OPTIMAL final publishable report - transport-research.infotransport-research.info/.../documents/...Final_publishable_report.pdf · Airbus France Status: ... OPTIMAL final publishable

Airbus France Status: Approved Page 1/60 This investigation has been carried out under a contract awarded by the European Commission, contract number AIP3-CT-2004-502880

OPTIMAL final publishable report

Document Description: This document is the final publishable report of the OPTIMAL project. It describes the organization of the project, the main achievements and results as well as some recommendations.

Programme: Sixth Framework Programme - Strengthening the competitiveness Contract Number: AIP3-CT-2004-502880 Project Number: FP6-2002-Aero-1-502880 Project Title: Optimised Procedures and Techniques for the Improvement of Approach and Landing Project Acronym: OPTIMAL Deliverable: D0.5-2 Document Title: Final publishable report Document ID: WP0-AIF-310-V1.1-ED-PU Date: 17/12/2008 Status: Approved Classification: PU File Name: OPTIMAL-WP0-AIF-final publishable report-V1.1-ED-PU.doc

OPTIMAL Project Co-ordinator: Airbus

Yohann ROUX: [email protected]

Contributing

Partners:

Approval status

Author Responsible Partner Verification

Project Approval

Y. ROUX Y.ROUX PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

AIRBUS AIRBUS OPTIMAL CONSORTIUM

mailto:[email protected]

OPTIMAL Project Title: Final publishable report Id: WP0-AIF-310-V1.1-ED-PU Date: 17/12/2008


Document Change Log Version Date Modified

Pages Modified Sections

Comments

0.1 19/09/2008 All All Creation – Contents + sections 1, 2, 3

0.2 01/10/2008 All All Section 7.1 added

0.3 21/10/2008 All All Take into account PMC comments

0.4 06/11/2008 All All Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 added

0.5 24/11/2008 All All Take into account partners comments

1.0 17/12/2008 All All Approved issue after consortium review

1.1 31/05/2010 All All Removal of footnote



Distribution list

COMPANY Company’s

Short Name

NAME

AIRBUS France AIF

DLR DLR

INECO INE

EUROCOPTER France ECF

THALES Air Systems TAT

ISDEFE ISD

NLR NLR

AENA AEN

EUROCONTROL ERC

THALES AVIONICS TAV

EUROCOPTER DEUTSCHLAND ECD

ONERA ONR

University of Liverpool UoL

Smiths Aerospace SIA

Agusta AGU

DFS DFS

SENASA SEN

LVNL LVN

Davidson Ltd DAL

GMV GMV

Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine SPM

ENAV ENA

Airbus Central Entity AIC

SICTA SIC



TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 7

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 11

Applicable documents .........................................................................................................................................11

Reference documents ...........................................................................................................................................11

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 13

1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................................................13

1.2 OPTIMAL project ...................................................................................................................................13

2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND WORKING METHODOLOGY ............................................... 14

2.1 OPTIMAL consortium ............................................................................................................................14

2.2 OPTIMAL Work Breakdown Structure ...............................................................................................15

2.3 OPTIMAL project schedule ...................................................................................................................16

2.4 OPTIMAL Approach procedures ..........................................................................................................18

2.5 Validation methodology ..........................................................................................................................19

3 ADVANCED CONTINUOUS DESCENT APPROACH (ACDA) .................................................. 21

3.1 Operational concept and Procedure overview ......................................................................................21

3.2 Airborne/ground developments and results from the tests ..................................................................22 3.2.1 A320 CDA function design and flight tests .......................................................................................22 3.2.2 ATM integration evaluations .............................................................................................................23 3.2.3 4D ACDA ATTAS Flight Trials .......................................................................................................25

3.3 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................................25

4 GNSS-BASED PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Procedures based on GBAS ....................................................................................................................27 4.1.1 Procedure overview ...........................................................................................................................27 4.1.2 Airborne/ground developments and results from the tests ................................................................27 4.1.3 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................................29

4.2 LPV procedures based on SBAS ............................................................................................................29 4.2.1 Procedure overview ...........................................................................................................................29 4.2.2 Airborne developments and results from the tests .............................................................................30 4.2.3 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................................31

4.3 LPV procedures based on ABAS ............................................................................................................31 4.3.1 Procedure overview ...........................................................................................................................31



4.3.2 Airborne developments and results from the tests .............................................................................31 4.3.3 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................................32

5 ENHANCED VISION SYSTEM .................................................................................................... 33

5.1 Procedure overview .................................................................................................................................33

5.2 Tests, conclusions and recommendations ..............................................................................................33

6 DUAL/DISPLACED THRESHOLD OPERATIONS ...................................................................... 35


6.2 Tests, conclusions and recommendations ..............................................................................................35

7 RNP AR APCH PROCEDURES WITH RNP < 0.3 ...................................................................... 37

7.1 Procedure overview and concept of operations ....................................................................................37

7.2 Airborne/ground developments and results from the tests ..................................................................38 7.2.1 A320 OPTIMAL RNP function design and tests ..............................................................................38 7.2.2 San Sebastian and Malaga capacity, environmental and feasibility assessment ................................39 7.2.3 Safety oriented ATC simulation of RNP curved approaches ............................................................39


8 ROTORCRAFT SPECIFIC IFR PROCEDURES .......................................................................... 41


8.2 Airborne/ground developments and results from the tests ..................................................................42 8.2.1 EC155 developments and flight tests ................................................................................................42 8.2.2 EC135 developments and flight tests ................................................................................................43 8.2.3 EC145 developments and flight tests ................................................................................................44 8.2.4 ATM integration evaluations .............................................................................................................45


9 GROUND FUNCTIONS AND ATC TOOLS ................................................................................. 47

9.1 EGNOS/ATC interface ............................................................................................................................47

9.2 Improved arrival management tools ......................................................................................................47 9.2.1 Time-based AMAN to support Dual Threshold operations ...............................................................47 9.2.2 Improved AMAN to support ACDA operations ................................................................................47

9.3 Converging runways and final approach displays aid .........................................................................47

9.4 Advanced safety nets and monitoring aids ............................................................................................47

10 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX 1: OPTIMAL DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................ 50



APPENDIX 2: DISSEMINATION ........................................................................................................ 56

APPENDIX 3: OPTIMAL PUBLIC WEB SITE .................................................................................... 60



LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

Acronym Meaning

4D-CARMA 4 dimensional Cooperative Arrival Manager

AAIM Aircraft Autonomous Integrity Monitoring ABAS Aircraft Based Augmentation System ACARE Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe ACDA Advanced Continuous Descent Arrival or Approach ADCO Arrival Departure Coordinator ADD Aircraft Derived Data ADIRU Air Data Inertial Reference Unit AFCS Automatic Flight Control System AMAN Approach MANager ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider APP Approach APV Approach with Vertical Guidance AR Authorization Required ARR Arrival ASAS Airborne Separation Assurance System ATC Air Traffic Control ATCo Air Traffic Controller ATM Air Traffic Management CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAT Category CDA Continuous Descent Approach CDI Course Deviation Indicator CFIT Controlled Flight Into Terrain CNS Communication Navigation Surveillance CORADA Converging Runways and Approach Display Aid

DA Decision Altitude

DEP Departure DH Decision Height DLR Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, German Aerospace Center DT Displaced Threshold DTO Displaced Threshold Operations E-OCVM European Operational Concept Validation Methodology ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference EFVS Enhanced Flight Vision Systems EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service ETA Estimated Time of Arrival



Acronym Meaning ETMA Extended TMA EU European Union EVS Enhanced Vision System FAA Federal Aviation Authority FAF Final Approach Fix FAP Final Approach Point FAS Final Approach Segment FATO Final Approach and Take Off area FL Flight Level FLS FMS Landing System FMS Flight Management System FTE Flight Technical Error FTS Fast Time Simulation GBAS Ground Based Augmentation System GEO Geostationary GLONASS Global (Orbiting) Navigation Satellite System GLS GNSS Landing System GMS Ground Monitoring System GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System GPS Global Positioning system GRAS Ground-based Regional Augmentation System GS Glide Slope or Ground Station (according to context) HDD Head-Down Display HMI Human Machine Interface HUD Head-Up Display IAF Initial Approach Fix ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IF Intermediate Fix IFR Instrumental Flight Rules IAS Indicated Air Speed ILS Instrument Landing System IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions JAA Joint Aviation Authorities LAAS Local Area Augmentation System (US GBAS) LDEN Day, Evening and Night time level LLZ Localizer LNAV Lateral Navigation LPV Localizer Performance approach with Vertical guidance MA Missed Approach MAPt Missed Approach Point MDA Minimum Descent Altitude



Acronym Meaning MDA Minimum Descent Height MLS Microwave Landing System MMR Multi Mode Receiver MSAW Minimum Safe Altitude Warning ND Navigation Display NM Nautical Miles NPA Non Precision Approach NSE Navigation System Error OAS Obstacle Assessment Surface

OPTIMAL Optimised Procedures and Techniques for the Improvement of Approach and Landing

PA Precision Approach PBN Performance Based Navigation PFD Primary Flight Display PinS Point-in-Space PL Protection Limit PRNAV Precision aRea NAVigation RAIM Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring RF Radius to Fix leg RNAV Area Navigation RNP Required Navigation Performance RTA Required Time Of Arrival RTS Real Time Simulation RVR Runway Visual Range RWY Runway SAAAR Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorisation Required SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research SNI Simultaneous Non Interfering STCA Short Term Conflict Alert TMA Terminal Manoeuvring Area TOD Top Of Descent TOGA Take Off / Go Around TSE Total System Error VDB VHF Data Broadcast VDI Vertical Deviation Indication VEB Vertical Error Budget VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System (US SBAS) WTEA Wake Turbulence Encounter Advisory xLS Landing System (x stands for ILS, GLS, MLS, FLS, ...)



Acronym Meaning WP Work Package



REFERENCES

APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS Ref.A1 OPTIMAL deliverable D2.0 – “Final WP2 report including guidelines and

recommendations” – WP2-INE-108-V1.1-ED-PU, July 2008

Ref.A2 OPTIMAL deliverable D6.4 - “Validation conclusions” – WP6-ISD-096-V1.0-ED-PU, November 2008

Ref.A3 OPTIMAL deliverable D8.3 - “Final recommendations” – WP8-EEC-066-V1.0-ED-PU, October 2008

Ref.A4 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – welcome session – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A5 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 1 – Continuous Descent Approach – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A6 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 2 – GNSS-based procedures – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A7 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 3 – Enhanced Vision System – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A8 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 4 – Dual/displaced threshold operations – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A9 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 5 – RNP procedures – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A10 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 6 – Rotorcraft specific IFR procedures – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

Ref.A11 OPTIMAL final user forum presentation – session 7 – Ground functions and ATC tools – OPTIMAL final user forum, June 25-26, 2008, Paris

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Ref.R1 Performance Review Report 2007 – EUROCONTROL- May 2008

Ref.R2 EUROCONTROL “Air Traffic Management (ATM) Strategy for the years 2000+”, Volume 2, 2003 Edition

Ref.R3 “European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM)”, V2.0, March 2007

Ref.R4 OPTIMAL deliverable D6.1 - “Validation Platform Requirements Metrics and Hypotheses” – WP6-ISD-039-V1.0-ED-CO, July 2005

Ref.R5 OPTIMAL deliverable D6.2 - “Overall Validation Plan” – WP6-ISD-043-V2.0-ED-CO, September 2007

Ref.R6 OPTIMAL deliverable D6.3 - “Validation Exercise Results Analysis” – WP6-ISD-095-V1.0-ED-PU, October 2008

Ref.R7 OPTIMAL deliverable D5.0.1 - “WP5 final report” – WP5-TAT-V1.0-ED-PU, December 2007

Ref.R8 OPTIMAL deliverable D5.3.1 – “Specifications for EGNOS/ATC interface” – WP5-AEN-005-V1.1-ED-PU, April 2007

Ref.R9 ICAO Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Manual. State letter AN 11/45-07/22



Ref.R10 FAA Order 8260.52 United States Standard for RNP Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR).

Ref.R11 ICAO Draft Manual for the Implementation of Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Approach and Departure Procedures where Aircrew and Operational Authorization is Required.

Ref.R12 OPTIMAL web site: www.optimal.isdefe.es

http://www.optimal.isdefe.es/



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND For more than 20 years, Air traffic in Europe has a steady growth of around 4% per annum. In 2007, air traffic growth was even higher (+5.3% flights), close to the high forecast notwithstanding high fuel prices. (Ref.R1). Variations, regional as well in type of traffic, do occur; e.g. commuter traffic growing faster than long-haul. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect that air traffic in Europe may almost triple in the 2002/2020 timeframe, as stated in the Vision 2020 and the ACARE (The Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe) Strategic Research Agenda.

As traffic grows steadily, airport congestion becomes a mounting problem and already a limiting factor at some airports. Many of the international hubs and major airports are operating at their maximum throughput for longer and longer periods of the day, and some have already reached their operating limits as prescribed by physical as well as political and environmental constraints. The use of such airports is heavily regulated. This situation is expected to become more widespread all over the ECAC area and future traffic distribution patterns are likely to generate congestion at airports that currently do not experience capacity problems.

