PROCEDURE DOCUMENTATION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "PROCEDURE DOCUMENTATION"

Marian Woods
5 years ago
Views:

1 PROCEDURE DOCUMENTATION AIRAC: Procedure: ILS Runway 33 Aerodrome: Grøtneset Synopsis: Feasibility study for an aerodrome at Grøtneset Date: User ID: Completed: C OBrien Controlled: camkt Page 1 of 39

2 1 Table of contents 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS DATASET SOFTWARE VALIDATION PROCEDURE DESIGN COMMENTS FLIGHT VALIDATION INITIAL APPROACH SEGMENT INTERMEDIATE APPROACH SEGMENT ILS SOC CALCULATION CURVATURE OF THE EARTH EQUIVALENT OBSTACLE VISUAL SEGMENT SURFACE MISSED APPROACH SEGMENT CALCULATIONS MISSED APPROACH SEGMENT (CAT A) MISSED APPROACH SEGMENT (CAT B) MISSED APPROACH SEGMENT (CAT C) CHANGELOG CHARTING DATA CONTROLLING OBSTACLES CONTROL CHECK VERSION HISTORY...38 Page 2 of 39

3 2 Dataset Procedure design software: GéoTITAN v / 3.01 Spot heights extending 50 NM around the design aerodrome have been incorporated in the software templates. Spot heights: Spot heights are imported from the digital dataset N50 created by Statens Kartverk and is available through the Norwegian digital terrain project Norge Digitalt A 50 meter post spacing, square grid digital terrain model has been incorporated in the software templates. The data source is the Norwegian mapping authority s N digital chart database and includes height information from lakes, height contours and spot heights in N50. N50 was digitised partly through scanning and vectorisation of analogue charts in scale 1: and partly through photogrammetric stereo construction or through a combination of these methods. Digital terrain model: The average horizontal accuracy is 25 meters, with a confidence level of 90%. The average vertical accuracy is 5-6 meters with a maximum error of 30 meters, with a confidence level of 90%. Certain areas containing very steep terrain, slopes steeper than 1:1, may exceed the maximum value. These areas are located in Troms and Finnmark and are identified here. Vertical resolution is 1 meter based on mean sea level and terrain with no addition for vegetation. The DTM was produced in with an integrity level better than 10-3 Originally the DTM was produced in USGS DEM format but has been converted to CGX format to function within GéoTITAN. Aerodrome data: All aerodrome data is directly imported from the ORBIT Database automatically upon site Page 3 of 39

4 creation. All RWY characteristics and associated landing aids such as localizers, landing DME stations, and instrument landing systems are automatically imported and later verified through the software validation process. Only post successful verification is the imported data used for procedure design. NAVAID data: All navigation facilities not associated with the aerodrome is automatically imported from the ORBIT database and later verified through the software validation process. Only post successful verification is the imported data used for procedure design. The Norwegian aeronautical obstacle database is run by Statens Kartverk and has the responsibility for maintaining an accurate and up to date database of all man made obstacles in Norway which is not owned by the aerodrome. NRL data: An aeronautical obstacle is by law defined as any building or construction, temporary or permanent, with a height above ground or water of 15 meters or more. Within populated areas the equivalent height is 30 meters. NRL data is imported on a monthly basis into the ORBIT database and is automatically imported into the GéoTITAN working site. The full law concerning NRL can be found at lovdata: Forskrift om rapportering og registrering av luftfartshindre (BSL E 2-1) AIP 2.10 obstacles: All obstacles listed in section 2.10 of the Norwegian AIP are defined as obstacles owned by the local aerodrome. The responsibility for accurately updating and maintaining this list of obstacles resides with the airport manager. These obstacles are currently not part of the ORBIT database and have to be manually entered into the working site. Future plans involve flagging these obstacles as Avinor owned obstructions within the database for automatic importation. Page 4 of 39

5 3 Software validation Validation of threshold coordinates THR: 15 Latitude Longitude AIP GéoTITAN 70 33'37.793"N '02.352"E THR: 33 Latitude Longitude AIP GéoTITAN 70 32'37.000"N '07.461"E Page 5 of 39

4 Procedure design comments Runway 33 was analysed for ILS feasibility. Initial investigations looked at the possibility of a straight forward 3 GP approach.

