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

2000’s and earlier and the expanding needs globally in the future. He pointed out that one of the steps
taken was through ICAO. Specifically the formation of the ICAO RNP Special Operational
Requirements Study Group (RNPSORSG) around 2004 and its successor the Performance Based
Navigation Study Group (PBN SG) from 2008 until the present was an effort to increase the
understandability of RNAV and RNP, though greater harmonization and consistency in the types of
RNAV and RNP criteria for aircraft qualification, operational approval and implementation
considerations. This effort represented the creation of and transition to PBN and the development of the
PBN Manual, ICAO Doc 9613. Mark pointed out that one of the key aspects of PBN was the
differentiation between RNAV and RNP. While both have performance requirements, RNP has on-board
performance monitoring and alerting (OBPMA). It is OBPMA where the greater assurance of RNP
system performance is provided. Mark also highlighted with examples that there is still room and a need
for more improvement to reduce the operational variability in aircraft flight path performance.
Bruce DeCleene is the manager of the Aircraft Certification group, AIR-130. Bruce started out by setting
a number of considerations as SC227 goes forward. Specifically, he pointed out folding in lessons
learned such as
pilot awareness of sensor inputs,
speed/altitude,
wrong runway entry
global harmonization through linkage to the ICAO navigation specifications, and raising the bar on
performance and capability where it’s appropriate such as
pilot and air traffic expectations,
turn performance, including fixed radius and
support of TSE monitoring and alerting.
JohnH: Is there regulatory basis on the PBN manual document Were the same experts as here involved
in writing the PBN manual
MarkS (PBN Study Group, US Member): The PBN manual was meant to embrace existing equipment.
It was not meant as a certification document.
DaveN (Chair of PBN Study Group and ICCAIA Member): The PBN manual has not been used
consistently in the way we expected. It is being used as a regulatory document by some states without the
appropriate considerations that must be made and as spelled out in the manual itself.
GeoffB (PBN Study Group, UK Member): There was a proliferation of standards that needed to be
focused. That harmonization is focused at the regulatory level. The problem is that the linkage with
MASPS and MOPS has been lost. The MASPS and MOPS didn’t have any force into usage in service.
As a result we have had a proliferation of standards and applications. The challenge is to bring it all back
together. The only way to have airspace development is to have interoperability and aircraft meeting a
standard.
BruceDC(RNP SORSG, FAA Member): SC181 did a good job laying a foundation. What has happened
since is taking that and turning it into practice. It has not been simple with RNP, RNAV, and RNP
RNAV. The need is to reestablish the connection between the operational side developed since SC181
back into the equipment standards.
JH: Is there a comment period for the new PBN manual
Erwin (PBN Study Group, ICAO Secretariat, and PBN Program Manager): There is sort of a comment
process but it must be through attendee members.
MarkS: There is also no intent to create specs that distinguish between GA and AT. Please provide
feedback through me. We try to minimize differences between expectations of how FAA and EASA will
use of the manual.
4