Although there are sufficient airports and runways in Europe, the major airports are becoming, or continue to be, capacity constrained, resulting in significant delays, causing frustration and difficulties for both passengers and aircraft operators, and causing environmental problems. These environmental factors are expected to create additional limitations for airport expansion, but, if addressed properly and early, will not become the limiting factor and will therefore allow sustainable growth. Even though aircraft have become less noisy over the past two decades the compounded effects of more movements over longer periods of the day and night have increased the disturbance. This has fuelled the resistance in the population living in the vicinity of an airport against further expansion of the facility and its operations. At the same time there is greater awareness of citizen’s rights and political influence through action groups. This trend is expected to become stronger in the near future. This may locally combine into a volatile mix bearing a substantial risk for the sustainability of further airport expansions and traffic growth. In the future, the environmental protection requirements are expected to become the most important constraint to the further growth of commercial aviation.

In order to provide a response to the present airport capacity and future environmental constraints, additional procedures, operational concepts, technology and systems could be developed and implemented wherever required to better use available capacity and to provide additional capacity, and efficiency while minimising the environmental impact of airport operations and maintaining or even improving safety.

ATM2000+ Strategy

At request of the Transport Ministers of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), EUROCONTROL developed the “Air Traffic Management (ATM) Strategy for the years 2000+” (Ref.R2). This ATM2000+ Strategy describes the processes and measures by which the forecast demand may be accommodated while improving aviation safety. It falls within the framework of the ICAO regional and global CNS/ATM planning, the ECAC Institutional Strategy and the revised EUROCONTROL Convention.

The overall objective of the European ATM network is for the phases of flight, to enable the safe, economic, expeditious and orderly flow of traffic through the provision of ATM services which are adaptable and scaleable to the requirements of all users and areas of European airspace. The services shall meet demand in a cost-effective way, be globally interoperable, operate to uniform principles, be environmentally sustainable and satisfy national security requirements.

1.2 OPTIMAL PROJECT In order to propose and provide some solutions to answer to the airport capacity and future environmental constraints, OPTIMAL (Optimised Procedures and Techniques for the IMprovement of Approach and Landing) project was launched in 2004 in the 6th European framework and within ATM2000+ Programmes.

OPTIMAL was an air-ground co-operative project, which was aiming at defining and validating innovative procedures for the approach and landing phases of aircraft and rotorcraft. The objective was to increase airport capacity and to reduce environmental impacts (noise and carbon footprints) while maintaining or even improving operational safety.



The work conducted during the 4½-year project ranged from the elaboration of the operational concept up to simulations and pre-operational flight trials implying effective modifications of avionics onboard aircraft and rotorcraft and ground systems. On the ground system side special attention was placed on the new tools, which were necessary for Air Traffic Controller to efficiently and safely manage the OPTIMAL procedures.

The target time frame for the operational implementation of the OPTIMAL proposed procedures is 2010 and beyond. OPTIMAL has therefore delivered an important contribution to the targets for airport capacity development identified in the ATM +2000 Strategy.

2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND WORKING METHODOLOGY

2.1 OPTIMAL CONSORTIUM The consortium was coordinated by Airbus France and composed of the following partners:

Airborne Industry:

• Airbus France & Airbus Central Entity

• Agusta Westland

• Eurocopter France & Eurocopter Germany

• General Electric (Smiths Aerospace)

• Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine

• Thales Avionics

Ground Industry:

• Thales Air Systems

Air Traffic Services Providers & Consultants:

• AENA

• Davidson Ltd

• DFS

• ENAV

• GMV

• Isdefe

• INECO

• LVNL

Research & Education bodies:

• DLR

• EUROCONTROL

• NLR

• ONERA

• SENASA



• SICTA

• The University of Liverpool

The core team of the project was composed of: Airbus France, DLR, INECO, Eurocopter France, Thales Air Systems, Isdefe, NLR, EUROCONTROL, AENA, Thales Avionics.

2.2 OPTIMAL WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE The OPTIMAL project was organized in 8 work-packages. An overview of the work packages organisation is given in Figure 1.

The work packages objectives were the following:

WP0: Project management & dissemination work package: this work-package consisted in managing the consortium and ensuring the reporting to the Commission and the technical coordination with the partners. In addition this work package ensured the dissemination activities.

WP1: Operational concept work package: this work-package elaborated the operational concepts for pilots and controllers so that target objectives in terms of capacity, safety and environment are met in the time frame 2010 – 2020. The qualitative benefits of selected approach and landing procedures were identified.

WP2: Procedures definition, development & design work package: this work-package produced the design and the detailed specifications of the selected procedures and allocated the operational requirements to airborne (aircraft or rotorcraft) and to ground segments. After development of the generic procedures for aircraft and rotorcraft, some procedures for specific airports have been developed for tests purpose. In this WP, a specific study related to flight dynamics aspects of rotorcraft SNI operations has been carried out.

Aircraft (WP3), Rotorcraft (WP4) and Ground functions (WP5) developments: these three work packages were conducted in parallel in order to implement the necessary airborne and ground functions to fly the new or improved approach procedures developed in WP2. Furthermore, where necessary, platforms were modified for the flight trials and for the manned simulations carried out in WP7.

WP6: The Validation & Conclusion: This work package prepared and coordinated the Validation Framework that guided the exercises. More specifically, it developed the validation strategy followed by the validation exercise plan, it conducted the analysis of the performance benefit assessment test results and elaborated the overall conclusion from all exercise results.

WP7: Exercise Management & Support: in this WP, tests to assess the performances of the OPTIMAL procedures were carried out. The objective was twofold: it aimed at demonstrating the benefits (capacity, environment, safety) of the developed procedures and it aimed at assess the flyability of the procedure through the airborne and ground functions developed in WP3, 4 and 5. Various kinds of tests were performed on some selected scenario and airports: analysis, fast-time simulations, manned real time simulations and flight trials.

WP8: Exploitation, Normalisation, Standardisation and Recommendations: This work package defined and maintained Exploitation and Dissemination plans and Normalisation & Standardisation plans. It also carried out the actual Normalisation & Standardisation activities in relation with the "design" work packages 2, 3, 4 and 5. Finally, it drew up the final recommendations of the project and organized the Final User Forum.



WP 1: Operational

Concept

WP 2: Procedures Definition ,

Development and Design

WP 6: Validation & Conclusions

WP 7:

WP 3: Aircraft

developments

WP 4: Rotorcraft

Developments

WP 5: Ground

Functions Development

WP 8: Exploitation & Normalisation & Standardisation,

Final recommendations

WP 0 : Project management & dissemination

Exercise Management

& Support

Figure 1- OPTIMAL work packages overview

2.3 OPTIMAL PROJECT SCHEDULE The project started on the 1st of February of 2004 and ended on the 31st of October of 2008. The final user forum, which aimed at presenting to the aeronautical community the results from the project, took place on 25th and 26th of June of 2008.

The overall project schedule is presented in Figure 2.


Figure 2 - OPTIMAL project schedule




2.4 OPTIMAL APPROACH PROCEDURES The achievements mentioned in section 1.2 were enabled by already available precision approach landing aids (ILS, MLS), as well as new satellite-based guidance systems (GBAS, SBAS, ABAS), more accurate navigation means (low RNP), enhanced airborne systems, and enhanced ground functions to support Air Traffic Control. More specifically, the following procedures were studied:

• Advanced Continuous Descent Approach (ACDA)

• GNSS-based procedures (GBAS, LPV SBAS and ABAS)

• Enhanced Vision System (EVS)

• Dual/displaced threshold operations (DT)

• RNP AR APCH procedures with RNP<0.3

• Rotorcraft specific IFR procedures (Simultaneous Non Interfering and steep straight-in and curved approaches)

Table 1 summarizes the main expected benefits for each OPTIMAL advanced procedure.

New procedure Benefit

ACDA Reduction of noise and emissions with minimum loss of capacity.

DT Increase of capacity by reducing wake vortex separation

EVS Increase of situational awareness and to mitigate impact of low visibility, thus enabling better accessibility particularly to non equipped airfields

LPV procedures based on SBAS or ABAS

Increase of safety in those runways not equipped with proper navaids systems. Also increase of capacity, and reduction of cost and environmental impact.

GBAS precision approaches

Increase of capacity and reduction of cost (on ground and on board), improve efficiency and environment by means of reducing dependency on ground factors (safety)

RNP AR APCH Avoid Noise sensitive areas providing track guidance to improved flight tracks.

Improve accessibility in obstacle rich environment

Improve safety and capacity in complex airports where simultaneous operations take place and in close-sited airports.

Simultaneous and non-interfering IFR procedures for rotorcraft

Increase of passenger capacity by enabling rotorcrafts to reach busy airports by using specific / low noise IFR procedures that are independent from fixed wing aircraft traffic

Table 1 - Expected benefits of OPTIMAL advanced procedures

MLS procedures were also studied in OPTIMAL for the Milano Malpensa airport. However, since no development and tests were carried out, this procedure is not detailed here.

Figure 3 gives an overview of the procedures developed and tested in OPTIMAL.



Figure 3: Overview of OPTIMAL procedures

Chapters 3 to 8 present the approach procedures studied in OPTIMAL. For each procedure, the following items are presented:

• design of the procedure

• airborne and ground functions developed for these procedures

• tests carried out and results from these tests

• conclusions and recommendations

A specific chapter (9) is dedicated to ground functions and ATC tools developed in the frame of the project and which covers several procedures.

In this document, only a high level description of the design of the procedures and the main results from the tests are given; The detailed design of the procedures is referenced in the document [Ref.A1], a summary of all the tests carried out within the project is available in [Ref.A2] and more recommendations can be found in [Ref.A3].

2.5 VALIDATION METHODOLOGY An important integrated project such as OPTIMAL needed strong validation plans in order to correctly assess the adequacy of the expected main results which address on the one hand the high level ATM objectives regarding capacity, safety, and environmental impacts and on the other hand the feasibility of the advanced procedures. To meet this aim, an overall validation plan was elaborated, based on the “European Operational Concept Validation Methodology” (E-OCVM, Ref.R3), which is summarized in this section.

The expectations summarized in Table 1 were the basis of the validation objectives of OPTIMAL. On a high level these objectives were simply given by “to demonstrate that OPTIMAL operational concepts contribute to increase capacity, reduce noise nuisance and improve safety”. As assessing these objectives at such a high level was readily impossible, they were broken down into low-level objectives, which were easier to be assessed



during the validation process. The high-level and low-level objectives are given in the OPTIMAL Deliverable D6.1 (Ref.R4).

Two validation techniques were applied in the OPTIMAL validation process:

- Fast Time Techniques were suitable for a preliminary assessment of the benefits of a new concept in the ATM environment using a mathematical model to provide the results of the simulation and has rules defined to represent the relationship between the different actors of the validation scenario. They consisted in analytical studies applied for safety, environmental and economic assessments and Fast Time Simulation applied for the capacity assessments.

- Real Time Techniques were characterized by the presence of one or more subject matter expert as controllers or pilots that perform their operational tasks in a realistic real-time environment. Real time techniques are generally used for assessing the human factors aspects, but also to validate the interoperability between systems. In the OPTIMAL validation process, Real Time Simulation and Flight trials were applied as Real Time Techniques.

Two types of exercises ensured the consistency of the overall validation process:

- Benefit assessments assessed the benefits obtained from the implementation of the new procedures according to the high-level objectives capacity, environment and safety.

- Feasibility assessments evaluated specific functions for airborne and ground systems and include the validation of flyability requirements, operational requirements (both for pilot and controller), air-ground interoperability requirements and systems performance requirements.

The entire validation process resulted in four main documents: D6.1 (Ref.R4) gives the validation strategy, including the validation requirements, objectives, metrics and hypotheses; D6.2 (Ref.R5) gives the validation exercise plans of all exercises. After conducting the exercises, the benefit assessment exercises were reported, and their results analysed, in D6.3 (Ref.R6). The overall validation conclusions including the key findings of the performance assessment and feasibility tests are presented in D6.4 (Ref.A2).



3 ADVANCED CONTINUOUS DESCENT APPROACH (ACDA)

3.1 OPERATIONAL CONCEPT AND PROCEDURE OVERVIEW The Continuous Descent Arrival or Approach concept has been studied for a long time and has even been applied in some airports for few years. The international community acknowledges the environmental benefits of CDA in term of noise and gas emissions.

The basic CDA is already in operations in some airports; it consists in avoiding or shortening level-offs during ILS approach interception in order to reduce noise footprint; basic CDA is flown under radar vectoring and the FMS is not necessarily required.

The concept studied in OPTIMAL is Advanced CDA in the sense it is not radar vectored but based on RNAV and with use of FMS. The objective is to have repeatable noise friendly operations with higher automation; this is possible thanks to available onboard function like RNAV operations and FMS managed vertical profile, and thanks to improved ATC support tools such as accurate planning and additional monitoring.

The following figure shows the ACDA operational concept (descent and approach phases) versus current practices.

Figure 4: Advanced Continuous Descent Arrival concept

As presented in the Figure 4, OPTIMAL focused on the improvement of the approach phase of ACDA operations. Continuing the work started in earlier projects like SOURDINE 2, OPTIMAL studied two compatible variants of Advanced Continuous Descent Approach: nominal and optimised profiles.

The “nominal” CDA consists of a fixed earth referenced descent path of 2 degrees initially from the start of the CDA, changing to a 3 degrees path below an altitude of 3000ft for the final segment; the CDA descent profile transitions into a conventional instrument final approach. Due to the fact that the 2-degree profile is more shallow that an idle clean descent, this profile provides some deceleration control capability with respect to the deceleration profile to the ATC controller. The deceleration profile can either be flown with idle thrust, optimised by using the FMS for determining the configuration changes, while the profile can also be flown more conservatively for ATC sequencing reasons. Under circumstances imposed by other traffic, it may be necessary to initiate an earlier than optimum deceleration to a lower speed and perform a constant speed descent along the 2 deg gradient.

