RNP 2
RNP 2
RNP 2
August, 2000
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
IRS
Communication
ns o i t a r e Op pt Conce and ts n e m e Requir
Navigation
GN SS P RN AV RN
Surveillance
ATM
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Improvement needed in System Safety
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Hull loss accidents per year Improvement areas: Lessons learned Regulations Airplanes Flight operations Maintenance Air traffic management Infrastructure Airplanes in service 23,100 11,060
1996
2015
Hull loss accident rate 1965 1975 1985 Year 1995 2005 2015
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Growth in World Traffic
C N S /A T M F o c u s e d T e a m
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Forecast Growth in China Travel
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Forecast Growth in Asia-Europe Travel
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Increase in Flight Delay
AA NAS Study Results Average Air Delay Per Flight
4.5
4.3
4
3.7
3.5
3.3
Delays in Minutes
3
2.8
2.5
2.2
2.5
2
1.7 1.6 1.4
1.9
1.5
1
0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7
1.2
0.5
0.4 0.4 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0 1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
Year
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Waste versus Growth
Airspace Capacity Limit (Theoretical) Current ATS Future ATS
Waste
Critical Year
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Problems
Navigation is just one part of the solution to improve capacity and efficiency
Resource-Constrained Effective Theoretical Effective Resource-Constrained
Prevention RNP, RMP, RCP Display Weather Medium-Term Intent Data Controller Comm: g/g Pilot Flow Rates Airspace Complexity
Detection RMP
Sensor Display Short-Term Intent Controller Comm: a/g Pilot Closure Rate
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Gross Navigation Errors in the North Atlantic 1989-1993 Based upon Classic Aircraft (INS)
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Route Width
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Route Semi-Width 60 - 100 NM = RouteWidth, Mitigates Navigation errors, Navigation Performance, Route, Traffic Density, Surveillance, Communication, ATC
PLWX
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
For DME/DME, factors include station sites both horizontally and vertically, slant range corrections, density of aids, geometry relative to flight path, associated errors, etc
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
For VOR/DME, factors include distance from station, altitude, station to station distance, course error, altitude error, etc
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
20
95.0%
10
r /H m 2N
20
Inertial navigation sensors are subject to a different set of error characteristics including drift and cycles.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
BOS
MIA
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Procedures are inefficient because of conventional ground navigation aids, where access, support, application, etc determine a fixed siting.
Nav
Departure path
Nav
Nav
PLMN
PWVG
Reduction in separation
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
BOS BOS
MIA
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Route design flexibility from Latitude/Longitude based fixes Routing design improvements to aid traffic flow
Nav
RNP = A measure of the navigation performance accuracy necessary for operation within a defined airspace * Aircraft within bounds 95% of flight time
Comprised of navigation system error, computational error, display error, course error and flight technical error. Also, known as System Use Accuracy.
