RNP demo at DCA

[G Farris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/national/21airport.html?oref=login

If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
article.

I'm not sure how frequently they would want to be using 13L at JFK and 04
at LGA simultaneously, but the case is well demonstrated anyway.

GF

[G Farris]

Forgot to add these links (for AOPA members) :

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20051124/NE-3/dca_lda_dme_rwy_19.pdf

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20051124/NE-3/dca_rnav_rnp_rwy_19.pdf

GF

[RV9]

> If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
> access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
> article.

Worked for me. However, if some are having difficulty, try
http://www.bugmenot.com/

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

G Farris wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/national/21airport.html?oref=login
>
> If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
> access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
> article.


http://bugmenot.com is your friend for such situations. Enter in the URL of the
site you're trying to access and it'll offer you numerous username/password
combinations to try. Generally speaking, the first one offered will work. I
use bugmenot all the time for one shot deals where I can't be bothered to
register. I even put a link to it on my quick launch toolbar.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Stubby]

G Farris wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/national/21airport.html?oref=login
>
> If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
> access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
> article.
>
> I'm not sure how frequently they would want to be using 13L at JFK and 04
> at LGA simultaneously, but the case is well demonstrated anyway.
>
> GF
>
I got an official announcement through the Wings program announcement
channel. I'm sure you can find it on the FAA web site.

[Garner Miller]

In article >, G Farris
> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/national/21airport.html?oref=login


Very interesting...

> If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
> access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
> article.

BugMe Not is your friend: http://www.bugmenot.com/
It's a repository of logins for all those newspapers that want each
person to register. It's wonderful.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[Peter R.]

Garner Miller > wrote:

> BugMe Not is your friend: http://www.bugmenot.com/
> It's a repository of logins for all those newspapers that want each
> person to register. It's wonderful.

Of course, one of you BUGMENOT users could be so kind to copy/paste the
article here. :)

--
Peter

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Peter R.
> wrote:

> Of course, one of you BUGMENOT users could be so kind to copy/paste the
> article here. :)

That's kind of pointless, when we have a link to the original article.
BugMeNot is free. There's even a plug-in for Firefox that will do all
the looking up and filling in for you!

But I'll certainly give you a head start:

http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F


Enjoy.

:-)

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[Bob Noel]

In article >, G Farris > wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/national/21airport.html?oref=login
>
> If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
> access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
> article.
>
> I'm not sure how frequently they would want to be using 13L at JFK and 04
> at LGA simultaneously, but the case is well demonstrated anyway.
>
> GF


DCA or JFK?



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


AOC 42-05 December 20, 2005
Contact: Alison Duquette
Phone: 202-267-3883 New FAA Navigation Procedure at Reagan National
Helps Travelers, Airlines, Airport Neighbors WASHINGTON, DC —
The Department
of Transportation's Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) today announced
that a new navigation procedure at
Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport will increase efficiency,
improve safety, and reduce the effect
of aircraft noise and emissions on
homes and businesses under the flight
path.

Called "Required Navigation
Performance" (RNP), the procedure
takes advantage of a plane's onboard
navigation capability to fly a more
precise flight path into the airport.
The Reagan National RNP approach to
Runway 19, which follows the Potomac
River, allows planes to land with
considerably lower cloud ceilings and
visibility than currently required,
increasing airport access during
marginal weather.

"We're tapping the high-performance
computing capability of today's
aircraft to move more planes more
safely and efficiently," said FAA
Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "The
environmental benefits are terrific
too, because flying straight down the
middle of the flight path means that
people on the ground perceive less jet
noise and experience fewer engine
emissions."

The procedure at Reagan National may
be used by any operator who can meet
specific FAA requirements for aircraft
navigation performance and pilot
training. Alaska Airlines is the first
air carrier authorized by the FAA to
use the RNP procedures at Reagan
National. The airline pioneered the
use of RNP procedures at Juneau and
other airports in Alaska.

Besides the new procedure at Reagan
National, the FAA has authorized RNP
procedures at Juneau, San Francisco,
Portland, OR; Palm Springs, CA; and
Hailey (Sun Valley), ID.

At all the airports,
RNP's "repeatability" — allowing
aircraft to fly the same path
consistently — lets the FAA
design procedures to avoid noise-
sensitive areas with the assurance
that aircraft will fly the exact path
every time.

The FAA and the aviation community
have collaborated for more than a year
to make performance-based navigation a
reality. When performance-based
navigation is fully implemented at
airports across the nation, it will
establish precise approach, arrival
and departure procedures. It also will
improve situational awareness for
pilots and air traffic controllers,
and provide smoother traffic flows,
saving fuel and benefiting the
environment.



