1. 1 SBAS Implementation in the Regions of ACAC and ASECNA FP7-GALILEO-2008-4.3.1 / FP7-GALILEO-2008-4.3.4 Project with Community research funding Application Business Cases Prepared by Egis Avia / Pildo /Navya Presented by Nga Bui (Egis Avia)

2. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 ToC Objectives Context Preliminary analysis Methodology Context Results Conclusions 2 Application Business Case: Implementation of LPV approaches in 3 AD of the regions of ACAC and ASECNA SBAS Implementation in the regions of ACAC and ASECNA SIRAJ project

3. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Objectives and Development 3 Objectives: –To develop a specific business case for an AD where EGNOS APV approaches are to be implemented in the frame of SIRAJ project: –For ACAC: –Al-Hoceima Airport (Morocco) –Najran Airport (Saudi Arabia) –For ASECNA: –Dakar L.S. Airport (Senegal) Business Case Approach: For each of the considered airport: –A preliminary analysis is performed to determine baseline scenario –A Methodology of Cost-Benefit Analysis depending on the baseline scenario –Combination of different inputs coming from the Air Navigation Service Provider and the Airport Manager

4. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis Aims at analysing the airport in terms of: –Terrain characteristics –Approach characteristics: Radio Navigation Aids Procedure published Wind direction and intensity and Runway configuration –Meteo Analysis: Cloud Ceiling and Visibility constraints –Traffic Figures In order: –To analysis the current situation (baseline scenario) –To determine potential benefits of implementing APV approaches –To determine the Business Case Approach 4 Preliminary Analysis

5. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Context 5 Al Hoceima Airport Runway Characteristics: THR17 holds IFR procedures whilst THR 35 is currentlty only used for VFR operations. Casablanca AlHoceima RWYTORA (M)TODA (M)ASDA (M)LDA (M) 12345 172500360025602500 352500 25352500

6. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis 6 IFR Approach Procedure in place for RWY17: ProcedureOCA (OCH) (ft) VOR/DME RWY17 STD MACG1030 (1010) MACG =4.0%760 (740) VOR RWY172110 (2090) …with STD Missed Approach Climb Gradients, procedure DH is always above 1000 ft!! Al Hoceima Airport

7. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis 7 Al Hoceima Airport Traffic figures METEO analysis Cloud ceiling and visibility do NOT cause disrupted in the normal airport operation of the airport: VMC are met almost all the year. Small/ medium airport with low traffic figures Chance for growing… Airport too small for an ILS investment??

8. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Context 8 Najran Airport Runway Characteristics: RWYTORA (M) TODA (M) ASDA (M)LDA (M) 12345 063050335031103050 243050335031103050 RWY 06/24 can held IFR Non- Precision Approaches procedures

9. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis 9 IFR Approach Procedures in place for RWY 24 & RWY06: Procedure(M)DA ((M)DH) (ft) ILS RWY06 4182 (200) VOR/DME RWY06 4700 (718) VOR/DME RWY24 4620 (662) Najran Airport ILS RWY 06 VOR/DME RWY 24 VOR/DME RWY 06

10. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis 10 Najran Airport Traffic figures METEO analysis Wind and Visibility do not represent a significant constraints on operations April-September is the period of time when the weather is cloudiest. The rest of the year is normally clear. Constant increase of operations and passengers (2003-2007) Decrease from 2007 to 2010 (Operations, passengers, fret) APV Approach can contribute to improve operations and even increase capacity OperationsPassengers Fret

11. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Context 11 Dakar Léopold Sédar Senghor Airport Runway Characteristics: RWYTORA (M) TODA (M) ASDA (M)LDA (M) 12345 183940379035503330 3639403550 3490 RWY18/36 can held IFR Precision Procedures RWY THR36 is the prevailing RWY most of the year.

12. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis 12 ILS Precision Approach Procedures in place for RWY36 IFR Non-Precision Approach Procedures in place for RWY 36 & 18: VOR-Based procedures – RWY 36 VOR/DME-based – RWY 18 RNAV GNSS (LNAV) Procedures – RWY18 & RWY 36 Dakar L.S. Airport Procedure(M)DA ((M)DH) (ft) CAT ACAT BCAT CCAT D ILS RWY36 290 (220) 300 (230) 310 (240) 320 (250) VOR/DME RWY18 380 (320) RNAV GNSS (LNAV) RWY18 510 (450)

13. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Preliminary Analysis 13 Dakar L.S. Airport Traffic figures METEO analysis Wind constraints a lot operations (RWY18 operates only Summer Time) Cloud ceiling do NOT cause disruptions where as visibility impacts operations. Medium airport with medium traffic figures Chance for growing… Limited use of RWY18 due to wind Limited use of RWY18 due to wind RVR meters 50 ≤RVR <100100 ≤RVR <500500 ≤RVR <1000 1000 ≤RVR <1500 1500 ≤RVR ≤2000 TOTAL (%)2,38%14,28%30,95%21,42%30,95% Northern traffic usually prefers to extend to RWY36 due to ILS (no direct RWY18 access) APV Approaches can offer back-up to ILS (RWY36), safer direct access to RWY18)

14. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methology 14 Three different approaches depending on the current airport status

15. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methodology 15 Al Hoceima Airport Comparison between conventional approaches and RNAV GNSS procedures Scenarios definition:

16. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methodology 16 Najran Airport Comparison between conventional approaches and RNAV GNSS procedure- Scenarios definition:

17. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methodology 17 Dakar L.S. Airport Landing conditions and case of “disrupted approaches” Recorded cloud ceiling Recorded visibility Threshold (50ft) (M)DA/DH Runway Required visibility Required cloud ceiling

18. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methodology 18 Dakar L.S. Airport Estimation of reduction in “disrupted approaches” and % of operations gained 1) Total aircraft landings - 2) Non- ILS aircraft landings 3) Disruption probability per approach type 4) Aircraft NPA disruptions 5) Reduction in disruptions and % Operations gained According on input data available, dependant upon runway end distribution or upon airport ILS capability and tailwind – sets upper bound to potential benefits 6) Total benefits in airport fees Dependant upon estimated (m)DH, cloud ceiling & runway visibility Dependant upon landing aircraft capability and selected RNAV capability

19. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methodology 19 Dakar L.S. Airport Definition of Scenarios Baseline scenario: RNAV (GNSS) NPA with LNAV minima are published for both runways, i.e. no change in the curent day situation Scenarios ranging from the less optimistic to the most optimistic: Scenario A (Pesimsitic)): APV SBAS approach is implemented for both RWY THR36/RWY THR18 with LPV around 350 ft for RWY18 which are nearly the same as current NPAs; Scenario B (Medium): APV SBAS approach is implemented for both RWY THR36/RWY THR18 with LPV around 300 ft which are lower than current NPAs; Scenario C (Optimistic): APV SBAS approach is implemented for both RWY THR36/RWY THR18 which is a trade-off between best LPV minima authorized and avoiding runway ugrade for RWY THR18.

20. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 Methodology BaselineScenario A (Pesimsitic) Scenario B (Medium) Scenario C (Optimistic) RNAV ImplementationRNAV (GNSS) NPARNAV (GNSS) NPA, APV SBAS RWY THRTHR36THR18THR36THR18THR36THR18THR36THR18 APV SBAS DH (Ft)N/A 300Current Draft Design 300 250300 20 Dakar L.S. Airport Aircraft categories RNAV (GNSS) NPA LNAV capable APV SBAS capable Cat A100% Cat B100% Cat C100%10% Cat D100%10% Assumed Navigability Capacity Scenarios Assumptions

21. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario A. THR17 IFR; THR35 VFR Al Hoceima Airport

22. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario B. THR17 IFR; THR35 IFR Al Hoceima Airport

23. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario C. VOR/DME decommission Al Hoceima Airport

24. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 24 CONCLUSIONS –Despite METEO conditions allow the operation almost all the year, it is important to complete the implementation of IFR procedure in all RWY ends (if possible, with vertical guidance). –It is highly recommended to push towards the implementation of APV SBAS procedures. –It is not recommended to invest in ILS systems due to its very high cost. Above everything, an airport with low traffic figures cannot afford the expenses linked to the ILS maintenance. –APV SBAS procedures provide an excellent performance “ILS-alike” with a very low investment and negligible Operational Cost –APV SBAS procedures are safer than VOR/DME non-precision approach procedures, by:  Reduced procedure minima (DH)  Reduced pilot workload  Reduced controller workload  Improved track keeping –In the long term, with a full GNSS airspace structure, it could be evaluated the decommission of the existing VOR/DME (ALM) saving important costs related to its maintenance. Al Hoceima Airport

25. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario A. Najran Airport (in SAR) Scenario B.

26. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario C. Najran Airport (in SAR) Scenario D.

27. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario E. Najran Airport (in SAR)

28. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Najran Airport Scenarios CAPEX (in SAR) OPEX (in SAR) Scenario A A1186 200298 000 A24 467 400496 000 Scenario B B1345 400198 000 B24 653 600396 000 Scenario C C1186 200100 000 C2345 400100 000 C34 653 600298 000 Scenario D D1186 200198 000 D24 467 400396 000 Scenario E E1345 4000 E24 653 600198 000 To select the correct scenario, analyzing price and capability, a study over 15 years have been done.

29. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 29 CONCLUSIONS –It has been demonstrated that APV SBAS approaches are less expensive on implementation and maintenance than ILS and VOR/DME systems. –Number of flights operating with vertical guidance approach procedures will not vary if APV SBAS is used instead of ILS approach. –It is has been demonstrated that it is preferable to push towards the implementation of APV SBAS procedures rather than other possibilities taking into account the economical advantages of APV compared to VOR and ILS.. –It is not recommended to invest in a new ILS system due to its very high cost compared to APV. Above everything, an airport with low traffic figures cannot afford the expenses linked to the ILS maintenance. –It is recommended to substitute VOR/DME by APV because APV SBAS approaches improve the level of service with vertical guidance and better lateral accuracy than VOR/DME approaches with less CAPEX and OPEX expenses. –APV SBAS procedures provide an excellent performance “ILS-alike” with a very low investment and negligible Operational Cost. –APV SBAS procedures are safer than VOR/DME non-precision approach procedures, by: –Reduced procedure minima (DH) –Reduced pilot workload –Reduced controller workload –Improved track keeping Najran Airport

30. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario A. Dakar L.S. Airport

31. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario B. Dakar L.S. Airport

32. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 RESULTS Scenario C. Dakar L.S. Airport

33. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 33 CONCLUSIONS Dakar L.S. Airport DH Range (Feet) CAT ACAT BCAT CCAT D RWY THR18250 to 349250 to 361250 to 369250 to 380 RWY THR36250 to 374250 to 384259 to 394269 to 404 –It has been demonstrated that APV approaches in Dakar L.S. can bring quantitative benefits when they are implemented at both RWY TRH 18 (300 ft LPV Minima ) & RWY THR 36 (Between 250 and 300 ft LPV Minima ) –Positive NPV and Benefit to Cost ratio –The APV procedure currently designed on RWY THR18 (around (350 ft LPV Minima ) can to improved to lower DH, then decrease RVR and gain operations. –Depending on the margins taken on the APV SBAS procedure, the calculated minima can range as follows:

34. SIRAJ Final Workshop - Rabat 28th May 2012 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION QUESTIONS? 34