DOCSLIB.ORG

Management by Trajectory: Trajectory Management Study Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management by Trajectory: Trajectory Management Study Report NASA/CR-2017-219671 Management by Trajectory: Trajectory Management Study Report Kenneth Leiden, Stephen Atkins, Alicia D. Fernandes, and Curt Kaler, Mosaic ATM, Inc., Leesburg, Virginia Alan Bell and Todd Kilbourne Systems Enginuity, Inc., Manassas, Virginia Mark Evans Independent Consultant, Tarpon Springs, Florida September 2017 NASA STI Program . in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. advancement of aeronautics and space science. The Collected papers from scientific and technical NASA scientific and technical information (STI) conferences, symposia, seminars, or other program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. this important role. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, The NASA STI program operates under the auspices technical, or historical information from NASA of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, programs, projects, and missions, often organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates concerned with subjects having substantial NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access public interest. to the NTRS Registered and its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports Server, thus providing one • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. of the largest collections of aeronautical and space English-language translations of foreign science STI in the world. Results are published in both scientific and technical material pertinent to non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI NASA’s mission. Report Series, which includes the following report types: Specialized services also include organizing and publishing research results, distributing • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of specialized research announcements and feeds, completed research or a major significant phase of providing information desk and personal search research that present the results of NASA support, and enabling data exchange services. Programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant For more information about the NASA STI program, scientific and technical data and information see the following: deemed to be of continuing reference value. NASA counter-part of peer-reviewed formal • Access the NASA STI program home page at professional papers but has less stringent http://www.sti.nasa.gov limitations on manuscript length and extent of graphic presentations. • E-mail your question to [email protected] • TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. • Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at Scientific and technical findings that are 757-864-9658 preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, working • Write to: papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal NASA STI Information Desk annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. Mail Stop 148 NASA Langley Research Center • CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and Hampton, VA 23681-2199 technical findings by NASA-sponsored contractors and grantees. NASA/CR-2017-219671 Management by Trajectory: Trajectory Management Study Report Kenneth Leiden, Stephen Atkins, Alicia D. Fernandes, and Curt Kaler, Mosaic ATM, Inc., Leesburg, Virginia Alan Bell and Todd Kilbourne Systems Enginuity, Inc., Manassas, Virginia Mark Evans Independent Consultant, Tarpon Springs, Florida National Aeronautics and Space Administration Prepared for NASA Langley Research Center NASA Langley Research Center Under contract #NNL16AA17C Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 September 2017 Acknowledgments The Management by Trajectory (MBT) research team gratefully acknowledges the support of the NASA Langley Trajectory Based Operations team and the input from Mike Jackson of Honeywell. The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Executive Summary In order to realize the full potential of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), improved management along planned trajectories between air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and system users (e.g., pilots and airline dispatchers) is needed. Future automation improvements and increased data communications between aircraft and ground automation would make the concept of Management by Trajectory (MBT) possible. Key components of an MBT concept include: The ability for air traffic controllers and managers to quickly generate, evaluate and implement changes to an aircraft’s trajectory. Imposing constraints on flight operator-preferred trajectories only to the extent necessary to maintain safe and efficient traffic flows. A method for the exchange of trajectory information between ground automation systems and the aircraft that allows for trajectory synchronization and trajectory negotiation. MBT addresses shortfalls that remain in the Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) solution set, despite years of research into various aspects of transitioning from the current airspace environment to TBO. This report is the result of a survey of this research, as well as enabling technologies. The report provides insights into previous related concepts and technologies, with a particular focus on lessons that can be applied to the MBT concept