Performance-based navigation

ICAO performance-based navigation (PBN) specifies that aircraft required navigation performance (RNP) and area navigation
(RNAV) systems performance requirements be defined in terms of accuracy, integrity, availability, continuity, and functionality
required for the proposed operations in the context of a particular airspace, when supported by the appropriate navigation
infrastructure.[1]

Contents
Description
Impact on airspace planning
Transition to PBN
Scope
On-board performance monitoring and alerting
RNAV and RNP specific functions
Fixed radius paths
Fly-by turns
Holding pattern
Offset flight path
Minimum navigation performance specifications
Future developments
References
External links

Description
Historically, aircraft navigation specifications have been specified directly in terms of sensors (navigation beacons and/or waypoints).
A navigation specification that includes an additional requirement for on-board navigation performance monitoring and alerting is
referred to as a required navigation performance (RNP) specification. One not having such requirements is referred to as an area
navigation (RNAV) specification.

Performance requirements are identified in navigation specifications, which also identify the choice of navigation sensors and
equipment that may be used to meet the performance requirements. The navigation specifications provide specific implementation
guidance in order to facilitate global harmonisation.

Under PBN, generic navigation requirements are first defined based on the operational requirements. Civil aviation authorities then
evaluate options in respect of available technology and navigation services. A chosen solution would be the most cost-effective for
the civil aviation authority, as opposed to a solution being established as part of the operational requirements. Technology can evolve
over time without requiring the operation itself to be revisited as long as the requisite performance is provided by the RNAV or RNP
system.

PBN offers a number of advantages over the sensor-specific method of developing airspace and obstacle clearance criteria:

1. reduces the need to maintain sensor-specific routes and procedures, and their costs. For example, moving a single
VOR can impact dozens of procedures, as a VOR can be usedon routes, VOR approaches, missed approaches,
etc. Adding new sensor-specific procedures would compound this cost, and the rapid growth in available navigation
systems would soon make sensor-specific routes and procedures unaf fordable;
 2. avoids the need for developing sensor-specific operations with each new evolution of navigation systems, which
would be cost-prohibitive. The expansion of satellite navigation services is expected to contribute to the continued
diversity of RNP and RNAV systems in different aircraft. The original basicglobal navigation satellite system(GNSS)
equipment is evolving due to the development of augmentations such as satellite-based augmentation systems
(SBAS), ground-based augmentation systems(GBAS) and ground-based regional augmentation systems(GRAS),
while the introduction ofGalileo and the modernisation of theGlobal Positioning System(GPS) and the Global
Navigation Satellite System(GLONASS) will further improve GNSS performance. The use of GNSS/ inertial
integration is also expanding;
3. allows for more efficient use of airspace (route placement, fuel efficiency and noise mitigation);
4. clarifies how RNAV systems are used; and
5. facilitates the operational approval process forcivil aviation authoritiesby providing a limited set of navigation
specifications intended for global use.
Within an airspace, PBN requirements will be affected by the communication, surveillance and air traffic control (ATC)
environments, the navaid infrastructure and functional and operational capability needed to meet the ATM application. PBN
performance requirements also depend on what reversion, non-RNAV means of navigation are available and what degree of
redundancy is required to ensure adequate continuity of operations.

To achieve the efficiency and capacity gains partially enabled by RNAV and RNP, the FAA will pursue use of data communications
and enhanced surveillance functionality.[2]

Impact on airspace planning

When separation minima and route spacing are determined using a conventional sensor-based approach, the navigation performance
data used to determine the separation minima or route spacing depend on the accuracy of the raw data from specific navigation aids
such as VOR, DME or NDB. In contrast, PBN requires an RNAV system that integrates raw navigation data to provide a positioning
and navigation solution. In determining separation minima and route spacing, this integrated navigation performance "output" is used.

The navigation performance required from the RNAV system is part of the navigation specification. To determine separation minima
and route spacing, airspace planners fully exploit that part of the navigation specification which describes the performance required
from the RNAV system. Airspace planners also make use of the required performance (accuracy
, integrity, availability and continuity)
to determine route spacing and separation minima.

In procedurally controlled airspace, separation minima and route spacing on RNP specifications are expected to provide a greater
benefit than those based on RNAV specifications. This is because the on-board performance monitoring and alerting function could
alleviate the absence of ATS surveillance serviceby providing an alternative means of risk mitigation.

Transition to PBN
It is expected that all future RNAV and RNP applications will identify the navigation requirements through the use of performance
specifications rather than defining specific navigation sensors.

Scope
For legacy reasons associated with the previous RNP concept, PBN is currently limited to operations with linear lateral performance
requirements and time constraints. For this reason, operations with angular lateral performance requirements (i.e. approach and
landing operations with GNSS vertical guidance—approach procedure with vertical guidance APV-I and APV-II), as well as
instrument landing system(ILS) and microwave landing system(MLS) are not considered.Unlike the lateral monitoring and obstacle
clearance, for barometric VNAV systems there is neither alerting on vertical error nor is there a two-times relationship between a
95% required total system accuracy and the performance limit. Therefore, barometric VNA
V is not considered vertical RNP.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting

On-board performance monitoring and alerting is the main element that determines if a navigation system complies with the
necessary safety level associated with an RNP application; it relates to both lateral and longitudinal navigation performance; and it
allows the aircrew to detect that the navigation system is not achieving, or cannot guarantee with 10−5 integrity, the navigation
performance required for the operation.

