Federal Aviation Administration Presented To: IPACG/40 Date: September 8-12, 2014 IP8: Lost Fuel Savings due to lack of RNP4/FANS Equipage

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG/40 Date: September 8-12, 2014 RNP4 and FANS Improves efficiency Non FANS RNP10 FANS RNP10 FANS RNP4 2

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Aircraft Type 3

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Aircraft Type and Equipage 4

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 AUNZJP

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 JAPAN - GUAM

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 CEP

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 JAPAN - HAWAII

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 CENPAC

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 SOPAC

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12,

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, Filed NON_RNP4 T/B744“T” 28 Flights P/B77W“P” 227 Flights P/B763 P/B77L F/A333“F” 268 Flights F/B744 ???/B77L??? 3 Flights QQQ/B748“QQQ” 51 Flights QQQ/B744 A/B752“A” 26 flights

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Lost Fuel Burn Savings The following slides identify denied aircraft requests for climb to optimum altitudes and places a value on the increased fuel burn due to lack of FANS equipment and RNP certification 15

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 ADS-C Reporting Costs ADS Savings $4.25 F310 F320 Request F330 ATC Advises UNABLE higher due to Traffic 16 nm 16

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Impact of Denied Altitude Change Requests 17

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Lack of RNP4 extra fuel burn 18

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 RNP4 extra fuel burn 19

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Additional benefits are not tracked 30nm separation after two opposite direction aircraft have passed If an aircraft is held below optimum altitude because of traffic and does not make requests for a new optimum altitude. 20

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Additional benefits are not tracked Savings that could be realized by developing route systems based on a 30nm lateral standard. This paper only captures the lost savings for the Oakland FIR. It would be much higher if calculated for all FIRs 21

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Conclusion The meeting is requested to: Recognize the benefits of RNP 4 and FANS equipage; and Consider certifying FANS equipped aircraft as RNP 4; and Consider equipping aircraft with satellite FANS and RNP 4 certification. 22

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Seamless Airspace Chart 23 XX X X

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG 40 September 8-12, 2014 Tahiti Auckland Nadi Brisbane Moresby Ujung ManilaManila Fukuoka Anchorage Vancouver Seattle Oakland Los Angeles MexicoMexico Honolulu Guam Bucholz ADS Distance Based Separation Vancouver D50 ZSE, ZOA, ZLA D50, 30/30 HCF D50, 30/30 Auckland D50, 30/30 Nadi D50, 30/30 Brisbane D50, 30/30 Guam D50, 30/30 Fukuoka D50, 30/30 Anchorage D50, 30/30 PAZN FIR Anchorage D50 D30 24

Federal Aviation Administration IPACG/40 Date: September 8-12, 2014