing a VOR (nor an NDB)

More assistance was proposed from IATA in order to consolidate the cockpit view of the problem.




PBN TF RAISG/2/20

All To provide their views on the future role of VOR, cockpit assumptions and the proposed way forward for future evolution of VOR infrastructure as proposed in the presentation. Advice on how to validate further this information would also be welcome.

2nd May 2014

1.7. FAS DB R. Farnworth (EUROCONTROL)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 24_FAS DB Updates.pdf]

EUROCONTROL presented a few slides on the FAS Data Block tool available on the EUROCONTROL website. ICAO defines different FAS DB contents for SBAS and GBAS and both are supported by the tool. The tool allows the calculation of the CRC for a given set of data in the FAS DB as well as creating the hexadecimal textual representation. It is also able to decode the hexadecimal textual representation of the FAS DB. The tool also offers the possibility to generate a binary file for a particular FAS DB or decode such a binary file.

EUROCONTROL intention is to discontinue the GBAS part of the tool as it is not considered as required.

A few modifications will also be brought to the tool in order to capture a few lessons learned over the past years by ANSPs and data houses. These modifications will concern:- the Operation Type, where “0” is the only valid input- the Reference Path Identifier (RPI), where 4 characters will be expected; and - the Route Indicator which should either be blank or a letter from “Z” to “A” omitting “I” and “O”.

Comment was made that whenever RPI and RI fields change, a new SBAS channel number is required even though the final approach segment is fully identical.

Some considerations about the need for the tool to be certified were provided. In absence of regulatory documents applicable to such tools, only a test report on the validity of the functions of the tool can be provided. The validation report will be made available together with the tool.

Concerning the need for electronic data transfer as defined in PANS-OPS, it was mentioned that no process between procedure design organisations and data houses exists today to accommodate such electronic transfer and consequently this requirement is not practicable.

As a result of the comments gathered during the meeting the withdrawal of the GBAS part of the tool will have to be reconsidered inside EUROCONTROL.

1.8. Lessons learned and AIP review R. Farnworth (EUROCONTROL)

Presentation: [PBNTF_ECTL _RAISG2_Item 24_Lessons Learned AIP review.pdf]

With almost 450 RNP APCH procedures published in ECAC much has been learned. Sharing the benefits of experience has been made through the PBN TF and RAISG meeting but capturing and making available the lessons learned needs to be improved. The aim of this presentation was to stimulate discussion on the options for collecting and sharing these lessons learned.

A first list of typical questions that EUROCONTROL has collected was provided in a few slides. Some of them have been answered; others have yet to be answered. Responding to these questions requires the involvement of the different actors involved in PBN deployment, the aggregation of different sources of data and constant updates.

The use of the EUROCONTROL Onesky Team is not felt to be appropriate to the problem. A comment was made that a “wiki” type of solution could meet these needs. EUROCONTROL will investigate this solution for the future. ICAO commented that a more formal repository of lessons learned and guidelines would be required in addition to a wiki solution. It was agreed that the update of the ICAO doc 025 would be to be done so that agreed, mature and/or harmonised aspects of PBN implementations are well captured.



The question was raised as to whether the scope of the solution should cover RNP APCH or PBN in general. It was responded that a solution could be first sought for RNP APCH and then extended to other PBN applications later. The question will be forwarded to the EUROCONTROL NSG for further consideration.

EUROCONTROL presented the outcomes of an analysis of the content of some State publications on RNP APCH. A more exhaustive analysis of the documentation could allow the identification of some responses to the questions asked. ANSP were invited to send RNP APCH elements of their latest aeronautical publication to EUROCONTROL so that such an analysis can be performed and a central repository of information can start to be built.


PBN TF RAISG/2/21

All ANSP To send their latest aeronautical publication relevant to RNP APCH to EUROCONTROL

July 2014

24. Item 25 – AOB N/A

25. Item 26 – Recap and conclusions, review of actions

The list of actions, as provided in Annex A1 was quickly stated to the group. The current summary of discussions and the list of actions will be reviewed and stand as the conclusions for the meeting.