The “optimised” CDA provides even more environmental protection as it is flown at relatively low speeds while maintaining the cleanest possible configuration and considering actual wind conditions. The vertical profile will



be variable depending on actual conditions (wind, aircraft…) until transition to the fixed 2/3 degrees approach is made.

Figure 5: Nominal and Optimised CDA profiles

3.2 AIRBORNE/GROUND DEVELOPMENTS AND RESULTS FROM THE TESTS

3.2.1 A320 CDA function design and flight tests

The airborne development phase consisted in providing the ACDA capacity on Airbus A320 aircraft with the objective to assess the flyability of the studied CDA profiles, to assess the technical feasibility of the cockpit changes, to assess the pilot operational acceptance and to check the acoustic benefits.

The aim was to provide noise efficient strategies, ensure repetitive noise benefits, low pilot workload and avoid over-energy situations.

The main airborne evolution consisted in developing a FMS capable of computation of acoustic efficient profiles for intermediate approach and in developing an adapted CDA HMI. This FMS allows noise optimisation while managing the energy; it computes speed/altitude predictions in flight plan for configuration pseudo waypoints, provides the crew with some cues for configuration extension and provides automated request for more drag if too high speed/altitude are predicted at the pseudo waypoints.

The tests consisted in validation and operational evaluation on Airbus A320 simulator and flight trials on Airbus A320 flight test aircraft. The flown procedures were experimental CDA procedures at Toulouse Blagnac.

The simulations and flight trials campaigns demonstrated the flyability of the CDA profiles; they also demonstrated the feasibility of the cockpit changes required to fly these new profiles. The crew workload has not been increased compared to current operations; the guidance performance was satisfactory and no over-energy situation was encountered when testing the CDA approaches. The nominal profile was judged operationally acceptable by the pilots; it was considered simple and intuitive and worth to be further studied whereas the optimised profile has been judged complex. The concept of the optimised profile was more difficult to understand and required decelerating very early, which induced a longer deceleration and an increase of the flight time compared to classic approaches.

Regarding the acoustic benefits, the flight tests confirmed the expected results from the preliminary analyses. The CDA profiles were here compared to current FMS profiles without altitude/speed constraints; it shall be noted that these FMS profiles are already acoustically efficient profiles compared to radar-vectored profiles.

The Figure 6 shows that CDA profiles are largely quieter than current FMS profiles far from the airport and provide a significant gain between 2 dBA and 9dBA from 45km up to 20km of the runway threshold. This noise alleviation is mainly due to higher profile and slower speed. As setback, there is a local noise penalty of 4dBA for this aircraft at 17km from the threshold due to the earlier slats extension on the CDA profile; but this penalty is minimized thanks to OPTIMAL configuration extension cues. The optimised profile provides significant additional acoustic gains (-4dBA) for low noise levels.



As a conclusion, these tests showed significant acoustic gains with the CDA profiles but it is important to note that the acoustic gains are strongly dependent on the aircraft type.

OPTIMAL - Flight test results (29/04/08)

21

2

F

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

-45000 -40000 -35000 -30000 -25000 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000

GROUND DISTANCE TO RUNWAY THRESHOLD (M)

HEI

GH

T (F

T)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DB

AM

AX (D

B)

-2° Nominal CDA -2° Optimized CDA Current FMS profile

1

F1

2

F

5dBA

Figure 6: CDA acoustic gains from A320 flight test results

3.2.2 ATM integration evaluations

One of the main challenges of the ACDA is the integration into ATM. Indeed, ACDA procedures are usually less controllable for ATC than conventional approaches and that is why current CDA are especially applicable in low-density traffic.

The NLR assessed the integration of ACDA approaches at Schiphol airport: the concept relies on an evolution of the airspace management with an extended TMA with RNAV routes and various combinations of enablers as time-based operations (RTA and datalink), advanced AMAN and ATC control tool, ASAS. Several complementary analyses and simulations testing the various combinations of enablers were carried out.

The environmental analysis showed clear environmental benefits in terms of noise and gas emissions; for example, at Schiphol airport, the LDEN 48 could be reduced by 20%. It was also concluded that the implementation of optimised CDA approach and noise abatement distant take-off procedures may be converted in a traffic increase of 50% while maintaining environmental noise impact.

The capacity analysis showed that the introduction of ACDA could limit the maximum throughput to 33 arrivals/hour/runway and may increase the delay, but the 2015 traffic could be handled with adjusted airport operating schedule. In the 2+2 runway usage Schiphol scenario, the maximum throughput attained 70 flights/hour. When capacity limits were reached delay increased at a very high rate, due to the fact that many flights were propagated in the landing sequence (the ‘knock-on’ effect). Introducing ACDA procedures under low traffic load, the cumulative delay increased by 50%. This accounted for roughly 200 seconds of additional time per aircraft needed to perform a safe CDA compared to the current procedures.

The overall ATM simulations were performed using the NLR NARSIM ATC research simulator and NLR’s GRACE and APERO aircraft flight simulators. The following airport and airspace layout was applied during the simulator evaluations:

• A sufficiently large generic airspace without airport specific limitations and restrictions (>150NM out), although set in a Amsterdam Schiphol environment

• Start of arrival management before top-of-descent. Within the scope of the present concept, the arrival management horizon was set to a distance of around 120NM from the airport.



• Predefined RNAV standard arrival routes and TMA transitions from cruise top-of-descent to the final approach. Sequencing activities should be accommodated by means of RNAV based path stretching, speed instructions, RTA instructions or a combination of these.

• The projected 2015 landing capacity assumed 30 arrivals/hr/runway on average with a peak arrival capacity of 33 landings/runway.

• Nominal CDA descent profile to the runway starting at 7000ft

Based on fast time simulation studies and expert judgment, a required punctuality of ±30s at the initial approach fix was assumed necessary. The feasibility of safely operating ACDA approaches with such arrival accuracy at TMA entry was demonstrated. In order to achieve this accuracy at the TMA entry points, a number of enablers were evaluated in the concept:

• Advanced arrival manager (AMAN described in section 9.2.2) for accurate strategic planning of the CDA approaches and with specific additions for RNAV based sequencing.

• As a tactical support tool, a Converging Runways and Approaches Display Aid (CORADA described in section 9.3) to assist executive controllers during sequencing and merging prior to the start of the CDA.

• Air-ground data-link communications to take into account available onboard data.

• Use of ASAS for merging and spacing, also during execution of the ACDA approach

• For some scenarios in the presented concept also FMS derived Estimated Time of Arrival was used for improving the arrival time estimates within the ground based AMAN planning, as well as delegated 4D guidance to the IAF by means of the onboard FMS Required Time of Arrival functions.

These ATM simulations provided the following main results:

• The targeted arrival capacity of at least 30 CDA arrivals per hour / runway, as accepted in the initial requirements with ATC experts, was well achievable. A higher capacity (33-35 landings/hr or more) appears feasible based on further analysis of fast time safety and capacity simulations

• The use of CORADA in the TMA was well received to achieve the required safe separations prior to start of the CDA descent; the preferred setting of CORADA in the TMA is dual mode (contrary to the alternative master-slave mode).

• The application of CORADA in the extended TMA to achieve highly accurately metered arrivals in coordination with the AMAN provided mixed results. This is due to the inherent differences in operation between CORADA and AMAN. CORADA providing relative timing information, AMAN targeting an absolute arrival time schedule. On the one hand, arrival punctuality was generally lower compared to the other scenarios without the use of CORADA in the ETMA, on the other hand the participating controllers also indicated an overall better sequenced flow of traffic flow.

• Arrival punctuality was high with all combinations of enablers. During all conditions, the AMAN was rated positively as it provided useful and reliable information, a better understanding of the situation, and helped to plan and organise the runway landing sequence. As indicated above, the information provided to the executive controllers was sometimes confusing. The information provided by the AMAN for an absolute time schedule versus that provided by CORADA, with relative guidance taking into account disturbances in the arrival flow.

• The use of RTA at the IAF combined with RNAV based path stretching provided a well-sequenced and spaced TMA entry with sufficient accuracy under the simulated conditions.

• From a flight deck perspective, the concept of RNAV based doglegs to improve the execution of the inbound planning, especially at the TMA entry point, was preferred above the current practice of vectoring: RNAV based descents provide a more predictable descent compared to vectoring based descents.

• The cockpit HMI should support flight crews in their tasks to monitor current aircraft status and anticipate aircraft behaviour ahead of time. In this context, the evaluated implementation of the cockpit HMI requires improvement with respect to the specifics of executing CDA’s, e.g. efficient presentation of configuration cues, monitoring of slow deceleration and clear annunciation of FMS profile updates during descent.



3.2.3 4D ACDA ATTAS Flight Trials

One of the main drawbacks of the ACDA is the potential loss of the runway capacity as the aircraft are flying at different speeds and altitudes optimised to reduce their noise impact. In order to mitigate this drawback, the late-merging-point-concept can be applied; it consists in delaying the merging as closed as possible to the threshold in order to allow aircraft flying different vertical and speed profiles.

This concept was assessed by the DLR thanks to some flight trials carried out on the ATTAS flight test aircraft equipped with an advanced FMS capable of 4D ACDA. The flight tests took place at Bremen airport with various wind conditions.

The results showed that the ACDAs can be flown by the FMS to meet RTA with a very good accuracy on G/S intercept or even on runway threshold. The lateral precision as well as the temporal precision was excellent as long as the wind forecast was accurate. In general, the time accuracy for all flights was also within a margin of about ±5 seconds. But it has been shown that accurate wind forecast is required; indeed inaccurate (weather) wind forecast will either effect RTA accuracy or reduce noise benefits of ACDAs (e.g. if earlier flaps settings are required). The improvement of wind forecast quality can be expected in near future thanks to research activities on weather forecast improvement and air-to-air communication to exchange actual wind measurements.

Figure 7: ATTAS flight test aircraft with 4D ACDA FMS

3.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The OPTIMAL research program allowed to successfully achieve many experiments and tests which demonstrate the flyablilty of the ACDA procedures and the benefits brought by the ACDA. It allowed also assessing the implementation of ACDA in a busy ATC environment and demonstrated the flyability of future ACDA with high accuracy RTA capability. But several points need to be further studies by future research projects as ERAT, Clean Sky, SESAR.

Following these OPTIMAL achievements and results, some recommendations can be drawn up for the implementation of ACDA and for future research projects:

• The operational implementation of day-to-day CDA operations will be encouraged by the availability of RNAV procedures which will allow to fly repeatable and noise efficient CDAs.

• Although ACDA procedures will require the airborne capacity (FMS capacity) to fly the CDA profile, it is recommended to already use the current FMS profiles which are already noise-efficient compared to standard vectorized approach.

• The acoustic results has shown that very large noise benefits can be obtained with advanced FMS CDA functions able to optimise and adapt CDA profiles to the aircraft performance of the day. However, it is important to mention that acoustic benefits and optimised profiles strongly depend on aircraft type. It is therefore recommended to design the CDA procedures to take into account the aircraft performances in



order to avoid non-flyable CDAs for aerodynamically efficient aircraft and to avoid sub-efficient CDAs in terms of noise reduction.

• Acoustic analyses have shown the importance of the management of configuration extensions; that is why it is recommended to delay the configuration extensions as much as possible during the approach. This will be managed by the CDA capable FMS but it is recommended that flight crews should be made better aware of the main sources of aircraft noise during the approach as well as flight techniques that could be safely applied to minimize noise.

• When operating ACDA procedures in a busy environment, ATC will need sufficient means to allow the operation of CDA approaches with minimum need to act on the sequence after starting the CDA descent. Depending on the amount of traffic, this will require accurate arrival planning, (i.e. advanced AMAN, enhanced air-ground datalink of aircraft data), arrival sequencing and monitoring tools, 4D capacity (ATC capacity, airborne RTA capacity, air-ground datalink). Moreover it would be very beneficial for both ATC and aircraft to get access, through data link, to several CDA related data (aircraft speed, RTA…).

• A standardized mode of CDA operation has not yet been internationally defined. It is recommended that international bodies develop guidance material for drawing and coding CDA approaches in order to promote the implementation of ACDA procedures.



4 GNSS-BASED PROCEDURES The ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems recognized GNSS as a key element of Communication, Navigation, Surveillance and Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) systems and a foundation upon which States can deliver improved aeronautical navigation services.

The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) consists of core systems (as GPS, GLONASS and GALILEO in the future) and its augmentation (as GBAS, SBAS, ABAS, GRAS). Existing (GPS & GLONASS) core satellite constellations alone do not meet aviation’s strict requirements for Precision Approaches in terms of integrity, continuity, availability and accuracy values. To meet the operational requirements for various phases of flight, core constellations require augmentation, which can be obtained in different ways:

• Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS)

• Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS)

• Aircraft Based Augmentation System (ABAS)

GBAS and SBAS use ground monitoring stations to verify the validity of satellite signals and calculate corrections to enhance GNSS performances. For GBAS, the correction information is provided to the aircraft by a ground station (usually at the airport) with VHF data link; the station broadcasts also locally the data related to the approach. For SBAS, the correction information is provided to the aircraft by geostationary satellites. ABAS relies on avionics processing techniques or avionics integration. Two different techniques exist: RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) and AAIM (Aircraft Autonomous Integrity Monitoring).

