TUG CNS TF

Overview

SA CAT I/II

3

SA Cat II, SA Cat I, 1800 RVR Cat I (ILS)

150 ft DH

GS Antenna

Threshold

200 ft DH

2400 RVR, Std Cat I

1400 RVR, SA Cat I

1800 RVR, Cat

I/LPV<250’HAT

100 ft DH

1200 RVR, SA CAT II

AC: Autopilot (AP) or Flight Director (FD) or HUD to DA

GRD: RVR (1)

All benefits achieved with MALSR lighting only.

No ALSF-2 required for SA Cat II. Immediate savings

on order of $6M; difference in price of MALSR and ALSF-2 systems.

AC: HUD to DH

GRD: RVR (1)

AC: AL or HUD to Touchdown

GRD: RVR (2)

2011 forward:

•SA CAT I – 142 eligible now

– 28 need RVR install

•SA CAT II – 38 eligible now*

– 48 need LOC ant.

Upgrade=$2.4 M

*165% Increase in CAT II

Special Authorization (SA) CAT I

• 150 DH (RA), 1400 RVR CAT I minima

• Requires:

– HIRL and MALSR, SSALR, or ALSF

– Unrestricted CAT I ILS

– Use of HUD to DH

– OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA approval (C052)

• Will reduce CAT I mins at

162 CAT II/III runways

– 94 additional CAT I candidates

Special Authorization (SA)

CAT I

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_or

g/headquarters_offices/avs/office

s/afs/afs400/afs410/

Special Authorization (SA) CAT II

• TDZL, RCL, and ALSF-2 not required

• Requires:

ILS flight checked to CAT II standards

HIRL and MALSR, SSALR, or ALSF

OpSpec/MSpec/LOA (C059)

Chart Note: Reduced Lighting: Requires specific OpSpec, MSpec, or LOA approval and autoland or HUD to touchdown.

Special Authorization

(SA) CAT II

Potential US Special Authorization CAT II

142 Additional

Approaches

0

50

100

150

200RVR Added

Potential WithNo AdditionalRVRs

Current Cat II

40

44

98 +40

182 Total

98 +40

138

0

50

100

150

200

110 Additional

Airports

35

40 70 +35

145 Total

70 +35

105

SA CAT I/II Implementation • SA CAT I

– Add mins at existing CAT II/III locations

– New SA CAT I runways

• SA CAT II – Suitably equipped runways

– Runways that require equipment upgrades ($$$)

• Process – AWO coordinates with other FAA LOBs

– 18-24 month publication schedule

– ILS monitor and “burn-in” requirements

EFVS/SVS/CVS Update • EFVS to Touchdown Rulemaking:

– Draft preamble to NPRM/ Preliminary team concurrence due 12/2/11

– NPRM published mid 2012

• AC 90-106 –

– Revise/AC 90-EFVS to include guidance material and means of compliance for EFVS to Touchdown, dispatch relief, approach ban relief, new training requirements

– Delete airworthiness sections

• FAAO 8900.1 – Inspector Guidance --

– EFVS to 100 ft HATh:

– EFVS to Touchdown, Including Dispatch and Approach Ban Revisions:

• Guidance for Issuing OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C048/C348 --

– Inspector guidance for issuing C048/International Aviation

• LOA Issue for Part 91 Operators Conducting International Operations

• EFVS/SVS Research Requirements –

– EFVS to Touchdown and SVS on SA CAT I – develop research requirements and test points with NASA Langley for simulator study (crewed operations)

– SMGCS credit for EFVS/EVS – developing research requirements and test points with NASA Langley and Volpe to address symbology, charting, parallax and display placement evaluation for EVS HDD, and other operational considerations. (AJP-61 funding)

• SVS Proof of Concept –

– One submitted by an OEM. Coordinate with AIR-130, AFS-410, TAD, SAD, and cognizant ACO on a proof of concept for SVS on a SA CAT I approach

• New Initiatives: EVS/EFVS Low Vis Taxi/Takeoff Credit

AFS-410: Flight Operations Branch

Today

Emerging EFVS

Capabilities

SVS Primary

Flight Displays Combined

EFVS/SVS

Apr 1 - June 1, 2011 WAAS Quarterly PAN Report

Parameter CONUS

Site/Maximum

CONUS

Site/Minimum

Alaska

Site/Maximum

Alaska

Site/Minimum

95% Horizontal

Accuracy

Grand Forks

1.797 meters

Denver

0.527 meters

Barrow

0.612 meters

Juneau

.708 meters

95% Vertical

Accuracy

Grand Forks

2.2069 meters

Billings

0.822 meters

Kotzebue

1.45 meters

Juneau

1.094 meters

ADS-B

16

Implementation Status March 2012

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/flashma

p/

Fiscal Year-End Plan for 2012 – 500 Radio Stations (467 in CONUS; 33

AK)

