1. VALIDATION & IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS 1 BEIJING, CHINA; 30 JUN-11 JUL 2014

2. OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE This module provides an overview of airspace concept and flight procedure validation and considers aspects of PBN implementation. This module provides an overview of airspace concept and flight procedure validation and considers aspects of PBN implementation. 2

3. 3 Airspace Concept Activity Overview

4. Why do validation? ✈ Validate Airspace Concept and resulting routes/instrument flight procedures ✈ Assess if ATM objectives are achieved ✈ Confirm flyability of Instrument Flight Procedures ✈ Identify possible problems and develop mitigations ✈ Provide evidence design is safe Validation is an ongoing process ✈ Validate Airspace Concept and resulting routes/instrument flight procedures ✈ Assess if ATM objectives are achieved ✈ Confirm flyability of Instrument Flight Procedures ✈ Identify possible problems and develop mitigations ✈ Provide evidence design is safe Validation is an ongoing process 4

5. CAUTIONCAUTION GARBAGE IN 5 RUBBISH OUT!!!

6. Validation methods Validation methods Airspace Concept ✈ Chalk and talk ✈ Modelling ✈ FTS ✈ RTS Airspace Concept ✈ Chalk and talk ✈ Modelling ✈ FTS ✈ RTS 6 Flight Procedures ✈ PC based simulation ✈ Flight simulators ✈ Ground checks ✈ FMS simulator ✈ Live trials

7. CHALK and TALK 7

8. Airspace Concept Validation ✈ General Considerations ✈ Aircraft performance ✈ Sterile environment?/Secondary traffic ✈ Special events ✈ General Considerations ✈ Aircraft performance ✈ Sterile environment?/Secondary traffic ✈ Special events 8

9. Advantages of Modeling ✈ Flexible ✈ Simple ✈ ‘What if’ investigations ✈ Easy to test large number of traffic samples ✈ Data derived from real traffic and ATC environment ✈ Flexible ✈ Simple ✈ ‘What if’ investigations ✈ Easy to test large number of traffic samples ✈ Data derived from real traffic and ATC environment 9

10. EXAMPLEEXAMPLE10

11. Modeling - Limitations ✈ Crude ✈ Only high level data ✈ Basic aircraft performance ✈ Does not replicate controller interventions ✈ Simplified ✈ Subjective ✈ Crude ✈ Only high level data ✈ Basic aircraft performance ✈ Does not replicate controller interventions ✈ Simplified ✈ Subjective 11

12. Fast Time Simulation (FTS) ✈ Used for sector capacity ✈ Quality data ✈ Flexible ✈ Good acceptance of results ✈ Evaluate TLS ✈ Used for Safety Case ✈ Used for sector capacity ✈ Quality data ✈ Flexible ✈ Good acceptance of results ✈ Evaluate TLS ✈ Used for Safety Case 12

13. FTSFTS13

14. FTS - Limitations ✈ Simplified model ✈ Only statistical data ✈ No active controller interaction during FTS ✈ Accuracy of models is key ✈ Aircraft performance ✈ Met conditions ✈ Simplified model ✈ Only statistical data ✈ No active controller interaction during FTS ✈ Accuracy of models is key ✈ Aircraft performance ✈ Met conditions 14

15. Real Time Simulation (RTS) Real Time Simulation (RTS) ✈ Best method to simulate ATC trials ✈ High quality data ✈ Feed controllers/ pseudo pilots ✈ Human factor ✈ Can be part of Safety Case ✈ No risk to live ops ✈ Unlimited scope ✈ Best method to simulate ATC trials ✈ High quality data ✈ Feed controllers/ pseudo pilots ✈ Human factor ✈ Can be part of Safety Case ✈ No risk to live ops ✈ Unlimited scope 15

16. RTS - Limitations ✈ Limited scope ✈ Designed for training ATC ✈ Aircraft performance not representative ✈ Not designed for post simulation evaluation needed for Airspace concept evaluation ✈ Limited scope ✈ Designed for training ATC ✈ Aircraft performance not representative ✈ Not designed for post simulation evaluation needed for Airspace concept evaluation 16