4.1 PROCEDURES BASED ON GBAS 4.1.1 Procedure overview

Within the context of the OPTIMAL project, only GBAS PA Straight-in Final Approach aligned with the runway centre line have been considered. However, offsets up to 5º are admissible.

The Straight-in Final GBAS PA is based on GNSS information plus GBAS local corrections for both lateral and vertical guidance. An important advantage is the coverage of multiple runways with only one ground station, saving costs for airports (compared to other xLS systems).

Final Approach Segment (FAS) Geometry is defined in the FAS Data Block and broadcast by the GBAS local station (VDB message). Once the VDB transmission is processed, the Path Identifier will be displayed, allowing manual cross-check against the chart by the crew.

An instrumental GBAS PA procedure is characterized by the ILS Look-alike term. This concept is understood in the way that the objective is to apply the GNSS (GBAS) technology in such way that modifications respect to conventional ILS approach procedures be minimized and make the “transition” affordable. The “transition” refers to an evolution towards a future scenario in which the GNSS will be the “sole” navigation system mean, as recommended by ICAO:

• The flight crew displays are similar to the ones used in conventional ILS PA procedures, that is, simulating angular deviations which converge in the direction of the approach to the touchdown point.

• FAS Data Block contains all the information required for the definition of the Glide Path and the emulation of a converging guidance to the pilot whose sensibility increases in the approach direction.

• Obstacle assessment is based on the OAS, which are identical to ILS CAT I OAS

Within the context of OPTIMAL project, the rest of the segments involved in the procedure are also based on the RNAV concept and GNSS as positioning system (LNAV only)

4.1.2 Airborne/ground developments and results from the tests



The development and tests carried out in OPTIMAL regarding GBAS were based on the existing AENA GBAS program for Malaga airport and Airbus GBAS program for the development of the airborne GLS technology.

Regarding the ground side, the work conducted in OPTIMAL consisted in the upgrade of the Honeywell ”SLS 3000 Beta Plus” GBAS ground station and GBAS Monitoring Station (Thales GMS 670) located at Malaga airport managed by AENA.

At the same time, AENA upgraded a Beechcraft experimental aircraft with a Collins GLS MMR and onboard post-processing tools in order to carry out some flight trials. The objectives of the flight tests were:

• Evaluate the Malaga GBAS Signal in Space & Performances in an Obstacle Rich Environment

• Verify the GBAS procedures flyability and the GBAS coverage

• Check the GBAS avionics integration into the Aena experimental aircraft

• Gain GBAS experience for all the involved actors (ATC, pilots, maintenance…)

• Prepare the A320 GBAS CAT I Flight Trials at Malaga airport

The Beechcraft flight trials took place in May 2007 and 6 approaches were flown; these flight tests demonstrated the flyability of the procedures and the very good performance of the GBAS system.

The Navigation System Errors were very small, the maximum error values remained around two meters for the complete flight and around one meter along the approaches; the Protection Level values provided by the onboard MMR covered this Navigation System Errors in both components, horizontal and vertical; they stayed under Alert Limits in all the approach parts of the flight, accomplishing availability requirements defined for CAT-I procedures. Taking into account the strong presence of wind and seasonal operational limitations, Flight Technical Error values were considered reasonable. According to the results it can be said that the GBAS on-ground station was working properly during the flight trials. In addition the onboard MMR behaved reasonably well.

Regarding the operational point of view, both pilots and ATCos had a very good impression of the system and its capabilities. For instance, the pilots emphasized the smoothness of the guidance system compared to ILS, when one of the ATCo stated that since the number of communications and the radar vectoring was considerably simplified, the Air Traffic Controller workload was reduced.

Figure 8: Airbus A320 GBAS flight test in Malaga

After the successful Beechcraft flight trials, the preparation of the A320 flight test started. The main objective of these flights tests was to verify the interoperability between the Rockwell Collins MMR versioned for Airbus and the latest Honeywell GBAS GS prototype (PSP) in an Obstacle Rich Environment (Malaga). It was also an opportunity to perform several autolands in Category I conditions, in order to accumulate GBAS experience in



various conditions and to complement Airbus system integration and architecture validation flight test campaign in Toulouse.

The flight trials took place in December 2007 and 11 approaches were flown with 8 in autoland conditions. This test permitted also an IBERIA pilot to fly two GLS approaches with only ILS experience. The flight tests showed full interoperability between airborne part and ground part of the GLS system. All the systems behaved nominally and the GBAS performance has been demonstrated to be on the order of 1 meter in lateral and vertical, in various conditions. Beside, GBAS offered a smoother signal for guidance and pilots with very good performance, and with lower susceptibility to external multipath, demonstrating its suitability for future autoland operations in VMC with less separation between aircrafts. In addition, ILS look-alike cockpit design scheme offers another Precision Approach means with limited additional crew training.

4.1.3 Conclusions and recommendations

The GBAS flight trials conducted successfully in OPTIMAL allow to demonstrate the flyability of the GBAS procedure and the very good performance of the GBAS system paving the way for future Cat II/III operations. It also confirmed the multiple benefits of GBAS:

• the coverage of multiple runways with only one ground station compared to ILS and MLS systems, enabling saving costs for airports

• A smoother signal for guidance and pilots.

• Lower susceptibility to external multipath for autoland operations in VMC.

• In the future, less separation between aircrafts will be gained in Cat II/III operations

The next steps consist now in the implementation of the first operations in CAT I by installation of GBAS ground stations and availability of the airborne capacity. GLS Cat I Autoland was certified in May 2008 on A380 and the GBAS solution will be available soon on A320, A330/A340.

GBAS CAT I could already cover the operational needs of several airports where it could be beneficial.

The implementation of the first operations in CAT I is considered as essential for a gradual introduction towards CAT II/III which is the final objective of the GBAS. The OPTIMAL partners support actively the work within international standardization bodies to make GBAS Cat II/III happen in the mid-term.

4.2 LPV PROCEDURES BASED ON SBAS 4.2.1 Procedure overview

Within the context of the OPTIMAL project, only APV/SBAS Straight-in Final Approach aligned with the runway centre line have been considered. However, offsets up to 5º are admissible.

The straight-in Final SBAS/APV Approach is based on SBAS positioning information for both lateral and vertical guidance. Final Approach Segment (FAS) Geometry is defined in the FAS Data Block and contained in the onboard database.

An instrumental APV procedure is characterized under the ILS Look-alike concept. This concept should be understood in the way that the objective is to apply the GNSS (SBAS) technology in such a way that modifications respect to conventional ILS approach procedures be minimized and make the “transition” affordable. The “transition” refers to an evolution towards a future scenario in which the GNSS will be the “sole” navigation system mean, as recommended by ICAO:

• The flight crew displays are similar to the ones used in conventional ILS PA procedures, that is simulating angular deviations which converge in the direction of the approach to the touchdown point

• FAS Data Block contains all the information required for the definition of the Glide Pathand the emulation of a converging guidance to the pilot whose sensibility increases in the approach direction.

Obstacle assessment is based on APV OAS, which are derived from ILS OAS, taking into account that:

• Lateral guidance is considered to have LLZ performance



• Vertical guidance does not meet PA CAT I performance, hence implying more restrictive obstacle clearance assessment.

Within the frame of OPTIMAL project, the rest of the segments involved in the procedure are also based on the RNAV concept and SBAS as positioning system (LNAV only).

The main benefits of LPV procedures are:

• Capacity and accessibility gain, due to lower minima (particularly for airports not provided with ILS)

• Safety improvement thanks to vertical guidance

• Potential noise and fuel consumption reduction

4.2.2 Airborne developments and results from the tests

The development and tests carried out in OPTIMAL regarding SBAS focused on San Sebastian scenario. San Sebastian airport is really a good example of airports where LPV SBAS procedure can provide significant benefits. Currently only non-precision approaches (and non aligned) are implemented due to the airport layout and environment that prevent the installation of ILS and approach light system. Moreover the vicinity of the Spanish-French border, the mountainous terrain and the urban area bring some limitations in terms of airspace design and environmental impact. In addition, the weather conditions often limit the accessibility and the capacity. That is why the incoming IFR traffic usually approach to RWY 22 although 88% of traffic comes from the South. An approach procedure with vertical guidance [LPV] to RWY 04 allows a direct approach saving flight time (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Extract of OPTIMAL LPV SBAS San Sebastian chart

In order to assess the implementation of the LPV SBAS procedure in San Sebastian, some flight trials were carried in October 2007 with AENA Beechcraft experimental aircraft equipped with a GNSS Console with SBAS receiver and CDI/VDI in the cockpit. The flight trials allowed to demonstrate the flyability of the procedure and the good performance of the SBAS system; the Navigation System Errors were low, the computed Protection Levels stayed under the Alert Limits defined for the procedure during the whole flight and the Flight Technical Error values were considered reasonable. Regarding the operational point of view, the approach procedure resulted easy to follow in terms of aircraft manoeuvring and the pilots did not find any difficulties in following the vertical profile. Actually, the smoothness of the guidance system was underlined. The pilots pointed out the reduction in workload comparing with flying an entirely non-precision approach. The controllers highlighted that the provision of vertical guidance would increase the number of pilots who accepted this specific approach to RWY04 at San Sebastian airport, thus facilitating the operations and decreasing the workload of both pilots and controllers. However, some training on satellite-based flight operations would be highly appreciated.

In addition a cost benefit analysis was performed; it concluded that introducing SBAS at San Sebastian Airport is, from an economical point of view, a beneficial operation. The initial investment costs for the airlines are negligible compared to the expected benefits owing to flight time and disruption reduction. The initial investment for the Airport operator and ANSP will result in an airport that can offer a much higher service level to its clients



(airlines), which will most probably result in a considerable increase in traffic to San Sebastian. Unfortunately, this benefit is not quantifiable at the moment.

4.2.3 Conclusions and recommendations

The work carried out in OPTIMAL allowed to demonstrate the flyability and the performance of the LPV SBAS procedure in San Sebastian and the tangible operational benefits brought by such a procedure.

It is considered that such procedures are particularly suited to regional airlines, general aviation and helicopters in small and difficult airports and could be a back-up for medium and large airports. In Europe, regional airlines have started to show interest in the added-value of EGNOS-based flight operations.

EGNOS is a promising element of the navigation infrastructure and there is need of collaborative effort among European ANSPs, CAAs, and airspace users for the successful operational implementation of EGNOS.

For the future, the envelope of the flight operations enabled by GNSS/EGNOS should be expanded to cover new operations (e.g. curved approaches…).

4.3 LPV PROCEDURES BASED ON ABAS 4.3.1 Procedure overview

A straight-in final LPV approach procedure is an instrument approach procedure that is provided, within the final approach phase, with lateral and vertical guidance, that does not meet the performance requirements established for Precision Approach operations. So it cannot be classified as a conventional Precision Approach (PA). The LPV procedure is based on the RNAV (Area NAVigation) concept. It is characterized by the ILS look-alike concept that consists in minimizing differences with conventional ILS approach procedures. The final approach segment is identical to an ILS PA. It is aligned (potentially with an offset) with the runway centreline. From an operational standpoint, it finishes at the Decision Altitude/Height (DA/H) where the pilot must determine whether visual references are on sight in order to decide to continue the approach procedure or to perform a missed approach procedure. The ABAS solution implemented in Optimal, based on lateral and vertical hybridisation of GPS and inertia, provides lateral and vertical guidance with sufficient performance to meet LPV criteria.

4.3.2 Airborne developments and results from the tests

LPV approaches have been introduced with the objective to be flown by SBAS systems. APV performance levels specified by ICAO Annex 10 GNSS performance tables are targets for SBAS and Galileo systems and RNAV GPS procedures developed in US by FAA with LPV minima require WAAS. But applying the Performance Based concept, RNAV GPS published approaches with LPV minima could be flown with ABAS or SBAS. The development conducted in OPTIMAL consisted in the development of an ABAS airborne solution. Contrarily to the SBAS which is regional and requires ground stations deployment, the ABAS solution is autonomous and global. It is based on a tight hybridisation between inertia and GPS which provide vertical guidance and does not require temperature compensation nor pressure correction. The ILS look-alike concept extensively applied for displays, warnings and guidance laws.

In the frame of OPTIMAL, an ABAS solution, called autonomous FLS function, was developed and assessed on Airbus A320 aircraft; its architecture was based on the already certified Airbus FLS function, (which enables to fly Published Non Precision Approaches down to 250’ with Vertical Guidance in an ILS look-alike manner). The development of the autonomous FLS function consisted in a development of an enhanced THALES MMR with improved GPS data processing and interfaces, and a new hybridisation algorithm from Northrop Grumman called Precision AIME and implemented in a specific ADIRU based on LTN 101 E. An accurate aircraft position was required to initialise the hybridisation algorithm at the beginning of the flight. These improved systems were installed on Airbus A320 flight test aircraft with the objective to assess the hybridisation algorithm performance versus APV criteria.



The results of the flight trials demonstrated a good execution of initialisation of Precision AIME in real condition starting from a known position stored in the database. The hybridisation algorithm behaved nominally during the entire flight and demonstrated the capability to meet APV I approaches criteria and showed values close to APV II approaches criteria.

4.3.3 Conclusions and recommendations The development conducted in OPTIMAL demonstrated the capability of the ABAS solution to meet APV 1 criteria.

