Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
UK PBN Implementation Status
ICAO EUR PBN TF & ECTL RAiSG/1
Geoff Burtenshaw
11-13 September 2013
2
Presentation Overview
• UK Future Airspace Strategy (FAS)
• En-route status
• Terminal airspace developments − London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP)
− Location specific mandate
− Departure trials
• RNP APCH operations − Inferior runways / no approach control
• Infrastructure
• Challenges
• Summary
3
UK Future Airspace
Strategy (FAS)
4
FAS sets out the UK’s ambition to modernise the airspace system
in line with SES II and SESAR goals and the UK / Ireland FAB.
FAS Context
• by CAA, NATS,
MoD and DfT
FAS
Developed
Gathered
Feedback
Planned for
Deployment
Deployment of Phase 1
Priorities
• Public Consultation
• Industry Responses
• 21st CN Class G
• Aligned Industry
Investment Plans
• Produce Network
Benefits Case
• Define Policy and
Regulatory Enablers
• Redesign the Route Network in
Terminal Airspace
• Manage queuing across every
phase of flight
• Connect Airports into the
Network
• Implement Performance Based
Navigation
Stages of FAS Development
2012 2010 2011
Airspace Transport
Select Committee
2009
2013 - 2020
4
5
2013 2015 2020
Reference Period 1 Reference Period 2
PBN Trials / Early Implementation
Upper Sectors Development
AMAN/DMAN in the FAB, Airport DPI Provision, A-CDM
LAMP Design & Consultation LAMP 1
16 17 18 19
NTCA Design & Consultation
Queue Mgmt. cross FAB / Long Term System Optimisation*
Full UK PBN Implementation PBN IR
Direct & Free Route and Enhanced FUA across the FAB
(pre TA changes)
Short Term System Optimisation*
PBN Mandate for LAMP Airspace
Harmonise TA (18,000ft?)
FAS Deployment Timeline
Key Airport Related Initiatives
NTCA (Benefits dependent on TA change)
*System Optimisation: Building airspace system constraints into airport slot allocations,
scheduling, flight planning, required times of arrival etc. to improve network performance.
LAMP 2 (post TA changes)
Initial NTCA
5
6
En-route Status
7
En-route Status
• From 7 April 2011, RNAV 5 (B-RNAV) became
applicable on all UK ATS routes at all
levels/altitudes in controlled airspace as
promulgated in the UK AIP
• Investigation of wider application of DCTs in
coordination with FAB partner
7
8
Terminal Airspace
Developments
9
Terminal Airspace Developments
• STARs are largely covered by the extension of the
RNAV 5 mandate
• Gatwick RNAV 1 SIDs (19 procedures) approved and
effective from November 2013
− Replication of conventional departure tracks
• NATS London Airspace Management Programme
(LAMP) and Northern Terminal Control Area (NTCA)
Projects
• Newcastle, Luton, Birmingham, Southend, Bristol,
Leeds Bradford, Farnborough RNAV 1 procedures
under development
• NATS Departure Enhancement Programme (DEP) trials
• London Stansted CLN and DVR RNP 1 SID trial with RF
10
What LAMP will do?
• Improve safety by reducing complexity and tactical intervention
and therefore reduce controller / pilot workload
• Improve flight efficiency by introducing more Continuous Climb
and Continuous Descent Operations and through new concepts
such as Point Merge
• Phase 2 linked to higher TA
• Provide enhanced navigation capability through a Performance
Based Navigation (PBN) design (RNAV 1 minimum)
• Introduce Queue Management to eliminate stack holding in
normal operations
• Provide capacity to meet future demand
• LAMP is a once in a lifetime opportunity to modernise the
airspace in the London Terminal Control region
11
LAMP and PBN
• Overall intention to design LAMP to PBN standard, with
no conventional alternative
• A conducive airspace environment through:
− CAA AIC with Guidance on Application of PBN in UK
(published in March 12)
