RNP-based Parallel Instrument Approaches: Concepts and Benefits

Dr. Michael Mills and Suzanne Porter

The MITRE Corporation Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) Dr. Michael Mills is a senior member of the technical staff at MITRE CAASD, specializing in simulation, modeling and benefits analysis. He holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in engineering sciences and applied mathematics from Northwestern University. Suzanne Porter is a Project Team Manager for the RNP and RNAV Analysis Team at MITRE CAASD. She has been with MITRE for over 20 years and has worked on CPDLC, TCAS and Navigation Architecture

Introduction
Performance based navigation is a new aviation paradigm in which aircraft must meet specific minimum performance requirements for the airspace in which they fly. Implementation of performance based navigation in the National Airspace System is a priority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).1 Required navigational performance (RNP) operations are key elements of performance based navigation. In order to fly and RNP operation, an aircraft must be able to fly point-to-point (rather than navaid-to-navaid), while monitoring navigation accuracy and alerting the pilot if the aircraft deviates from its expected path. The magnitude of allowable deviations determines the RNP value and defines the width of the RNP course. RNP instrument approach procedures allow narrow straight or curved approach segments without ground-based navigation aids. Since approaches using RNP concepts involve new capabilities, flight operator participation will require special authorization referred to as Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR). Special2 RNP instrument approach procedures are currently being implemented to gain experience with advanced operations and to validate criteria and guidance material, leading the way to public RNP procedures in the near term. RNP SAAAR enables improved capacity and arrival efficiency through parallel approaches to closely-spaced runways at busy airports during IMC. This is accomplished using narrow, linear approach segments. The RNP Parallel Approach Transition (RPAT), being pursued in the near-term as a core OEP activity, follows existing separation requirements but provides simultaneous independent approach procedures to runways spaced at least 750 feet apart in marginal weather conditions (down to about 2000 foot ceilings or 4 miles visibility). A future application, RNP Parallel Approach with no transition (RPA), uses low RNP and high containment integrity to allow simultaneous approaches in IMC to runways spaced as close as 2400 feet. Both the RPAT and RPA
1 2

Federal Aviation Administration, Roadmap for Performance-Based Navigation, 2003. "Special" instrument flight procedures for approach operations are approved by the FAA for certain operators but are not published in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

concept support conventional operations since they may involve ILS approach operations to one of parallel runways. Both RPAT and RPA may be applied to triple or quad parallel runways, or may be used in combination with a converging runway, for maximum arrival efficiency during very busy periods of traffic demand. Any RNP SAAAR procedure will require that operators be equipped and authorized in order to fly it. Thus, partial participation will limit observed capacity increases. RPAT is more forgiving of mixed equipage since only one approach stream will require RNP SAAAR aircraft. RPA, on the other hand, may require that aircraft on either stream be authorized to fly the RNP SAAAR procedure, so mixed equipage could be more difficult to accommodate. There are areas of further study necessary before these concepts can be implemented. For example, the most beneficial RPA concept will require that a new blunder scenario be developed to update the requirements that currently lead to constraints on simultaneous independent approach operations. Also, RPAT procedures will require environmental impact studies to ensure that offset tracks can be accommodated by the airspace and environmental assessments that are required.

