Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc” Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL 1/34 # Comment originator document/ Section/Page Comment / question Response Status (closed/ Open) 1. AENA (R. Pecos) Whole doc I have been reading with the highest interest in such document and I would like to suggest a couple of comments for your consideration, provided that it would be possible. Generally speaking, it is a good guidance material. I think it gives an explanatory and “friendly” picture of all the “new” concepts derived from RNP approaches. Congratulations for that good work. N/A Closed 2. IATA (A. Van Der Velt) Whole doc Comment 1: The document provides mainly guidelines for States and ANSPs whilst it is assumed that the Operator has the equipment on board and is approved to execute Baro-VNAV procedures. The latter being still an "EASA obstacle" for airlines that did not receive approval based on AMC 20-27's too stringent operational requirements compared with FAA AC 20- 129. This has created a non level playing field. It should be sufficient to be approved based on FAA AC 20-129 as an alternative means of compliance. The situation is detrimental to proliferation of PBN Baro- VNAV operations. Not a comment on the guidance – something directed at EASA. Closed 3. Eurocontr ol (G. Berz) Table of content It seems to me the table of contents doesn't match the document? fixed
34
Embed
Comments to Guidance Material 15 sept 2011 Meetings Seminars and Worksho… · Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
1/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
1. AENA (R.
Pecos)
Whole doc I have been reading with the highest
interest in such document and I would like
to suggest a couple of comments for your
consideration, provided that it would be
possible. Generally speaking, it is a good
guidance material. I think it gives an
explanatory and “friendly” picture of all the
“new” concepts derived from RNP
approaches. Congratulations for that good
work.
N/A Closed
2. IATA (A.
Van Der
Velt)
Whole doc Comment 1: The document provides mainly
guidelines for States and ANSPs whilst it is
assumed that the Operator has the
equipment on board and is approved to
execute Baro-VNAV procedures. The latter
being still an "EASA obstacle" for airlines
that did not receive approval based on AMC
20-27's too stringent operational
requirements compared with FAA AC 20-
129. This has created a non level playing
field. It should be sufficient to be approved
based on FAA AC 20-129 as an alternative
means of compliance. The situation is
detrimental to proliferation of PBN Baro-
VNAV operations.
Not a comment on the guidance – something
directed at EASA.
Closed
3. Eurocontr
ol (G.
Berz)
Table of
content
It seems to me the table of contents
doesn't match the document?
fixed
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
2/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
4. AENA (R.
Pecos)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Taking advantage from the very last
proposals for amendment to some ICAO
documents, those are: PANS-OPS, vol II
(doc. 8168); Annex 14, vol I; Annex 6, part
I; and Annex 10 vol I; what are very
consolidated and mature, I would put the
new definitions (or re-definitions), related
to the RNP APCHs, in the part “Glossary
of The Main Terms”, including definitions
for types of approaches, types of runways
and OCA/H and DA/H, MDA/H, despite they
are explained at the body of the document.
Not accepted.
The Definitions are still evolving and are not
yet stable. We should stay with the
currently published definitions until they are
formally changed in ICAO documents
Closed
5. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Definition of APV to be updated in order to
be compliant with the definition in PANS-
OPS:
“An instrument procedure which utilizes
lateral and vertical guidance but does not
meet the requirements established for
precision approach and landing operations.”
Accepted
Although this definition is expected to
change in the near future.
Closed
6. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
“APV Baro” to be replaced by “APV Baro-
VNAV” in order to comply with Doc 8169 p.
III 3.4.1
This comment applies to the whole
document.
Accepted
Closed
7. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
“Baro-VNAV”: Why not using the definition
used by Doc8168 :
“Barometric vertical navigation (Baro-
Accepted
Closed
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
3/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
VNAV) is a navigation system that presents
to the pilot computed vertical guidance
referenced to a specified vertical path angle
(VPA), nominally 3°. The computer-
resolved vertical guidance is based on
barometric altitude and is specified as a
vertical path angle from reference datum
height (RDH).”
8. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Suggests adding definitions for CRC,
EGNOS SoL, FAS DB
Accepted
Closed
9. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Definition of ABAS to be added Accepted
Closed
10. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Suggest adding MSAS and GAGAN in the
GNSS definition
Accepted
Closed
11. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
In LNAV, LPV, LNAV/VNAV and LP
definitions: Actually LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, etc
are defined as Level of Service (ARINC 424)
or Mode of Operations (ICAO). The term
‘minima line’ is reflecting only the charting
aspect. Therefore, I suggest to add above
industry/ICAO terms.
Accepted
Closed
12. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Proposed some small modification in the
definition for “LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV and
LP” “… distinguish the various the minima
Accepted
Closed
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
4/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
lines on the RNAV(GNSS)chart.”
13. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 2.13: Is AMC 20-27 really equivalent to FAA AC
20-129?
No there are known differences. EASA are
planning to publish a memo explaining how
to treat aircraft with AC 20 129 approvals.
The text has been modified to remove
reference to AC 20-129
closed
14. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
In LNAV/VNAV definition: The SBAS
receiver has also the ability to provide
vertical guidance beside supporting APVs
thru FAS data block ‘guidance’. Therefore
the VNAV mode of LNAV/VNAV is provided
thru two on-board capabilities namely
Barometric altimeter or SBAS VNAV
functionality. Suggest adding to the
explanation of the term LNAV/VNAV.
Accepted
closed
15. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
Amended LNAV/VNAV definition: “the
minima line based on Baro-VNAV system
performances and can be used by aircraft
approved according to AMC 20-27 or
equivalent (for example FAA AC 20-129).