Nav
RNP enables reduced buffers for route spacing & with RNAV, increased traffic capacity (routes) in the same airspace
Navigation Performance
POPP
4.0 NM
Pre-RNP
60 - 100 NM = RouteWidth, Mitigates Navigation errors, Navigation Performance, Route, Traffic Density, Surveillance, Communication, ATC
RNP
5 x RNP, 6 x RNP (20 - 24 NM)
PLMN
PWVG
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Repeatable, higher fidelity tracking of flight path with Flight Management System
Departure path
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Missed Appr Pt
Missed Appr Pt
Modified surfaces & lower minimums possible due to accurate, predictable, repeatable, reliable navigation performance
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
State responsible for RNP airspace must define the requirements and ensure that adequate CNS services are available within the airspace to provide safe separation Aircraft must be approved by State of Registry as being able to meet the RNP
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP has a number of unaddressed issues for airborne systems: What level of system performance and assurance is really needed to support the 95% requirement for airspace? What is necessary for reliable, repeatable and predictable navigation system performance? What are the operational and infrastructure requirements to support the airborne RNAV system? How can existing 95% accuracy systems be operated in RNP airspace relative to RNP designed systems? It provides an airspace perspective only that is not clearly correlated to aircraft systems performance.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Navigation
Traffic Character
Airspace Configuration
ATS
Airspace Operations
Communication
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Surveillance
Nav
1997
RTCA SC-181 MASPS DO-236 Jan 97 EUROCAE WG-13 MASPS ED-75 Mar 97
1998
RTCA SC-181 NDB Stds DO-200A Sep 98
1999
2000
RTCA SC-181 Data Stds DO-201A 1Q00
Nav
SC-181/WG-13RNP RNAV
Industry and Regulatory standard Airspace based upon Total System Error (95%), WGS-84 & Containment Limit of 2 x RNP (99.999%) Navigation system standards based upon Estimated Position Uncertainty (EPU), Path Definition, Path Tracking, Containment Radius (Rc), Containment Continuity (99.99%), & Functionality consistent with design & certification 1 Aeronautical data and database standards 2
Note: 1. Reliability, repeatability, predictability and functional/performance assurance. 2. RNP RNAV criteria for navigation data, databases, and operational procedures
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP 95%
Actual Path Desired Path
ICAO
RNAV Path
RNP
RNP
Containment Limit
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Performance depends on Total System Error where TSE = Path Error + Pos Est Error + FTE
Actual Position Estimated Position Desired Path Defined Path Actual Path
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Actual Position
EPU
Estimated Position
EPU = radius of a circle centered on an estimated position such that the probability that the actual position lies in the circle is 95%/hr
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Actual Position
Rc
Rc = Estimated Position
radius of a circle centered on an estimated position such that the probability that the actual position lies in the circle is 99.999%/hr
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Radius to Fix (RF) Note: RF and RNP HX are new for RNP RNAV. Other path types may be used for more reliable, repeatable, & predictable navigation by current RNAV systems.
PLMX
Holding (HX)
Nav
C1
C2
70
A
Sector 2 Sector 3
There is no required entry pattern, however the entry procedures described herein can be considered as acceptable. These examples of entry procedures satisfy the characteristic that the flight plan leg preceding the hold fix is maintained until the aircraft is within the holding area.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Turn along the arc of the circle centered on the line between the centers, to intercept the reverse of the inbound course of the holding pattern. Intercept and follow circle until reaching the tangent. Intercept and follow circle until reaching the holding waypoint.
After overflying the holding waypoint, tangentially intercept circle. Follow until intercepting the inbound holding course
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Overfly the holding waypoint and continue on the same course as was used to approach the holding waypoint. Intercept circle or a circle centered on the line between the centers. Follow this circle until intercepting the outbound straight segment.
Continue on the course flown to the holding waypoint. Tangentially intercept a circle centered on the extended line between the centers. Follow this circle until intercepting the outbound straight segment.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
TF
RF
TF
EA125
Downwind
IF
EA127
Arrival
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Fly-by transitions for track changes of 120 degrees or less below FL195, and 70 degrees for track changes at or above FL195. Where track change is greater for an RNP RNAV procedure, utilization of an radius to fix (RF) leg is expected.
Note: The fly-by turn radius is affected by aircraft ground speed, wind, bank angle capability, and thus is not a repeatable flight path.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
X1
(RNP.3 TF)
X3 A1 P2
1 (RNP1 TF)
X2
(RNP1 TF)
A2
(RNP2)
A3
(RNP4)
A4
(RNP2)
(RNP1 IF)
P1
(RNP.3 TF)
.3
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Earth Model
PLMX
Holding (HX)
Nav
Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data provides guidance and criteria applicable to airborne navigation databases Standards for Aeronautical Information provides guidance and criteria applicable to aeronautical data used in databases & charts.
