Transcript Required Navigational Performance

Required Navigation Performance
Presented by
The Airline Industry
Agenda
•
Overview of RNP
•
The importance of RNP to industry
•
Industry progress to date
•
Industry near term vision
•
Immediate FAA action requested
Required Navigation Performance
ANP containment radius
Lateral boundary = 2 X RNP
(airspace and obstacle clearance)
ANP < 1 X RNP for
continued operation
RNP and ANP
are displayed
on FMC CDU
• RNP: A statement of navigation performance accuracy for operation in a defined airspace (ICAO doc. 9613)
• RNP airspace: Airspace, route(s), and leg(s) where minimum navigation performance requirements (RNP) have
been established, and aircraft must meet or exceed that performance to fly in that airspace
(RTCA SC181/EUROCAE WG.13)
Lateral Path Construction
Defined airspace is 2
x RNP either side of
track centerline
2 x RNP
RW26
RNP Leg Types
TF
DF
RF
WPT02
WPT02
WPT02
Arc center
WPT01
Great circle track
between two fixes
Unspecified
position
Computed track
direct to a fix
WPT01
Constant radius
to a fix
Vertical Capability
WPT
Vertical
angle
Speed and altitude
constraint at waypoint
(170/2460)
(-3.00º)
3 parameters for each leg
1) Waypoint altitude constraint
2) Vertical angle
3) Waypoint speed constraint (optional)
Air Carrier RNP Operations
GPS
predictive
RAIM
FARs &
FAA
Orders
Flight
publications
AIM
Procedure
design
criteria
ATC local
flows
RNP
operations
OPS
specifications
Local WX
Topo data
sources
ARINC 424
Charting and
standards
ALPA
Obstacle
clearance
Airplane
performance
Environmental
impact
Dispatcher
training
Pilot training
Airplane
systems
Simulator
Engineering
FAA process
ATC and Flt
Stds
Nav
data base
development
Geodetic
systems and
calculations
Why is RNP Important to the Aviation System
•
•
•
Safety Enhancement
Efficiency/Capacity Improvements
– Schedule Integrity
– Delay Reduction
Noise Friendly Procedures
Fatalities by Accident Categories
Fatal Accidents - Worldwide Commercial Jet Fleet - 1988 through 1997
3000
Total Fatalities = 6,792 (6,566 onboard)
462
2500
1997 fatalities = 684 (all onboard)
2000
1500
1000
500
178
37
0
Fatalities
Accidents
CFIT
Loss of
Control
(Inflight)
Midair
Collision
Inflight Fire
Fuel Tank
Explosion
Landing
Ice/Snow
2806
1932
506
371
238
178
134
121
36
31
2
2
2
12
4
7
Fuel
Windshear
Exhaustion
Takeoff
Config
Runw ay
Incursion
Other
RTO*
Unknow n
91
78
45
28
5
259
2
4
4
13
2
5
TAWS and RNP
Improved Safety Net for Obstacle Clearance
VNAV path contained within TAWS envelope
Look-ahead splays
+/- 3 degrees
Look-ahead distance
varies with ground
speed and turn rate
Starting width
= 1/4 nmi
Slopes vary with
flight path angle
Terrain clearance floor
700 ft AGL
15 nmi
400 ft AGL
12 nmi
5 nmi
0.5 nmi
Runway
RNP RNAV called for by CAST
•
“The plan will direct or encourage the aviation community to:”
– “Take advantage of existing aircraft capabilities to improve approach and landing
safety to the maximum extent practical, and”
–
“Transition to use of new and evolving aircraft capabilities that can further improve
approach and landing safety at the earliest practical time”
RNP RNAV called for by CAST
•
•
“The plan will direct or encourage the aviation community to:”
–
“Take advantage of existing aircraft capabilities to improve approach and landing safety to the
maximum extent practical, and”
–
“Transition to use of new and evolving aircraft capabilities that can further improve approach and
landing safety at the earliest practical time”
“In the interest of safety, the industry should discontinue the use of step-down or ‘dive-and-drive’ NonPrecision approach procedures as soon as, and wherever, possible . . .”