LNAV/VNAV minima can also be used by
aircraft computing SBAS information for
positioning. “
Accepted
Closed
16. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
In LPV definition, add in full text “Localizer
Performance with Vertical Guidance”
Accepted
17. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Glossary of
The Main
Amended LPV definition: “the minima line
based on SBAS performances and can be
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
5/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Bousquet) Terms used by aircraft approved according to AMC
20-28 or equivalent.”
18. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
LP definition: replace “minima line to be
flown” by “to be used”.
Accepted
19. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
LP definition: about “due to obstacles,
terrain, airport infrastructure limitations”. Is
fair to let it without more explanation?
Accepted. Further text has been added.
20. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
PBN definition: remove “availability” from
the definition
Accepted
21. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
RNAV approach definition: replace “to
ground-based navigation aids” by “to/from”
Accepted
22. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
RNAV approach definition: replace last
sentence by “RNP APCH navigation
specification is synonym of RNAV
approach.”
Accepted
23. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
RNP AR APCH definition: complement last
sentence with “in particular environments
rich in terrain and dense terminal areas”
Accepted
24. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
Glossary of
The Main
Terms
SBAS definition: replace “used for the
augmentation of GNSS signals” by “used for
the augmentation of core constellation
GNSS signals”
Accepted
25. AENA (R. $ 2.19 - About “LP” and its associated note: “Not Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
6/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Pecos)
and Pildo
Labs (S.
Soley)
Figure 1 planned in Europe”, I do not know the
rationale supporting that, but could be a
constraint for the implementation of SBAS
operations. We have not explored the
suitability of LP procedures, but for our
orography and, bearing in mind the EGNOS
area coverage, maybe LP operations could
be something appropriate or advantageous
for some Spanish scenarios (South
Peninsula and Canary Islands). Maybe, it
would be good having a short explanation
of the rational for such note or probably
eliminate it.
The note has been removed.
26. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 2.19 -
Figure 1
Why is LP excluded from Europe planning?
In some circumstances, LP can be a
solution (e.g. requirement of a high descent
angle). I understand and approve Europe's
concern to reduce unstable approaches by
encouraging CDFA. Encouragement in this
respect must be done by providing no
operational benefit when flying a LNAV or
LP without applying the CDFA technique.
But this must not lead to the exclusion of
possibilities. It is the safety case at each
airport that must rationalize the choice.
Accepted.
The note has been removed.
27. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 2.19 -
Figure 1
About LP: needs to be investigated before
stating “Not planned in Europe”.
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
7/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
28. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 2.19 -
Figure 1
+ $ 4.1.2
The distinction between linear deviation(s)
(LNAV and LNAV/VNAV) and angular
deviation(s) (LP and LPV) must be
highlighted as a criterion required for
precision approaches. The safety benefit of
stable approaches does not end at the
published minimum, but reliable guidance
information provided by precision
approaches down to the flare (50ft AGL)
helps the pilot to maintain stable
approaches until the touchdown (reducing
the chance of "too" short/long landings).
Agreed.
However, it is difficult to modify the text to
address the comment directly as the
difference is not so clear. For example,
there are LNAV and LNAV/VNAV systems
that provide angular guidance.
All four approaches in the figure are RNP
APCH according to PBN and they will be
published on a chart with the title RNAV
(GNSS).
The debate over what is, or is not a precision
approach is still under debate in ICAO. The
ICAO ACTF discusses approach classification
and we must wait until they come to a
conclusion on the subject.
Closed
29. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 2.19 -
Figure 1
Add “SBAS VNAV” below “APV Baro” Not agreed. This figure is high level and
should not be over complicated. Yes the
LNAV/VNAV procedure can be flown with
SBAS (under certain circumstances) but this
is explained in the text. (Definitions)
30. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.1 Replace “has made it possible to use RNAV”
by “to use area navigation”
Accepted.
31. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 4.1.2 EBAA believes LPV should not be considered
anymore as part of the RNP approach. LPV
are considered by both FAA and EASA as
precision approaches and therefore should
Not Accepted
This comment cannot be taken onboard by
this guidance document. Today LPV is
defined in ICAO as an RNAV approach and
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
8/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
be included in this paragraph. complies with RNP APCH navigation
specifications in the PBN Manual. The ICAO
ACTF discusses approach classification and
we must wait until they come to a conclusion
on the subject before adopting any new
terms.
32. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.2 In “PA” and “NPA” definition add “uses for
the final approach segment” …
Accepted
33. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.2 In PA definition, replace “bring the aircraft
to a point where the runway is in view and
a visual landing can be performed” by “and
provide only lateral guidance along the final
approach segment”
Accepted
34. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.3 Replace the last sentence by “The RNAV
system can be used for approach phase of
flight, provided RNAV approach procedures
are designed and published. RNAV
approach are described by a series of
waypoints, legs, altitude and speed
constraints published and stored in the
onboard navigation database.
Accepted
35. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.4 Remove “called GPS NPA”
Complement the sentence by “as with
conventional NPA procedures, which is
indicated as the LNAV minima line on the
RNAV(GNSS)chart.
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
9/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Remove the last sentence from “Although”
to “are currently based on GPS”.
36. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.5 Replace “to implement RNP APCH” by “to
use RNP APCH”
Accepted
37. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 4.1.6 Replace 1st sentence by “The step-down
level-off or dive and drive descent
technique for flying NPAs containing step-
down fixes, which is prone to error, can
also be removed.”
Accepted
38. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.6 Replace first sentence by “The step-down
descent technique used along conventional
final approach segment in NPA procedures,
which is prone to error, can also be
removed from RNAV final approach
segment.”