424 Radio Stations Constructed (391 in CONUS; 33 in Alaska)

418 Radio Stations Reporting on the SBS Network (385 in CONUS; 33 in

AK)

75 Radio Stations Under Construction or in Final Design (75 in CONUS; 0

in AK)

371 Operational Radio Stations

Ground-Based Interval Management - Spacing

Purpose: Minimize vectoring during arrival

sequence and maximize the

opportunities for OPDs and FIM-S

operations

Goal: Achieve optimal spacing intervals

between arriving aircraft using an

ATC based spacing/metering tool

Objective: Ensure NAS implementation of GIM-S

functionality to begin benefits accrual

(GIM-S IOC)

Partners: TBFM, ERAM, ATO-E/T SOS, STARS

GIM-S System

Test Plan

Dec 2013

ERAM S/W

Delivery –

R4

Jan 2014

GIM-S IOC

Sep 2014

Complete

In Progress

Not Yet Started

Unfunded

Arrival IM-S

CONOPS

v1.5.1

Mar 2011

GIM-S

Req Docmt

v2.0

Nov 2011

TBFM

System

Design

Review

Nov 2011

Flight Deck Based Interval Management

Purpose: Reduce fuel burn, noise and emissions, while

maintaining high throughput and efficient flight

operations throughout the NAS

Goals: Develop and validate flight deck technology

to enable FIM-S Operations

Objective: Produce a FIM MOPS

Assist in certification of avionics

Assist one airline in obtaining Operational

approval with benefits accrual

Partners - US Airways, ACSS, UPS

FIM-S SPR

Mar 2011

3rd Party

Flight ID

(TFID)

Final Report

Feb 2013

ARC

Final Report

Nov 2011

Complete

In Progress

Not Yet Started

Unfunded

IM CONOPS

v3.0

June 2012

FIM

MOPS

Sept 2013

ITP Application Overview Purpose: Provide operational benefits in non-surveillance airspace by

enabling “in-trail” climbs/descents at reduced separation distances

Goal: Employ ITP in oceanic air carrier operations (revenue service)

Objectives: Validate operational performance and economic benefits of ITP

Develop and validate ADS-B ITP MOPS material

Partners: United Airlines,

Honeywell, Goodrich,

Airservices Australia,

Airways Corp NZ

FL360

FL340

FL350

Desired Altitude

Standard Separation

ITP Separation

Standard

Operational

Approval

August 2011

Begin Flight

Evaluation

August 2011

Expand into

PACOTS

Dec 2011

ITP MOPS

Approval

Dec 2011

Complete

In Progress

Not Yet Started

ITP Operational

Evaluation Completed

August 2012

Data Analysis

Results

(Interim)

March 2012

Next Steps • Develop Business Case for Next Useful Segment 2014 to 2020

• Continue Requirements Development / Validation for ADS-B Airborne Applications (i.e. In Trail Procedures, Traffic Situation Awareness with Alerts, and Flight Deck Interval Management)

• Incentivize Aircraft Retrofits and Forward Fit with MOA’s

• Review Alliances and Private – Public Partnerships

– Virginia Department of Transportation (Leesburg)

– Colorado Department of Transportation (Blended Airspace Concept)

– Boeing / United Airlines / Rockwell Collins

• Begin to transition work funded through the F&E Account to Operations:

– SBS Monitor by FY2014

– WAM Phase I (Juneau and Colorado) by FY2014

– Subscription charges on an incremental basis from FY2016 through FY2020

PBN

25

26

Current Status of PBN Projects

PBN Inventory: 483 RNAV SIDs/STARs; 305 RNP ARs; 297 RNAV

routes include 91 En route (Q), 77 Low Altitude (T) and 2 helicopter

(TK)

Over 9,000 LPV’s, LNAV/VNAV and GPS procedures

Q-Routes Status

Q-routes inventory (light blue) – 91 – including recently developed ZNY

routes

ZSE and ZAU routes under development

Streamlined naming/numbering allocation

RNAV STAR – RNP AR Merge

Increases efficiency and shortens initial segments

Allows continuous flight path to runway

Reduces ATC and Pilot workload

Eliminates crossing of parallel runways and runway transition branches

De-conflicts airspace (over-flight corridor)

