Navigation & flight planning by FMS-equipped aircraft

航空发表于 2010-7-31 16:14:09

Navigation & flight planning by FMS-equipped aircraft
**** Hidden Message *****

航空发表于 2010-7-31 16:14:20

10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR Navigation & flight planning by FMS-equipped aircraft AI/EE-A 441.0144/01 Table of contents P.3 Navigation & flight management P.4An overview of aircraft avionics P.5GPS PRIMARY navigation P.8RNP navigation P.10 Flight management P.11 Flight planning P.12 Vertical navigation P.13 Navigation database : ARINC 424 format P.14 Path terminator concept P.15 IF leg type P.16 TF leg type P.17 RF leg type (new leg type) P.18 CF leg type P.19 DF leg type P.20 FA leg type P.21 FC leg type P.22 FD leg type P.23 FM leg type P.24 CA leg type P.25 CD leg type P.26 CI leg type P.27 CR leg type P.28 AF leg type P.29 VA leg type P.30 VD leg type P.31 VI leg type P.32 VM leg type P.33 VR leg type P.34 PI leg type P.35 HA, HF, HM leg types P.36 ARINC 424 leg transitions P.37 Navigation database related issues P.38 Compatibility... P.39 Production process P.40 Some top level issues P.44 Recommendations P.45 Issues summary P.46 Short term P.52 Medium term P.54 Longer term 10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR Navigation & flight management An overview of aircraft avionics ...  Modern avionics have considerably improved flight safety on non-precision approaches :  accurate position (RNP 0.3)  flight plan display on EFIS  reference approach path  automated lateral guidance  automated vertical guidance  ground proximity warning system (GPWS)  terrain display on EFIS (EGPWS)  terrain clearance floor warnings (EGPWS) An overview of aircraft avionics ... 700’ 500’ AGL AGL 5 NM 12 NM15 NM 3 degrees GPS PRIMARY navigation  AIRBUS is promoting GPS PRIMARY navigation  All new A318/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340 production aircraft are fitted with GPS PRIMARY capable equipment  Ground navaids are only used as a backup  VOR, DME  ADF is not used for navigation  only for procedural navigation check  Hybrid (A320 family & A340 family) AIRBUS system GPS architecture MMR or GPSSU ADIRS FMS IRS position GPIRS position GPS raw data GPS position FMS position EGPWS  Autonomous (A300-600/A310 family, retrofit solution for A320 family with older ADIRS) AIRBUS system GPS architecture MMR IRS FMS IRS position GPS position FMS position EGPWS  In GPS PRIMARY mode, on-board system integrity has a confidence greater than 99.9%, so the FMS position can be relied upon without any additional navigation cross check (using ground based navaids)  Clear status of GPS PRIMARY is therefore provided to the crew GPS PRIMARY crew interface GPS PRIMARY GPS PRIMARY LOST GPS PRIMARY crew interface CLB FLT4567890 CRZ OPT REC MAX FL350 FL370 FL390 <REPORT UPDATE AT *[ ] BRG /DIST ---° /----.- TO [ ] PREDICTIVE <GPS GPS PRIMARY REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED 2.1NM HIGH 0.16NM GPS PRIMARY CLB FLT4567890 CRZ OPT REC MAX FL350 FL370 FL390 <REPORT UPDATE AT *[ ] BRG /DIST ---° /----.- TO [ ] PREDICTIVE <GPS REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED 2.1NM HIGH 0.28NM GPS PRIMARY LOST + triple click during approach RNP navigation  AIRBUS is promoting RNP (required navigation performance)  All A318/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340 aircraft are fitted or have been retrofitted with RNP capable equipment  RNP allows crew awareness of estimated aircraft position accuracy compared to procedure designer’s required performance assumptions NAV ACCUR UPGRAD  RNP management provides HIGH and LOW navigation accuracy system monitoring against the Required Navigation Performance  The system estimated accuracy has a 95% confidence RNP crew interface NAV ACCUR UPGRAD NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD RNP crew interface CLB FLT4567890 CRZ OPT REC MAX FL350 FL370 FL390 <REPORT UPDATE AT *[ ] BRG /DIST ---° /----.- TO [ ] PREDICTIVE <GPS REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED 0.3NM HIGH 0.28NM NAV ACCUR UPGRAD CLB FLT4567890 CRZ OPT REC MAX FL350 FL370 FL390 <REPORT UPDATE AT *[ ] BRG /DIST ---° /----.