V O L U M E 6 1 NUMBER 3 , 2006

ICAOJ O U R N A L

EVALUATING BUSINESS CASES FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY

Turning PointTOWARDS A PERFORMANCE-BASED

NAVIGATION SOLUTION

THE ICAOCOUNCIL

PresidentDr. ASSAD KOTAITE

1st Vice-PresidentL. A. DUPUIS

2nd Vice-PresidentM. A. AWAN

3rd Vice-PresidentA. SUAZO MORAZÁN

SecretaryDr. TAÏEB CHÉRIFSecretary General

Argentina – D. O. Valente

Australia – S. Clegg

Austria – S. Gehrer

Brazil – P. Bittencourt de Almeida

Cameroon – T. Tekou

Canada – L. A. Dupuis

Chile – G. Miranda Aguirre

China – Y. Zhang

Colombia – J. E. Ortiz Cuenca

Egypt – N. E. Kamel

Ethiopia – M. Belayneh

Finland – L. Lövkvist

France – J.-C. Chouvet

Germany – Dr. H. Mürl

Ghana – K. Kwakwa

Honduras – A. Suazo Morazán

Hungary – Dr. A. Sipos

India – Dr. N. Zaidi

Italy – F. Cristiani

Japan – H. Kono

Lebanon – H. Chaouk

Mexico – R. Kobeh González

Mozambique – D. de Deus

Nigeria – Dr. O. B. Aliu

Pakistan – M. A. Awan

Peru – J. Muñoz-Deacon

Republic Of Korea – S. Rhee

Russian Federation – I. M. Lysenko

Saint Lucia – H. A. Wilson

Saudi Arabia – S. A. R. Hashem

Singapore – K. P. Bong

South Africa – M. D. T. Peege

Spain – L. Adrover

Tunisia – M. Chérif

United Kingdom – N. Denton

United States – D. T. Bliss

MAY/JUNE 2006VOL. 61, NO. 3

ICAO JournalThe magazine of the International Civil Aviation Organization

FEATURES

5 Performance-based navigation seen as key to global harmonizationAn ICAO study group has determined that an updated and globally harmonizedRNP concept would be flexible enough to meet current and future operationalrequirements …

9 Implementation of performance-based navigation making notable progressThe advent of RNAV and RNP procedures in the United States has alreadydemonstrated capacity improvements and other important enhancements …

14 Guidelines promote common process for preventing interference with CNS signalsA European planning body has developed a standardized method of determiningwhether buildings and other objects in the vicinity of airports are likely tointerfere with signals used for communications, navigation and surveillance …

16 Cost of modernizing older aircraft justified by improved airspace accessWhile most earlier models of civil transport aircraft have years of life remainingin their engines and airframes, without avionics upgrades their operation invarious areas is increasingly limited …

19 Interactive analytical tool allows users to evaluate CNS/ATM business casesA new ICAO software programme showcases the economic basis forimplementing the technologies required to establish a global ATM system …

21 Birds and aircraft compete for space in crowded skiesStatistics show that birds and other wildlife are a growing problem for aircraftoperators, with civil aircraft in the United States alone involved in some7,000 wildlife strikes during 2005 …

UPDATE25 Global cooperation is key to progress, stresses Council President

• Secretary General addresses staff concerning business plan• Panel to consolidate guidance material on performance management• Symposium to focus on MRTDs, biometrics and security• ICAO and ACI join forces on airport training

Cover photo by Mike Dobel/Masterfile

WWW.ICAO.INT

Visit ICAO’s website for past issues of the ICAO Journal, news releases and a wealth of otherinformation, including background on various key topics and meeting documentation.

DGCA Conference of 20-22 March 2006: www.icao.int/icao/en/dgcaAviation Security: www.icao.int/atb/avsec

Dangerous Goods: www.icao.int/anb/FLS/DangerousGoods/flsdg.cfm

Aviation medicine: www.icao.int/icao/en/med

Environmental protection: www.icao.int/icao/en/env

Machine readable travel documents: www.icao.int/mrtd/Home

Strategic objectives: www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/strategic_objectives.htm

Trainair Programme: www.icao.int/anb/trainair/Home

Universal Security Audit Programme: www.icao.int/icao/en/atb/asa

ICAO JOURNAL4

Editor: Eric MacBurnie Production Clerk: Arlene BarnesEditorial Assistant: Regina Zorman Design Consultant: André Cordeau

THE OBJECTIVES of the Journal are to provide a concise account of theactivities of the International Civil Aviation Organization and to featureadditional information of interest to ICAO Contracting States and the inter-national aeronautical world. Copyright ©2006 International Civil AviationOrganization. Unsigned and Secretariat material may be reproduced in fullor in part provided that it is attributed to ICAO; for rights to reproduceother signed articles, please write to the editor.

OPINIONS EXPRESSED in signed articles or in advertisements appearing inthe ICAO Journal represent the author’s or advertiser’s opinion and do notnecessarily reflect the views of ICAO. The mention of specific companies orproducts in articles or advertisements does not imply that they are endorsedor recommended by ICAO in preference to others of a similar nature whichare not mentioned or advertised.

Published in Montreal, Canada. Second class mail registration No. 1610. ISSN1014-8876. Date of publication of Issue 3/2006: 9 June 2006. Publishedsix times annually in English, French and Spanish.

SUBSCRIPTIONS: $25 (by surface) and $35 (by air) per year. Single copiesavailable for $10. Prices in U.S. funds. For subscription and circulationinquiries, please contact ICAO Document Sales Unit. Telephone:+1 (514) 954-8022; Facsimile: +1 (514) 954-6769; E-mail: sales@icao.int.Important Note: Readers are advised that surface delivery may take aslong as six months, depending on location. Air mail is strongly recom-mended. The current issue may be viewed in PDF format without delayat ICAO’s website (http://icao.int/icao/en/jr/jr.cfm). Issues dated 2005or earlier are viewable using the downloadable DjVu reader. Plannedpublication dates for 2006 are 15 February, 13 April, 9 June, 7 August,8 September and 11 December.

ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE: Yves Allard, FCM Communications Inc., 835Montarville St., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4H 2M5.Telephone: +1 (450) 677-3535;Facsimile: +1 (450) 677-4445; e-mail: fcmcommunications@ videotron.ca.

EDITORIAL OFFICE: International Civil Aviation Organization, 999 Univer-sity St., Room 1205, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7. Telephone:+1 (514) 954-8222; Facsimile: +1 (514) 954-6376; e-mail: emacburnie@icao.int.

GRAPHIC ART/DESIGN: Bang Marketing (www.bang-marketing.com). PRINTING:Transcontinental-O’Keefe Montreal (www.transcontinental-printing.com).

ICAO HEADQUARTERS: 999 University St., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7.Telephone +1 (514) 954-8219; Facsimile +1 (514) 954-6077; e-mail: icaohq@icao.int.

www.icao.int VISIT ICAO’s website for a wealth of information includingpast issues of the ICAO Journal, information on advertising in ICAO’s maga-zine, the latest news releases, a complete listing of ICAO publications andaudio visual training aids, the ICAO aviation training directory, Secretariat jobvacancies, technical cooperation project postings, and much more.

ICAO PUBLICATIONS: The Catalogue of ICAO Publications and Audio-VisualTraining Aids contains a list of all document titles as well as abstracts andindicates the availability of language versions. The catalogue is issued annu-ally in hard copy. Monthly supplements list new publications and audio-visual training aids as they become available, as well as amendments andsupplements. Most ICAO publications are issued in English, French,Russian and Spanish; Arabic and Chinese are being introduced on a gradualbasis. (The most efficient way to order an ICAO publication is online athttp://www.icao.int using VISA or Mastercard. All transactions conducted onthis server are encrypted and secure.)

ICAO ESHOP (www.icao.int/eshop): eSHOP is a commercial website offeringonline access to ICAO documentation for an annual fee. A subscription givesaccess to the full texts of international conventions and protocols, all annexesto the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention),publications pertaining to air traffic management, and the annual reports ofthe ICAO Council.

DGCA DIRECTORY: ICAO has developed an electronic database of informationon national civil aviation administrations from around the world. The Directoryof National Civil Aviation Administrations (Document 7604) is continuouslyupdated, based on information received from ICAO’s 189 Contracting States.The online directory is available through ICAO’s website at an annual subscrip-tion fee of U.S. $150. For further information, please contact the DatabaseAdministrator (dgca@icao.int).

ICAO Journal

AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBhutanBoliviaBosnia and

HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCentral African

RepublicChadChileChinaColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCôte d’IvoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic People’s

Republic of KoreaDemocratic Republic

of the Congo

DenmarkDjiboutiDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic

Republic of)IraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s

Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab

Jamahiriya

LithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesia

(Federated States of)MonacoMongoliaMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalQatarRepublic of KoreaRepublic of MoldovaRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and

the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi Arabia

SenegalSerbia and MontenegroSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanThailandThe former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia

Timor-LesteTogoTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited Republic

of TanzaniaUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaViet NamYemenZambiaZimbabwe

ICAO Headquarters

999 University StreetMontreal, QuebecCanada H3C 5H7Telephone: 514-954-8219Facsimile: 514-954-6077E-mail: icaohq@icao.intWebsite: www.icao.int

REGIONAL OFFICES

Asia and Pacific OfficeBangkok, ThailandTelephone: + 662-537-8189Facsimile: + 662-537-8199E-mail:icao_apac@bangkok.icao.int

Eastern and Southern African OfficeNairobi, KenyaTelephone: + 254-20-7622-395Facsimile: + 254-20-7623-028E-mail: icao@icao.unon.org

European and North Atlantic OfficeParis, FranceTelephone: + 33-1-46-41-85-85Facsimile: + 33-1-46-41-85-00E-mail: icaoeurnat@paris.icao.int

Middle East OfficeCairo, EgyptTelephone: + 202-267-4841Facsimile: + 202-267-4843E-mail: icaomid@cairo.icao.intWebsite: www.icao.int/mid

North American, Central Americanand Caribbean OfficeMexico City, MexicoTelephone: + 52-55-52-50-32-11Facsimile: + 52-55-52-03-27-57E-mail: icao_nacc@mexico.icao.int

South American OfficeLima, PeruTelephone: + 51-1-575-1646Facsimile: + 51-1-575-0974E-mail: mail@lima.icao.intWebsite: www.lima.icao.int

Western and Central African OfficeDakar, SenegalTelephone: + 221-839-93-93Facsimile: + 221-823-69-26E-mail: icaodkr@icao.sn

Promoting the Development of International Civil AviationThe International Civil AviationOrganization, created in 1944 to promotethe safe and orderly development of civilaviation worldwide, is a specialized agency ofthe United Nations. Headquartered in Montreal,ICAO develops international air transport standardsand regulations and serves as the medium for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 189 Contracting States.

ICAO CONTRACTING STATES

HE ICAO concept of requirednavigation performance (RNP) isbeing revised in light of industry

demands for performance-based navigation(PBN), a concept that encompasses botharea navigation (RNAV) and required navi-gation performance (RNP).

Performance-based navigation is increas-ingly seen as the most practical solutionfor regulating the expanding domain ofnavigation systems. Under the traditionalapproach, each new technology is asso-ciated with a range of system-specificrequirements for obstacle clearance, air-craft separation, operational aspects (e.g.arrival and approach procedures), aircrewoperational training and training for airtraffic controllers. This system-specificapproach, however, imposes an unneces-sary effort and expense on ICAO as wellas on States, airlines and air navigationservices (ANS) providers.

Performance-based navigation elimina-tes the need for redundant investment indeveloping criteria and in operationalmodifications and training. Rather thanbuild an operation around a particularsystem, under performance-based navi-gation the operation is defined accordingto the operational goals, and the availablesystems are then evaluated to determinewhether they are supportive. The advan-tage of this approach is that it enablesharmonized and predictable flight pathswhich result in more efficient use ofexisting aircraft capabilities as well asimproved safety, greater airspace capa-city, better fuel efficiency, and the resolu-tion of noise issues.

AIR NAVIGATION

Performance-based navigation seenas key to global harmonization

An ICAO study group has determined that an updated and globally harmonized RNP conceptwould be flexible enough to meet both current and future operational requirements

Original RNP conceptThe original RNP concept as defined by

ICAO was a supporting element of thefuture air navigation systems (FANS). Itspurpose was to introduce more flexibilityand adaptability to technological change bybetter exploiting the communications, navi-gation and surveillance (CNS) capabilitiesof the aircraft’s on-board systems. RNP wasdeveloped to allow planners to increase air-space capacity by specifying airspace andaircraft operational requirements based onthe existing capabilities of the aircraft fleetrather than relying on the normally lengthyprocess required for industry to complywith sensor-dependent specifications.

The ICAO RNP concept was widelyacknowledged and very well received.However, the air transport industry foundthat the original concept was not detailedenough to be of practical use, especiallyin terminal airspace. Toaddress this shortcoming,the industry developed theso-called RNP/RNAV con-cept, a derivative of RNP thatoffered more comprehensivetechnical support for theperformance, design, devel-opment, implementation andqualification of aircraft navi-gation systems. An integralpart of this derivative con-cept was the specification ofrequirements for on-boardperformance, monitoringand alerting. These measu-rable and demonstrable spe-cifications support improve-ments in airspace designand management, amongthem closer route spacingand reduced separation.

As aircraft systems evolved, it becameapparent that the original ICAO provisionswere not sufficient to meet all of industry’sdemands, and consequently they wereunable to prevent the development ofpartially divergent industry specifications.Different types of RNP and/or RNAV havebeen implemented in different regions(see Figure 1). While this approach meetsrequirements at a regional level, theadvent of RNP variations also implied thatthe original concept — designed primarilyto prevent “proliferation” of new techno-logy and regional navigation requirements— was in fact contributing to this problem.The lack of harmonization raised concernsamong aircraft operators, which faced anincreasing burden of complying with vary-ing regulations in different parts of theworld. Potential safety risks were identi-fied as operators and flight crews attempted

NUMBER 3, 2006 5

ERWIN LASSOOIJ

ICAO SECRETARIAT

T

PRESENT

FUTURE

EUROPE

U.S.

BOEING

AUSTRALIA

CHINA

AIRBUS

CANADA

JAP AN

SOUTH AMERICA

B-RNA V

P-RNA V

US-RNA V

RNP10

RNP 4

PRESENT

FUTURE

EUROPE

U.S.

BOEING

AUSTRALIA

CHINA

AIRBUS

CANADA

JAP AN

SOUTH AMERICA

B-RNA V

P-RNA V

US-RNA V

RNP10

RNP 4

RNP/RNA V

PBN

RNP

Figure 1. Existing provisions have been unable to preventdevelopment of RNP variations to meet the needs ofregions, countries and the industry. PBN convergence(bottom figure) is achieved through RNPSORSG initiatives.

to comply with all of the pertinent regula-tions in an environment where the ruleschange from region to region, and evenduring a single flight.

ICAO responded to this undesirable situ-ation by forming a study group to focus onall related issues and to present recom-mendations to the Air Navigation Commis-sion on how best to proceed.

