Navigation & flight planning

by FMS-equipped aircraft

10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco

ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR

AI/EE-A 441.0144/01

Table of contents
P.3

P.26

CI leg type

P.4 An overview of aircraft avionics

P.27

CR leg type

P.5 GPS PRIMARY navigation

P.28

AF leg type

P.29

VA leg type

P.30

VD leg type

P.31

VI leg type

P.32

VM leg type

P.33

VR leg type

P.34

PI leg type

P.35

HA, HF, HM leg types

Navigation & flight management

P.8 RNP navigation

P.10

P.13

Flight management
P.11

Flight planning

P.12

Vertical navigation

Navigation database : ARINC 424 format

P.14

Path terminator concept

P.15

IF leg type

P.16

TF leg type

P.17

RF leg type (new leg type)

P.18

CF leg type

P.19

DF leg type

P.20

FA leg type

P.21

FC leg type

P.22

FD leg type

P.45

Issues summary

P.23

FM leg type

P.46

Short term

P.24

CA leg type

P.52

Medium term

P.25

CD leg type

P.54

Longer term

P.36
P.37

P.44

ARINC 424 leg transitions

Navigation database related issues

P.38

Compatibility...

P.39

Production process

P.40

Some top level issues

Recommendations

Navigation & flight management

10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco

ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR

An overview of aircraft avionics ...

Modern avionics have considerably improved flight safety on

non-precision approaches :
accurate
flight

position (RNP 0.3)

plan display on EFIS

reference

approach path

automated

lateral guidance

automated

vertical guidance

ground

proximity warning system (GPWS)

terrain

display on EFIS (EGPWS)

terrain

clearance floor warnings (EGPWS)

An overview of aircraft avionics ...

eg
3d

500 AGL
5 NM

700
AGL

12 NM15 NM

ree

GPS PRIMARY navigation

AIRBUS is promoting GPS PRIMARY navigation

All

new A318/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340 production

aircraft are fitted with GPS PRIMARY capable equipment

Ground navaids are only used as a backup

VOR,

DME

ADF is not used for navigation

only

for procedural navigation check

AIRBUS system GPS architecture

Hybrid (A320 family & A340 family)

EGPWS

MMR
or
GPSSU

GPS raw data

GPS position

FMS

ADIRS

IRS position
GPIRS position

FMS position

AIRBUS system GPS architecture

Autonomous (A300-600/A310 family, retrofit solution

for A320 family with older ADIRS)

EGPWS

FMS

MMR
GPS position
IRS position

FMS position
IRS

GPS PRIMARY crew interface

In GPS PRIMARY mode, on-board system integrity has

a confidence greater than 99.9%, so the FMS position
can be relied upon without any additional navigation
cross check (using ground based navaids)

Clear status of GPS PRIMARY is therefore provided to

the crew

GPS PRIMARY crew interface

CRZ
FL350

CLB FLT4567890
OPT
REC MAX
FL370
FL390

<REPORT
UPDATE AT
*[
]
BRG /DIST
--- /----.- TO [
]
PREDICTIVE
<GPS
GPS PRIMARY
REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED
2.1NM
HIGH
0.16NM
GPS PRIMARY

GPS PRIMARY

CRZ
FL350

CLB FLT4567890
OPT
REC MAX
FL370
FL390

<REPORT
UPDATE AT
*[
]
BRG /DIST
--- /----.- TO [
]
PREDICTIVE
<GPS
REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED
2.1NM
HIGH
0.28NM
GPS PRIMARY LOST

GPS PRIMARY LOST

+ triple click during approach

RNP navigation

AIRBUS is promoting RNP (required navigation

performance)

All A318/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340 aircraft are

fitted or have been retrofitted with RNP capable
equipment

RNP allows crew awareness of estimated aircraft

position accuracy compared to procedure designers
required performance assumptions

RNP crew interface

RNP management provides HIGH and LOW navigation

accuracy system monitoring against the Required
Navigation Performance

The system estimated accuracy has a 95% confidence

NAV ACCUR UPGRAD

RNP crew interface

CRZ
FL350

CLB FLT4567890
OPT
REC MAX
FL370
FL390

<REPORT
UPDATE AT
*[
]
BRG /DIST
--- /----.- TO [
]
PREDICTIVE
<GPS
REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED
0.3NM
HIGH
0.28NM
NAV ACCUR UPGRAD

