Performance-based navigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ICAO performance-based navigation (PBN) specifies that aircraft required navigation performance (RNP)
and area navigation (RNAV) systems performance requirements be defined in terms of accuracy, integrity,
availability, continuity, and functionality required for the proposed operations in the context of a particular
airspace, when supported by the appropriate navigation infrastructure.[1]

Contents
1 Description
2 Impact on airspace planning
3 Transition to PBN
4 Scope
5 On-board performance monitoring and alerting
6 RNAV and RNP specific functions
6.1 Fixed radius paths
6.2 Fly-by turns
6.3 Holding pattern
6.4 Offset flight path
7 Minimum navigation performance specifications
8 Future developments
9 References
10 External links

Description
Historically, aircraft navigation specifications have been specified directly in terms of sensors (navigation
beacons and/or waypoints). A navigation specification that includes an additional requirement for on-board
navigation performance monitoring and alerting is referred to as a required navigation performance (RNP)
specification. One not having such requirements is referred to as an area navigation (RNAV) specification.

Performance requirements are identified in navigation specifications, which also identify the choice of
navigation sensors and equipment that may be used to meet the performance requirements. The navigation
specifications provide specific implementation guidance in order to facilitate global harmonisation.

Under PBN, generic navigation requirements are first defined based on the operational requirements. Civil
aviation authorities then evaluate options in respect of available technology and navigation services. A chosen
solution would be the most cost-effective for the civil aviation authority, as opposed to a solution being
established as part of the operational requirements. Technology can evolve over time without requiring the
operation itself to be revisited as long as the requisite performance is provided by the RNAV or RNP system.

PBN offers a number of advantages over the sensor-specific method of developing airspace and obstacle
clearance criteria:

1. reduces the need to maintain sensor-specific routes and procedures, and their costs. For example, moving
a single VOR can impact dozens of procedures, as a VOR can be used on routes, VOR approaches,
missed approaches, etc. Adding new sensor-specific procedures would compound this cost, and the rapid
growth in available navigation systems would soon make sensor-specific routes and procedures
unaffordable;
2. avoids the need for developing sensor-specific operations with each new evolution of navigation systems,
which would be cost-prohibitive. The expansion of satellite navigation services is expected to contribute
 to the continued diversity of RNP and RNAV systems in different aircraft. The original basic global
navigation satellite system (GNSS) equipment is evolving due to the development of augmentations such
as satellite-based augmentation systems (SBAS), ground based augmentation systems (GBAS) and
ground based regional augmentation systems (GRAS), while the introduction of Galileo and the
modernisation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Global Navigation Satellite System
(GLONASS) will further improve GNSS performance. The use of GNSS/inertial integration is also
expanding;
3. allows for more efficient use of airspace (route placement, fuel efficiency and noise mitigation);
4. clarifies how RNAV systems are used; and
5. facilitates the operational approval process for civil aviation authorities by providing a limited set of
navigation specifications intended for global use.

Within an airspace, PBN requirements will be affected by the communication, surveillance and air traffic
control (ATC) environments, the navaid infrastructure and functional and operational capability needed to meet
the ATM application. PBN performance requirements also depend on what reversion, non-RNAV means of
navigation are available and what degree of redundancy is required to ensure adequate continuity of operations.

To achieve the efficiency and capacity gains partially enabled by RNAV and RNP, the FAA will pursue use of
data communications and enhanced surveillance functionality.[2]

Impact on airspace planning

When separation minima and route spacing are determined using a conventional sensor-based approach, the
navigation performance data used to determine the separation minima or route spacing depend on the accuracy
of the raw data from specific navigation aids such as VOR, DME or NDB. In contrast, PBN requires an RNAV
system that integrates raw navigation data to provide a positioning and navigation solution. In determining
separation minima and route spacing, this integrated navigation performance "output" is used.

The navigation performance required from the RNAV system is part of the navigation specification. To
determine separation minima and route spacing, airspace planners fully exploit that part of the navigation
specification which describes the performance required from the RNAV system. Airspace planners also make
use of the required performance (accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity) to determine route spacing and
separation minima.

In procedurally controlled airspace, separation minima and route spacing on RNP specifications are expected to
provide a greater benefit than those based on RNAV specifications. This is because the on-board performance
monitoring and alerting function could alleviate the absence of ATS surveillance service by providing an
alternative means of risk mitigation.

Transition to PBN
It is expected that all future RNAV and RNP applications will identify the navigation requirements through the
use of performance specifications rather than defining specific navigation sensors.

Scope
For legacy reasons associated with the previous RNP concept, PBN is currently limited to operations with
linear lateral performance requirements and time constraints. For this reason, operations with angular lateral
performance requirements (i.e. approach and landing operations with GNSS vertical guidanceapproach
procedure with vertical guidance APV-I and APV-II), as well as instrument landing system (ILS) and
microwave landing system (MLS) are not considered. Unlike the lateral monitoring and obstacle clearance, for
barometric VNAV systems there is neither alerting on vertical error nor is there a two-times relationship
between a 95% required total system accuracy and the performance limit. Therefore, barometric VNAV is not
considered vertical RNP.
On-board performance monitoring and alerting
On-board performance monitoring and alerting is the main element that determines if a navigation system
complies with the necessary safety level associated with an RNP application; it relates to both lateral and
longitudinal navigation performance; and it allows the aircrew to detect that the navigation system is not
achieving, or cannot guarantee with 105 integrity, the navigation performance required for the operation.