PBN offers solutionThe Required Navigation Performance

and Special Operational Requirements StudyGroup (RNPSORSG), which met for thefirst time in April 2004, recently concludedthat it is indeed feasible to develop aglobally harmonized concept that meetscurrent operational requirements whileremaining flexible enough for futurerequirements. The group, consisting ofparticipants from several ICAO memberStates that are front-runners in RNAV andRNP implementation as well as aircraftmanufacturers, airlines and pilot associa-tions, has also recognized the value ofindustry developmentsin the area of on-boardperformance monitoringand alerting require-ments. Such technologyis even critical in somecases, such as in the finalapproach phase, whereexacting obstacle clear-ance requirements canonly be met with on-board performance moni-toring and alerting.

AIR NAVIGATION

At the same time, the study groupunderstood that these capabilities do notnecessarily satisfy the operational require-ments in all types of airspace or in every

application withina given airspace,and would notalways be costbeneficial. This iswhy the groupdecided that thebest approach tosystem implemen-tation is to apply aconcept focused onperformance-basednavigation andefforts to harmo-nize elements of

the industry concept and ICAO’s existingRNP concept. This solution includes allsegments of flight including en-route ter-minal area operations and the finalapproach phase, where RNP will be usedas a basis for obstacle clearance.

The revised RNP concept will likely har-monize the currently available RNAV- andRNP-designated PBN applications, parti-cularly in the terminal area, where a diver-gence in implementations has been noticed.

The revised concept clearly distinguishesbetween those operations that require on-board performance monitoring and alert-ing, and those that do not. The study groupagreed that navigation specifications foroperations that do not require on-board per-formance monitoring and alerting shouldbe designated RNAV-X, while those opera-tions requiring such capabilities would beknown as RNP-X. The “X” in the designa-

tion identifies the lateral navigation accu-racy in nautical miles (NM) that is requiredduring at least 95 percent of the flight time.

The specifications associated with eachdesignation meet current operationalrequirements while allowing global har-monization, leading to greater efficiencyand lower costs for aircraft operators aswell as safety enhancements. Further-more, they are fully compatible with exist-ing implementations. Aircraft meeting theRNAV-1 navigation specification devel-oped by the study group, for example, canfly in both precision RNAV (P-RNAV) andU.S. RNAV type-B airspace.

As depicted in the accompanying table,thus far the group has identified nine dif-ferent navigation specifications for whichthere is a current operational need. Theyare listed together with the applicable typeof operation. Some of the specificationswere already in existence, whereas othershave been developed by RNPSORSG. Forexisting specifications, a conversion fromthe current designation to the designationbased on the new scheme is provided inthe table.

In order to avoid future proliferation ofregional navigation specifications, thegroup also established a process for deve-loping a global navigation specificationthat addresses — in a harmonized fashion— any emerging regional requirementsthat cannot be met by the specificationslisted in the table. The RNAV-10 (known asRNP-10), RNAV-5, RNP-4, RNAV-2 andRNAV-1 navigation specifications areeither existing specifications or modifica-tions of regional implementations.

New RNP-1 and -2 specifications, current-ly under review by theRNPSORSG, are designedfor applications in airspacethat does not necessarilyrequire radar monitoringand enhanced functionali-ties such as radius to fix(RF) turns or time ofarrival control. These newspecifications will enableen-route and terminaloperations outside thecoverage of ground navi-

6 ICAO JOURNAL

Area of application

Oceanic/Remote 10 RNP 10 RNAV 10 no(RNP 10 label)

4 RNP 4 RNP 4 yes

En-route Continental 5 B-RNAV RNAV 5 noRNP 5

En-route 2 US-RNAV type A RNAV 2 noContinental/Terminal

2 – RNP 2 yes

Terminal 1 US-RNAV type B RNAV 1 noand P-RNAV

1 – RNP 1 yes

Approach 0.3 RNP 0.3 RNP 0.3 yes

0.3 – 0.1 RNP/SAAAR RNP 0.3 – 0.1 yes(RNP/AR)

Navigationaccuracy

(NM)

Navigationspecification

(current)

Navigationspecification

(new)

Requirement for performance

monitoring and alerting

On-board performance

monitoring and alerting

Performance-basednavigation

No on-board performance

monitoring and alerting

Table of existing and new navigation specifications

Figure 2. Performance-based navigation concept; italicized type denotes examplesof future navigation specifications.

RNP 1, RNP 2,RNP 4, RNP 0.3,

RNP 0.3-0.1

RNP with additionalrequirements(e.g. 3D, 4D)

RNAV 10(RNP 10 label)

RNAV 5RNAV 2RNAV 1

gational aids through the use of the globalnavigation satellite system (GNSS).

A new RNP 0.3 approach specificationwould provide a single, harmonized stan-dard that accommodates basic GNSSequipment as well as RNP-certified air-craft, and satellite-based augmentationsystem (SBAS) navigation equipment.This will eliminate the need for sensor-specific multiple approaches designed fordifferent aircraft configurations but verysimilar performance characteristics.

ICAO is also addressing performance-based navigation in the approach phase bydeveloping the relevant procedures. Theapproach procedures are designated as“RNP 0.3-0.1,” reflecting the fact that theaccuracy requirement is “scaleable” from0.3 NM down to 0.1 NM depending on theprocedure requirement. These proce-dures require specific aircraft and aircrewauthorization similar to that required forinstrument landing system (ILS) Cate-gory II and III operations. As might beexpected, the requirement for authoriza-tion is mainly because of the reducedobstacle clearance margins in comparisonwith conventional RNP 0.3 approaches.The goal is to establish criteria equivalentto those used in the U.S. standard deve-loped for RNP approach procedures withspecial aircraft and aircrew authorizationrequired (RNP-SAAAR). Their introductionwill ensure complete global harmonizationfor this particular type of operation in termsof flight procedure design and aircraft andoperational criteria. The reward for estab-lishing such standardization is the signi-ficant safety and efficiency benefits thatarise. (For more on RNP/RNAV approachprocedures, see “Implementation of per-formance-based navigation making notableprogress,” page 9.)

The PBN concept that allows for RNAV-Xand RNP-X operations will also need to beflexible enough to accommodate potentialrequirements such as 4-D navigation. Anoverview of the PBN concept, showing howthis all fits together, is illustrated in Figure 2.

ICAO documentationNew guidance material under develop-

ment by RNPSORSG will be published as

AIR NAVIGATION

an ICAO manual. States, aircraft operatorsand ANS providers will find instructions inthis document on how to implementRNP/RNAV operations, as well as a com-pendium of navigation specifications,including the applicable approval and air-craft qualification requirements. Relatedterminology used in ICAO standards andrecommended practices (SARPs) will alsobe aligned to the new designation scheme.

The PBN manual is expected to becomeavailable in draft form at the ICAO websiteby September 2006, while the updates ofSARPs will become applicable in November2008. This package of material will provideStates with a common international frame-work for implementation of performance-based navigation, thus ensuring regulatoryharmonization with a minimum impact onaircraft equipage and safety oversight.

The above described documentation isonly the initial step towards successfulworldwide implementation. Effective imple-mentation of performance-based navigationwill require that ICAO provide consistentpolicy and guidance across the many disci-plines touched by this programme.

The RNPSORSG has nearly achieved itsgoals, but a few issues still need to beresolved, as summarized below.

Performance monitoring and alertingrequirements. The RNPSORSG is consider-ing the TSO-C129 receiver as a sensor thatwould be suitable for RNP-1 and -2 opera-tions that require performance monitoring

and alerting. It remains to be determined,however, whether the receiver’s level ofperformance monitoring and alerting isadequate.

RNP and RNAV designation. One aspectof the RNP and RNAV designation that isnot fully resolved yet is the potential needfor different operations that require thesame accuracy, but have dissimilar func-tional requirements. This could be doneeither by adding a suffix to the designation(e.g. RNP-1A) or by including notices oncharts specifying the additional functionalrequirements.

Approach performance. At present, PBNis focused on linear performance criteriawhich supports rectangular obstacle clear-ance areas. Discussions continue onwhether and how angular performancecriteria to support trapezoidal obstacleclearance areas such as those associatedwith ground-based or space-based aug-mentation systems should be included inthe concept of performance-based naviga-tion. Another matter to be resolved is therequirement for RF legs and vertical navi-gation (VNAV) for RNP 0.3 approaches.

After the work of the study group has

NUMBER 3, 2006 7

The international civil aviation community is at a turning point in terms of airspacedesign and air traffic management, with new emphasis now being placed on aircraftnavigation performance.

Air

bu

sS.

A.S

.

Erwin Lassooij is a Technical Officer (Operations/Airworthiness) in the Flight Safety Section of the AirNavigation Bureau at ICAO headquarters, Montreal.Mr. Lassooij is Manager of the Performance-BasedNavigation Programme, Chairman of the RequiredNavigation Performance and Special Operational Re-quirements Study Group, and Secretary of the ObstacleClearance Panel.

continued on page 31

To download a free 30-day trial version, visit the Infolution website at www.infolution.ca. To place an order or for further information, please contact Sales@icao.intReference CD-101

Minimum system requirements: Computer type: Pentium 233 Mhz, Operating system: Windows 95, Memory: 64 MB, Hard disk: 20 MBHardware: CD-ROM drive, Screen resolution: 800 x 600 dpi

Recent developments such as RNAV procedures,higher traffic volumes and environmental issuesincrease the pressure on procedure designers toachieve more accurate, balanced and faster results,while consistently maintaining high safety standards.

The new Procedures for Air Navigation Services –Aircraft Operations “PANS-OPS” Software, enablesprocedure designers to meet these growing demands.

Developed by Infolution Inc. and distributed by ICAO,the PANS-OPS Software CD ROM, which includesthe ICAO Collision Risk Model (CRM) and othervaluable features, provides procedure designers withthe power and flexibility to increase productivity whilemeeting the industry’s most stringent quality assuranceand safety requirements. It is leading-edge technologyat the service of accuracy and integrity.

This new Software offers the capability to store datafor aerodromes, runways, navigation aids and allobstacles in a single database. With a few keystrokesand mouse clicks in a user-friendly interface, thePANS-OPS Software analysis tool launches threeobstacle assessment programs dedicated to each of the ILS Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height (OCA/H)calculating methods:

• ILS Basic Surfaces Program• Obstacle Assessment Surfaces (OAS) Program• CRM Program

Collateral benefits include:• evaluating possible locations for new runways in

a given geographical and obstacle environment foraerodrome planning purposes

• assessing whether or not an existing object shouldbe removed

• determining whether a particular new constructionwould result in operational penalties, such as anincrease in aircraft decision height

PANS-OPS Software is much more efficient than theold FORTRAN implementation of the ICAO CollisionRisk Model (CRM) for ILS. A modern user-friendlyGraphic Interface replaces the more cumbersomeDOS style input.

The new Software integrates relational database concepts, basic safety elements and several computerprograms required to develop instrument procedures.New client/server technology allows individual designersto share information contained in a single databaseholder; and the ability to save, archive and print inputand output ensures complete traceability, thus pavingthe way for the implementation of quality control.

This joint ICAO-Infolution undertaking aims to harmo-nize and standardize practices worldwide and, in sodoing, to promote greater aviation safety in a rapidlychanging traffic environment.

MPLEMENTATION of performance-based navigation in the United States,specifically in the form of area naviga-

tion (RNAV) and required navigation per-formance (RNP) procedures, has reapedoperational and economic rewards for theaviation community. Working closelywith industry, the U.S. Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) has been able toincrease capacity at major airports whereRNAV departures and approaches havebeen commissioned; other notable bene-fits include improved safety and impor-tant cost savings for the airlines.

Performance-based navigation is gro-wing in importance around the world,and the United States is among severalparticipants in an ICAO study groupformed in 2004 to focus on its worldwideimplementation and harmonization (seerelated article on page 5). As part ofthis global harmonization process, theFAA is amending its RNAV guidancematerial to establish conformity withthe forthcoming edition of the ICAOManual on Performance-Based Navigation(Document 9613), which will replacethe ICAO Manual on Required Navi-gation Performance.

The U.S. initiative to establish performance-based navigation can be traced to an imple-mentation strategy originally published bythe FAA in 2003. Entitled Roadmap forPerformance Based Navigation: Evolution forRNAV and RNP Capabilities 2003-2020, thedocument is now being updated with the

AIR NAVIGATION

Implementation of performance-basednavigation making notable progress

The advent of RNAV and RNP procedures in the United States has already demonstrated capacityimprovements and other important enhancements

JOHN MCGRAW • JEFF WILLIAMS

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

DR. HASSAN SHAHIDI

MITRE CORPORATION

(UNITED STATES)

expectation that the revised strategy will bereleased this summer.

The Roadmap defines the operationalgoals for performance-based navigation,and identifies the associated steps andmilestones. It highlights key policy andtechnical issues to be addressed, andunderscores the cri-tical decisions thatwill have to be made.

The FAA blue-print for RNAV andRNP implementa-tion identifies dis-tinct planning peri-ods. The near-termextends from thepresent until 2010.The mid-term periodencompasses 2011-15,and the far termconcerns develop-ments in the 2016-25period. The Roadmapalso defines operational goals and conceptsby phase of flight, namely the approach,terminal arrival and departure, and en-route phases.

From its inception, the implementationof performance-based navigation proce-dures in the U.S. has been a collaborativeeffort between the FAA and the civilaviation community. Collaboration isimportant because the development ofaircraft navigation performance stan-dards, procedure design criteria, opera-tor requirements, and pilot and controllerprocedures cannot be achieved effective-ly without close coordination amongst allof the stakeholders.

Over the past several years, the U.S.has implemented over 150 RNAV stan-dard instrument arrival routes — known

in the United States as standard terminalarrival routes (STARs) — and standardinstrument departures (SIDs), and moreare under development. These STARsand SIDs are equivalent to RNAV-1 typeprocedures, which are currently underdevelopment at ICAO. In addition, the

U.S. has implemented a number of keyen-route RNAV procedures which are desi-gnated as “Q Routes”. Recently, it beganimplementing RNP approach procedures.

RNAV terminal procedures andapproaches in the United States havealready paid dividends. A few examples ofbeneficial applications are describedbelow, along with their key implemen-tation and harmonization considerations.

RNAV proceduresPrior to the implementation of RNAV

SIDs at Dallas-Ft. Worth InternationalAirport (KDFW) last year, departingaircraft were typically vectored in theterminal airspace to join conventionaldeparture procedures starting at naviga-tional fixes at the airspace boundary. As

I

NUMBER 3, 2006 9

Figure 1. Comparison of radar tracks associated with conventionaland RNAV SID operations at Dallas-Ft. Worth. RNAV operationswere implemented at KDFW in September 2005.

departure operations are generally con-ducted on two inner parallel runways thatare spaced approximately one nauticalmile (NM) apart, KDFW operations rou-tinely rely on a waiver to FAA regulations,authorizing independent successive andsimultaneous departure operations onthese runways.