- TO [ ] PREDICTIVE <GPS REQUIRED ACCUR ESTIMATED 0.3NM LOW 0.56NM NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD AIRBUS flight management details  Multi-sensor navigation & automatic navaid tuning  triple IRS, dual VOR & DME, GPS  nIRS only, nIRS/VOR/DME, nIRS/DME/DME, nIRS/GPS  LOC updating  RNP management  GPS primary navigation  RAIM or AIME on-board integrity monitoring  certified for RNP 0.3 NM use  Datalink  including F-PLN, T/O DATA and WIND uplink capability from AOC (Airline Operational Control) AIRBUS flight management details  4D flight planning & predictions  runway to runway 4D pre-computed optimized flight profile  real time optimization  decelerated approach profile, 3D non-precision approaches  full autopilot coupling capability (dual FMS, dual monitored AP)  time resolution 1 minute, guidance accuracy around 2 minutes  planned improvement to 1 second resolution, accuracy better than 30 s Flight planning  Origin  Departure SID  Engine out SID  En-route  Arrival STAR  Approach  Destination  Missed approach  Alternate flight plan Vertical flight management D SPEED LIMIT SPEED CONSTRAINTS ALTITUDE CONSTRAINTS ALTITUDE CONSTRAINTS ORIGIN DESTINATION SPEED CONSTRAINTS SPEED LIMIT ACCELERATION ALT THRUST REDUCTION ALT CRUISE FL STEP FL IDLE path geometric path approach path pressurization segment TAKEOFF CLIMB CRUISE DESCENT APPROACH APPROACH SPEEDS TAKE-OFF SPEEDS TIME CONSTRAINT 10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR Navigation database : ARINC 424 ARINC 424 path terminator concept  The Path and Terminator concept is a means to permit coding of Terminal Area Procedures, SIDs, STARs and Approach Procedures  Charted procedure are translated into a sequence of ARINC 424 legs in the Navigation Database  Flight plans are entered into the FMS by using procedures from the navigation database and chaining them together ARINC 424 path terminator concept  23 leg types have been created to translate into computer language (FMS), procedure designed for clock & compass manual flight  It’s high time to implement RNAV, using only DO236 preferred leg types: IF, TF, RF which are fixed and without possible interpretation  The leg type is specified at the end point : “path terminator concept” IF leg type  The Initial Fix or IF Leg defines a database fix as a point in space  It is only required to define the beginning of a route or procedure TF leg type  Track to a Fix or TF Leg defines a great circle track over ground between two known databases fixes  Preferred method for specification of straight legs (course or heading can be mentioned on charts, but designer should ensure TF leg is used for coding) RF leg type (new leg type)  Constant Radius Arc or RF Leg defines a constant radius turn between two database fixes, lines tangent to the arc and a center fix CF leg type  Course to a Fix or CF Leg defines a specified course to a specific database fix  TF legs should be used instead of CF whenever possible to avoid magnetic variation issues DF leg type  Direct to a Fix or DF Leg defines an unspecified track starting from an undefined position to a specified fix  Procedure designers should take into account the FMS flight path depends on initial aircraft heading as well FA leg type  Fix to an Altitude or FA Leg defines a specified track over ground from a database fix to a specified altitude at an unspecified position FC leg type  Track from a Fix from a Distance or FC Leg defines a specified track over ground from a database fix for a specific distance FD leg type  Track from a Fix to a DME Distance or FD Leg defines a specified track over ground from a database fix to a specific DME Distance which is from a specific database DME Navaid FM leg type  From a Fix to a Manual termination or FM Leg defines a specified track over ground from a database fix until Manual termination of the leg CA leg type  Course to an Altitude or CA Leg defines a specified course to a specific altitude at an unspecified position CD leg type  Course to a DME Distance or CD Leg defines a specified course to a specific DME Distance which is from a specific database DME Navaid CI leg type  Course to an Intercept or CI Leg defines a specified course to intercept a subsequent leg CR leg type  Course to a Radial termination or CR Leg defines a course to a specified Radial from a specific database VOR Navaid AF leg type  Arc to a Fix or AF Leg defines a track over ground at specified constant distance from a database DME