The next meeting will take place on 16 - 18 September 2014 in ICAO Paris office / France.


A-1 Annex A – Action itemsPBNTF-ECTL-RAISG/2 - SoD

Annex A. Action items

A.1. New Actions


PBN TF RAISG /2 /1


To draft a questionnaire in cooperation with the group in order to conduct a survey on procedure design expertise in Europe (according to EANPG 55th conclusions)

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /2

All To share information on rules/standards that would define restrictions to the OCH for LPV procedures published on Non Precision instrument runways.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /3

EUROCONTROL and ICAO

To identify the forum where guidelines for better and harmonised route publications should be developed.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /4

All To check the validity of the information collected by ICAO in WP7 Attachment A (CNS 4b table) and B (PBN implementation plans)

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /5

EUROCONTROL

To update the proposed template for CNS 4b table with the latest comments made by the group

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /6

EUROCONTROL

To distribute the updated template for CNS 4b table in Excel format so that countries could start to use it.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /7

EUROCONTROL

To convert the latest CNS 4b table (WP7 attachment A) into the new format for use from the next reporting cycle to ICAO

Q4 2014

PBN TF RAISG /2 /8

All To provide an opinion on the usefulness and feasibility of a closer link with national AIS Provider to feed the map tool.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG /2 /9

All To review the list of National Contact points for the map tool contained in WP6.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG/2/10


To consult EANPG on the potential extension of the scope of the Map Tool to non-ECAC countries.


PBN TF RAISG/2/11


To provide the group with update on the differences between the ICAO PBN map and the EUROCONTROL PBN map tool.


PBN TF RAISG/2/12


To bring to the attention of EANPG concerns on inconsistencies between the ICAO OAS software and the PANS OPS (WP4).


PBN TF RAISG/2/13


To initiate the drafting of a memo that would bring the waypoint naming problems raised by the group to the attention of the National and regional focal points on ICARD for discussion.




PBN TF RAISG/2/14

All To share their views on how the “alignment” required by the PANS-OPS for the intermediate and final approach segments of an RNP APCH procedure should be understood.

ASAP

PBN TF RAISG/2/15


To explore how and who could develop regulations / guidelines or a standard set of assumptions for the publication of IAP on non-instrument runways.

3rd joint PBN TF and RAiSG meeting

PBN TF RAISG/2/16

All To support ESSP in the development of EGNOS NOTAM proposals for RNP 0.3 operations


PBN TF RAISG/2/17


To prepare proposed amendments to doc 7030 so that codes for all navigation specs in the PBN Manual are available.


PBN TF RAISG/2/18

All To collect information on how PBN content in FPL is expected to be used in the future in order to prepare for the FPL systems changes.


PBN TF RAISG/2/19

All To express their interest in contributing to the analysis proposed on GNSS Information Distribution (Identification of the operational need)

2nd May 2014

PBN TF RAISG/2/20

All To provide their views on the future role of VOR, cockpit assumptions and the proposed way forward for future evolution of VOR infrastructure as proposed in the presentation. Advice on how to validate further this information would also be welcome.

2nd May 2014

PBN TF RAISG/2/21

All ANSP To send their latest aeronautical publication relevant to RNP APCH to EUROCONTROL

July 2014



A.2. Actions from previous meetings and status

Action ID Action on Description of the action Due date Status

PBN TF & RAISG/1/1

All To provide comments on the draft memorandum of cooperation on sharing of flight procedure design resources (Appendix D to SoD)

1st October 2013

Closed. The MoC was updated according to comment, updated and was accepted by EANPG 55 (see agenda item 3).

PBN TF & RAISG/1/2

All (not only EGNOS EWA partners)

To express their individual views on the provision of EGNOS warning NOTAM as part of the EGNOS NOTAM proposal service by ESSP (as described in RAISG4 WP1 and attachment)

End of October 2013

Closed. Individual views received from ENAV and Skyguide. For more information on the topic please refer to discussions under agenda item 17.