development and evaluation effort in order to improve the feasibility and ultimate adoption of MBT. Specifically, for each topic covered in the study, the report identifies roadblocks to adoption and/or enablers that should be considered in MBT concept development. The objectives of this study are to describe previous attempts at developing and/or implementing MBT concepts and concept elements. The description of these efforts identify: Likely reasons why previous MBT concept elements have not been fully adopted. Portions of previous concepts that have been adopted and the likely enablers of these adoptions. Whether there is growing consensus, or lack thereof, about aspects of MBT concept elements. Key findings determined from this study include the following: 1. During the original Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) program, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had identified airborne reroutes as a benefit mechanism, but did not have the modeling tools to assess the benefit. Had the FAA included the reroutes benefit mechanism, users may have seen a tangible benefit that would support a decision to invest in CPDLC equipment. Voice communication of complex reroutes is impractical for widespread use in the National Airspace System (NAS). The nine-year deferment of data link capabilities has slowed progress toward TBO in general, and MBT in particular. Future MBT cost/benefits assessment should: a) identify benefit mechanisms that are tangible to users; b) identify methods for determining hard-to-assess benefit mechanisms; and c) consider providing financial incentives for flight operators to equip with capabilities that are foundational to the MBT concept. 2. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Contract (ADS-C) Extended Projected Profile (EPP) report appears to be the only capability on the horizon with any 1 momentum that can be utilized for sharing complete (or near-complete) flight management system (FMS) trajectory intent with ANSP ground systems. However, there is no mandate to equip aircraft to provide the EPP report, which is expected to be very expensive. The MBT concept should include a concept variant that assumes the EPP report will not be available to provide intent for a high percentage of aircraft. However, for aircraft that cannot downlink the EPP report, managing aircraft trajectory prediction uncertainty will be more difficult, lessening the effectiveness of MBT. However, as noted below, there is a fast-growing industry and suite of technologies that may mitigate this impediment to full MBT implementation. 3. The wide range of FMS capabilities in the NAS that currently exists and will continue to exist for decades into the future results in a mixed capability environment. The MBT concept will have to consider the best approach for addressing the mixed capability environment on a concept element by concept element basis. It may be necessary to determine what “best equipped, best served” means for each MBT concept element. 4. High cost inhibits low-cost carriers from implementing in-flight connectivity (IFC) to the internet. Low-cost carriers may not be able to leverage electronic flight bag (EFB) applications and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) information. Thus, certain benefits of MBT (e.g., effective trajectory negotiation) that rely on dynamic information may not be attainable to them. 5. There are many letters of agreement (LOAs) and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that can change the aircraft trajectory but are unknown to the pilot and are not available in an FMS database. Furthermore, trajectory changes (e.g., altitude and speed restrictions) due to these procedures often put the aircraft on an open trajectory. LOAs and SOPs place constraints on aircraft trajectories that today are not published, and FMSs have limited database capacity to add the data associated with these SOPs and LOAs. MBT should account for these constraints and their effect on trajectories and trajectory negotiation. 6. Trajectory uncertainty causes controllers to use tactical clearances, which tend to be open trajectory clearances. Without the automation support for closed trajectories, controllers will continue to use open trajectory techniques. Open trajectory clearances exacerbate the trajectory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ICAO Flightplan Form Basics
    Some verbiage and examples adapted directly from PANS-ATM ICAO Doc 4444 Amdt 1. For EuroFPL use and reference only. ICAO Flightplan Form Basics 1 DATE OF FLIGHT Six-digit date of ight in the format “YYMMDD”, where “YY” Did you know? is the last two digits of the year, “MM” is a two-digit representation of the month, and “DD” is a two-digit representation of the calendar day (all with leading zeroes As of ICAO 2012, the date of ight (DOF/) gure is more where necessary). widely recognized, and many more authorities world- wide will now accept lings as far out as ve days ahead. i.e. 121015, 130122... The [+1] [+3] and [+24 hrs] links will automatically set 7 AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION TIME and DATE OF FLIGHT gures 1, 3, or 24 hours ahead 2 of the current time. If these elds aren’t lled in, the Aircraft registration letters/tail number or an ICAO agency system will presume a departure in one hour. If a TIME designator with ight number. ICAO 2012 strictly enforces value is entered that is before, or less than 30 minutes that this gure should be letters and numbers only, devoid ahead of, the current time, DATE OF FLIGHT will ll of dashes, spaces, or other punctuation. automatically with the next day’s date. Otherwise, the i.e. N123B, GCABC, KLM672, SWIFT45... current date will be entered. 3 8 FLIGHT RULES Denotes the category of ight rules: “I” for IFR, “V” for VFR, 1 “Y” for when the ight will be initially IFR followed by one or more subsequent ight rules changes, and “Z” for VFR rst with any number of subsequent changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Airspace-Modernization.Pdf