RNP Parallel Approach Procedure Concepts

RPAT is designed to improve arrival capacity of closely spaced parallel runway (7504299 feet) during marginal meteorological conditions. Marginal conditions occur when ceiling and visibility are below visual approach minima, but better than site-specific RPAT minima (typically ceiling greater than 2000 feet and visibility at least 4 miles). Currently, simultaneous independent arrivals are not allowed to runways closer than 4300 feet in less than visual conditions with standard airport surveillance radar. A typical RPAT approach procedure is represented schematically in Figure 1. Here, one aircraft, which may be unauthorized to fly the RPAT procedure, flies the usual straight-in ILS approach, which is bound within a normal operating zone (NOZ) with a half-width of 1150 feet.3 Next to the ILS course is a 2000 feet wide no transgression zone (NTZ).4 A second aircraft, which is authorized and cleared on the RPAT procedure, flies an offset approach maintaining Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) separation. The RPAT course is separated from the NTZ by two times the procedures designated RNP value (1850 feet for an RNP-0.3 procedure). Therefore, the distance between the ILS and offset courses is at most 5000 feet. This distance may be reduced to 3750 feet if RNP-0.1 is required of the RPAT aircraft. The RPAT procedure is initiated with both aircraft following instrument flight rules. Both aircraft follow a constant descent, with the RPAT aircraft trailing slightly, until clear of the clouds at or above 2000 feet. The RPAT pilot then acquires the parallel traffic visually
Federal Aviation Administration, Pilot/Controller Glossary, [effective 2/19/04, including change 2 dated 2/17/05]. Available from http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG 4 Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Information Manual, 5-4-13 ff. [effective February 17, 2005]. Available from http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM
3

and initiates a guided S-turn to line up with the runway centerline. Since both aircraft are now below the clouds, visual separation is maintained throughout the remainder of the procedure. However, the flight management system (FMS) will provide 3-D guidance to the runway threshold. Visual flight rules governing the final approach allow the RPAT procedure to be applied to runways spaced as close as 750 feet.
ILS Course

NOZ NTZ (ends at FAF)

>=1150

(MAPs)

> 750 feet

2000

5000-2000-1150 = 1850

RPAT Course RNP-0.3

Clear of clouds

FAF: Pilot given visual separation responsibility at this point

Figure 1: Diagram of basic RPAT procedure concept. (Not to scale) While RPAT may increase arrival capacity of parallel runways spaced as close as 750 feet, the final visual segment requires that it have relatively high weather minima (2000 feet and 4 miles). Much lower minima may be achieved if the NOZ of the offset track is replaced by a straight-in track using narrower RNP containment. This procedure is being referred to as RNP parallel approach without transition (RPA). Such a procedure is shown in Figure 2, with minimum runway spacing for various RNP values listed in Table 1. Using RNP-0.1 this type of approach procedure would provide simultaneous IMC arrivals to runways spaced as close as 3750 feet. Table 1: Minimum runway spacing for RPA arrival procedures with various RNP levels required. Level ILS NOZ + NTZ + RNP NOZ Runway Spacing (feet) (feet) RNP-0.3 3150 + 1800 4950 RNP-0.2 3150 + 1200 4350 RNP-0.15 3150 + 900 4050 RNP-0.1 3150 + 600 3750

ILS Course

NOZ NTZ

>= 1150

(MAP)

2000

Enables Required Spacing 3750-4950

1 or 2xRNP

(MAP)

RNP Course
Figure 2: RPA arrival procedure with ILS. (Not to scale) A further evolution of the RPA procedure would replace the ILS in the previous concept with a second RNP procedure and reduce or remove the NTZ.5 The NOZ for each RNP track would have a width equal to four times the RNP value. This more advanced version of RPA, which is depicted in Figure 3, would provide dual arrival capacity in IMC to runways as close as 2400 feet (for RNP-0.1). The actual runway separation requirements depend upon the RNP value used, as shown in Table 2. For this procedure, both arriving aircraft must be equipped and authorized to fly the RNP SAAAR procedure. The integrity of RNP guidance, along with pilot alerting, may reduce the probability and severity of blunders so that the NTZ and monitor controllers would no longer be needed. What work needs to be done in order to justify such an improved blunder scenario is discussed in more detail below.
RNP Course (MAP) 2xRNP
Enables Spacing 2400-7200

2xRNP (MAP) RNP Course

Figure 3: Future RPA arrival concept. (Not to scale)

Jerry Davis and Bill Syblon, Concept for a Performance-Based National Airspace System (Draft). Developed for AVR-1 and AFS-400, 13 July 2004, pp 29-32, 66.