DO-201A:
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Key
Aeronautical Information Service AIPs NOTAM
End-Users
End-User
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
DO-200A provides guidance and criteria for the basic steps associated with transmitting and preparing aeronautical data
Aeronautical Data Chain Originating
DO-200A/ED76 Receive
Transmitting Assemble Aeronautical Data Preparation Application Integration End Use Translate Select Format Distribute
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Classification of Data for RNP RNAV Essential Essential Routine Routine Critical Critical
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP 95%
RNP capability 99.99%
(Containment Continuity)
Defined Path
RNP
Referenced to defined path, based upon position estimation error, path definition error and flight technical error, detected and undetected faults
Containment Limit
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Maximum DME Range RNP Values RNP-0.3 RNAV to RNP-0.9 RNAV RNP-1 RNAV to RNP-1.9 RNAV RNP-2 RNAV and above
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP RNAV dependency on Flight Technical Error (FTE). FTE affected by aircraft configuration/condition, environment, systems integration, and operating procedures.
Defined Path Flight Technical Error Estimated Position
Actual Path
FTE budget may be limited by use of Flight Director or Autopilot in lieu of Manual flight.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP-(x) RNAV
Optimal Application*
4.0 NM
PLMN
PWVG
PWVG
* Navigation errors bounded; must still account for blunders, density, etc. Legend
Defined Path RNP 95% Threshold Containment Limit
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP-(x) RNAV
Safety margins for buffer reduction assured by closer siting of navaids, radar monitoring, ATC re-sectorization and tactical control, appropriate traffic levels, crew procedures, etc. RNP is more procedural since aircraft and crews lack information and indications for RNP capability and operations.
8.0 NM 4.0 NM
PLMN
PWVG
PDAN
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Status of RNP RNAV Application Published standard for RNP RNAV as a primary determinant of separation and airspace optimization Considered incomplete tool without data, database, Communication, Surveillance and ATM standards
8.0 NM 4.0 NM
PLMN
PWVG
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
What level of system performance and assurance is really needed to support the 95% requirement for airspace? In order to obtain improved airspace envisaged for RNP, performance continuity of 10-4 and performance integrity of 10-5 (2 x RNP) is required. What is necessary for reliable, repeatable and predictable navigation system performance? The total system error must be managed to ensure that an RNP will be satisfied. System path definition capabilities must be limited to the path terminators that eliminate, reduce or minimize any variability. System guidance must minimize path tracking errors
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
What are the operational and infrastructure requirements to support the airborne RNAV system? RNP is dependent on the navigation infrastructure. To ensure acceptable performance can be achieved, criteria for navigation aids and operations have been established. How can existing 95% accuracy systems be operated in RNP airspace relative to RNP designed systems? Non-RNP RNAV systems can be accommodated through additional measures including assessment of navaids, siting, radar monitoring, ATC, and appropriate procedures.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
ICAO provides an airspace perspective only that is not clearly correlated to aircraft systems performance. The additional specification for total system performance, system functionality, navigation performance integrity, navigation continuity, path definition, path tracking, compliance, etc are all necessary to ensure that the aircraft system can support the airspace application of RNP.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Operations
RNP, Takeoff to Landing
Departure Enroute
RNP4-12...