    NextGen Overview with Focus on Data Link Rockwell Collins Operators Conference Presented by Christian Renneissen 1 | © 2017 Rockwell Collins. All rights reserved. Proprietary Information. Agenda . Future Air Navigation System . Mandates and Requirements FANS 1/A+ . PBCS . ICAO GOLD Document . FANS CPDLC DCL . Components of FANS 1/A+ . U.S. Enroute CPDLC . Logon and Handoff Process . ARINCDirect Support . Coverage Maps . ARINCDirect FANS Testing 2 | © 2017 Rockwell Collins. All rights reserved. Proprietary Information. The Idea of Data Link The third step… 1. Visual – Beacons and Signage 2. Aural – Voice 3. Data-to-Text – A method communicating with an aircraft, while limiting voice radio traffic 3 | © 2017 Rockwell Collins. All rights reserved. Proprietary Information. Future Air Navigation System 1/A+ FANS 1/A+ . FANS 1/A is the suite of software upgrades that implement CPDLC, ADS- C, AFN and AOC communications over ACARS protocols. FANS 1 was originally developed by Boeing, while FANS A was developed by Airbus. The two systems are functionally identical so standardization efforts changed the naming convention to FANS 1/A. FANS 1/A+ added the message latency timer function 4 | © 2017 Rockwell Collins. All rights reserved. Proprietary Information. Future Air Navigation System 1/A+ FANS 1/A+ . Three components: 1. Air Traffic Facilities Notification (AFN) – aircraft logon to ATC Center 2. Controller Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) – data link messaging for communications between air traffic controllers and crews 3. Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Contract (ADS-C) –contract based position reporting . Via data link over VHF (VDL Mode A or VDL Mode 2) or SAT (Inmarsat or Iridium) 5 | © 2017 Rockwell Collins.
    [Show full text]
  • What You Didn't Know About GPS and Its Augmentations
    What You Didn’t Know about GPS and Its Augmentations Vince Massimini Rick Niles June 2009 1of 44 Overview • GPS accuracy and integrity • GPS and augmented GPS services • GPS legalities • GPS pp(pp)rocedures (and plans for future procedures) • Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) • Future GPS and augmentations 2of 44 Overview - Navigation Aid Evolution Omega VORTAC WAAS RAIM Four-course radio Galileo? range GRAS? NDB LORAN-C GPS Beacon lights Instrument Landing System LAAS 19303of 44 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) • Global Positioning System (GPS) (U.S.) – Nominally 24 satellites in 6 orbital planes inclined 55 degrees – Operational for civil aviation since 1994 • GLONASS (Russ ian ) – Nominally 21 satellites in 3 orbital planes inclined 45 degrees • Uneven sustainment for many years; fully operational in 2009(?) • Galileo (European Union) – Nominally 27 satellites in 3 orbital planes inclined 56 degrees – Two tes t sa te llites in or bit; Opera tiona l in 2013 (?) • Compass (China) – 5 current satellites; proposed mix of GEO and MEO satellites 4of 44 GPS Constellation • Nominal constellation is 24 satellites in 6 planes – 4 “slots” per orbit – Transmit ranging code on single frequency (L1:1575.42 MHz) • 32 satellites are flying right now (31 operational) • The U.S. DoD commitment is: – > 24 satellites operational 95% of the time • Does not mean all 24 have a useable navigation signal – > 21 slots filled with at least one satellite transmitting a useable
    [Show full text]
  • 7110.10AA Flight Services
    DocuSign Envelope ID: C35036BB-1345-4351-B3EA-55FED08A0746 ORDER JO 7110.10AA Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: August 15, 2019 SUBJ: Flight Services This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it. Michael C. Artist Vice President, System Operations Services Air Traffic Organization July 5, 2019 Date: ___________________________ Distribution: Electronic Initiated By: AJR-0 Vice President, System Operations Services RECORD OF CHANGES DIRECTIVE NO. JO 7110.10AA CHANGE CHANGE TO SUPPLEMENTS TO SUPPLEMENTS BASIC OPTIONAL BASIC OPTIONAL FAA Form 1320−5 (6−80) USE PREVIOUS EDITION 8/15/19 JO 7110.10AA Flight Services Explanation of Changes Basic Direct questions through appropriate facility/service center office staff to the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) a. 6−3−4 IFR FLIGHT PLAN CONTROL This change deletes Section 7 in its entirety, includ- MESSAGE FORMAT ing paragraphs 6−7−1 and 6−7−2. c. 6−9−1. SECURITY NOTICE (SECNOT) This change amends FAA Order JO 7110.10, 6−9−2. ACTION UPON RECEIVING A subparagraph 6−3−4g2, and requires a “Q” be SECNOT inserted as the first character of the Flight 6−9−3. CANCELING A SECNOT Identification (FLID) for foreign flight This change deletes Section 9 in its entirety, includ- identifications using a numeral as the first character. ing paragraphs 6−9−1, 6−9−2, and 6−9−3.
