Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA
Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA
Summary of the First Meeting Special Committee 227 ... - RTCA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Powerpoint: “3a Standards <strong>of</strong> Navigation Performance GB 20120306.pptx”<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> SC181/WG13 products and intended applications<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>f pointed out <strong>the</strong> importance and value <strong>of</strong> standards.<br />
interoperability<br />
o without interoperability, every route or instrument procedure and airspace would have to<br />
account for different aircraft capability<br />
o precludes efficiency, capacity, and environmental improvements<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> certification<br />
non-optimized airspace design, since every variation must be considered.<br />
Scope <strong>of</strong> standards<br />
not just <strong>the</strong> airborne nav system is standardized<br />
terminology<br />
aeronautical data<br />
procedure design affected by nav standards<br />
charting<br />
SC181 products and adoption <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong><br />
Do236B/ED75B MASPS for RNP<br />
o Intended/Used as a toolbox, implemented piecemeal by regulators<br />
DO200A/ED76 Standards for processing aeronautical data<br />
DO201A/ED77 standards for aeronautical information<br />
DO283A MOPS for RNP for RNAV<br />
o No ED equivalent<br />
o TSO-C115c, FMS using multi-sensor inputs 2012<br />
DO257A, MOPS<br />
Adoption has been affected adversely by<br />
GPS standards, DO-229<br />
SC159 and SC181 which worked in parallel and were never brought toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Slow and fragmented airspace development<br />
o Lack <strong>of</strong> harmonized operational requirements<br />
Future for navigation performance standards<br />
PBN is now <strong>the</strong> ‘must-have’<br />
GPS standards are insufficient on <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
Considerations for SC<strong>227</strong><br />
Recognition <strong>of</strong> PBN concept, but keep RNP RNAV distinct as DO236/ED75 is only one means<br />
to define an aircraft/system that spans multiple applications.<br />
Functional definitions insufficient to support implementation. Changes are needed for:<br />
o fixed radius transition<br />
o tactical parallel <strong>of</strong>fset<br />
o use <strong>of</strong> speed and altitude constraints in path definition<br />
VNAV mess since <strong>the</strong>re has been little convergence on a standard.<br />
o AC20-138B is 1980’s definition<br />
o EASA AMC 20-27 (FTE and altitude limitation)<br />
o AC 90-110a / AMC 20-26 Vertical Error Budget<br />
o Do-236B / ED75b VNAV<br />
Current PANS Ops Baro-VNAV design criteria needs a harmonized standard.<br />
Inconsistency with lateral RNP RNAV – do we need a vertical RNP RNAV ra<strong>the</strong>r than just a<br />
99.7% accuracy<br />
4D trajectories<br />
9