Accepted.
39. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.6 Shouldn’t the “can also be removed” be
replaced by a “should”?
Accepted
40. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.6 About “Operators are being encouraged”
add the following foot note: “This is even
mandatory for public transport and general
aviation (heavy aircraft only)”
Accepted
41. DSNA/DTI
(C.
$ 4.1.6 Remove “where a continuous descent
vertical path is followed”.
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
10/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Bousquet)
42. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.6 Replace “the design of Non Precision
Approach” by “NPA procedure”
Accepted
43. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.1.6 Replace “nominal descent angle” by
“gradient”
Accepted
44. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.2.1 Add “with a constant rate of descent based
on the Barometric altimeter, or on GPS
augmented SBAS position”
Accepted
45. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.2.2 Add at the end of the paragraph “The
vertical guidance is provided only along the
final segment whatever onboard system is
used”
Accepted
46. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.2.4 Replace “are flown to the LPV minima line”
by “are flown to a Decision Altitude/Height
indicated in the LPV minima line
Accepted
47. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.3.2 Replace paragraph by “For intermediate,
final approach, initial and intermediate
phases of missed approach, the ICAO PBN
Manual specifies RNP APCH navigation
specifications which are to be found on
PBN, Volume II, Part C, Chapter 5 [1].
Initial approach segment and final missed
approach segments can be supported either
by RNP APCH or by RNAV1.” (only add-ons)
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
11/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
48. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.3.3 Replace paragraph by “APCH procedures
are published on charts with the title
RNAV(GNSS) RWY XX. That is the reason
why they are referred to so far as RNAV
approaches. These approach charts can
have several minima lines depending on the
type of final segment defined with the RNP
APCH operation to be flown. The table
below provides cross reference between
RNAV PANS-OPS and PBN terminology.
Accepted
49. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.3.3 –
Table 1
Replace beginning of the first column of
the table by:
PANS-OPS terminology
NPA GPS
APV Baro VNAV
Accepted
50. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$4.3.3 -
Table 1
Change the last column with:
Basic GNSS,
Basic GNSS + Baro VNAV/SBAS VNAV
SBAS
SBAS
Table amended to say “minimum sensor”
The statement that SBAS/VNAV can be used
to fly the LNAV/VNAV minima line is clearly
in the text.
51. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 4.3.3 –
Table 1
RNP APCH down to LNAV/VNAV can be
flown with SBAS sensor (see $ 4.2.3).
Table amended to say “minimum sensor”
52. DSNA/DTI
(C.
$ 4.3.5 Complement the sentence in the paragraph
with “navigation performance is expressed
OK – needs to be considered with comment
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
12/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Bousquet) as an RNP value for NPA and APV Baro-
VNAV.”
below.
53. Thales (P.
Bouniol)
$ 4.3.5 We think that you should not mention “and
navigation performance is expressed as an
RNP value”. One of the characteristics of
RNP-APCH is that there is not a single RNP
value (values for initial/intermediate and
final segment are different)
Accepted
54. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.3.6 Remove in the paragraph “despite the use
of different terminology, the RNP APCH …3
Accepted
55. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.4.1 Amend first sentence by “An The important
distinction between the different types …”
Accepted
56. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.4.2 Replace “… for the different flavours of RNP
…” by “for the different RNP APCH
operations”
Accepted
57. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.4.3 Replace “The vertical path angle is usually
defined between 50ft above the runway
threshold and a final capture point (for
example the FAF)” by
“The vertical path angle is computed
between 50ft above the runway threshold
and a final capture point which corresponds
to the location of the FAF associated with
the NPA RNP APCH even though the WP
associated with the FAF of the NPA RNP
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
13/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
APCH is never used on board to start the
final descent for the APV BaroVNAV. The
final path starts when the aircraft intersects
the vertical final guidance. But this point of
intersection is very close to FAF of NPA RNP
APCH.”
58. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.4.3 Replace the last sentence of the $ by “. The
final descent is also influenced by
temperature: temperature limits are
published on the chart.”
with the following foot note: “Currently only
the lower temperature value is published on
the chart”
Accepted
59. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$4.4.4 According to State Letter B2.1 ‘Navigation
Infrastructure’, replace 1st sentence by
“RNP APCH to LPV minima is based on
augmented GNSS and (SBAS).”
Accepted (see comment below)
60. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.4.4 Amend 1st sentence with “…based on GNSS
core constellation and SBAS.
Accepted
61. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 4.4.4 Add the following sentence before the last
sentence: “The vertical path angle is
defined (not computed) and published in
degree (mainly 3°).”
Accepted
62. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.2.2.1 Amend $ by “… LNAV minima as an
acceptable alternative to APV in places
where APV implementation is not possible
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
14/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
or does not make sense as no aircraft are
suitably equipped for APV operations”.
63. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 5.2.2.2.2 We are surprised to see that aircraft below
$ 5.2.2.3.1 Replace “better” by “APV operation” in the
text in bracket: “(APV operation back-up
solution in case of ILS outages)”
Accepted
66. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.2.8.1
and 5.2.2.8.2
Replace “APV” by “RNP APCH” (3
occurrences).
Accepted
67. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.5.3 Recommend to remove end of the
paragraph (“such as an NPA”) as not
necessary (redundant)
Accepted
68. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.2.2 Typo replace “PANS OPS” by PANS-OPS” Accepted
69. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet
$ 5.2.6.2.2 In the two bullet points, DA/H must be
replaced by DH
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
15/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
& R.
