Magnetic Variation – CAT II and III Operations PANC/PAFA OSWG

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
B-RNAV OPERATIONS IN EUROPEAN AIRSPACE
Advertisements

RVSM AIRWORTHINESS PRESENTED BY COSCAP-SA.
Should We Be Concerned About At The Airport? YES! Next.
P. GAYRAUD /B. RABILLER Cologne the 21st of June 2007
parity bit is 1: data should have an odd number of 1's
The pilot and airline operator’s perspective on runway excursion hazards and mitigation options Session 2 Presentation 1.
Navigation Fundamentals
1 CAR/SAM ATN GNSS SEMINAR VARADERO, CUBA May 8, 2002 Barry Billmann Federal Aviation Administration Presentation GNSS 3.2.
By: Steve Lang Date: September 2007 Federal Aviation Administration Wake Vortex R&D Status Briefing NBAA Convention.
* Requisition Processing Common Problems * Budget Checking Errors * Run Controls * Process Scheduler Request & Process Monitor * Questions.
Federal Aviation Administration Presented To: IPACG/39 Presented By: Dennis Addison, FAA Date: February 5-6, 2014 WP02: Timing Errors in Oakland OCA.
Hershey Conference March 2008 Federal Aviation Administration 0 Hershey Conference March 2008 Federal Aviation Administration 0 Conducting Studies For.
Computer Programming and Basic Software Engineering 4. Basic Software Engineering 1 Writing a Good Program 4. Basic Software Engineering 3 October 2007.
Monitoring and Pollutant Load Estimation. Load = the mass or weight of pollutant that passes a cross-section of the river in a specific amount of time.
Localizer Approaches This presentation assumes you have reviewed the ILS presentation first.
PH4705/ET4305: A/D: Analogue to Digital Conversion
Data Processing Equipment
Area Nav: RNP Evolution
Henry Felices Hershey PA March 5, 2009 Federal Aviation Administration Overview of the Airport Safety Data Program.
ELEC 4600 RADAR & NAVIGATION
Presented to: Federal Architects By: Kim W. Barnette, Ph.D. Aeronautical Information Management Federal Aviation Administration Date: April 11, 2007 Federal.
A ERODROME T RAINING M ODULE 5 P ART 2 Electronic Navigation Aids.
Airbus flight control system  The organisation of the Airbus A330/340 flight control system 1Airbus FCS Overview.
Aviation Considerations for Multi-Constellation GNSS Leo Eldredge, GNSS Group Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) December 2008 Federal Aviation Administration.
Product Recall ETM627 Tuan Doan - Honeywell NZ-2000 Navigation Computer 30 Nov What: Honeywell Flight Management Systems (FMSs) served by Honeywell.
Downloaded from Global Positioning System What Flight Instructors need to teach! What your pilot/student needs to know!
Chapter 8: Systems analysis and design
LECTURE 06B BEGINS HERE THIS IS WHERE MATERIAL FOR EXAM 3 BEGINS.
Basic Indoctrination Navigation 2 HOURS
6-1 Design of UAV Systems UAV operating environmentsc 2002 LM Corporation Lesson objective - to discuss UAV Operating Environments including … National.
Data Link Communications
Antenna Techniques to Optimize Pseudorange Measurements for Ground Based Ranging Sources Jeff Dickman Ohio University Avionics Engineering Center The 29.
Federal Aviation Administration 0 Continued Airworthiness Initiatives in the United States June 9, Continued Airworthiness Initiatives in the United.
FAA Satellite Navigation – Status Briefing 1 Federal Aviation Administration January 5, 2007.
Systems Life Cycle. Know the elements of the system that are created Understand the need for thorough testing Be able to describe the different tests.
DATA ERRORS. Introduction The processing of incorrect data can produce ridiculous and embarrassing output. Errors can take time to sort out and can be.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration DCIT 41 Plenary Mark Patterson, FAA, AFS June 2015 Flight Standards Update.
182a_N00FEB23_DG 1 Local Area Augmentation System CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS Alaska Regional Briefing Anchorage October 1, 2002.
CS 352 : Computer Organization and Design University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Dan Ernst Pipelining Basics.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration DCIT 40 Plenary Mark Patterson, FAA, AFS April 2015 Flight Standards Update.
Wes Timmons, Director of Runway Safety, FAA April 2009 Federal Aviation Administration Runway Safety: Sun ‘N Fun Update.
Lecture 7: INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)
Federal Aviation Administration What’s New In Instrument Flight Procedures Jerry Lebar, Eastern Flight Procedures Office March 3, 2010 Hershey Airports.
Space-Based Navigation Systems
Office of Housing Choice Voucher Program Voucher Management System – VMS Version Released October 2011.
5/13/99 Ashish Sabharwal1 Pipelining and Hazards n Hazards occur because –Don’t have enough resources (ALU’s, memory,…) Structural Hazard –Need a value.
Measurements Measurements and errors : - Here, the goal is to have some understanding of the operation and behavior of electrical test instruments. Also,
Lecture 11: Flight Management System (FMS)
Potential Safety Benefits of RNP Approach Procedures
Primenumbers.co.uk This presentation will help you get the most out of this service.
Lecture 8: INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)
Lecture 8- Microwave Landing System (MLS). Home Previous Next Help Definition Microwave an electromagnetic wave with a short wavelength in the range 0.001–0.3.
Navigation Technology
Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR February 10, 2015 Federal Aviation Administration Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR C-384 Presentation.
Federal Aviation Administration Presented to: OSWG Presented by: Chris Hope Date: March 9, 2016 ILS Performance Classification OpSpec C061.
© 2009 Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Pilot’s Manual – Ground School Flight Operations Chapter 27 Navigation Aids.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration Obstacles in the Visual Segment 20:1 Background, Policies and Action Gerard G Lebar Eastern Flight.
PBN Performance Based Navigation
Global Positioning System
Microwave Landing System (MLS)
Global Positioning System
Performance Based Navigation: Navigation Specifications
RR-TAG Liaison Report September 2008 IEEE
A Few Review Questions.
Global Positioning System
RR-TAG Liaison Report September 2008 IEEE
Introduction to Medisoft
M. Kezunovic (P.I.) S. S. Luo D. Ristanovic Texas A&M University
Presentation transcript:

Magnetic Variation – CAT II and III Operations PANC/PAFA OSWG Presented by: John Swigart Date: March 18, 2015

Overview Magnetic Variation 101 Airplane Systems, Airports, IAP Designs MagVar Tables Explained Course Steering Safety Effects if Airport & Airplane MagVar disagree Anchorage ILS Example Procedure Updates… Moving forward

Magnetic Variation 101 Difference between local bearing to the True pole vs the Magnetic pole Defined: Magnetic Bearing = True -- Magnetic Variation (MV) Variation Differs across the Earth Is greatest near the Poles Earth’s magnetic field changes over time Magnetic variation can, too Extremes: Max D near poles 1o in ~3 years, Minimum in Asia ~2o/century NOAA updates its magnetic Earth model every 5 years Mag & True references are each appropriate & useful Largest effects in Alaska, Arctic Canada & Russia, Greenland, Iceland, Antarctica Airplanes, airports, databases and Earth ideally should agree This is technically & organizationally harder than it looks

Airplane Systems, Airports, IAP Designs Air Navigation is a blend of True and Magnetic references Most transport airplanes (with inertial) measure True and calculate Magnetic. Then they use both. They do not include Magnetic sensors in nav solutions. Don’t need to because they have inertials (IRS, IRU, ADIRU, etc) They could, but would introduce other, even bigger errors Global Nav, and most computers, work in True references Magnetic values are converted from databases and for displays Exceptions Many RJs, turboprops & older jets rely on AHRS. They only measure magnetic. Modern Standby systems measure magnetic. Those are independent, separate. Most charts, runways, facility references & Navaids use Magnetic references Instrument Approach Procedures, charts and airports use Magnetic references Therefore they must all be updated as the Earth’s magnetic field moves Always a challenge to reconcile the differences When it all works, it works very well, if all players understand limitations and obligations

MagVar Tables Explained On airplanes with Inertials Variation is looked up in a “MagVar Table,” a 2-D database of: MagVar = f(Lat, Long) Magnetic is calculated as a sum of True minus Variation If the variation is wrong, then the calculated Magnetic will be wrong MagVar Tables are stored in the Inertial Reference Unit & FMC Data are intended for at least 10 years Accurate enough for much longer at most locations Data embedded in Complex Hardware Avionics OEMs update their tables every 5 or 10 years (usually) Production incorporations are routine. (Usually) Perfect match among airplanes, airports & Earth is instantaneous, perishable Retrofit Updates can require sending the IRU in for chip change & new part mark FMC and newest ADIRU can be loaded in field Done via Service bulletin, on condition, not required Many airplanes are flying with 30 year old MagVar tables and have no issues in their niche ops Some airplanes and operations require 1o MagVar accuracy, especially for CAT III 2008 AD against Airbus due to similar symptoms Airports, charts, nav data and airplanes can each have errors FAA data and OEMs’ MagVar will adjust, but at different schedules Updates can anticipate future MagVar values Facilities do as needed, possibly working ahead

Course Steering Crew normally enters Magnetic course into the MCP, taken from the IAP chart Autopilot will construct a reference path in space Autopilot takes MCP Magnetic selection, adds MagVar from the inertial, builds a True course line, and commands that. If MagVar is wrong, then the commanded course diverges from local magnetic Navaids or visual references make large errors apparent. Small errors less so. On ILS, the autopilot computes steering commands using a blend of ILS and Inertial Biased to the ILS. A/P uses Inertial to stabilize, compensate for wind & turbulence, and to avoid chasing passing distortions in the LOC signal. VOR is similar. Important to the late stages of Autoland Specifics vary greatly by airplane type (blending schemes and error sensitivities) Systems can tolerate some nav source discrepancies Tolerance varies by airplane type and by operation Differences between the LOC and the Inertial/Autopilot paths Include MagVar errors, LOC distortion and errors, charting resolution, some FTE When Inertial Reference and the Localizer are in conflict The autopilot tries to obey both. Trouble occurs when they disagree too much. Bulk of the issue appears during capture When any autopilot cannot reconcile its inputs, it gives the airplane back to the crew. This is good.

