1. 1 IATA / Airline Views on Performance Based Navigation Theo van de Ven/KLMAnthony van der Veldt/IATA Senior Manager Strategy & User ChargesAsst Dir Safety Operations&Infrastructure AmsterdamBrussels

2. IATA SAFETY, OPERATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE  Safety  Security and facilitation  Flight operations and maintenance  Infrastructure and airports  Consulting  Regionally organized

3. 3 Traffic growth forecast: need for efficient airspace use

4. 4 12 Months Rising fuel prices, marginal benefits in a competitive market

5. 5  IATA supports global implementation of the concept of PBN developed by ICAO  Global harmonization is a must  We cannot do without it  Clarity in the field of navigation options is fully supported  Differences between RNAV and RNP become clear and manageable  Shows a comprehensive overview of all available options  CNS correctly addressed in the manual, but it is mainly about the Navigation element  Only in a “true CNS environment” will gate to gate capacity increase IATA Position on PBN

6. 6 Safety benefits of PBN  CFIT Reduction  Vertically Guided Final Approaches  Laterally Guided Missed Approaches  Less stress on flight crews  More consistency and standardization  Back-up landing option  For a reliable and sustainable operation  PBN promises to increase capacity while enhancing safety

7. 7 Airlines continue to acquire or equip existing aircraft with improved and more capable avionics, but based on sound Cost-Benefit Analysis

8. 8 The use of satellite technology has allowed the aviation industry to move away from its dependence upon ground based navigation systems and gain more airspace Increased Airspace Efficiency Highly Optimized Use of Airspace Limited Design Flexibility Current Ground Nav aids “curved” paths Seamless Vertical Path Waypoints RNAV RNP

9. 9  RNAV procedure design is a collaborative process  With common responsibility  Needs involvement of chart provider, data base supplier, ATC, Airline/pilot, State, Aerodrome Operator, local communities  Restrict number of SIDs/STARs to a minimum for safety reasons  Abundance creates complexity for pilots and may create FMC storage overload  Balance between environment, safety and efficiency  RNAV cannot improve the physics of flying  Physical flight limitations do not change  Conversion from P-RNAV to RNAV1 must NOT lead to additional ops certification requirements for airlines Generic RNAV issues

10. 10  New Generation aircraft have RNP 0.3 to 0.1 functionality available for final approach  RNP design based on the monitoring & alarming function to protect the narrow airspace  Higher integrity extremely valuable element  Therefore less airspace needed Generic RNP issues

11. 11  RNP allows further SID design flexibility  Consequently runway capacity increase  Aircraft capabilities to be used to the maximum extent possible  VNAV function merits a Chapter i.s.o. to be an Attachment  RF-leg option needed for RNAV 1  Recommended function for P-RNAV (TGL10)  Powerful tool for environment and efficiency  High degree of flight path predictability  Example of Pilot project Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Specific comments on PBN

12. 12 All aircraft: SPY RW 24 SPL

13. 13 Green: KLM 737 utilizing RF leg

14. 14 KLM 737 aircraft only utilizing RF leg based on ADS-B output

15. HHP 3 HHP 4 HHP 5 HHP 31 HHP 30 - All types - 390 flights

16. 16 HHP 3 HHP 4 HHP 5 HHP 31 HHP 30 - non RF-leg - 42 B737 flights

17. 17 HHP 3 HHP 4 HHP 31 HHP 30 - RF-leg - 136 KLM B737 flights HHP 5

18. 18 PBN and the GREEN “APPROACH”  Saves fuel  Relieves congestion, alleviates choke points and reduces delays  Cornerstone for a seamless environment that allows standard aircrew procedures whilst allowing the most efficient operations  Accurate navigation means that people on the ground perceive less jet noise  Provides significant benefits in safety, efficiency and for the environment

19. 19  PBN prerequisite for user-preferred routings and business trajectories  PBN inherent requirement for flow optimization of the network by fully observing the environmental constraints  Allow ANSP’s to offer the most cost-effective solutions to users PBN and SESAR

20. 20 APPROACH PROCEDURES Non Precision Approach (NPA) Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance (APV) Precision Approach (PA) 1.LOC 2. VOR 3. NDB 4. SRE 5. RNAV 6. Circling RNAV 1.APV/Baro-VNAV 2.APV I (GNSS-A vertical) 3.APV II (GNSS-A vertical) 4.RNP AR (with barometric or future GNSS vertical) 1.ILS 2.MLS 3.GLS 4.RNP? Chart title: 1.LOC 2.VOR 3.NDB 4.SRE 5.RNAV 6.Circling Minima line: (MDA) 1.LOC or LLZ 2.VOR 3.NDB 4.SRE 5.LNAV 6.Circling Minima line: (DA) 1.ILS 2.MLS 3.GLS 4.RNP? Minima line: (DA) 1.LNAV/VNAV 2.LPV 3.LPV 4.RNP0.x Chart title: 1.ILS 2.MLS 3.GLS 4.RNP? Chart title 1): 1-3: RNAV (GNSS) 4: RNAV (RNP) 1): Annotation of GNSS indicates that the approach procedure has been designed according to GNSS obstacle clearance criteria. DME/DME update is not allowed. APV between PA and NPA

21. 21 ICAO PBN targets APV implementation  Spotlight on cost and efficiency in TMA’s  T-Y Type approaches  Approaches with Vertical Guidance to replace Non Precision Approaches  30 % to be achieved in 2010 and  70 % in 2014  IATA identified 100+ airports where RNAV SIDs STARs and approach procedures can be improved using PBN

22. 22  AMC 20 xx is European certification material for Airlines  Maturing draft material now available  APV/Baro-VNAV is a mature navigation function  Real improvement over existing NPA  Not lowering the landing minima yet, but definitely increasing flight safety and efficiency  IFPP working on:  Harmonization of the APV/Baro-VNAV design criteria with AMC20 xx AMC 20 xx EASA OPS Approval APV/Baro-VNAV

23. 23 Position on SBAS  SBAS is not yet a global solution and does not provide suitable operational benefit  Large commercial aircraft are equipped with precision inertial systems and SBAS investments cannot be justified  Most of the major transport airlines are not collectively willing to pay for SBAS services  SBAS related costs shall not be allocated to airspace users not equipped with SBAS  Other means of funding should be found to support this technology, including current users  Revision of the current Charging Regulation – user pays principle  IATA requires that whenever States are providing SBAS guidance at a certain airport such procedures must be complemented by APV/Baro-VNAV approaches

24. 24 Cooperation & Harmonisation is a MUST ICAO States State Aviation Organisations CIVIL / Military European Commission Airspace Users Service providers Airports Aerospace industry Standardisation-Bodies Research and development organisations