1. PBN implementation project at Greek (Island) airports
Anthony van der Veldt
Assistant Director Safety, Operations & Infrastructure
IATA, European Regional Office Brussels

2. PBN Benefits
The full usage of the available on-board avionic PBN capabilities provides for the following safety and economic benefits:
Reduce fuel consumption/ environmental impact by using stabilized approaches
Improve safety by
Simplifying and standardizing design and training
Reducing cockpit workload
Replacing Circling, NDB approaches (avoiding NPA)
Enhance efficiency by shortening of routings
Improve continuity of airline operations
Improve access to runways
LNAV/VNAV minima as low as, i.e ft AGL and above
Less diversions
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

3. Airline expectations PBN Approach Procedures
Airlines are very much interested in PBN procedures:
Implementing ICAO Resolution A37-11
RNP APCH including APV BaroVNAV procedures acc. EASA AMC 20-27
SBAS approaches not emphasized as most IATA members do not have such capability and will not invest either due to negative Business Case
PBN offers RNP AR procedures to cope with mountainous terrain
RNP AR APCH acc. EASA AMC 20-26
RF-legs and RNP smaller than 0.3 (down to 0.1)
(e.g. Airberlin has excellent experience at Innsbruck, ie. less diversions, less complex approach)
RNP AR has stringent requirements for airline/crew, similar to ILS CATII/III
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

4. Eligible Airports for PBN
Airport Number of flights 2011 Number of flights by Aircraft types Actual Nav Proc
Heraklion A3: 5.303; AO: A320; RJ100, DHC8-400 VOR, DME
X3: 1.904; AB:1.038 B737-8; A320
Korfu A3: 2.212; AO:1.234 A320, RJ100 DHC VOR
AB: ; X3: B737-8
Kos OA: 2.496; A3:1.254 DHC8; A VOR NDB
X3: ; AB B737-8
Santorini OA: 2.026; A3: A320, DHC VOR/DME, NDB
AB: B737-7/8
Samos OA: 1.632; A3: 992 A320, RJ VOR/DME, NDB
AB: ;
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

5. Possible impact on PBN implementation
ATM Hurdles
Constraints
Possible impact on PBN implementation
Lack of specialised personnel 
Training is required at all levels in HCAA for Instrument Procedure Designers,
Air Traffic Controllers and Technical staff
Old software  
Not able to deliver support for PBN procedures
Absence of Digital Terrain Model of Greece as a cartographic source data
Does not improve the accuracy of the data and the easiness of use and implementation of the software.
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

6. RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

7. Aircraft NAV capabilities
Air Berlin
B /800
A319/320/321.
Tuifly B737
Olympic Air
A319/320
Q400 NG:
Q400 - same as Q400 NG
Dash8-100
Approved for PRNAV
RNP APCH incl. BaroVNAV
RNP AR
Capable of: RF
Approved for PRNAV
         
RNP APCH incl. BaroVnav
Capable of RF
Capable but not approved for RNP APCH
Approved for PRNAV
Capable but not approved for RNP APCH;
Approved for No PRNAV
No RNP APCH
No RF
                               
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

8. Airports Actual Minima
Heraklion
RWY 09                Min 0990 ft AGL             CIRC
RWY 27                Min 1020 ft AGL            VORDME
Corfu
RWY 17                Min 1700 ft AGL              CIRC
RWY 35                Min 2000 ftAGL               VORDME
Santorini
RWY 14                Min 0510 ft AGL              VORDME
RWY 32                Min 0510 ft AGL              VORDME
Rhodos
RWY 07                Min 1090 ft AGL             VORDME
Thessaloniki 
RWY 34                Min 1280 ft AGL               VORDME
RWY 28                Min 1380 ft AGL               CIRC
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

9. Summary Report 5 Apr 12 Meeting (2)
Airport selection and PBN procedures:
Heraklion (HER) and Korfu (CFU) airports were selected to start with and gain experience
As a first priority RNP APCH (straight-in) procedure implementation was emphasized for HER RWY27 and CFU RWY35.
Additionally, RNP AR procedures at HER RWY09 and CFU RWY17
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

10. Heraklion
Heraklion (LGIR) the second busiest airport in Greece during summer
PBN
RWY27: RNP APCH
Complement or replace existing straight-in VOR or NDB approaches
Straight-in RNP APCH APV BaroVNAV approach (RNAV GNSS approach)
RWY 09: RNP AR
Approach procedure (only visual procedures are actually available)
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

11. Corfu Actual situation / procedures
Corfu (LGKR) has big percentage of diverted aircrafts due to weather
Straight in procedure starting from 9NM with an RNAV IAF.
Most often visibility is good and a right hand visual pattern to RWY35 is flown east of the airport.
West of the airport is not possible due to terrain
Medium intensity approach lights of 500 m length, no runway center lights
VOR Y approach chart, the landing minimum is 2000 ft AGL, due to the obstacles and the lateral inaccuracy of the VOR
Obstacles near RWY17, i.e. antenna of 600ft height at only 500 m (0.25 NM) from the threshold.
RWY 17: No approach lights, No RWY center line lights.
Approach minima are highly dependent on the available lighting, if no lighting to one RWY-end minima are high...
Absence of centerline lights does not improve awareness during night approaches, the runway really appears as a black box in front of the pilot, making visual 3D perception during approach and flare difficult.
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

