Flying into the Future with PBN Procedures

Stefano Bonelli
Human Factors expert, Deep Blue
Flying into the future
The PROuD Project
Casa dell’Aviatore, Rome
30th September 2016

Introduction
• Nowadays, many critical services, such as Helicopter Emergency Medical Service
(HEMS) and Search and Rescue (SAR), are carried out in very challenging
environments, requiring helicopters to often fly in adverse weather conditions and in
unfavourable contexts (e.g. mountainous areas, urban environments).
2

Introduction
• In many cases, helicopters are not supported by any navigation aid, as small airports
and landing sites are not equipped with ground based facilities enabling
instrument flight.
3
• Pilots mainly fly visually, thus
limiting the number of missions
that can be completed
successfully when visibility is
low.

Project Summary
4
• The PROuD project is one of the 15 Large Scale Demonstration projects that have
been selected by the SESAR JU (SJU), the public-private partnership responsible for
coordinating ATM research & development in Europe.
• SJU Call for Proposal for Large Scale Demonstration activities (2014-2016), Lot2:
“Precision Arrival and Departure Procedures” bringing safety and economic
improvements to small size airports and heliports already applying or implementing
satellite rotorcraft operations.

Project Summary - Objectives
5
• The objective was to demonstrate, in a live trial
environment, how the adoption of PBN flight procedures
improves the safety and reliability of operations and
landing site accessibility in challenging environments.
– Provide instrument approach capabilities to locations where
conventional navigation facilities are not available
– Enable continued access to heliports in difficult to reach areas
during reduced visibility conditions
– Guarantee the continuity of vital services such as patients’
transport and mountain rescue, enhancing safety and saving
costs for communities.

Project Summary - Consortium
6
IDSIngegneria Dei Sistemi S.p.A - Consortium coordinator
Management activities, Helicopter RNP procedures design, data analysis and
reporting
Swiss Air-Rescue(Rega) - HEMS operator
Ground and flight procedure validation, avionics DB preparation, flight campaign
plan and execution, flight data collection
Deep Blue - Dissemination Leader
Communication management, human performance and safety assessment,
data analysis and reporting
NorskLuftambulanse (NLA) - HEMS rotorcraft operator
Ground and flight procedure validation, avionics DB preparation, flight
campaign plan and execution, flight data collection
Skyguide - Swiss Air Navigation Services Provider
Procedures design and validation, CNS engineering, safety assessment of
ATM aspects

Project Summary - Consortium
7
The EuropeanHEMS & Air AmbulanceCommittee and the EuropeanHelicopter
Association contributed to PROuD, representing relevant airspace users

Project Summary – 3 Phases
8
Proceduresdesign andvalidation
PROuD developed new instrument approach and departure procedures
for specific sites in Europe
Flight trials
The designed procedures have been flown by REGA and NLA helicopters
During flights, information about flight performances, EGNOS coverage
reliability and human performance have been collected.
Dataanalysisandresults
Based on data gathered during the trials, PROuD assessed the impact of
the new procedures on selected Key Performance Areas and compared
them with current operations performances

Project Summary – 1.Design&Validation
• Procedures design
– IDS
– Skyguide
• Procedures validation
– Rega
– NLA

Project Summary – 2.Flight Trials
10
Switzerland(two campaigns) Norway(one campaign)

Project Summary – 3.Data analysis
• Key Performance Areas
– Safety
– Accessibility
– Availability
– Predictability
– Efficiency
– Environmental Sustainability
– Impact on Human Performance
• Results
– Per procedure type
– Per scenario

Agenda of the day
12
Start End Title Main presenter
10.00 10.20 Welcome and coffee
10.20 10.40 Introduction to the PROuD project Deep Blue
10.40 10.55 SESAR Demonstration Projects - Overview SESAR
10.55 11.15 Necessities, Challenges and Opportunities Rega
11.15 11.35 PROuD demonstration scenarios and objectives IDS
11.35 11.50 Summary of results per operational solution: Deep Blue
11.50 12.00 Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure
12.10 12.20 PinS Departure
12.20 12.30 Low-Level IFR Routes
12.30 13.30 Lunch
13.30 13.40 Swiss scenarios: Skyguide
13.40 13.55 Flight procedures design IDS
13.55 14.05 Flight procedures design (Samedan) Skyguide
14.05 14.20 Flight campaigns & demonstration results Deep Blue
14.20 14.35 Flight track analysis results (Samedan) Skyguide
14.35 14.45 Next Steps Skyguide
14.45 14.55 Supporting ground equipment IDS
14.55 15.05 Norwegian scenarios: NLA
15.20 15.35 Flight campaign & demonstration results Deep Blue
12.10 12.20 PinS Departure
12.20 12.30 Low-Level IFR Routes
12.30 13.30 Lunch
13.30 13.40 Swiss scenarios: Skyguide
13.55 14.05 Flight procedures design (Samedan) Skyguide
14.05 14.20 Flight campaigns & demonstration results Deep Blue
14.20 14.35 Flight track analysis results (Samedan) Skyguide
14.35 14.45 Next Steps Skyguide
14.45 14.55 Supporting ground equipment IDS
14.55 15.05 Norwegian scenarios: NLA
15.20 15.35 Flight campaign & demonstration results Deep Blue
15.35 15.45 Next Steps NLA
15.45 16.00 Conclusions and recommendations IDS+Skyguide+NLA
16.00 16.20 Open discussion on demonstration results
16.20 17.00 Coffee and networking

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
ANY QUESTIONS?