In effect for many years, the FAA wai-ver has allowed operational independenceof departures when certain conditionsare met. Among these are a requirementto initiate course divergence no later than5 NM from the departure ends of the run-ways. Given the geometry of the runwaysystem and additional noise abatementconstraints, the number of available ini-tial headings that could be assignedto departing aircraft was limited to oneheading for each departure runway.Thus, no divergence could be establishedbetween successive departures fromalternating runways, and departing air-craft generally operated in-trail duringtheir initial climbs up to distances of atleast 5 NM from the airport.

Improved navigational performanceassociated with RNAV SID operationscapitalize on the capability of flight ma-nagement systems to support terminalRNAV procedures. New RNAV departureprocedures at KDFW offered two initiallydiverging route segments from each run-

AIR NAVIGATION

way. These complied with the establishednoise footprint of the airport and enabled“fanned” departures — that is, successivedepartures that make alternating use ofdiverging routes. As expected, this opera-tional change has improved the efficiencyof aircraft separation, as well as increa-sing departure capacity and reducing

departure delays.The development

of the procedures,successfully imple-mented in September2005, was facilitatedby working closelywith the airlines ope-rating at Dallas-Ft.Worth. The proce-dure design requiredexpanding KDFW’sexisting FAA waiverto allow independentparallel operationsconducted on thetwo departure run-ways within a dis-tance of 10 NM fromthe departure ends of

the runways. Risk assessments werecarried out to ensure that the proposedoperations met the required target levelof safety. American Airlines providedguidance to the procedure designers,thus ensuring that the required flightperformance fell within aircraft opera-tional limitations under various operatingconditions. At present, over 800 RNAVdepartures are conducted daily at KDFW.

Figure 1 presents a comparison ofradar tracks associated with conventionaland RNAV SID departures at Dallas-Ft.Worth, with runways of a northerly orien-tation in use. The tracks are colour-codedto provide altitude information, with reddenoting low altitude. The figure alsoillustrates the initial course divergenceoffered by two RNAV SID routes close tothe departure ends of each runway.

The introduction of RNAV proceduresallowing fanned departures at KDFW hasresulted in greater air traffic control(ATC) efficiency. Extensive pre- and post-implementation evaluations were carried

out by the Mitre Corporation to under-stand the associated operational changesand to validate the user benefits.

With the current number of RNAV-capable departures, fanned operationsyield an estimated capacity gain of11 departures per hour. These resultsindicate a potential for further capacityimprovements of up to nine more hourlydepartures, for a total increase of 20,assuming an environment in whichall departing aircraft are equipped forRNAV operations.

A key user benefit resulting from theimproved departure capacity is thereduced cost associated with delays. Thedecrease in delays for KDFW departureswas expected to provide operators with afinancial saving of $10 million annually(all currency figures in U.S. dollars)based on 2005 traffic figures. The poten-tial cost saving from fewer departuredelays is estimated at $30 million annual-ly, assuming that traffic were to increaseby 13 percent over the current level.

The implementation plan for RNAVdeparture procedures at KDFW in 2005called for continually monitoring routeconformance. During the initial intro-duction, the plan also called for greaterspacing between departures. With theexception of a fraction of successivedepartures involving mixed RNAV- andnon-RNAV capable aircraft, additionalseparation was incrementally discontin-ued within the first month after imple-mentation. Detailed post-implementationevaluations confirmed that user benefitswere largely realized within the firsttwo months of the introduction ofRNAV departure procedures for Dallas-Ft. Worth.

Similarly, RNAV SIDs have been imple-mented at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-JacksonInternational Airport (KATL), with DeltaAir Lines acting as lead carrier. KATL,the world’s busiest airport in terms ofaircraft movements in 2005, has beenoperating both RNAV SID and STAR pro-cedures since April-May 2005. Whileabout 85 percent of the departing andarriving flights currently use RNAV pro-cedures, further improvements to the

10 ICAO JOURNAL

Figure 2. Route structure of RNAV SID procedures at Atlanta. Thenew procedures commenced on 13 April 2006.

procedure designs were introduced tomaximize their operational benefits.

Figure 2 presents the route structureof Atlanta’s RNAV SID procedures, pub-lished for implementation in April 2006.This revised route design features addi-tional departure fixes, increasing thenumber of available en-route transitions,and one instrument departure usingradar vectors to join RNAV routes soonafter departure.

The RNAV procedure design presen-ted in Figure 2 is expected to furtherincrease the operational benefits fromRNAV SID operations at Atlanta. Withdepartures to the east, the enhanced effi-ciency associated with fanned operationswas estimated to allow 10 additional take-offs per hour. Based on the current trafficlevel, Mitre studies have shown that thisgain in departure capacity translates intoan annual cost benefit to airlines of about$11 million.

AIR NAVIGATION

RNP proceduresTo pave the way for implementation

of RNP approach procedures in theUnited States, the FAA worked throughthe primary U.S. forum for stakeholderparticipation in performance-based navi-gation strategy and implementationplanning, a body known as the Perfor-mance-based Operations Aviation Rule-making Committee (PARC). This com-mittee works to define and develop keystandards and criteria for RNAV and RNPimplementations. With PARC’s involve-ment, the FAA initially published specialprocedure design criteria and associatedaircraft and operator approval guidancein the form of an FAA notice. This docu-ment served as the basis for the perma-nent, public procedure design criteriawhich was recently published as FAAOrder 8260.52.1 At the same time, FAAalso published an advisory circular whichcontains the requisite aircraft, operator

and airworthiness requirements forpublic RNP instrument approaches.

Key features of the criteria for RNPapproach procedures with special aircraftand aircrew authorizations required(RNP-SAAAR)2 include narrow linear seg-ments along the entire approach includ-ing the final approach path; guided, nar-row turns on missed-approach segments,radius-to-fix segments; and the use of avertical error budget for the verticalprofile. The RNP-SAAAR procedureprovides precision-like lateral and ver-tical guidance.

The special RNP approach procedureimplementation at Palm Springs Inter-national Airport (KPSP) is an example ofan RNP-SAAAR implementation leverag-ing the key features of RNP criteria. PalmSprings is an airport surrounded by highterrain that prevents the use of conven-tional straight-in instrument approachprocedures. The only instrument approach

NUMBER 3, 2006 11

Chart at left (Figure 3) illustrates the conventional instrument approach at Palm Springs International. Figure 4, right, depicts the RNAVRunway 31L public procedure for the same runway.

at KPSP is a circling approach,utilizing a very high fre-quency omnidirectional radiorange (VOR) or the global posi-tioning system (GPS), tothe four runway ends withapproach minima of threestatute miles (SM) visibilityand minimum descent altitude(MDA) of 1,826 feet; theVOR/GPS circling approachchar t is illustrated in Fig-ure 3. Previously, when PalmSprings International lackedan approach with low minima,operators using the airportexperienced numerous wea-ther-related diversions andflight cancellations.

The KPSP special RNP pro-cedure development processinvolved pertinent groupswithin the FAA and AlaskaAirlines, which served as leadoperator for the project. It wasdivided into two stages: theprocedure design, and theapproval process for the ope-rator and the aircraft involved.Using newly developed RNP-SAAAR criteria, two specialRNAV (RNP) approaches wereconstructed to Runways 31L and 13R.

These special RNP approaches areboth designated RNP 0.3; the minima forRunway 31L are 1 SM and decisionheight of 296 feet, rising to 11/4 SM visi-bility and decision height of 374 feet forRunway 13R. Even lower minima areachievable when the RNP value is reduced.

Each approach contains a continuouslateral and vertical path from the finalapproach fix to touchdown. These newRNP-SAAAR approaches have resulted ina reduced number of weather-relateddelays and cancellations for those opera-tors approved by the FAA to fly the spe-cial RNP approaches at KPSP. During thefirst few months of procedure use, AlaskaAirlines reported 21 flights completed asplanned because of the availability ofthe special RNP-SAAAR procedures.Known in the airline vernacular as

AIR NAVIGATION

“saved” flights, the 21 operations wouldhave been cancelled or diverted withoutthis RNP-SAAAR capability.

The FAA has recently published publicRNP-SAAAR procedures at Palm Springsthat were designed using FAA Order8260.52 criteria. The public proceduresfollow a wider ground track to accommo-date the broader range of aircraft per-formance characteristics for more poten-tial users, but still provide approach mini-ma similar to the Alaska special proce-dures at RNP 0.3. (see Figure 4).

Data continues to be collected as partof the post-implementation analysis tofurther document benefits to operators.

Another example of RNP-SAAARimplementation is the Runway 19 approachat Ronald Reagan National Airport(KDCA) in Washington, D.C. The lowestconventional minima for the Potomac

River approach to Runway 19,based on localizer-type direc-tional aid and distance measur-ing equipment (DME), com-prises 6,000 feet runway visualrange (RVR) and a decisionheight of 706 feet. Visibilityrequirements for aircraft withhigher approach speeds increaseup to 2 miles for the “straight-in” approach. From the deci-sion height to the runway endthe procedure requires anunguided turn.

In September 2005, the FAApublished the first public RNP-SAAAR approach at KDCA.The procedure, charted asthe RNAV (RNP) Runway 19approach (Figure 5), enhancessafety with a guided, stabilizedthree-dimensional path thatavoids prohibited airspace andsignificantly improves theavailability of Runway 19 dur-ing low visibility conditions.

The RNAV (RNP) Runway19 approach is designatedas RNP 0.11. The minima are6,000 feet RVR with a decisionheight of 462 feet. There is acontinuous lateral and vertical

guided path from the final approach fix totouchdown. The guided path follows thePotomac River, a more environmentallyfriendly approach that avoids flight over

12 ICAO JOURNAL

Figure 5. Runway 19 RNP-SAAAR approach chart for KDCA. Theprocedure enhances safety with a guided, stabilized three-dimensional path that avoids prohibited airspace and significantlyimproves runway availability during poor visibility.

1. The full title of FAA Order 8260.52 is United StatesStandard for Required Navigation Performance (RNP)Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft andAircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR).2. This is equivalent to the ICAO RNP AuthorizationRequired (RNP-AR) approach procedures that arecurrently under development.

Jeff Williams is Manager of the FAA Air TrafficOrganization’s RNAV and RNP Group, and is the U.S.member on the ICAO RNP and Special OperationalRequirements Study Group. John McGraw is Managerof the FAA’s Flight Standards Service’s Flight Techno-logies and Procedures Division, and is responsible forthe implementation of new technologies into aperformance-based U.S. national airspace system.Dr. Hassan Shahidi is the Mitre Programme Managerfor RNAV and RNP.

Information and guidance material on the FAA’sPerformance-Based Navigation Programme can befound at the FAA website (http://www.faa.gov/ats/atp/rnp/rnav.htm).

continued on page 34

HERE was a time when airportdevelopment was entirely a localendeavour performed by nearby

engineering and construction companies,all well versed in the limitations andrestrictions of daily operations at a parti-cular airport. But today — in Europe atleast — large international consortia com-pete for airport construction contracts.Some of these companies have already wonairport contracts in more than one countryand have been surprised to find widelyvarying limitations and restrictions withrespect to safeguarding standard radio navi-gation facilities.

The contractors’ concern about thesenational variations, together with com-ments from air navigation services (ANS)providers noting that construction activi-ties well outside of the airport perimeterwere affecting signals of instrument lan-ding systems in particular, has beenaddressed through dissemination of gui-dance material that promotes use of a stan-dardized process and common criteria.

Developed by the ICAO European AirNavigation Planning Group (EANPG), theguidance material concerns how to deter-mine whether the physical presence of abuilding or any other structure in thevicinity of an airport may have an adverseeffect on the availability or quality of acommunications, navigation or surveil-lance (CNS) signal. The following types offacilities are addressed by the guidelines:distance measuring equipment (DME);very high frequency omnidirectional radiorange (VOR) including conventional and

AERONAUTICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Guidelines promote common process forpreventing interference with CNS signals

A European planning body has developed a standardized method of determining whether buildingsand other objects or structures in the vicinity of airports are likely to interfere with the signals usedfor communications, navigation and surveillance

JULES HERMENS

CAA NETHERLANDS

T

Doppler VOR; direction finder; non-direc-tional radio beacon (NDB); ground-basedaugmentation system (GBAS); instrumentlanding system (ILS) including localizer,glide path and markers; satellite-basedaugmentation system (SBAS) groundmonitoring station; microwave landingsystem (MLS) including azimuth and ele-vation stations; VHF air-ground communi-cation; primary radar; and secondarysurveillance radar (SSR). Some auxiliaryfacilities, like satellite up/down links, VHFand ultra high frequency (UHF) ground-ground communication facilities, micro-wave links and HF facilities are notcovered by the ICAO provisions.

Signal interference, in the context dis-cussed here, involves reflected signals.Signals radiated by a transmitting antennasuch as an ILS localizer are generally sub-ject to reflection from any fixed or movingobjects, among them buildings and vehi-cles, found within the coverage area. Thiseffect is particularly pronounced when the

reflecting objects are large and located at arelatively close distance. At the aircraftreceiver antenna, the reflected signal isreceived with additional delay over thedirect signal because the geometric pathfollowed by the reflected signal is longer.Thus, the total signal received by theaircraft is constituted by the superpositionof the desired signal (direct component)and delayed versions of the desired signal(reflected components). This interferenceto the desired signal caused by the reflec-ted components is known as “multipathinterference.” The rules developed byEANPG deal with the degradation ofthe signal-in-space caused by this typeof interference.

The EANPG guidance material wasdeveloped with the notion of structures inmind. The information, however, appliesequally well to other objects, whethermoving or stationary, temporary or per-manent, which may cause interference toradio signals from CNS facilities. Theseinclude machines, construction equip-ment used for the erection of buildings,excavated soil or even vegetation.

In the context of this guidance material,a building restricted area (BRA) is definedas a surface where infringing buildingshave the potential to cause unacceptableinterference to the signals transmitted byCNS facilities. All CNS facilities have adefined BRA, and this is not limited toactual site boundaries, but extends to sig-nificant distances from the facility. Inestablishing the correct shape of the BRAsurface, it is necessary to consult the appro-priate engineering authority in each State.

The objective of the new guidance materialis to provide a readily accessible, practicalstandard procedure by which authorities

14 ICAO JOURNAL

Buildingapplication

SpecialistEngineering Analysis

InfringeBRA Surfaces?

AcceptableInterference to Facility

Performance

Reject

No

No

Yes

Approval

65

4

3

2

1

Yes

STEP

1ST

EP2

Two-step guidance review process forbuilding projects near airports

may assess building applications. The gene-ral procedure has two steps (see accompa-nying figure) for the approval of buildingsthat may adversely affect CNS facilities.The intention is that Step 1 will be a quickevaluation and Step 2, if required, willinvolve an in-depth analysis.

Step 1 applies a general input screeningmethod to all applications. This screeningstep is intended for use by appropriateauthorities such as airport planners, localofficials and government regulators, whichusually conduct the initial review of buildingapplications. It is intended to ascertainwhether approval can be given directly orwhether the application should be passed tothe appropriate engineering authoritieswhere experienced air traffic safety elec-tronic personnel handle the case. If Step 2 isrequired, the safety engineers will carry outa detailed analysis based on theory, expe-rience and existing conditions. This willcover all aspects of the CNS facility to beprotected and the possible effects of theproposed building on the signal-in-spaceprovided by the facility.