Table 2: Minimum runway separations for future RPA arrival procedures with various RNP levels required. Runway Spacing Level 4RNP (feet) (feet) RNP-0.3 3600 + 3600 7200 RNP-0.2 2400 + 2400 4800 RNP-0.15 1800 + 1800 3600 RNP-0.1 1200 + 1200 2400

Candidate Airports and Delay Benefits

MITRE has carried out a benefits analysis to determine a list of airports for RPAT and RPA implementation. There are 49 parallel runway pairs in the NAS that are possible RPAT candidates (i.e., they have parallel runways spaced between 750 and 4299 feet). Fifteen of these airports are not covered by the Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database, so they were excluded from the analysis under the assumption that they lack sufficient traffic to provide a large benefit. Also excluded from the analysis were those airports where one of the runways was too short for general use in marginal weather (i.e., less than 6000 feet). This left 12 RPAT candidates that were studied: Atlanta (ATL), Boston (BOS), Cleveland (CLE), Detroit (DTW), Newark (EWR), New York Kennedy (JFK), Las Vegas (LAS), Portland (PDX), Philadelphia (PHL), Seattle-Tacoma (SEA), San Francisco (SFO) and St. Louis (STL). The RPAT procedure was simulated using 2003 ASPM demand and airport configuration data for each of these airports. The observed reduction in airborne delay is given in Table 3. Six of the 12 RPAT candidate airports are also RPA candidates because their runway separations are between 2400 and 4299 feet. The future RPA procedure was simulated for these airports, and the resulting delay reductions are shown with the RPAT results in Table 3. It is important to note that these results assume that all arriving aircraft fly the RNP SAAAR procedure. In reality, not all aircraft will be authorized or equipped for the procedure, and unequipped flights will have to be accommodated using standard procedures. The degree to which mixed equipage will dilute these benefits is discussed below.

Table 3: RPAT and future RPA benefit results (assumes all aircraft are RNP SAAAR authorized)
Site Atlanta Boston Cleveland Detroit Newark JFK Las Vegas Portland Philadelphia Seattle San Francisco St. Louis Applicable Runways 26R/27L, 8L, 9R (Triples) 4L/R 24L/R, 6L/R 21L/R, 22L/R, 3L/R, 4L/R (Triples) 4L/R 22L/R (possibly) 4R/L, 22R/L 25R/L, 19R/L, 7R/L, 1R/L 10R/L, 28R/L 26/27R 16R/L or 16W/L, 34R/L 10s, 28s, 1s, 19s 12R/L, 30R/L Fraction of time RPAT is applicable 17% 6% 14% 18% 11% 5% 3% 23% 7% 23% 14% 16% Airborne Delay Minutes Saved (RPAT) 120,000 14,000 24,000 43,000 28,000 3,400 6,700 4,000 11,000 68,000 33,000 22,000 Fraction of time RPA is applicable 37% 34% 67% 36% 41% 31% Airborne Delay Minutes Saved (RPA) 320,000 120,000 6,200 11,000 100,000 55,000

Equipage
Special authorization must be obtained in order to fly RNP SAAAR arrival procedures. Such authorization will require a certain level of avionics equipment and aircrew training. Not all operators at a given airport will invest the time and money to gain such authorization, so there must be a way to fit non-authorized aircraft into the arrival stream during RNP SAAAR operations. Both RPAT and ILS RPA have one ILS arrival stream available for aircraft that cannot fly the RNP SAAAR procedure. For these two procedures, aircraft could be assigned to the appropriate procedure on a first come, first served basis. Authorized aircraft should be vectored to the RPAT procedure as they enter the terminal airspace, so that the local controller can make optimal use of both runways. For advanced RPA, on the other hand, there would be no dedicated ILS approach to fall back on for non-authorized aircraft. The airport operation would have to fall back to dependent or single-stream arrivals for non-authorized aircraft. Depending on the fleet mix, it may be advantageous to hold non-RPA aircraft to allow RPA arrivals to land, and then switch operations to land the non-RPA aircraft. Simulations were carried out to see the effect of mixed equipage on the delay benefit for the RPAT and future RPA procedures. It was found that RPAT benefits rise approximately linearly as the fraction of aircraft that can fly the procedure increases, until 85% of the