NAV ACCUR UPGRAD

CRZ
FL350

CLB FLT4567890
OPT
REC MAX
FL370
FL390

<REPORT
UPDATE AT
*[
]
BRG /DIST
--- /----.- TO [
]
PREDICTIVE
<GPS
REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED
0.3NM
LOW
0.56NM
NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD

NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD

AIRBUS flight management details

Multi-sensor navigation & automatic navaid tuning

triple IRS, dual VOR & DME, GPS

nIRS

only, nIRS/VOR/DME, nIRS/DME/DME, nIRS/GPS

LOC

updating

RNP management

GPS primary navigation

RAIM

or AIME on-board integrity monitoring

certified

for RNP 0.3 NM use

Datalink

including F-PLN, T/O DATA and WIND uplink capability from AOC
(Airline Operational Control)

AIRBUS flight management details

4D flight planning & predictions

runway to runway 4D pre-computed optimized flight profile

real time optimization

decelerated approach profile, 3D non-precision approaches

full autopilot coupling capability (dual FMS, dual monitored

AP)

time resolution 1 minute, guidance accuracy around 2 minutes

planned

improvement to 1 second resolution, accuracy better

than 30 s

Flight planning

Origin

Departure SID

Engine out SID

En-route

Arrival STAR

Approach

Destination

Missed approach

Alternate flight plan

Alternate destination

Vertical flight management

CRUISE FL

STEP FL

pressurization
segment

SPEED
LIMIT

SPEED
LIMIT
ALTITUDE
CONSTRAINTS
SPEED
CONSTRAINTS
ACCELERATION ALT
THRUST REDUCTION ALT
TAKE-OFF
SPEEDS

IDLE path

ALTITUDE
CONSTRAINTS

geometric path

approach path
SPEED
D
CONSTRAINTS
APPROACH
SPEEDS
TIME
CONSTRAINT
DESTINATION

ORIGIN

TAKEOFF

CLIMB

CRUISE

DESCENT

APPROACH

Navigation database : ARINC 424

10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco

ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR

ARINC 424 path terminator concept

The Path and Terminator concept is a means to permit

coding of Terminal Area Procedures, SIDs, STARs and
Approach Procedures

Charted procedure are translated into a sequence of

ARINC 424 legs in the Navigation Database

Flight plans are entered into the FMS by using

procedures from the navigation database and chaining
them together

ARINC 424 path terminator concept

23 leg types have been created to translate into computer

language (FMS), procedure designed for clock &
compass manual flight

Its high time to implement RNAV, using only DO236

preferred leg types: IF, TF, RF which are fixed and
without possible interpretation

The leg type is specified at the end point : path

terminator concept

IF leg type

The Initial Fix or IF Leg defines a database fix as a point

in space

It is only required to define the beginning of a route or

procedure

TF leg type

Track to a Fix or TF Leg defines a great circle track over

ground between two known databases fixes

Preferred method for specification of straight legs

(course or heading can be mentioned on charts, but
designer should ensure TF leg is used for coding)

RF leg type (new leg type)

Constant Radius Arc or RF Leg defines a constant radius

turn between two database fixes, lines tangent to the arc
and a center fix

CF leg type

Course to a Fix or CF Leg defines a specified course to a

specific database fix

TF legs should be used instead of CF whenever possible

to avoid magnetic variation issues

DF leg type

Direct to a Fix or DF Leg defines an unspecified track

starting from an undefined position to a specified fix

Procedure designers should take into account the FMS

flight path depends on initial aircraft heading as well

FA leg type

Fix to an Altitude or FA Leg defines a specified track

over ground from a database fix to a specified altitude at
an unspecified position

FC leg type

Track from a Fix from a Distance or FC Leg defines a

specified track over ground from a database fix for a
specific distance

FD leg type

Track from a Fix to a DME Distance or FD Leg defines a

specified track over ground from a database fix to a
specific DME Distance which is from a specific database
DME Navaid