–
“This would include procedures such as the constant rate descent that can be flown by all types of
aircraft and use of the modern vertical navigation capability (VNAV) by some existing and most
new aircraft types”
~ Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) Joint Safety Implementation Team (JSIT) Implementation Plan
For Precision-Like Approaches, “Statement of Work” (formally accepted by the CAST)
Substantial Safety Enhancement
RNP Enables Stabilized Approaches
FAF (5 to 7 miles from runway)
• Landing flaps / configuration
• Landing check complete
LNAV, VNAV flight guidance
through missed approach
procedure
• Lateral/vertical flight guidance to runway
• Autopilot/autothrottle fully available
Typical unstabilized
non-precision
approach
Missed
approach
Balked
landing
DA(H)
(as low as 250 ft above
airport)
•
•
•
•
Runway
Situational awareness improved
Reduces crew workload
Eliminates Dive and Drive (Non-Precision) approaches
Provided a Stabilized Approach with LNAV/VNAV guidance to runway threshold
RNP Versus FAA’s RNAV
Generic TERPS Final Approach Area
RNP 0.15 Containment Zones for Comparison
7:1 transitional surface
DA (H) / MAP
RNP 0.15 containment zone
RNP provides vertical and horizontal guidance to the runway
RNAV provides no vertical guidance if an obstacle penetrates the vertical surface resulting in “dive and drive”.
RNP Pilot Training
• Objectives: Safe operations and
pilot confidence
• Ground school
• Flight Simulator
• 2 Approach Types:
- ILS or RNP RNAV
- Vertical guidance for all approaches
• Simplification and commonality of approach
profile increases safety
Efficiency/Capacity Benefits
•
•
•
•
Improved schedule reliability
– New runway directions available for use
– Lower landing minimums
Improved airport and airspace system capacity
Fewer missed approaches
Yielding
– Fuel savings
– Time savings
– Improved customer satisfaction
Efficiency Improvements Achieved
•
•
•
Minima below that of ground based equipment at 4 Alaskan Airports
Approaches to runways that can or not be served with ground based equipment at 6
Alaskan Airports
65 flights to Juneau in the first 9 months of 2001 were “saved” by RNP
Supports FAA’s OEP
•
•
Less airspace needed per operation
Independent parallel approaches possible to runways separated by 2500 feet.
RNP Capability Today
•
•
7500 or 45 % are RNP capable globally
+ 50 % in US are RNP capable
– 85% Continental
– 70% Alaska
– 70% American
– 50% United
– 40% US Airways
Past Impediments to Progress Are Disappearing
•
•
•
•
•
Airline perspective: FAA is not sufficiently supporting RNP
Lack of understanding (both government and industry) of RNP
capability and safety enhancements
Benefits not realized with FAA’s RNAV
Mixed equipage, but this is rapidly diminishing
Resistance to change, but FAA leadership can overcome this
Specific FAA Action Requested
•
Adapt Alaska’s 737 RNP criteria to create FAA approved
generalized RNP Approach Design criteria for all carriers
•
Continue DCA special procedure development
•
Document lessons learned
•
Develop public criteria
•
Develop public procedures
Summary
•
Many planes are RNP capable and manufacturers continue to deliver more
- Airworthiness approval is documented in AFM for terminal/approach use
•
Many airlines are ready to use this capability
- Ops Specs for RNAV have been issued
•
This expensive capability is already paid for, (May-96 first revenue flight)
•
Air carriers already invested, equipped, trained, ready to fly
•
Immediate safety, delay reduction and economic benefits are available
Conclusion
•
•
Opportunity to facilitate leadership in the U.S. and global air transport industry
RNP is unique in its impact (benefits) and changeability (ease of implementation)
Changeability/Impact Matrix
RNP
High
Changeability
Low
Low
High
Impact
The End