FAA Air Traffic

1
RNAV RNP RNAV Implementation Air Traffic Issu
es
FAA Air Traffic RNAV Implementation Staff ATP-1
04
2
Overview

• RNAV Benefits
• RNAV Implementation Issues
• ATC
• Cockpit
• Shared

3
One example of RNAV Benefits

• Typically 16 Voice Transmissions
• Unpredictable flight paths
• Inefficient - use of airspace and aircraft

End of STAR
Vectored Without a Pre-Established Route,
Aircraft Guided by ATC Heading Vectors

• Reduces Communication, typically 4 voice
  transmissions required
  
• Improved Predictability through lateral and
  vertical flight paths
  
• Increased Efficiency - airspace and aircraft
• Flexible airspace re-design - free of ground
  based navaids
  

Extension of STAR
RNAV Procedure Aircraft Self-Navigates Resulting
in More Predictable Flight Path and Improved
Situational Awareness
4
ATP-104 What we are doing

• Working collaboratively with other FAA
  organizations, NATCA, Airlines, and industry
  
• Coordination and Actions
• SOIT, ATSOITs, ALT/SALT, NAR, ATA FMS Task Force
• Implementing terminal RNAV procedures
• Charting (public, specials, DP, STARS, CVFP,
  approaches)
  
• HOST and ARTS Automation
• Criteria (DP/STAR Orders, RNP, CVFP, En Route,)
• Procedures (terminal, en-route, approach, ocean)
• AVR and AVN
• GPS Outage Simulation Studies (GOSS)
• Controller training and phraseology
• video tape, CBT, and 7110.65 changes
• Terminal Area Route Generation Evaluation
  Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) and Standard
  Implementation Process

5
RNAV Activities Status
Detroit

• Phase 1 (STAR) NWA Validation flights
• completed
• Awaiting RNAV NCP for automation

Philadelphia
Phase 2 (STARS) USA revenue flights started

on November 29, 2000 and continue daily

• USA flying BOJID and SPUDS RNAV STARS.
• Procedures are now moving to public charting

JFK
Phase 1 (STARS) SKUBY1- AAL revenue flights

started on December 7, 2000 and continue daily.
Las Vegas
Delta Airlines started flying August 17, 2001

New Four Corner
Newark
Post public use
Phase 2 (DP) SELBY1- COA Revenue flights started
on

RNAV STAR
October 5, 2000 and continue daily.
procedures to

New FILSA DP completed and COA revenue flights
started on July 12.
commence on
October 1, 2001.
Washington Dulles

Procedures

Phase 1 (DP) ACA flight simulator trials
completed
designed by AWA

Public charting scheduled for March 2002
and AWP NAR.

This Project produced new CF Leg criteria
Phoenix
Charlotte

New public use RNAV STAR
procedures to commence on

Phase 2 (DP) Checker 2 publicly charted and
flown Sept. 2000 Procedure halted on Oct. 13, 20
00 due to course divergence issue. Divergence
issue coordinated and resolved (AT, AFS, AVN,
NATCA). Checker 4 - Publicly charted and flow Jul
y 2001. Operations halted 7 days later due to pil
ot altitude deviation. New phraseology developed
and coordinated Checker 5 - Currently under revi
ew by ATP, AFS, and AVN. Issues include cockpit
human factors, route/altitude compliance and
course divergence.
February 2002.


Procedures designed by AWA and
AWP NAR.
6
En Route RNAV Projects
6 - West Coast Routes 455 Thousand
104 - ACA Routes 4.1 Million
56 - ASA Routes 940 Thousand 37 - Multi-Center
Routes
2.6 Million
Q Routes Provide RNAV Routing for Gulf of Me
xico
21.6 Million
Total Annual Airline Reported Savings 28.2
Million
7
RNAV Implementation Issues
8
Air Traffic IssuesHOST Automation

• Provides terminal and en route controllers with
  ability to suppress application of RNAV
  preferential routes
  
• HOST patch planned release May 2002
• Full implementation dependent on URET
• Enables the suppression of RNAV procedure
  assignment. symbol (?)
  

9
Air Traffic IssuesARTS Automation

• Identification of Aircraft Operating on RNAV
  Routes/Procedures
  
• Issues on how to display on ARTS IIIA, IIE, IIIE,
  and STARS
  
• Provide TRACON controllers ability to recognize
  aircraft who are flying an RNAV procedure.

10
Air Traffic IssuesFMS Capabilities

• Different boxes with varying capabilities
• Equipment suffixes should identify aircraft
  capability, not its equipage
  
• Limited database memory in older generation
  aircraft
  
• Issues surrounding boxes requiring DME/DME or
  DME/VOR updating
  
• Automated vs non-automated updating (i.e. runway
  updates (TOGA) vs manual quick align (QA)
  
• Ability to identify specific radio updating
  facilities
  
• Engagement of LNAV and VNAV
• Need for standard Rules of Engagement

11
Air Traffic IssuesNavigation Database Integrity

• Aircraft no longer fly to a ground-emitted
  signal, but to a point in space
  
• Point location only as good as data which
  describes it
  
• The Navigation data process
• Potential for numerous error
• Error detection and notification process
• Master database?

12
Air Traffic IssuesRNAV vs. ATC

• Making RNAV fit into the existing ATC
  environment
  
• RNAV and Conventional operations must
  co-exist as long as aircraft equipage is mixed
  
• Course divergence
• Crew procedures and training
• All aircraft must fly repeatable, predictable
  tracks regardless of equipment manufacturer or
  database provider
  
• Turn initiation, turn rates, etc.

13
FMS HarmonizationWill it ever happen?

• Airway
  Normal FMS turn
  
• Protected airspace FMS
  early turn

14
Air Traffic IssuesRate of equipage

• Industry investment in modern Navigation
  equipment may provide predictable, more efficient
  routings
  
• HOWEVER, mixing older generation aircraft with
  modern equipped aircraft is challenging to ATC
  
• AND, modern equipped aircraft will only be able
  to fly as direct as the least equipped aircraft
  to/from runway ends
  

15
Air Traffic IssuesGPS Interference

• Air Traffic GPS Interference Workgroup
• Standardization Training (ATC pilot) about
  what to do during a GPS interference event
  
• NOTAM process language
• Interference Area definition
• How does a controller make an immediate
  assessment of the situation?
  
• How does FAA identify area quickly and
  accurately?
  
• Discontinue GPS approaches
• While continuing RNAV approaches
• GPS Interference reporting (ATC pilot)
• Capturing data from GPS interference events

16
Conclusion

• RNAV procedures produce benefits
• Implementation issues
• ATC
• Cockpit
• Shared
• For more information, visit our web site at
• http//www.faa.gov/ats/atp