Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

solve the issues. We should consider following through and making sure that someone else will pick up the ball and cover that aspect. We can provide recommendations for how our material is used, but we cannot make anyone do anything in that respect. MikeC: to some extent that is what this assumptions section is for. JohnH: we can expect discussions of how RNP 2x is used to achieve separation. We need to also know who is making the decisions on how this capability is used for separation and procedure design, so that we can participate in those forums. MikeC: SASP separation panel in particular debated between a Gaussian and double exponential distribution, and call into question the assumptions we make about what 2x RNP really means and how they can trust it. It is for reasons like this that they are adding buffers. JohnH: we should consider adding a “lessons learned” section in the MASPS as background material to help people understand what can go wrong and prevent it going forward in applications of these capabilities. JohnH: RE section 1.5.5, what about non-WGS84 areas what if we fly to countries that to not use WGS84 Unknown: There is another AC that allows for equivalence. Section 1.5.6.2 – some countries accommodate temperature compensation in procedure design, others assume the flight crew will deal with this. Steve J: there are issues in using temperature compensation in procedure design that can make a procedure less usable e.g. Hot temperature instead of cold temperature. Frank: 1.5.2 should we add the term procedure 1.5.7.1 paragraph on fly-overs needs to be updated. 1.5.7.2 vertical transitions are fly-bys 1.7 definitions RNP = required navigation performance accuracy RNP RNAV = meets all requirements of this document, including integrity, containment Frank: need to update figure 1-2 to have an aircraft graphic that doesn’t look like a DC9 The term containment is used different in this document than ICAO. They use it as a 95% containment. Section 1.7.3 lateral containment JohnH: regarding P(E2), P(E3), this area assumes the airspace infrastructure supports the intended RNP level (e.g. no loss of GPS). The assumption is stated elsewhere, but we need it again here to be clear. Section 2.1 JohnH: Table 2-1 column headings are notoriously misunderstood and have caused problems. They date back to 1984. We need to fix these misunderstandings. Section 2.3 Frank: 2.3.2 Continuity requirements for VNAV Frank: 2.3.4 Continuity requirements for TOAC Frank: 2.3.5 We should consider addressing wind input requirements here Section 2.5 16
David DS: network and flow management in Europe desires to start using TOAC for airspace boundary crossings in a more basic form than captured currently. For enroute operation, we may sometimes need 10 second accuracy instead of 30. MikeJ: data comm. standard allows for tolerance to be flight phase independent, not 30 or 10 seconds tied to flight phase but given as part of the RTA clearance. David DS: for some enroute ops, if there is a high quality ETA this may be sufficient to support operations. Chapter 3 Section 3.2.1 lists the allowable leg types. We didn’t want this list as long as this. Perhaps we can try again to reduce the list. Vector legs sometimes get used when nav accuracy is not needed. Some may try to make the list longer again. We will need to discuss this again. Add a note that other leg types may be applied if nav accuracy is not a concern. RF leg. Do we need turn center definition It turns out now that we should not need this. Turn center is implied by prior fix, RF fix, and radius. Turn center is redundant information and we will need to deal with situations where it is inconsistent (wrong) and the FMS needs to decide which data to use. Steve J: Need to look at new 424 definition. They have taken out the tangent requirement. Bob G (Garmin): Procedure designer rules are usually more restrictive than what the boxes can do. Section 3.2.4.1 MikeJ: Holding patterns define a maximum size. But, we learned yesterday that controllers / airspace designers don’t like to see all this variability in how airplanes fly the hold. So, how do we want these holds to be flown MikeC: There are also inconsistencies between how the AIM describes how holds are to be flown and how we are defining holding patterns in the nav standard. SamM: there is a better description in PANS OPS now, and we think it will be coming to the AIM soon. DaveN: the fly-by entry is also an aspect that needs to be described. Section 3.2.4.3 MikeC: Figure 3-7 needs to be drawn better to use curves. Section 3.2.5.2 JohnH: CF leg – inbound course is mag, which causes issues. We used airport mag var to convert procedure mag course. New procedures use new mag var, old procedures use old mag var. Flying an old course with new mag var from the airport in navdb doesn’t work. So, we started using nearest VOR mag var for the procedures, but the VORs are going away soon. We had to do all this because Arinc 424 did not support mag var on the procedures. The new Arinc 424 does include this, but it will require box upgrades to be able to use this MikeC: the hierarchy of which mag vars to be used is different in practice than that discussed in the document. We will need to revisit this. Section 3.2.8.5 – vnav path transitions James N: vertical fly-bys cause confusion. Table 3-3. we’ve had conflicts with regulators in the past with this material. JohnH: this section gives numbers but no requirement. It’s just info for procedure designers. Section 3.2.8.6 – temperature compensation 17
Page 1 and 2: Summary of the First Meeting Specia
Page 3 and 4: NEXTGEN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (NGIP)
Page 5 and 6: NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP)
Page 7 and 8: • flight deck display of speed cu
Page 9 and 10: Powerpoint: “3a Standards of Navi
Page 11 and 12: Sharing of common flight plan betwe
Page 13 and 14: Q: what is the impact on economy of
Page 15: Section 1.1 para 3 is significant.
Page 19 and 20: concern that we don’t have moment
Page 21: Prioritization and Scope of Updates

Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?