12. Corfu PBN implementation RWY35: RNP APCH
Complement or replace existing straight-in VOR or NDB approaches
Straight in RNP APCH APV BaroVNAV approach (RNAV GNSS approach)
RNP approach
More precise lateral navigation (0.3 NM)
Reduce landing minima .
Thorough obstacle analysis is absolutely needed to provide for a optimum approach design and allow optimum identification of MDAs/DAs.
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

13. Corfu RWY 17: Draft RNP – AR procedure design
Replaces the visual circling to RWY17
Includes RF-legs in the final approach segment, and turn radius is calculated / designed to provide for CAT D aircraft
Procedure based on RNP 0.3
Future lower RNP down to 0.1, improving obstacle clearance and leading to lower minimums
 Successful Simulator Flight validation
mandated by AMC 20-26
Missed Approach: as officially published (VOR A Circling).
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

14. Way forward Create road map
Outlining the steps to be taken for RNP APCH (& AR) introduction at HER and CFU, incl.:
Airline accountabilities, e.g . what is needed for pilot training, documentation, aircraft approval, cost benefit analysis, etc.
Regulatory and ANSPs accountabilities, i.e. what/how needs to be proven and by whom.
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

15. Actions by HCAA: Actions by OA and A3
Establish PoCs accountable for PBN introduction
Become familiar with AMC RNP APCH Approval & Certification
Liaise with German regulator LBA to share experience
PBN software design should also be capable of RNP AR procedure design
Start familiarization of ANSP management and ATCO’s at HER and CFU by means of e.g. e-training; PBN courses etc.
Actions by OA and A3
Become familiar with AMC requirements and prepare for approval for eligible fleet
Become familiar with PBN procedures for pilots by means of e-learning packages e.g. available with ICAO, IATA, Eurocontrol
Liaise with AB and A3 for sharing experience
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

16. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH
State
Airport
TMA/Runways
Austria
VIE
PRNAV SIDs/STARs
Belgium
BRU
Czech Republic
PRG
Denmark
CPH
Finland
HEL
OUL
France
CDG
LYS
NCE
Arr RWY22L/R
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

17. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH
Germany
FRA
Arr RWY25L/R
Dep 07L/R
PRNAV SIDs/STARs
CGN
DUS
HAJ
HAM
MUC
NUE
STR
Greece
ATH
CHQ
HER
PRNAV SIDs/STARs 
Hungary
BUD
Dep 31L/R
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

18. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH
Ireland
DUB
PRNAV SIDs/STARs
Italy
FCO
LIN
MXP
BLQ
CTA
RWY36 SIDs/STARs
PMO
RWY 07 APV BaroVNAV
BRI
RWY 25 APV BaroVNAV
AOY
ILS RWY22 APV BaroVNAV
Dep RWY35L/R
PSA
Dep RWY 04L/R
Design Arr RWY 22L/R because there are none
VCE
Dep 04R
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

19. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH
Luxembourg
LUX
PRNAV SIDs/STARs
Netherlands
AMS
APV APCH Arr RWY27
Dep RWY24, 36C, 18C
Norway
OSL
SVG
TRD
Poland
WAW
Portugal
LIS
Romania
small / medium airports
APV APCH procedures
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

20. IATA LIST PRNAV and RNP APCH
 Spain
MAD
PRNAV SIDs/STARs
PMI
BCN
AGP
TFS
LPA
Dep RWY 25L/R
Dep RWY36L/R
RNP APCH APV 33L/R
Sweden
ARN
GOT
MMX
AGH
Switzerland
GVA
ZRH
Dep RWY16
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

21. IATA LISTPRNAV and RNP APCH   UK
LHR
PRNAV SIDs/STARs
STN
LTN
BHX
EDI
LGW
MAN
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

22. IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002
Aircraft airworthiness and approval criteria are
too stringent
overly conservative for airlines and for aircraft manufacturers to comply with
interpreting the ICAO PANS-OPS design criteria improperly
No consultation with experts or with aircraft operators  
As a consequence
a proper proliferation and implementation of RNP APCH including APV/Baro-VNAV are stalling and safety improvements have to wait unacceptably long
investments of airlines in costly navigation avionics cannot be recouped.
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

23. IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002
Stringent elevation criteria of airports with surrounding terrain above 5000 ft MSL will jeopardize airline operations into airports like ADD, JNB, JRO, NBO, Quito
operations are heavily dependent on the availability of the vertical guidance APV/BaroVNAV
circling approach and/or NPA are the only alternatives
The ban of BaroVNAV operations above 5000 ft altitude is artificial
aircraft operators compliant with FAA AC are not confronted with such limitations which after all are based on the same data (non level playing field)
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012

24. IATA Issues with EASA AMC 20-27 and CM 002
Getting out of the stalemate by accepting airline and OEMs expertise
Focus on the implementation of targeted safety measures instead of adding costly and cumbersome regulations that do little to improve safety  
Compliance with ICAO PBN
RATF Meetring
BRU, 30 May 2012