Nav
RNP2 RNP2 RNP1 RNP.3 RNP.5 Low Visibility Takeoff RNP1 FAF RNP.5 RNP.3 RNP.1 Cat II 100 Landing Cat III Cat I 200
Various RNP types based upon: navigation environment - satellite, ground navaids, none exposure resulting from route configuration & traffic density intervention available from surveillance, communication and ATM
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Operations
Terminal Area
Geometric path for reliability, predictability and repeatability Lateral and Vertical
Nav
Departure path
WGS-84 Survey
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Operations
Terminal Area Performance Standards Performance 95% performance, normal fault free Probability of 10-7, rare fault free Stays within containment region with failures Containment region 2*RNP or 3*RNP (e.g. RNP < .1) Related to Obstacle Clearance Criteria Airworthiness and Operational Criteria being developed by ICAO, FAA and JAA AWOP Manual for RNP AC 120-29A
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Equippa ge
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Applications
Current Operations consistent with ICAO RNP BRNAV:
European airspace, starting April, 1998. JAA TGL No 2 R1, FAA AC 90-97 Based upon existing RNAV capability Requires radar and ATC environment
Nav
PLMN
RNP 10:
PWVG
Pacific airspace, starting April, 1998 Flight Levels 310 to 390 FAA Notice 8400.12A Based upon IRS performance Procedural airspace environment
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Applications
RNP-10 in the Pacific
Northern Pacific (NOPAC) Routes
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Applications
Current Operations consistent with RNP RNAV
Nav
0.3 NM
Project Juneau:
Alaska Airlines, starting 1996. Based upon 737 RNP RNAV capability
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Operations
Approaches
Stablized approach path enhances operational safety Flight director guidance and autopilot reduce FTE and enhances safety Operations to lower minimums and lower visibility adds value to aircraft
Gear down, Flaps 15 FAF (5 to 7 miles from runway) Flaps 30/40 Landing checklist complete Missed Flight guidance to runway approach Autopilot to 50 ft Gear down, Flaps 15
Nav
M
MDA Typically 400-2000 ft DA(H) above airport As low as 250 ft above airport
No flight guidance Reconfigure to landing flaps Slow to final approach speed Manuever to line up and establish descent rate
0 - 3 miles
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Operations
GENERIC TERPS FINAL APPROACH AREA RNP 0.15 & 0.3 Containment Region for comparison
SECTION 1 MISSED APPROACH AREA = 1.5 NM LONG
Nav
7:1 TRANSITIONAL SURFACE 5000 wide 0.3 NM containment 0.5 nm wide Runway DA(H)/MAP 500 wide each side RNP 0.15 OUTER MARKER FINAL APPROACH AREA 8000 wide each side
1.45 NM 3.48 NM
50,000
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Operations
2 NM wide each side
Nav
TERPS ILS STRAIGHT MISSED APPROACH AREA RNP 0.15 & 0.3 Containment Region for Comparison
0.3 NM containment RNP 0.15 SECTION 2 MISSED APPROACH AREA LENGTH = 13.5 NM 40:1 SURFACE
DA(H)/MAP
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
RNP Applications
Nav
RNP can be implemented with through other infrastructure and operational changes to provide optimizations comparable to those available from RNP RNAV. RNP-(x) RNAV RNP
4.0 NM
PLMN
Safety margins for buffer reduction assured by closer siting of navaids, radar monitoring, ATC re-sectorization and tactical control, appropriate traffic levels, crew procedures, etc. RNP is more procedural since aircraft and crews lack information and indications for RNP capability and operations.
8.0 NM 4.0 NM
PWVG
PDAN
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
2.0 NM
1.0 NM
RNP Applications
Nav
EOF
1000 0.6 NM 0.3 NM WRT APPROACH TRANSITION DFT IAF FAF RW24 MISSED APPROACH APPROACH 1598 ADF
1.0 NM
2.0 NM
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
RNP 10 -> 4 RNP 12 -> 4 RNP 5 -> 1 INS -> GPS RNP 2, 1, 0.3 INS -> GPS VOR/DME -> DME/DME RNP 10 -> 4 RNP 4 GPS GPS VOR/DME INS -> GPS RNP 4 GPS
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
5 NM Secondary Area
10 NM Primary Area
PLMN
5 NM Secondary Area
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
4 NM Secondary Area
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
2N
M
Secondary Area 4 NM 8 NM
VOR2
10%
VOR1
16%
Primary Area
4 NM
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
4 NM Primary Area
2 NM Secondary Area
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
VOR Airway
4 NM
5 NM
RNP 4 is not sensor specific, resulting in increases in both primary and secondary areas.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
VOR Airway
4 NM
5 NM
