VALIDATION & IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

1Lead Instructor: Walter.White@AirTraffic.Biz

OBJECTIVE

This module provides an overview of airspace concept and flight procedure validation and considers aspects of PBN implementation.

2

3Airspace Concept Activity Overview

Why do validation?

✈Validate Airspace Concept and resulting

routes/instrument flight procedures

✈Assess if ATM objectives are achieved

✈Confirm flyability of Instrument Flight Procedures

✈ Identify possible problems and develop mitigations

✈Provide evidence design is safe

Validation is an ongoing process

4

CAUTION

GARBAGE IN

5

RUBBISH OUT!!!

Validation methods

Airspace Concept✈ Chalk and talk✈ Modelling✈ FTS✈ RTS

6

Flight Procedures✈ PC based simulation✈ Flight simulators✈ Ground checks✈FMS simulator✈ Live trials

CHALK and TALK

7

Airspace Concept Validation

✈ General Considerations

✈Aircraft performance

✈ Sterile environment?/Secondary traffic

✈ Special events

8

Advantages of Modeling

✈ Flexible

✈ Simple

✈ ‘What if’ investigations

✈ Easy to test large number of traffic samples

✈ Data derived from real traffic and ATC environment

9

EXAMPLE

10

Modeling - Limitations

✈ Crude

✈ Only high level data

✈ Basic aircraft performance

✈ Does not replicate controller interventions

✈ Simplified

✈ Subjective

11

Fast Time Simulation (FTS)

✈Used for sector capacity

✈Quality data

✈Flexible

✈Good acceptance of results

✈Evaluate TLS

✈Used for Safety Case

12

FTS

13

FTS - Limitations

✈Simplified model

✈Only statistical data

✈No active controller interaction during FTS

✈Accuracy of models is key

✈Aircraft performance

✈Met conditions

14

Real Time Simulation (RTS)

✈Best method to simulate ATC trials✈High quality data✈Feed controllers/ pseudo pilots✈Human factor✈Can be part of Safety Case✈No risk to live ops✈Unlimited scope

15

RTS - Limitations

✈ Limited scope

✈Designed for training ATC

✈Aircraft performance not representative

✈Not designed for post simulation evaluation needed for Airspace concept evaluation

16

Flight Simulator

✈High quality data

✈Confirm design aspects

✈Fly-ability

✈Efficiency

✈Met impact

✈Possible link to RTS

17

Flight Simulator - Limitations

✈Manual data collection

✈For range of aircraft types/meteo conditions time consuming and expensive

✈Pilots needed to fly the simulator

18

Concept Validations Compared

19

Live ATC Trials

✈Most accurate

✈Real data

✈Feedback from all users

20

Live ATC Trials - Limitations

✈Safety mitigations required

✈High detail required – large effort for a concept evaluation

✈Limited scope

✈Limited flexibility

21

Procedure Validation

22

Procedure Validation

✈Ground Validation✈Obstacle clearance

✈Charting

✈Coding

✈Flyability

23

Procedure Validation

✈Flight Validation

✈Data verification

✈Obstacle verification (optional)

✈Flyability (workload, charting,

manoeuvring)

✈Infrastructure

✈Database Validation24

Ground Validation✈ Obstacle clearance

✈ Independent review by procedure designer

✈ Charting

✈ Independent review

✈ Coding

✈ Software tool

✈ Expert review

✈ Flyability – software tools (from PC-based to full flight simulator)

✈ Not necessarily an issue with standard procedures (e.g. ‘T’ approaches), but critical for some aircraft types

✈ Range of aircraft and meteo conditions

25

Independent review – can be part of same organisation

Flyability

✈ Independent assessment

✈Use of validation tools

✈Use of aircraft simulators

✈more than one type

✈Flight checks

✈ Initial operational checks

26

Validation Tools /1

27

Validation Tools /2

28

B737-300ISA +40Wind 320/20

B737-300ISA -20Wind 250/25

Different Aircraft & Different Conditions

29

CA 500ft AGL; DF LL001; TF FARKS; TF…

No wind designed path

A319

B737/400

B747/400

A340/300

A320/319

Wind Effect

30

CA 500ft AGL; DF LL001; TF FARKS; TF…

Wind from 045°

A319

B737/400

B747/400

A340/300

A320/319

Mitigation by Speed Restriction

31

CA 500ft AGL; DF LL001; TF FARKS [210kts]; TF…

Wind from 045°

A319

B737/400

B747/400

A340/300

A320/319

Leg Length - Too Short

32

CA 2000ft AGL; DF BRW02

No wind

ATR42

B 747-400

A340-300

2.7NM

Leg Length - Acceptable

33

CA 2000ft AGL; DF BRW02

No wind

ATR42

B 747-400

A340-300

4.6NM

Flight Procedure Validation

✈ Obstacle verification

✈ Has full obstacle survey been completed

✈TAWS / GPWS alerts

✈ Flyability

✈Detailed workload and charting assessments

✈High level qualitative assessment of manoeuvring via accurate flight simulator.