PBN TF & RAISG/1/3

All To provide comments on the proposed updated CNS 4b table and associated guidelines (Appendix E to SoD)

1st October 2013

Closed. Comments collected were taken into consideration as reported to the group in WP3 (Agenda Item 9)

PBN TF & RAISG/1/4

All To share any local/national FPL and PBN data analysis results with EUROCONTROL to compare against draft results presented in the attachment to IP 10.

ASAP Closed. The EUROCONTROL data analysis report has been updated and corrected (see Agenda Item 19 and IP 14 for more information)

PBN TF & RAISG/1/5

All To provide comments on the PBN work programme (WP2) 1st October 2013

Closed. Comments collected (France and Skyguide) and the work programme has been updated accordingly.

PBN TF & RAISG/1/6

States To liaise with their representative at ICAO EUR/NAT RDG about PBN en-route publication in AIP

ASAP Closed as per information presented under agenda item 8.

RAiSG/4/2 All To provide feedback to EUROCONTROL on questions raised by Austrocontrol in their presentation to RAiSG 4th meeting

ASAP Open. No feedback received. See discussions under agenda item 24.

RAiSG/4/3 All To provide feedback to EUROCONTROL on questions raised by DSNA in their presentation to RAiSG#4


RAiSG/4/4 All To provide feedback to EUROCONTROL on questions raised by Skyguide in their presentation to RAiSG#4




RAiSG/4/5 EUROCONTROL and All

EUROCONTROL to initiate a discussion on the impact of the loss of GNSS during final approach, implications on safety assessment, contingency procedures, charting, missed approaches, etc. Practices in different States will serve as a basis for the discussion.

RAiSG 5 Open. See discussions under agenda item 24.

RAiSG/4/6 EUROCONTROL To bring the need for an operational concept on how PBN FPL information is going to be used to the NSG

ASAP Closed. See discussion and actions undertaken under agenda item 18.

RAiSG/4/8 EUROCONTROL To open a discussion on GNSS outage information services (NOTAM and other pre-flight information flows)

RAiSG 5 Closed. See discussion and actions undertaken under agenda item 22 (and WP 5)

RAiSG/4/9 RAiSG members

To provide feedback to EUROCONTROL ([email protected]) on the usefulness of AUGUR (WP3)

ASAP Closed. The provision of the AUGUR service is part of the Centralised Service #7 proposed by EUROCONTROL.


To report on whether an OPS approval for RNAV approaches is required for an operator without an AOC.

RAiSG 4 Open. Few inputs received. See discussions under agenda item 24.


To confirm the validity of (or complement) the information contained in RAiSG3/WP1 Appendix A (PBN Approach national points of contact).

ASAP Closed. As per discussions and actions undertaken under agenda item 9 (WP8).


mailto:[email protected]

B-1 Annex B – AgendaPBNTF-ECTL-RAISG/2 - SoD

Annex B. Agenda

JOINT ICAO EUR PERFORMANCE BASED TASK FORCE & EUROCONTROL RAISG MEETING

SECOND MEETING

(EUROCONTROL, Brussels 12 – 14 March 2014)

PROPOSED DETAILED AGENDA V8

Agenda Item Supporting material

Est. Time Speaker

12 March 2014 (from 14h to 17h) meeting room:

EUROPA

1 Opening IP 1 Co-Chairmen/Secretary2 Global and Regional PBN developments, including:

3 ICAO latest developments/outcomes of the EANPG COG

WP2 & 6- task listIP 2 to 7 + IP15

30 min Elkhan Nahmadov – ICAO

4 EUROCONTROL latest developments (including NSG report and PBN IR status) IP 10 PP06 30 min

F. Pavlicevic & S. Neshevski -EUROCONTROL

5 Status report on SDCM and GLONASS IP 8 & 9 30 min Vladimir Korchagin -

Russian Federation6 Status report on EGNOS system status PP08 20 min GSA7 Status report on EGNOS service provision PP09 20 min ESSP