Guleac)
70. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.4.1 Is the following sentence correct: “GPS is
the only fully operational core GNSS
available”
Maybe not 100%. The text has been
removed.
71. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.4.1 Add “All NPA RNP APCH …” in 2nd sentence. Not agreed. All types of RNP APCH rely on
the use of GPS. This is true. Baro VNAV and
SBAS users also rely on GPS.
72. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.6.4.3 Propose to add a sentence at the end of the
paragraph: “The EGNOS Safety of Life
(SoL) service commissioning took place on
2 March 2011. The EGNOS SoL is provided
free of direct user charges.”
Accepted
73. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.4.6 Is the word “refers” correct in the
sentence: “(For the EU States EC
Regulation No 550-2004 Article 10 refers)”
Accepted - propose to replace by “applies”
74. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.4.7 Replace “coverage” by “service” in “if
suitable EGNOS coverage is available”
Accepted
75. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.4.9 Delete the end of the paragraph: “and ATC
prefers not to be provided with this data.”
Accepted
76. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.4.10 Amend the paragraph as follows:
“(approach clearance is according to
approach name – RNAV(GNSS) – and not to
the type of minima). An aircraft will follow
the same lateral path whether performing
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
16/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
an approach down to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or
LPV minima available on the same chart.”
77. Eurocontr
ol (G.
Berz)
$ 5.2.6.4.11 The stuff about GNSS monitoring is mostly
on Annex 10 (not so much in 8071 as far as
I remember) and the GNSS Manual treats
the subject as well. While I understand you
wanting to make clear that there is no strict
requirement I personally still consider it a
useful activity, especially for the detection
of RFI.
Agreed. Refer to Annex 10.
78. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.6.5.1 Replace paragraph by “RNP APCH
operations are based upon GNSS including
missed approach segment. Nevertheless, if
required by the local safety assessment,
some conventional navaids (VOR, DME,
NDB) can be locally maintained.
Accepted
79. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.6.5.4 My suggestion is to split the statements in
order to differentiate between a clear
requirement in PANS-OPS for Baro-VNAVs
i.e. procedure is not authorized with remote
QNH and a statement for LPVs which is
under consideration. “Remote QNH is
acceptable in the case of RNP APCH to
LNAV. and LPV minima (TBC). This is
accounted for in the procedure design.
Remote QNH for APV procedures down to
LPV minima is under consideration..”
Accepted
80. DSNA/DTI $ 5.2.6.5.4 TBC is the following sentence needs Confirmed. TBC has been removed.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
17/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
(C.
Bousquet)
urgently to be confirmed before the
publication of the document: “Remote QNH
is acceptable in the case of RNP APCH to
LNAV and LPV minima (TBC).”
81. Thales (P.
Bouniol)
§ 5.2.6.5.4 You mention that remote QNH might be
acceptable for LPV. Even if the descent
profile following is based on the GPS/SBAS
altitude, the DA estimation is based on
Zbaro. A local QNH should be thus required
instead of a remote.
This is still under discussion at IFPP.
82. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.7.2.4 Amend the 3rd bullet with “Does the aircraft
have an RNAV or RNP capability onboard?
For what phase of flight?”
Accepted
83. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.7.2.4 Amend the 6th bullet with “Does the aircraft
operator …” and propose to highlight in bold
the word “airworthiness”
It is the aircraft which is certified, so it is
proposed to replace “operator” by “aircraft”.
The two words “airworthiness approval” are
proposed to be highlighted.
84. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.7.2.4 In 7th bullet highlight in bold the word
“operational”
Accepted. propose to highlight “operational
approval”
85. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.7.2.4 What does 8th bullet brings in addition to
the bullets before?
Nothing. Propose to remove.
86. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.8.2 Do you think the PANS-ATM (doc 4444)
provides enough information?
Yes. For the moment we do not have
anything better to propose. I expect this will
be revisited in the light of experience.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
18/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
87. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.8.5 It is more than necessary to provide an
example at least to support the following
paragraph: “In line with Amendment 1,
aircraft navigation equipment and capability
for PBN applications, including RNP APCH,
are catered for through the application of
dedicated indicators in items 10 and 18 of
the flight plan. Entries made under Items
10 and 18 of the FPL will indicate the
equipment level and capabilities of the
aircraft. ATS automated systems need to be
upgraded to be able to extract this
information from the FPL and it would need
to be agreed what information to display on
ATC working positions. However, ATC do
not require detailed information about the
PBN equipment on board an aircraft
requesting to carry out an RNAV approach.”
The operational concept for the use of the
new flight plan parameters has not yet been
developed. It is impossible to provide a
concrete example at this time. What we
wanted to indicate is that this is not required
today for the implementation of RNP APCH.
88. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.8.7 Replace “(for LPV)” by “(for APV SBAS)” Accepted
89. AENA (R.
Pecos)
$ 5.2.9 -
Activity 8
Regarding to “5.2.9. Activity 8: Benefits
and costs for RNP APCH implementation”,
there are other benefits: Deployment of
some conventional navaids (maintenance,
calibration flights, etc.), and even, jointly to
that, the possibility to have less building
constraints in the aerodrome, bearing in
mind obstacle limitation surfaces related to
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
19/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
the navaids that limit the construction of
hangars, TWRs, aprons, etc. -> possibility
to develop more the aerodrome, and
improve services. I am not sure how to put
all that in the text.
90. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.9.2.2 3rd bullet : Replace “step” by “activity” Accepted
91. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.9.2.3 Add “navaid” in sentence: “ground navaid
infrastructure”
Accepted
92. AENA (P.
Haro)
$ 5.2.10.1 –
Table 2
In Table 2, it is stated that the best
achievable minima for APV SBAS is 200 ft.
