ToC

1. SBAS Implementation in theRegions of ACAC and ASECNAFP7-GALILEO-2008-4.3.1 / FP7-GALILEO-2008-4.3.4Project with Community research fundingApplication Business CasesPrepared by Egis Avia / Pildo /NavyaPresented by Nga Bui (Egis Avia)

2. ToC Application Business Case: Implementation of LPV approaches in 3 AD of the regions of ACAC and ASECNA • Objectives • Context • Preliminary analysis • Methodology • Context • Results • Conclusions SBAS Implementation in the regions of ACAC and ASECNA SIRAJ project

3. Objectives and Development • Objectives: • To develop a specific business case for an AD where EGNOS APV approaches are to be implementedin the frame of SIRAJ project: • For ACAC: • Al-Hoceima Airport (Morocco) • Najran Airport (Saudi Arabia) • For ASECNA: • Dakar L.S. Airport (Senegal) • Business Case Approach: • For each of the considered airport: • A preliminary analysis is performed to determine baseline scenario • A Methodology of Cost-Benefit Analysis depending on the baseline scenario • Combination of different inputs coming from the Air Navigation Service Provider and the Airport Manager

4. Preliminary Analysis • Aims at analysing the airport in terms of: • Terrain characteristics • Approach characteristics: • Radio Navigation Aids • Procedure published • Wind direction and intensity and Runway configuration • Meteo Analysis: Cloud Ceiling and Visibility constraints • Traffic Figures • In order: • To analysis the current situation (baseline scenario) • To determine potential benefits of implementing APV approaches • To determine the Business Case Approach Preliminary Analysis

5. Context Al Hoceima Airport • RunwayCharacteristics: • THR17 holds IFR procedureswhilst THR 35 iscurrentltyonlyusedfor VFR operations. Casablanca AlHoceima

6. Preliminary Analysis Al Hoceima Airport • IFR ApproachProcedure in place for RWY17: …with STD MissedApproachClimbGradients, procedure DH isalwaysabove 1000 ft!!

7. Preliminary Analysis Al Hoceima Airport • Traffic figures • METEO analysis • Cloud ceiling and visibility do NOT cause disrupted in the normal airportoperation of theairport: VMC are metalmostalltheyear. Small/ mediumairportwithlowtraffic figures Chance forgrowing… Airporttoosmallforan ILS investment??

8. Context Najran Airport • RunwayCharacteristics: • RWY 06/24 can held IFR Non-PrecisionApproachesprocedures

9. Preliminary Analysis Najran Airport • IFR ApproachProceduresin place forRWY 24 & RWY06: ILS RWY 06 VOR/DME RWY 24 VOR/DME RWY 06

10. Preliminary Analysis Najran Airport • Traffic figures • METEO analysis • Wind and Visibility do not represent a significant constraints on operations • April-September is the period of time when the weather is cloudiest. The rest of the year is normally clear. Constant increase of operations and passengers (2003-2007) Decrease from 2007 to 2010 (Operations, passengers, fret) Operations Passengers Fret APV Approach can contribute to improve operations and even increase capacity

11. Context Dakar Léopold Sédar Senghor Airport • RunwayCharacteristics: • RWY18/36 can held IFR PrecisionProcedures • RWY THR36 istheprevailing RWY most of theyear.

12. Preliminary Analysis Dakar L.S. Airport • ILS Precision Approach Procedures in place for RWY36 • IFR Non-Precision Approach Procedures in place for RWY 36 & 18: • VOR-Based procedures – RWY 36 • VOR/DME-based – RWY 18 • RNAV GNSS (LNAV) Procedures – RWY18 & RWY 36

13. Preliminary Analysis Dakar L.S. Airport Medium airport with medium traffic figures • Traffic figures • METEO analysis • Wind constraints a lot operations (RWY18 operates only Summer Time) • Cloud ceiling do NOT cause disruptions where as visibility impacts operations. Chance for growing… APV Approaches can offer back-up to ILS (RWY36) , safer direct access to RWY18) Northern traffic usually prefers to extend to RWY36 due to ILS (no direct RWY18 access) Limited use of RWY18 due to wind

14. Methology Three different approaches depending on the current airport status

15. Methodology Al Hoceima Airport • Comparison between conventional approaches and RNAV GNSS proceduresScenarios definition:

16. Methodology Najran Airport • Comparisonbetweenconventionalapproaches and RNAV GNSS procedure- Scenariosdefinition:

17. Methodology (M)DA/DH Required cloud ceiling Required Recorded visibility cloud ceiling Recorded visibility Threshold (50ft) Runway Dakar L.S. Airport • Landing conditions and case of “disrupted approaches”