If the generic screening method deter-mines that the BRA surfaces are notinfringed, the process is then terminatedand the application is recorded as

AERONAUTICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

approved. The guidelines recommend,however, that large excavation works andcertain buildings and structures such aswindmills, skyscrapers, TV towers orother tall objects be assessed at all times,even when they are located outside therestricted area. Step 2 is applied whenan infringement of the BRA has beenidentified; at this point, the application ishanded over to the responsible engineer-ing authorities for further analysis.

The results of the analysis by safetyengineers should determine if the interfer-ence effects are acceptable or not. Whereconflicting results arise from the analysisor studies, it is recommended that a con-servative approach be taken and thatconsideration be given to requiring analteration of the proposal.

The building applicant is notified of theacceptance or rejection of the applicationby the appropriate authority. Rejectiondoes not preclude a subsequent modifica-tion and re-submission of the application,and a modified proposal is subjected to theapplicable review processes identified inthe figure. An approval of the buildingapplication is given only after interferenceeffects on the facility’s performance, aswell as impact on other operational

aspects such as obstacle limitation sur-faces, are deemed acceptable.

In order to protect CNS signals, eachtype of facility may have a specific shapefor its BRA surface. In cases wheremore than one facility exists (as typicallyoccurs at an airport), the individual BRAsurfaces may overlap, and they are thendescribed as being “clustered.” Theextremities of these shapes forming thecluster then define the one shape and willform the basis for the overall airport BRAmap. The facility that requires the mostrestrictive BRA takes precedence in Step 1and usually triggers a Step 2 review.

In parallel with ICAO’s development ofharmonized criteria for safeguarding radionavigation facilities in the European andNorth Atlantic regions, as well as thetwo-step process for assessing the needfor building restrictions, Civil AviationAuthority (CAA) Netherlands has deve-loped a method for delegating the firststep of the assessment of new develop-ments around Amsterdam SchipholInternational Airport to concerned bodies

NUMBER 3, 2006 15

Construction activities well outside an airport’s perimeter can adversely affect navigation signals.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

Contributing to this article were Heinz Wipf, ofSkyguide AG, of Switzerland, and John Dyson of theU.K. National Air Traffic Services (NATS).

continued on page 34

HE widespread introduction ofnew aircraft into civil airline fleetsover the past several years has

brought increased capacity and efficien-cy, new routes and air traffic procedures,and a wide variety of associated benefitsto operators and the public at large. Forsome air carriers, however, this unprece-dented expansion has also brought withit an unexpected area of concern: theincreasing cost of operating two similar,but different generation, aircraft.

In many cases today, the operator isflying earlier aircraft types — many ofwhich are now considered “classics” —while at the same time utilizing newer

AVIONICS SYSTEMS

Cost of modernizing older aircraftjustified by improved airspace access

While most earlier models of civil transport aircraft have years of life remaining in their enginesand airframes, without avionics upgrades their operation in various areas is increasingly limitedby new ATC requirements

DON PAOLUCCI

CMC ELECTRONICS

(CANADA)

T

models that feature advanced avionicsand other systems. Usually the older air-craft still have many thousands of cyclesremaining in the useful lives of theirairframes and engines, but differencesbetween their electronic and avionics sys-tems and the systems found on neweraircraft in the fleet can incur significantfinancial penalties.

These penalties are primarily of an ope-rational nature, but they also arise inthe areas of maintenance, spares inventoryand, in some cases, aircraft availability.Consequently, many aircraft operatorsare looking closely at the cost benefits ofavionics upgrades to their earlier fleets.

The operational impacts are many.New air traffic control (ATC) proceduresand equipment requirements for per-formance-based navigation — both areanavigation (RNAV) and required naviga-

tion performance (RNP) — as well asautomatic dependent surveillance (ADS),controller/pilot data link communica-tions (CPDLC), airborne collision avoi-dance equipment and other systems andtechnologies are becoming necessary togain full access to many parts of theworld’s airspace.

Associated benefits. The new avionicssystems already make it possible for thelatest generation aircraft to fly on moreefficient, fuel saving and safer routings,and allow pilots to take full advantageof new technology. Besides these directoperational advantages, they offer a num-ber of associated benefits to the operatorsof older aircraft by decreasing costs andincreasing operational flexibility and effi-ciency at the same time.

Uppermost among these benefits isavoidance of the growing restrictions tofull airspace access for less well equippedaircraft. Coupled with that, the mix of oldand new flight deck technologies in anumber of airline fleets often createsthe need for parallel pilot training andconversion programmes that involvehigh overhead expenses. Moreover, ope-rational flexibility can be lost whendifferent pilot qualifications are requiredto fly earlier and later versions of thesame basic aircraft.

Maintenance of earlier generationequipment can also add unexpectedcosts related to their slowly decreasingreliability through obsolescence. Theresult is increased testing and repairwork, often coupled with growing short-ages in repair parts.

A typical example of this additionalcost is found in flight deck instru-ments, where earlier maintenance-

16 ICAO JOURNAL

KLM in 1999 attained important operational benefits for its fleet of B747 Classicsby upgrading their avionics to provide a functionality equivalent to the systemsfound on its more modern B747-400s.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

intensive electromechanical pointersand dials have been replaced in neweraircraft by electronic “glass cockpit” dis-plays. A modern flight deck normallycarries six or more of these units, andalthough each can display different infor-mation to the crew, all will be electroni-cally and physically identical, sharingthe same part number. This providesa versatility that allows significant in-ventory reduction. What’s more, whilean in-flight failure of a critical electro-mechanical instrument could cause aflight cancellation or diversion, failure ofan electronic display simply means thatthe crew has to transfer its informationonto one of the other screens.

FMS at the heart of an upgrade. Thecommon denominator in all of today’savionics upgrade programmes is theinstallation of an advanced flight mana-gement system (FMS). The FMS can beregarded as the heart of the avionicssuite in aircraft undergoing upgrades.When coupled with a global navigationsatellite system (GNSS) receiver, anadvanced FMS brings unprecedentednavigation accuracy and integrity toall the other new technology systemsinvolved in the upgrade. Put another way,upgrading other avionics units withoutupgrading the aircraft’s FMS and satellitenavigation equipment would significantlyreduce the economic benefit of any othernew systems.

This is particularly the case in complyingwith the performance-based RNAV andRNP requirements now being widelyimplemented along the world’s busiestair routes, where RNP/satellite perfor-mance standards can demand navigationaccuracies of as little as one tenth of amile either side of track, coupled withthe ability to independently monitor trackadherence and alert the crew to anydeviation, all to an availability of 99.999percent. Today’s advanced technologyequipment, among them the CMA-9000FMS and CMA-5024 satellite navigationreceiver supplied by CMC Electronics,can achieve this level of performance.

Built-in flexibility for the future is alsoimportant. The U.S. Federal Aviation

AVIONICS SYSTEMS

Administration (FAA) announced in early2006 that the global positioning system(GPS), when augmented by the FAA’swide area augmentation system (WAAS),would be approved for approaches witha decision height of 200 feet. This capa-bility is equivalent to that available withCategory I precision approaches suppor-ted by today’s instrument landing system(ILS). An upgraded satellite navigationcapability must, therefore, include WAAScapability for U.S. operations. But itmust also have built-in growth potentialto accommodate coming technologiessuch as Europe’s Galileo satellite systemand regional satellite-based augmen-tation systems (SBAS) planned in other

parts of the world, among them the Eu-ropean geostationary navigation overlayservice (EGNOS).

B747 projectA good example of how an avionics

upgrade can extend the life of an impor-tant fleet investment is the KLM Boeing747 upgrade programme completed in1999 by CMC Electronics (CMC), thenknown as Canadian Marconi Company.The airline’s Boeing 747-200/300 fleetwas brought up to an operationally equiv-alent standard to its newer -400 aircraft.Described by an FAA certification officialat the time as the most complex civilupgrade and integration project under-

NUMBER 3, 2006 17

Before-and-after views illustrate a comprehensive cockpit upgrade completedrecently for a Lockheed L-100 civil transport operated by the Government of Dubai.

taken to date, the programme involvedthe installation of three integrated flightmanagement/satellite navigation sys-tems, three laser inertial navigationsensors and seven electronic flightinstrument displays, plus satellite com-munications, performance management,aircraft condition monitoring and asso-ciated units.

In recent years similar upgrade pro-jects have been completed for over100 classic Boeing 747s, plus a numberof McDonnell Douglas DC-10s operatedby several international air carriers. Lesscomprehensive upgrades have been per-formed on McDonnell Douglas MD-80s,Boeing 727s and 737s, and other earliergeneration narrow-body aircraft. In paral-

AVIONICS SYSTEMS

lel, a very large number of upgradeshave been completed for a wide rangeof corporate and military aircraft, withparticular emphasis on applications intrainers and transports such as theLockheed C-130. Some of these instal-lations include head-up displays andinfrared enhanced vision systems.

A recent example of an upgrade incor-porating several of the latest technologiescan be seen in the Lockheed L-100 civiltransport operated by the Government ofDubai’s Air Wing. Here, besides newelectronic instrument displays, advancedflight management/satellite navigationsystems, inertial navigation sensors andan upgraded weather radar, the installa-tion included a Mode-S transponder, an

airborne collision avoidance system(ACAS), a terrain warning system, flightdata and cockpit voice recorders, a digitalair data system compliant with reducedvertical separation minimum (RVSM)operations and dual electronic flight bagdisplays, none of which are normallyfound in this class of aircraft.

Flexibility the keyWhile aircraft leave the production line

in fairly uniform configurations, their

18 ICAO JOURNAL

STAYING AHEAD OF THE FUTURE

HE KLM B747 upgrade project of1999 clearly proved the benefitof replicating the airline’s Boeing

747 avionics installation at the supplier’sintegration laboratory. By using actualavionics units and controls, includingboth the new systems and those retainedfrom the original installation, engineerswere able to test every operational func-tion of the new configuration throughoutall flight phases, including single andmultiple failure modes, and preciselymeasure its performance against dataapplicable to the actual aircraft. Thisapproach minimized the aircraft installa-tion down time and, perhaps more impor-tantly, significantly reduced the amountof costly test flying in each line aircraft.

The laboratory installation was built asan “open architecture” design which, bysubstitution of different avionics units,allowed engineers to replicate the configu-rations of a variety of other aircraft, largeand small, following the KLM project.While this approach was successful, theneed to physically introduce a variety ofdifferent avionics units — or similar unitsat different modification levels — occa-sionally posed difficult logistics problems.

Consequently, and taking advantageof advances in computing power and simu-lation technology since launching itsKLM test facility, CMC developed itsnext-generation FMS dynamic test bed(DTB) in conjunction with scientists atMontreal’s Concordia University.

Now, the exact characteristics of allavionics systems currently in commercialservice — and at all desired modificationstates — are stored in "virtual" electronicform in the DTB’s computer database,from which the engineers can select unitsto “install” for a given upgrade project.This not only provides extraordinary

flexibility to the integration team, butalso eliminates the costly and time-consuming need to use actual hardwareto build a replica of the candidateaircraft’s avionics suite.

The DTB is designed to support allcritical areas of an upgrade programme,including:• fixed-wing and helicopter applications;• full flight regimes, including lateral andvertical navigation;• future navigation and ATC requirements;• failure mode simulations;• human factors issues; and• certification.

Among the unique features of the DTBis a cockpit-like compartment where cus-tomer pilots and avionics specialists can“fly” and observe the operational charac-teristics of the upgrade configuration,and discuss them with members of theintegration team. This is an importantstep in understanding any changes in pro-cedures brought about by the upgrade,particularly with regard to the newer,more efficient techniques which it willoffer. Important human factors issuescan also be reviewed. The DTB’s “pseudo

A dynamic test bed provides avionicssystems integrators with important flexi-bility while eliminating the costly andtime-consuming need to use actual hard-ware in building a replica of an aircraft’savionics suite.

T

Don Paolucci is the Director of Avionics for CMCElectronics of Montreal, Canada. Readers may obtainmore information about the aircraft modernizationprogramme described in this article on the worldwideweb (www.cmcelectronics.ca) or by contacting theauthor (don.paolucci@cmcelectronics.ca).

continued on page 31

continued on page 31

ITHOUT worldwide coopera-tion, a saturated air trafficmanagement (ATM) system

will not be able to cope with forecast traf-fic growth, which is expected to morethan double within the next 20 years. Theimplementation of advanced communica-tions, navigation and surveillance (CNS)technologies in support of a more efficientglobal ATM system is expected to alleviatethis traffic congestion while concurrentlyimproving safety, reliability, and efficiencyacross all airspace domains.

Planning for the implementation of thesesystems has nevertheless been a complexundertaking. The new technologies mustbe based on a well developed plan thattakes into account the specific require-ments and objectives of air traffic manage-ment. A lack of awareness of the economicsof transition to the new operational concepthas so far hindered the pace of its imple-mentation.

Both service providers and airspaceusers have several alternatives available tothem when deciding how to achieve theseATM objectives, and their decisions arehighly interdependent. In particular, deci-sions on what conventional equipment tokeep operating and what new technologyto implement, as well as when to proceedwith the transition, have significant econo-mic implications for air navigation services(ANS) providers as well as for airspace users.

Decisions concerning ANS equipmentinevitably affect decisions by aircraft opera-

CNS/ATM SYSTEMS

Interactive analytical tool allows usersto evaluate CNS/ATM business cases

A new ICAO software programme showcases the economic basis for implementing the technologiesrequired to establish a global ATM system

tors about avionics. What further compli-cates matters is the fact that aircraft flythrough airspace controlled by differentANS providers. If there is no commonalityamong the solutions chosen by serviceproviders, it is difficult and probably moreexpensive for operators to equip their air-craft adequately. In planning the transitionto new technologies, therefore, a coordi-nated process needs to be establishedbetween the various service providers andairspace users. One of the ways ICAO isaddressing this requirement for coordina-tion is through its revised Global AirNavigation Plan and a set of interactiveplanning tools (see “Global Plan stressesinitiatives that lead to direct performanceenhancements,” Issue 2/2006, page 13). Animportant aspect of the planning processis to conduct cost-benefit analyses of thevarious scenarios, as described below.

Planning for the implementation ofadvanced CNS systems includes severalsteps beginning with the definition of

homogeneous ATM areas and the develop-ment of forecasts for the major trafficflows and traffic densities. With this infor-mation at hand, further steps involve set-ting the ATM objectives, determining theoperational requirements, identifying thevarious technical solutions, and perform-ing a financial analysis. Finally, plannersmust decide on a set of performanceobjectives, such as an optimum air routestructure, supported by Global Plan initia-tives and project management techniques.

Given the rapid pace of technologicalchange, the planning process needs to beflexible and dynamic. Planning, however,must be operationally and not technological-ly driven. Since the primary influences oninvestment decisions are financial in nature,it is critical for States to develop a soundbusiness case. A concerted effort is requiredto achieve consensus among major stake-holders and the financial community on thecost-effective implementation of new systems.