RNP 4 provides consistent and standard primary and secondary areas end to end for airway. It also establishes implicit requirements for infrastructure e.g. if VOR based, stations must be within ~100 NM.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Secondary Area
Primary Area
Secondary Area
W
MOC = 300m/984ft, general = 450/1476 ft, 3K to 5Kft 600m/1969 ft, above
Note: W
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
E E1 E2
s A
A/2
30
s = start of nominal turn r = radius of turn c = 10 sec (en-route pilot reaction time)
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Y/2 Y O I r = Os x LK OK = 15 NM at/below FL190 = 22.5 NM at/above FL200 = RNP = 1.414 (RNP+1 NM) = r + LK R M
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
1.414X d1 d4 d2
~20 NM
~32 NM
Example for hold at 14K ft, max bank angle of 23 degrees, 230 knots airspeed
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
32 NM 20 NM
24 NM 12 NM
Example for hold at 14K ft, max bank angle of 23 degrees, 230 knots airspeed
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
MOC
MOC Reduction and overlap of secondary areas possible by mitigation of risk e.g. ATC procedures, radar
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Holding Area
1000 ft 500 ft 0 ft
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
d4
RNP Type 1.0 NM 0.5 NM: 0.3 NM: < 0.3 NM:
Applicability Departure, normal Initial Approach Only, departure Initial, intermediate and final approach only, departure Not applicable
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
o X X X k c a tr ! Primary area
First Fix
150 m 1.9 NM
Secondary area
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
P+ RN 2x .5
30
NM
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
TP
A A/2
Primary Area
RN 2x P+
Note: An RNP RNAV System is not required to provide 2xRNP containment protection for the fly-over
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
.5N M
Nav
wind spiral
dr*
600m
15o
TP Primary Area
15 o
Secondary Area d
Obstacles in this area must be considered twice: 1) in the straight segment, use of reduced margins associated with secondary area; 2) in the turns, use of full margins associated with turns
2xR NP NM + .5
Sec
ond a
ry A
rea
Note: An RNP RNAV System is not required to provide 2xRNP containment protection for a turning departure
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Y/2 Y O I R M
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
2xN + 1 NM
RNP M
25 NM
RNP N
IAF
Nav
2xN + 1 NM
25 NM
RNP M RNP N
IAF
Nav
30
Nav
Note: An RNP RNAV System is not required to provide 2xRNP containment protection for the fly-over B = 1 NM, initial/intermediate approach .5 NM, final/missed approach
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Y/2 Y O I R M
Nav
Every route segment should proceed fix to fix Large angle changes > 90o should be avoided Conditional transitions e.g. climb to XXXX feet by a XX DME should not be used Procedures should be developed in such a way that they can easily and properly be coded into the appropriate path terminator and route type All details of any specific restrictions applied to a procedure shall be published Procedure textual description should comply with the applicable path terminator
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Path Terminator Meaning Initial Fix Course to Fix Direct to Fix Track to Fix Radius to Fix
FA
Nav
RNP(nnn)
where XXX indicates restriction to specific sensor, and sensor is not part of ATC clearance where nnn indicates applied RNP value of 0.5 or 0.3 NM Note: Separate charts for each sensor or combination when operationally required. Separate chart only if routes differ laterally or vertically.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
OCS RDH
C 0.3 NM
THR
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
MOC/Papp
OCH = max[MOC/Papp: obstacle height of obstacles penetrating the approach surface + MOC/Papp] Note: MOC/Papp - 75m + rad-alt margin
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
OCH = MOC/Papp + OCS penetration x(tan VPA + tan x) /tan VPA Note: MOCma = 30m + rad-alt margin for A/C Category
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
GPS MMR
GPS MMR
Sensor GPS
DME
Inertial Systems
DME
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Systems model and compute magnetic variation to determine True North and true referenced information, also to minimize errors in defined path computations
Magnetic North Pole 79N 105W 130W N. Canada 80W 70N True North Pole
82N
60S Antarctica 82S 120E 160E True South Pole 65S 138E
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Note: Older systems have less extensive coverage, e.g. no magvar above 70N or 60S.