Navaid VA leg type  Heading to an Altitude termination or VA Leg defines a specified heading to a specific Altitude termination at an unspecified position VD leg type  Heading to a DME Distance termination or VD Leg defines a specified heading terminating at a specified DME Distance from a specific database DME Navaid VI leg type  Heading to an Intercept or VI Leg defines a specified heading to intercept the subsequent leg at an unspecified position VMleg type  Heading to a Manual termination or VM Leg defines a specified heading until a Manual termination VR leg type  Heading to a Radial termination or VR Leg defines a specified heading to a specified radial from a specific database VOR Navaid PI leg type  Procedure Turn or PI Leg defines a course reversal starting at a specific database fix, includes Outbound Leg followed by a left or right turn and 180 degree course reversal to intercept the next leg HA, HF, HMleg types  Racetrack Course Reversal or HA, HF and HM Leg Types define racetrack pattern or course reversals at a specified database fix HA = Altitude Termination HF = Single circuit terminating at the fix (base turn) HM = Manual Termination ARINC 424 - allowable leg transitions * = The IF leg is coded only when the altitude constraints at each end of the “FX”, “HX” or “PI” leg are different. & = A CF/DF, DF/DF or FC/DF sequence should only be used when the termination of the first leg must be over flown, otherwise alternative coding should be used. # = The IF/RF combination is only permitted at the start of the final approach for FMS, GPS or MLS coding and only when a straight line, fixed terminated transition proceeds the start of the final. 10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR Navigation database related issues Compatibility... Navigation data production process Procedure design by Civil Aviation Authorities Data Supplier FMS Database Processing FMS AIP ARINC 424 “master” file Packed Data operator responsibility Some top level issues  Navigation database process is *not* certified  Transcription of procedures in “computer” language (ARINC 424) requires interpretation  Procedure designer intent is currently only published under “pilot language” format  Each FMS implementation & logic is different May results in different flight paths and SOP  Charts and aircraft navigation displays differ  Increased risk of Human error  Training costs Reminder - flight plan construction  Charted procedure are translated into a sequence of ARINC 424 legs in the Navigation Database  Flight plans are entered into the FMS by calling procedures from the navigation database  Procedure segments are chained together (or melded) to form the FMS flight plan Example : F-PLN procedure melding  Procedures are chained together to form the FMS flight plan. Example : Arrival chart Airways chart Approach chart Enroute (airways) STAR-enroute transition STAR Approach STAR-approach transition (VIA) Example : procedure compatibility ?  Possible procedure misconnects between en-route, arrival, and approach charts  Possible discontinuities between or inside procedures  Incompatible or conflicting altitude requirements between arrival and approach charts 10-11-12-13 September 2002-Morocco ARAB INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DESIGN SEMINAR Navigation database recommendations Waypoint naming issues  Different approach procedure types (ILS/LOC/RNAV…) use different trajectories and/or waypoint names without reason  Unnamed waypoints on charts are assigned default names  Same waypoint names used at different locations  Chart wording leading to usage of leg types which cause the FMS to create its own waypoints, with names which do not match chart  Coding constraints lead to creation of waypoints not on the chart Procedure trajectory issues  Chart wording and/or coding rules lead to coding of magnetic course leg types such as CF legs  Chart wording and/or coding rules lead to bad coding of vertical descent angles, which are critical to a correct vertical path  IFR minimum altitudes often coded as “AT” constraints  Overfly waypoints trajectories are not repeatable  Barometric temperature limitations should be indicated on charts  Overfly waypoints : depending on wind, aircraft speed, bank angle limitation etc… the FMS trajectory will be different Why not use overfly waypoints ? trajectory not repeatable overfly wpt  Fly-by waypoints : better trajectory control is achieved as the FMS will track a pre-computed curve Why use fly-by waypoints ? controlled trajectory fly-by wpt  CF leg magnetic course angles may mismatch : excessive roll maneuvering Why not use CF legs ? N N  TF legs always fit, independently of magnetic variation : Why use TF legs ? IDLE segment Why code FPA constraint on each FINAL leg ? FPA smaller than altitude constraint FPA greater than altitude constraint No FPA FPA matches altitude constraint Why not use AT altitude constraints ?  