FM leg type

From a Fix to a Manual termination or FM Leg defines a

specified track over ground from a database fix until
Manual termination of the leg

CA leg type

Course to an Altitude or CA Leg defines a specified

course to a specific altitude at an unspecified position

CD leg type

Course to a DME Distance or CD Leg defines a specified

course to a specific DME Distance which is from a
specific database DME Navaid

CI leg type

Course to an Intercept or CI Leg defines a specified

course to intercept a subsequent leg

CR leg type

Course to a Radial termination or CR Leg defines a

course to a specified Radial from a specific database
VOR Navaid

AF leg type

Arc to a Fix or AF Leg defines a track over ground at

specified constant distance from a database DME Navaid

VA leg type

Heading to an Altitude termination or VA Leg defines a

specified heading to a specific Altitude termination at an
unspecified position

VD leg type

Heading to a DME Distance termination or VD Leg

defines a specified heading terminating at a specified
DME Distance from a specific database DME Navaid

VI leg type

Heading to an Intercept or VI Leg defines a specified

heading to intercept the subsequent leg at an unspecified
position

VM leg type

Heading to a Manual termination or VM Leg defines a

specified heading until a Manual termination

VR leg type

Heading to a Radial termination or VR Leg defines a

specified heading to a specified radial from a specific
database VOR Navaid

PI leg type

Procedure Turn or PI Leg defines a course reversal

starting at a specific database fix, includes Outbound Leg
followed by a left or right turn and 180 degree course
reversal to intercept the next leg

HA, HF, HM leg types

Racetrack Course Reversal or HA, HF and HM Leg

Types define racetrack pattern or course reversals at a
specified database fix

HA = Altitude Termination
HF = Single circuit terminating
at the fix (base turn)
HM = Manual Termination

ARINC 424 - allowable leg transitions

* = The IF leg is coded only
when the altitude constraints at
each end of the FX, HX or
PI leg are different.
& = A CF/DF, DF/DF or FC/DF
sequence should only be used
when the termination of the first
leg must be over flown,
otherwise alternative coding
should be used.
# = The IF/RF combination is
only permitted at the start of the
final approach for FMS, GPS or
MLS coding and only when a
straight line, fixed terminated
transition proceeds the start of
the final.

Navigation database related issues

10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco

ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR

Compatibility...

Navigation data production process

AIP

Procedure design
by Civil Aviation Authorities

Data Supplier

ARINC 424 master file

FMS Database Processing

FMS

Packed Data

operator
responsibility

Some top level issues

Navigation database process is *not* certified

Transcription of procedures in computer language (ARINC 424)

requires interpretation
Procedure

designer intent is currently only published under pilot

language format

Each FMS implementation & logic is different

May

results in different flight paths and SOP

Charts and aircraft navigation displays differ

Increased
Training

risk of Human error

costs

Reminder - flight plan construction

Charted procedure are translated into a sequence of

ARINC 424 legs in the Navigation Database

Flight plans are entered into the FMS by calling

procedures from the navigation database

Procedure segments are chained together (or melded) to

form the FMS flight plan

Example : F-PLN procedure melding

Procedures are chained together to form the FMS flight

plan. Example :
Arrival chart

Airways chart

Approach chart

STAR-approach
transition (VIA)
Enroute
(airways)

STAR-enroute
transition

STAR

Approach

Example : procedure compatibility ?

Possible procedure misconnects between en-route,

arrival, and approach charts

Possible discontinuities between or inside procedures

Incompatible or conflicting altitude requirements

between arrival and approach charts

Navigation database recommendations

10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco

ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR

Waypoint naming issues

Different

approach procedure types (ILS/LOC/RNAV) use

different trajectories and/or waypoint names without reason

Unnamed
Same

waypoints on charts are assigned default names

waypoint names used at different locations

Chart

wording leading to usage of leg types which cause the

FMS to create its own waypoints, with names which do not
match chart

Coding

chart

constraints lead to creation of waypoints not on the

Procedure trajectory issues

Chart wording and/or coding rules lead to coding of magnetic

course leg types such as CF legs

Chart wording and/or coding rules lead to bad coding of

vertical descent angles, which are critical to a correct vertical
path

IFR minimum altitudes often coded as AT constraints

Overfly waypoints trajectories are not repeatable

Barometric temperature limitations should be indicated on

charts

Why not use overfly waypoints ?