Overview
SESAR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Common objectives
 accelerating the operational acceptance and the
industrialisation of the SESAR solutions
 capitalising on the SESAR delivery approach by going beyond
the SESAR validation activities (V3)
 de-risking future operations/approval by involving authorities
 to confirm the interoperability of SESAR Solutions
 raise awareness regarding SESAR activities related to ATM
performance issues and their results

Or in more practical terms …
Each project shall:
 identify and report the environmental, safety, capacity and
economic benefits that the adoption of the demonstrated
solution will bring to air transport;
 allow for the performance of a maximum amount of flight
trials (with a minimum of 50 flight trials per targeted focus
area) in order to be able to draw stable conclusions;
 highlight the solution advantages compared to the current
situation, paving the way towards implementation;
 provide any necessary feedback to related SESAR deliverables;
 provide additional inputs to related standardization activities;
 raise awareness regarding SESAR activities related to ATM
performance issues and their results: ‘Seeing is believing’

The execution of the live trials has to be considered as a full
“Proof of Concept”
Required safety arguments and/or safety assessments have to
be specifically documented, comprising contingency procedures
and reversion to conventional modes of operation where
applicable
The necessary agreements with EASA and the affected National
Authorities, as well as the required approvals or permissions
have to be set up and documented
Important

Covering a number of key operational focus areas, now also
focusing on bringing change into complexity areas
ArrivalDeparture
OPD
Budapest
Rise
PROuD
iSTREAM
Augmented
Approaches to
Land
Surface Surface
E-CRA
RACOON
Remote Towers
RTO
En Route Oceanic En Route
Free Solutions
Pegase
Toplink 1
Toplink 2
EVA

Demonstration projects in total…
Traffic synchronisation
covers all aspects related to
improving arrival/departure
management and sequence building
in en route and TMA environments. It
aims to achiev an optimum traffic
sequence
8
Project name Domain Topic
iStream Airport and NOP TTA
E-CRA Airport A-CDM
Augmented Approaches to Land Airport GBAS/SBAS & SVGS advanced procedures, EFVS Advanced procedures
RACOON Airport Remote Tower
Remote Towers Airport Remote Tower
RTO Airport Remote Tower
Optimised Descent Profiles (OPD) TMA CDO
Budapest 2.0 TMA RNP
RISE TMA RNP
PROuD TMA PBN
Free Solutions En-route and NOPFree Route
Pegase En-route SWIM, ADS-C EPP
Toplink - L1 En-route SWIM
Toplink - L2 En-route SWIM - MET and AIM
EVA En-route and NOP Low cost surveillance equipment

PROuD – PBN Rotorcraft Operations under Demonstration
OBJECTIVE:
The demonstration proposes to enhance
rotorcraft operations, particularly for HEMS
flights, by the implementation of PBN
approaches for arrivals, departures and
connection to low-level IFR routes. A
programme of a minimum of 80 flight tests, in
Switzerland and Norway, with a view to
demonstrating improved safety, availability and
weather resilience.
Routes and procedures designed for this
demonstration will remain operational after the
demonstration finishes.
Validation result used as input for to the project:
•“Optimised 2D/3D Routes”
– PCP AF#1 (Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based
Operations Enhanced Terminal Airspace using RNP-Based
Operations consists of the implementation of environmental
friendly procedures for arrival/departure and approach
using PBN in high-density TMAs)
– Solution#10, Solution#103
PARTNERS
The consortium is led by IDS Ingegneria dei Sistemi
S.p.A and consist of Swiss Air-Rescue (Rega), Norsk
Luftambulanse (NLA), Skyguide and Deep Blue Srl (DBL)

Budapest 2.0 - LOT 2
OBJECTIVE: The proposal seeks to demonstrate 3
elements of SESAR activities:
1. Use of ‘merge-strip’ to assist with CDA/CCD.
2. Implementation of RNP procedures at
Budapest airport
3. Implementation of Remote Tower operations at
Budapest.
The team includes technical, operational, ground and
air stakeholders and the proposal is clearly defined,
with links to the SESAR programme. They have a
solid communications plan.
Validation result used as input for to the
project:
Budapest 2.0 will demonstrate, - not limited to the
actual scope within the SESAR Programme - , a set
of solutions and concepts of operations for
Small/Medium Size Airport users and stakeholders
such as:
•MergeStrip
•RNP
•Remote Towers
PARTNERS
The consortium is led by Pildo Labs (Pildo Consulting
S.L.) and consists of Hungarocontrol, Wizzair Air
Hungary Airlines, Jetstream LLC, Slot Consulting and
UPC

RISE - LOT 2
OBJECTIVE: This tender proposes a programme to
define, test and demonstrate RNP procedures at
10 airports in Greece, France, Cyprus and the Azores.
More than 160 flight trials are foreseen.
Full engagement will be undertaken with the regulator,
airlines and service providers, using formal procedure
design and safety processes.
The aim is to break the ‘chicken and egg’ situation
where neither airlines nor airports/ANSPs are willing to
commit till there is wider commitment from other
stakeholders
Validation result used as input for to the
project:
•OFA 02.01.01: “Optimised 2D/3D Routes”
•OFA 02.02.04: “Approach procedures with vertical guidance ”
PARTNERS
The consortium is led by Airbus Prosky and consists of
DCAC, Nova Airlines AB, TAP Portugal, DSNA, NAV
Portugal, HCAA and Société Air France

Carla Menciotti
Project Manager, IDS
Francesco De Santis
Services Dept Manager, IDS
PROuD Demonstration scenarios and
objectives
Rome
30/09/2016

PROuD operational solutions overview
• PinS RNP approach procedure with LPV minimum/a
• Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure
• PinS Departure
• Low-Level IFR Routes

What is a Flight Procedure?
A trade-off solution that (tries) to combine and optimize…
• Flight Safety;
• User expectations (air and land sides);
• Environmental constraints (geographic, weather conditions, pollution
level, fuel consumption, populated area, airspaces…);
• (available) Technology;
• ATC & Pilot needs and workloads;
• Efficient use of the airspace;
• …

What a Flight Procedure represents?
The best synthesis of such “ingredients” in terms of established
sequence of route segments that links established fixes that must be
flown within specific altitude values (not above and not below).
How?
Choosing the IFP design criteria that best fits such “ingredients”
• Flight Safety;
• User expectations (air and land sides);
• Environmental constraints (geographic, weather
conditions, pollution level, fuel consumption,
populated area, airspaces…);
• (available) Technology;
• ATC & Pilot needs and workloads;
• Efficient use of the airspace;
• …
ICAO PBN

PinS RNP approach procedure with LPV
minimum/a
PinS: Point in Space → Mapt:
• Last point along the IMC portion of the
IFP before enter into VMC portion.
• It can be placed “everywhere”..
• Specific for helicopter IFP
LPV minimum/a:
• Lower altitude reachable along the final
segment.
• Horizontal & Vertical navigation
• GNSS based

minimum/a
+ +
+ + + =

minimum/a
Landed…

Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure
RNP AR:
• Based on high level RNP capabilities required
by the helicopter, pilot, ATC and Nav. Sig.
Supplier;
• Reduced width for the protection
areas/surfaces;
• Requires Barometric and RF capabilities;
• Temperature effect
• Full IMC/IFR IFP
DA “minimum/a”:
• Lower altitude reachable along the final
segment.
• Horizontal & Vertical navigation
• GNSS based
• No Standard for Cat H

Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure

PinS Departure
PinS Departure Visual Seg. →
IDF:
• Equivalent to PinS APCH but the first
segment is in VMC condition, then
IMC.
• It can be placed “everywhere”..
• Specific for helicopter IFP
Proceed visually:
• Direct Visual
• Maneuvering Visual
• Proceed VFR
• GNSS based

Low-Level IFR Routes
Low-Level IFR Route:
Dedicated network of low level IFR routes
optimized for helicopter operations.
These routes integrated into the airspace
system utilizes flight levels where icing
conditions are not normally experienced
and where a pressurized cabin or oxygen
would not be required.
Design rules:
• Equivalent to the SID/STAR/APCH
• Only IMC/IFR
• GNSS based

PROuD Demonstration scenarios
• Swiss scenarios
– Samedan (LSZS) airport area
– Chur (LSHC) hospital area
– Switzerland area for simulated IFR heliport to hospital connection
between Samedan and Chur
• Norwegian scenarios
– Lørenskog (ENLX) heliport area
– Ullevål (ENUH) heliport area

Swiss scenario - Samedan airport area
Samedan airport is situated in the Engadine valley and is surrounded by a mountainous region. It is the
highest elevated airport in Europe (elevation 5.600ft AMSL) and it represents one of the Rega bases.
Reference scenario
• At Samedan airport only VFR operations are currently allowed for both fixed wing and rotary wing
aircraft.
• No IFR approach procedure is available, IMC approaches are prohibited.
Samedan airport overview: direction south-west
(picture is provided by the Samedan Airport Authority)
Solution scenario
• RNP AR APCH in Samedan airport
with RNP navigation accuracy
requirement 0.1 NM along the initial,
intermediate and final segments, and
0.3 NM respect 1 NM for the missed
approach;
• PinS non-standard departure in
Samedan.

Swiss scenario - Chur hospital area
The hospital is situated in the Chur Rhine valley and is surrounded by a mountainous region. In terms
of number of HEMS movements, Chur hospital ranks amongst the top 3 hospitals in Switzerland.
Chur Hospital (picture is provided by REGA)
Reference scenario
At the Chur hospital, only rotary wing VFR
operations are currently possible. Neither an
IFR approach nor an IFR departure
procedure is available.
Solution scenario
• PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum
• PinS departure procedure

Swiss scenario – Switzerland area
between Samedan and Chur
Valleys between Samedan and Chur are separated by mountain ridges exceeding 11’000ft AMSL.
The distance between Samedan airport and Chur hospital is approximately 24 NM.
Samedan airport and Chur hospital sites overview (source: Google)
Reference scenario
No IFR routes available for helicopters in that
region.
Solution scenario
Implementation of a connection between
Samedan Airport and the Chur hospital
landing site through Low-Level IFR Route,
linking the PBN approach and departure
procedures to/from Samedan airport and
Chur hospital.

Norwegian scenario - Lørenskog heliport area
The heliport is located in the Southern of Norway where a low level routing structure exists for use by the
Norwegian Air Ambulance to connect hospital heliports throughout the region.
Lørenskog heliport is the home base for two of the helicopters of NLA fleet. These serve approximately
35% of the Norwegian population when it comes to severe injuries such as brain traumas, cardiac arrest.
Lørenskog position
Reference scenario
• NLA operations are currently conducted in
IFR/IMC conditions and already use PinS
approach procedures with LNAV minima
for approach course 025°.
Solution scenario
• RNP APCH PinS approach procedures
with LPV minima, with approach standard
gradient (GPA≤6.3°) for the arrival and
approach segments;
• PinS departure with the adoption of the
0.3 Navigation Specification

Norwegian scenario - Ullevål heliport area
The heliport is located in the Southern of Norway where a low level routing structure exists for use by the
Norwegian Air Ambulance to connect hospital heliports throughout the region.
Ullevål heliport (ICAO code ENUH) is the national trauma hospital for southern parts of Norway and is
the delivery site for 5 EMS helicopters in addition to military rescue helicopters when it comes to severe
injuries.
Reference scenario
NLA operations are currently conducted in
IFR/IMC conditions and already use two PinS
approach procedures with LNAV minima for
approach course 279° and 070°. One is
proceed visually and one is proceed VFR.
Solution scenario
RNP APCH PinS approach procedures with
LPV minima, with approach standard gradient
(GPA≤6.3°). A different direction (final
approach track 350°) was chosen. Ullevål position

PROuD operational solutions
• PinS RNP approach procedure with LPV minimum/a
– at Chur hospital – Switzerland
– at Lørenskog heliport – Norway
– at Ullevål heliport – Norway
• Helicopter RNP AR approach procedure
– at Samedan airport – Switzerland
• PinS Departure
– at Samedan airport (“non-standard”) – Switzerland
– at Chur hospital – Switzerland
– at Lørenskog heliport – Norway
• Low-Level IFR Routes
– between Samedan airport and Chur hospital

PROuD objectives
• Demonstrate how PinS RNP APCH to LPV minima, helicopter RNP AR APCH, PinS departure
procedures allow the implementation of IFR operations in small non-IFR airports/heliports
located in challenging environment;
• Contribute to adopt RNP 0.3 and RF leg capability for missed approach segments;
• Evaluate the improvement in overall airspace usage of gate to gate rotorcraft IFR flights,
connecting the PBN approaches and departures with Low-Level IFR Routes;
• Contribute to the evaluation and standardization of ICAO PANS OPS amendments for flight
procedure design criteria for LPV PinS approach procedures [GPA > 6.3°].

