Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2000’s and earlier and the expanding needs globally in the future. He pointed out that one of the steps taken was through ICAO. Specifically the formation of the ICAO RNP Special Operational Requirements Study Group (RNPSORSG) around 2004 and its successor the Performance Based Navigation Study Group (PBN SG) from 2008 until the present was an effort to increase the understandability of RNAV and RNP, though greater harmonization and consistency in the types of RNAV and RNP criteria for aircraft qualification, operational approval and implementation considerations. This effort represented the creation of and transition to PBN and the development of the PBN Manual, ICAO Doc 9613. Mark pointed out that one of the key aspects of PBN was the differentiation between RNAV and RNP. While both have performance requirements, RNP has on-board performance monitoring and alerting (OBPMA). It is OBPMA where the greater assurance of RNP system performance is provided. Mark also highlighted with examples that there is still room and a need for more improvement to reduce the operational variability in aircraft flight path performance. Bruce DeCleene is the manager of the Aircraft Certification group, AIR-130. Bruce started out by setting a number of considerations as SC227 goes forward. Specifically, he pointed out folding in lessons learned such as pilot awareness of sensor inputs, speed/altitude, wrong runway entry global harmonization through linkage to the ICAO navigation specifications, and raising the bar on performance and capability where it’s appropriate such as pilot and air traffic expectations, turn performance, including fixed radius and support of TSE monitoring and alerting. JohnH: Is there regulatory basis on the PBN manual document Were the same experts as here involved in writing the PBN manual MarkS (PBN Study Group, US Member): The PBN manual was meant to embrace existing equipment. It was not meant as a certification document. DaveN (Chair of PBN Study Group and ICCAIA Member): The PBN manual has not been used consistently in the way we expected. It is being used as a regulatory document by some states without the appropriate considerations that must be made and as spelled out in the manual itself. GeoffB (PBN Study Group, UK Member): There was a proliferation of standards that needed to be focused. That harmonization is focused at the regulatory level. The problem is that the linkage with MASPS and MOPS has been lost. The MASPS and MOPS didn’t have any force into usage in service. As a result we have had a proliferation of standards and applications. The challenge is to bring it all back together. The only way to have airspace development is to have interoperability and aircraft meeting a standard. BruceDC(RNP SORSG, FAA Member): SC181 did a good job laying a foundation. What has happened since is taking that and turning it into practice. It has not been simple with RNP, RNAV, and RNP RNAV. The need is to reestablish the connection between the operational side developed since SC181 back into the equipment standards. JH: Is there a comment period for the new PBN manual Erwin (PBN Study Group, ICAO Secretariat, and PBN Program Manager): There is sort of a comment process but it must be through attendee members. MarkS: There is also no intent to create specs that distinguish between GA and AT. Please provide feedback through me. We try to minimize differences between expectations of how FAA and EASA will use of the manual. 4
NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP) - Bruce DeCleene Powerpoint: “3 ef NextGen Perspective.ppt” What should be included in the next round of equipment Bruce pointed out that the NGIP includes the operations concept for 2018. One appendix relates the concepts to the aircraft equipment required. The NGIP is updated every year to reflect progress and budgets. The 2012 document should be released at any moment. Bruce also stated that the 2025 TBO vision is contained in the JPDO NextGen Avionics Roadmap, v2.0 Sept 2011, an effort led by Steve VanTrees and Frank Alexander. In particular, Appendix 1 talks about Trajectory Operations. Trajectory Operations is a transformation that reflects specific steps: 1. Now: procedural control – pre-radar, shrimp boats 2. Next: surveillance based control – radar-based 3. Future: trajectory based control – where there is knowledge of a future trajectory, not just prediction. It will be based on RNP, ADS-B, and DataComm The Mid-term objective is to turn the automation / human interaction picture inside out. Instead of humans at the center supported by automation, we want automation at the center supported by humans. Automation systems will be connected via data links with human supervision and management The Unifying concepts for this future are: performance and windows for lateral, vertical and temporal aspects of trajectories. phases of trajectory operations will have different enablers: o pre-negotiation (over SWIM) o negotiation (over SWIM) o agreement (over Data Comm.) o execution (via ADS-B and Data Comm.) Implementation of Trajectory Ops will depend on a number of factors. use ICAO PBN manual, but move forward with Advanced RNP for NextGen. an updated MASPS will serve as the basis for FAA policy for implementation though: o 20-series AC o 90-series AC for equipment and operational guidance An updated MOPS will be invoked by TSO for forward-fit only. As we write the new standard, will we need to debate how far forward do we reach with new capability Bruce suggested that we should consider that a standard that we write as forward fit only, or mandate for retrofit. We should avoid optional capabilities – we have learned over and over again that ANSPs need a homogenous fleet. Optional capabilities will not be usable. The PBN SG does not need the result of this group to move forward – SC227 should focus on new capability going forward. The FAA expectation is that we focus on forward fit, and the retrofit decisions will be made regionally based on when it becomes appropriate to mandate to all aircraft. GeoffB: any looking forward is a risk that when it comes time to implement/deploy that the environment will be changed and our original vision and standard will not be what we actually want to implement as the operational concept has evolved. We need to be aware of this risk. BruceD: fundamental risk is in the new product development, that we develop new products that do not provide benefit down the road. That is why we develop a standard – everyone starts developing similar products at the same time to make providing benefits more feasible. We need to determine what new capability is required, with a high probability of becoming real, and focus the standard on that. JohnH: Question on TSO. Is this a new TSO How does this work 5
Page 1 and 2: Summary of the First Meeting Specia
Page 3: NEXTGEN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (NGIP)
Page 7 and 8: • flight deck display of speed cu
Page 9 and 10: Powerpoint: “3a Standards of Navi
Page 11 and 12: Sharing of common flight plan betwe
Page 13 and 14: Q: what is the impact on economy of
Page 15 and 16: Section 1.1 para 3 is significant.
Page 17 and 18: David DS: network and flow manageme
Page 19 and 20: concern that we don’t have moment
Page 21: Prioritization and Scope of Updates

Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?