17. Flight Simulator ✈ High quality data ✈ Confirm design aspects ✈ Fly-ability ✈ Efficiency ✈ Met impact ✈ Possible link to RTS ✈ High quality data ✈ Confirm design aspects ✈ Fly-ability ✈ Efficiency ✈ Met impact ✈ Possible link to RTS 17

18. Flight Simulator - Limitations ✈ Manual data collection ✈ For range of aircraft types/meteo conditions time consuming and expensive ✈ Pilots needed to fly the simulator ✈ Manual data collection ✈ For range of aircraft types/meteo conditions time consuming and expensive ✈ Pilots needed to fly the simulator 18

19. Concept Validations Compared 19

20. Live ATC Trials ✈ Most accurate ✈ Real data ✈ Feedback from all users ✈ Most accurate ✈ Real data ✈ Feedback from all users 20

21. Live ATC Trials - Limitations ✈ Safety mitigations required ✈ High detail required – large effort for a concept evaluation ✈ Limited scope ✈ Limited flexibility ✈ Safety mitigations required ✈ High detail required – large effort for a concept evaluation ✈ Limited scope ✈ Limited flexibility 21

22. Procedure Validation 22

23. ✈ Ground Validation ✈ Obstacle clearance ✈ Charting ✈ Coding ✈ Flyability ✈ Ground Validation ✈ Obstacle clearance ✈ Charting ✈ Coding ✈ Flyability 23

24. Procedure Validation ✈ Flight Validation ✈ Data verification ✈ Obstacle verification (optional) ✈ Flyability (workload, charting, manoeuvring) ✈ Infrastructure ✈ Database Validation ✈ Flight Validation ✈ Data verification ✈ Obstacle verification (optional) ✈ Flyability (workload, charting, manoeuvring) ✈ Infrastructure ✈ Database Validation 24

25. Ground Validation ✈ Obstacle clearance ✈ Independent review by procedure designer ✈ Charting ✈ Independent review ✈ Coding ✈ Software tool ✈ Expert review ✈ Flyability – software tools (from PC-based to full flight simulator) ✈ Not necessarily an issue with standard procedures (e.g. ‘T’ approaches), but critical for some aircraft types ✈ Range of aircraft and meteo conditions ✈ Obstacle clearance ✈ Independent review by procedure designer ✈ Charting ✈ Independent review ✈ Coding ✈ Software tool ✈ Expert review ✈ Flyability – software tools (from PC-based to full flight simulator) ✈ Not necessarily an issue with standard procedures (e.g. ‘T’ approaches), but critical for some aircraft types ✈ Range of aircraft and meteo conditions 25 Independent review – can be part of same organisation

26. FlyabilityFlyability ✈ Independent assessment ✈ Use of validation tools ✈ Use of aircraft simulators ✈ more than one type ✈ Flight checks ✈ Initial operational checks ✈ Independent assessment ✈ Use of validation tools ✈ Use of aircraft simulators ✈ more than one type ✈ Flight checks ✈ Initial operational checks 26

27. Validation Tools /1 27

28. Validation Tools /2 28 B737-300 ISA +40 Wind 320/20 B737-300 ISA -20 Wind 250/25

29. Different Aircraft & Different Conditions Different Aircraft & Different Conditions 29 CA 500ft AGL; DF LL001; TF FARKS; TF… No wind designed path A319B737/400B747/400A340/300A320/319

30. Wind Effect Wind Effect 30 CA 500ft AGL; DF LL001; TF FARKS; TF… Wind from 045° A319B737/400B747/400A340/300A320/319

31. Mitigation by Speed Restriction 31 CA 500ft AGL; DF LL001; TF FARKS [210kts]; TF… Wind from 045° A319B737/400B747/400A340/300A320/319