PROuD objectives and KPAs
Four types of procedures and several phases of flight have been assessed within the PROuD
project, aiming at demonstrating the real operational and safety benefits for HEMS operators.
The following KPAs have been addressed and for each KPA, a set of KPI has been used to
qualitatively and quantitatively estimate the benefits by introducing of the new PBN procedures.
• Safety (phases of flight)
• Accessibility (all phases of flight)
• Environmental Sustainability (all phases of flight)
• Efficiency (in all phases of flight)
• Efficiency and service availability (heliport-to-hospital)
• Predictability (heliport-to-hospital)
• HP (Operating methods) (approach/ departure)
• HP (Pilots' task performance) (all phases of flight)
• HP (Performance of the technical system) (Arrival-Approach)

Stefano Bonelli
Human Factors Expert, Deep Blue
Summary of results per
operational solution
30th September 2016

Project overall results – Data collection
– On board adaptations
• REGA Helicopter – Flight Inspection equipment
– ADS-B transponder
• NLA Helicopter – Flight validation equipment
– On-ground equipment – Samedan Airport
• GNSS Operative Monitoring Equipment (GNOME) System
• APM tool – Approach Path Monitoring tool
– Observations
– Questionnaire and analysis tool
– Debriefings
– Weather data analysis

Project overall results – Impact on SAFETY
– Significant safety improvements have been identified, especially in bad
weather conditions and during night operations.
Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on safety
respect to current procedures.

– Flight Track adherence: performances compliant with PBN
requirements -> Example: Samedan approaches
Project overall results – Impact on SAFETY
According to PBN manual ([5] - see 6.3.3.2.3), all aircraft operating on RNP AR APCH procedure
must have a cross-track TSE navigation error no greater than the applicable RNP navigation
accuracy requirement (0.1 NM to 0.3 NM) for 95 per cent of the flight time.

– Both the possibility to take off and land are enhanced, thanks
to the reduced minima. In IMC, the procedures contribute to
the increase of inter-hospital transfers and HEMS operations.
Project overall results – Impact on OPERATIONS
* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on possibility
to land and take off and predictability of Low-Level IFR Routes respect to current procedures.

– Meteo data analysis: how much difference in the
possibility to operate would be experienced if the new
procedures were used instead of the current ones in the
past 4 years? Source: METARs.
– Example:
Lørenskog approach
(RNP APCH PinS approach
with LPV minima
with GPA < 6.3°)
DAY
 VFR
– Visibility: 800 m
– Ceiling: No ceiling (up to 2500ft)
 LNAV
– Ceiling 544 ft
 LPV
– Ceiling: 374 ft

Analysis of meteo data from Oslo, Gardermoen (ENGM), close to Lørenskog: number of 2012-
2015 METAR reports with visibility and ceiling conditions respecting day and night minima for the
VFR procedures, LNAV procedures and the new RNP APCH PinS approach with LPV minima
vs VFR + 26,38% + 44,48%
vs LNAV + 2,90% + 16,62%

– The changes introduced by the new procedures did not impact
pilots’ performance. Crew workload and situation awareness
remained within acceptable levels.
Project overall results – Impact on
PILOTS’ PERFORMANCE
* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on workload, respect to current ones

PILOTS’ PERFORMANCE
* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on situation
awareness respect to current procedures.

– The changes in operating methods introduced by the new
procedures do not have a negative impact on the flight
operations. The feasibility, consistency and acceptability
remain in a range of acceptable values.
OPERATING METHODS
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
Operating methods
* Pilots’ answers to post flight questionnaires: expected impact of new procedures on operating
methods respect to current procedures.

Advanced Helicopter procedures
The Swiss scenarios – The ANSP
Final Communication Event
1
Laurent Delétraz skyguide, DDS
IFP Expert
30.09.2016

2
History & Present
99,91%
29 %
7 %

5
PBN is a key enabler for HEMS operations
› RNP 0.3 all phases of flight
 En-route
 Point-in space approach
 Point-in-Space departure
 RNP 0.3 Initial, intermediate, final and missed approach
› RNP AR
 May be required for challenging environment
 PROuD SESAR Demonstration project

6
RNP 0.3 Low Flight Network WEF JUN 2015

7
LPV PinS Approach & Departure
Supports today the Insel Hospital Bern

8
RNP 0.3 missed approach PinS
Cloud break procedure WEF OCT 2015
Helicopter Approach in Fog
• From VFR on top
• To Special VFR below the clouds
• Full IFR final approach and missed
approach
• 8° Flight path angle
• Rega SFOCA Ops Approval
• AW109SP (2xSBAS)

PROuD Flight Trials - Switzerland
The Swiss trials specifically demonstrated
the benefits of the usage of :
- newly designed RNP APCH AR and
PinS approach procedures, PinS
departures and RNP 0.3 Low Flight
Network connecting Samedan and Chur
sites
- an innovative ground-based safety net
based on ADS-B for improving
awareness for ground operators and
reduce CFIT probability
Swiss first trial campaign, executed in
July 2015, provided important preliminary
output supporting future evaluation by the
9

10
RNP 0.1 Flight trials at Samedan
TSE : < 10m !

Francesco De Santis
Swiss Scenarios:
Flight procedures design
Rome
30/09/2016

Swiss Scenarios: Flight procedures design
Swiss scenarios:
• Samedan (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach and Departure)
• Chur hospital (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach and Departure)
• Chur ↔ Samedan (RNAV/RNP GNSS Low-Level IFR Routes)
Samedan airport and Chur hospital sites overview (source: Google)

Swiss Scenario: Samedan
High Complexity
Source: Google

High Complexity (pool scenario)
≈ 10k ft
≈ 9k-10k ft
≈ 5.6k ft
≈ 7k-8k ft
≈ 8k-9k ft
≈ 10k ft
≈ 8k-9k ft
Source: Google

High Complexity (pool scenario)
Approach phase Missed Approach
Samedan Airport
Source: Google

APCH initial target: PinS RNP approach to LPV minimum
Design requirements:
• Calculate an LPV minima based on the SBAS APV design techniques;
• Use the standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments
(Initial/Intermediate/M.A.);
Source: ICAO PANS OPS

Four attempts - #1: “Extended” SBAS APV OAS IAF#1
• customized SBAS APV OAS to a GPA 9°.
OAS on final segment, have been “limited”
at FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)
• Final Course: M38.423° (+11.229° offset)
• FHP: @5600’ - 800 meters from
PinS/MAPt – 1.93 NM from HRP.
• FHPCH (Height on FHP): ≈1855’
• GPA (FAF – PinS/MAPt): 9° - FAF +9500’
@ 4 NM from HRP.
• VSDA (PinS/MAPt – HRP): ≈9°
• FPAP: @ Fictitious opposite HRP
• GARP: @ 305 m from FPAP
• M.A. CG: 6%.
• Minima set to 7870’ (DH 2270’)
• MAPt @ 2.36 NM from HRP
• RDH set to 50’
• VSDA = 8.81°
• HRP – MAPt= 038° Mag
Source:Google