− Localised mandates to be implemented with LAMP phases
• For Phase 1a in 2015, minimum standard is RNAV 1, but
elements could be to a higher spec level if appropriate
• For Phase 2 (2017+) RNP 1 will be minimum as close to
SES PBN IR with anticipated RNP 1 mandate
• Operators not compliant with any mandate may receive
tactical routeings which may involve delay / re-route
12 NATS PRIVATE Slide 12
LAMP Draft Implementation Plan: Phase 1
13 NATS PRIVATE Slide 13
LAMP Draft Implementation Plan: Phase 2
14
Location Specific Mandate
• Development of a mandate to enforce
compliance supporting airspace change at
specific locations (airports)
• Resulted from on-the-ground experience and
request from ANSPs for regulatory support
• If no intervention - FAS goals at risk
• Based on Impact Assessment with costs and
benefits articulated
• LAMP Phase 1A mandate for 2015 to be
presented to CAA Board in November 2013
15
ATC Flight Plan 2012
Breakdown of EGLC Flight Plans without RNAV 1 Capability by Aircraft Type
FOKKER 50
DORNIER 328
SAAB 2000
CESSNA 560XL Citation Excel
CESSNA 525A Citation CJ2
DASSAULT Falcon 2000
• Field 18 providing
valuable
information
regarding airline
and fleet capability
• Some mis-filing of
flight plans
• Helps us know who
we have to talk to
• An important
planning tool
16
• US best practice (e.g., Atlanta) is shaping
FAS airport plans
• The Departure Enhancement Programme
(DEP) is the first step towards systemisation
• RNAV 1 angle of separation for a 1 minute
split
• USA uses as little as 10 degrees divergence
• Re-design SIDs to match current RADAR
vectors and improve further
• Potential to increase runway departure
capacity, flight efficiency and offer noise
mitigation (respite)
International Best Practice
17
Benefits
• Reduce tactical intervention
• Reduce noise impact and NPR swathes
• Opportunities to develop reduced
departure splits & independent arrivals
• Systemisation of TMA
Principles
• Joint FAS project across CAA, NATS, Airlines
and Airports.
• Develop industry standards for PBN, in
particular, route spacing
• Maximise near term benefits of PBN
• Adopt international best practice
• Enhance the benefits of major terminal airspace
re-designs (LAMP & NTCA) TC South East 55 minute Sim – Standard Vectoring
TC South East 55 minute Sim – RNAV1 Departures
Departure Enhancement Project (DEP)
17
18
• Heathrow Midhurst (DOKEN) – RNAV 1 track keeping and separation to
a hold
• Heathrow Compton offload – reduced angle of separation for 1 minute
split
• Heathrow Easterly SID Package – RNAV 1 interactions
• Gatwick BOGNA – reduced divergence at point of departure and
reduced separation to hold
• Stansted RNP 1 – RNP 1 Radius to Fix turn departure trial
• Luton – RNAV 1 track keeping on departure for noise benefits
• Additional trials proposed and will be scoped further in the first phase
of project (London City, Manchester, Leeds Bradford, Cambridge)
DEP Project - Planned Trials
18
19
London Stansted RNP 1 SIDs Trial
Joint project - Stansted, CAA, easyJet, local NATS ATC
• 1 year trial May 2013 to May 2014
• ATC / operator experience of RNP Radius to Fix (RF)
• Assess lateral track keeping accuracy
• Assess impact of aircraft noise with / without RNP
• Set parameters for future design standards
20
Trial Participants
• easyJet A319/A320
• German Wings A319
• Pegasus Airways B737-800
• Atlas Air B747-8
Planned Participants
• FedEx MD-11
• UPS B767-300ER Freighter
• Ryanair B737-800
21
Quote from Atlas Air - Senior Director
Flight Operations Support Group, Miami
“Looking at those tracks makes me feel very
good. This is the right direction. The
procedure is simple for crews to load and
follow which takes away the anxiety many
felt when departing EGSS.”