    [Show full text]
  • North Atlantic Operations and Airspace Manual
    NAT Doc 007 NORTH ATLANTIC OPERATIONS AND AIRSPACE MANUAL V.2017-1 Prepared by the ICAO European and North Atlantic Office on behalf of the North Atlantic Systems Planning Group (NAT SPG) ii NORTH ATLANTIC OPERATIONS AND AIRSPACE MANUAL ii EUROPEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC OFFICE OF ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) European and North Atlantic (EUR/NAT) Office 3 bis, Villa Emile Bergerat 92522, Neuilly-sur-Seine CEDEX FRANCE e-mail : [email protected] Tel : +33 1 46 41 85 85 Fax : +33 1 46 41 85 00 Web : http://WWW.icao.int/EURNAT/ NAT Doc 007 V.2017-1 iii NORTH ATLANTIC OPERATIONS AND AIRSPACE MANUAL iii Figure 1 – The North Atlantic High Level Airspace (NAT HLA) (Prior to February 2016 designated as “NAT MNPS Airspace”) NAT Doc 007 V.2017-1 iv NORTH ATLANTIC OPERATIONS AND AIRSPACE MANUAL iv EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY A printed or electronic copy of this Manual, plus any associated documentation, is provided to the recipient as is and without any warranties as to its description, condition, quality, fitness for purpose or functionality and for use by the recipient solely for guidance only. Any implied conditions terms or warranties as to the description, condition, quality, fitness for purpose or functionality of the software and associated documentation are hereby excluded. The information published by ICAO in this document is made available without warranty of any kind; the Organization accepts no responsibility or liability whether direct or indirect, as to the currency, accuracy or quality of the information, nor for any consequence of its use.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for ATC Facility Consolidation
    Policy Study 411 April 2013 Air Traffic Control from Anywhere to Anywhere: The Case for ATC Facility Consolidation By Michael Harrison, Ira Gershkoff and Gary Church Project Director: Robert W. Poole, Jr., Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow Reason Foundation Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individu- als and voluntary institutions to flourish. Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. The views are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its trustees. Copyright © 2013 Reason Foundation. All rights reserved. Reason Foundation Air Traffic Control from Anywhere to Anywhere: The Case for ATC Facility Consolidation By Michael Harrison, Ira Gershkoff and Gary Church Project Director: Robert W. Poole, Jr. Executive Summary Air traffic control—in the United States, Europe and other advanced countries—is on the verge of a paradigm shift that promises to at least double the capacity of the skies without expanding the workforce, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 1-1 Today's National Airspace System (NAS)
    Today’s National Airspace System (NAS) consists of a • Approximately 13,000 instrument flight proce- complex collection of facilities, systems, equipment, dures, including over 1,000 Instrument Landing procedures, and airports operated by thousands of peo- System (ILS) procedures, over 1,700 nondirec- ple to provide a safe and efficient flying environment. tional beacon (NDB) procedures, over 2,700 VHF The NAS includes: omnidirectional range (VOR) procedures, and over 3,500 global positioning system/area naviga- • More than 750 air traffic control (ATC) facilities tion procedures (GPS/RNAV). with associated systems and equipment to provide • Procedures such as microwave landing system radar and communication service. (MLS), localizer (LOC), localizer type directional aid (LDA), simplified directional facility (SDF), • Volumes of procedural and safety information nec- charted visual flight procedures, departure proce- essary for users to operate in the system and for dures (DPs), and standard terminal arrivals FAA employees to effectively provide essential (STARs). services. • Approximately 2,153,326 instrument approaches • More than 18,000 airports capable of accommo- annually, of which 36 percent are air carrier, 27 dating an array of aircraft operations, many of percent air taxi, 33 percent general aviation, and 4 which support instrument flight rules (IFR) depar- percent military. tures and arrivals. • Approximately 49,409,000 instrument operations logged by FAA towers annually. • Approximately 4,500 air navigation facilities. America’s aviation industry is projecting continued • Approximately 48,000 FAA employees who pro- increases in business, recreation, and personal travel. vide air traffic control, flight service, security, Airlines in the United States (U.S.) expect to carry twice field maintenance, certification, systems acquisi- as many passengers by the year 2015 as they do today.