8 RNAV routes data quality monitoring - status report IP 11 PP10 30 min Lucie Kovacova - EUROCONTROL

9 Monitoring RNP APCH deployment

WP 3WP7 –WP8 CNS 4b table

PP11 30 minAline Troadec – EUROCONTROLICAO


POLLUX

10 PANS-OPS OAS software for APV I SBAS WP 4 verbal 15 min P. Bizet – French CAA (DGAC DTA)

11 Status report from EASA ppt 30 min Bryan Jolly - EASA12 National PBN implementation report

12.1 PBN implementation status in Portugal PP22 30 min Victor Estrella - NAV Portugal

12.2 PBN implementation in Norway PP01 30 min Einar Stein Haugen - AVINOR



12.3 PBN implementation status in UK PP07 30 min UK CAA and NATS

12.4 PBN implementation status in Finland PP05 30 min Samu Tuparinne - Finavia

12.5 PBN implementation status in Switzerland PP12 30 min Marc Troller - Skyguide12.6 PBN implementation status in Italy PP13 30 min ENAV12.7 Other national implementation status reports verbal 30 min all

13 APV at visual airfields (Spain) PP03 Rev 1

20 min AENA

14 Introduction to draft ICAO Concept of operations for RNAV visual approaches IP 12 verbal 5 min Rick Farnworth -

EUROCONTROL15 "RNAV visual" trials in France PP14 30 min DSNA

16 French implementation of the ESSP APCM tool (Airports Performances Continuous Monitoring tool)

PP02 30 min DSNA

17 EGNOS NOTAM service status IP 13 PP15 30 min ESSP and EUROCONTROL

18 PBN and FPL PP16 15 min Aline Troadec - EUROCONTROL

19 PBN fleet equipage according to FPL content IP 14 PP04 30 min Michel Roelandt - EUROCONTROL


EUROPA

20 IATA priorities for RNP APCH implementation PP17 30 min Anthony van der Veldt - IATA

21 EGNOS adoption projects funded by EC verbalPP18 30 min GSA / INECO22 Discussion on GNSS information distribution WP 5 verbal 20 min EUROCONTROL23 Guidelines for RNP APCH implementation (doc 025) 30 min EUROCONTROL

24 FAQ and lessons learned PP20 2h EUROCONTROL and all

including:

Operational use of VOR PP21 G. Berz - EUROCONTROL

FAS DB PP19 EUROCONTROL25 AOB 26 Recap and conclusions, review of actions 30 min Co-Chairmen/Secretary



PBNTF ECTL RAISG/2 LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

WP Agenda item

Title Presentedby

Website

1 v8 ?

?Proposed detailed agenda v8?? Secretariat

2 6 ICAO EUR PBN Approvals Guidance Material (EUR Doc 029) Secretariat 29/01/201

42 Att

A (EN)

6 Guidance material on RNAV 10 Approvals Secretariat 29/01/2014

2 Att A

(RU)6 Guidance material on RNAV 10 Approvals Secretariat 29/01/201

4

2 Att B

(EN)6 Guidance material on RNP 4 Approvals Secretariat 29/01/201

4

2 Att B

(RU)6 Guidance material on RNP 4 Approvals Secretariat 29/01/201

4

3 9 Updated CNS4b Table Eurocontrol

06/03/2014

4 10 PANS-OPS OAS Software France 06/03/2014

5 22 Stimulating discussions on GNSS information distribution

Eurocontrol

07/03/2014

6 3

Appendix H - Task List of SoD of the 1st ICAO EUR Performance Based Navigation Task Force & Eurocontrol RAiSG Meeting (Paris, France, 11-13 September 2013)

Secretariat 10/03/2014

7 9 Update of CNS 4b table and Status of PBN Implementation for ICAO EUR States Secretariat 10/03/201

47 Att

A 9 Updated CNS 4b table of the EUR Air Navigation Plan Secretariat 10/03/201

47 Att

B 9 ICAO EUR Member States Status of PBN Implementation for 2014 Secretariat 10/03/201

4

8 9 PBN Approach map tool deployment status at the end of 2013 & future updates

Eurocontrol

11/03/2014

List of information papers

IP Agenda item

Title Presentedby

Website

2 1 Global Aviation Safety Plan 2013 Secretariat 29/01/2014

3 8 Resolutions Adopted by Assembly 38th Session (Montreal, 24 September – 4 October 2013,