32. Leg Length - Too Short 32 CA 2000ft AGL; DF BRW02 No wind ATR42 B 747-400 A340-300 2.7N M

33. Leg Length - Acceptable 33 CA 2000ft AGL; DF BRW02 No wind ATR42 B 747-400 A340-300 4.6N M

34. Flight Procedure Validation ✈ Obstacle verification ✈ Has full obstacle survey been completed ✈ TAWS / GPWS alerts ✈ Flyability ✈ Detailed workload and charting assessments ✈ High level qualitative assessment of manoeuvring via accurate flight simulator. ✈ Infrastructure assessment ✈ Runway markings, lighting, communications, navigation, etc ✈ Obstacle verification ✈ Has full obstacle survey been completed ✈ TAWS / GPWS alerts ✈ Flyability ✈ Detailed workload and charting assessments ✈ High level qualitative assessment of manoeuvring via accurate flight simulator. ✈ Infrastructure assessment ✈ Runway markings, lighting, communications, navigation, etc 34

35. Flight Inspection ✈ Flight Inspection often confused with Validation ✈ Flight Inspection Addresses: ✈ Navaid performance and reception for DME/DME ✈ Unintentional interference for GNSS ✈ Flight Validation may not fully address Navaid Infrastructure issues (example: inspect DME/DME reception) ✈ Flight Inspection often confused with Validation ✈ Flight Inspection Addresses: ✈ Navaid performance and reception for DME/DME ✈ Unintentional interference for GNSS ✈ Flight Validation may not fully address Navaid Infrastructure issues (example: inspect DME/DME reception) 35

36. Publication & Coordination with Data Houses 36

37. RNAV Procedure Description ✈ Procedures are currently published as charts and as textual descriptions. ✈ The charts are used by the pilots and ATC. ✈ Database providers require clear, and unambiguous procedure descriptions and use the charts to validate/check. ✈ Procedures are currently published as charts and as textual descriptions. ✈ The charts are used by the pilots and ATC. ✈ Database providers require clear, and unambiguous procedure descriptions and use the charts to validate/check. 37

38. RNAV Procedure Description ✈ RNAV procedures defined by: ✈ Sequence of waypoints ✈ Identifier ✈ Co-ordinates ✈ Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius ✈ Path Terminators - ARINC 424 ✈ Altitude restrictions ✈ Speed restrictions ✈ Direction of turn ✈ Required navaid ✈ RNAV procedures defined by: ✈ Sequence of waypoints ✈ Identifier ✈ Co-ordinates ✈ Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius ✈ Path Terminators - ARINC 424 ✈ Altitude restrictions ✈ Speed restrictions ✈ Direction of turn ✈ Required navaid 38

39. Charting 39 Waypoint sequence Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius Speed/Altitude Restrictions Leg distance & magnetic track Fix information Turn direction FAF MAPt 113° 293° 350° 4500 4000 5000 4000 PT125 169° ARZ 29.3NM 236° ALM 27.4NM

40. Procedure Description for Database Providers ✈ Textual description is usually used to provide formal statement of procedure. ✈ Often open to interpretation. ✈ RNAV procedures require more specific details including path terminators. ✈ Can result in lengthy descriptions. ✈ Alternative descriptive methods have been adopted by OCP: ✈ Tabular layout ✈ Formalised textual description ✈ Formalised short-hand description ✈ Textual description is usually used to provide formal statement of procedure. ✈ Often open to interpretation. ✈ RNAV procedures require more specific details including path terminators. ✈ Can result in lengthy descriptions. ✈ Alternative descriptive methods have been adopted by OCP: ✈ Tabular layout ✈ Formalised textual description ✈ Formalised short-hand description 40 preferred by data houses

41. Tabular Description 41

42. Waypoint Identification ✈ IFPP introduced concept of strategic and tactical waypoints ✈ Strategic waypoints: ✈ identified by co-located navaid or by unique five-letter pronounceable “name-code” (5LNC). ✈ 5LNCs may be misinterpreted when issuing “direct” or vector instructions (ALECS, ALEKS, ALYKS). ✈ Tactical Waypoints may be used in a specific terminal area for vectoring, identification, and sequencing. ✈ Tactical waypoint naming is specific to area. ✈ IFPP introduced concept of strategic and tactical waypoints ✈ Strategic waypoints: ✈ identified by co-located navaid or by unique five-letter pronounceable “name-code” (5LNC). ✈ 5LNCs may be misinterpreted when issuing “direct” or vector instructions (ALECS, ALEKS, ALYKS). ✈ Tactical Waypoints may be used in a specific terminal area for vectoring, identification, and sequencing. ✈ Tactical waypoint naming is specific to area. 42

