Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Aerodrome Operating Minima Head-Up Displays Enhanced Vision Systems NPA-OPS 41.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Aerodrome Operating Minima Head-Up Displays Enhanced Vision Systems NPA-OPS 41."— Presentation transcript:

1

2

3 Aerodrome Operating Minima Head-Up Displays Enhanced Vision Systems NPA-OPS 41

4 Presenters Mr Bo Eckerbert (LFV Sweden) Mr Bo Eckerbert (LFV Sweden) –Chairman, AWOSG SFO Tim Price (AEA / British Airways) SFO Tim Price (AEA / British Airways) –Secretary, AWOSG

5 Contents Background: Background: –Contents of NPA 41 –NPA OPS 20 to NPA OPS 41 –Stabilised Instrument Approach –Continuous Descent Final Approach Head Up Display Head Up Display Enhanced Vision Systems Enhanced Vision Systems Detailed Rule and ACJ Changes Detailed Rule and ACJ Changes Regulatory Impact Assessment Regulatory Impact Assessment

6 NPA-OPS 41 The proposal contains draft texts for: The proposal contains draft texts for: –Aerodrome Operating Minima (1.430)  Comments received post NPA 20  JAA / FAA AWOHWG work (ongoing) –Requirements for Cat III Operations (1.440)  JAA / FAA AWOHWG work –Introduction of HUD & HUDLS –Introduction of EVS –Training and qualification requirements for all of the above (1.450)

7 NPA 20 to NPA 41 OST endorsed NPA 20 in March 2004 OST endorsed NPA 20 in March 2004 –Including:  Rule material  Explanatory Note  RIA OST also endorsed HUD / HUDLS Rule material OST also endorsed HUD / HUDLS Rule material Today’s presentation highlights the differences between NPA 20 and NPA 41 Today’s presentation highlights the differences between NPA 20 and NPA 41

8 Comments from NPA 20 NPA 20 produced 290 comments NPA 20 produced 290 comments –Mostly concerning Rule –Some about ACJ Comments Response Document thoroughly reviewed over 4 meetings of AWOSG Comments Response Document thoroughly reviewed over 4 meetings of AWOSG NPA re-issued NPA re-issued

9 Stabilised Instrument Approach - Background CFIT & ALARP programmes encouraged authorities to prescribe stabilised instrument approaches: ‘SAp’ CFIT & ALARP programmes encouraged authorities to prescribe stabilised instrument approaches: ‘SAp’ SAp: an approach which is flown in a controlled and appropriate manner in terms of configuration, energy and control of the flight path, from a pre- determined point or altitude/height, without any segment of level flight at MDA(H) SAp: an approach which is flown in a controlled and appropriate manner in terms of configuration, energy and control of the flight path, from a pre- determined point or altitude/height, without any segment of level flight at MDA(H) Considered to be much safer than a Non- Precision Approach (NPA) flown as ‘dive & drive’ Considered to be much safer than a Non- Precision Approach (NPA) flown as ‘dive & drive’

10 Stabilised Instrument Approach and CDFA NPA 20 / 41 defines a new variant of the Stabilised Approach: the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) NPA 20 / 41 defines a new variant of the Stabilised Approach: the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) An approach with a predetermined approach slope which enables a continuous descent to DA(H) An approach with a predetermined approach slope which enables a continuous descent to DA(H) CDFA includes precision approaches, non- precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance (APV) CDFA includes precision approaches, non- precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance (APV)

11 CDFA - Benefits The CDFA concept aims to increase the safety of Non-Precision Approaches by eliminating level flight at MDA, ie close to the ground The CDFA concept aims to increase the safety of Non-Precision Approaches by eliminating level flight at MDA, ie close to the ground Pilot workload is reduced as a/c attitude, power and energy are stabilised Pilot workload is reduced as a/c attitude, power and energy are stabilised One decision point for the pilot One decision point for the pilot The intention is that all approaches should be flown as CDFA (if possible) The intention is that all approaches should be flown as CDFA (if possible)