6 4 Procedure design comments Runway 33 was analysed for ILS feasibility. Initial investigations looked at the possibility of a straight forward 3 GP approach. A challenging ridge of terrain located around the necessary FAP location meant this was infeasible, both undertaking an OAS and CRM analysis and considering shadowing around the descent fix. OAS analysis for the 3 provided OCHs of greater than 2400ft and CRM could not produce minima due to the risk not reducing to the required level. CRM input parameters for this analysis are below: Figure 1 - CRM input 3 Page 6 of 39

Efforts were made to see if problem obstacles could be removed from the analysis by means of 15% shadowing at the FAF, though the controlling obstacle was not able to be removed, and the issue

7 Efforts were made to see if problem obstacles could be removed from the analysis by means of 15% shadowing at the FAF, though the controlling obstacle was not able to be removed, and the issue remained: Figure 2 - Shadowing area for 3 at the FAF By increasing the GP to 3.5, it has been possible, with the use of CRM, to derive usable minima for this approach. OAS derived OCHs for the 3.5 approach still exceed 2300ft and so were considered unusable, however the CRM analysis was able to provide reasonable minima. OCH % MA: A 156ft, B 165ft, C 178ft CRM input parameters for this analysis are below: Page 7 of 39

8 Figure CRM Analysis inputs The FAP has been located at 3300ft altitude, allowing for an obstacle clear, level intermediate segment. A basic conventional initial segment has been constructed to demonstrate that the intermediate segment is connectable. This has been based off the HMF VOR Page 8 of 39

9 Figure 4 - CRM output Cat A/B 3.5 Page 9 of 39

10 Figure 5 - CRM Output Cat C 3.5 Page 10 of 39

A straight missed approach has been considered for the proof of concept and extended 20-25NM beyond the end of the OAS to prove obstacle clearance over the remaining terrain. This is obstacle clear.

11 A straight missed approach has been considered for the proof of concept and extended 20-25NM beyond the end of the OAS to prove obstacle clearance over the remaining terrain. This is obstacle clear. Rough analysis shows that an aircraft would need to climb to ft before making a turn in order the clear terrain either side of the straight missed approach should a turning missed approach be required. Figure 6 - Final Straight Missed Approach 2.5% Page 11 of 39

12 Figure 7 - Zero penetrations of extended Z surface 2.5% Page 12 of 39

Figure 8 - Obstacles clearance for extended Z surface While the missed approach is obstacle clear, we were subsequently requested to see if the missed approach can reasonably clear the Melkøya

13 Figure 8 - Obstacles clearance for extended Z surface While the missed approach is obstacle clear, we were subsequently requested to see if the missed approach can reasonably clear the Melkøya restricted area situated north of the aerodrome, in the extended missed approach area. The closest point of the Melkøya restricted area to the threshold has the X coordinate m in the runway 33 coordinate system and has vertical extent to 2500ft AMSL. Analysis of the 2.5% missed approach from the 3.5 ILS shows that at the above x-coordinate the missed approach surface originating at the SOC for each category intersects the restricted area at approximately 1300ft and therefore does not clear it. 2.50% CRM OCH (ft) OCH (m) HL baro (ft) HL baro (m) OCH-HL (ft) OCH-HL (m) Min ht SOC (m) SOC End Z SOC to End Alt P.end (m) A B C Page 13 of 39