There must also be a disciplined process

NUMBER 3, 2006 19

Global cooperation is paramount if the problem of air traffic congestion is to besuccessfully addressed in the coming years.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

CHAOUKI MUSTAPHA

ICAO SECRETARIAT

UPALI WICKRAMA

GLOBAL AVIATION CONSULTING

(UNITED STATES)

W

for the development of business cases thatare available to all stakeholders, in parti-cular for those with the primary influence— namely the service providers and air-space users. The business case should beable to demonstrate and justify the invest-ment requirements as well as the mannerin which the provider would be able torecover its investment through the provi-sion of air navigation services. Similarly,airspace users — primarily the airlines —would benefit from operating more effi-

cient and preferred flight profiles, thusreducing operating costs. The businesscase should also analyse the influence ofeach factor and option in order to provideguidance as to which uncertainties need tobe minimized. Once the business case hasbeen accepted by stakeholders, an integrat-ed development plan can be established andfinancial requirements secured.

Responding to the need for an integrat-

CNS/ATM SYSTEMS

ed planning approach, ICAO recentlycompleted development of software thatfacilitates financial analysis of CNS/ATMbusiness cases which will support theGlobal Plan and its initiatives. The model,known as the CNS/ATM database andfinancial analysis computer system(DFACS), is an interactive tool that enablesANS providers and airspace users to build,evaluate and compare alternative scenariosfor the cost-effective implementation of newsystems. The interactive model has three

main components: adatabase, scenariocreation and the pro-duction of reports.

The DFACS data-base componenthelps software usersto manage the refe-rence data requiredfor the creation andevaluation of diffe-rent implementationscenarios. The refe-rence data is classi-fied according tothree segments, eachof which corres-ponds to a particu-lar menu item. Thesegments concerngeographical data,ANS-related data, andairspace users’ data.

The geographicalsegment organizesdata according tothe physical loca-tion of air naviga-tion facilities. Forexample, all loca-tions published in

ICAO Document 7910, Location Indicators,can be loaded into the database alongwith their corresponding States. Theusers can also define a region by select-ing a number of appropriate States; simi-larly, the user may select a homogeneousATM area based on similar characteris-tics of traffic density, air navigation sys-tems, infrastructure requirements orother specified requirements. This pro-

vides the necessary tools to manage thegeographical data based on any combina-tion of requirements.

The segment for ANS-related dataallows the software user to define equip-ment categories and/or functions (e.g.communications, navigation or surveil-lance), cost categories unrelated to equip-ment (e.g. labour and material), as well asthe lists of conventional and new techno-logy equipment types and their associatedcosts, including those related to equipmentpurchase, installation, average annual main-tenance, and inspection. The list of theconventional facilities currently in opera-tion can also be defined by physical loca-tion through this option.

The airspace users’ data segment is formaintaining the data related to avionicsequipment costs and also the averageoperating costs associated with differentaircraft types.

Once the database component for eachof these segments has been completed,DFACS may be used to build, analyse andcompare various implementation scena-rios. This feature involves the definitionand selection of a homogeneous ATMarea which may comprise a region, a State,or combination of States and regions.

From the perspective of the serviceprovider, the scenarios involve decisionsabout the continued operation of conven-tional equipment or its replacement withnew technology. With respect to airspaceusers, the scenario creation includes airtraffic and fleet forecasts by aircraft type,decisions concerning the introductionand timing of avionics equipage, and esti-mates of the average reduction in flighttime resulting from the use of new tech-nologies. Other costs for ANS providers,such as controller and technician expensesand overhead, as well as similar costs forairspace users, are included in the scena-rio creation.

Aircraft operators may use the software

20 ICAO JOURNAL

Example screen shots illustrate how DFACS can be used toanalyse various aspects of a CNS/ATM business case.

Chaouki Mustapha is an Economist in the EconomicAnalyses and Databases Section of the Air TransportBureau at ICAO headquarters, Montreal. UpaliWickrama, formerly of ICAO, is the founder and Presi-dent of Global Aviation Consulting (www.wickrama.com),which is based in Seattle, Wash., United States.

continued on page 32

IRDS and other wildlife are anincreasing problem for the avia-tion industry. There are a number

of reasons for this worsening trend,which is illustrated by statistics onwildlife strikes that have been collectedover a period of years.

One reason for the growing number ofstrikes can be traced to highly successfulprogrammes funded by governmentalorganizations during the past 30 years,among them initiatives to regulate pesti-cide use, expand wildlife refuge systemsand restore wetlands. Coupled with land-use changes, these conservation effortshave resulted in dramatic increases in thepopulations of many wildlife species inNorth America, Europe and elsewhere.

Among the 36 largest bird species inNorth America, 24 have shown signifi-cant population growth in the past threedecades; at the same time, only three ofthese large species have shown a decline.The non-migratory population of Canadageese resident in the United States — abird that weighs from three to five kilo-grams — more than tripled from 1 millionto 3.5 million between 1990 and 2005. Thedouble-crested cormorant population on theGreat Lakes of the United States and Canadahave increased from some 100 nestingpairs in 1972 to over 130,000 pairs by2005 (see figure, page 22). Double-crestedcormorants typically weigh about twokilograms, and have a body density that is30 percent more dense than gulls and geese.

While the number of large birds hasbeen on the rise, it is noteworthy that

WILDLIFE HAZARDS

Birds and aircraft are competingfor space in crowded skies

Statistics show that birds and other wildlife are a growing problem for aircraft operators, with civilaircraft in the United States alone involved in some 7,000 wildlife strikes during 2005

DR. RICHARD A. DOLBEER

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(UNITED STATES)

most aircraft components,including engines, are nottested or certified for colli-sions with birds weighingmore than 1.8 kilograms.There have been a numberof strikes causing signifi-cant damage, includinguncontained engine failuresand cockpit penetrations,with birds weighing muchless than 1.8 kilograms.

Many birds have adapted to urbanenvironments and find that airports,which offer expansive areas of grass andpavement, are attractive habitats for feed-ing and resting. Other wildlife, such asdeer and wild dogs, are attracted toairport environments for similar reasons.

Yet another factor in the growingnumber of strikes is the quieter enginesfound on modern aircraft, which areless apparent to birds than the older,noisier powerplants.

Some 7,100 wildlife collisions with civilaircraft were reported in the United Statesduring 2005, compared to 1,719 strikesin 1990. Some experts have estimatedthat wildlife strikes, of which 98 percentinvolve birds, cost the U.S. civil aviationindustry about $500 million per yearbetween 1990 and 2004 (all financial

figures in U.S. currency). One resear-cher has estimated that bird strikes costcommercial air carriers worldwide over$1.2 billion annually during 1999-2000.

At least 195 people have died and168 aircraft have been destroyed as aconsequence of bird and other wildlifestrikes with civil and military aircraftsince 1988, according to unpublisheddata collected by a number of scientists,including the author. Researchers havealso established that at least 17 civilaircraft have been destroyed by deerstrikes in the United States since 1983.

Mitigating the riskThere are a number of measures that

airport authorities can take to minimizethe hazards posed by wildlife. One impor-tant step is to ensure that they comply

B

NUMBER 3, 2006 21

Wildlife strikes, the vast majority of whichinvolve birds, cost airlines about $500 millionper year in the U.S. alone. Above: An uncon-tained engine failure and fire occurred aftera cormorant was ingested into this MD-80’sport engine in September 2004. Left: Enginedamage resulting from collision with twoCanada geese in September 2003; one fanblade separated from the disk and penetratedthe fuselage.

with the ICAO standards regardingbird hazards to aviation. These call forauthorities to:• assess the extent of the hazard posedby birds on and in the vicinity of airports;• take necessary action to decrease thenumber of birds; and• eliminate or prevent the establishmentof any site in the vicinity of the airportwhich would be an attraction to birds andthereby present a danger to aviation.

These provisions, originally developedas recommended practices in 1990, wereupgraded to mandatory standards in2003 as a consequence of the increasingthreat to aviation worldwide caused by

birds. The new requirements containedin Annex 14 to the Convention on Inter-national Civil Aviation (also known asthe Chicago Convention)1 represent asignificant challenge for many airportsthroughout the world.

Based on the findings of the assess-ment of bird hazards, airports shoulddevelop and implement a wildlife hazardmanagement plan. Wildlife hazard man-agement plans typically call for the air-port to remove habitat and food attractiveto wildlife. They also involve the use ofvarious techniques, ranging from netting,pyrotechnics, lasers and even patrolswith trained falcons or dogs, to exclude,disperse or remove hazardous wildlife.Wildlife hazard management plans nor-

WILDLIFE HAZARDS

mally require the establishment of an air-port wildlife hazard working group tomonitor and coordinate wildlife controlactivities at the airport.

Because the management of hazar-dous birds and other wildlife is a complexendeavour involving numerous speciesprotected by national or local laws, pro-fessional biologists trained in managingwildlife damage are needed to conductassessments and to develop and overseewildlife hazard management plans forairports. The U.S. Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) and Department ofAgriculture have published a 348-pagemanual, Wildlife Hazard Management at

Airports, that provides detailed guidanceand background material. The documentis available on the web (http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov).

Although the management of wildlifehazardous to civil aviation is primarilyan airport’s responsibility, there areactions that can be taken by air carriersand pilots to assist in reducing the num-ber of damaging wildlife strikes. Forexample, if concentrations of birds are ona runway, pilots should not attempttake-off until the birds have been dis-persed by airport operations personnel.It is important therefore to reportwildlife hazards observed at the airportto the air traffic control (ATC) tower orairport operations.

It should never be assumed that birdswill see an approaching aircraft and dis-perse. Operators cannot rely on on-boardradar, lights, noise or spinner markingsto alert birds to approaching aircraft.

Pilots should also avoid airspeeds ofmore than 250 knots below 10,000 feetabove ground level (AGL), especially attimes of the year when birds are migra-ting. Aircraft speed is more critical thanbird size (body mass) in causing colli-sion damage.

Air carriers must ensure that all food wastein ramp areas is covered and inaccessibleto birds and, likewise, they must prohibitthe feeding of birds by their employees.

Even when there is no obvious damage,flight crews should report all wildlifestrikes. The correct identification of thespecies struck is critical. Local biologistscan often identify the species by exami-ning feather remains. (In the UnitedStates, feather remains sent to theSmithsonian Institution will be identifiedfree-of-charge.)

Air carriers need to provide pilots,mechanics and maintenance personnelwith education and guidance concerningthe actions and techniques cited above.Finally, airlines should obtain local repre-sentation on the wildlife hazard task forceat airports where strike problems havebeen experienced.

Frequently asked questionsAny educational effort undertaken

by air carriers should address the ques-tions frequently asked by operatingpersonnel. The most frequently askedquestions in the author’s experience arehighlighted below, as well as briefanswers based on U.S. bird strike dataand derived primarily from the report,Wildlife strikes to Civil Aircraft in theUnited States, 1990-2004, which waspublished in 2005.2

Q: At what height above ground level do moststrikes occur? Do bird strikes ever occur atheights greater than 500 feet AGL?A: The world height record for a birdstrike is 37,000 feet. In the United States,bird strikes have been reported up to32,000 feet, but most collisions (57 percent)

22 ICAO JOURNAL

Professionally trained personnel are needed to conduct assessments and to developand oversee wildlife hazard management plans for airports.

U.S

.Dep

artm

ent

of

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

causing substantial damage occur below100 feet. Thus, wildlife control on theairport is critical to reducing strikes.An additional 9 percent of strikes withsubstantial damage occur between 100and 500 feet, while 29 percent occurabove 500 feet and below 3,500 feet. Only5 percent of strikes involving seriousdamage occur above this height.

Because a significant number of stri-kes involving substantial damage occurbetween 500 and 3,500 feet (over 445were reported for civil aircraft in U.S.airspace during the 1990-2004 period),pilots should climb as expeditiously aspossible in areas and during seasons ofhigh bird activity in order to minimizeexposure time. They should also avoidhigh-speed flight below 10,000 feet, sincespeed is an important factor in the type ofdamage caused by a strike. This is becausethe damaging force of a bird strike is gen-erated by mass times velocity squared.

Do more strikes occur during take-off orlanding? More strikes occur duringlanding; in fact, about 40 percent morebird strikes and 66 percent more deerstrikes are reported during the landingphase of flight (i.e. the approach andlanding roll) compared to the take-off runand climb.

Shouldn’t birds sitting or standing on therunway notice an approaching aircraft andmove out of harm’s way? Pilots should notassume, as noted above, that birds willdetect the aircraft in time to avoid astrike. Studies have indicated that about80 percent of birds will attempt to avoidapproaching aircraft, but their avoidancereaction may be too late or inappropriate.

One explanation is that birds often faceinto the wind when standingand usually take-off and landinto the wind, which meansthat they often will face awayfrom an approaching aircraftat airports. Furthermore, birdsare apparently less able todetect modern aircraft withquieter engines, which arenow far more prevalent atmost airports than older andnoisier aircraft.

WILDLIFE HAZARDS

Do birds normally dive or climb when tak-ing evasive action in response to anapproaching aircraft? An analysis of pilotobservations of bird reactions to approach-ing aircraft indicated that when the aircraftwas higher than 500 feet AGL, 87 percent ofbirds that showed a defined reactionattempted to dive, while just 8 percent ofthese birds attempted to climb. In contrast,below 500 feet AGL only 25 percent of thebirds encountered attempted to dive and32 percent tried to climb. These data sug-gest that avoidancemanoeuvres by birdsare governed to someextent by the heightof the encounter.Birds above 500 feetAGL will usually divewhen they detect anapproaching threatand, if an avoidancemanoeuvre is possi-ble, the pilot in thesecircumstances shouldtry to fly above thebirds encountered.However, it is impor-tant to bear in mindthat birds flying closeto the ground across a runway exhibitunpredictable manoeuvres when trying toavoid an aircraft.

Are bird strikes only a problem during day-light? Many bird species, including geeseand ducks, migrate at night. Waterfowl willalso actively feed at night. If left undis-turbed, gulls and other species will some-times rest on runways overnight. While itis true that about 2.6 times more totalstrikes to civil aircraft occur during day-

light than at night, the probability of astrike in terms of the number of aircraftmovements is actually greater at night.This is especially true for strikes above500 feet AGL. Only 16 percent of all strikesabove 500 feet occur during daylight, com-pared to 61 percent of strikes at night.

What about the season of the year? Aresome months worse than others for birdstrikes? In North America, the period ofJuly-November, and especially the monthof August, is the worst period for damag-

ing bird strikes below 500 feet AGL. Inthe northern hemisphere, bird popula-tions are at their highest levels duringlate summer and contain many youngbirds that are not skilled flyers. Above500 feet, the periods of September-November and April-May are the mostdangerous seasons in North Americabecause these are the peak times formigration.

Are strikes more likely under certainweather conditions? Morestrikes occur on rainy dayscompared to dry days, basedon statistical analyses of strikedata. This increase in strikesmight be related to the greaterabundance of invertebrate food(such as earthworms) at thesoil surface during wet weatherand the tendency of birds suchas gulls to wait out storms bystanding on pavement.

NUMBER 3, 2006 23

Nest

ing

pairs

140 (000s)

120

100

80

60

40

20

01970 76 82 88 94 2000 06

DDT banned

Standing water is a strong attractant to waterfowl, gulls, andwading birds such as egrets and herons. Airport managersshould strive to eliminate all standing water.