The next steps consist now in consolidating the performance, especially in terms of certification, the objective being to demonstrate that the performance achievement guarantee is equivalent to SBAS.

Moreover, in terms of standardization, despite the fact that LPV procedures are performance-based approaches, the standards were designed considering SBAS as the only mean to fly LPV procedures. Therefore the implementation of LPV ABAS would require an update of the standard.



5 ENHANCED VISION SYSTEM

5.1 PROCEDURE OVERVIEW The EVS concept developed in the frame of the OPTIMAL project focused on the use of weather penetrating sensor technology and the presentation of the image to the pilot on a head-down display.

The recently released final rule (2004) of the FAA for Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) clearly acknowledges the operational benefits of such a technology but the use is restricted to head-up displays and U.S. aircraft operating within national airspace.

The All Weather Operations Steering Group (AWOSG) of the JAA has proposed some amendments towards an international standard acceptable by the ICAO but also with the restriction to head-up display technology.

MDA or DA

FAF

≥200ft above threshold

EVS Transition Height

Vertical path provided by EVS

Visual segment flown without relying on EVS

Figure 10: EVS concept of operations

In the frame of the OPTIMAL project, the main focus has been in enhancing EFVS to head-down displays, instead of limiting its use to head-up display systems, as current standardization efforts seem to aim at. The concept of operation allows the crew to operate an aircraft on an approach procedure in low visibility below the prescribed minima with help of EVS sensor and a head down display.

As the approach with EVS support is not a procedure in itself, but an add-on to any existing approach procedure, the main focus was on the concept of operation for precision approaches, approaches with vertical guidance and non-precision approaches. Within the frame of OPTIMAL a crew procedure has been developed to ensure a smooth transition from head-down sensor based view to natural vision through the window. Also a reduced RVR, together with an EVS transition height has been proposed to formalize the use of EVS under adverse weather conditions.

5.2 TESTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The feasibility of an EVS head-down procedure was examined that may provide the same operational benefits under low visibility as the FAA rule on Enhanced Flight Visibility that requires the use of a head-up display (HUD). The main element of the described EVS head-down procedure is the crew procedure within cockpit for flying the approach. The task sharing between Pilot-Flying and Pilot-Not-Flying is arranged such that multiple head-up/head-down transitions can be avoided. The Pilot-Flying is using the head-down display for acquisition of the necessary visual cues in the EVS image. The pilot not flying is monitoring the instruments and looking for the outside visual cues. As an example the following table shows the most important actions and callouts of pilot flying and pilot not flying between MDA/DH down to the threshold:

Phase of Approach Pilot Flying (PF) Pilot Not Flying (PNF)



At published Minimums

With EVS Visual Cues: Call “EVS lights” With Visual Cues: Call “Lights” Without EVS or VISUAL Cues: Call “Going Around”

When visual cues appear: Call “Lights or Field insight” Call “Go-Around” if PF does not call lights or EVS lights)

At EVS transition height/altitude

When visual contact is established after PNF callout, Call “Landing” Call “Going Around” if descending below 100 ft and if PNF does not call Lights or Field insight

When visual cues appear: Call “Lights or Field insight” When descending below 100ft and without visual cues, call Call “Go-Around”

Landing Perform visual landing Utilize normal landing/rollout procedures

Monitor instruments Utilize normal landing/rollout procedures

Table 2 – Crew coordination

The concept was assessed through human factors-oriented real time simulations for Zurich airport on the cockpit simulator GECO at DLR-Braunschweig. About 200 approaches were flown by 16 different pilots in different roles (pilot flying vs. pilot-not-flying), under different conditions (visibility, wind), and with different navigation support (ILS vs. VOR/DME) to test the EVS head-down procedure against the established EVS head-up procedure.

Figure 11: Simulated EVS image on head-down display

Following these simulations, the main conclusions and recommendations can be drawn up:

• No difference in performance between EVS HDD and EVS HUD has been experienced

• Pilots´ workload during the EVS HDD procedure was not significantly higher compared to EVS HUD

• EVS without additional vertical guidance provided enough vertical guidance cues to perform a safe landing under low visibility.

• Pilots expect “good and comprehensive transition from EVS Head Down Segment to visual flight without impairing flight path“

• Pilots stated that they have no problems with EVS HDD, it is feasible!

• Transition from head-down to head-up could be done without any problems identifying the runway visually

• Training to get familiar with EVS imagery and the symbology is necessary

• Pilots would prefer to have additional vertical guidance



6 DUAL/DISPLACED THRESHOLD OPERATIONS

6.1 PROCEDURE OVERVIEW At the end of the 90's a landing procedure called HALS/DTOP was developed in cooperation by the Frankfurt Airport AG and the Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS – German Air Navigation Services) for the Frankfurt Airport.

The objective of the work done in the frame of the OPTIMAL project was to describe how a second threshold on a runway could be operated, which benefits could be expected and which restrictions had to be considered under the different conditions of a single runway airport or a parallel runway system.

The basic idea of a displaced or dual/displaced threshold is the addition of a second threshold on a long runway at least 1500m from the original one, so that the displaced glide slope is approximately 260ft above the other, resulting in a reduced wake vortex landing separation.

The main benefit of dual/displaced thresholds is the reduction of the wake vortex separation between a heavy and a medium from 5NM to the radar minimum of 2.5NM, resulting in a higher landing capacity.

Figure 12: Displaced threshold approach on a dependent runway system

6.2 TESTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the frame of the OPTIMAL project, the different operation modes on single and closely spaced parallel runways with one displaced threshold have been studied. Part of this study was not only the optimum sequencing of approaching traffic but also the interaction of approaching and departing traffic. A new separation matrix for wake vortex separation given below has been developed including the new separation of traffic approaching the displaced threshold.

Succ. Prec. Heavy Medium Light

Heavy 4 5 2.5 6 2.5

Medium 3 3 2.5 5 2.5

Light 3 3 2.5 3 2.5 Table 3: Distance Based ICAO Separation Matrix (Preceding aircraft on displaced threshold,

Succeeding aircraft on original 1st threshold)



The concept was assessed through capacity and workload-oriented real time simulations on a parallel runway system at Frankfurt airport on the radar simulator ATMOS at DLR-Braunschweig. Several configurations were tested using advanced ATC tools (AMAN, ADCO) developed within OPTIMAL and which are described in section 9. Three weeks of simulation of a Frankfurt approach scenario were conducted with three teams of controllers from different countries (Germany, Poland, and Lithuania). Each team conducted 11 different simulator runs covering the baseline scenario (no dual threshold operations), different traffic mixes (variation of the amount of “heavy” aircraft), different demands of departure traffic and different degrees in support by controller assistant tools.

Summarizing the outcome of the validation activity, the following main conclusions and recommendations have been obtained:

• With DT operation a significant increase of arrival traffic throughput in the simulations could be obtained. With DT applied the arrival throughput is in the order of 45 ARR/h and, in particular, appears to be rather independent of the portion of 'heavy' arrivals. Since without DT operation the throughput was measured as 42 ARR/h for 20 % of 'heavy' and only 40 ARR/H for 40 % of 'heavy' it could be demonstrated that benefit of the DT operation increases with the portion of 'heavy' arrivals.

• Generally, no significant increase in workload has been observed with Dual Threshold Operation compared to the baseline scenario. A slight increase in controller-pilot communication has been measured if no advanced planning support is given to the controller.

• Advanced planning support to controllers has no significant influence on the arrivals and does not significantly decrease controller workload. But it has an effect on the departures. It mitigates the departure capacity drop down and increases arrival and departure efficiency and departure predictability.



7 RNP AR APCH PROCEDURES WITH RNP < 0.3

7.1 PROCEDURE OVERVIEW AND CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS The Area navigation (RNAV) concept is a method of navigation which permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path within the coverage of station-referenced navigation aids or within the limits of the capability of self-contained navigation aids, or a combination of these.

The requirements placed on the area navigation system include:

• the performance being required of the area navigation system in terms of accuracy, integrity, continuity and availability

• the functions that need to be available in the area navigation system so as to achieve the required performance

• the navigation sensors, integrated into the area navigation system, that may be used to achieve the required performance

• flight crew and other procedures needed to achieve the performance being required of the area navigation system

Navigation specifications which require on-board performance monitoring and alerting are termed RNP specifications. It addresses the Total System Error (TSE), encompassing the three main errors, which are Path Definition Error (PDE), Flight Technical Error (FTE), and Navigation System Error (NSE), as shown in the figure below.

Figure 13: Definition of error terms

For approaches, the ICAO Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Manual (Ref.R9) has defined 2 types called RNP APCH and RNP AR APCH. RNP AR APCH are specific approaches which require a specific approval (AR), in terms of aircraft capability, crew training, etc. (Ref.R10, Ref.R11).

For RNP values less than 0.3, the PBN manual mandates the following requirements:

• No single-point-of-failure. No single-point-of-failure can cause the loss of guidance compliant with the navigation accuracy associated with the approach.

• Design Assurance. The system design assurance must be consistent with at least a major failure condition for the loss of lateral or vertical guidance on an RNP AR APCH where RNP less than 0.3 is required to avoid obstacles or terrain while executing an approach.

• Go-around guidance. Upon initiating a go-around or missed approach (through activation of TOGA or other means), the flight guidance mode should remain in LNAV to enable continuous track guidance during an RF leg. There are additional requirements for aircraft not able to remain in LNAV.

Total System Error (TSE)

Path Definition Error (PDE)

Estimated Position

Flight Technical Error (FTE)

Navigation System Error (NSE)



• Loss of GNSS. After initiating a go-around or missed approach following loss of GNSS, the aircraft must automatically revert to another means of navigation that complies with the navigation accuracy.

As far as track deviations are concerned, pilots must use a lateral deviation indicator, flight director and/or autopilot in lateral navigation mode on RNP AR APCH approach procedures. Pilots of aircraft with a lateral deviation indicator must ensure that lateral deviation indicator scaling (full-scale deflection) is suitable for the navigation accuracy associated with the various segments of the RNP AR approach procedure.

There are many other requirements described in the PBN manual to conduct an RNP AR APCH operation.

The main benefits of RNP AR APCH operations are:

• An improved accessibility in obstacle rich environment;

• Lower minima with instrument approach replacing circling or visual approach;

• The avoidance of populated areas, therefore an environmental benefit.

In the framework of OPTIMAL, three types of RNP AR approaches have been studied:

• Approaches with a straight-in final segment of at least 4NM;

• Approaches with an RF leg at less than 4NM of the runway threshold (curved final approaches);

• Approaches with segments at less than 4NM of the runway (not retained)

As far as segmented approaches are concerned, they were perceived by some partners as a potential solution. In the course of the project, their flyability was questioned and the latest development of the ICAO PBN manual finally discarded their use.

The main specificity of OPTIMAL was to study:

• Hybrid approaches: These approaches start as RNP AR approaches, with a transition to an xLS landing; (xLS stands for ILS, MLS, GLS, FLS….)

• Vertical RNP procedure design.

Note that in most of OPTIMAL documentation, you will find the term RNP-RNAV instead of RNP AR APCH as this was the actual terminology at the time of the project.

7.2 AIRBORNE/GROUND DEVELOPMENTS AND RESULTS FROM THE TESTS 7.2.1 A320 OPTIMAL RNP function design and tests

Most Airbus aircraft are already certified for RNP AR operations and down to RNP 0.1. In the frame of OPTIMAL research project, some RNP function design improvements have been studied for Airbus A320 aircraft. These RNP function improvements developed and assessed in OPTIMAL consisted in the development of the capacity to fly hybrid approaches, i.e. approaches starting as RNP AR and then transitioning to xLS. It also consisted in improving the current RNP design by improving the monitoring and alerting mechanisms together with the HMI. These new monitoring logics and the associated HMI are described in [Ref.A9]. The development of these improvements required some evolutions of the FMS and flight guidance systems as well some modifications of the displays systems for HMI.

These RNP function improvements were assessed through verification and validations tests, and operational evaluation campaigns on Airbus A320 simulator concluded by flight trials. The flight trials were performed with Airbus A320 flight test aircraft flying some experimental RNP and RNP-ILS procedures at Toulouse Blagnac airport. The feedback from the tests was very positive. The OPTIMAL RNP function was recognised by most pilots as a very efficient way to monitor the performance of the aircraft with regards to the required performance. Moreover the flight trials demonstrated the flyability of the RNP-ILS approaches and the crew had no difficulty to fly the hybrid approaches, using the OPTIMAL design; such hybrid approaches flown with automatic mode transitions were found very promising by most pilots as they allow to improve the safety, comfort and accessibility to some airports. Keeping the managed navigation mode engaged in case of an RNP-RNAV coded



missed approach was also considered by all pilots as very beneficial, limiting reaction time and thus improving safety.

7.2.2 San Sebastian and Malaga capacity, environmental and feasibility assessment

Some specific curved RNP AR approach procedures were developed in OPTIMAL for San Sebastian airport RWY22 and for Malaga airport RWY31. These procedures were assessed in terms of capacity, environmental benefits and feasibility through various simulations. The capacity and environmental simulations were performed by AENA using respectively TAAM and INM simulators. The manned simulations were performed by INECO using a crew training A320/A340 full flight simulator.

The results of the Málaga environmental impact analysis showed that the noise contours further away from the runway threshold (40dB and 45dB) are larger for the curved RNP-AR procedures than for the baseline procedures, due to the lower altitude profiles of the new procedures. Nevertheless, the noise footprint area decreases in the vicinity of the airport given that the accuracy provided by RNP-AR allows to fly closer to the nominal path. Therefore, there is a significant reduction in the affected population during the day (Lden) and a slight reduction during the night (Lnight).