__________________________________________________ __________
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/u_subscribe.cfm

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, G Farris > wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/national/21airport.html?oref=login
>>
>>If you're not registered to read NYTimes articles you may not be able to
>>access this - maybe someone has a more user-friendly source for this
>>article.
>>
>>I'm not sure how frequently they would want to be using 13L at JFK and 04
>>at LGA simultaneously, but the case is well demonstrated anyway.
>>
>>GF
>
>
>
> DCA or JFK?

The RNP procedure at DCA does not enhance separation. It lowers
minimums for Runway 19 but only Alaska Airlines can presently use it.
It will take a long time for anyone else to qualify for that low of an
RNP value. The reason the RNP value is that low is not for obstacle
clearance but to assure clearance from P-56.

The JFK procedure is presently being promoted by Jet Blue to emulate the
Canarsie (VOR 13L/R) IAP at JFK, albeit with lower minimums so they
don't have to switch to the 13L ILS.

So long as the Canarsie approach is in use LGA can run Runway 4 ILS
approaches. This has been true for many years. But, once the weather
drops below Canarsie minimums then JFK has to switch to the ILS 13L,
which shuts down the LGA ILS 4.

With the lower minimums proposed by Jet Blue, the percentage of time
that JFK would have to use the 13L ILS would decrease significantly.

Trouble is, unless every flight into JFK is RNP qualified, including RF
(radius-to-fix) leg capable, it will do no good. Many, many air carrier
aircraft are not properly equipped and will not be so for the life of
that portion of the air carrier fleet.

So, it is the FAA promoting something that just won't become a reality
at JFK. At DCA it works for Alaska Airlines, because there the benefits
are not dependent upon everyone being equipped with the "latest and
greatest" RNP suite, not to mention all the related special crew
training and qualifications.

The FAA is to be given credit for finally embracing the concept of
advanced, approach-capable RNP, but neither the air carriers nor the ATC
system is quite ready for "prime time."

The new Palm Springs RNP IAPs, effective this very day, are great except
the airspace and ATC system is simply not prepared to deal with them.

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>DCA or JFK?


The NYTimes article refers to a demo at DCA, but the illustration (not
reproduced here) shows the Canarsie approach to JFK's 13L, and its conflict
with LGA's 04, as described by Tim below.
My (admittedly uninformed) comment was motivated by the fact that LGA also has
a 13/31, of the same length, I believe, as their 04/22, so I wonder how often
JFK will be using the ILS to 13L (below minima for the visual portion of the
Canarsie approach) and LGA will be using ILS to 04 - seems like they would
both be landing on 13 under those conditions, but again there could be any
number of reasons I'm not specifically aware of that would make this conflict a
real hassle for them.

The DCA issue is a bit of a funny one, because we need to develop all sorts of
wizardry in order to comply with our own, self-imposed restrictions. If it's
such a bad idea, or such a present danger to the sitting government to have
planes flying low over the Capital, then it would seem that was just a bad
place to put a major airport! Nevertheless, the demo is impressive, and even
with all the inertia Tim describes in getting the airlines' fleets equipped,
it's still a promising development. Airlines in the US may not be in much of a
porition to rejuvenate their fleets as they are in much of the rest of the
world, but sooner or later it will become necessary, and the way will be found.
The further along we are with this stuff when that begins to happen, the closer
we will be to a really useful modernization - it's been a long time coming.

Greg


>
>
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>AOC 42-05 December 20, 2005
>Contact: Alison Duquette
>Phone: 202-267-3883 New FAA Navigation Procedure at Reagan National
>Helps Travelers, Airlines, Airport Neighbors WASHINGTON, DC —
>The Department
>of Transportation's Federal Aviation
>Administration (FAA) today announced
>that a new navigation procedure at
>Ronald Reagan Washington National
>Airport will increase efficiency,
>improve safety, and reduce the effect
>of aircraft noise and emissions on
>homes and businesses under the flight
>path.
>
>Called "Required Navigation
>Performance" (RNP), the procedure
>takes advantage of a plane's onboard
>navigation capability to fly a more
>precise flight path into the airport.
>The Reagan National RNP approach to
>Runway 19, which follows the Potomac
>River, allows planes to land with
>considerably lower cloud ceilings and
>visibility than currently required,
>increasing airport access during
>marginal weather.
>
>"We're tapping the high-performance
>computing capability of today's
>aircraft to move more planes more
>safely and efficiently," said FAA
>Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "The
>environmental benefits are terrific
>too, because flying straight down the
>middle of the flight path means that
>people on the ground perceive less jet
>noise and experience fewer engine
>emissions."
>
>The procedure at Reagan National may
>be used by any operator who can meet
>specific FAA requirements for aircraft
>navigation performance and pilot
>training. Alaska Airlines is the first
>air carrier authorized by the FAA to
>use the RNP procedures at Reagan
>National. The airline pioneered the
>use of RNP procedures at Juneau and
>other airports in Alaska.
>
>Besides the new procedure at Reagan
>National, the FAA has authorized RNP
>procedures at Juneau, San Francisco,
>Portland, OR; Palm Springs, CA; and
>Hailey (Sun Valley), ID.
>
>At all the airports,
>RNP's "repeatability" — allowing
>aircraft to fly the same path
>consistently — lets the FAA
>design procedures to avoid noise-
>sensitive areas with the assurance
>that aircraft will fly the exact path
>every time.
>
>The FAA and the aviation community
>have collaborated for more than a year
>to make performance-based navigation a
>reality. When performance-based
>navigation is fully implemented at
>airports across the nation, it will
>establish precise approach, arrival
>and departure procedures. It also will
>improve situational awareness for
>pilots and air traffic controllers,
>and provide smoother traffic flows,
>saving fuel and benefiting the
>environment.
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________ __________
>To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/u_subscribe.cfm
>
>--
>Bob Noel
>New NHL? what a joke
>

