PROCEDURE DESIGN MASTER CLASS

1
PROCEDURE DESIGN MASTER CLASS

• James (Jim) W Gregory
• Civil Aviation Inspector and ATPL pilot with
  Transport Canada AIS and Airspace Standards
• Chair of ICAO OCP
• Participant at many RNAV related forums (RTCA
  SC-181, ATA FMS Task Force, FMS SID/STAR WG)

2
PROCEDURE DESIGN MASTER CLASS

• History of RNAV
• History of ARINC 424
• Problems related to existing procedures
• Reason for limited ARINC 424 set

3
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• Area Navigation (RNAV)
• a method of navigation that permits aircraft
  operation on any desired course within the
  coverage of station-referenced navigation signals
  or within the limits of a self contained system
  capability, or a combination of these.

4
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• RNAV developed to provide more lateral freedom
• Better use of airspace
• Route not tied to fly-over navigation aids
• Initially RNAV commonly meant VOR based rho-theta
  RNAV systems
• Expanded to also include INS/IRS, OMEGA, LORAN C,
  Doppler, DME/DME and GNSS

5
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• Use of RNAV began in late 1960s
• Most were VOR/DME RNAV systems (for GA types INS
  for large air carriers)
• 1st commercial RNAV system (course/track line
  computer) NARCO CLC-60 in mid 1968
• System used waypoints based on radial/DME from
  VOR/DME facilities
• Maximum distance WP from facility was
  approximately 40 NM

6
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• Early VOR/DME RNAV system (KNS 80) track line
  computer

7
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• Rho-Theta RNAV Route Haines to Belgrade

• No database support required yet!

8
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• Other agencies began exploring RNAV systems
• KLM/SwissAir/SAS/UTA had a co-operative effort
• SwissAir became responsible for the development
  of a database to support this effort

9
HISTORY OF RNAV(According to Gregory!!)

• 1972 (?) LITTON INS had database of facilities
• June 1973, National Air DC-10 equipped with
  Collins ANS-70 conducted RNAV operation,
  including approaches in VMC, with database

10
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• 1973 - avionics manufacturers requirement for
  databases became more critical
• Each manufacturer had their own unique
  requirements for data
• Aug 1973 - Jeppesen invites avionics
  manufacturers to meet
• Meeting described as cautious

11
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC)
  approached to broker industry standards for
  databases for navigation
• Sep 1973 - AEEC Area Navigation Subcommittee
  established working group to standardize RNAV
  system reference data format and encoding
  characteristics

12
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Committee noted
• different RNAV manufacturers taking divergent
  paths with respect to reference data organization
• unless trend was halted, airline industry would
  face very high costs of supporting the production
  of data files in several different formats
• economic benefits would result if resolution
  could be established

13
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• WG met Jan 74
• examined ways different manufacturers dealt with
  reference data organization
• meeting described as interesting as attendees
  were engineers whose interests were not
  specifically Aeronautical Information Services

14
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Subsequent WG meetings in Mar and May 74
  concentrated on defining characteristics for data
  elements
• AEEC RNAV subcommittee reviewed WGs first draft
  Project Paper 424 Sep 74
• RNAV subcommittee endorsed principles established
  by WG
• RNAV subcommittee took on work itself and
  disbanded the WG

15
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Second draft document developed in Jan 75
• additional amendments constituted 3rd draft
• 3rd draft Project Paper 424 - Area Navigation
  System Data Base Specification approved by AEEC
  in Spring 75

16
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• ARINC Specification 424, adopted by AEEC, first
  published 21 May 75
• Spec amended regularly
• each amendment following first publication
  identified as 424-1, 424-2, 424-3, etc
• information up to ARINC 424-3 only included
  point-to-point-to-point navigation

17
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• ARINC 424-3, published 4 Nov 82, introduced
  concept of path and terminator
• path and terminator concept created by Sperry
• concept permits coding of terminal area
  procedures, SIDs, STARs and approaches