14 SOC to Mel Mel (m) Mel (ft) Increasing the missed approach climb gradient to 5% decreases the CRM generated Cat A/B OCHs. While raw calculation shows that these OCHs and MA CG allow the aircraft to clear the restricted area by a minimum of 25ft, a GeoTitan proven solution using surface analysis requires a small adjustment to the OCHs. The raw OCHs are: OCH 3.5 5% MA raw: A 135ft, B 142ft, C 178ft 5.00% CRM OCH (ft) OCH (m) HL baro (ft) HL baro (m) OCH-HL (ft) OCH-HL (m) Min ht SOC (m) SOC End Z SOC to End Alt P.end (m) A B C SOC to Mel Mel (m) Mel (ft) And adjusted: A 141ft, B 152ft, C 178ft The adjusted values place the aircraft at the end of the OAS at a minimum of 312m altitude, and the analysis below proves that this clears a nominal obstacle placed to represent the restricted area. The clearance is approximately 3ft. Page 14 of 39

15 Adjusted 5.00% CRM OCH (ft) OCH (m) HL baro (ft) HL baro (m) OCH-HL (ft) OCH-HL (m) Min ht SOC (m) SOC End Z SOC to End Alt P.end (m) A B C SOC to Mel Mel (m) Mel (ft) Figure 9 - CRM Analysis inputs 3.5 5% Page 15 of 39

16 Figure % MA CRM Analysis CAT A/B Page 16 of 39

17 Figure % MA CRM Analysis CAT C Page 17 of 39

18 Figure 12 - Extended Missed approach 5% Page 18 of 39

19 Figure 13 - Clearance of Melkøya Restricted area at 5% with adjusted OCHs Page 19 of 39

20 5 Flight validation Does the procedure design require flight validation? Yes or No No (Conceptual) The following changes always require flight validation; all new precision approaches all new performance based navigation procedures significant change to the final or missed approach segment significant change to an instrument flight departure other changes deemed significant/essential by the procedure designer Communication and coordination with the flight validation team is handled by the control flight coordinator. All control flight requests shall be sent to with a copy to the PANS-OPS coordinator. A draft of the instrument approach chart plus any required additional information must accompany the control flight request. Post completion of the control flight, the report shall be added to the procedure documentation, or if the flight validation yields a negative result, the design process returns to the collect and validate all data phase. Page 20 of 39

21 6 Initial approach segment THR elevation: 23 feet Obstacle #: O3 Obstacle type: t t or a Altitude: 678 m Vegetation: 15 m Area: p p or s Secondary MOC: m MOC 300 m SUM 993 m m OCA 3260 feet OCH 3237 feet Obstacle type codes: t Terrain a Artificial Enter the THR elevation, Obstacle #, Obstacle type, altitude, vegetation and area. If the obstacle resides in the secondary area, fill in the value for Secondary MOC. Page 21 of 39

22 7 Intermediate approach segment THR elevation: 23 feet Obstacle #: O2 Obstacle type: a t or a Altitude: 691 m Vegetation: m Area: p p or s Secondary MOC: m MOC 150 m SUM 841 m m OCA 2760 feet OCH 2737 feet Obstacle type codes: t Terrain a Artificial Enter the THR elevation, Obstacle type, altitude, vegetation and area. If the obstacle resides in the secondary area, fill in the value for Secondary MOC. Page 22 of 39

23 8 ILS SOC calculation THR elevation: 23 feet GP angle: 3.5 RDH: 49.2 feet CAT: C A,B,C or D OCH value: 178 feet Calculate SOCx: -900 meter SOC: meter Enter THR Elevation, GP angle, RDH, aircraft category and the corresponding OCH (height!) value for ILS SOC calculation. Page 23 of 39

24 9 Curvature of the earth THR elevation: 23 feet RDH 49.2 feet GP 3.5 Distance from THR: NM Cote effect: feet Calculate Altitude feet including curvature Height feet including curvature Altitude feet Height feet Enter THR elevation, RDH, GP angle and distance from THR in NM for calculation of altitude including earth curvature Page 24 of 39