Breeding population of cormorants on the Great Lakes of NorthAmerica, 1970-2005

R.A

.Do

lbee

r

Are bird strikes more likely to occurto wing-mounted engines or fuselage-mounted engines? Wing-mounted engineswere five times more likely to be struckby a bird than engines mounted on thefuselage, a conclusion based on an analy-sis of engine strikes per 10,000movements by commercial air carri-ers in the United States during1990-99.

Does the deployment of on-boardradar disperse birds from the path ofan approaching aircraft? It is truethat many species of birds are moresensitive than humans to certainstimuli. Some bird species, forexample, use the earth’s magneticfield as a navigational cue during migra-tion, and some birds have shown an aver-sion to microwave radiation. Birds also candetect light waves in the ultraviolet rangebeyond what humans see. There is noscientific evidence, however, that birdsdetect radar deployed on aircraft.Furthermore, even if birds did detectsuch microwave radiation, there is noevidence that such detection would besensed as a threat and cause birds toavoid the aircraft.

What about visual devices, such aspulsating landing lights or painted enginespinners, to alert birds of approaching air-craft? Studies have shown that birds oftenrespond to light beams by performingabrupt avoidance manoeuvres. There isanecdotal evidence and limited experi-mental data suggesting that pulsatinglanding lights might reduce bird strikes.Regarding visual markings, one com-mercial air carrier detected a slightlyreduced rate of engine strikes for aircraftwith white-painted spinners compared tothose with unmarked spinners in a two-year study that was published in 1988. Itdoes not appear, however, that any follow-up study has been conducted. Additionalresearch is needed to determine if thereare strategies that could be optimized —examples include the use of electromag-netic signals, landing light pulse andwave-length frequency, and the reflectivecharacteristics of aircraft paint — tomake aircraft more visible to birds.

WILDLIFE HAZARDS

Do ultrasonic devices keep birds out ofhangars and off the airfield? Ultrasonicdevices are not effective against birds inhangars or on the airfield. Several experi-ments have documented that birds do nothear in the ultrasonic range any better than

humans. In fact, most birds are less able tohear higher frequency sounds than humans.

Why should a pilot report a bird strike?Will reported strikes result in negative pub-licity for the company? National wildlifestrike databases are essential to provide ascientific foundation for methods to reducethe costs and safety hazards of strikes.Scientists and airport managers cannotsolve a problem they do not understand,and airports are less likely to take actionsto reduce strikes if these events are notdocumented. Documentation of the prob-lem also is an important means of educat-ing the public about the need to managewildlife at airports. In the United States,publicly released statistical analyses andsummaries of data from the nationalwildlife strike database do not identify theairport, air carrier or engine manufacturer.

How does someone report a strike andensure that the bird species is properly iden-tified? Each country needs to establish areporting procedure based on the ICAOBird Strike Information System (IBIS).Reports compiled at the national levelshould be forwarded to ICAO.

In the United States, bird strikes can bereported electronically to the FAA usingForm 5200-7, available at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov. Several air carriershave established links so that strike reportsfiled internally are automatically reported tothe FAA. The form also can be printed, filledout manually and mailed postage-free.Wildlife biologists working at airports can

often identify the species struck if suffi-cient remains are available.

ConclusionsAs highlighted above, ICAO has

responded to the growing hazard of birdstrikes by introducing more stringentprovisions for mitigating wildlife haz-ards at airports. Recommended prac-tices have been upgraded to stan-dards, and airports worldwide needto ensure that they are in compliancewith these ICAO requirements aswell as national regulations.

Integrated management program-mes such as those carried out by bio-logists from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture and other organizations atmany airports in the United States provideexamples of successful efforts to minimizewildlife hazards to aviation.

Finally, there is a need to better educatepilots and air carrier personnel regardingthe reporting of wildlife strikes and theactions that can be taken to reduce theprobability of strikes. Moreover, research isneeded to obtain a better understanding ofbehavioural reactions of birds to approach-ing aircraft, and methods of enhancing theawareness of birds to these aircraft. Indeed,future research results may make it neces-sary to modify some of the findings andconclusions presented in this article. ■■

24

It should never be assumed that birds will see anapproaching aircraft and disperse.

Ger

ry E

rco

lan

i

1. The technical annexes to the Chicago Convention, num-bering 18 in all, contain provisions for the safe, secure, order-ly and efficient development of international civil aviation.2. The 53-page report, prepared by E.C. Cleary, R.A.Dolbeer and S.E. Wright, was published in 2005 by the U.S.Department of Transportation, FAA as Serial Report No. 11,DOT/FAA/AS/00-6 (AAS-310). The document is viewable athttp://wildlife-mitigation.tc. faa.gov/.The bird strike database used for the analysis described inthis article was supported by the FAA’s William HughesTechnical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey under an exist-ing agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Richard A. Dolbeer is the National Coordinator of the AirportSafety and Assistance Programme in the Wildlife Servicesbranch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2005,Dr. Dolbeer was the winner of the U.S. Federal AviationAdministration’s “Excellence in Aviation Research Award.”

This article was accompanied by a lengthy list of referencesthat has not been reproduced here. For more informationconcerning wildlife hazard management or reference mate-rial, readers may contact the author via e-mail (richard.a.dolbeer@usda.gov).

Opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarilyreflect current FAA policy or the views of any commercialair carrier. The author acknowledges the contribution ofCapt. Paul Eschenfelder of Avion Corp. to the developmentof this article, as well as the support of FAA employeesS. Agrawal, E.C. Cleary and M. Hovan.

ICAO JOURNAL

ICAO UPDATE Global cooperation is key to progress, Council President stressesAs his long tenure as Council President draws to a close, Dr.Assad Kotaite has been stressing the importance of globalcooperation in addressing the various challenges faced by theinternational civil aviation community. At recent conferencesand meetings — regardless of the focus — the CouncilPresident called for the aviation commu-nity to work as one.

“Throughout my 53-year career, I havezealously promoted global cooperationamong States and all members of theworld aviation community as the mosteffective way of addressing the chal-lenges associated with change, be theytechnical, economic, social or political,”Dr. Kotaite reminded his audience at the“Wings of Change” Conference organizedjointly by Chile and the International AirTransport Association (IATA) in Santiago inlate March.

“In this early part of the 21st century,” Dr.Kotaite said, “the wings of change aretaking us into sometimes uncharted skies.Safety and security, liberalization of theindustry, sustained growth in passengerand cargo traffic and the environmentrequire unprecedented levels of coopera-tion to further reinforce the integrity of theglobal air transport system and its abilityto benefit mankind.”

At an IATA meeting on aviation and theenvironment in Geneva in late April, theaccent was again on cooperative solutions. Pointing out thattechnological advances resulting in improved fuel efficiencyhave so far been offset by growth in traffic, Dr. Kotaite told par-ticipants of the Second Aviation and Environment Summit that“we must pursue our work on technological and operationalimprovements that will bring continuous incremental reduc-tions in noise and emissions.” Policies and practices thatreflect the realities of a constantly changing environment areessential, he added. “Above all, we must reaffirm our commit-ment to global cooperation and global consensus, under theleadership of ICAO and through its Committee on AviationEnvironmental Protection. Our many successes in this andother fields have always been the result of timely, concertedand globally harmonized action through ICAO.”

In Salzburg, Austria, he told delegates to the EuropeanAviation Summit in early May that liberalization of the air trans-port sector, one of the profound and powerful forces shakingthe world, “should not be sweet for some and bitter for others.”

The fruits of liberalization should be distributed fairly andequally among all parties, as intended by the ChicagoConvention. The alternative, he cautioned, could be negotia-tions that might favour a region or a block, rather than a sys-

tem which provides a level playing field. “This would be coun-terproductive and only result in undermining the global regula-tory framework.”

The Council President also underscored the importance ofregional cooperation. Speaking at the 8th Session of the General

Assembly of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC) inMorocco in mid-May, he applauded the emergence of the ArabAir Transport Liberalization Agreement, describing this as a majoradvance in regional liberalization.

During his recent speaking engagements, Dr. Kotaite citedimportant ICAO conferences that had constituted milestones forglobal cooperation. The 5th Worldwide Air Transport Conferenceheld in Montreal in 2003, he pointed out, had produced a glob-al framework for liberalization. The final declaration of the con-ference provided States with a clear direction and practicalguidance for liberalizing their air transport industries at their ownpace, and in accordance with globally endorsed principles andpractices. Similarly, a conference of directors general of civil avi-ation (DGCAs) held at ICAO headquarters in March 2006 devel-oped a global strategy for aviation safety in the 21st century.Underpinning this strategy is greater transparency and sharingof information among States and key stakeholders, includingthe public (see “Global safety conference heralds new era ofopenness,” Issue 2/2006, pp 5-7).

During his recent travels, the Council President met withgovernment and industry leaders to discuss a range of aviationissues. On his visit to Santiago from 27 to 30 March, he met

NUMBER 3, 2006 25

A gala dinner organized by the Latin American aviation community and IATA was held inSantiago on 29 March in Council President Dr. Assad Kotaite’s honour. Pictured during theoccasion are (l-r): Marcos Meirelles, former Representative of Chile on the Council of ICAO;Roberto Kobeh González, Representative of Mexico on the Council of ICAO and CouncilPresident-elect; Gonzalo Miranda Aguirre, Representative of Chile on the Council of ICAO;Vivianne Blanlot, Minister of National Defence of Chile; Dr. Kotaite; and Osvaldo Sarabia,Commander and Chief of the Chilean Air Force.

with the Minister of Defence, the Vice-Minister of ForeignAffairs, the Minister of Transport, and the Director General ofCivil Aeronautics. Their discussions covered the conclusionsand recommendations of the recent ICAO DGCA Conference,the status of safety and security audits of Chile, environmentalissues, the ratification of certain international air law instru-ments, and technical cooperation activities. The meetings werealso attended by the current and former representatives of Chileon the Council of ICAO, and the ICAO Council President-elect.Dr. Kotaite also met with the President of LAN Airlines (former-ly known as Lan Chile).

The 4th Annual Wings of Change Conference which theCouncil President addressed was held in conjunction with theInternational Air and Space Fair (FIDAE 2006), in which 40countries and 300 exhibitors participated. On 29 March a galadinner was held in Dr. Kotaite’s honour. Organized by the LatinAmerican aviation community and IATA, the event celebratedthe Council President’s lifetime contribution to the developmentof international civil aviation (see photo, page 25). Dr. Kotaitewill retire as President of the Council on 31 July 2006.

In Geneva from 24 to 26 April, the Council President attendedand addressed the Second Aviation and Environment Summitorganized jointly by the Airports Council International (ACI), theAir Transport Action Group (ATAG), the Civil Air Navigation Servi-ces Organization (CANSO), IATA and the International Coordi-nating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA).The meeting, attended by more than 300 aviation leaders from40 countries, was held to renew the environmental strategyadopted at the first summit a year ago and to strengthen collec-tive action to reduce noise and emissions from air transport.

While in Geneva the Council President met with the DirectorGeneral of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to discussworking arrangements between ICAO and WTO as well as apossible agreement between the organizations to ensure effec-tive coordination in matters concerning the aviation sector.

On a visit to Beirut, Lebanon from 27 April to 2 May, theCouncil President discussed aviation matters with the PrimeMinister of Lebanon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Ministerof Public Works and Transport, the Director General of CivilAviation, and the President of Middle East Airlines. Discussionsfocused primarily on technical cooperation activities, the acquisi-tion of a flight simulator for the civil aviation training centre inBeirut, the creation of a Middle East regional monitoring agencyat Bahrain, and development of a regional safety initiative knownas the Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Con-tinuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP). COSCAP projectsare based on cooperative arrangements between States in aparticular region, in this case those of the Eastern Mediterranean.

The European Aviation Summit that was addressed by Dr.Kotaite attracted 170 participants from European States andinternational and regional organizations. The main theme wasthe removal of barriers to competition in the European aviationindustry and the signing of aviation agreements with countriesof the Western Balkans, Iceland and Norway. While in Salzburgfrom 3 to 5 May, Dr. Kotaite during the summit discussed issuesrelated to the environment, the Single Sky initiative, and thesafety and security of civil aviation with the Vice Chancellor andMinister for Transport, Innovation, and Technology, and the VicePresident of the European Commission and European Commis-sioner for Transport.

In Marrakech on 15-16 May to participate in the ACAC GeneralAssembly, Dr. Kotaite had discussions with several DGCAs ofArab administrations. DGCAs from all 16 ACAC member Statesattended the session, as well as observers from international andregional organizations. Discussions focused primarily on activi-ties of the Commission and its work programme for the 2007-08period, the liberalization of air transport, open sky agreements,aviation safety and security, legal matters, financial and adminis-trative affairs, and coordination among Arab States in aviationmatters. Special emphasis was made on working and coordinat-ing with ICAO in all fields related to civil aviation. ■■

26 ICAO JOURNAL

Dr. Kotaite addressed the 8th Session of the GeneralAssembly of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission held inMarrakech on 15-16 May. DGCAs from all 16 ACAC memberStates were in attendance.

Farewell address to ANCICAO Council President Dr. Assad Kotaite addressed the AirNavigation Commission for the last time on 18 April 2006.First elected as President of the Council in 1975, Dr. Kotaitewill retire from ICAO on 31 July.

In his remarks to the Commission, Dr. Kotaite emphasizedthat safety and security were the cornerstones of the organi-zation. Even though there is no mention of aviation security inthe Chicago Convention of 1944, the charter of ICAO, secu-rity has become the “flip side” of safety, he indicated, and noflight could be safe without effective security.

Dr. Kotaite reflected on the importance of the recently con-cluded Directors General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) Conferencethat had successfully agreed on a global strategy for aviationsafety (see Issue 2/2006, pp 5-7). He remarked that the confe-rence declaration recognized that the Chicago Conventionand its annexes provide the essential framework required tomeet the safety needs of a global aviation system, and calledupon ICAO to study the development of a new annex to theConvention dedicated to safety processes. Following Council’sconsideration of the outcome of the DGCA meeting, he added,the ANC could expect to be tasked with developing specificproposals for action.

The Council President recalled that during his long career,the Commission, the Secretariat and the Air Navigation Bureauin particular had managed to provide the fundamental basisfor a safe and secure air transport system despite facing manychallenges. Dr. Kotaite expressed his sincere appreciation tothe ANC for its “constant support over the years.”

NUMBER 3, 2006 27

Secretary General addresses staffconcerning business planICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif addressed ICAO staff on10 May about some of the strategic initiatives that have beenundertaken by the organization in recent months to addressongoing budgetary constraints, including implementation of abusiness plan as the cornerstone of the organization’s activities.

The business plan, he explained, is essentially “a new wayof doing business.” (See “New ICAO business plan is part ofa broad strategy initiative,” Issue 6/2005, page 5.)

Among the advantages of the plan, Dr. Chérif added, is itsfocus on results and the introduction of new working methodsthat increase efficiency and effectiveness with limitedresources. “Overall,” he summed up, the plan “fosters agreater sense of responsibility throughout the organization anddemonstrates value to member States for their [financial] con-tributions.”