However, according to Appendix 1 (New) to
OPS 1.430 ‘Aerodrome operating minima’
(page 72) for APV the DH is not lower than
250 ft and the RVR is not less than 600 m
unless approved by the Authority. I suggest
to refer to the same DH figure than the one
mentioned in the OPS 1.430 and also to
include the RVR value.
Accepted. The best achievable minima for
APV SBAS is defined in PANS-OPS as being
250 ft. We can also add a reference to EU
OPS (which replaces OPS 1.430) and RVR
values.
But – we would like to think that EGNOS will
be able to support 200ft DH one day.
We think that this table adds little value and
raises a lot of questions. Propose to delete
the table.
93. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 5.2.10.1 –
Table 2
Note that the Table 2 recognizes a best
theoretical achievable minimum of 200ft for
LPVs.
see response to comment 92 above from
AENA.
94. DSNA/DTI $ 5.2.10.1 – About “200 ft” add the following foot note: See response to comment 92 above from
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
20/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
(C.
Bousquet)
Table 2 “To be expected after 2015” AENA.
95. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.10.1 –
Table 2
Two lines proposed to be added to table 2:
Authorization for remote QNH setting: - /+
Database requirements (FAS DB, procedure
extract/package): +/-
Agree with 1st point but not with 2nd.
It’s difficult to say whether the need for a
FAS DB is an argument in favour of APV
SBAS rather than of APV Baro-VNAV. Maybe
this is more complex to code, but on the
other hand this secures the intent from the
designer. We agree having the FAS DB
means that more data are to be checked by
data packers (and this may even be more
“effort demanding” when it is encoded in a
binary file) but again, the definition of path
in space is probably better defined like this.
96. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.10.1 –
Table 2
About “The airport elevation is higher than
5000 ft AMSL”, this statement shall be
supported by a paragraph providing
rationale”.
Accepted
97. IATA (A.
Van Der
Velt)
$ 5.2.10.1 –
Table 2
Comment 2: Table 2: shows Guidance
Material for States and ANSPs to choose
between APV Baro or APV SBAS
procedures, especially the airport elevation
height of > 5000 ft AMSL.
First of all this airport height of > 5000 ft
AMSL is wrong. Meant is t the FAF altitude
at > 5000 ft and not the airport height,
which translates in an airport height of >
3000 ft (1000 m) and with the aircraft at
This is an IFPP issue and cannot be
addressed in the guidance.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
21/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
the FAF at 2000 ft above the airport
Secondly, it is obvious that the criteria of
the FAF height of > 5000 ft AMSL has a
detrimental effect on Baro-VNAV
applications, as there are many airports
that are located at a height AMSL of 3000 ft
(1000m) and above
The practical im plication of this criteria will
be that Baro-VNAV procedures are not
permitted at airports that have an elevation
of 3000 ft and above and will lead to
marginally offering of Baro-VNAV
procedures globally by States/ANSPs and
consequently will hamper PBN proliferation
severely.
We strongly recommend that the criteria be
cancelled from the table until after the new
design for APV Baro are available. In this
sense, the subject is being worked on by an
ICAO APV Baro-VNAV drafting group that
will deliver its findings to the ICAO IFPP
that is reporting to the ICAO PBN Steering
Group for its consent
98. EBAA (P.
Vincente
Azua)
$ 5.2.10.3 To facilitate the process to publish multiple
RNP APCH minimas at once, it would make
sense to identify which steps are generic for
all RNP APCH minimas, and which steps
must be done separately for each approach
We agree with this comment, but these
clarifications should be provided into PANS-
OPS not in the guidance material. A
proposal for IFPP.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
22/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
minima.
99. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.10.3 Propose to reformulate 3rd bullet by: “‘Note
that all three level of services of RNP APCH
can be published on a single chart only in
case the procedure design solution for
LNAV mode does not utilize step-down fix
within the final approach segment. In this
case, it is recommended that RNP APCH
(LNAV mode) and RNP APCH (LNAV/VNAV
and/or LPV modes) should be published on
separate charts respectively. The
application of ICAO duplicate procedure
identification concept i.e. usage of a single
letter suffix may also be considered.”
Accepted.
100. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.2.10.3 I would recommend replacing the term
‘type of’ RNP APCH with ‘level of service’ or
‘mode of operation’ of RNP APCH... (to be
changed: “all three types of RNP APCH
procedures”)
Maybe. It depends where you look at it from.
The word “Type” has been removed.
101. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.2.10.3 Amend 3rd bullet with “…type of RNP APCH
(with minima LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and/or
LPV)”
addressed together with comment 98 above.
102. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.2.1 Propose to add the following at the end of
the paragraph: “Special consideration
should be given when designing an LNAV
RNP APCH procedure using step-down fix
method. The usage of step-down fix is a
valid design criteria permitting additional
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
23/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
descent within a segment by identifying a
point at which a controlling obstacle has
been safely over-flown. However, due to
the fact that RNP APCH procedures are
relying on navigation databases and Flight
Management Systems (FMS) it has been
recognized that there are some avionics
limitation in handling coded step-down fixes
(SDF) within final segment. It is also clear
that some State regulators would not
accept SDFs in the final segment coded into
the navigation database under any
circumstances. In that case, the States
regulator which does not accept SDF
coding, should advise thru official letter
sent to navigation data-houses for clearly
indicating under which conditions the
published SDFs (identified as named or not
named fixes) are to be captured or not into
on-board databases.”
103. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.2.2 This is to be stressed that this document
(doc 8168 vol II) does not provide today all
answers to procedure designers.
Accepted. Text has been miodified and a
reference to 9906 has been added.
104. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.2.5 Remove paragraph Accepted
105. Jeppesen
(S.
$ 5.3.6.2 Replace “to verify” by “verifying” Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
24/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Onitiu)
106. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.2.7 and
$ 5.3.2.8
Amend paragraph as follows:
5.3.2.6. The criteria for RNP APCH
with vertical guidance based on Baro VNAV
(APV BaroVNAV) design are described in
ICAO PANS OPS Volume II, Part III, Section
3, Chapter 4.
5.3.2.7. The criteria for RNP APCH
with vertical guidance based on SBAS (APV
SBAS) criteria are provided in ICAO PANS
OPS Volume II, Part III, Section 3, Chapter
5.
Accepted
107. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.4 Add the following text before the two
existing sub-chapter: “Local safety case
shall start as soon as possible because the
analysis can have effect on the design or on
the charting of the procedure”
Accepted
108. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.6.1 Amend $ by “The objective of procedure
validation is to verify all obstacles”
Accepted
109. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.6.1 What about detection of interference? This would not be under procedure validation
it would be under local site survey.
110. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.6.3 Add the following paragraph after the first 2
paragraphs: “5.3.6.3. Before
implementation of the procedure based on
GNSS information, a flight inspection shall
We think that doc 8071 is out of date and
doc 9906 replaces the procedures validation
elements. 8071 should focus on signal-in-
space validation and today no flight
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
25/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
be conducted in compliance with Doc 8171
Manual on Testing of Radionavigation Aids
Vol II
inspection is required to validate the SIS. It
might be wise to check for signal reception
issues along the procedure but it is not
mandatory.
In doc 9906 Vol 1 Section 7.8. “Ground validation must always be undertaken. When the State can verify, by ground validation, the accuracy and completeness of all obstacle and navigation data considered in the procedure design, and any other factors normally considered in the flight validation, then the flight validation requirement may be dispensed with.”
111. Eurocontr
ol (G.
Berz)
$ 5.3.6.3 I thought the stuff about procedure
validation was going to be in Vol 5 or 6 of
the Quality Manual, not Vol 1. But I am not
sure what the current status is.
See above
112. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.7 Maybe this activity should be moved before
“procedure design” (activity 10), or should
be renamed?
Have renamed the section.
113. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.7.2 the RNP APCH is usually designed (and not
“are”)
Accepted
114. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.7.2 Replace paragraph by “5.3.7.2. RNP
APCH procedures providing a vertical
guidance may be published either as
backup for precision approaches or as sole
approaches when there is no ILS/MLS..”
Not accepted The idea from the second
sentence is not captured in the proposal.
115. EBAA (P.
Vincente
$ 5.3.7.3 Replace "All procedures should include a
LNAV minima..." by "All procedures shall
Accepted, However, Sometimes publication
of LNAV minima on the same chart is not
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
26/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Azua) include a LNAV minima..." In accordance
with ICAO resolution A37-11 pt 2. / a) / 2)
& 3).
possible or is not adequate so we cannot
change the “should” in “shall”.
116. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.7.3 Replace 1st sentence of the $ by “5.3.7.3.
When the only approach available is
an RNP APCH procedure is published, it is
possible that not all the three minima lines
are available on the chart.”
Accepted
117. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.7.4 To explain what is “mixed mode
operations”; propose between brackets
“(conventional navigation versus area
navigation)”
Agreed. An explanation of mixed-mode has
been added to the para above where mixed
mode is first introduced.
118. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.7.4 Replace last sentence by “Conventional
navigation aids may be needed to support
operators’ contingency procedure in case of
GNSS outage.”
Accepted
119. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.8.1.2 Replace last sentence by: “Using a suffix is
a common rule not specific to RNP APCH
procedures.”
Accepted
120. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.1.2 Suggest to delete this sentence as not
really necessary i.e. according to
Introduction the RNP AR APCH is out of
scope of this guidance material. “Also,
those suffixes are applicable to both RNP
APCH and RNP AR APCH types of
operations.”
See response to comment 119 above from
DSNA/DTI. Reference to RNP AR has been
deleted.
121. Jeppesen $ 5.3.8.1.3 Propose to add “All procedures must be Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
27/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
(S.
Onitiu)
based upon WGS-84 coordinates.”
122. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.1.4 Propose to add the following paragraph:
“5.3.8.1.4. The State AIP should clearly
indicate that the navigation application is
RNP APCH. The navigation data published in
the State AIP for the procedures and
supporting navigation aids must meet the
charting requirements of Annex 4
‘Aeronautical Charts’, Chapter 11,
paragraph 11.10.9 and Annex 15 ‘AIS’ (as
appropriate), The RNP APCH procedures
shall be published in tabular form or a
formal textual description on the verso of
the chart or a separate, properly referenced
sheet. “
Agreed. But last sentence has been clarified.
What needs to be published on the back of
the chart? – a coding table giving the
coordinates of all the waypoints (and Fixes)
used in the procedure.
123. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.8.1.4 About “an agreed format”. Is it acceptable
to speak about some “agreed format” and
not being able to tell where or how this
format is ? At least one should mention if
this agreement is to be settled between
national AIS and data houses. As long as no
ICAO document is provided to standardize
the format.
There is no agreed format. Text has been
clarified.
124. AENA (R.
Pecos)
$ 5.3.8.1.5 Is it recommended to publish the SBAS FAS
DB in the AIP?
