1 / 16

FAA Air Traffic RNAV Implementation Staff ATP-104

RNAV & RNP RNAV Implementation: Air Traffic Issues. FAA Air Traffic RNAV Implementation Staff ATP-104. Overview. RNAV Benefits RNAV Implementation Issues ATC Cockpit Shared. One example of RNAV Benefits. Typically 16 Voice Transmissions Unpredictable flight paths

judson
Download Presentation

FAA Air Traffic RNAV Implementation Staff ATP-104

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RNAV & RNP RNAV Implementation: Air Traffic Issues FAA Air Traffic RNAV Implementation Staff ATP-104

  2. Overview • RNAV Benefits • RNAV Implementation Issues • ATC • Cockpit • Shared

  3. One example of RNAV Benefits • Typically 16 Voice Transmissions • Unpredictable flight paths • Inefficient - use of airspace and aircraft End of STAR Vectored: Without a Pre-Established Route, Aircraft Guided by ATC Heading Vectors • Reduces Communication, typically 4 voice transmissions required • Improved Predictability through lateral and vertical flight paths • Increased Efficiency - airspace and aircraft • Flexible airspace re-design - free of ground based navaids Extension of STAR RNAV Procedure: Aircraft Self-Navigates Resulting in More Predictable Flight Path and Improved Situational Awareness

  4. ATP-104What we are doing • Working collaboratively with other FAA organizations, NATCA, Airlines, and industry: • Coordination and Actions: • SOIT, ATSOITs, ALT/SALT, NAR, ATA FMS Task Force • Implementing terminal RNAV procedures • Charting (public, specials, DP, STARS, CVFP, approaches) • HOST and ARTS Automation • Criteria (DP/STAR Orders, RNP, CVFP, En Route,) • Procedures (terminal, en-route, approach, ocean) • AVR and AVN • GPS Outage Simulation Studies (GOSS) • Controller training and phraseology • video tape, CBT, and 7110.65 changes • Terminal Area Route Generation Evaluation & Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) and Standard Implementation Process

  5. Houston: • Phase 1: TARGETS Beta testing complete • Close out occurred on June 19, 2001. TARGETS tech transitioned to FAA onAugust 17, 2001. RNAV Activities & Status Detroit • Phase 1 (STAR): NWA Validation flights • completed • Awaiting RNAV NCP for automation Philadelphia • Phase 2 (STARS): USA revenue flights started on November 29, 2000 and continue daily • USA flying BOJID and SPUDS RNAV STARS. • Procedures are now moving to public charting JFK • Phase 1 (STARS): SKUBY1- AAL revenue flights started on December 7, 2000 and continue daily. Las Vegas: Delta Airlines started flying August 17, 2001 • New Four Corner Newark Post public use • Phase 2 (DP): SELBY1- COA Revenue flights started on RNAV STAR October 5, 2000 and continue daily. procedures to • New FILSA DP completed and COA revenue flights started on July 12. commence on October 1, 2001. Washington Dulles • Procedures • Phase 1 (DP): ACA flight simulator trials completed designed by AWA • Public charting scheduled for March 2002 and AWP NAR. • This Project produced new CF Leg criteria Phoenix: Charlotte • New public use RNAV STAR procedures to commence on • Phase 2 (DP): Checker 2 publicly charted and flown Sept. 2000 Procedure halted on Oct. 13, 2000 due to course divergence issue. Divergence issue coordinated and resolved (AT, AFS, AVN, NATCA). Checker 4 - Publicly charted and flow July 2001. Operations halted 7 days later due to pilot altitude deviation. New phraseology developed and coordinated Checker 5 - Currently under review by ATP, AFS, and AVN. Issues include cockpit human factors, route/altitude compliance and course divergence. February 2002. • Procedures designed by AWA and AWP NAR.

  6. En Route RNAV Projects 6 - West Coast Routes $455 Thousand 104 - ACA Routes $4.1 Million 56 - ASA Routes $940 Thousand 37 - Multi-Center Routes $2.6 Million “Q” Routes Provide RNAV Routing for Gulf of Mexico $21.6 Million Total Annual Airline Reported Savings = $28.2 Million

  7. ATC Cockpit Human Automation factors Nav Database Phraseology integrity Coexistence of RNAV & Conventional Aircraft capabilities FMS Interference Harmonization Course Divergence Route compliance Rate of Navigation error Training equipage reporting RNAV Implementation Issues

  8. Air Traffic IssuesHOST Automation • Provides terminal and en route controllers with ability to suppress application of RNAV preferential routes • HOST patch planned release May 2002 • Full implementation dependent on URET • Enables the suppression of RNAV procedure assignment. symbol ()

  9. Air Traffic IssuesARTS Automation • Identification of Aircraft Operating on RNAV Routes/Procedures • Issues on how to display on ARTS IIIA, IIE, IIIE, and STARS • Provide TRACON controllers ability to recognize aircraft who are flying an RNAV procedure.

  10. Air Traffic IssuesFMS Capabilities • Different boxes with varying capabilities • Equipment suffixes should identify aircraft capability, not it’s equipage • Limited database memory in older generation aircraft • Issues surrounding boxes requiring DME/DME or DME/VOR updating • Automated vs non-automated updating (i.e. runway updates (TOGA) vs manual quick align (QA) • Ability to identify specific radio updating facilities • Engagement of LNAV and VNAV • Need for standard “Rules of Engagement”

  11. Air Traffic IssuesNavigation Database Integrity • Aircraft no longer fly to a ground-emitted signal, but to a point in space • Point location only as good as data which describes it • The Navigation data process • Potential for numerous error • Error detection and notification process • Master database?

  12. Air Traffic IssuesRNAV vs. ATC • Making RNAV fit into the existing ATC environment • RNAV and Conventional operations must co-exist as long as aircraft equipage is mixed • Course divergence • Crew procedures and training • All aircraft must fly repeatable, predictable tracks regardless of equipment manufacturer or database provider • Turn initiation, turn rates, etc.

  13. FMS HarmonizationWill it ever happen? • Airway Normal FMS turn • Protected airspace FMS “early turn”

  14. Air Traffic IssuesRate of equipage • Industry investment in modern Navigation equipment may provide predictable, more efficient routings • HOWEVER, mixing older generation aircraft with modern equipped aircraft is challenging to ATC • AND, modern equipped aircraft will only be able to fly as direct as the least equipped aircraft to/from runway ends

  15. Air Traffic IssuesGPS Interference • Air Traffic GPS Interference Workgroup • Standardization & Training (ATC & pilot) about what to do during a GPS interference event • NOTAM process & language • Interference Area definition • How does a controller make an immediate assessment of the situation? • How does FAA identify area quickly and accurately? • Discontinue GPS approaches • While continuing RNAV approaches • GPS Interference reporting (ATC & pilot) • Capturing data from GPS interference events

  16. Conclusion • RNAV procedures produce benefits • Implementation issues • ATC • Cockpit • Shared • For more information, visit our web site at: http://www.faa.gov/ats/atp

More Related