Provisional Edition November 2013)

4 1 Doc 9750–AN/963 – Fourth Edition - 2013-2028 Global Air Navigation Plan Secretariat 29/01/2014

5 1Report of the Fifty-fifth Meeting of the European Air Navigation Planning Group (Paris, 25-28 November 2013)


6 8Electronic Bulletin (EB 2013/38) of 30 Aug 2013, Annex amendments that have become effective 15 July 2013


7 8 ANB Publications 2012- (Forecast)2014 Secretariat 30/01/2014

8 2 GLONASS and SDCM status Russian Federation 27/02/2014

9 3Development of a new plan for PBN implementation in the Russian Federation Russian

Federation 27/02/2014

10 4Report of the 18th Meeting of the Navigation Steering Group (24 September to 26 September 2013 Brussels, (Eurocontrol)

Eurocontrol 06/03/2014

11 8 RNDSG-81 WPA Airspace AIP Publication Issues Progress


12 13 OPSP.WGWHL16.WP-19 AI-5.4 Concept of operations for RNAV visual approaches


13 Rev 16 AI Operations Inputs to the Group on GNSS

NOTAMEurocontro

l 06/03/2014

13 Att A 16 AI Operations-9/AP7 - GNSS NOTAM in

Europe – State of the ArtEurocontro

l 06/03/2014

13 Att B 16 GNSS NOTAM in Europe – State of the art Eurocontro

l 06/03/2014

13 Att C 16 The Provision of GNSS Status Information and

NOTAMsEurocontro

l 06/03/2014

13 Att D Rev

16 Presentation – AI Operations #9 GNSS NOTAM – EGNOS NOTAM


13 Att E Rev

16 Presentation - AI Operations Subgroup-9 Conclusions


13 Att F 16 AI Operations-9 ACT 10 Consolidated

commentsEurocontro

l 06/03/2014

14 17 PBN 2013 data collection Fleet Capability Assessment


15 3

SL AN 13/2.5-13/85 Proposal for the amendment of the Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444) relating to 9.3 km (5 NM) terminal separation based on RNP, PBN lateral separation and VOR/GNSS lateral separation