25 10 Equivalent obstacle THR elevation: feet Climb gradient: % Glide path: Obstacle height: Vegetation: X value: meter meter meter Calculate Enter THR elevation, missed approach climb gradient, glide path angle, obstacle height, vegetation and the distance from the obstacle to the threshold to calculate the equivalent obstacle. Page 25 of 39

26 11 Visual Segment Surface OCH 178 feet VPA 3.5 Calculate VSS VSS extension meter VSS Comments: There are no obstacles in the VSS area. Page 26 of 39

27 12 Missed approach segment calculations AD elevation 23 feet Turn parameters CAT A CAT B CAT C CAT D IAS kt Turning altitude feet MAPt location dme SOC Turn data SOC (d+x) calculations are based on AD elevation and max IAS allowed on final with a tailwind component of 10 KT as specified in ICAO DOC 8168 VOL II b) Page 27 of 39

28 13 Missed approach segment (CAT A) THR elevation: 23 feet Initial Intermediate Final(1) Final(2) Obstacle #: O4 Obstacle type: t t or a Altitude: 303 m Vegetation: 15 m Area: p p or s Secondary MOC: m SUM 368 m MOC 50 m Height gain distance m Height gain 2.5 % m Height gain 4 % m Height gain 5 % m OCA 2.5 % #NUM! feet OCH 2.5 % #NUM! feet OCA 4 % #NUM! feet OCH 4 % #NUM! feet OCA 5 % #NUM! feet OCH 5 % #NUM! feet Gradient 1: 2.5 % Gradient 2: 4 % Gradient 3: 5 % Enter the THR elevation, Obstacle #, Obstacle type, altitude, vegetation and area. If the obstacle resides in the secondary area, fill in the value for Secondary MOC. If the obstacle is located after the MAPt, enter the height gain distance found in GéoTITAN. Page 28 of 39

29 14 Missed approach segment (CAT B) THR elevation: 23 feet Initial Intermediate Final(1) Final(2) Obstacle #: O4 Obstacle type: t t or a Altitude: 303 m Vegetation: 15 m Area: p p or s Secondary MOC: m SUM 368 m MOC 50 m Height gain distance m Height gain 2.5 % m Height gain 4 % m Height gain 5 % m OCA 2.5 % #NUM! feet OCH 2.5 % #NUM! feet OCA 4 % #NUM! feet OCH 4 % #NUM! feet OCA 5 % #NUM! feet OCH 5 % #NUM! feet Gradient 1: 2.5 % Gradient 2: 4 % Gradient 3: 5 % Enter the THR elevation, Obstacle #, Obstacle type, altitude, vegetation and area. If the obstacle resides in the secondary area, fill in the value for Secondary MOC. If the obstacle is located after the MAPt, enter the height gain distance found in GéoTITAN. Page 29 of 39

30 15 Missed approach segment (CAT C) THR elevation: 23 feet Initial Intermediate Final(1) Final(2) Obstacle #: O4 Obstacle type: t t or a Altitude: 303 m Vegetation: 15 m Area: p p or s Secondary MOC: m SUM 368 m MOC 50 m Height gain distance m Height gain 2.5 % m Height gain 4 % m Height gain 5 % m OCA 2.5 % #NUM! feet OCH 2.5 % #NUM! feet OCA 4 % #NUM! feet OCH 4 % #NUM! feet OCA 5 % #NUM! feet OCH 5 % #NUM! feet Gradient 1: 2.5 % Gradient 2: 4 % Gradient 3: 5 % Enter the THR elevation, Obstacle #, Obstacle type, altitude, vegetation and area. If the obstacle resides in the secondary area, fill in the value for Secondary MOC. If the obstacle is located after the MAPt, enter the height gain distance found in GéoTITAN. Page 30 of 39

31 16 Changelog New information: Name: RMK Withdrawn information: NIL Airspace: Page 31 of 39