The Secretary General noted that ICAO had already bene-fited from the initial implementation of the business plan. Themore widespread use of information technology, for example,had considerably streamlined ICAO’s working processes andprocedures. “This has resulted in significant savings in termsof time, money and resources,” he said.

The improvements are part of an organization-wide exer-cise to translate the concept of a business plan into practicalapplications, he further explained. The transition includes asystematic and realistic assessment of ICAO’s resources andcorresponding priorities. Change will be essential to ensureICAO’s success in the future, Dr. Chérif reminded staff. “ICAOis far from immune to the pressures that are forcing govern-ments, industries and the United Nations itself to adapt andreform,” he stressed. “We urgently need new processes, newprocedures and new structures if we are to remain relevant inthe 21st century.”

The Secretary General informed staff that a high-level com-mittee had begun examining the structure of the Secretariatto identify ways to substantially improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of the organization. The committee is expectedto table its findings to senior management by late summer.

“As you can see, we are gradually and systematicallychanging the way we do business to better meet the enor-mous pressures of today’s society …. We are providing lead-ership to the global aviation community and we are forgingahead with a proactive and assertive strategy. In all of this,we must act with conviction and consistency, in a spirit oftotal cooperation. We must recognize that changing andadapting are necessary to remain relevant and valued by theworld community,” he told the staff who had gathered inICAO’s Assembly Hall. ■■

Amended annexes soonto become effectiveContracting States have been asked to notify ICAO of the sta-tus of several annexes to the Convention on International CivilAviation (also known as the Chicago Convention) that havebeen amended recently. Member States have been requestedto inform the organization prior to 23 October 2006 of theircompliance with the amended annexes, or alternatively to

notify ICAO by the same date of any differences that will existbetween their national regulations or practices and the provi-sions of the revised annexes. Where States disapprove of allor part of the amendments, the notification of disapproval isrequired prior to 17 July 2006, the date on which the amend-ed annexes are to become effective.

The amendments adopted by the ICAO Council in March 2006concern Annex 1, Personnel Licensing; Annex 2, Rules of the Air;Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft (Parts I and III); Annex 10,Aeronautical Telecommunications; Annex 11, Air Traffic Services;Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation; and VolumeI of Annex 14, Aerodrome Design and Operations. ■■

Disclosure authorizedThree more Contracting States have signed consent formspermitting ICAO to disclose safety information on its websitebeginning in March 2008. The three additional States, as of24 May 2006, are Belgium, Mauritius and Uruguay. To date, atotal of 69 member States and two territories have agreed tothe disclosure of either their full safety oversight audit reportor an executive summary of the audit report.

The decision to release the results of ICAO safety oversightaudits to the public was made by the world’s directors gener-al of civil aviation (DGCAs) at a conference held at ICAO head-quarters on 20-22 March (see Issue 2/2006, pp 5-7). The meet-ing resulted in a comprehensive set of conclusions and recom-mendations that give shape to an action-oriented global avia-tion strategy, with greater transparency as its cornerstone. ■■

Panel to consolidate guidance materialon performance managementThe ICAO Air Navigation Services Economics Panel (ANSEP) is inthe midst of preparing material on the performance of the air nav-igation system in the economic and management fields. Theinformation, to be presented to a worldwide symposium plannedfor March 2007, will also be published as a supplement to theManual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Document 9161).Document 9161 will be available at the ICAO public website.

During a meeting at ICAO headquarters in late March, the paneldecided, after examining various draft material dealing with theperformance management process from the viewpoint of ANSproviders, to develop a single document on the subject. The guid-ance material will cover such aspects as key cost drivers, select-ing goals and setting targets, measurement and methodology,benchmarking, governance and ownership, incentives, consulta-tion with users, performance reports and information disclosure,and performance management. In developing the new document,ANSEP will work closely with the Air Traffic ManagementRequirements and Performance Panel (ATMRPP), which is cur-rently elaborating an ATM performance manual that is based onthe global air traffic management operational concept describedin ICAO Document 9854.

ANSEP is also supporting ATMRPP with the development ofmethods to assess the economic implications of operationalperformance or, to express it more simply, to assign monetaryvalues to flight delays, flight efficiencies, and so forth.

Another issue examined by the panel was the possibility ofestablishing a global method for recovering the cost of operat-ing regional monitoring agencies. The ICAO Secretariat pre-sented a global approach to recovering the cost of the agen-cies, whose task is to monitor reduced vertical separation min-ima (RVSM) operations. The method proposed was a step-by-

28 ICAO JOURNAL

step procedure for the implementation of cost recoveryarrangements at the regional level. The panel indicated a pref-erence for the multinational air navigation facility model devel-oped by ICAO and also agreed on the incremental approach tocost-recovery arrangements.

When discussing the allocation of costs related to the globalnavigation satellite system (GNSS), serious concerns wereexpressed by some participants, who pointed to the risk thatcivil aviation might be charged for more than its fair and equi-table share of GNSS costs. It was agreed that an ongoing studyon the subject should be completed during 2006, and that thefinal report should include any recent and new material onGNSS developments. Participants agreed that accurate costallocation could not be made without an inventory of currentGNSS applications. When completed, the ANSEP study isintended to be used by civil aviation stakeholders in their futurenegotiations with GNSS operators and users.

The issue of user consultations, as well as the settlementof disputes over debt recovery of ANS charges, wasaddressed by forming a small working group that will studythe need for additional guidance material.

The meeting of 27-31 March 2006, the sixth to be heldby ANSEP since its formation in 1994, was attended by42 participants. ■■

Symposium to focus on MRTDs,biometrics and securityICAO will convene a symposium on ICAO-standard machine read-able travel documents (MRTDs), biometrics and security at itsheadquarters in Montreal from 6 to 8 September 2006. An exhibi-tion will complement the symposium and highlight products andservices related to MRTDs, biometric identification and borderinspection systems. The event is of particular interest to officials ofpassport issuing agencies and authorities responsible for immi-gration, customs, border control and security, but also concernsairline and airport officials involved in overseeing passenger serv-ice systems, handling of travel documents, facilitation and aviationsecurity. Government officials may attend free of charge.

The symposium will include a presentation on the key features,benefits and advantages to States of introducing MRTD systems,and applying identity management and enhanced identity confir-mation, as well as the significant benefits offered to the travellerby ICAO-standard electronic machine readable passports. It willalso feature a workshop focused on technical issues related toupgrading to ePassports, and the functions and usage of theprospective Public Key Directory, an ICAO-coordinated service tofacilitate authentication of ePassports.

More information on the symposium, as well as online registra-tion, is available at the ICAO website (www.icao.int). ■■

Bangkok to host training symposiumThe 10th Global Trainair Training Symposium and Conferencewill take place from 30 October to 3 November 2006 atBangkok, Thailand. The five-day event will be held concur-rently with a training equipment exhibition that will featurethe latest in training technologies, and will be hosted by theCivil Aviation Training Centre (CATC) of Thailand.

During its last two days the meeting will focus on items

SHARING OF SAFETY DATA

ICAO and the International Air Transport Association (IATA)have agreed to share information gathered from ICAO’s safe-ty oversight audits and IATA’s audits of operational safety at itsmember airlines. The agreement will allow regulators and air-lines to better manage safety risks and prevent accidents.Shown shaking hands after signing the memorandum ofcooperation are ICAO Council President Dr. Assad Kotaite andIATA Director General Giovanni Bisignani (left). Looking on areICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif and GüntherMatschnigg, IATA Senior Vice President, Safety Operationsand Infrastructure (at left).

NUMBER 3, 2006 29

related to the organization, operation and priorities of theICAO Trainair Programme. Trainair’s goals are to improve thesafety and protection of air operations and the efficiencyof air transport through the establishment and maintenanceof high standards of training for aviation personnel on aglobal basis.

The symposium and conference will explore ways thatglobal cooperation in civil aviation can help meet thedemand for skilled human resources in the future. It will con-sist of several panel sessions on different training topics.While the event is oriented towards directors of civil aviationtraining centres and managers for training policy and humanresource development at civil aviation authorities, the topicswill also be of considerable interest to air navigation servic-es providers, government safety inspectorates, airline oper-ators and maintenance organizations.

States and organizations have been urged to register parti-cipants by 31 July 2006. Further information is available fromthe Trainair Central Unit in the ICAO Technical CooperationBureau (tel. +1 514-954-6384 or +1 514-954-8219, ext. 7028;fax +1 514-954-6077). ■■

Large-scale technical cooperationprojects under wayNew large-scale technical cooperation projects are beingimplemented by ICAO in Botswana, Guatemala and Panama,and other ongoing projects have been allocated additionalfunding. Several new large-scale projects are also under wayat the regional level.

Valued at more than $1.19 million (all financial figures inU.S. dollars), the new project in Botswana provides the gov-ernment with assistance in establishing a civil aviationauthority. The 18-month project, funded entirely by theGovernment of Botswana, will focus mainly on the interimand start-up phases of the implementation plan.

A one-year project in Guatemala to modernize the MundoMaya International Airport commenced in 2006 with more than$2.43 million in funding. Funded entirely by the Government ofGuatemala, the project entails the construction of the north-west and south-east wings of the airport, restrooms, entry hall,restaurants, security area, office and shopping area, parkingand various airport remodelling requirements. A separate one-

year project also funded by the government concerns thedevelopment of the civil works required to modernize severalGuatemalan airports, and is valued at over $3.37 million.

In Panama, a six-month project to modernize and equipthe Howard Airport in Panama City is valued at over$954,000. The project is funded by the Agencia del ÁreaEconómica Especial Panamá.

Among major regional projects is an undertaking for themember States of a regional economic entity known asCEMAC. The project, a cooperative agreement between thecivil aviation administrations of CEMAC member States, aimsto enhance the safety of air transport operations inCameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo,Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe. It isvalued at more than $4.47 million, and is funded by CEMAC.In the Latin American and Caribbean region, a project to pro-vide civil aviation institutions with training and advice onimproving efficiency and aviation security is funded entirelyby the Government of Spain at a cost of $658,000. In addi-tion, a five-year project to enhance the safety and efficiencyof air transport in the Gulf States commenced in 2006 withfunding of $3.7 million provided by Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar,the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Major ongoing technical cooperation projects that have beenallocated new funding include an additional $11.38 million foran initiative to upgrade the Tocumen International Airport inPanama City; and new funding of $2.14 million related topreparations for the safe and smooth transfer of operationsfrom Bangkok, Thailand’s existing international airport to thenew Suvarnabhumi International Airport. ■■

ICAO and ACI join forceson airport trainingICAO has signed an agreement with Airports Council International(ACI) to jointly develop and deliver a training programme encom-passing a broad range of airport management courses (seephoto, inside back cover).

ICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif said the multi-yearagreement to provide airport training was an effective way forthe two organizations to promote compliance with ICAO stan-dards and recommended practices.

The joint programme will cover a variety of subjects in the

InterContinental MontrealICAO Preferred Rate

$159.00 cdn

Earn Priority Club Points™ for every visit

Connected to the ICAO building

InterContinental Montreal360 St-Antoine West

Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH2Y 3X4

1-800-361-3600www.montreal.intercontinental.com

SHARING THE EXPERIENCE

OF LIBERALIZATION…

ICAO Global Symposium on Air Transport LiberalizationA global forum to examine trends and developments, and address

current issues, led by prominent speakers, including:

• HE Sheikha Lubna bint Khalid Al Qasimi, Minister of Economyand Planning, UAE

• Mr. Jeffrey Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, US DOT

• Mr. Giovanni Bisignani, Director General & CEO, IATA

• Mr. Ajay Prasad, Secretary of Civil Aviation, India

• Mr. Olivier Onidi, Head of Unit, Bilateral Air Transport Agreements,European Commission

• Mr. Robert J. Aaronson, Director General, ACI

• Mr. Jeoffrey Lipman, Special Adviser to Secretary General, UNWTO

• Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General, ICAO

DON’T MISS THIS IMPORTANT EVENT OF THE YEAR!

18-19 September 2006Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

For more information:Website: www.icao.int/dubai2006

E-mail: Dubai2006@icao.int

Telephone: +1 (514) 954-6095

HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH:

12th World

Route Development

Forum

www.routesonline.com

Hosted by

Performance-based navigationcontinued from page 7

been finalized, it will be necessary to update all related ICAO tech-nical provisions in a coordinated manner. This is why ICAO is inthe process of establishing a long-term multi-disciplinary pro-gramme to coordinate the development and maintenance ofICAO provisions for route spacing, procedure design, chart mak-ing, aeronautical databases, flight planning, radio navigationalaids, and so on. The long-term programme shall also assist withimplementation of the PBN concept in various regions and States.

Programme targets. The programme goals still need to beworked out in detail, but the high-level programme objectives areknown. In the short term, the objectives are to establish a PBNmanual as a basis for implementing performance-based naviga-tion as well as to adapt ICAO provisions (with respect to the ter-minology). Another important short-term objective is to createawareness of the harmonization initiative and win acceptancefrom the aviation community.

Medium-term objectives include development of ICAO provisionsto support performance-based navigation, the implementation ofGNSS approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV) approachprocedures to every runway used for international operations, andRNAV implementation (where this is operationally required in termi-

Dynamic test bedcontinued from page 18

flight deck” is innovative in that it has two pilot positions, withthe left-hand seat equipped with an aeroplane pilot’s wheel, andthe right-hand seat appropriately fitted with a helicopter’s col-lective and cyclic controls.

Yet even with its advanced technology, the key to the DTB’seffectiveness lies in its operation by knowledgeable staff. It isimportant that avionics, software and systems specialists under-stand the technical, operational and financial imperatives oftoday’s aircraft operators.

While the development of the initial systems integrationlaboratory and its advanced capability DTB successor has rep-resented a substantial capital investment, the initiative wasnonetheless worthwhile. The ability to create a complex instal-lation with myriad critical interfaces, and to then test it againstall possible eventualities, generates a very high level of confi-dence that costly “down-the-line” operational problems will notarise when the upgraded aircraft returns to regular service. ■■

NUMBER 3, 2006 31

field of airport operations, airport financial management, safetymanagement systems, airport certification and security. Duringsummer 2006, ACI will survey airport managers concerningtheir basic training needs; the survey results will guide ICAOand ACI in developing the competency-based courses.

“We seek to develop with ICAO a programme of professionalaccreditation for airport managers — a concept strongly support-ed by our members,” explained Robert J. Aaronson, ACI DirectorGeneral. “Today’s airport manager faces a complex array ofissues from finance to environment to heightened security con-cerns. This has created a need for specialized professional train-ing over the course of a career in airport management.”

ICAO Journal Issue 4/2006 will feature an in-depth look atthe new joint training programme. ■■

nal and en-route airspace). Over the long term, the objectives are toassess future operational needs and adapt implementation guidanceto ensure global harmonization of future PBN operations.