Four attempts - #2: “Extended” SBAS APV OAS IAF#2
• Extended SBAS APV OAS to a GPA 9°.
OAS on final segment, have been “limited”
at FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)
PinS/MAPt – 1.93 NM from HRP.
@ 3.74 NM from HRP.
• M.A. CG: 6%.
• VSDA = 8.81°
Source:Google

Four attempts - #3: “Extended” GBAS OAS IAF#1
• Extended GBAS OAS to a GPA 9°. OAS
on final segment, have been “limited” at
FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)
PinS/MAPt - 1.49 NM from HRP.
@ 4.0 NM from HRP.
• M.A. CG: 6%.
• VSDA = 8.77°
Source:Google

Four attempts - #4: “Extended” GBAS OAS IAF#2
• Extended GBAS OAS to a GPA 9°. OAS
on final segment, have been “limited” at
FAF position minus FAF_ATT (0.3NM)
PinS/MAPt - 1.49 NM from HRP.
@ 3.74 NM from HRP.
• M.A. CG: 6%.
• VSDA = 8.77°
Source:Google

Trade-Off Solution → RNP AR applied to Cat H
• No PinS technique
• No LPV minimum
• Cat H approx. as Cat A
• RNP AR capability (down to 0.1)
• RF turn capability

6. M.A. left not
finalized for
operational evaluations
1. RNP values and RF
turn allowed to apply a
«snake» approach and
enter into the «pool»
2. Final Track not
aligend with RWY to
reduce the minimum due
to the terrain elevation
on east side
3. Steep approach
applied thanks to cat H
4. 150’ std HL for Cat H
rounded up to 130’ due
to hight field elevation
5. Transition form
final RNP to M.A.
RNP with a new
formula

1. Lower FAF
3. Optmiized minimum
but high M.A.CG
2. Range of
appicable
Temperature
calcaulted by
«enginnering»
assumptions
4. «Std» RDH

• Standard RNAV/RNP (GNSS) PinS;
• Use the standard protection area;
Departure initial target: PinS Departure Proceed Visually

Several attempts to avoid Prot. Areas penetrations - #1: Aligned, with 10% CG
Direct Visual Segment:
• CG = 10%
• IDF= DEP01
• MCA 6213.86’
• Length 1NM
• Course= 207 Mag
• Penetration: NO
TF to DEP02:
• CG = 10%
• Altitude= 7429.48’
• Length = 2NM
• Course= 207 Mag
• Penetration: YES
TF to DEP03:
• CG = 10%
• Length = 4NM
• Course= 207 Mag
Source: Google

Several attempts to avoid Prot. Areas penetrations - #2: Aligned, with std. CG
Direct Visual Segment:
• CG = 5%
• IDF= DEP01
• MCA 5906.93
• MCH= 306.93
• Length 1NM
• Course= 207 Mag
TF to DEP02:
• CG = 5%
• Length = 2NM
• Course= 207 Mag
TF to DEP03:
• CG = 5%
• Length = 4NM
• Course= 207 Mag
Same results with:
• Aligned CG 15%
• Offset 13%
• …Source: Google

“Trade-Off” Solution → Inherited RNP AR concepts for protection areas
• Std. RNAV/RNP PinS Dep up to the
Lower min CG
• “simulated RNP AR” technique (only
primary area based on RNP 0.3)
• No Obst. Assessment on secondary
areas

1. Standard Visual
Segment, but high CG
value
2. 10000’ top level for
operational requirement
(ice effect)

1. Standard Visual
Segment, but high CG
value

Swiss Scenario: Chur
Medium Complexity
Source: Google

≈ 6k-7k ft
≈ 9k-10k ft
≈ 2k ft
≈ 7k ft
≈ 7k-8k ft
≈ 5k-6k ft
Medium Complexity (but still pool scenario)
≈ 6k ft
≈ 5k-7k ft
≈ 4k ft
Source: Google

Approach phase
Missed Approach
Chur hospital
Medium Complexity (but still pool scenario)
Source: Google

APCH target: PinS RNP approach to LPV minimum
• Calculate an LPV minima based on the SBAS APV design techniques;
• Use the Standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments

APCH target: PinS RNP approach to LPV minimum → OK

1. Proceed Visually
2. No RF required
3. High M.A.CG required
4. No issues along init/inter.

2. No std. Approach gradient
4. Minimum not so low
4. «Std» RDH

• Use the Standard protection area;

DEP initial target: PinS DEP Proceed Visually → OK

Swiss Scenario: LLR Samedan ↔ Chur
Same Complexity (but no need to swim)
Source: Google

Route target: based on RNP 0.3 ATS route
• Calculate minima based Standard RNP0.3

Route target: based on RNP 0.3 ATS route → OK
Chur → Samedan
Samedan → Chur
Source: Google
Source: Google

Flight procedure design
RNP AR APCH Samedan – Second campaign
Final Communication Event
1
M. Nyffenegger, skyguide, OOLZ
IFP Expert
30.09.2016

RNP AR APCH Samedan – First campaign
› Procedure complexity
› Design compliance issues
› No approach available from the north
› Missed approach with "dead end"
› Publication in AIP standard
2

RNP AR APCH Samedan –
Second campaign
Location Samedan (Rega Base)
Program
User Rega (AW109SP)
Procedure type Trial helicopter instrument approach procedure
Procedure name RNAV (RNP) RWY 03/21
Navigation specification RNP AR APCH
Navigation accuracy
requirement
0.3 NM (where possible)
0.1 NM (where required)
Navigation sensors/
augmentation
GNSS/RAIM
Required functionality RF, Baro-VNAV, "no single point of failure"
3

RNAV (RNP) RWY 03 LSZS – Plan view
4

RNAV (RNP) RWY 03 LSZS – Profile view
5

RNAV (RNP) RWY 21 LSZS – Plan view
6

RNAV (RNP) RWY 21 LSZS – Profile view
7

RNAV (RNP) RWY 03/21 LSZS – Missed approach
8

RNAV (RNP) RWY 21 LSZS - Video
9

Stefano Bonelli
Swiss scenarios: Flight campaigns &
demonstration results
30th September 2016