Safety Effects if Airport & Airplane MagVar disagree IRU will cause an error when flying a commanded course ILS, far away (usual symptom) Missed capture Try again, or try something else Missed approach Annoying, expensive, generally not dangerous ILS close in (less likely) Poor or unstabilized approach dynamics Misalignment with the physical runway when trying to capture. On an ADF procedure Course misalignment. Misleading, especially while outbound. HSI/RDMI are correct Escape from TERPS area if unnoticed. Potentially hazardous

Anchorage, ILS Runway 7R Example 4o bearing error ~7900 ft offset At the IF (ELIAS,) 18.6 NM from Rwy, 4o bias from using 2005 MagVar table with 2015 Epoch will compute a 7900 ft overshoot. At the threshold, that diff between constructed path and LOC is 900 ft. Constructed Path to the Runway if using 21o from 2005 MagVar table “TrueConstructed” = Magnetic + 21o 2005 was 090oT = 069o + 21o 2010 was 092oT = 071o + 21o late 2011 was 092oT = 071o + 21o In Feb 2012 became 094oT = 073o + 21o June 2012 will be 092oT = 071o + 21o In 2015 the intent will be 090oT = 073o + 17o (presuming operators have updated their tables) True Runway Bearing is 090o Magnetic Bearing 2005 was 069oM, MV was 21o 2010 was 071oM, MV was 19o 2012 is 071.5oM, MV is 18.5o 2015 will be, 073oM, with MV 17o By 2020 the Rwy might become 8R

Anchorage/ Fairbanks NOTAMs Original NOTAM issued 12 April 2012 Prohibits CAT II, CAT III ops at Anchorage in 747, 757, 767, 777, MD-11 737 is OK. Different A/P & guidance architecture. Airbus may have issues at some point if procedure is not updated to ICAO standards. Boeing issued an Operators Updated Message (MOM) Fall of 2015 Describes issues in detail Now includes B747-800 Will have AFM requirements Must update to 2015 tables – requires new NOTAM

ANCHORAGE (PANC) Procedure Update Anchorage ILS procedures will be updated by Fall 2015 18 E value interim will be applied. Interim value brings procedure close to ICAO standard . Accommodates magnetic referenced systems. Buys more time for operators to update systems. Will be updated to 17 E in 2018 (ICAO Standard). Boeing aircraft with 2005 and newer magvar tables will still be able to operate normally…..until 2018. Airbus is good to go. Current NOTAM will suffice.

Fairbanks (PAFA) Procedure Update Fairbanks ILS procedures will be updated by December 2015 18 E value will be applied. Interim value was investigated – no fix is possible to accommodate Boeing aircraft with 2005 and previous tables (aircraft will not be in compliance regardless of making no change or updating the procedure). Boeing aircraft identified in latest MOM will be required to have 2015 magvar tables installed/ updated (2005 and previous magvar tables will not be compatible after procedure update). AFM will be updated to reflect requirement…..drives airworthiness. Updated NOTAM will be issued to reflect changes and add more aircraft to list (aircraft affected by procedure update). Airbus may have issues….we’ll keep you updated.

Moving Forward….CAT II / III Ops IRU MagVar tables….update….update….update! Operators should have MagVar tables adequate for their locale worldwide. Must update all aircraft operating into PAFA by Fall 0f 2015. Must update all aircraft operating into PANC date TBD in 2018. Honeywell can only accommodate 50 IRU units per month….3 per aircraft and potentially 1200 aircraft affected. Reference above….get a plan in place now…2018 will be here soon. AFS-410 updating OpSpec C059 and C060 combo to include requirements that will address database updating for operators that utilize procedures at ANC and FAI. MMEL will be affected so plan accordingly…..AFM requirements. Update will enable FAA to delete NOTAM

Moving Forward…. IRU MagVar tables….update….update….update! Honeywell can only accommodate 50 IRU units per month….3 per aircraft and potentially 1200 aircraft affected. Reference above….get a plan in place now…2018 will be here soon. AFS-410 updating OpSpec C059 and C060 combo to include requirements that will address database updating for operators that utilize procedures at ANC and FAI. MMEL will be affected so plan accordingly…..AFM requirements

Thank you