Nav
a Equator
Note: Older systems use spherical earth models, previous WGS reference model, or other earth datum approximations.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
.
Xtk (NM)
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
5000
6000
EUROCONTROL RNAV
European Standards for RNAV, RNP and RNP RNAV Operational Requirements RNAV Equipment Regulatory Approval Application WGS-84 Flight Planning Loss of Capability Operations Manual Functional Capabilities Acceptable Means of Compliance Navigation Performance System Performance Minimum Requirements
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
EUROCONTROL RNAV
Differs from RNP RNAV MASPS by establishing RNP specific RNP types/values for Europe (RNP 1 and 5). Also, specifies MASPS RNP RNAV as a future requirement.
Nav
5 NM (BRNAV), 1 NM (PRNAV)
BRNAV:
European airspace, starting April, 1998. JAA TGL No 2 R1, FAA AC 90-97 Based upon existing variety of RNAV capabilities Requires radar and ATC environment
PLMN
PRNAV:
European TMA, starting 2001 (estimated). JAA TGL being developed Based upon DME/DME and GPS RNAV capability May require radar and ATC environment
PWVG
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
EUROCONTROL RNAV
Establishes RNP acceptability of navigation sources, RNAV systems architectures and equivalent RNP capability (for BRNAV only, PRNAV criteria is being developed).
Primary Flight & Navigation Displays Primary Flight & Navigation Displays
Nav
Alerting Indications
MMR
MMR
VOR
DME
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
EUROCONTROL RNAV
Establishes specific European airspace requirement for fixed radius path transitions, that must be implemented through the airborne navigation system.
STUVW
Nav
TF leg
HIJKL
eg l F
ABCDE
R = 15 NM at/below FL190 = 22.5 NM at/above FL200 R Airborne systems uses ATS Route Designator, data flag for path terminator, and altitude to compute and insert fixed radius transition into flight path.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
EUROCONTROL RNAV
Status
Nav
Eurocontrol RNAV Standard published 1997 European state Aeronautical Information Circulars (AICs) issued starting 1996 JAA Airworthiness requirement, Temporary Guidance Leaflet No 2, AMJ-20X2 issued 1996, Revised for GPS in 1997. BRNAV in effect April 23, 1998 Time limited exceptions allowed for certain aircraft New JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet for PRNAV (RNP1) expected 2nd quarter 2000.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav RNP Benefits Increased traffic capacity and operating efficiencies (time and fuel) for new, modified, and existing aircraft via: More flexible route systems and navigation environment (e.g. direct, bypass, parallel, etc) Reduction in airspace buffers, leading to higher traffic capacity on routes, and lower approach minima Transition to GNSS with reduction in ground navaids Efficiencies from a world-wide navigation standard
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Stakeholder Perspectives
Stakeholder views of RNP differ.