Exercises execution
2
Exercise Country Scenario PROuD Procedure Number of trials
EXE-02.09-D-001 Switzerland
Samedan airport
(SCN-0209-001)
RNP AR APCH
14 flights (first campaign) and
11 flights (second campaign)
using the helicopter and 2
flights using the FFS
Samedan airport
(SCN-0209-001)
PinS “non-standard” departure
13 flights using the helicopter
and 2 flights using the FFS
Samedan/Chur
airport to hospital
(SCN-0209-002)
Low-level IFR routes
12 flights using the Helicopter
Chur hospital
(SCN-0209-005)
PinS RNP APCH to LPV
minimum
Chur hospital
(SCN-0209-005)
PinS departure
69 Flights
+ 10 Simulated Flights

Demonstration objectives
3
• Investigate the impact of the new procedures on SESAR Key Performance Areas
• The reference was current operations
• Demonstration Objectives are considered meet when there is an improvement respect
to current operations (e.g. Safety) or there is no negative impact (e.g. crew workload)
• Otherwise they are considered as not meet.

PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum/a
(Chur)
• Results highlights for selected KPA
4
Objective ID KPA Result of the demonstration
OBJ-0209-002 Safety The results confirmed a positive impact in terms of several
indicators used for the assessment.
OBJ-0209-004 Accessibility The results confirmed the accessibility is increased respect to
the existing procedures.
OBJ-0209-006 Environmental Sustainability The flight track for the PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum
procedure is longer compared to VFR approach; the
environmental impact is not reduced but the accessibility to
the airport will increase in bad weather and HEMS service
availability.
OBJ-0209-008 Efficiency The results showed that, limited to VMC. PinS approach
procedures are less efficient in terms of flight time, compared
to VFR flights.
Nevertheless this new procedure is an additional solution to
permit life-saving flights in IMC as it ensures the approach
operation in emergencies /catastrophic situations from an
additional direction and with also lower minima.

Helicopter RNP AR APCH
(Samedan)
5
OBJ-0209-102 Safety Slight increase of safety level. New procedures are considered safer
than the current ones are especially marginal weather situations and
night operations.
OBJ-0209-010 Accessibility New procedure will permit to fly through a cloud or fog layer, when
there are bad weather conditions thus improving site accessibility.
OBJ-0209-106 Environmental
Sustainability
The flight track for the RNP AR procedure is longer and the approach
speed is slower compared to VFR approach. The environmental
impact is not reduced but the accessibility to and from the airport will
increase in bad weather.
OBJ-0209-108 Efficiency The new procedure has a negative impact on efficiency, as the IFR
approach requires more miles to be flown and takes more time with
respect to current VFR operations.
Nevertheless, pilots will be able to operate in adverse weather
conditions, thus increasing the number of missions performed.

PinS Departure
(Chur, standard and Samedan, non standard)
6
OBJ-0209-011 Safety The average results confirmed a slight positive impact in terms of several
For Samedan Departure, taking into account that non-standard design
criteria have been adopted, safety implications and additional potential
hazards need to be properly deepened.
OBJ-0209-012 Availability The increase of the availability for all the sites under assessment has been
demonstrated.
Sustainability
The flight track for the PinS departure is longer than VFR one; the
environmental impact is not reduced, but the availability of the airport will
increase in bad weather and HEMS service availability is improved.
OBJ-0209-014 Efficiency Compared to VFR flights PinS departure procedure is less efficient in terms
of flight time, limited to VMC conditions, with regard to the aviation view.
Nevertheless these new procedures are often the only solution to permit
life-saving flights in IMC.

Low-Level IFR Routes
(Chur <-> Samedan)
7
OBJ-0209-116 Safety The results of the data analysis demonstrate that, the
implementation of the Low Level IFR Route is expected to
increase the safety level with respect to the current VFR
operations mainly in bad visibility conditions.
OBJ-0209-015 Service availability IFR connection provides the possibility to operate also in
bad weather conditions, thus significantly increase the
HEMS service availability, in particular in bad weather
conditions, increasing the number of saved lives.
OBJ-0209-016 Predictability The results demonstrated that IFR GNSS navigation allows
to increase the adherence to the nominal path and the
possibility to precisely calculate the time needed to
perform heliport to heliport HEMS operations.

Impact on Pilots’ Performance
8
Objective
ID
KPA Success Criterion / Expected Benefit Result of the demonstration Phase of
Flight
OBJ-
0209-017
Operating
methods
Feasibility, consistency and acceptability
of the changes of the current operating
methods with the introduction of the new
procedures, with respect to existing
operating methods in relation to the
overall environment, are expected to be
within acceptable margins.
No negative impact on the flight
operations. Feasibility,
consistency and acceptability
remain in admissible margins.
Approach/
Departure
OBJ-
0209-018
Pilots'
task
performa
nce
Errors and untimely actions related to the
new concept as well as the level of
workload and situational awareness are
expected to be within acceptable margins.
Errors and untimely actions
related to the new concept, the
level of workload and situational
awareness do not overcome the
acceptable margins.
All
OBJ-
0209-019
Expected
impact of
technical
system
failure on
HP
Pilot’s performance is expected to be
within acceptable margins, even in case of
degraded accuracy and timeliness of
system information.
Technical hazards have been
identified and mitigations
proposed that will allow pilots’
performance to remain within
acceptable margins in case of
technical failures.
Arrival-
Approach

Results Highlights - Samedan Approach
First Campaign vs Second Campaign
• Samedan Approach (first campaign)
9
Questionnaires results for EXE-02.09-D-001 (Approach Samedan). Flight Trials Pilots' expected impact of the new procedures
on safety (subjective feedback), situation awareness and workload, compared with the current ones (answers' average).
• Main contribution to increased workload: different descent angles used along the legs of the
approach procedure before the FAF segment
• Samedan Approach (second campaign)
– WORKLOAD: 3/5 -> no impact respect to current situation

Marc Troller, Maurizio Scaramuzza
Skyguide
RNP AR APCH Track Analysis
Rome
30.09.2016

Avionics Data Recording
• Installation of miniQAR access
recorder
• Collection of GPS/SBAS, FMS
and AHRS data
• Determination of Navigation
System Flight Path and
Derivation of Flight Technical
Error (FTE)
2