43. Strategic Waypoint ✈ A waypoint in the terminal area which is: ✈ Of such significance to the ATS provider that it must be easily remembered and stand out on any display, or ✈ Used as an ‘activation point’ to generate a message between computer systems when an aircraft passes it. ✈ Strategic waypoints are identified with 5LNCs unless they are co-located with a navaid, when the 3 letter navaid ID is used. ✈ A waypoint in the terminal area which is: ✈ Of such significance to the ATS provider that it must be easily remembered and stand out on any display, or ✈ Used as an ‘activation point’ to generate a message between computer systems when an aircraft passes it. ✈ Strategic waypoints are identified with 5LNCs unless they are co-located with a navaid, when the 3 letter navaid ID is used. 43

44. Tactical Waypoint ✈ Tactical: a waypoint which is defined solely for use in the specific terminal area and has not been designated a strategic waypoint. ✈ Identified as AAXNN, where: ✈ AA - the last two characters of the aerodrome location indicator; ✈ X - a numeric code from 3 to 9 (N, E, W and S may be used instead if a State has a requirement for quadrantal information) ✈ NN - a numeric code from 00 to 99. ✈ Tactical: a waypoint which is defined solely for use in the specific terminal area and has not been designated a strategic waypoint. ✈ Identified as AAXNN, where: ✈ AA - the last two characters of the aerodrome location indicator; ✈ X - a numeric code from 3 to 9 (N, E, W and S may be used instead if a State has a requirement for quadrantal information) ✈ NN - a numeric code from 00 to 99. 44

45. RNAV Procedure Identification Naming Conventions ✈ “RNAV (GNSS) RWY 23” - is RNP approach ✈ “RNAV (RNP) RWY 23” - is RNP-AR approach ✈ “RNAV (GNSS) RWY 23” - is RNP approach ✈ “RNAV (RNP) RWY 23” - is RNP-AR approach 45 *ICAO State Letter SP 65/4-13/24, proposed change 1 DEC 2022 to: RNP and RNP(AR)

46. Charting Altitude Restrictions 46 An altitude window : FL220 10,000 10,000 An “at or below” altitude : 5000 A “hard” altitude : 3000 An “at or above” altitude: 7000

47. FMS/RNAV limitations ✈ Airspace Designers often want STARS to a metering fix and additional STARs to join to initial approach Fix for each runway ✈ Cannot have two STARs in same flight plan in FMS ✈ Airway and approach transitions needed ✈ Airspace Designers often want STARS to a metering fix and additional STARs to join to initial approach Fix for each runway ✈ Cannot have two STARs in same flight plan in FMS ✈ Airway and approach transitions needed 47

48. Implementation /1 48 ✈ Implementation decision ✈ PRE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW!!!! ✈ ATC system consideration ✈ TRAINING ✈ AIRAC cycle

49. Implementation/2Implementation/2 ✈ Monitor process ✈ Support OPS ✈ Redundancy or contingency procedures ✈ Support controllers and pilots ✈ Maintain log ✈ Post Implementation Safety Assessment ✈ Monitor process ✈ Support OPS ✈ Redundancy or contingency procedures ✈ Support controllers and pilots ✈ Maintain log ✈ Post Implementation Safety Assessment 49

50. Post Implementation ✈ Safety Assessment ✈ Have objectives been met ✈ Have any safety issues been identified ✈ What improvements could be made ✈ Is there a continuing quality process ✈ Safety Assessment ✈ Have objectives been met ✈ Have any safety issues been identified ✈ What improvements could be made ✈ Is there a continuing quality process 50

51. Questions??Questions?? 51