Airlines:
Nav
RNP means increased capacity or landing availability through improved, safe operations and airspace design, and efficient aircraft/operations solutions, all supported by cost benefits. RNP is a tool to implement improved airspace and operations globally, while assuring safety RNP provides for increased system performance assurance, situational awareness, consistency of flight operations, and both aircraft and operational safety RNP Standards should make sense for certification, provide requirements that do not limit implementation, provide cost benefits, and support airline and airspace requirements
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Basis
Available
737: U7/U8/U10 Software, AC20-130A 1994 747-400: FANS1 Software, AC90-45A 1995 757/767: Pegasus Hardware, FANS1 AC20-130A 1998 777: IGW Software, AC20-130A 1997 717: Cert 2, AC20-130A 2000 MD90 -921, AC20-130A 2000 MD10 AC20-130A TBD MD11 AC20-130A 2001 Note, earlier FMS versions were certified to 90-45A but specifics not detailed here
Classics
Original Certifications to AC90-45A, AC-25-4 Retrofit of RNAV systems such as GNLU or FMS required from vendors including Honeywell, Canadian Marconi, Smiths, Collins, & Universal, through STC.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
LNAV with Autopilot Engaged LNAV with Flight Director Manual Control with Map Display
73 7
74 7
77 7
73 7
74 7
75 7/ 76 7
GPS
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
non-GPS
75 7/ 76 7
77 7
Nav
LNAV with Autopilot Engaged LNAV with Flight Director Manual Control with Map Display
75
Enroute
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Terminal/Approach
75
Nav
The following Boeing airplanes delivered with Flight Management computer systems, along with installed sensors, navigation systems and instruments meet BRNAV: 737-300/-400/-500/-600/-700/-800/-900 747-400, 757/767, and 777 717, MD80, MD90, MD10, MD11, DC10 The following that lack an RNAV system with DME radio updating capability are likely not compliant. Specific case by case examination may be necessary to determine compliance. 707, 737-100/-200, 747-100/-200/-300 DC9, DC9, MD80
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Technical Services Technical Services Agreements (TSAs) for RNP capability assessments, special RNP procedure development, general support for RNP implementation, RNP vs TERPS, etc.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Navigation System Capability RNAV & TSO-C129 Navigation Infrastructure Operations Training & Qualification
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Q: How do our installations differ in certified RNAV and RNP capability from type to type? A: Boeing FMC systems have been certified for RNAV operations. Additionally, some versions e.g FANS1, U7.4/U8.4, U10 have explicit RNP capability. Others such as 200K, PIP, U5/U6.2 provide a conditional RNP capability, limited by the ops approval for the type of application and operating environment. Q: Must RNP approaches only be selected from the NavDB? A: Yes. However, it will still be possible to manually construct a procedure with RNP leg types (DF, TF) and apply a manually entered RNP to it.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Q: Which Boeing airplanes are/will be certified for RNP primary means of navigation supported by GPS? A: 747-400 FANS1, 777 FMF 757/767 Pegasus and 737 w/ GPS/RNP are allowed to perform limited RNP primary means operations, subject to special ops approvals. Obsolete or limited capability versions such as 200K and U5/6.2 or earlier will not have RNP/GPS versions. Q: How does the pilot know if a terminal procedure/ approach has RNP? A: It should be indicated in the procedure/approach charts and reflected by the system RNP from the NavDB shown on the CDU.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Q: Is TSO-C129 approval needed for RNP or RNAV operations? A: No. Both the RNAV and RNP capability are demonstrated during type certification where AC 20130A is the basis, augmented by an RNP Capability document. AC 20-130A establishes criteria for a multisensor navigation system that may use GPS as an input. Q: What TSO-C129 equipment classes, if any, could apply to the Boeing installations? A: The applicable classes would be B1/C1 for the sensor and B3/C3 for the integrated navigation system, with some exceptions. However, Boeing FMS w/ GPS installations are certified per AC 20-130A.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Navigation Infrastructure
Q: What countries have implemented WGS-84 or equivalent? Who should an airline contact to find out about a particular country? A: 68 as of November, 1999:
Nav
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Brunei, Burundi, Canada, Canary Island, Cape Verde Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, French Antilles, French Guyana, French Pacific, Gambia, Germany, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Macedonia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, St Pierre and Miquelon, Sao Tome and Principe, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Vietnam. Up to date information can be obtained from Jeppesen or ICAO.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Approval
Q: How does an operator seek operational approval for RNP operations? A: Today this is addressed through the ops authorization for a specific air carrier. In the future, this will be standardized in criteria for aircraft and systems demonstrated for type certification.