Using AT constraints may cause undesired vertical path : navigation database vertical angle navigation database vertical angle MAP approach profile MDA Why use AT_OR_ABOVE altitude constraints ?  Using AT_OR_ABOVE constraints and FPA constraint on each leg ensures seamless path MDA navigation database vertical angle navigation database vertical angle MAP approach profile Medium term - recommendations  Implementation of DO201A by civil aviation authorities for procedure publication  Implementation of DO200A by data providers  Implementation of RTCA DO236 / EUROCAE ED-75  Implementation of ATA Chart, Data and Avionics Harmonization Top Priorities  Improved transatlantic coordination between working groups, authorities & industry  ARINC 424, ATA FMS/RNAV Task Force, TARA, RTCA SC- 181 & 193, Eurocae WG-13 & 44, FAA, JAA, Eurocontrol, ICAO… Medium term - ATA CDAH priorities  Redesign of existing non-precision approaches to accommodate VNAV  Altitudes at precision FAF’s  Unnamed step-down fixes  Waypoints on EFIS but not in database or charts  Waypoint names longer than five characters  Duplicate navaid and waypoint identifiers  Different altitude for same point on STAR’s and approaches  Magnetic variation tables used in course calculations  VNAV angle depiction on charts Longer term - goals  Fully resolve the disconnect between :  the procedure design by the Airspace Planner,  the coded description in the navigation database,  and the way it is displayed and flown by the FMS  End-to-end certified process with integrity guidelines and criteria  A worldwide, common process with Airworthiness Authorities involvement under an ICAO mandate Longer term - recommendations  Publication of a single standard/language for procedure design, database coding, and FMS  Reduced ARINC 424 set  Improved charts-database-FMS compatibility  Design of “FMS-friendly” procedures  Publication of these procedures using FMS compatible language (in addition to charts)  Publications of standards for navigation database integrity and certification Longer term - common language  Comprehensive worldwide commonality requires rules at ICAO level  A common coding Standard should be :  clearly defined,  including rules for use by both the aircraft and the RNAV Airspace Planner,  the minimum capability of any "FANS RNAV system”,  the maximum set usable by the RNAV Airspace Planner  This would ensure a unique unambiguous coding of routes and procedures Longer term - FMS friendly procedures  Use only fixed, named waypoints  For straight segments use only TF legs  For large course changes (>30°) use RF legs  Use only fly-by waypoint transitions (no overfly)  Put a waypoint at each vertical path change  Use descent gradients between 2.5° and 3.5°  Start the missed approach at or before the runway  Use same waypoint names and approach path for all approach types to a given runway  Use unique waypoint names (max 5 characters) Longer term - integrity  Integrity must concern the entire process, from procedure design to the loading of the FMS  Ultimate goal should be a fully digital process  Process should be under direct supervision of airspace management authorities  Worldwide implementation requires ICAO rules End of presentation : Any question?

f214216709 发表于 2010-8-2 13:52:13

看看哦谢谢

卡拉是条狗 发表于 2010-8-23 12:22:02

正需要啊，多谢楼主

zhuxichen 发表于 2010-8-27 08:19:16

:Q :Q :Q :Q :Q

xheleon 发表于 2010-8-28 17:34:54

非常感谢楼主发布！！！！

lishaobin 发表于 2010-9-6 16:37:10

thanks for the good material!

gjsx 发表于 2010-9-9 06:02:14

为啥隐藏啊民航不是应该开放精神么

maodun 发表于 2010-10-30 11:48:18

好东西，找了好久了

gjsx 发表于 2010-11-12 08:16:08

谢谢楼主分享

页: [1] 2

航空论坛_航空翻译_民航英语翻译_飞行翻译's Archiver

Navigation & flight planning by FMS-equipped aircraft