32 17 Charting data Procedure name ILS/DME 33 THR elevation: 23 feet Starting altitude: 3300 feet RDH 15 feet GP 3.5 Distance FAP to THR: NM Distance THR to DME NM DME distance to calculate FM 0 NM Calculate Note: Distance THR to DME should be positive if the DME is located behind the THR Distance: Altitude: Height: 0 NM feet including curvature -1 NM feet including curvature -2 NM feet including curvature -3 NM feet including curvature -4 NM feet including curvature -5 NM feet including curvature -6 NM feet including curvature -7 NM feet including curvature -8 NM feet including curvature -9 NM feet including curvature Step-down fixes: NM NM including curvature including curvature KT FT/MIN FT/MIN values shall alway be rounded to the nearest FT Page 32 of 39

33 Page 33 of 39

34 CAT OF ACFT A B C D OCA(H) STRAIGHT-IN 179(156) 188(165) 201(178) Circling N/A N/A N/A Note: MISSED APCH: Header: Chart header: AD Services: MSA: Plan view: Noteboxes: Airspace to display: Navaids to display: Procedure annotations (text and arrow): Reversal procedures: Holding: Page 34 of 39

35 Profile view: Page 35 of 39

36 18 Controlling obstacles ILS Final and missed approach Latitude Longitude Altitude Type N E 63.0m Artificial N E 303.0m m Spot height Obstacle types: DTM Cell Artificial Spot height Page 36 of 39

37 19 Control check Control check result: Software validation - Initial approach segment Intermediate approach segment Final approach segment Missed approach segment OCA(H) OK OK OK OK OK Instrument approach chart - Comments: CRM analysis for 5% gradient was done with end abscissa at x = which applies to 2.5% gradient. Changing to the correct x = -6900, however, does only decrease the CAT AB minima slightly. Page 37 of 39

38 20 Version history Date: Version: Comments: Initial document draft Added a section for missed approach segment calculations Spreadsheet calculation fix Updated the missed approach calculations spreadsheet Header numbering automatically updates upon insertion of additional headers Added a section for affected charts Combined the circling area and circling minima section Added vegetation dependencies on the circling minima and MSA spreadsheets. General formatting changes. Added a home button Corrected a MOC calculation error in the circling spreadsheet Modified documentation front page Corrected the ILS SOC calculation through adding HL correction values to glide path angels more than 3.5 degrees. Added a flight validation section Redesign of the missed approach obstacle form Updated the OCA(H) overview Modified rate of descent calculation explanations Added an ADHP export section Added a section for equivalent obstacle calculation Modified the rate of descent calculation spreadsheet to allow for custom speed values. Added a section for new 5LNC & RNAV points Corrected a minor calculation error in the equivalent obstacle spreadsheet Updated the equivalent obstacle spreadsheet Modified the ADHP table format. New rate of descent calculation spreadsheet, accommodating different indicated airspeed values Updated version for AIRAC 18 NOV Updated version for AIRAC 07 APR 2011 Page 38 of 39

39 Redesign of the rate of descent spreadsheet Added a charting data section for each segment Updated version for AIRAC 02 JUN 2011 Redesign of the rate of descent spreadsheet Obstacle definition changed from Antenna to Artificial in controlling obstacle section Modified textual description of SOC calculation in Missed approach segment calculations Removed irrelevant table in section 8 (ILS OAS) Updated version for Windows 7 compatability Changed documentation header Removed ILS OAS / Point definition section Integrated COTE calculations in rate of descent template Updated the ILS rate of descent spreadsheet Page 39 of 39

RNP APCH procedures for BEJAIA Soummam-Abane Ramdane RWY26

RNP APCH procedures for BEJAIA Soummam-Abane Ramdane RWY26 NAME POSITION DATE SIGNATURE Drafted by Fabrizio LOVINO Flight Procedure Designer/Airspace Design Department 18/11/2015 SIGNED Verified by Paolo