List of Powerpoint presentations



PPT Agenda item

Title Presentedby

Website

1 12.2 PBN Implementation Plan Norway Norway 07/03/2014

2 16 RAISG/PBN-TF#02 French experimental implementation of ESSP APCM tool

France-DSNA

10/03/2014

3 Rev 1 13 APV at visual airfields AENA 11/03/2014

4 19 PBN Fleet equipage according to FPL content Eurocontrol

11/03/2014

5 12.4 PBN Implementation status in Finland Finland 11/03/2014

6 4 NAV & PBN related Eurocontrol training Eurocontrol

11/03/2014

7 12.3 United Kingdom PBN Implementation Status United Kingdom

13/03/2014

8 6 EGNOS Implementation status – Focus on LPV 200

European GNSS Agency

19/03/2014

9 7 EGNOS Service status ESSP 19/03/2014

10 8 RNAV routes data quality monitoring – status report

Eurocontrol

19/03/2014

11 9 PBN Approach implementation monitoring by Eurocontrol

Eurocontrol

19/03/2014

12 12.5 Status report of Switzerland Switzerland

20/03/2014

12 Att 12.5 PBN Implementation Status in Switzerland Switzerland

24/03/2014

13 12.6 PBN Implementation inside Italian Airspace Italy 20/03/2014

14 15 Visual RNAV evaluation in France France 21/03/2014

15 17 EGNOS NOTAM Proposals: Status update ESSP 21/03/2014

16 18 PBN and Flight Planning Eurocontrol

21/03/2014

17 20 PBN Implementation IATA 24/03/2014

18 21 EU funded initiatives to support EGNOS adoption in Aviation

European GNSS Agency

24/03/2014

19 24 FAS Data-Block tool issues Eurocontrol

24/03/2014

20 24 Open Questions & Collecting Lessons Learned

Eurocontrol

24/03/2014

21 24 Operational use of VOR Eurocontrol

24/03/2014

22 12.1 RNP APCH in Portugal Portugal 24/03/2014




C-1 Annex C – List of participantsPBNTF-ECTL-RAISG/2 - SoD

Annex C. List of Participants

AUSTRIA Florian BUCHMANN

BELGIUM Christophe PARIDAENS Denis GOCHEL

BULGARIA Alexander VITKOV

CYPRUS Dimitris KALOGIROS Yiannis THEOPHILOU

CZECH REPUBLIC Tomas DUKA

DENMARK Bo FELDBERG

ESTONIA Maarja VIPP Aleksei SHISHOV

FINLAND Samu TUPARINNE

FRANCE Sophie BARANES Philppe BIZET Corinne BOUSQUET

GEORGIA Mikheil GAPRINDASHVILI David CHKHIKVISHVILI Zviad KHITARISHVILI Serge KOKOLIA (on e:mail)

GERMANY Andre BIESTMANN

IRELAND Donal LAMONT James O'SULLIVAN

ITALY

Vasco LOCCI Leonardo NICOLO Patrizio VANNI Sebastiano VECCIA LATVIA Érika NEIMANE Sergey JAHNOVICH

LITHUANIA Jurij BERSENEV

MOROCCO Mohamed SABBARI Abdellah SAKHI

NETHERLANDS Bas SMEULDERS

NORWAY Hans Petter KRISTOFFERSEN Hildegunn GRONSETH Einar Stein HAUGEN Arne LINDBERG Alexander LOVAR Jakub SAR (no e:mail)

POLAND Tomasz WOZNIAK Andrzej KROL

PORTUGAL Antonio CARDOSO Maria Luisa ESGUELHA Victor ESTRELA

ROMANIA Viorel SALISTEAN

RUSSIAN FEDERATION Vladimir KORCHAGIN


C-2 Annex C – List of participantsPBNTF-ECTL-RAISG/2 - SoD

SLOVAKIA Martin REICH Martin NOSAL Rastislav PRIMUS

SPAIN Luis Fernando GALLEJONES-AGUERO Francisco JIMENEZ RONCERO Jose PABLO HARO

SWEDEN Ann-Christine SPORRONG Helen ERIKSON

SWITZERLAND Romano GERMANN Thomas BUCHANAN Marc TROLLER Dr

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Saso BOJCIN

UKRAINE Oleksii RUDYI Pavlo KUD Sergii VLASOV

UNITED KINGDOM Ken ASHTON Geoffrey BURTENSHAW

AIRBUS TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL Inigo BURGAZ-ARANGUREN

BRITISH AIRWAYS Harold WATE

EASA Bryan JOLLY

ECA

Stefan FIEDLER

ESSP

Juan VAZQUEZ Francisco-Javier DE BLAS

EUROCONTROL Michel ROELANDT Gerhard BERZ Richard FARNWORTH Lucie KOVACOVA Sasho NESHEVSKI Franca PAVLICEVIC Francisco SALABERT Aline TROADEC

EUROPEAN GNSS AGENCY Laura PICCIRILLO Carmen AGUILERA RIOS Hans DE WITH Chris NEVILLE

GMV Luis Javier ALVAREZ ANTON

HELIOS Philip CHURCH

IATA Anthony VAN DER VELDT

INECO Victor M. Gordo ARIAS

LUFTHANSA Pascal WEGMANN Pieter-Bas OORTMAN

LUFTHANSA SYSTEMS FLIGHTNAV INC Martin ZILLIG

ROCKWELLCOLLINS Okko BLEEKER

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY Silvio SEMANJSKI

THALES

Jean-Pierre ARETHENS


C-3 Annex C – List of ParticipantsPBNTF-ECTL-RAISG/2 - SoD

TRANSAERO AIRLINES Viacheslav CHISTOVAndrey SOROKIN

ICAO

Elkhan NAHMADOV

-END-


Documents

#PBNTF-ECTL RAISG/2 - Draft SoD - International Civil ... Meetings Seminars and... · Web viewThere is pressure from Operators for the publication of RNP AR APCH, sometimes for environmental