22
Stansted RNP 1 RF Trial Data
22
Stansted (EGSS) DVR 1D RWY 04 Atlas Air B747-8
23
Approach Operations
24
RNP APCH Operations - Status
• High levels of interest to implement RNAV (GNSS) Approaches
• All will include LNAV Reversion
• CAA encouraging inclusion of LNAV/VNAV and LPV as standard
• Final (business) decision rests with aerodrome
• Assessment of use of SBAS on LNAV/VNAV procedures complete
• Promulgation and notification to data houses in-work
Runway ends
LNAV
Runway ends
LNAV/VNAV
Runway ends
LPV
In Service 33 18 2
In Design 54 24 52
24
25
UK Implementation (AIRAC 4/2013)
LNAV/VNAV (Baro) LNAV LPV
Planned Partial (One Runway) Full (All Runways) 25
26
Instrument Approach Procedures For
Aerodromes Without an Instrument
Runway and/or Approach Control
27
Scope – Public Transport Operations
28
Policy Highlights
• A move from a standards-based application to a more risk-based
application where judgement required ...both by applicant and the
regulator
− Applicant conducts a location-specific safety assessment in support of an application for an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) based upon alternative safety mitigations
− Early ‘Preliminary Assessment’ to reduce business risk
− Single CAA point of contact for applicants
− Post Implementation Review – Ongoing Monitoring & Feedback
− This work applies equally to both traditional instrument approaches using conventional aids and newer GNSS approaches
• Each case is location-specific – not possible to assume what the
outcome would be at specific aerodrome locations until safety
analysis has been conducted
• Public consultation anticipated Oct- Dec 2013
• Publication of CAA Publication early 2014
29
Infrastructure
30
Navaid Rationalisation
• NATS programme to “right-size” the UK conventional navigation
infrastructure compatible with a PBN environment
• Programme to reduce en-route DVORs from 46 to 19 by 2018
• Co-located DMEs to remain in operation when DVOR withdrawn
– DMEs may be relocated in the future to optimise coverage and geometry
• Consistent with changes to require RNAV 5 on all UK ATS routes
since April 2011 and AIC Yellow 107/2011 allowing Routes and
Procedures to be flown with an equivalent to ADF
2013 Objectives
• First VOR (CFD) to be decommissioned 19th September
• Dependency on Scottish VORs for all NATS en-route procedures
removed 30
31
VOR Dependencies
• Terminal airspace conventional procedures e.g., SIDs
• Waypoint naming
• Holds
• Instrument Approach procedures
• Use for training (civil and military)
• Means of procedural separation
• Mitigation against controlled airspace infringements
• Fragmented ownership of airports/procedures a
major challenge for NATS
32
Proposed Rationalised VOR Network
and Coverage
32
33
Challenges
34
Challenges (1)
• Route spacing
− Current published “generic” route spacing values
deemed too conservative
− Lack of an up-to-date “gold” standard data set
− How much data?
− Collection of Operational error data
− Purpose of the DEP and Stansted trials is to gather
sufficient data in order to develop “enhanced”
route spacing guidance
− NATS also looking at an alternative approach to
CRM
35
Spacing Minima Values that Remain Unknown
36
PBN Route Spacing Guidance
“Develop guidance to support the design and implementation of
new RNAV and RNP terminal procedures”
CAA / NATS joint business plan objective; ‘MOCOR 2’ project – working in collaboration
Key Milestones
1. October 2013: Publish UK guidance on route spacing for the implementation RNAV
1 terminal procedures based upon EUROCONTROL route spacing studies and the
methodology developed for TC North (CAA)
2. 2013/2014: Enhance the published UK guidance on route spacing for the
implementation RNAV 1 terminal procedures (see 1. above) to include RNP 1 route
spacing and the output of analysis, trials and early implementations (FAS DSG Sub-
Group to establish the programme of work)
3. End 2014: Publish the enhanced UK guidance on route spacing for the
implementation for RNAV 1 and RNP 1 terminal procedures, including the output of
2. above (CAA)
37
Challenges (2)
• Validation of instrument flight procedures
− Ground vs Flight validation
− Use of desktop tools
Purpose of use i.e., what credit?
Qualification of tool as fit-for-purpose
Gross-error check of IFP design or suitable for demonstration of Flyability
EUROCONTROL RVT vs. DWINT eRVT?
For large scale airspace developments what % of procedures require flight validation?
Are there such things as benign designs?
Cost a major factor as alternatives to desktop assessment are expensive
An on-going discussion with ANSP
38
Challenges (3)
• Cost and access to development navigation data bases − For flight validation purposes pre-publication
− Stand-alone equipment costs
$5,000 per data base + $1500 per runway end
Packing and release costs to operator
− A proposal to capture IFP design changes in periodic data base releases e.g., 4 x per year
− Pooling of procedures and sharing of costs
− Approach your “friendly” airline and ask them to have development procedures coded by the data houses
− Have airline conduct flight simulator validation
− For large scale airspace developments can’t keep going to the major airlines, or can we?
− Cost for individual operators / airports for validation data bases and simulator time is becoming prohibitively expensive
− Someone has to pay for time and effort
39
Summary
40
Summary
• UK Future Airspace Strategy provides a framework for the modernisation and
restructuring of UK airspace
• PBN is a key enabler (but not the only one (DPI, TA)
• First UK RNAV 1 SIDs (at London Gatwick) now approved
• LAMP Phase 1A in 2015 well advanced
• Extensive trials programme underway supporting Phase 2 design
• Mandate based on Impact Assessment by end of 2013
• RNP Approaches slowly appearing
• Use of SBAS on LNAV/VNAV now assessed
• Policy and guidance for non-instrument runway/non-approach service ready for
consultation
• First VOR in rationalisation programme about to be decommissioned
• Challenges still lie ahead
− Route spacing
− Validation methods for new IFP designs supporting large-scale airspace changes
− Cost of flight validation – development data base for flight validation and cost of
simulator time