12 CDFA v ‘Traditional’ NPA THR MDH NPA DH CDFA ICAO

13 Head Up Displays and HUD Landing Systems

14 HUD Background: Background: –Currently no rules in Sub Part E –But... HUDs becoming more commonplace –Pilot-training is key Cat I RVRs can be reduced Cat I RVRs can be reduced Cat II can be allowed without TDZ lights or centreline lights Cat II can be allowed without TDZ lights or centreline lights Current approvals based on TGL 20 with formal exemptions from Sub Part E Current approvals based on TGL 20 with formal exemptions from Sub Part E (Similar operational credit for use of autoland) (Similar operational credit for use of autoland) HUDLS chosen as preferred term HUDLS chosen as preferred term

15 HUD - Proposal Manually-flown Cat II approaches Manually-flown Cat II approaches Manually-flown Cat IIIA approaches Manually-flown Cat IIIA approaches ‘Lower than standard Cat I’ ‘Lower than standard Cat I’ –DH of 200ft but min RVR of 400m on current Cat I runways ‘Other than standard Cat II’ ‘Other than standard Cat II’ –DH of 100ft, min RVR of 350m on Cat II runways which lack TDZL and CLL Equipment and airframe requirements Equipment and airframe requirements Training requirements Training requirements Credits for autoland ops of the same values as HUDLS Credits for autoland ops of the same values as HUDLS

16 HUD - Safety Safety levels not reduced with reduced RVR minima: Safety levels not reduced with reduced RVR minima: –Compensation by improved guidance (HUD or autoland) –Adequate visual reference still required Simulator trials: Simulator trials: –Go-around rate not significantly increased –Landing footprint is equal or better Suitable ILS performance still required Suitable ILS performance still required

17 HUD - Harmonisation Other than standard Cat II in line with FAA Other than standard Cat II in line with FAA Lower than standard Cat I deviates from ICAO, but... Lower than standard Cat I deviates from ICAO, but... –ILS requirements specified –Difficulty with label vs aerodrome requirements Current categorisation under debate in AWOHWG and OPSP Current categorisation under debate in AWOHWG and OPSP Current categorisation hinders operators from installing equipment Current categorisation hinders operators from installing equipment

18 Enhanced Vision Systems

19 EVS Popular with the AWOSG! Popular with the AWOSG! EVS Sensor window

20 EVS - Background New technology – currently IR sensor-based New technology – currently IR sensor-based Rule material required Rule material required Members of the AWOSG flew EVS-equipped aircraft to obtain experience of system in use Members of the AWOSG flew EVS-equipped aircraft to obtain experience of system in use Approaches flown in variety of conditions Approaches flown in variety of conditions –Fog, mist, snow –Night, mountainous terrain Benefits of the system can vary depending on met conditions (certain IR wavelengths absorbed by water drops in atmosphere) Benefits of the system can vary depending on met conditions (certain IR wavelengths absorbed by water drops in atmosphere)

21 EVS – Rule Accommodate variety of performance Accommodate variety of performance HUD believed to be essential element of total EV System HUD believed to be essential element of total EV System Two Decision Gates Two Decision Gates –Enhanced view of visual references allowed at normal DH –‘Natural’ (ie unaugmented) view required by 100ft ARTE Controlling RVR reduced to give credit for EVS Controlling RVR reduced to give credit for EVS No ICAO rule at present – OPSP may draw on JAA and FAA work No ICAO rule at present – OPSP may draw on JAA and FAA work

22 Detailed Rule, Appendix and ACJ Changes

23 –(a) Note deleted –(b)(9) Refers to flight technique = CDFA –(d)(1) Mandates use of CDFA (inc SAp) –(d)(2) Prescribes RVR add-on if approach not flown as CDFA –(d)(3) Allows Authority to exempt operator from add-on prescribed in (d)(2) –(d)(4) Limits use of exemptions Rule Changes Aerodrome Operating Minima – General Aerodrome Operating Minima – General