[[email protected]]

G Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>DCA or JFK?
>
>
>

> My (admittedly uninformed) comment was motivated by the fact that LGA also has
> a 13/31, of the same length, I believe, as their 04/22, so I wonder how often
> JFK will be using the ILS to 13L (below minima for the visual portion of the
> Canarsie approach) and LGA will be using ILS to 04 - seems like they would
> both be landing on 13 under those conditions, but again there could be any
> number of reasons I'm not specifically aware of that would make this conflict a
> real hassle for them.

I don't recall the exact reasons why LGA prefers to use 4 over 13, but I
believe it has to do with noise. When they hand 22 or 4, they can
usually depart 31. But, when they land 13 then they use 4 for
departures. I think this makes the PONY mad. ;-)
>
> The DCA issue is a bit of a funny one, because we need to develop all sorts of
> wizardry in order to comply with our own, self-imposed restrictions. If it's
> such a bad idea, or such a present danger to the sitting government to have
> planes flying low over the Capital, then it would seem that was just a bad
> place to put a major airport! Nevertheless, the demo is impressive, and even
> with all the inertia Tim describes in getting the airlines' fleets equipped,
> it's still a promising development. Airlines in the US may not be in much of a
> porition to rejuvenate their fleets as they are in much of the rest of the
> world, but sooner or later it will become necessary, and the way will be found.
> The further along we are with this stuff when that begins to happen, the closer
> we will be to a really useful modernization - it's been a long time coming.
>

I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their
legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The
757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over
$100 million."

[Bob Noel]

In article <xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04>, wrote:

> I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their
> legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The
> 757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over
> $100 million."

what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of
glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and software
can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional
equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft?

American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should
be looking at some upgrade cost anyway.

(btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
the USAF fleet...)

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04>, wrote:
>
>
>>I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their
>>legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The
>>757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over
>>$100 million."
>
>
> what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of
> glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and software
> can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional
> equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft?

Any of their 757s/767s delivered after some date (circa 1995?) have the
required stuff. That is when Boeing switched to GPS as the primary
sensor and the Pegasus FMS. These birds can do true RNP and
radius-to-a-fix legs (RF legs).
>
> American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should
> be looking at some upgrade cost anyway.

RNP 2 is not much of anything, and can be done with DME/DME in the en
route environment. Containment areas for RNP 2.0 is 4 miles, centerline
to edge, no different than a VOR airway. For RNAV departures the term
of reference in FAA-dom is Level 1 (RNP 1.0) and Level 2 (RNP 2.0)
Level 2 accomplishes little, if anything.

To get into the performance-based approach game, RNP 0.3 is required
just to enter the game. RNP 0.1 is where it all is going, and that
simply will not happen with the 757/767 pre-Pegasus avionics. The
hardware is too old and rigid. They would have to rip out the old FMSes
and replace them.

To get down to RNP 0.1 you need some pretty nifty software routines that
will compute and estimate ANP (acutal navigation performance), you need
redundancy to achieve an E10-7 target level of safety, you need the
latest EGPWS (TAWS) with peaks and obstacles, and you almost certainly
need at least one IRU. With three IRUs that are updated by dual,
independent GPS sensors, and two (better three) independent FMSes, you
have the absolutely best performing platform.

When you are threading between the rocks at RNP 0.10 and possibly lose
GPS, you don't want to be DEAD reckoning. ;-)
>
> (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
> the USAF fleet...)