The results of the San Sebastian environmental impact concluded that since the curved RNP-AR approach is flown at a lower altitude than the baseline during the final segment of the approach, the noise contours are slightly larger than for the baseline scenario, increasing the affected population.

The results of the Málaga airport capacity simulation showed that owing to the introduction of the curved final RNP AR procedures the maximum number of arrivals per hour increases significantly, while the delays do not increase. In addition, the ATCo’s workload is reduced due to elimination of vectoring and the correspondent communications controller-pilot.

The results of the San Sebastian airport capacity simulation concluded that the curved approach procedures could manage efficiently the expected 2020 arrival demand and maintain the maximum number of operations. The total delays increase significantly, but the average delay of the delayed aircraft (a flight is considered as delayed when its delay is higher than 3 minutes) is reduced or at least maintained. In addition, the ATCo’s workload is reduced due to elimination of vectoring and the correspondent communications controller-pilot.

More detailed results regarding the capacity simulations in terms of ATC workload, separation, delay and number of movements and regarding the environmental simulations can be found in Ref.R6.

The flight simulation sessions showed no problem of flyability of the curved procedures for Málaga and San Sebastian airports.

7.2.3 Safety oriented ATC simulation of RNP curved approaches

The RNP AR curved approach procedures developed for Malaga airport have been used to conduct a safety ATC manned simulation in EUROCONTROL IANS tower simulator. The objective of the simulation was to assess the impact on safety of the introduction of curved or segmented procedures with a today’s level of traffic and with 2010 forecast traffic, all mixing new and current procedures.

The ATC safety simulation was preceded by a preliminary safety analysis which identified the high level hazards while focusing on two options (RF leg flown as an RNP AR APCH which led onto a straight RNP AR and RF leg flown as an RNP AR APCH which transitioned onto a short straight-in xLS leg).

On feasibility, the simulation showed concerns about the controllers’ behaviour when they managed RNP AR procedures mixed with current ones: as they must try not to give any instructions to aircraft flying RNP procedures, they tended to forget the RNP procedures and that leaded to non-detection or late detection of potential losses of separation between aircraft or potential CFITs. To mitigate this, it is necessary to train the controllers to the particularities induced by RNP procedures.

On the safety benefits side, no quantitative value could be given from the simulation, but qualitative information could be drawn out: the phenomenon described in the previous paragraph leaded to an increase of losses of separation and of failures to detect hazards has occurred. It is likely that the mix of curved RNP and current procedures should be implemented with a display tool allowing the controllers measuring the separation between the aircraft on the different procedures.



7.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The OPTIMAL project studied RNP AR procedure and more specifically the concept of hybrid RNP-xLS procedures. The design of these procedures was assessed through evaluation of a new specific function on A320 aircraft and the impact of these procedures on ATC was assessed thanks to dedicated simulations.

Following these OPTIMAL achievements, some recommendations can be drawn up for the implementation of RNP AR procedures:

• To fully benefit from RNP AR & RNP-xLS operations, the whole “ATC & aircraft” must be considered.

• Adapted HMI is required for both ATC and airborne in order that the ATC is able to identify clearly RNP AR aircrafts and that the crew can monitor its achieved RNP performance with sufficient alerting mechanisms. Training will be required for both ATC and pilots to carry out RNP AR operations.

• Regarding RNP-xLS procedures, standardization will be needed regarding the transition between RNP and xLS capture and phraseology.

• Within OPTIMAL project the possibility of applying RNP concepts for ensuring vertical guidance has been considered but the concept of vertical RNP needs to be further studied and standardized.



8 ROTORCRAFT SPECIFIC IFR PROCEDURES Today, there are no specific instrument procedures in Europe and under IFR conditions for rotorcraft, they have to follow the same procedures as airplanes which are very penalising from an operational standpoint. Typically, ILS approaches have been optimised for airplanes and are not adapted to the unique manoeuvring capabilities of rotorcraft that are capable of flying much shorter and steeper approach paths at lower flight speeds.

The development of rotorcraft-specific IFR approach procedures is a key enabler for achieving more efficient and environment-friendly operations at airports: on one hand, specific approach paths taking benefit of rotorcraft flight characteristics allow reducing noise footprint and on the other hand Simultaneous Non Interfering (SNI) approach procedures can ease rotorcraft access to busy airports while increasing aircraft capacity.

GPS Non Precision Approaches (NPA) constitutes a first step for achieving more efficient IFR rotorcraft operations but no geometric vertical guidance is available for such a procedure. The development of GNSS augmentation systems such as SBAS and GBAS can permit the development of such specific rotorcraft IFR procedures with vertical guidance thus improving safety.

8.1 PROCEDURE OVERVIEW Within OPTIMAL, specific rotorcraft procedures were studied taking into account steep glide slope procedures and curved/segmented approaches. The procedures developed were tailored in order to allow simultaneous non interference (SNI) IFR flights of rotorcraft with the aim of not affecting aircraft operations.

Figure 14: SNI operations

Steep straight-in final approach procedure The main feature that distinguishes these procedures from “normal” ones used by fixed wing aircraft is the steep glide slope angle of more than 3º. Values up to 10º were evaluated in simulation experiments, and values up to 9º were tested successfully in-flight. With such steep approach angles, the noise footprint is reduced. The sensing equipment enabling this procedure is GBAS or SBAS. With both systems the ILS-Look alike concept is followed, i.e. the “standard” ILS indications in the cockpit are provided as well as the same or similar obstacle clearance areas are used.

IF FAF

1000 ft min



Figure 15: Rotorcraft steep approach procedure

Curved final approach procedure When flying curved final approach procedures, rotorcrafts are approaching the airport from an angle different from the fixed-wing traffic, which are all aligned with a specific landing runway. At some distance from the airport a curved segment aligns the rotorcraft with the FATO approach direction while staying clear of nearby approaching fixed-wing traffic, landing on a nearby runway.

Because of the curved segment in final approach, this procedure is necessarily of RNP-AR type, thus requiring the helicopter navigation system to be eligible for such operations.

Figure 16: Rotorcraft curved approach procedure

8.2 AIRBORNE/GROUND DEVELOPMENTS AND RESULTS FROM THE TESTS 8.2.1 EC155 developments and flight tests

In the frame of OPTIMAL, the Eurocopter EC155 helicopter demonstrator was upgraded in order to be able to fly LPV approaches (SNI compatible) with various slopes. The systems modifications consisted in:

• Integration of GNSS receiver with GBAS and SBAS capacity

• Experimental FMS upgrade for vertical guidance and introduction of LPV FAS database

• AFCS upgrade (Adaptations for automatic LPV approach and transition to hover)

• Adaptation of guidance display

Several specific approach procedures were developed for the flight trials in Toulouse Blagnac:

• Direct-to-FATO LPV approaches (parallel to airport runways) with 3 different slopes: 6°, 9° and 3°/9° dual slope

• Point-in-Space (PinS) procedures with LPV segment and different characteristics (parallel, converging, SNI compatible)

These approaches were tested during the flight trials in June and September 2007 using SBAS and GBAS; 58 approaches were flown. The trials demonstrated both the feasibility and the interest of steep vertically guided IFR approaches for joining an airport with commercial traffic. The main outcomes were the following:

• Steep slope (up to 9°) rotorcraft-specific IFR approaches can be flown with good precision both in the lateral and vertical plane thanks to SBAS or GBAS guidance

• Key feature for low pilot workload is the AFCS airspeed hold mode (IAS) which for steep approaches must be operative at low airspeed to keep an acceptable descent rate (≈800 ft/min) in the final segment. A low minimum IFR speed is also required



• Although a 4-axis AFCS is always preferable and allows fully coupled approaches, manual control of the collective is relatively easy and consequently, a 3-axis AFCS can also be used

• SBAS and GBAS are suitable guidance means for rotorcraft-specific IFR approach procedures to airport heliports, in particular in obstacle rich and (or) noise sensitive environments

• The integration of rotorcraft-specific IFR procedures in a medium airport terminal airspace does not seem to raise major concerns. Simultaneous Non Interfering (SNI) rotorcraft/aircraft operations seem also possible by an appropriate design of the procedures, adapted ATC tools and training of traffic controllers.

Figure 17: EC155 flight test in Toulouse

In addition to the flight trials, an environmental study was performed in order to assess the predicted noise footprints for the EUROCOPTER EC155 demonstrator performing the IFR approach procedures in Toulouse.

It was shown that the acoustic footprint predictions of the six approach profiles corresponded to the expected directivity patterns of the EC155 helicopter. The figures highlighted the fact that rotorcraft noise is highly directional and approaches result in noise footprints that are not symmetrical along the flight track. Based on limited measurements, the prediction method used was able to clearly show the effect of changing the flight track, airspeed, descent angle, bank angle, or altitude.

It concluded that the IFR SNI approach procedures reduce the noise contours comparing to the baseline scenario; the 9° glide slope approaches are the best. A 3° to 9° approach was shown to narrow the contours during the 3° segment, but the noise contour reduction obtained was not as much as the 9° approach.

8.2.2 EC135 developments and flight tests

Since future ATM operations will be based on 4D trajectories, rotorcraft IFR operations might as well require 4D capabilities. A basic requirement for this kind of operation is the rotorcraft’s capability to meet a required time of arrival (RTA) at a given waypoint.

The functions developed within OPTIMAL for the DLR EC135 experimental Flight Management System allowed flying a time referenced curved approach with an RTA given at the Missed Approach Point which has been defined at the end of the curve. A curved approach procedure was developed for Bremen airport taking into account the idea of simultaneous non-interfering rotorcraft IFR operations.

These functions and the design of the procedure itself were tested in flight trials at Bremen airport. The main objectives were to verify the flyability of the curved approach and to assess the 4D capability of the experimental FMS functions. SBAS (EGNOS) has been used as primary input to the navigation system. 35 approaches to Bremen under various weather (wind) conditions were carried out. The curved approaches were flown with two different guidance concepts: a tunnel display and a bug-PFD-guidance display. All approaches were flown manually without any SAS assistance or autopilot assistance.



Figure 18: EC135 flight test in Bremen

With respect to the Flight Technical Error (FTE), the results obtained with the tunnel display were better than those obtained with the bugs guidance concept. With the tunnel guidance concept, pilot stayed in almost 100% of the flight time from the IF down to the MAPt within the tunnel (tunnel dimensions 80m x 60m). Using the bugs display, pilots deviated in up to 15% of the flight trials more than 40 meters from the nominal flight path.

Pilots clearly expressed their preference for the tunnel display. They reported about a by far lower workload compared to the bugs display. With the tunnel display, this rather complex procedure, that includes steep and curved segments in addition to speed reductions during the curve, is flyable without further automation. The tunnel itself provided sufficient situation awareness.

In the first 27 approaches, required times of arrival (RTAs) have been given for the MAPt to verify the 4D capability of the FMS. Pilots have been able to achieve this RTA with an accuracy of less than 5 seconds.

To conclude, the trials showed that:

• The developed curved approach procedure is flyable

• With the tunnel display this rather complex procedure is flyable without further automation and with a sufficient accuracy and an acceptable level of workload.

• The tunnel itself provided sufficient situation awareness.

• With additional speed guidance information, the procedure can be flown with a very good 4D accuracy (less than 5 seconds).

8.2.3 EC145 developments and flight tests

The curved and steep approach procedures developed for Bremen and Toulouse have been adapted to the helipad of Donauwoerth to be flown with the Eurocopter EC 145 test helicopter.

The first campaign test flights in January 2008 were flown manually, with only basic stabilization support. The second campaign trials in June 2008 were executed with the support of a 4-axis automatic flight control system (AFCS). The main results were the following:

• The evaluated approaches can be flown safely on the EC145, thanks to the support of the 4-axis AFCS. Moreover both procedures have been designed in a way that they can also be flown manually in case of loss of the autopilot.

• The automatic approaches showed higher accuracy.

• The steep approach (both the full 9° slope and the dual 3°/9°slope) is accepted by test pilots as flyable and is a procedure which can be executed without imposing additional workload to the crew as long as the approach speed is kept in the appropriate range.

• The SBAS proved itself to provide adequate position data for the execution of curved and steep approaches for helicopter IFR approaches.

• The tunnel symbology is a valuable method to present the desired flight path and the deviation to the crew. A deviation can be depicted intuitively so that adequate countermeasures can be initiated by the pilot. During the automatic flight the tunnel provides a useful means to monitor the approach.



Figure 19: EC145 flight test in Donauwoerth

8.2.4 ATM integration evaluations

In addition to the flight trials described above, integrated ATM simulations have been performed in order to assess on one hand the capacity benefits of SNI procedures and on the other hand the operational acceptability of such procedures for controllers and pilots.

A first set of simulations consisted in real-time evaluations whereby NLR’s fixed-base helicopter simulator HPS (Helicopter Pilot Station) and later Eurocopter’s SPHERE helicopter simulator were coupled to NLR’s tower research simulator NARSIM, with the aim of performing integrated tests of new steep IFR rotorcraft procedures.

