NAVIGATION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE Alex Hendriks Deputy Director ATM Strategies EUROCONTROL

Airspace Capacity Challenges - Total Departures

Airspace Capacity Challenges - Delays

Infrastructure Evolution Requirements Strategic Objectives (cf. Navigation Strategy): “a total RNAV environment for all operations en-route and in TMA” and “a judicious deployment of space based navigation infrastructure and the rationalisation of ground navigation infrastructure” Target: VOR and NDB withdrawn by 2020+

European Navigation Solutions Navigation Strategy = central tool for Airspace Organization Navigation Strategy is Performance Based Enables closer route spacing=>Capacity benefit Facilitates access into airports in complex environments – e.g. high terrain Responds to environmental requirements =>Low noise routings =>Enabler for Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) =>Provides repeatable, predictable track keeping Provides navigation performance benchmark => Facilitates PAN-European and Global Harmonization => Reduces costs for operators

European Challenges Multi-national flavour of service provision Privatized / Corporatized / “...ized” ANSPs Competing airport interests Terminal Airspace design methodology differences Protective attitude with respect to national sovereignty – particularly regarding airspace limits (e.g. Terminal Airspace) Pan-European harmonisation for (Terminal) Airspace Competing operational interests Airlines, GA/BA, Military,

Conflicting Demands Traffic increases Especially demands from low cost airlines Airports peripheral to main hubs have significantly increased traffic Complex SID/STAR interaction due to growth of major terminal areas and regional airports Environmental Pressure Often prevents optimum use of terminal airspace Fuel Costs

APV Implementation Benefits HIGH PRIORITY Safety reduce the number of CFiT occurrences Economy potential for lower minima More fuel efficient profiles Environmental Lower noise (reduced thrust changes/aircraft higher than on step down approaches) Lower Fuel burn for CDA No mandatory implementation date Target: all conventional and GPS non precision approaches will be replaced by CDA enabled by APV

European Objectives Maintain Safety Targets whilst : - Meeting capacity requirements - Taking account of environmental constraints - Making the change cost-beneficial to implement (timing and detailed requirements) - Ensuring maximum benefit to users

Aircraft P-RNAV Compliance (2006) 4224= 56% 3305= 44% P-RNAV COMPLIANCE STATEMENT NO COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

44% 56% 18% 82% 5% 95% Approach Procs STARs Airways >FL90 Airways <FL90 SIDs 19% 81% 16% 84% RNAV non RNAV RNAV an Non-RNAV Procedures Mix (Europe )

Where after P-RNAV ? P-RNAV made use of existing capability RNP-RNAV (RTCA Do236/ED ) Business Case under development Additional airspace capacity Potential reduced parallel route spacing En-route and terminal airspace, Integrity sufficient to enable RNAV as “sole means “of navigation New System being delivered claim MASPS compliance

CFIT Vertical Data Vertical Profile of some recent accidents/incidents Loss of vertical situational awareness is a primary contributor

EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain Aims To enable all forms of APV Develop standards and guidance material Undertake safety studies Support States as needed Implementation depends upon Stakeholders Airspace user equipage Operational requirements Navigation Domain will support all Stakeholders

Low visibility procedures in Europe Satisfy a range of user requirements: Maintain Cat II/II capability where exists today Extend Cat II/III as traffic demand/meteo conditions demand Maintain and extend Cat I capability for those airports/operators who do not need Cat II/IIII capability.

Eurocontrol Actions Fulfil the ECAC requirements: Seek to ensure CAT II/III maintained Support States in enabling GLS Investigate the impact of options: Quantify the limitations of ILS Identify how MLS/GLS can overcome limitations Identify cost effective way meeting safety objectives Identify any barriers to sole means and potential mitigations

Navigation Developments – RNAV En-route&TMA P-RNAV as TMA RNAV Means Safety – common requirements Support CDA – environment economy PB RNAV (RNP) Specified Start equipment development - 7 years notice Start planning for airspace changes PB RNAV Mandated Capacity Benefits Improved CDA RNAV Primary means PB RNAV only Means Infrastructure Optimization - needs Galileo and enhanced GPS VNAV/RTA 4D NAV?