Suitably equipped and authorized operators will reap significant benefits from the vertical profiles and reduced track miles of these integrated PBN flight procedures

Projects underway at SEA, RDU, MCO, IND, ELP, PBI, BHM, MSP, JAX, SAV, ABQ and OKC

RNP SID Prototype Projects • RNP departure procedures and

operations are not available today

• PBN P&S Group is developing pilot projects for five airports (ATL, BOS, PSP, CLT & LAS) to evaluate RNP standard instrument departure prototypes

• RNP SIDs will enhance path predictability and de-conflicting capability – RF legs featured

• CPARK RNP SID at ATL under development - will keep heavy jets away from noise sensitive areas – November 2012

CPARK RNP SID at ATL

OAPM

30

Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM)

• Takes a systems approach to PBN initiatives and airspace design

• Provides a geographic focus to problem solving

• Delivers an expedited process for integrated airspace and procedures efforts

• Uses collaborative FAA and Industry teams

• Uses an educated prioritization process

• Enables predictable and repeatable flight paths

• Reduces task complexity while maximizing safety and efficiency

31

OAPM: Current Timeline

3 6-9 months 12-18 months for EA 9-15 months 3-6

Scope of effort defined

Alternative designs

developed

Design and Procedure

Development

Operational and Environmental

Review

Implementation and

Training

Post-Implementation Review and Modifications

Study and

Scoping

Preferred design determined

Implementation completed

Study Design and Implementation

Key Decision Points

Time associated with decision points may be several weeks to months Total elapsed time averaging approximately 3 years

Note: Environmental involvement required at all stages of the process

32

Proposed OAPM Schedule

• Proposed plan meets commitment to implement changes and provide benefits at all sites by 2017

• Streamlining techniques from Houston Pilot may be applied to future sites to further accelerate benefits

DC D D D D E E E E E I I I I P P

No Tex D D D E E E E E I I I I P P

Charlotte S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P

No Cal S D D D E E E E E E I I I I P P

Houston S S D D E E I I I I P P

Atlanta S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P

So Cal S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P

Florida S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P

Chicago S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P P

Phoenix S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P P

Memphis S S D D D D E E E E I I I I P P P

Cleveland /Detroit S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P P

Boston S S D D D E E E E E I I I I P P P

Key

S Study

D Design

E Evaluate

I Implement

P Post Eval

33

Supporting OAPM Projects

OAPM Project PBN or Legacy Airspace Project

OAPM projects implement Integrated PBN procedures at major airports

Washington, North Texas, Charlotte and Northern California, Houston studies are complete – Design work initiated

Study Team work underway at Atlanta and Southern California

Non-AR RNP approach with RF – first site?

PDC

36

disclaimer

• PDCs were designed by engineers without pilot input

• PDCs work as engineered

• PDCs display routing information as they are contained in the HOST automation

• PDCs are not in parallel with voice communicated clearances

• SID does not always first item on clearance

• En route transitions are not clearly identified

TERPZ2 RNAV SID - KBWI

• More than a dozen aircraft have departed on the TERPZ2 and have failed to program the en route transition on the SID

• This results in bypassing several waypoints, followed by a pilot deviation

• Historically, this has been an issue in Boeing and MD FMS’s

• Several similar issues reported on the NOBLY DP in DFW

PDC does not specify “Transition”

Open to interpretation

Most common PDC Departure Issue

The SID is buried at the bottom of the PDC

But are you

“cleared as

filed?”

Las Vegas

LAS Mitigations

• Delta Air Lines does not file the SID

• SID is not contained on pilot’s flight release

• PDC becomes soul source for SID reference

• LAS ATCT reached out to operators to file STAAV DP as the default for the appropriate transitions

• Results

• 10 – 15 deviations per month reduced to 1 in 120 days

Canadian RNAV Phraseology

restric

New Canadian SID and STAR Phraseology

On February 9, 2012, Canada will implement SID / STAR phraseology requiring aircraft to comply with published SID / STAR

altitude restrictions unless specifically cancelled by ATC. This change differs from FAA procedures outlined in AIM 4-4-10g

which states that any new altitude clearance cancels any previous altitude restriction unless that restriction is restated. To

summarize:

In Canada, an aircraft assigned a new altitude on a SID / STAR is still expected to comply with all altitude restrictions.