Subject of investigation was the acceptability by both ATC and helicopter pilots alike of a helicopter Approach Procedure with Vertical guidance ‘APV’, set up as a Simultaneous Non-Interfering ‘SNI’ procedure, to be flown together with operations of fixed-wing aircraft onto/from the same airport. This SNI procedure has been tested within a simulated busy large main airport environment, for which the Amsterdam airport visual database was used. The glideslope of the APV procedure was set at quite a steep value, viz. 7.5º. Three novel pilot guidance display concepts, viz. the so-called ‘RNAV-ILS’, ‘ILS-one’ and ‘ILS-squared’ display, were also evaluated in terms of accuracy and flyability. Three pilots and 3 ATC-controllers participated in the exercise, which took a total of 3 days. Four scenarios were tested, viz. 1) daylight baseline (ILS), 2) daylight SNI, 3) night time SNI, and 4) daylight SNI with missed approaches.

The results of the IFR-SNI real time simulations indicated the following:

• The IFR-SNI approach procedures could increase the ATCo’s workload, especially the physical and the temporal demands were higher than for the baseline procedure. Every new procedure will always lead to higher workloads, until the ATCo’s have learned to handle the new procedure, after which a more fundamentally correct assessment of workload can be made.

• The airport’s capacity, in terms of number of movements, clearly increased with the SNI procedure in operation, by about 11% compared to the baseline situation.

• Regarding operation, the pilot workload was somewhat higher for the SNI procedure than for the baseline procedure, but this is to be expected for any new procedure that involves novel features. In general the SNI procedure was well accepted by the pilots, but the missed approach was at best neutrally accepted or not accepted (rejected). However, the ATCos tended to reject the SNI procedure, depending upon visibility conditions, and alterations should be made. Their major comments concerned the poor non-interfering performance of the procedure (see next paragraph).

• Regarding performance, the SNI procedure proved to be not truly Non-Interfering, in that the approach path converged on the ILS approach path towards the airport. Also departing traffic on some departure routes had to be delayed because of possible altitude conflicts with the 3000 ft initial approach altitude.

• Regarding flyability, of the three (lateral) guidance displays, the one with the lowest rated usefulness was the RNAV-ILS guidance display. Pilots did not agree unanimously on which was the best one, but two out of three pilots nominated the ILS-squared display as the best. It also required the lowest workload and had the best (lateral) performance, certainly with regard to the lateral navigational accuracy on final or when passing the Final Roll Out Point, especially in moderate crosswind.



Another set of simulations consisted in capacity and workload-oriented real time simulations on the DLR Radar Simulator ATMOS and the Helicopter-Cockpit Simulator for the IFR rotorcraft SNI approach procedure on a single runway system at Bremen airport.

Two active controllers from airport Bremen (EDDW, single RWY) supported the simulation and acted as approach controllers in interchanging roles, as 'pickup' and as 'feeder'. A high traffic approach scenario (fixed wing only) has been chosen as a reference scenario. Up to 8 rotorcraft movements an hour have been added in the various simulation runs, either as additional movements via the SNI-routes or as replacement of fixed wing traffic on the standard IFR approach using the ILS.

The following main results have been obtained from the real time simulations:

• Eight additional rotorcraft IFR movements per hour via SNI even in high traffic load are manageable without impacting fixed wing traffic – a throughput of up to 45 arrivals an hour have been achieved;

• There is a decrease in traffic throughput if rotorcrafts have to use ILS straight-in approaches together with fixed wing traffic;

• The approach controllers developed a good understanding of the SNI principle;

• The controllers developed the following task sharing for SNI operations:

• Fixed Wing Traffic was controlled using the standard Pickup + Feeder concept;

• The additional rotorcraft traffic on the SNI routes only were controlled by Pickup down to the transfer to TWR;

• Missed approaches of SNI rotorcraft did not add extra problems for Approach Controller. They handled them in a rather efficient manner as missed approaches of fixed wing traffic.

8.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The OPTIMAL research program allowed to successfully achieve many experiments and tests which demonstrate the flyablilty, the benefits and the integration in ATM of the rotorcraft specific procedures studied (steep, curved, LPV, SNI). These rotorcraft specific procedures are key enabler for improving rotorcraft integration at airports as:

• they provide a cleaner environment thanks to noise footprint reduction

• they increase airport’s capacity (passenger throughput)

• they improve safety thanks to vertical guidance

This is achievable using:

• steep & curved procedures using GBAS or SBAS guidance

• independent Rotorcraft and Aircraft traffic flows (SNI)

OPTIMAL project recommend to consider these procedures for future European ATM developed in SESAR; the required guidance means are already validated and similar procedures are already FAA-approved in the USA (mainly GPS NPAs, but vertical guidance is in progress through WAAS). Therefore the main recommendation is to include them in SESAR SL1 for operational availability shortly after start of EGNOS service (2010).



9 GROUND FUNCTIONS AND ATC TOOLS Within OPTIMAL, some specific ground functions and ATC tools were developed in order to support the procedures described in the previous paragraphs with the following objectives:

• Better support the procedures developed in OPTIMAL

• Reduce the Air Traffic Controller workload

• Improve the overall safety level

This paragraph present the main achievements and results, more information can be found in Ref.R7.

9.1 EGNOS/ATC INTERFACE In order to support the implementation of SBAS-based advanced approach procedures, a prototype was developed by AENA in order to provide the ATC controller and the AIS (Aeronautical Information System) with operational data regarding the status of the GPS constellation and the geostationary satellites. The work conducted in OPTIMAL consisted in the operational Description, the definition of the Specifications for the EGNOS / ATC interface, the EGNOS/ATC interface development and the experimental Implementation of the EGNOS/ATC interface an ATC environment. More detailed technical information can be found in Ref.R8.

9.2 IMPROVED ARRIVAL MANAGEMENT TOOLS 9.2.1 Time-based AMAN to support Dual Threshold operations

In order to support dual threshold operations described in section 6, an improved AMAN has been developed; it consisted in improving the existing DLR AMAN called 4D-CARMA by adding trajectory-based advisories. The simulations done to assess the dual threshold operations have shown that introducing the advanced AMAN and ADCO planning systems resulted in no significant decrease of controller workload but a decrease in ATCO-Pilot Communications; the departure capacity drop down is compensated and the arrival and departure efficiency is increased.

9.2.2 Improved AMAN to support ACDA operations In order to support ACDA operations described in section 3, an improved AMAN was developed; it consisted in enhancing the existing NLR AMAN to improve accuracy, predictability and to ensure conflict free plan. The simulations done to assess the ACDA operations showed that introducing the advanced AMAN was useful to achieve accurate time based operations; the early accurate planning capabilities and the interactive assignment of RTA and arrival route (via datalink) was much appreciated.

9.3 CONVERGING RUNWAYS AND FINAL APPROACH DISPLAYS AID Another tool developed to support ACDA operation is called CORADA (Converging runways and final approach displays aid). It supports ATCos in achieving required separation for merging flows by projecting ghosts on routes. The simulations done to assess the ACDA operations by introducing the CORADA showed good results with TMA operations but sometimes confusing information compared to AMAN desired ETAs.

9.4 ADVANCED SAFETY NETS AND MONITORING AIDS The safety nets contribute to improve safety and are especially important in Approach areas but their implementation is more difficult in such areas (more complex operations, higher density). Within OPTIMAL, some ground-based Safety Nets used for Approach operations have been improved to decrease the number of false alerts and to detect the true alerts earlier. The improved ground functions are:

• Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA), including Real-time monitoring of aircraft in final approach to cope with parallel runways

• Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW)

• Wake Turbulence Encounter Advisory (WTEA)

A method and a supporting tool enabling to accurately assess the safety nets behaviour were also developed.

The classical STCA have some limitations due to the fact that they predict the trajectories of the aircraft by linearly extrapolating their current state vector, using basic radar surveillance data. As the trajectories are not



necessarily straight lines, there is a risk of false alerts that can decrease the trust of the controllers in the STCA. The solutions investigated in OPTIMAL aim at reducing false alerts by improving the trajectory prediction through implementation of multi-hypothesis algorithms and use of aircraft derived data.

Figure 20: Multi-hypothesis algorithms example

In order to assess these enhanced ground functions, some real time simulations with air traffic controllers were performed by Thales Air Systems and the following conclusions have been drawn up:

The ATC Operational experts gave a positive feedback on the OPTIMAL enhancements relative to the diminution of the false alarm rate either in STCA or MSAW. Indeed, this increases their confidence in such functionality, relieving them from analysing alarm raised by Safety Nets to state whether they are false or genuine alarm. This saves them more time to focus on their own traffic control missions and on the specific Safety Nets topic, to determine the best resolution on occurrence of a genuine alarm.

In addition the WTEA function has been appreciated by ATC Operational experts. This functionality allows them to obtain a real time confirmation that the separation applied between two aircraft meets the ICAO separation standard, while warning them in case this one will no more be fulfilled in a short time frame.

Besides, some trials with live data are necessary to confirm the results obtained in simulation. Regarding the WTEA the ATC Operational experts believe that the integration of meteorological data (e.g. forecast and now cast) or real wake vortex data in the Safety Nets would benefit for ground control. Moreover a statistical approach using real data for Ground Based Safety Nets evaluation will be a plus. Nevertheless, some possible enhancements (e.g. implementation of SID and STARS patterns hypotheses, Holding patterns, Alarm delay mechanisms, …) would be of interest in dedicated configuration.



10 CONCLUSION The OPTIMAL project successfully ended on the 31st of October 2008. The following global conclusions can be drawn:

• All main activities in terms of studies, developments and tests defined in the initial contract were carried out in the frame of the project, albeit with a slight delay.

• All project objectives were met and OPTIMAL demonstrated that the studied procedures provide in general the expected benefits in terms of capacity, safety and/or environmental impact and that the procedures are feasible.

• The OPTIMAL results were disseminated during the whole duration of the project, especially through the successful final user forum in June 2008. (Refer to Appendix 2: Dissemination).

• All OPTIMAL partners acknowledge the very good and fruitful cooperation within the consortium and the management team thanks the 24 partners for their involvement and their cooperative spirit to meet the project objectives.

• To conclude, the OPTIMAL project delivered some validated, innovative concepts and promising results, which will certainly contribute to the SESAR JU and the implementation of the future European ATM system.



APPENDIX 1: OPTIMAL DELIVERABLES

WP 1 : Operational Concept (DLR)

ID Deliverable Title Responsible Dessimination level

D1.0 WP1 Operational Concept - Final Report DLR Public

D1.1 State-of-the-art DLR Public

D1.2 Operational Concept EEC Public

D1.3 Generic Operational Scenarios DLR Public

WP2 : Procedures Definition, Development & Design (INE)


D2.0 Final WP2 report including guidelines and recommendations INE Public

D2.1 Methodology and overall criteria for the design and development of procedures INE Confidential

D2.2-1-0 Aircraft procedures definition - Master document INE Public

D2.2-1-1 Aircraft procedures definition - ACDA NLR Public

D2.2-1-2 Aircraft procedures definition - DT DLR Public

D2.2-1-3 Aircraft procedures definition - EVS DLR Public

D2.2-1-4 Aircraft procedures definition - APV ABAS AIF Public

D2.2-1-5 Aircraft procedures definition - APV SBAS procedure INE Public

D2.2-1-5 Aircraft procedures definition - APV SBAS safety assessment INE Public

D2.2-1-6 Aircraft procedures definition - PA GBAS procedure INE Public

D2.2-1-6 Aircraft procedures definition - PA GBAS safety assessment INE Public

D2.2-1-7 Aircraft procedures definition - PA MLS ENA/SIC Confidential



D2.2-1-8 Aircraft procedures definition - RNP RNAV INE Public

D2.2-1-9 Aircraft procedures definition - Curved RNP RNAV INE Public

D2.2-1-10 Aircraft procedures definition - Segmented RNP RNAV INE Public

D2.2-2 Requirements for the implementation of OPTIMAL aircraft procedures INE Confidential

D2.2-3 Proposal for aircraft procedures standardisation INE Public

D2.3-1 Rotorcraft procedures definition NLR Public

D2.3-2 Requirements for the implementation of OPTIMAL rotorcraft procedures UoL Confidential

D2.3-3-draft Rotorcraft flight dynamics - draft UoL Confidential

D2.3-3 Rotorcraft flight dynamics (Final) UoL Public

D2.3-4 Proposal for rotorcraft procedures standardisation NLR Public

D2.4-0 Detailed procedures definition - Master document INE Public

D2.4-1 Malaga specific procedures INE Public

D2.4-2 San Sebastian specific procedures INE Public

D2.4-3 Toulouse and Nice approach procedures AIF Public

D2.4-4 Frankfurt DT approach procedures DLR Public

D2.4-5 Bremen ACDA approach procedures DLR Public

D2.4-6 Schiphol ACDA approach procedures NLR Public

D2.4-7 Toulouse rotorcraft procedures ECF Public

D2.4-8 Bremen rotorcraft procedures DLR Public

D2.4-9 Milan MLS approach procedures ENA/SIC Public

D2.4-10 Zurich EVS approach procedures DLR Public

D2.4-11 Schiphol Rotorcraft SNI procedures NLR Public

WP3 : Aircraft developments (AIF)


D3.0-1 WP3 Development plan AIF Confidential

D3.1-4 WP3 contribution to normalization/standardization AIF Public



D3.2-1 Description of crew/system task allocation including results of human factors assessments AIF Public

D.3.3-0 Description of Aena Experimental Aircraft AEN Public

D.3.3-1 Description of Beechcraft Equipment Upgrading AEN Confidential

D.3.3-2 New functionalities included in the console for data acquisition AEN Confidential