The Air Force has the necessary eqippage in some of the new stuff. I
doubt they will be doing much retrofitting of avionics except for
special-use aircraft.
>

[Stubby]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04>, wrote:
>
>
>>I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their
>>legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The
>>757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over
>>$100 million."
>
>
> what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of
> glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and software
> can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional
> equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft?
>
> American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should
> be looking at some upgrade cost anyway.
>
> (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
> the USAF fleet...)
>
I read USAF spends $700M per year painting aircraft.

[Bob Noel]

In article <D0drf.15670$LB5.8392@fed1read04>, wrote:

> > (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
> > the USAF fleet...)
>
> The Air Force has the necessary eqippage in some of the new stuff. I
> doubt they will be doing much retrofitting of avionics except for
> special-use aircraft.

Most of the USAF aircraft aren't new, and the USAF is doing a lot of
upgrades to a lot of aircraft, not just special-use.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <D0drf.15670$LB5.8392@fed1read04>, wrote:
>
>
>>>(btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
>>>the USAF fleet...)
>>
>>The Air Force has the necessary eqippage in some of the new stuff. I
>>doubt they will be doing much retrofitting of avionics except for
>>special-use aircraft.
>
>
> Most of the USAF aircraft aren't new, and the USAF is doing a lot of
> upgrades to a lot of aircraft, not just special-use.
>
I don't know much about what the USAF is doing other than a Lt COL who
is at their instrument procedures group told me that performance-based
RNP procedures would be limited to a small segment of USAF aircraft. I
don't know what he really meant by that.

[[email protected]]

Stubby wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>> In article <xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04>, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their
>>> legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The
>>> 757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as
>>> over $100 million."
>>
>>
>>
>> what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of
>> glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and
>> software
>> can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional
>> equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft?
>>
>> American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should
>> be looking at some upgrade cost anyway.
>>
>> (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
>> the USAF fleet...)
>>
> I read USAF spends $700M per year painting aircraft.

They're not in Chapter 11 nor anywhere near it. ;-)

[Stubby]

wrote:
> Stubby wrote:
>
>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>
>>> In article <xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04>, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their
>>>> legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that.
>>>> The 757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost
>>>> as over $100 million."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of
>>> glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and
>>> software
>>> can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional
>>> equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft?
>>>
>>> American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they
>>> should
>>> be looking at some upgrade cost anyway.
>>>
>>> (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade
>>> the USAF fleet...)
>>>
>> I read USAF spends $700M per year painting aircraft.
>
>
> They're not in Chapter 11 nor anywhere near it. ;-)
Right. That sounds like a lot of money but some of those paints are
very special.

[Bob Noel]

In article <V6erf.15676$LB5.15227@fed1read04>, wrote:

> > Most of the USAF aircraft aren't new, and the USAF is doing a lot of
> > upgrades to a lot of aircraft, not just special-use.
> >
> I don't know much about what the USAF is doing other than a Lt COL who
> is at their instrument procedures group told me that performance-based
> RNP procedures would be limited to a small segment of USAF aircraft. I
> don't know what he really meant by that.

Not a lot of USAF aircraft have RNP capabilities (especially RNP-1, RNP-0.3,
and RNP-0.1) yet. Perhaps the LTC was talking about present equippage
or very near-term.

C-5, KC-135, C-17 are all getting RNP capabilities.

C-130 development program for CNS/ATM, to include, RNP-4 and below,
has been delayed.

E-3 and E-8 will likely be upgraded

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> Not a lot of USAF aircraft have RNP capabilities (especially RNP-1, RNP-0.3,
> and RNP-0.1) yet. Perhaps the LTC was talking about present equippage
> or very near-term.
>
> C-5, KC-135, C-17 are all getting RNP capabilities.
>
> C-130 development program for CNS/ATM, to include, RNP-4 and below,
> has been delayed.
>
> E-3 and E-8 will likely be upgraded
>

I was told by one of the avionics gurus I work with that the new
fighter, F-22 is it?...will do the full nine-yards, right out of the
box. I think that means autoflight roll-steering, RF legs, Baro VNAV,
and all the necessary redundancies to do the most demanding RNP approach
procedures.

[Ron Lee]

wrote:

>> Most of the USAF aircraft aren't new, and the USAF is doing a lot of
>> upgrades to a lot of aircraft, not just special-use.
>>
>I don't know much about what the USAF is doing other than a Lt COL who
>is at their instrument procedures group told me that performance-based
>RNP procedures would be limited to a small segment of USAF aircraft. I
>don't know what he really meant by that.

Fact is that retrofitting any aircraft can be expensive and even the
USAF has to consider cost. If the money is not there or the benefit
does not justify the cost then you don't upgrade.

Ron Lee