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Systems
Nav
Q: What are dual/single systems requirements for approach operations (ie capabilities & navaid monitoring)? A: In general, dual systems are required except where it is demonstrated that safe operations may be conducted with a single system, considering factors such as terrain, applications and required operations. For critical RNP RNAV approaches that must rely on low ANPs supported by GPS, redundant FMC, IRU, GPS, VOR, DME, autopilot and displays are often required. The operating limitations and equipment requirements would appear in the operational authorization, MEL, and in some instances the AFM.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Systems
A: continued
Nav
For approaches other than ILS, MLS & GLS, it is business as usual, the underlying sensor on which it is based must be available, as well as suitable displays (e.g. VOR & Map or RDMI). If the approach can be flown as an RNAV approach, provision may be made for verification of suitable navigation system performance rather than continuous monitoring of a raw data facility.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Systems
Nav
Q: What are the system equipment requirements for RNP primary means of navigation using GPS? A: This is dictated by the type of operation intended and the necessity for performance availability. This leads to requirements for redundant FMC, CDU, IRU, GPS, VOR, DME, autopilot and display systems.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Systems
Nav
Q: What EICAS messages/Caution lights occur due to loss of RNP capability or other related malfunctions? What is the associated crew action during an RNP or non-RNP approach? A: For 747/757/767/777: UNABLE RNP, L GPS, R GPS messages or similar occur on EICAS. Additionally, FMC Message occurs when RNP based VERIFY POSITION, VERIFY RNP-POS REF 2 and VERIFY RNP ENTRY CDU messages occur. For 737: GPS failures are indicated by a dedicated light on the IRS Mode Select unit. An FMC light occurs for FMC RNP conditions for: IRS NAV ONLY, UNABLE REQD NAV PERF-RNP, VERIFY
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Systems
A: continued POSITION, VERIFY RNP, VERIFY RNP VALUE & NAV INVALID TUNE XXXX GPS failures are indicated by a dedicated light on the IRS Mode Select unit. An FMC light occurs for FMC RNP conditions for: IRS NAV ONLY, UNABLE REQD NAV PERF-RNP, VERIFY POSITION, VERIFY RNP, VERIFY RNP VALUE & NAV INVALID TUNE XXXX.
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Systems
A: continued
Nav
The required crew action will vary. For example on RNP approaches, with the UNABLE RNP message, it is expected that coordination with Air Traffic Services may be required and a new approach selection or missed approach may occur. If a required sensor such as GPS fails, the crew could be precluded from operating on an RNP procedure where the actual performance depends on GPS. For non-RNP approaches, it is expected that the approach operations will continue as long as the underlying navaids and associated flight systems are available.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Approach
Q: Are we legal to fly RNAV approaches? If so, do we have to monitor the associated navigation aid? A: Yes, RNAV approaches may be flown and they are typically specified in the operations approval of the aircraft system. Where an RNAV approach is predicated upon a specific navaid, there may be a requirement to monitor it or ensure that there is a suitable navigation system mode (e.g. DME-DME). Q: What are the navaid monitoring requirements for nonRNP operations? A: The same as they are today (see above)
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Approach
Nav
Q: What are the lowest allowable approach minima for Boeing airplanes certified for RNP primary means of navigation with or without GPS? A: This is dictated by the type of operation, approach, and intended location, including obstacle assessment. It is intended that a DA(H) of at least 250 feet can be achieved with or without GPS. Q: Are there some approaches where use of the autopilot is required to meet the associated RNP? A: Yes. The AFM provides limitations based upon the RNP that establish when the autopilot must be used.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Operations - Approach
Q: What approaches do not require RNP? A: At this time, it is anticipated that ILS, MLS & GLS procedures will not require RNP except for the lead-in transition & initial segments of the approach and possibly the missed approach segments. In the future, RNP may be applied for all approach segments.
Nav
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Nav
Q: What pilot training requirements must be met? A: Formal criteria is under development. However, it is expected that pilots must be familiar with the RNP information available, indications and alerts provided, and associated operating procedures. Simulator training may be necessary where additional pilot procedures for assuring the appropriate flight plan, navigation conditions, etc are required. Q: Has any government, ICAO or other agency established pilot currency and/or qualification requirements or recommendations? A: Not at this time but they are being developed.
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL
Questions ?
D:\NAKAMURA\RNP GENERAL