Navigation Developments – RNAV Approaches APV Baro VNAV Safety - Reduced CFiT Support CDA - environment economy Lower Minima - capacity economy APV I (EGNOS) Benefit extended to aircraft not able to carry out APV Baro VNAV Further reduction of Minima - economy - capacity RNAV Based Cat I Capacity Benefits Improved CDA RNAV Primary means For Cat I Infrastructure Optimization Needs Galileo and enhanced GPS PB RNAV Approach for every Runway end RNAV can become primary means Improved safety Capacity etc

Navigation Developments – Landing and Guided Take-Off GBAS Cat I Operations MLS Cat II/III Improved capacity in LVP Backup to ILS GSLD Cat II/III Cat I ground system with Inertial on A/C Capacity Benefits to appropriately Equipped Aircraft GBAS Cat II/III Improved capability for all A/C Necessary step to sole service Needs Galileo and enhanced GPS

Infrastructure Optimisation Steps DME ground infrastructure optimisation support RNAV operations synchronised with RNAV evolution 2.1 st VOR and NDB reduction step minimum mix by 2015 synchronised with RNAV evolution maintain safety & continuity en-route and in TMA 3. 2 nd VOR and NDB reduction step (withdrawal) complete by 2020 Subsequent to mandating a new navigation capability; Safety and continuity maintained by other means

VOR reductionNDB reduction RNAV implementation DME enhancement GNSS enhancement RNAV Infrastructure Evolution

MLS Cat IIIGBAS Cat III Precision Approach continued support ILS Sustained Precision Approach Infrastructure Evolution

COM 2.5% NAV 0.7% Other 27.7% ACC 57.6% SUR 11.5% 76% en-route ATM/CNS Costs 24% Terminal ATM/CNS Costs 0.9% Paym to Gov Authorities 5.7% ECTL Costs 5.7% MET Costs 87.8% ATM/CNS Provision Costs VOR+NDB 0.54% VOR+NDB ~0.25% NAVIGATION in ATM/CNS

COMMON STEPS What to do ? Statement of Nav. Infra. Evolution Policy and Criteria for Selection Work program DECISION

IndustryANSP EUROCONTROL Working and Marketing Together Airspace Users How to progress ?

NAVIGATION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE Alex Hendriks Deputy Director ATM Strategies EUROCONTROL

Evolution of Approach Procedures VOR-DME LOC-DME SDFLDABCRS NDBVORILSLOC RNAV 3-DRNAV 2-D SRA NDB on Apt VOR on Apt VOR-ARC NDB-DMENDB-NDB ILS/MLS/GLS (xLS) RNAVRNP-RNAV Overlay with CDFA TODAY SHORT TERM LONG TERM RNAV (RNP) RNAV (RNP) xLS Classic approaches Classic approaches Classic approaches Classic approaches RNAV 4D Flight Path ‘Gate to Gate’ 4D Flight Path ‘Gate to Gate’ xLS RNP-RNAV RNP

Infrastructure Evolution Issues No clear agreement on next RNAV step(s): capability, functionality and its supporting avionics P-RNAV optional; what comes after ? when? GPS-only approaches slow to pick up in Europe Rationalisation impact: Rationalisation impact: Complete withdrawal of NDB and VOR creates a problem for many aircraft (i.e. a costly retrofit ) DME/GNSS-based RNAV leaves GA aircraft without a fallback navigation solution Involves re-design of network (airways, TMA procedures): major effort for ANSP In order to avoid major difficulties in the transition, rationalisation is limited to a small scale (mostly local measures) at present Pressure to release spectrum for other uses/users

Infrastructure Evolution Benefits feasible technically and operationally: Cost effectiveness is achieved by synchronisation with RNAV development and gradual reduction. Withdrawal is associated with substantial changes required by a new RNAV step which supports operational benefits. Proposed rationalisation is in line with Navigation Strategy. Proposed rationalisation is consistent with European States views, IATA, FAA.

Lower Route Charges? VOR costs account for about 0.5% of ATM/CNS costs ! – – would this % correspond to similar % reduction of route charges ? – how significant is this potential reduction to Airspace Users ? – would ALL Airspace users benefit from such a reduction ? Note: Costs is previous slides do NOT include equipage costs ! – could they benefit more significantly from reductions elsewhere in the system ? VOR withdrawal – does not imply immediate removal from board for all aircraft (other regions may still require it) – requires carriage of dual RNAV boxes – how can equipage costs be minimised ? – natural evolution ?

Issues affecting Cost-efficiency Specific Issues Coverage and frequency planning (coordination) Non-optimum location of aids (duplication, non-RNAV) Common Issues Fragmented planning Piecemeal procurement Sub-optimal scale maintenance and in-service development Unsynchronized or inconsistent technological changes Training and administrative costs