Overfly waypoints : depending on wind, aircraft speed,

bank angle limitation etc the FMS trajectory will be
different
overfly wpt
trajectory
not repeatable

Why use fly-by waypoints ?

Fly-by waypoints : better trajectory control is achieved

as the FMS will track a pre-computed curve

fly-by wpt
controlled
trajectory

Why not use CF legs ?

CF leg magnetic course angles may mismatch :

excessive roll
maneuvering

Why use TF legs ?

TF legs always fit, independently of magnetic variation :

Why code FPA constraint on each

FINAL leg ?
FPA matches altitude
constraint
FPA greater than
altitude constraint

FPA smaller than

altitude constraint

IDLE segment

No FPA

Why not use AT altitude constraints ?

Using AT constraints may cause undesired vertical path :

navigation database vertical angle

ap

pr

oa

ch

pr

of

ile

MDA
navigation database vertical angle

MAP

Why use AT_OR_ABOVE altitude

constraints ?

Using AT_OR_ABOVE constraints and FPA constraint

on each leg ensures seamless path

navigation database vertical angle

ap

pr

oa

ch

pr

of

MDA

ile

navigation database vertical angle

MAP

Medium term - recommendations

Implementation of DO201A by civil aviation authorities for procedure

publication

Implementation of DO200A by data providers

Implementation of RTCA DO236 / EUROCAE ED-75

Implementation of ATA Chart, Data and Avionics Harmonization Top

Priorities

Improved transatlantic coordination between working groups,

authorities & industry

ARINC 424, ATA FMS/RNAV Task Force, TARA, RTCA SC-181

& 193, Eurocae WG-13 & 44, FAA, JAA, Eurocontrol, ICAO

Medium term - ATA CDAH priorities

Redesign of existing non-precision approaches to accommodate VNAV

Altitudes at precision FAFs

Unnamed step-down fixes

Waypoints on EFIS but not in database or charts

Waypoint names longer than five characters

Duplicate navaid and waypoint identifiers

Different altitude for same point on STARs and approaches

Magnetic variation tables used in course calculations

VNAV angle depiction on charts

Longer term - goals

Fully resolve the disconnect between :

the

procedure design by the Airspace Planner,

the

coded description in the navigation database,

and

the way it is displayed and flown by the FMS

End-to-end certified process with integrity guidelines and

criteria

A worldwide, common process with Airworthiness

Authorities involvement under an ICAO mandate

Longer term - recommendations

Publication of a single standard/language for procedure

design, database coding, and FMS
Reduced ARINC
Improved

424 set

charts-database-FMS compatibility

Design of FMS-friendly procedures

Publication

of these procedures using FMS compatible

language (in addition to charts)

Publications of standards for navigation database integrity

and certification

Longer term - common language

Comprehensive worldwide commonality requires rules at ICAO

level

A common coding Standard should be :

clearly

defined,

including

rules for use by both the aircraft and the RNAV Airspace

Planner,

the

minimum capability of any "FANS RNAV system,

the

maximum set usable by the RNAV Airspace Planner

This would ensure a unique unambiguous coding of routes and

procedures

Longer term - FMS friendly procedures

Use only fixed, named waypoints

For straight segments use only TF legs

For large course changes (>30) use RF legs

Use only fly-by waypoint transitions (no overfly)

Put a waypoint at each vertical path change

Use descent gradients between 2.5 and 3.5

Start the missed approach at or before the runway

Use same waypoint names and approach path for all approach types to a
given runway

Use unique waypoint names (max 5 characters)

Longer term - integrity

Integrity must concern the entire process, from procedure

design to the loading of the FMS

Ultimate goal should be a fully digital process

Process should be under direct supervision of airspace

management authorities

Worldwide implementation requires ICAO rules

End of presentation :
Any question?