RNP systems provide improvements on the integrity of operations. This may permit closer route spacing and
can provide sufficient integrity to allow only RNAV systems to be used for navigation in a specific airspace.
The use of RNP systems may therefore offer significant safety, operational and efficiency benefits.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting capabilities fulfill two needs, one on board the aircraft and one
within the airspace design. The assurance of airborne system performance is implicit for RNAV operations.
Based upon existing airworthiness criteria, RNAV systems are only required to demonstrate intended function
and performance using explicit requirements that are broadly interpreted. The result is that while the nominal
RNAV system performance can be very good, it is characterised by the variability of the system functionality
and related flight performance. RNP systems provide a means to minimise variability and assure reliable,
repeatable and predictable flight operations.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting allow the air crew to detect whether or not the RNP system
satisfies the navigation performance required in the navigation specification. On-board performance monitoring
and alerting relate to both lateral and longitudinal navigation performance.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting is concerned with the performance of the area navigation
system.

"on-board" explicitly means that the performance monitoring and alerting is affected on board the aircraft
and not elsewhere, e.g. using a ground-based route adherence monitor or ATC surveillance. The
monitoring element of on-board performance monitoring and alerting relates to flight technical error
(FTE) and navigation system error (NSE). Path definition error (PDE) is constrained through database
integrity and functional requirements on the defined path, and is considered negligible.
"monitoring" refers to the monitoring of the aircraft's performance as regards its ability to determine
positioning error and/or to follow the desired path.
"alerting" relates to the monitoring: if the aircraft's navigation system does not perform well enough, this
will be alerted to the air crew.

RNAV and RNP specific functions

Performance-based flight operations are based on the ability to assure reliable, repeatable and predictable flight
paths for improved capacity and efficiency in planned operations. The implementation of performance-based
flight operations requires not only the functions traditionally provided by the RNAV system, but also may
require specific functions to improve procedures, and airspace and air traffic operations. The system
capabilities for established fixed radius paths, RNAV or RNP holding, and lateral offsets fall into this category.

Fixed radius paths

Fixed radius paths (FRP) take two forms:

1. the radius to fix (RF) leg type is one of the leg types that should be used when there is a requirement for a
specific curved path radius in a terminal or approach procedure. The RF leg is defined by radius, arc
length and fix. RNP systems supporting this leg type provide the same ability to conform to the track-
keeping accuracy during the turn as in straight line segments. Bank angle limits for different aircraft
types and winds aloft are taken into account in procedure design.
2. the fixed radius transition (FRT) is intended to be used in en-route procedures. These turns have two
possible radii, 22.5 NM for high altitude routes (above FL195) and 15 NM for low altitude routes. Using
 such path elements in an RNAV route enables improvement in airspace usage through closely spaced
parallel routes.

Fly-by turns

Fly-by turns are a key characteristic of an RNAV flight path. The RNAV system uses information on aircraft
speed, bank angle, wind and track angle change to calculate a flight path turn that smoothly transitions from
one path segment to the next. However, because the parameters affecting the turn radius can vary from one
plane to another, as well as due to changing conditions in speed and wind, the turn initiation point and turn area
can vary.

Holding pattern

The RNAV system facilitiates the holding pattern specification by allowing the definition of the inbound course
to the holding waypoint, turn direction and leg time or distance on the straight segments, as well as the ability
to plan the exit from the hold. For RNP systems, further improvement in holding is available. These RNP
improvements include fly-by entry into the hold, minimising the necessary protected airspace on the non-
holding side of the holding pattern, consistent with the RNP limits provided. Where RNP holding is applied, a
maximum of RNP 1 is suggested since less stringent values adversely affect airspace usage and design.

Offset flight path

RNAV systems may provide the capability for the flight crew to specify a lateral offset from a defined route.
Generally, lateral offsets can be specified in increments of 1 NM up to 20 NM. When a lateral offset is
activated in the RNAV system, the RNAV aircraft will depart the defined route and typically intercept the offset
at a 45 or less angle. When the offset is cancelled, the aircraft returns to the defined route in a similar manner.
Such offsets can be used both strategically i.e. fixed offset for the length of the route, or tactically i.e.
temporarily. Most RNAV systems discontinue offsets in the terminal area or at the beginning of an approach
procedure, at an RNAV hold, or during course changes of 90 or greater.

Minimum navigation performance specifications

Aircraft operating in the North Atlantic airspace are required to meet a minimum navigation performance
specification (MNPS). The MNPS specification has intentionally been excluded from PBN because of its
mandatory nature and because future MNPS implementations are not envisaged.[3]

Future developments
It is likely that navigation applications will progress from 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional/4-dimensional
applications, although time-scales and operational requirements are currently difficult to determine.
Consequently, on-board performance monitoring and alerting is still to be developed in the vertical plane
(vertical RNP) and ongoing work is aimed at harmonising longitudinal and linear performance requirements.
Angular performance requirements associated with approach and landing will be included in the scope of PBN
in the future. Similarly, specifications to support helicopter-specific navigation and holding functional
requirements may also be included.

References
1. ICAO. Doc 9613, Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual , 2008. ISBN 978-92-9231-198-8
2. FAA. Roadmap for Performance-Based Navigation: Evolution for Ar ea Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) Capabilities 2006-2025. 2006.
3. The requirements for MNPS are set out in theConsolidated Guidance and Information Material concerning Air
Navigation in the North Atlantic Region(NAT Doc 001) (available at
 http://www.paris.icao.int/documents_open/show_file.php?id=209
)

External links
Boeing. Operational Benefits of Performance-Based Navigation 2008.

This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Federal Aviation
Administration.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance-based_navigation&oldid=787494393"

Categories: Federal Aviation Administration Air navigation Electronic navigation

This page was last edited on 25 June 2017, at 18:48.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.