Temporary Measurement Setup
• Temporary installation of
geodetic GPS/GLONASS
receiver
• Mounting of GNSS antenna
with vacuum cap to the
window
• Collection of independent
raw GPS/GLONASS data
• Determination of Actual
Flight Path and Derivation
of Total System Error (TSE)
3

4
Flight Paths and Errors
• Navigation system flight path: miniQAR data
• True flight path: JAVAD Sigma GNSS receiver

RNP 0.1 Procedure RWY 21 Samedan
5

6

7

8

9

10

Terrain RNP 0.1 Procedure Samedan
11
ZS703 ZS704 ZS705 ZS706 (FTP) ZS707 ZS708 ZS709
Azimuth[°]
0°
240°
60°
120°
180°
300°
360°
Elevation[°]

RNP 0.1 RWY 03 Samedan
Missed Approach
12

Partner logo
here
ANY QUESTIONS?

Giuseppe Di Bitonto
GNOME Product Manager, IDS
Swiss scenarios:
Supporting ground equipment
Rome
30/09/2016

• On-ground equipment installation
• GNOME system
• Approach Path Monitoring
• Flight trials main results
Agenda

On-Ground equipment Installation
Approach Path Monitoring
Samedan – July 2015
GNOME

5
GNSS Monitoring
GNSS
performance
assessment
GNSS Real-
time
monitoring
GNSS
interference
monitoring
GNSS
recording
Proposed changes to GNSS Manual (ICAO DOC 9849)
GNSS ddddconceptGNSS Monitoring Concept

6
The solution : GNOME
DF Antenna
GNOME SentinelGNOME Sentinel main components:
• GNSS Antenna
• DF Antenna
• SDR Kernel (the core of the
GNOME sentinel)
• GNSS standard receiver
Distributed network of sentinels
…
GNSS Operative Monitoring Equipment

GNOME: Modes of operations
• Real-Time Inspector (RTI): live, continuous
visualization of performance analyses and integrity
alarms
• Virtual-Time Inspector (VTI): supports "post
incident/accident" investigations, play back data flow,
anomaly investigation
• Statistical Inspector (StI): processing of large
observation data sets (up to several months); generation
of long-term performance statistics
• GNSS Operational Display (GOSD): support to
operational personnel in determining GNSS procedures
usability (experimental)
all rights reserved 7
GNOME Modes of Operation

GNSS Monitoring
GNSS
performance
assessment
GNSS real-time
monitoring
GNSS
interference
monitoring
GNSS recording
GNOME in GNSS Monitoring Concept

Approach Path Monitoring
• APM (Approach Path Monitoring) is an experimental ground safety net to
support airport operators in small airports
• APM allows monitoring approaching aircraft and provides an RNP tunnel-
incident detection alarm in the case of tunnel infringement along the flight path,
using ADS-B data.
• APM tool was used during the
flight trial execution in Samedan
airport (July 2015) to monitor the
capabilities of the Rega
helicopter to remain within the
RNP 0.1 tunnel (July 2105)

Installation site
Main results (1/2)
Satellite tracks

Operational use
• Integrated consept
• Departure
• Enroute
• Approach

What is next?
• Training
• Certification/airworthiness
• Validation prosess + validation equipment
• Approval
• Implementation
• ESSP working agreement

• Visibility
• Cloud base
• Temperature
• Altimeter setting
• Fault monitoring
• Historic pictures

Francesco De Santis
Norwegian scenarios:
Flight procedures design
Rome
30/09/2016

Norwegian Scenarios: Flight procedures design
Norwegian scenarios:
• Lørenskog (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach and Departure)
• Ullevål (RNAV/RNP GNSS Approach)
Ullevål Lørenskog

Norwegian Scenario: Lørenskog
Low Complexity but Urban Area
Source: Google

≈ 1k ft
≈ 800-1k ft
≈ 600 ft
≈ 500 ft
≈ 500 1k ft
≈ 800-900 ft
Source: Google

Lørenskog Airport
Source: Google
Approach phase
Missed Appr.

APCH initial target: PinS RNP APCH to LPV/LNAV minima
• Calculate an LPV minima based on SBAS APV and RNP APCH design
techniques;
• Use the standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments

5. Multiple Minima
4. RNAV PinS
1. T-Bar Schema
2. STAR transition
3. Std TAAs

1. Multiple Minima with
different M.A. CG
3. GPA 5°
2. STAR transitions
4. Final IFR and Visual Seg.
Not aligned
5. Manouvering Visual Seg

Design requirements were:
• Use the Standard protection area;

1. VMC condition for
Visual Seg. (main
penetrating obstacles)

Norwegian Scenario: Ullevål
Source: Google

≈ 1k ft
≈ 1k ft
≈ 300 ft
≈ 1k ft
≈ 400 1k ft
≈ 500 ft
Source: Google

Approach phase
Missed Appr.
Ullevål Airport
Source: Google

Design requirements were:
• Calculate an LPV minima based on SBAS APV and RNP APCH design
techniques;
• Use the Standard RNP0.3 design techniques for the remaining segments

5. Multiple Minima
4. RNAV PinS
1. T-Bar Schema
2. STAR transition
3. Std TAAs

1. Multiple Minima with
different M.A. CG
3. GPA 5.5°
4. Final IFR and Visual Seg.
Not aligned
5. Manouvering Visual Seg

Stefano Bonelli
Norwegian scenarios: Flight campaigns
& demonstration results
30th September 2016

Exercises execution
2
Exercise Country Scenario PROuD Procedure Number of trials
EXE-02.09-D-004 Norway
Lørenskog heliport
(SCN-0209-003)
PinS RNP APCH to LPV minima 11
EXE-02.09-D-005
Norway
Lørenskog heliport
(SCN-0209-003)
PinS departure 6
EXE-02.09-D-006 Norway
Ullevål heliport
(SCN-0209-004)
PinS RNP APCH to LPV minima 11
28 Flights

PinS RNP APCH to LPV minimum/a
(Lørenskog, Ullevål )
4
OBJ-0209-001 Safety The result is an increase of Safety level, of the new approach
operations.
OBJ-0209-003 Accessibility Improvement of site accessibility.
OBJ-0209-005 Environmental Sustainability The new procedures did not allow more environmental
friendly operations. IFR procedure generally includes more
track miles. However the fact that the pilot can choose a
direct routing in clouds instead of flying around the terrain
when weather is below VFR minimum, can bring a benefit
from an environmental point of view.
OBJ-0209-007 Efficiency The results showed that, limited to VMC. PinS approach
procedures are less efficient in terms of flight time, compared
to VFR flights.
Nevertheless this new procedure is an additional solution to
permit life-saving flights in IMC as it ensures the approach
operation in emergencies /catastrophic situations from an
additional direction and with also lower minima.