Accepted. See comment 126 below.
125. DSNA/DTI
(C.
$ 5.3.8.1.5 Is “Electronic form” the binary format? Not necessarily. It could be hexadecimal,
ASCII
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
28/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
Bousquet)
126. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.1.6 Propose to replace paragraph with “In the
case of LPV, data transfer includes a FAS
DB, which contains an 8-character
hexadecimal representation of the
calculated remainder bits called CRC
remainder. The CRC reminder is used to
determine the integrity of the FAS DB data
during transmission and storage and it is
computed electronically with use of FAS
data block software tool. The FAS Data
Block content is addressed in detail in Doc.
8168, Vol. II, Part III, Section 2, Chapter 6.
However, there is no statement in PANS-
OPS or other ICAO document where the
FAS DB information should be promulgated.
Presently, there is a proposition to ICAP IFP
Panel for the specification of the minimum
information to be published in the AIP
which is recommending that FAS DB -
represented as a textual description -
should be published on the verso of the
chart in order to ensure that the procedure
is correctly coded in the navigation
databases.”
Accepted
127. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.1.7 Propose to add: “Generally, FAS DB tools
also generate a Data Block representation
as hexadecimal string, the recommendation
is that the textual description only together
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
29/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
with the CRC remainder value should be
made available on the verso of the chart.
“
128. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.1.9 Propose to add: “The SBAS channel number
is a five digit number that must be
regionally unique and shall be in the range
of 40,000 to 99,999. Channel number
assignments are required for LPV and LP
procedures and shall be promulgated on
the SBAS LPV and LP approach chart
respectively. To be noted that SBAS final
approach segment (FAS) data blocks are
different for LPV and LP, even though these
procedures have the same lateral approach
geometry to the same runway end.
Therefore, they are to be charted
separately with different channel numbers
and different reference path identifiers
(RPI).
Accepted, However - the point we need to
capture here is that there will never be an LP
and an LPV procedure to the same runway.
An LP procedure is only published if the LPV
is not possible.
129. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.1.10 Propose new paragraph:
“The information regarding the
establishment of new RNP APCH
procedure(s) shall be provided in
accordance with AIRAC system. It is
recommended that new RNP APCH
procedures should be considered by States
AIS as ‘major changes’ in respect of
circumstances listed in Appendix 4, Part 3
of ICAO Annex 15 (guidance on what
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
30/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
constitutes a ‘major change’ is included in
Doc. 8126 ‘AIS Manual’). Therefore, it is
recommended that new RNP APCH
information should be distributed by the
AIS unit at least 56 days in advance of the
planned effective date.”
130. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
$ 5.3.8.2.1 Propose to add: “Both type of avionics i.e.
basic GNSS and augmented GNSS (SBAS)
support all phases of flight from departure
through precision approach. GNSS-related
elements providing the navigation service
for en-route purposes shall be published in
the State AIP ENR 4 section. When the
same aid i.e. GNSS and/or SBAS is used for
both en-route and aerodrome purposes, a
description must also be given in AIP AD 2
and/or (if appropriate) AD 3 sections.”
+ Recommend insertion of new paragraph
Activity 16 ‘Navigation database’ as in PBN
Manual. In case accepted, please re-
sequence the next paragraph & Activity
numbers.
Accepted
131. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Propose a new activity 16 (see text below
the table)
Accepted
132. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.9.1.1 About the bullet list, refer to or reproduce
the syllabus provided in PBN Manual. It is
more comprehensive.
Accepted
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
31/34
# Comment originator
document/ Section/Page
Comment / question Response Status (closed/Open)
133. DSNA/DTI
(C.
Bousquet)
$ 5.3.9.1.1 Add the following sentence after the bullet
points: “Some item of the training are
general, local consideration may be added
as result from the safety assessment.”
Accepted
134. Jeppesen
(S.
Onitiu)
Annex 1 What is the meaning of colours? Suggest a
Legend for colour codes
Accepted
135. Eurocontr
ol (G.
Berz)
Annex 1 Diagram in Annex Step 13b you talk about
flight inspection but it seems in the doc you
only talk about flight validation (which is
probably right) - the inspection part (SiS
for RFI) could be done on the ground.
There are different views here - general RFI
monitoring practice is to measure for a
week and then you can be reasonably
confident that even intermittent
transmissions have been detected - if I had
to pick between one flight in the air and
one week on the ground I would prefer the
ground check. Always good to add the flight
check but the validation flight would notice
either way.
Step 13b is from the ICAO PBN Manual
process. The Activities in this guidance are
being mapped across to this process.
Linked to other comments (109/110).
136. UK CAA
(G.
Burtensha
w)
5.3.4 to provide a set of generic hazards to be
addressed as part of preparation of the
local safety case
We have been working on this for a long
time and have not been able to find an
agreement yet. It is therefore considered
premature to include such a list here.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
32/34
Proposed Activity 16 by Jeppesen (comment 131):
5.3.9 Activity 16: Navigation Database
5.3.9.1 The navigation database should be obtained from a supplier that complies with RTCA 200A/EUROCAE ED-76A
‘Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data. A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) type 1 granted by the appropriate regulatory authority shall
demonstrate data house compliancy with the above mentioned standard requirement.
Virtually all aeronautical databases are loaded according to the specifications in the Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC) 424
standard ‘Navigation System Data Base’. While the ARINC 424 specification covers a large percentage of the aeronautical requirements, it
is impossible to write a specification that wraps up every combination of factors used to design and fly instrument procedures.