D.3.3-3 New functionalities of the post-processing system AEN Confidential

D3.4-1 4D ACDA capable experimental FMS from the ATTAS DLR Confidential

WP4 : Rotorcraft developments (ECF)


D4.1 Functional Analysis & High Level System Specification ECF Confidential

D4.2.1 Architecture objectives ECF Confidential

D4.2.3 System Architecture Specification for future rotorcraft ECF Public

D4.4.1 System segment specification of GBAS/SBAS receiver TAV Confidential

D4.4.2 Test report of the prototype GBAS/SBAS receiver TAV Confidential

D4.5.1 Description of SPHERE – TRS/NARSIM coupling ECF Confidential

D4.6.1 Test report of EC155 technical flights ECF Confidential

D4.6.2 Test report of EC135 technical flights DLR Confidential

WP5 : Ground functions development (TAT)


D5.0.1 WP5 Final Report TAT Public

D5.1.1 Guidelines for development of ground functions within the OPTIMAL project TAT Public

D5.1.2 Final list of ground functions to be developed and validated in OPTIMAL project TAT Public

D5.2.4 Technical Requirements for Malaga GBAS Ground Station Upgrading AEN Confidential

D5.2.5 Analysis of the different between GBAS FAA Specs & GBAS MOPS AEN Public

D5.2.6 Proposed Roadmap for the Operational Certification of Malaga GBAS GS AEN Public



D5.2.8 GBAS Malaga Performance Analysis ERC Public

D5.3.1 Specifications for EGNOS/ATC Interface AEN Public

D5.3.2 Plan for stand-alone verification EGNOS/ATC Interface AEN Confidential

D5.3.3 Verification report for EGNOS/ATC interface AEN Confidential

D5.4.1 AMAN Functional Description DLR Confidential

D5.4.2 AMAN Plan for standalone verification DLR Confidential

D5.4.3 AMAN verification results DLR Confidential

D5.5.1 System Specification TAT Confidential

D5.5.2 Results of stand-alone tests of developed components TAT Confidential

D5.5.3 Identification of ATM-related Reference Standardization documents and proposed changes TAT Confidential

D5.6.1 CORADA System Requirements and Functional Design Document NLR Confidential

D5.6.2 CORADA Stand Alone Verification Plan INE Confidential

D5.6.3 CORADA Verification Results DLR Confidential

WP6 : Validations & conclusions (ISD)


D.6.1 Validation Platform Requirements, Metrics and Hypotheses ISD Public

D.6.2 Overall Validation Plan ISD Public

D.6.3 Validation Exercise Results Analysis ISD Public

D.6.4 Validation Conclusions ISD Public

WP7 : Exercise Management & Support (NLR)


D7.1.1-1 Safety case for curved and segmented procedures ERC Confidential

D7.1.1-2 Operational safety assessment of GBAS & SBAS flight trials AEN Confidential

D7.1.1-3 Safety aspects of Advanced Continuous Descent Approaches at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol NLR Confidential

D7.1.2-1 CDA noise benefits on single event and airport scale for Airbus aircraft AIF Confidential



D7.1.2-2 Noise footprint data for Eurocopter EC155 IFR rotorcraft procedures ECF Confidential

D7.1.2-3 Malaga airport environmental assessment data AEN Confidential

D7.1.2-4 San Sebastian airport environmental assessment data AEN Confidential

D7.1.2-5 Schiphol airport environmental assessment data NLR Confidential

D 7.1.4 San Sebastian SBAS Cost Benefit Analysis ISD Confidential

D7.2-1 Malaga Airport capacity simulation results AEN Confidential

D7.2-2 San Sebastian Airport capacity simulation results AEN Confidential

D7.2-3 Schiphol Airport capacity simulation results NLR Confidential

D7.3.1-1 a) A320 CDA real-time flight simulation report b) A320 low RNP real-time flight simulation report AIF Confidential

D7.3.1-2 NLR GRACE/NARSIM ACDA real-time flight simulation report NLR Confidential

D7.3.2-1 RNAV Curved/Segmented Approach Procedures with a Transition to ILS Flight Simulation Report INE Confidential

D7.3.2-2 Eurocontrol real-time safety oriented simulation of curved/segmented approach procedures EEC Confidential

D7.3.3-1 NLR/Eurocopter rotorcraft SNI approach operations ATC/flight simulation report NLR Confidential

D7.3.3-2 Bremen rotorcraft SNI ATC/flight simulation report DLR Confidential

D7.3.4-1 a) Frankfurt DTOP ATC/flight simulation report b) Zurich EVS flight simulation report DLR Confidential

D7.3.5-1 Safety nets and monitoring aids simulation report TAT Confidential

D7.4.1-1 Toulouse airport A320 CDA flight test report AIF Confidential

D7.4.1-2 Bremen airport ATTAS CDA flight test report DLR Confidential

D7.4.2-1 Malaga airport GBAS Cat-I straight-in flight test report AEN Confidential

D7.4.2-2 San Sebastian airport SBAS APV flight test report AEN Confidential

D7.4.2-3 Toulouse/Malaga airports A320 GBAS Cat-1 flight test report AIF Confidential

D7.4.3-1 Toulouse airport EC155 SNI approach flight test report ECF Confidential

D7.4.3-2 Bremen airport EC135 flight test report DLR Confidential

D7.4.4-1 Toulouse airport A320 low RNP flight test report AIF Confidential

D7.4.5-1 Toulouse airport A320 Autonomous FLS flight test report AIF Confidential

D7.4.3.3 Donauwoerth EC145 flight test report ECD Confidential



WP8 : Exploitation, Normalisation, Standardisation & Recommendations (ERC)


D8.1-Draft Draft exploitation and implementation Plan INE Confidential

D8.1 Exploitation and implementation Plan INE Confidential

D8.2-Draft Draft Guidelines and methodologies for proposed standardizations based on OPTIMAL developments” AEN Confidential

D8.2 Guidelines and methodologies for proposed standardizations based on OPTIMAL developments” AEN Public

D8.3 Final recommendations EEC Public



APPENDIX 2: DISSEMINATION

Actual Dates

Event

Partner responsible /involved

Permanent OPTIMAL web site (public part) Isdefe and AIF with the

cooperation of all the other OPTIMAL partners

Permanent OPTIMAL leaflet and poster AIF

18-19 October 04 1st OPTIMAL User Forum: presentation of concept of operations DLR and other WP1 partners

March 2005 CORDIS web site (Aeronautics synopsis of FP6)

AIF with the participation of the consortium

6 September 2005 “Journées du Réseau Scientifique et

Technique » organised by French Ministry of Equipment

Eurocopter France

13-15 September 2005 31st European Rotorcraft Forum University of Liverpool

25-26 October 2005 2nd OPTIMAL User Forum: presentation of new / enhanced procedures

AIF & INECO with the participation of the consortium

8-9 November 2005 « Académie Nationale de l'Air et de l'Espace » international colloquium Eurocopter France

16 November 2005 Helicopter Sub Sectorial Team Eurocopter France

2 December 2005 Article in French review “Air & Cosmos” Eurocopter France

9 December 2005 Presentation to ACNUSA AIF, ECF

29-31 March 2006 NPA-OPS 41 workshop DLR

7-8 April 2006 Helicopter study weekend, University of Glasgow University of Liverpool

3 May 2006 RNAV Approach Focus Group AENA

16 May 2006 Presentation to DGAC AIF

19-21 June 2006 Aeronautics Days AIF

12-14 September 2006 32nd European Rotorcraft Forum University of Liverpool and ONERA

20-21 November 2006 AERONET III Green Flight Workshop NLR

8 December 2006 Presentation to Iran delegation EUROCONTROL

June 2007 ANERS (Aircraft noise and emissions reduction symposium) NLR

June 2007 Article in the French magazine “Le transpondeur” ECF

July 2007 November 2007 Parliament magazine PMC, Airbus



Actual Dates

Event

Partner responsible /involved

21 October 2007 DASC (26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference) DLR

January 2008 July 2008 AENA internal magazine AENA, Airbus

March 2008 Enhanced and synthetic vision conference, SPIE DLR

23 April 2008 ENC –GNSS Airbus, AENA

29 April 2008 AHS (American Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum) ECF

April 2008 AWOHWG, All Weather Operation working group DLR

21 May 2008 ATTower User Group EUROCONTROL

25- 26 June 2008 OPTIMAL final user forum EUROCONTROL and OPTIMAL consortium

28 June 2008 RATF, RNAV Approach Task Force Airbus, INECO

June 2008 LATO, Landing and Take-off working group EUROCONTROL

September 2008 ICAS, 26th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences NLR, Thales

14-19 September 2008 34th European Rotorcraft Forum NLR, DLR

14-15 October 2008 ISPA 2008 - International Symposium on Precision Approach DLR

22-24 October 2008 ODAS 2008 - Onera-DLR Aerospace Symposium DLR, NLR

22-24 October 2008 EUROCONTROL annual safety R&D Seminar EUROCONTROL

OPTIMAL web site Access to the public part of the web site: http://www.optimal.isdefe.es/. See Appendix 3: OPTIMAL public web site. OPTIMAL Leaflet and poster A poster and a leaflet presenting OPTIMAL in general terms have been created to promote the project. Journées du Réseau Scientifique et Technique Optimal has been presnted in the frame of the satellite positioning session. 31st European Rotorcraft Forum The University of Liverpool made a presentation on: “Vortex Wake Encounter Severity for Rotorcraft in Approach and Landing”. (OPTIMAL WP2.3.5). 2nd OPTIMAL User Forum




The objective of this second User Forum was to present the work carried out within the OPTIMAL project to the aeronautical community and to work/discuss on the new Approach & Landing procedures. It aimed at ensuring that the new procedures to be developed within OPTIMAL were sufficiently described and understood, and consistent with the aeronautical community ideas. « Académie Nationale de l'Air et de l'Espace » colloquium (ANAE) The Rotorcraft IFR GNSS procedures developed within OPTIMAL have been presented during the Helicopter symposium. JAA / Helicopter Sub Sectorial Team OPTIMAL project has been presented to this group who in charge to establish the JAR/OPS regulations for helicopters. Article in French review “Air & Cosmos” Following the ANAE colloquium, an article has been released on the rotorcraft IFR procedures developed within OPTIMAL. Presentation to ACNUSA ACNUSA is a French authority in charge of controlling the airports noise nuisance. The main objective was to present the OPTIMAL project and flight tests that will be performed in Toulouse in order to have ACNUSA agreement. This presentation was also an opportunity to present to French public authorities the new aircraft and rotorcraft procedures developed in Optimal. NPA-OPS 41 workshop Presentation of the OPTIMAL EVS concept to the All Weather Operation Harmonization Working Group. Helicopter study weekend Presentation of the OPTIMAL wake vortex research. RNAV Approach Focus group Presentation of the OPTIMAL EGNOS ATC Interface (WP5.3) to the RAFG. Presentation to DGAC Presentation of the main objectives, the status and the main achievements of OPTIMAL project. Aeronautic Days Presentation of the main objectives, the status and the main achievements of OPTIMAL project. 32nd European Rotorcraft Forum The University of Liverpool and ONERA made a presentation on: “Rotorcraft Wake Vortex Encounters: A Flight Mechanics perspective”. (OPTIMAL WP2.3.5) The NLR made a presentation on “Design and execution of piloted simulation tests of steep segmented and curved rotorcraft IFR procedures at NLR” and displayed the helicopter pilot station. AERONET III Green Flight Workshop NLR presented the ACDA at this workshop.

Presentation to Iran delegation Presentation of the main objectives, the status and the main achievements of OPTIMAL project. ANERS Presentation of a poster regarding OPTIMAL CDA benefits. Article in Le transpondeur



Article related to rotorcraft SNI procedures. Parliament magazine Articles related to CDA and SNI rotorcraft approaches. DASC Presentation about EVS.

AENA internal magazine Two articles related to GBAS flight trials in Malaga. SPIE Presentation about EVS. ENC-GNSS Presentation about Airbus A320 GBAS CAT I flight trials at Malaga airport. AHS Presentation about IFR Steep Approaches using SBAS and GBAS guidance.

AWOHWG Presentation about EVS. ATTower User Group Presentation about safety oriented real-time simulation of RNAV curved approaches for Malaga. OPTIMAL final user forum Presentation of the OPTIMAL results. RATF Presentation of OPTIMAL RNP approaches.

LATO Presentation about GBAS Malaga performance. ICAS 1 presentation about CDA approaches. 1 presentation highlighting some results obtained in OPTIMAL in simulation of noise impact reduction obtained with CDAs. 33rd European Rotorcraft Forum Presentation of the Evaluation of a steep curved rotorcraft IFR procedure in a helicopter-ATC integrated simulation test and presentation about 4d curved approaches for SNI operations.

ISPA 2008 Presentations about EVS and 4D rotorcraft curved approaches.

ODAS 2008 Presentation about CDA and rotorcraft curved approaches.

EURONCONTROL annual safety seminar Presentation about safety ATC manned simulations for RNP-RNAV curved approaches



APPENDIX 3: OPTIMAL PUBLIC WEB SITE

www.optimal.isdefe.es

The OPTIMAL public web site (Ref.R12) is the ultimate place to find and download:

• A detailed presentation of the project

• All OPTIMAL public deliverables

• All OPTIMAL user forums presentations


Documents

OPTIMAL final publishable report - transport-research.infotransport-research.info/.../documents/...Final_publishable_report.pdf · Airbus France Status: ... OPTIMAL final publishable