RNP systems provide improvements on the integrity of operations. This may permit closer route spacing and can provide sufficient
integrity to allow only RNAV systems to be used for navigation in a specific airspace. The use of RNP systems may therefore offer
significant safety, operational and efficiency benefits.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting capabilities fulfill two needs, one on board the aircraft and one within the airspace
design. The assurance of airborne system performance is implicit for RNAV operations. Based upon existing airworthiness criteria,
RNAV systems are only required to demonstrate intended function and performance using explicit requirements that are broadly
interpreted. The result is that while the nominal RNAV system performance can be very good, it is characterised by the variability of
the system functionality and related flight performance. RNP systems provide a means to minimise variability and assure reliable,
repeatable and predictable flight operations.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting allow the air crew to detect whether or not the RNP system satisfies the navigation
performance required in the navigation specification. On-board performance monitoring and alerting relate to both lateral and
longitudinal navigation performance.

On-board performance monitoring and alerting is concerned with the performance of the area navigation system.

"on-board" explicitly means that the performance monitoring and alerting is fected
af on board the aircraft and not
elsewhere, e.g. using a ground-based route adherence monitor or TC A surveillance. The monitoring element of on-
board performance monitoring and alerting relates to flight technical error (FTE) and navigation system error (NSE).
Path definition error (PDE) is constrained through database integrity and functional requirements on the defined
path, and is considered negligible.
"monitoring" refers to the monitoring of the aircraft's performance as regards its ability to determine positioning error
and/or to follow the desired path.
"alerting" relates to the monitoring: if the aircraft's navigation system does not perform well enough, this will be
alerted to the air crew.

RNAV and RNP specific functions

Performance-based flight operations are based on the ability to assure reliable, repeatable and predictable flight paths for improved
capacity and efficiency in planned operations. The implementation of performance-based flight operations requires not only the
functions traditionally provided by the RNAV system, but also may require specific functions to improve procedures, and airspace
and air traffic operations. The system capabilities for established fixed radius paths, RNAV or RNP holding, and lateral offsets fall
into this category.

Fixed radius paths

Fixed radius paths (FRP) take two forms:

1. the radius to fix (RF) leg type is one of the leg types that should be used when there is a requirement for a specific
curved path radius in a terminal or approach procedure. The RF leg is defined by radius, arc length and fix. RNP
systems supporting this leg type provide the same ability to conform to the track-keeping accuracy during the turn as
in straight line segments. Bank angle limits for different aircraft types and winds aloft are taken into account in
procedure design.
2. the fixed radius transition (FRT) is intended to be used in en-route procedures. These turns have two possible radii,
22.5 NM for high altitude routes (above FL195) and 15 NM for low altitude routes. Using such path elements in an
RNAV route enables improvement in airspaceusage through closely spaced parallel routes.

Fly-by turns
Fly-by turns are a key characteristic of an RNAV flight path. The RNAV system uses information on aircraft speed, bank angle, wind
and track angle change to calculate a flight path turn that smoothly transitions from one path segment to the next. However, because
the parameters affecting the turn radius can vary from one plane to another, as well as due to changing conditions in speed and wind,
the turn initiation point and turn area can vary
.

Holding pattern
The RNAV system facilitiates the holding pattern specification by allowing the definition of the inbound course to the holding
waypoint, turn direction and leg time or distance on the straight segments, as well as the ability to plan the exit from the hold. For
RNP systems, further improvement in holding is available. These RNP improvements include fly-by entry into the hold, minimising
the necessary protected airspace on the non-holding side of the holding pattern, consistent with the RNP limits provided. Where RNP
holding is applied, a maximum of RNP 1 is suggested since less stringent values adversely fect
af airspace usage and design.

Offset flight path

RNAV systems may provide the capability for the flight crew to specify a lateral offset from a defined route. Generally, lateral offsets
can be specified in increments of 1 NM up to 20 NM. When a lateral offset is activated in the RNAV system, the RNAV aircraft will
depart the defined route and typically intercept the offset at a 45° or less angle. When the offset is cancelled, the aircraft returns to the
defined route in a similar manner. Such offsets can be used both strategically i.e. fixed offset for the length of the route, or tactically
i.e. temporarily. Most RNAV systems discontinue offsets in the terminal area or at the beginning of an approach procedure, at an
RNAV hold, or during course changes of 90° or greater
.

Minimum navigation performance specifications

Aircraft operating in the North Atlantic airspace are required to meet a minimum navigation performance specification (MNPS). The
MNPS specification has intentionally been excluded from PBN because of its mandatory nature and because future MNPS
implementations are not envisaged.[3]

Future developments
It is likely that navigation applications will progress from 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional/4-dimensionalapplications, although time-
scales and operational requirements are currently difficult to determine. Consequently, on-board performance monitoring and alerting
is still to be developed in the vertical plane (vertical RNP) and ongoing work is aimed at harmonising longitudinal and linear
performance requirements. Angular performance requirements associated with approach and landing will be included in the scope of
PBN in the future. Similarly, specifications to support helicopter-specific navigation and holding functional requirements may also be
included.

References
1. ICAO. Doc 9613, Performance-based Navigation (PBN) Manual
, 2008. ISBN 978-92-9231-198-8
2. FAA. Roadmap for Performance-Based Navigation: Evolution for Area Navigation (RNA
V) and Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) Capabilities 2006-2025. 2006.
3. The requirements for MNPS are set out in theConsolidated Guidance and Information Material concerning Air
Navigation in the North Atlantic Region(NAT Doc 001) (available at
http://www.paris.icao.int/documents_open/show_file.php?id=209)

External links
Boeing. Operational Benefits of Performance-Based Navigation2008.
This article incorporatespublic domain materialfrom websites or documents of theFederal Aviation Administration.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance-based_navigation&oldid=842528211
"

This page was last edited on 23 May 2018, at 01:47(UTC).

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.