    [Show full text]
  • (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV)Operations
    Understanding Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV)Operations White Paper Doc No.: WHTP-2013-16-10 October 2013 Safely guiding pilots and their passengers worldwide for over 30 yearsTM Executive Summary This document clarifies the current Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV) requirements in the United States, Europe, and other parts of the world. It also discusses how Universal Avionics’ Flight Management System (FMS) product line supports approved RNP operations. Operators may use this information to assist in making future equipment acquisitions and aircraft modification choices neces- sary to allow them to fly into RNP airspaces or fly RNAV Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP). Failure to address RNP will, as time progresses, force non-RNP approved aircraft into undesirable lower altitudes (greatly increasing fuel burn), or severely limit the capability of a non-RNP aircraft to fly into a desired airport in instrument weather conditions. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) plan to modernize the National Airspace System (NAS) is through the Next Genera- tion Air Transportation System (NextGen). The goals of NextGen are to increase NAS capacity and efficiency while simultane- ously improving safety, reducing environmental impacts, and improving user access to the NAS. It is expected to be imple- mented through new Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) routes and procedures. This requires avionics that support RNP/ RNAV capability. In addition, the FAA has taken the initial steps toward removing ground based navaids and the supporting IAPs based upon those navaids. RNAV approach capability may become the mandatory method of flying into numerous airports that only sup- port instrument approaches that are RNP/RNAV based.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA Order 7110.10W, Flight Services
    ORDER JO 7110.10W Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: March 7, 2013 SUBJ: Flight Services This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it. Distribution: ZAT-710, ZAT-464 Initiated By: AJV-0 Vice President, System Operations Services RECORD OF CHANGES DIRECTIVE NO. JO 7110.10W CHANGE CHANGE TO SUPPLEMENTS TO SUPPLEMENTS BASIC OPTIONAL BASIC OPTIONAL FAA Form 1320−5 (6−80) USE PREVIOUS EDITION 3/7/13 JO 7110.10W Flight Services Explanation of Changes Basic Direct questions through appropriate facility/service center office staff to the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) a. CHAPTER 1 f. CHAPTER 6 Deletes para. 6-5-1, Military Training Activity; and Adds definition for “pertinent.” 6-5-2, Aerial Refueling Tracks; these functions have been realigned to FAAO JO 7930.2, Notices to b. CHAPTER 2 Airmen (NOTAM). Updates chapter to include automation. The g. CHAPTER 7 requirement for Meteorological Information for Adds requirement that all IFR flights departing U.S. Aircraft in Flight (VOLMET ICAO) is transferred to domestic airspace and entering international airspace Technical Operations. Deletes Transcribed Weather must file an ICAO flight plan. Broadcast (TWEB) route forecast products because h. CHAPTER 9 they are no longer produced by the NWS. Deletes Radar Reports (RAREP) because the product is not Updates Weather Message Switching Center utilized by the Flight Service Station.
