PRNAV DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE

1

• P-RNAV DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE
• Brussels 27th september 2007

2
RNAV Context In France

• Context
• B-RNAV in ECAC since 23d April 1998 (FL245 then
  FL115 in France)
• Beyond en-route BRNAV needs, Paris TMA
  implemented RNAV procedures (since 1992 with
  RWY28 easbound SIDs in Charles de Gaulle MOSUD
  in 1997DOMUS and VASPO)
• Regulatory framework
• BRNAV additional requirements (temporary
  provisions included in AIP GEN 1.5-2 and ENR
  1.5-4/ October 2001),
•  B-RNAV  procedures must be above MRVA and
  developed in a radar environment
• Operational directive issued by our flights
  standards (N 2001/1 5 September 2001) wrt
   Basic Area navigation (B-RNAV) in
  terminal area.
• To day, more than 95 of movements are
   B-RNAV  in Parisian airports
• Other airports implemented RNAV procedures based
  on B-RNAV (Montpellier, Lyon)

3
Current RNAV Procedures
Montpellier Initial departures 13L/31R
4
Current RNAV Procedures
Paris CDG departures 08L and 08R, 09L and 09R
Very few aircraft unable to operate these B-RNAV
procedures
SIDs
Initial departures
5
Transition to P-RNAV

• France initial intention
• In the context of the integrated initiative and
  associated target situations, remove B-RNAV
  procedures before contemplating any
  implementation of P-RNAV elsewhere
• Strategy changed
• For Paris TMA, remove B-RNAV means a high
  percentage of P-RNAV approved aircraft deadline
  unknown
• Consequently, P-RNAV now planned at somelocations
  before B-RNAV applications are removed

6
Example P-RNAV SIDsat Nice Airport

• Problem to be solved compatibility between VFR
  and IFR flights
• Assumptions
• Class D Airspace, traffic information to be
  provided to VFR and IFR flights
• French National Surveillance Authority (NSA)
  demanding VFR helicopters flights to transit at
  higher altitude (500ft instead of 300ft)
• If (conventional) SIDs unchanged, vertical
  separation would decrease and traffic information
  increase
• In this context, DSNA willing to provide
  strategic separation to limit RTF
• As a consequence SIDs to be changed
• P-RNAV as a solution

7
Current VFR Situation
300ft ?500ft
8
Current SID RWY22(Initial Departures)
9
Current SID RWY22
10
P-RNAV SIDs

• P-RNAV to provide reduced protection areas, thus
  allow strategic separation
• Balance to be found environmental
  considerations not to compromise safety
• P-RNAV safety case involving ANSP, Flight
  standards, Air France being carried out

11
Scenarios for P-RNAV SIDs RWY22
12
Questions and issues 1/3

• Operators equipment?
• Who will be able to operate P-RNAV procedures
  (many private operators).
• Procedures protected for DME/DME and GNSS
• In case of failure of GNSS or DME/DME, aircraft
  not GNSSDME/DME equipped to be affected rate
  of concerned aircraft? This information are
  lacking to consider back up modes
• Survey performed by Nice next month
• Any detailed database envisaged by Eurocontrol?
• Full benefit incomplete as long as none equipped
  aircraft have to be handled.

13
P-RNAV survey
14
Questions and issues 2/3

• DME infrastuture assessment
• Importance of work carried out by ICAO/NSP
• Simulation tools (COVERNAV, DEMETER upgrade?)
• Critical DME outages could be hard to handle
• Critical DME used for Nice SID could be outside
  corresponding FIR outages not directly
  available for pilots/Airlines Operation Centres
  when looking at Nice Notams
• DME gaps preferably protected on dead reckoning
  as far as possible
• INS/IRS equipment questionned for DME/DME
  aircraft. How many DME/DME without INS/IRS?

15
Questions and issues 3/3

• How will data packers will structure their Nav
  data base when same departure is fed by 2
  different runways (RWY 04L and R at nice for
  example)
• For GPS based P-RNAV approved aircraft, is a
  RAIM/AAIM prediction possible? (4D prediction)
• Are all safety requirements known from operators
  (or contained in regulatory requirements)
• Need to move towards a RNP or RNAV mandate (also
  to comply with rationalisation strategy)

16
Conclusion