benefit is reached when 70% of the fleet is participating. The benefit increases more slowly as the participation rate increases further. On the other hand, RPA benefits stay small until RNP SAAAR participation reaches 70%, then benefits increase rapidly with more RPA-authorized aircraft. The precise relationship between participation rates and realized benefits depends upon the site, but Figure 4 shows the result for one airport (Seattle). It is expected that aircraft with FMS and GPS will be able to obtain authorization to fly the RPAT procedure. On the other hand, flying an RNP-0.1 RPA procedure will require at least RNP-0.1 authorization. At this time, there are no airlines with aircraft authorized at RNP-0.1. However, there are some with RNP-0.11 authorizations. Current FMS/GPS equipage rates for the RPAT candidate airports are given in Table 4.

100% 90% Average Benefit Realized (as fraction of maximum benefit) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RPAT Future RPA

Fraction of Fleet Participating

Figure 4: Comparison of RPAT and future RPA benefits for partial fleet participation.

Table 4: Current RPAT equipage and expected benefit realized

Site Atlanta Boston Cleveland Detroit Newark JFK Las Vegas Portland Philadelphia Seattle San Francisco St. Louis Fraction of Operations with FMS and GPS 46% 51% 60% 34% 66% 42% 35% 54% 39% 73% 49% 52% Modeled Fraction of Maximum RPAT Benefit Realized 58% 66% 75% 45% 84% 66% 64% 53% 45% 70% 51% 89%

Impediments to Implementation
RPAT uses existing separation and monitoring standards so it may be implemented without significant revisions of current regulations. Implementing RPA, on the other hand, will require new regulations allowing RNP containment to replace or enhance ILS containment and monitoring. Current ILS approach procedures provide 1150 feet of protected airspace between the runway centerline and the radar-monitored NTZ. In addition, the NTZ is 2000 feet wide. This provides time for controllers to contact and move the conforming aircraft should an aircraft on the parallel approach invade the NTZ. The precise separations were determined by requiring that a 30 heading error (blunder), at 150 knots, leads to a collision6 no more that once in 25 million trials. It is expected that RNP containment and pilot alerting will reduce the probability of such blunders so that the NTZ may be reduced or eliminated. Historically, the causes of blunders have been mostly human: confusion about runway assignment, transitioning to wrong runway, or equipment failure. It is not yet clear how RNP capability will mitigate these factors. Studies are now being undertaken to address these issues. Environmental issues present an impediment to RPAT procedure implementation. Because RPAT employs an offset course, it would create new traffic patterns wherever it is implemented. Thus, careful environmental impact studies will be required before RPAT procedures can be initiated. Because RPA procedures lack the offset course, they would in general be overlays of current procedures and would create no additional environmental impact.

Here, a collision occurs if the closest point of approach in three dimensions is less than 500 feet.

Summary
RNP SAAAR procedures have been proposed that have the potential to increase arrival capacity and reduce delays at some of the busiest airports in the NAS. These procedures leverage advanced avionics and pilot capabilities to provide precision simultaneous approaches in IMC to runways where they do not currently exist. Realizing the full operational benefits of these new ideas will require that operators equip and train their flight crews to take advantage of the performance-based NAS.
Notice This was produced under Contract Number DTFA01-01-C-00001, and is subject Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System Clause 3.5-13, Rights In-Data General, Alt. III and Alt. IV (Oct., 1996). The contents of this material reflect the views of the author and The MITRE Corporation. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the Department of Transportation makes any warranty or guarantee, or promise, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of the views expressed herein.
Copyright 2005 The MITRE Corporation. NASA has been granted permission to publish and disseminate this work as part of the Proceedings of the Fifth Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance (ICNS) Conference and Workshop. All other rights retained by the copyright owner.