Many of the differences between charts and databases are because there can be no standard implemented to have the information in
both places depicted in exactly the same way. It is recognized that the basic design for most aeronautical information contained in
instrument procedures i.e. conventional ones has been created for the analogue world. The art of entering data into an aeronautical
database i.e. translation of the textual & graphical description of a procedure with the help of Path and Terminator (P/T) codes is one that
balances the intent of the original procedure designer and the requirements of FMC systems. With the implementation of RNAV and RNP
type of applications, a high degree of standardization and harmonization chart – database information has been reached due to following
reasons:
• RNAV approach procedure standard shape ‘Y’ or ‘T’;
• Mostly straight segments (TF leg);
• Small sub-set of P/Ts compatible for RNAV procedure coding;
• ICAO requirement for formal or tabular procedure description on chart verso which significantly diminished the miss-interpretation
of procedures by coders;
However, there are many different types of avionics equipment utilizing the same baseline database. The same database information may
be presented differently on certain types of airborne equipment even being manufactured by the same FMS vendor. In addition, some
equipment may be limited to specific types of database information, omitting other database information.
For nearly two decades data-house experts have been working with all avionics vendors to achieve as much standardization of flying
RNAV procedures as possible.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
33/34
Consequently, it is strongly recommended that in certain cases, alternative coding (such as path terminators, speed and altitude
restrictions) may be used to enable specific RNAV systems to better follow the intended track – such actions should be approved by the
associated State Regulator and are within the purview of the data coder and the avionics manufacturer.
5.3.9.2 Within an ARINC 424 output file for an SBAS LPV procedure, the FAS DB data is carried in a dedicated type of record
called Path Point (PP) file. The PP Primary record description contains all FAS data fields (twenty-one fields including the CRC remainder
field) as required for the data wrap for CRC calculations. The specific order and coding of the twenty-one fields shall be followed
rigorously when computing the CRC to ensure avionics compatibility. When ‘un-wrapping ‘the FAS Data Block, the data-house and
avionics must compare the resulting CRC remainder i.e. representing integrity field with the value provided by the procedure designer. If
the values do not match, the FAS Data Block cannot be validated and extracted from database.
Additionally, the Path Point record has been further extended following industry requirements with a continuation record. The PP
Continuation record containing fields lsuch as LTP and FPAP orthometric heights, FPAP ellipsoid height, SBAS channel number, etc.
Therefore, States are also required to provide these parameters to the data houses in addition to the FAS DB.
In conclusion, RNP APCH procedures authorized for SBAS navigation demand a complex work-process for generation and extraction of the
complete set of records by the navigation database supplier. There are three record types simultaneously extracted as follows:
1. Airport Approach Primary Record – carrying coding legs (P/Ts) and supporting data elements;
2. Path Point Primary/Continuation Records – carrying twenty-one FAS Data Block fields and some non-FAS DB (needed)
information;
3. Procedure Data Continuation Record – provides the Level of Service (LPV, LNAV/VNAV and LNAV) authorized for SBAS and
respective Name of the Service.
Also, from data quality and integrity level stand point, some elements of FAS DB are classified as critical data requiring the highest
possible resolution for latitude/longitude & elevation (hundredth of sec and 1 foot respectively).
Therefore, attention should be paid throughout the entire chain of involved actors i.e. procedure designer – AIS expert - data ware-house
specialist – avionics representative in order that the high demanding navigation database requirements for RNP APCH should be closely
coordinated as well as it would be a collaborative process.
5.3.9.3 From a database perspective, special consideration should also be given when designing an LNAV RNP APCH
procedure using step-down fix (SDF) method (for SDF procedure design consideration, see paragraph 5.3.2.1).
Generally, if the procedure design solution is employing final and/or intermediate segment SDFs, the respective fix(es) will be captured in
the navigation database according to the coding rules stated in the ARINC 424 industry standard.
Comments to ICAO document reference: “PBNTF5 WP05 Rev 1 Guidance Material RNP APCH Updated August 2011.doc”
Last update: 03/11/2011 by EUROCONTROL
34/34
Since many years, industry and database providers have anticipated the application of VNAV function included into FMS/RNAV system in
support of continuous descent final approach operations. An FMS usually ‘builds’ a profile backwards from a point 50ft above the runway
threshold to the initial constraints – normally, an altitude restriction at the FAF. Therefore, a vertical angle is always included as a vertical
path coding element within all straight-in type of procedures including RNAVs. For NPAs and LNAV RNAV, the vertical angle is calculated
by the database supplier from LTP elevation + published TCH/50ft to the altitude of the FAF.
If final segment SDF(s) are published, a single value for vertical angle will be calculated in order to clear each SDF associated x-cross
altitude and it will be repeated on all step-down fixes.
Last but not least: It has to be emphasized that MDA and DA values are not part of the approach coding solution and the altitude at
missed approach fix (MAP) fix is not any of procedure MDA or DA. The associated altitude at MAP is a computed by database coder
(mandatory) value based on the final profile and implicitly, based on the calculated vertical angle. If, for example, one RNAV APCH chart
is including LNAV and LNAV/VNAV minima, this RNAV APCH procedure can be coded only once irrespective of different minima values.
With other words, if the approach has LNAV/VNAV minima then it only requires FAF and MAP with VPA, but will always show SDFs if they
are coded. Therefore, it is recommended that States accepting SDFs coding on final, they should apply the ICAO duplicate procedure
identification i.e. adding suffix letter to approach identifiers for LNAV only with coded SDFs chart and allocating a different letter for
LNAV/VNAV without any SDFs chart. This will ensure a consistent, correct and harmonized application of design and charting principles on
one side with coding rule and specifications on the other side.