18. Methodology 1) Total aircraft landings 2) Non- ILS aircraft landings - According on input data available, dependant upon runway end distribution or upon airport ILS capability and tailwind – sets upper bound to potential benefits 3) Disruption probability per approach type Dependant upon estimated (m)DH, cloud ceiling & runway visibility 4) Aircraft NPA disruptions 5) Reduction in disruptions and % Operations gained Dependant upon landing aircraft capability and selected RNAV capability 6) Total benefits in airport fees Dakar L.S. Airport • Estimation of reduction in “disruptedapproaches” and % of operationsgained

19. Methodology Dakar L.S. Airport • Definition of Scenarios • Baseline scenario: RNAV (GNSS) NPA with LNAV minima are published for both runways, i.e. no change in the curent day situation • Scenarios ranging from the less optimistic to the most optimistic: • Scenario A (Pesimsitic)): APV SBAS approach is implemented for both RWY THR36/RWY THR18 with LPV around 350 ft for RWY18 which are nearly the same as current NPAs; • Scenario B (Medium): APV SBAS approach is implemented for both RWY THR36/RWY THR18 with LPV around 300 ft which are lower than current NPAs; • Scenario C (Optimistic): APV SBAS approach is implemented for both RWY THR36/RWY THR18 which is a trade-off between best LPV minima authorized and avoiding runway ugrade for RWY THR18.

20. Methodology Dakar L.S. Airport Scenarios Assumptions Assumed Navigability Capacity

21. RESULTS Al Hoceima Airport • Scenario A. THR17 IFR; THR35 VFR

22. RESULTS Al Hoceima Airport • Scenario B. THR17 IFR; THR35 IFR

23. RESULTS Al Hoceima Airport • Scenario C. VOR/DME decommission

24. CONCLUSIONS Al Hoceima Airport • Despite METEO conditions allow the operation almost all the year, it is important to complete the implementation of IFR procedure in all RWY ends (if possible, with vertical guidance). • It is highly recommended to push towards the implementation of APV SBAS procedures. • It is not recommended to invest in ILS systems due to its very high cost. Above everything, an airport with low traffic figures cannot afford the expenses linked to the ILS maintenance. • APV SBAS procedures provide an excellent performance “ILS-alike” with a very low investment and negligible Operational Cost • APV SBAS procedures are safer than VOR/DME non-precision approach procedures, by: • Reduced procedure minima (DH) • Reduced pilot workload • Reduced controller workload • Improved track keeping • In the long term, with a full GNSS airspace structure, it could be evaluated the decommission of the existing VOR/DME (ALM) saving important costs related to its maintenance.

25. RESULTS Najran Airport • Scenario A. • ScenarioB. (in SAR)

26. RESULTS Najran Airport • Scenario C. • Scenario D. (in SAR)

27. RESULTS Najran Airport • ScenarioE. (in SAR)

28. RESULTS Najran Airport • To select the correct scenario, analyzing price and capability, a study over 15 years have been done.

29. CONCLUSIONS • It has been demonstrated that APV SBAS approaches are less expensive on implementation and maintenance than ILS and VOR/DME systems. • Number of flights operating with vertical guidance approach procedures will not vary if APV SBAS is used instead of ILS approach. • It is has been demonstrated that it is preferable to push towards the implementation of APV SBAS procedures rather than other possibilities taking into account the economical advantages of APV compared to VOR and ILS.. • It is not recommended to invest in a new ILS system due to its very high cost compared to APV. Above everything, an airport with low traffic figures cannot afford the expenses linked to the ILS maintenance. • It is recommended to substitute VOR/DME by APV because APV SBAS approaches improve the level of service with vertical guidance and better lateral accuracy than VOR/DME approaches with less CAPEX and OPEX expenses. • APV SBAS procedures provide an excellent performance “ILS-alike” with a very low investment and negligible Operational Cost. • APV SBAS procedures are safer than VOR/DME non-precision approach procedures, by: • Reduced procedure minima (DH) • Reduced pilot workload • Reduced controller workload • Improved track keeping Najran Airport

30. RESULTS Dakar L.S. Airport • Scenario A.

31. RESULTS Dakar L.S. Airport • Scenario B.

32. RESULTS Dakar L.S. Airport • Scenario C.

33. CONCLUSIONS Dakar L.S. Airport • It has been demonstrated that APV approaches in Dakar L.S. can bring quantitative benefits when they are implemented at both RWY TRH 18 (300 ft LPV Minima ) & RWY THR 36 (Between 250 and 300 ft LPV Minima ) • Positive NPV and Benefit to Cost ratio • The APV procedure currently designed on RWY THR18 (around (350 ft LPV Minima ) can to improved to lower DH, then decrease RVR and gain operations. • Depending on the margins taken on the APV SBAS procedure, the calculated minima can range as follows:

34. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION QUESTIONS?