In the US, an aircraft assigned a new altitude on a SID / STAR deletes all published altitude restrictions.

Canadian and US phraseology differences that are summarized in the tables below:

ATC Instructions - FAA FAA Requirements DESCEND VIA (STAR Designation) Requires the aircraft to navigate laterally and vertically to meet all published

restrictions depicted on the STAR.

(Aircraft already on a STAR) DESCEND

AND MAINTAIN (altitude)

Aircraft may descend unrestricted to the assigned altitude unless published

restrictions are reissued.

COMPLY WITH RESTRICTIONS Aircraft must comply with all published restrictions. May be used in lieu of

re-issuing individual restrictions.

There is  no  “DESCEND  VIA”  in  Canada.

ATC Instructions – Canada Canada/ICAO Requirements

VIA (STAR designator) DESCEND TO

(altitude) or CLEARED (approach

procedure)

Clearance via a STAR authorizes the aircraft to follow the STAR

lateral track only. Once ATC issues descent or approach clearance,

published altitude restrictions above the assigned altitude remain

mandatory unless specifically cancelled by ATC.

(Aircraft already on a STAR) DESCEND TO

(altitude)

Published altitudes above the assigned altitude remain mandatory

unless specifically cancelled by ATC.

DESCEND TO (altitude), ALL STAR

ALTITUDE RESTRICTIONS CANCELLED

or

DESCEND TO (altitude), ALTITUDE

RESTRICTION AT (fix) CANCELLED

Examples of ATC phraseology for cancelling altitude restrictions.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Follow company guidance, SOP, and flight manual procedures.

If the FAA is providing ATC services, follow FAA procedures, even if over Canadian airspace.

If Canada is providing ATC services, follow Canadian procedures, even if over US airspace.

When in doubt, ask ATC!

While Canada is making this change to better align with ICAO standards, ALPA is continuing to work with FAA and NAV

CANADA to better align US and Canadian procedures going forward.

Please provide any feedback to your Central Air Safety Committee and to EAS@alpa.org.

Captain Chuck Hogeman

Aviation Safety Chairman

Feb 1, 2012

2012- 1

Altitude Restriction or NOT

•Altitude Restrictions Required:

“Climb On SID to 10,000”

•Altitude Restrictions Cancelled:

“Open Climb 10,000”

DATACOMM

45

CY 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Segment 1 Phase 1

- Tower Service

Segment 1 Phase 2

- Initial En Route

Services

Departure Clearances (DCL)

Best Equipped Best Served DCL Tower IOC

Avionics

En Route

IOC Initial Services

& Infrastructure

Subsequent En

Route Capabilities

Transfer of Communications

Initial Check-In

Altitudes / Altimeter Settings

Go Button / Airborne Reroutes

Tailored Arrivals

Controller Initiated Routes

Direct-to-Fix

Crossing Restrictions

Advisory Messages

Speed and Headings

Beacon Codes

Stuck Microphone

Services Strategy Roadmap

TFM Data Comm (OI#44)

RTCA TF5 Operation

Data Comm Routine

Communications (OI#17)

Reroutes (OI#16)

Departure Clearance (OI#39)

Ground System FANS

FANS 1/A+ over VDL-2 transitioning to 214/78 Baseline 2

214/78 Baseline 2

Range for start of deployment based upon funding and Baseline 2 availability

Segment 2

- Advanced Services

4D Trajectories

D-TAXI Segment 2

IOC

Tailored Arrivals (OI#42)

Data Comm Routine

Communications (OI#17)

Segment 1 Phase 3

- Additional En

Route Services

DCL Trials Overview

• DCL – Data Communications Departure Clearance Service:

- Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) suppressed for DCL flights

- Initial and revised clearances to participating FANS aircraft

- Pilot logs into Trials automation via commercial VHF links

- Route information auto-loadable into FMS

- Expected to reduce disrupted out / off delays

- Industry tactical utilization of DCL revised clearances expressed

• Data Comm Trials Automation Platform (DTAP) independent of current TDLS

• It’s REAL, Contract Awarded 1248P 4/4/12

• Trials expected to run for 1 year/site under Test NCP’s

47

DCL Trials Overview (cont’d)

• Data Comm Implementation Team (DCIT) solicited for potential trials sites - 21 sites reduced to 14, then 9

- Regional / Site visits conducted to determine site viability

- Collected Data fed into Decision Lens Tool - FAA, NATCA and industry participation on panel

• MEM, EWR & ATL selected to host DCL Trials

48

49

Why we care