18
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Concept established rules of coding
• Concept includes a set of defined codes known as
  path terminators or leg type
• Path Terminator rules contained in ARINC 424
  Attachment 5
• Currently there are 23 different leg types

19
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Track to Fix (TF)

20
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Initial Fix (IF)

21
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Hold to Fix (HF), Hold to Altitude (HA), Hold to
  Manual termination (HM)

22
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Direct to Fix (DF)

23
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Fix to Altitude (FA)

24
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Course to Fix (CF)

25
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Procedure turn to Intercept (PI)

26
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Course to Altitude (CA)

27
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Course to Intercept (CI)

28
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Course to DME termination (CD)

29
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Course to Radial interception (CR)

30
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Fix to distance on Course (FC)

31
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Fix to DME termination (FD)

32
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Fix to Manual termination (FM)

33
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Arc to a Fix (AF)

34
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Heading to DME distance (VD)

35
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Heading to Altitude (VA)

36
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Heading to Manual termination (VM)

37
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Heading to next leg Intercept (VI)

38
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Heading to Radial termination (VR)

39
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Radius to a Fix (RF)

40
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Certain path terminator assumptions are made to
  accommodate aircraft performance
• speed - 210 K ground speed used to compute
  distance based upon 3.5 NM per min
• on course reversal - max distance of 4.3 NM used
  before turn inbound if no distance or time
  specified

41
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Max 25 degree bank angle used to compute turn
  radius
• climb rate of 500 feet per NM used in
  computations
• intercept angles - no specified, 30 degrees for
  intercept of localizer based and 30 - 45 degrees
  for all others

42
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Path terminator concept developed to code
  existing conventional instrument procedures
• However, not all conventional procedures easily
  coded
• conditional procedures, easy for pilot to
  interpret, are difficult for computer to describe

43
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Industry made representation to ICAO OCP RNAV WG
  in Jun 91 regarding problems with coding
  conventional procedures
• OCP 10 Nov 94 proposed amendment 9 to PANS-OPS
  Vol I regarding use of FMS/RNAV on conventional
  procedures

44
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• FMS/RNAVmay be usedprovided
• procedure is monitored using basic display
  normally associated with that procedure and
• tolerances for flight using raw data on the basic
  display are complied with.
• Lead radials are for non-RNAV equipped aircraft
  and are not intended to restrict the use of turn
  anticipation by the FMS

45
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Furthermore, agreement to have FMS-equipped
  aircraft fly tracks instead of procedural
  headings provided heading not required for ATC
  separation
• Industry requesting that design of terminal area
  procedures be compatible with increasing number
  of FMS equipped aircraft

46
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• New criteria introduced into PANS-OPS to cater to
  the needs of the modern aircraft navigation
  databases
• VOR/DME RNAV (Chap 31)
• GNSS basic receiver criteria (Chap 33)
• DME/DME RNAV (Chap 32)
• RNP (Chap 35)
• BARO-VNAV (Chap 34)

47
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• When developing RNAV procedures, following path
  terminators accommodate all procedures
• IF, TF, DF, FA, CF, HF, HA, and HM
• When developing RNP RNAV procedures, the
  following path terminators are only used
• IF, TF, RF, (DF and FA -discouraged), (CF - to be
  phased out), HF, HA and HM

48
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• OCP 12 introduced material for PANS-OPS Vol II
  and Procedure Design Manual concerning path
  terminators, their definitions, and their
  application
• Encourage procedure designers to become more
  knowledgeable about path terminator

49
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• On a personal note
• aircraft operation is becoming more reliant upon
  computer technology rather than pilot skill
• computers are smart - but cannot think - yet!
• the days of decision making with regard to
  navigation is being replaced by monitoring
• crowded skies dictate clearly defined airspace
  structure and procedures

50
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)

• Hence, the reason for procedure designers to
  clearly understand the airborne technology
• You are the people who have the greatest
  influence on the success (or failure) of RNAV and
  RNP RNAV implementation

51
HISTORY OF RNAV/ARINC(According to Gregory!!)
QUESTIONS ? ? ? ? ? ?