While the initial concept of RNP as envisaged by the FANSCommittee many years ago has served the aviation communitywell, leading to implementation of RNP 10 and RNP 4 in remoteand oceanic airspace, aircraft navigation capabilities and ATMautomation and concepts have advanced rapidly over the years. Interms of airspace design and air traffic management, the interna-tional civil aviation community is now at a turning point thatplaces new emphasis on aircraft navigation performance. Majoradvances in safety, airspace accessibility, efficiency and capacityare expected from this effort to implement performance-basednavigation. By helping planners and regulatory authorities to takeadvantage of these advances, ICAO — with the aid of an interna-tionally recruited study group and the establishment of the PBNprogramme — is addressing a formidable challenge. ■■

Avionics upgradecontinued from page 18

avionics systems usually change over the years as operatorsperform modifications, adding or removing capabilities tobest meet their particular needs. Consequently, a responsiveupgrade programme cannot simply be a “one size fits all”approach to make the aircraft a perfect replica of newer modelsof the same basic type. While the project must be designedto bring the efficiency benefits of new technology, it mustalso reflect the economic realities of balancing the operator’s

AMHS

ATN AIPAFTN

AIS

www.ubitech.com

inspirechange.

experience matters

15+ Global Deployments

50+ International Connections

2 Customer Certifications for AMHS

20 Years Experience

Global provider of ATS messaging technology

ATFM SEMINAR

A regional seminar on air traffic flow management (ATFM) washeld in Tegucigalpa, Honduras from 27 to 31 March 2006.Hosted by the Central American Corporation for Air Naviga-tion Services (COCESNA), the event attracted 47 participantsfrom Belize, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras,Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Trinidad and Tobago, and theUnited States.

CNS/ATM business casecontinued from page 20

to compare the costs of installing various avionics upgradeswith the financial savings that result from achieving more effi-cient flight operations.

The scenario analysis provides a series of output results inaggregate terms and in the form of tables and graphs explainingthe financial implications of the selections and decisions madeunder different scenarios. These results can be saved as a reportusing MS Excel. The software has the capability of generatingtables that illustrate the annual costs by component or whengrouped by equipment type, location, State and/or the type ofcost. Similarly, graphical displays of the expenditure and reve-nue streams, illustrating any cost recovery for both ANS provi-ders and airspace users, are also available.

A sound business case would involve the development of aset of scenarios based on reasonable assumptions related to thespecific CNS/ATM project at hand. These scenarios would thenbe analysed and compared. The scenario comparison allows forthe selection of various scenarios from a list, and the productionof a comparison table.

Strengths of the model. The model provides users with flexi-bility in the scenario-building process by allowing them to definea set of parameters. These include the analysis horizon, the dateson which each component of the new systems becomes opera-tional, the extent of the transition period, the average equipmentlife cycle, cost of capital and the period of cost recovery.

Through the scenario option, users could determine themanner in which conventional facilities may be withdrawn andreplaced by new technology. It may be possible to vary the timingof the transition period and defer the implementation of newtechnology. The users can also create a range of alternative sce-narios, including a plan based on entirely new technology orany mix of conventional and advanced technologies to evaluatethe cost effectiveness of each scenario.

expected return on investment against the aircraft’s pro-jected future service life, its residual value when sold, andsimilar considerations.

In KLM’s Boeing 747 Classic upgrades, for example, therequirement was to provide equivalent functionality to the sys-tems in the B747-400 fleet while avoiding what would have beena very costly total replication of the newer aircraft’s configura-tion. For instance, the seven new electronic instrument displaysinstalled on the flight decks of the older aircraft performed verysimilar functions to those found in the production -400s, butwere much less expensive.

This flexibility allows the system designer to take a “best inclass” approach in selecting the optimum equipment mix forthe task, rather than arbitrarily specifying a range of units froma given manufacturer. The design philosophy should aim atachieving the required functionality and performance whilestaying within acceptable cost guidelines, thereby providingoperators with the desired advanced capabilities while achiev-ing significant cost savings.

A fully responsive upgrade programme must therefore bepreceded by a detailed understanding of both the operationaland budget criteria in order to provide the most economic solu-tion to the operator’s needs.

The KLM programme described above recognized the over-riding importance of pre-planning every aspect of a majorupgrade project to make certain of the exact integration of eachnew system element with the previously installed equipment.With KLM, this approach ensured that unexpected — and usuallycostly —problems would not arise as the work got under way,or after the aircraft was returned to operational service, wherethey could result in flight delays or cancellations or, in a worstcase, require the aircraft to be taken out of service again.

Complete electronic and operational integration of newlyinstalled equipment with the earlier systems retained in the air-craft is therefore essential. Not only must they operate flawlessly

together, but adding new capabilities must not degrade the perfor-mance of retained systems such as the aircraft’s previous auto-land capability.

To achieve this level of integration for the KLM project, CMCestablished an advanced and dedicated systems integrationlaboratory following the initial determination of the airline’supgrade requirements. The laboratory was felt by specialists tobe the only completely satisfactory way to ensure that all ele-ments of the avionics installation, both new units and thosecontinuing in service, would operate faultlessly together.Accordingly, the first step was to replicate KLM’s Boeing 747-200/300 avionics installation at the Montreal facility.

Since that time, major advances in avionics, computing powerand simulation technology have led CMC to move beyond thesystems integration laboratory and to develop, in conjunctionwith scientists at Montreal’s Concordia University, a next-genera-tion FMS dynamic test bed (see sidebar, page 18).

Although the air carrier industry has largely recovered fromrecent traffic turndowns and the events of 2001, rigid cost con-trol, equipment rationalization and operational efficiency willcontinue to be key priorities. Upgrade programmes have clear-ly brought new utilization opportunities to older members ofthe air carrier fleet. ■■

32 ICAO JOURNAL

Le CantlieHotel

ad

The model provides the user with the traditional profitabilitymeasures by including detailed cash flow profiles that illustratethe financial viability of the selected option or scenario. It willallow users to examine the time profile for the expendituresresulting from a given implementation scenario and comparethis with the time profile for revenue. With this information,users can ascertain the breakeven point, where the cumulativerevenue equals the cumulative expense, and can calculatewhether additional financing would be required for the imple-mentation period concerned.

The model is developed with the premise that ANS providerswould recover their costs through the collection of user charges.Any additional user charges incurred by the airspace user wouldbe sufficiently offset by increased efficiency through the reduc-tions in fuel consumption and flight crew hours.

The average annual amount of user charges to be collectedby the ANS provider during the cost-recovery period is amongthe output results of the model. In general, revenues from usercharges are directly related to traffic levels, but the averagevalue provides a basis for service providers to establish usercharges in consultation with airspace users.

The output for each scenario will also provide the annualcosts by State, location and equipment in use. These costs canbe grouped according to their nature, such as the costs relatedto purchase, installation, maintenance, operation, communica-tions, and so on.

Since the implementation of CNS/ATM systems may leadto changes in the way that air navigation services are provided,the model has the capacity to perform sensitivity analyses tohighlight these options, with the intent of minimizing the financialrisks.

Additional information acquired from other sources may beadded to the database and modified as required. The model isalso extendable, allowing integration with other models such asan independently developed traffic forecasting module. Thesoftware and database are separate in the sense that, once thesoftware is installed, the database file can be copied separately.

The model addresses the concerns of both the ANSproviders and airspace users, while providing similar outputresults for both partners.

Current limitations. Generic costs are used for all ANS equip-ment. While the capability of assigning specific costs to parti-cular locations or equipment does not currently exist, changesto these generic costs can be made by users, taking intoaccount factors involved in the equipment and/or the location.

Currently, a separate module does not exist to estimate theflight efficiency benefits achieved by airspace users. This is aninput to the model rather than a built-in analysis. These rates haveto be estimated by the users for each of the scenarios concerned.Nevertheless, the model allows such an enhancement to beincluded in the future.

It is important to bear in mind that all costs and efficiencybenefits are only predictions. For example, it is possible that ademand forecast will not materialize as planned or that a fore-cast may exceed expectations.

In the case of a multinational facility or service, the model iscapable of including the segments attributed to each State sepa-rately, but cannot include the shared segments in the scenarios,although such an extension is possible.

In conclusion, a logical process for the development of

NUMBER 3, 2006 33

� 252 Suites� Exceptional views� Equipped galley kitchens� High speed internet� Room Service� Rooftop outdoor pool� Exercise Room� Indoor valet parking

1110 Sherbrooke Street West

Montreal Quebec H3A 1G9

reservations@hotelcantlie.com

www.hotelcantlie.com

1888 CAN-TLIE (226 8543)

RNAV and RNP procedurescontinued from page 12

built-up areas. Alaska Airlines, the first U.S. carrier approvedfor public RNP-SAAAR approaches, has already recorded“saved” flights at Reagan National as a result of utilizing theRNP approach.

Summary. The United States is committed to working withICAO on harmonization issues related to the implementation ofperformance-based navigation procedures, both RNAV and RNP,worldwide. For example, U.S. RNAV guidance is being amendedto be compliant with the new edition of ICAO Document 9613,currently under development by the ICAO RNP and SpecialOperational Requirements Study Group (RNPSORSG).

Moreover, the U.S. is participating in ICAO activities to esta-blish guidance for RNP procedure design criteria, operationalapproval and aircraft evaluation guidance through the ObstacleClearance Panel (OCP) and other appropriate bodies. It is alsoworking regionally through a trinational group known as theNorth American Aviation Trilateral (NAAT) to promote a har-monized way forward for RNAV and RNP implementation

across Canada, Mexico and the United States.Within the United States, implementation of RNAV and RNP pro-

cedures has provided benefits to aircraft operators and the FAA airtraffic services provider. RNAV procedures have enhanced situa-tional awareness for pilots while also reducing the workload forboth pilots and controllers. They have maintained a high level ofpredictability regarding flight tracks and have allowed aircraft onRNAV departures to maintain better climb profiles.

Voice communications between pilots and controllers hasbeen reduced where these procedures are in effect, andnotably, the number of read-back errors has also been reduced.This potentially improves safety while at the same time remo-ving one cause of extra time and distance flown. With RNAV,moreover, airspace planners can design efficient arrival anddeparture routes where flight tracks are optimized for efficientairport operations.

Over the next several years, approximately 200 more RNAVand RNP procedures will be implemented in the United States.Significant progress in implementation of RNAV and RNP ope-rations has been made, but there is much more to be done, andas the performance-based navigation programme matures, theUnited States will continue to pursue worldwide harmonizationof procedures design criteria through ICAO. ■■

Criteria for building restrictionscontinued from page 15

such as local governments, project developers and communi-ties. This method involves providing all interested parties withfree CD-ROM containing software that defines all surfaces rele-vant to the specific situation around the airport.

These authorities must ensure that no obstacles, whetherstatic, temporary or moving, result in an infringement. The sur-faces defined comprise not only those required for protectingCNS equipment, but also the surfaces defined in ICAO Annex 14,Aerodromes, which ensure safe flight above and away fromobstacles.

The software indicates, for any chosen location on theground, the obstacle height restriction. If the height of theobject at the chosen position is lower than the restriction, nofurther action with respect to acquiring permission from CAANetherlands is necessary. If the planned height is greater thanthat permitted, the construction plan has to be submitted to theCAA to be further assessed by means of a detailed study. Forthis purpose, CAA Netherlands uses a more detailed version ofthe software which indicates, in addition to the height restric-tion, the particular surface which is violated. Depending on thefacility associated with the surface, the request for permissionis passed to the responsible department. In the case of CNSfacilities, this would be the Netherlands ANS provider, whichhas the expertise to deal with the matter. In the Netherlands,this system has now been expanded from Amsterdam Schipholto cover the entire country.

The initiative in Europe to ensure that common criteria areused in determining building restrictions near airports maygenerate interest in taking similar action in other regionswhere national variations exist. The ICAO project team formedby the EANPG All Weather Operations Group is confident thatits initial work could yield significant benefits for ICAO memberStates outside the European region as well. ■■

34 ICAO JOURNAL

AGREEMENT WITH EASA

ICAO has agreed to cooperate with the European AviationSafety Agency on safety oversight audit and related matters. Amemorandum of cooperation was signed by the two organiza-tions on 21 March 2006 by ICAO Secretary General Dr. TaïebChérif (right) and EASA Executive Director Patrick Goudou.Looking on are William Voss, Director of the ICAO Air Naviga-tion Bureau and Henry Gourdji, Acting Chief of the SafetyOversight Audit Section in the Air Navigation Bureau (at left).

CNS/ATM business cases has been established in the form ofan interactive software tool. The methodology developed iscapable of examining the business case from the major stake-holders’ points of view, recognizing that there are significantdifferences in infrastructure and traffic levels in differentregions of the world. Importantly, transition to the new systemswill be a gradual process, and will occur at different ratesacross each region.

ICAO has recently released the software for evaluatingCNS/ATM business cases. Member States may obtain this CD-ROM tool free of charge, together with a user’s manual, by contac-ting the Economic Analyses and Databases Section of the ICAOAir Transport Bureau (sta@icao.int). The DFACS software is alsoavailable to all others for a fee. ■■

IN THESPOTLIGHT ...

JOINT TRAININGICAO has signed an agreement with Airports Council International (ACI)to jointly develop and deliver a training programme encompassinga broad range of airport management courses (for more details, see page 29).Pictured at ICAO headquarters following the signing ceremony are(seated, l-r): Anne McGinley, Director of ACI’s Montreal Bureau; Robert J.Aaronson, ACI Director General; ICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif;Silvério Espínola, Principal Legal Officer, ICAO. Standing (l-r): MohamedElamiri, Director of the ICAO Air Transport Bureau; William Voss, Directorof the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau; ICAO Council President Dr. AssadKotaite; Denys Wibaux, Director of the ICAO Legal Bureau; and XavierOh, Manager, Environment and ICAO Liaison, ACI.

HAVANA MEETINGThe Central Caribbean Working Group met in Havana, Cuba from 20 to24 February 2006 to discuss the development of air navigation systemsin the Central Caribbean based on the Regional Air Navigation Plan andconclusions of the Caribbean/South American Regional Planning andImplementation Group (GREPECAS). The sixth meeting of the workinggroup, hosted by the Instituto de Aeronáutica Civil of Cuba, attracted43 participants from the Cayman Islands, Cuba, the Dominican Republic,Haiti, Jamaica, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, ARINCand the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations(IFATCA).

DAKAR WORKSHOPA regional workshop on forecasting and economic planning for States inthe western and central African region was convened at the ICAO regionaloffice in Dakar from 27 February to 3 March 2006. Thirty-four participantsfrom 13 States and four international organizations attended. The workshopprovided a forum on forecasting techniques and CNS/ATM implementationeconomics as well as guidance on CNS/ATM business cases. There werealso discussions on airport and airline planning, future prospects for theregion and other aviation planning issues.

AIR CARGO SEMINARA seminar on airport development and management of air cargo activitywas conducted by ICAO in Cartagena, Colombia from 27 February to3 March 2006. The event was co-sponsored by Aeropuertos Españolesy Navegación Aérea (AENA), of Spain, and the Spanish Agency of Inter-national Cooperation (AECI). Sixty-one participants from 14 States ofthe Caribbean, Central American and South American regions attendedpresentations by experts from Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic,Spain and ICAO’s Technical Cooperation Bureau.