RNP demo at DCA

In article ,
lid 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

G Farris wrote:
In article ,
lid 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."

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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