✈ Infrastructure assessment

✈Runway markings, lighting, communications, navigation, etc

34

Flight Inspection

✈Flight Inspection often confused with Validation

✈Flight Inspection Addresses:✈ Navaid performance and reception for DME/DME

✈ Unintentional interference for GNSS

✈Flight Validation may not fully address Navaid Infrastructure issues (example: inspect DME/DME reception)

35

Publication & Coordination with Data Houses

36

RNAV Procedure Description

✈ Procedures are currently published as charts and as textual descriptions.

✈ The charts are used by the pilots and ATC.

✈ Database providers require clear, and unambiguous

procedure descriptions and use the charts to validate/check.

37

RNAV Procedure Description

✈ RNAV procedures defined by:

✈Sequence of waypoints✈Identifier✈Co-ordinates✈Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius

✈Path Terminators - ARINC 424

✈Altitude restrictions

✈Speed restrictions

✈Direction of turn

✈Required navaid

38

Charting

39

Waypoint sequence

Fly-over/fly-by/fixed radius

Speed/Altitude Restrictions

Leg distance & magnetic track

Fix information

Turn direction

PT118 PT119

PT121PT120

203°

RW20

FAF

MAPt

113°

293°

350°

4500

40005000

4000

PT125

169° ARZ 29.3NM236° ALM 27.4NM

Procedure Description for Database Providers

✈ Textual description is usually used to provide formal statement of procedure.

✈Often open to interpretation.✈ RNAV procedures require more specific details including path

terminators.✈Can result in lengthy descriptions.✈Alternative descriptive methods have been adopted by

OCP:✈Tabular layout✈Formalised textual description✈Formalised short-hand description

40

preferred by data houses

Tabular Description

41

Waypoint Identification

✈ IFPP introduced concept of strategic and tactical waypoints

✈ Strategic waypoints:

✈ identified by co-located navaid or by unique five-letter pronounceable “name-code” (5LNC).

✈5LNCs may be misinterpreted when issuing “direct” or vector instructions (ALECS, ALEKS, ALYKS).

✈ Tactical Waypoints may be used in a specific terminal area for vectoring, identification, and sequencing.

✈Tactical waypoint naming is specific to area.

42

Strategic Waypoint

✈ A waypoint in the terminal area which is:✈Of such significance to the ATS provider that it must be

easily remembered and stand out on any display, or✈Used as an ‘activation point’ to generate a message

between computer systems when an aircraft passes it.✈ Strategic waypoints are identified with 5LNCs unless they

are co-located with a navaid, when the 3 letter navaid ID is used.

43

Tactical Waypoint

✈ Tactical: a waypoint which is defined solely for use in the specific terminal area and has not been designated a strategic waypoint.

✈ Identified as AAXNN, where:

✈AA - the last two characters of the aerodrome location indicator;

✈X - a numeric code from 3 to 9 (N, E, W and S may be used instead if a State has a requirement for quadrantal information)

✈NN - a numeric code from 00 to 99.

44

RNAV Procedure IdentificationNaming Conventions

✈“RNAV(GNSS) RWY 23” - is RNP approach

✈“RNAV(RNP) RWY 23” - is RNP-AR approach

45

*ICAO State Letter SP 65/4-13/24, proposed change 1 DEC 2022 to:RNP and RNP(AR)

Charting Altitude Restrictions

46

An altitude window : FL220 10,000

An “at or below” altitude : 5000

A “hard” altitude : 3000

An “at or above” altitude: 7000

FMS/RNAV limitations

✈Airspace Designers often want STARS to a metering fix and additional STARs to join to initial approach Fix for each runway

✈Cannot have two STARs in same flight plan in FMS

✈Airway and approach transitions needed

47

Implementation/1

48

✈Implementation decision✈PRE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW!!!!

✈ATC system consideration✈TRAINING✈AIRAC cycle

Implementation/2

✈Monitor process

✈Support OPS

✈Redundancy or contingency procedures

✈Support controllers and pilots

✈Maintain log

✈Post Implementation Safety Assessment

49

Post Implementation

✈Safety Assessment

✈ Have objectives been met

✈ Have any safety issues been identified

✈ What improvements could be made

✈ Is there a continuing quality process

50

Questions??

51