24 –(e)(1) Prescribes use of either Appendix 1 (Old) or (New) until end of transition period –(e)(2) and (e)(3) similar exemptions to (d)(3) and (d)(4) but related to use of upper cut-off values [Tables 5 and 6 in Appendix] Rule Changes Aerodrome Operating Minima – General Aerodrome Operating Minima – General

25 Rule Changes – Terminology – Terminology –Clarify relationship between SAp and CDFA –Introduce and/or clarify definitions relating to HUD & EVS 1.440, 1.450, 1.455, , 1.450, 1.455, –Introduces:  ‘Lower than Standard Category I’  ‘Other than Standard Category II’ –(NB: these definitions previously endorsed by OST)

26 Appendix 1 to Philosophy: Philosophy: –Two versions of the Appendix (Old & New) active in parallel for 3 years –Operators who cannot comply with CDFA concept immediately can use existing criteria –App 1 (Old) will be withdrawn after 3 years

27 Appendix 1 to Table 2 ‘Assumed engine failure height’ reinstated Table 2 ‘Assumed engine failure height’ reinstated (b)(1) ICAO terminology for GNSS introduced (b)(1) ICAO terminology for GNSS introduced (b)(2) Use of MDA(H) as DA(H) (b)(2) Use of MDA(H) as DA(H) (b)(3) APV defined; ‘OCL’ deleted (b)(3) APV defined; ‘OCL’ deleted (b)(4) ‘Cat I Precision’ deleted; DH is not exclusive to precision approaches (b)(4) ‘Cat I Precision’ deleted; DH is not exclusive to precision approaches (b)(5) Reference to procedure minimum in AFM added (b)(5) Reference to procedure minimum in AFM added (b)(6) ‘Non Precision’ deleted (b)(6) ‘Non Precision’ deleted

28 Appendix 1 to Table 3 system minima revised considerably: Table 3 system minima revised considerably: –RNAV (VNAV) deleted –NDB minimum raised –NDB/DME added –VDF raised (c)(1) Outlines criteria which approaches must fulfil to use Tables 5 & 6 (c)(1) Outlines criteria which approaches must fulfil to use Tables 5 & 6 –Max approach slope (Cat C & D a/c) limited to 3.77 degrees (=400ft per nm)

29 Appendix 1 to (d)(2) Note 2. Explanation of how RVR values calculated (methodology moved to ACJ) (d)(2) Note 2. Explanation of how RVR values calculated (methodology moved to ACJ) (d)(5) Conditions for using RVR <750m for Cat I (d)(5) Conditions for using RVR <750m for Cat I (d)(6) Credits for HUDLS and autoland (d)(6) Credits for HUDLS and autoland Table 4. Changes made following comments from FAA Table 4. Changes made following comments from FAA Table 5. New minima Table 5. New minima –Developed during harmonisation work with FAA –Logical and consistent; rounding values changed –Formula used: –Required RVR/Visibility (m) = Minimum height (ft x / tan  ) - length of approach lights [  = approach angle] –But... should the formula be in the ACJ?

30 DA(H) or MDA(H) FALS IALS BALS NALS See para (d)(5) and (d)(6) about RVR < 750 m Ft Metres Appendix 1 to – Table 5 (part)

31 Appendix 1 to Calculation of visual segment Calculation of visual segment

32 Appendix 1 to Table 6: Table 6: –Upper and lower cut-off RVR values –Upper?  Type of approach and CDFA –Lower?  Aircraft Category and approach type –ILS facility requirements greatly standardised

33 Appendix 1 to – Table 6 Facility/ Conditions RVR (m) Aeroplane category ABCD ILS, MLS, GLS, PAR and APV MinAccording to table 5 Max NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LLZ, LLZ/DME, VDF, SRE,,RNAV(LNAV) with a procedure which fulfils the criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(ii): Min 750 Max For NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LLZ, LLZ/DME, VDF, SRE, RNAV(LNAV): - not fulfilling the criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) above, or - with a DA(H) or MDA(H)  1200 ft Min MaxAccording to table 5 if flown as a CDFA, otherwise an add-on of 200/400 m applies but not to a higher value than the upper limit of the table.