PinS Departure
(Lørenskog)
5
OBJ-0209-011 Safety The average results confirmed a slight positive impact in terms of several
OBJ-0209-012 Availability The increase of the availability for all the sites under assessment has been
demonstrated.
Sustainability
The flight track for the PinS departure is longer than VFR one; the
environmental impact is not reduced, but the availability of the airport will
increase in bad weather and HEMS service availability is improved.
OBJ-0209-014 Efficiency Compared to VFR flights PinS departure procedure is less efficient in terms
of flight time, limited to VMC conditions, with regard to the aviation view.
Nevertheless these new procedures are often the only solution to permit
life-saving flights in IMC.

Impact on Pilots’ Performance
6
Objective
ID
KPA Success Criterion / Expected Benefit Result of the demonstration Phase of
Flight
OBJ-
0209-017
Operating
methods
Feasibility, consistency and acceptability
of the changes of the current operating
methods with the introduction of the new
procedures, with respect to existing
operating methods in relation to the
overall environment, are expected to be
within acceptable margins.
No negative impact on the flight
operations. Feasibility,
consistency and acceptability
remain in admissible margins.
Approach/
Departure
OBJ-
0209-018
Pilots'
task
performa
nce
Errors and untimely actions related to the
new concept as well as the level of
workload and situational awareness are
expected to be within acceptable margins.
Errors and untimely actions
related to the new concept, the
level of workload and situational
awareness do not overcome the
acceptable margins.
All
OBJ-
0209-019
Expected
impact of
technical
system
failure on
HP
Pilot’s performance is expected to be
within acceptable margins, even in case of
degraded accuracy and timeliness of
system information.
Technical hazards have been
identified and mitigations
proposed that will allow pilots’
performance to remain within
acceptable margins in case of
technical failures.
Arrival-
Approach

Results Highlights –
Lørenskog Departure
• Impact of the new procedures on the possibility to take off
7
Analysis of meteo data from Oslo, Gardermoen (ENGM), close to Lørenskog: number of 2012-2015 METAR reports with
visibility and ceiling conditions respecting minima for the VFR procedure and the new PinS departure one.
• +23,73% compared to VFR
procedure at nigh (no difference
during the day)
LPV VFR

Results Highlights –
Impact of de-icing equipment
8
• Impact of the availability of
helicopters de-ice
equipment on the
Accessibility of the
Lørenskog site using IFR
procedures (same Meteo Data
Analysis, considering also temperature*)
*We considered +4° as a threshold temperature under which it is not possible to fly IFR
procedures unless helicopters are equipped with de-ice system
• the presence of de-icing
equipment increase
the impact on
accessibility of LPV
approach procedures
by
+31% during day
+141% during night.

Norway next steps
RNP procedures

Operational use
• Integrated consept
• Departure
• Enroute
• Transitions
• Approach

Design development
• LNAV to LPV
• Enroute entire country
• PINS departures at some
locations
• RNP 0,3 transitions from enroute
• RNP0,3 with RF-legs

OPS approval - regulation
• Based on PANS OPS – no EASA regulation RNP0,3
• Additional position sensor to allow for RNP AR procedures
• RF-legs in all segements except from final approach
• RNP AR to RNP0,1
• EGNOS working agreement

Others
• Training of crew and other operators
• Flight information service improvements
• Certification/airworthiness of elder HCP
• Multiple operators on same procedures – EMS/SAR/POLICE
• Common procedures
• Implementation – AIP publication

PROuD Consortium
Conclusions and
recommendations
30th September 2016

Conclusions (1/2)
• By the introduction of the new PBN operational solutions, the safety improvement
is mainly in bad weather conditions and during night operations.
• The flight campaigns demonstrated improved accessibility for sites affected by low
visibility and challenging environment in terms of reduction of landing minima and
number of diversions and missed approaches.
• New PBN procedures can definitely improve HEMS service availability and
continuity mainly under adverse meteorological conditions.
• The changes in the current operating methods (basically the shift from visual to
instrumental flight) are considered acceptable. Regular training is considered
needed to develop the necessary skills and practice.

Conclusions (2/2)
• The PROuD project provides important output to support future evaluations by the
Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) for the use of IFR procedures in
class G uncontrolled airspace, currently prohibited by the Swiss regulation.
• The results of the PROuD trials have been used to convince the Norwegian CAA
that the operational implementation of RNP 0.3 navigation specification in all
phases of flight needs a specific EASA AMC so that European operators can
utilized this navigation specification.
• The Norwegian CAA attended the flight trials and has approved the approach
procedures with LNAV and LPV minima for operational use by Norsk
Luftambulanse.
• NLA has received a temporary approval based on the PinS departure criteria
together with some other company approval based on the ICAO DOC 8168 Vol. 2.

Recommendations
– Procedure design improvements RNAV (RNP) RWY 03 Samedan
– Additional SBAS requirement supports navigation performance
– Foster the development of helicopter specific RNP AR design criteria
– ATM integration of new procedures and regulatory pioneer work are the main
challenges

Recommendations
› Technology exists to support advanced helicopter PBN operations
› Massive investment is made on the development and implementation of PBN Heli
applications
 Helicopter Flights Inspection / - validation capability
 AW109SP FFS Simulator
 Pilot PBN training
 Safety assessment
 Helicopter RNP 0.3 in all phases of flight certification
› Requires close collaboration of all stakeholders
 Helicopter operators
 Regulators -> including ICAO IFPP PANS-OPS Criteria
 Aircraft manufacturers
 ANSP

AND NOW… OPEN DISCUSSION ON DEMONSTRATION RESULTS

Flying into the Future with PBN Procedures

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Flying into the Future with PBN Procedures

Similar to Flying into the Future with PBN Procedures (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Flying into the Future with PBN Procedures