    [Show full text]
  • RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV)Operations
    Understanding Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV)Operations White Paper Doc No.: WHTP-2013-16-10 May 2018 Safely guiding pilots and their passengers worldwide for over 35 yearsTM Executive Summary This document clarifies the current Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV) requirements in the United States, Europe, and other parts of the world. It also discusses how Universal Avionics’ Flight Management System (FMS) product line supports approved RNP operations. Operators may use this information to assist in making future equipment acquisitions and aircraft modification choices neces- sary to allow them to fly into RNP airspaces or fly RNAV Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP). Failure to address RNP will, as time progresses, force non-RNP approved aircraft into undesirable lower altitudes (greatly increasing fuel burn), or severely limit the capability of a non-RNP aircraft to fly into a desired airport in instrument weather conditions. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) plan to modernize the National Airspace System (NAS) is through the Next Genera- tion Air Transportation System (NextGen). The goals of NextGen are to increase NAS capacity and efficiency while simultane- ously improving safety, reducing environmental impacts, and improving user access to the NAS. It is expected to be imple- mented through new Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) routes and procedures. This requires avionics that support RNP/ RNAV capability. In addition, the FAA has taken the initial steps toward removing ground based navaids and the supporting IAPs based upon those navaids. RNAV approach capability may become the mandatory method of flying into numerous airports that only sup- port instrument approaches that are RNP/RNAV based.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight Plan Codes Vs. Required Operational Authorizations
    Flight Plan Codes vs. Required Operational Authorizations (June 2020) A guide to help you understand what operational authorizations you may need in order to use certain performance-based codes in your international flight plan (items 10 and 18) Note: The information provided in this table is a guide. For questions about operational authorization requirements, you should always contact an operations inspector at your local Flight Standards office, Certificate Management Office or International Field Office. The AIM (chapter 5) and the other information on the FAA’s “Flight Planning Information” webpage provide more detail on the meaning and use of all flight plan equipment and capability codes. In order to use one of these flight plan (FPL) codes you must: Have relevant approved, and operational, communication, navigation and surveillance equipment, including the appropriate number of units to meet airspace requirements Have flight crew qualified to operate the equipment Where applicable, have authorization from the FAA (Operations Specification (OpSpec)/Management Specification (MSpec)/Letter of Authorization (LOA)) Operate the flight in accordance with the provisions and limitations in the authorization. If you cannot meet all of these conditions, you should not use the flight plan code for that capability on your flight plan. How to use the table: Identify the type of operation, equipage or navigation specification in which you are interested and then find your applicable 14 CFR “part” to the right where you will see the alphanumeric designation of any required operational authorization as well as associated FPL codes. We have listed abbreviations at the end of this document. Note: Due to size constraints on the table, we placed an additional column, at the end of the document, which serves to illustrate when you should, or are required to, indicate capability for some of the operations, aircraft equipage or navigation specifications listed.
    [Show full text]
  • GREPECAS/14-WP/14 Revision No. 1 11/04/07 International Civil
    GREPECAS/14-WP/14 Revision No. 1 11/04/07 International Civil Aviation Organization CAR/SAM Regional Planning and Implementation Group (GREPECAS) Fourteenth meeting of the CAR/SAM Regional Planning and Implementation Group (GREPECAS/14) (San Jose, Costa Rica, 16 to 20 April 2007) Agenda Item 3: Assessment of development of regional air navigation and security infrastructure 3.6 Report of the ATM/CNS/SG/5 meeting REPORT OF THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE ATM COMMITTEE (Presented by the Secretariat) SUMMARY This working paper contains a summary of the outcome of the Fifth Meeting of the ATM Committee, which adopted a series of draft conclusions that are being submitted to the consideration of the GREPECAS/14 meeting. References: - Report of the ATM/CNS/SG/5 meeting. - Report of the AP/ATM/12 meeting. 1. Introduction 1.1 The ATM Committee reviewed the work done by the CAR/SAM Regional Monitoring Agency (CARSAMMA) and the Scrutiny Group (GDE) regarding the safety assessment one year after the implementation of the RVSM in the CAR/SAM Regions, as well as the reports on large height deviations (LHD). It also reviewed the work of the various ATM Committee Task Forces, and aspects related to ATS contingency plans. 1.2 It also analysed the amendment to the Global air navigation plan for CNS/ATM systems (Doc 9750) and its relationship with, and impact on, regional plans and, specifically, the plan for the transition to CNS/ATM systems in the CAR/SAM Regions. The Committee reviewed the ATM and SAR deficiencies and outstanding GREPECAS conclusions/decisions, the work programme of the Committee, and, finally, other matters submitted for discussion during the meeting.
    [Show full text]