34 Appendix 1 to – Para (c)(2)(ii) CDFAs with a nominal vertical profile, up to and including 4.5  for Category A and B aeroplanes, or 3.77  for Category C and D aeroplanes, unless other approach angles are approved by the Authority where the facilities are NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LLZ, LLZ/DME, VDF, SRA or RNAV(LNAV), with a final-approach segment of at least 3NM, which also fulfil the following criteria: CDFAs with a nominal vertical profile, up to and including 4.5  for Category A and B aeroplanes, or 3.77  for Category C and D aeroplanes, unless other approach angles are approved by the Authority where the facilities are NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LLZ, LLZ/DME, VDF, SRA or RNAV(LNAV), with a final-approach segment of at least 3NM, which also fulfil the following criteria: –(A) Final approach track is off-set  5 degrees, except that, for Category A and B aeroplanes, the upper cut-off value (RVR 1500 m) applies if the final approach track is off-set  15 degrees; and –(B) The FAF or another appropriate fix where descent is initiated is available, or distance to THR is available by FMS/RNAV or DME; and –(C) If the MAPt is determined by timing, the distance from FAF to THR is  8 NM.

35 Appendix 1 to (d) [Several places]: (d) [Several places]: –Minimum autopilot disengage height: –80% of DH, but not less than 150ft ARTE Note 4 to Table 8 deleted; AWOSG believes should be part of Sub Part F Note 4 to Table 8 deleted; AWOSG believes should be part of Sub Part F (e) & (f) Introduction of HUDLS (and some EVS) material: (e) & (f) Introduction of HUDLS (and some EVS) material: –‘Lower than standard Cat I’ –‘Other than standard Cat II’

36 Appendix 1 to (h) Introduction of EVS-specific material (h) Introduction of EVS-specific material –2 decision gates as outlined earlier –Steep approaches still to be discussed in AWOHWG (j) [formerly (g)] Circling: (j) [formerly (g)] Circling: –One set of minima presented –ACJ being developed to clarify circling in more detail (l) Conversion of Met Vis to RVR no longer permitted below 800m (l) Conversion of Met Vis to RVR no longer permitted below 800m

37 Other Appendices 1.440: 1.440: –Clarification of requirements needed to qualify for Cat III 1.450: 1.450: –‘HGS’ abandoned, now HUDLS –HUD and EVS will create additional training requirements 1.455: 1.455: –References to HUD and EVS added

38 ACJs [edited]: [edited]: –Explains SAp and CDFA concepts –Edited in response to comments (53, of which 43 accepted) Appendix 1 New [new]: Appendix 1 New [new]: –Explain derivation of new minima –Cat I operations <750m RVR –Single-pilot ops (h) [new]: (h) [new]: –Describe EVS and concept of operations

39 Regulatory Impact Assessment

40 RIA Scope: Scope: –Discussed already Relevant ICAO / JAA decisions: Relevant ICAO / JAA decisions: –SAp / CDFA –HUD (JAA TGL) –HUD minima: conflict with Annex 14 (RVR not DH) –NPA may well be used by ICAO OPSP –Operations <550m RVR: definition (Cat I or Cat II?)

41 RIA Objectives: Objectives: –Enhance safety – especially CDFA –HUDLS / autoland –EVS Who will be affected? Who will be affected? –All JAR-OPS operators, and probably most GA –Training

42 RIA Options Options –Do nothing –Introduce Rule, but no reduction in RVR –Introduce Rule and reduce required RVR –Mandate CDFA / SAp, but no change in AOM –Mandate CDFA / SAp and change in AOM

43 RIA Impacts identified: Impacts identified: –Safety –Economic –Harmonisation –Environmental –Social (nil) –Other Aviation Requirements (nil)

44 RIA Consultation: Consultation: –Industry –Flight-crew –FAA –Comments Response Document Summary & Final Assessment Summary & Final Assessment

45 Questions?? Bo Eckerbert Tim Price

46


Download ppt "Aerodrome Operating Minima Head-Up Displays Enhanced Vision Systems NPA-OPS 41."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google