100 likes | 344 Views
EASA CNS/ATM Steering Group Navigation Status. B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS Cologne 21st of June 2007. Overview. AMC 20-XX Status (RNP APCH) APV Baro VNAV status APV SBAS (LPV approaches) status Transposition of TGL 10 into AMC 20-16 AMC 20 XZ status (RNP AR APCH).
E N D
EASA CNS/ATM Steering GroupNavigation Status B. RABILLER DGAC/DCS Cologne 21st of June 2007
Overview • AMC 20-XX Status (RNP APCH) • APV Baro VNAV status • APV SBAS (LPV approaches) status • Transposition of TGL 10 into AMC 20-16 • AMC 20 XZ status (RNP AR APCH)
AMC 20-XXRNAV (GNSS) approach • In the frame of EASA Task 20. 003 ( EASA RNAV Approach and RNP AR Rulemaking Drafting Group) a meeting was organised the 10th of May 2007 to finalise the AMC. Main point was to check the consistency with the ICAO PBN manual. • Main modifications decided during this meeting : • The terminology: use of RNP APCH wording • The added following recommended function : “Capability to immediately provide track deviation indications relative to the extended final approach segment, in order to facilitate the interception of this extended final approach segment from a radar vector.” • VTF is one possibility for addressing this recommended function • Chairman of EASA task 20.003 should transmit the document to EASA (Yves Morier)
APV Baro VNAV • APV Baro VNAV criteria should be added to AMC 20-XX (RNP APCH) • Based on PBN manual VOL II attachment A • content technically acceptable • Refinement may be necessary • The task should be done for the next AMC 20-XX revision • End of 2007 if possible • The vertical aspect should be merged with the lateral aspect instead of having a dedicated vertical section as it is done in PBN manual • There is, under preparation, a European Commission mandate to CEN/CENELEC/ETSI for issuing a Community Specification (European standards) addressing the APV Baro VNAV operation
LPV approaches (1/3) • A dedicated AMC to address LPV approaches • Main advantage is the simplified AMC structure for the applicant or the authority • Will take into account recent discussion with FAA, Eurocontrol and lessons learned from the on going « Clermont-Ferrand » DGAC project • Technically based on already presented AMC 20-XX Draft 3.2 content • There is presently a discussion regarding the autopilot mode for LPV approaches. It may impact the proposed wording. • Vertical coupling may be a problem for certain aircraft • Enforce the use of ILS autopilot channel and not the navigation one • Discussion with Bombardier • Garmin Installation Bulletin N° 0716
LPV approaches (2/3) • The failure classification associated to the presentation of a misleading navigation information should be classified HAZARDOUS (Extremely Remote) • Consistent with FAA criteria (AC 20-138A) “For LPV and GLS approaches, presenting misleading information to the flight crew is considered to be a hazardous failure condition.” • A single “computation” at airborne system level is providing all the necessary guidance and information for the approach • lateral guidance • vertical guidance • distance to the threshold whereas with conventional system several systems provides those information: Loc receiver, Glide receiver, Marker receiver and DME transceiver. • The APV SBAS system by itself must be more robust • A FAS data block error may affect significantly the safety margin (e.g a parallel offset of the 3D approach left or right from the desired path) without easy crew recognition whereas with conventional system the approach is “anchored” to a ground navaid.
LPV approaches (3/3) • Reversion from « LPV » to « LNAV only » during LPV approach (after the FAP) should lead to a missed approach because: • No more vertical guidance • Lateral accuracy revert to 0.3 Nm (LNAV) • Reconsideration of the Minima (MDA instead of DA) • First AMC draft by the end of 2007 • There is, under preparation, a European Commission mandate to CEN/CENELEC/ETSI for issuing a Community Specification (European standards) addressing the APV SBAS I/II operation
PRNAV • EASA Rulemaking Task 20/006 : EASA transposition of TGL 10 • Issuance of AMC 20-16 • Scope of modification: • include the nav data base integrity wording from the NPA 57A • Be consistent with ICAO PBN RNAV 1 navigation specification • VOR/DME no more an eligible sensor • DME/DME technical criteria detailed • IRS drift rate detailed • .. • To clarify that holding function is needed either manual or automatic • To include a specific appendix for the approval of the RF leg capability when the RNAV system encompasses this functionality • Several tasks have been allocated to complete the work • Partial draft are circulating • But there is still not a draft including all the proposal
AMC 20 XZRNP AR APCH • RNP AR APCH is the former RNP AR or RNP SAAAR approaches concept • Should solve congested area or environmental problem thanks to concept flexibility • Should solve challenging approaches issue(e.g mountainous area) thanks to improved accuracy and concept flexibility • Developed for highly integrated airborne system : dual GNSS/FMS system with inertial coasting, terrain awareness warning system, ... • Crew training and contingency procedures are key issue to reach the safety level • The proposed AMC 20 XZ draft is based on PBN nav spec and FAA AC 90-101 but: • There is still some discussion with certain applicant • Some issues are not solved so far • Discussion with FAA is anticipated next week to progress on this subject