ifp redesign tncc - gobiernu.cw

IFP REDESIGN TNCC

Airspace redesign Curaçao and Bonaire – phase 2

Date 1 October 2020

Report nr. 20-RA-006

Version 0.9

of 77

IFP REDESIGN TNCC - version 0.9

Document control

Version Date Author Pages Changes

0.1 09/01/2020 A.Hertfelder, E.Lap All First version based on FPD template dated

2018-08-13.

0.2 28/04/2020 A.Hertfelder, E.Lap All Version after independent peer review.

0.3 16/09/2020 A.Hertfelder, E.Lap All Version after DC-ANSP review.

0.9 01/10/2020 A.Hertfelder, E.Lap - Version after MovingDot approval (by Henk

Waltman) for CCAA approval process.

Report authorisation

Colophon

Report 20-RA-006

Version 0.9

Status Final

Date 1 October 2020

Title IFP redesign TNCC

Project number 130109.021.02

Client DC-ANSP

Executed by MovingDot B.V.

Project team MovingDot Esther Lap, Alejandra Hertfelder, Ander Okina, Nienke Jester, Rik Salemink,

Sigmund Lentze

File name report [20-RA-006] IFP redesign TNCC_v0.9.docx

Classification Internal

Name Date

Created by Project team MovingDot 9 January 2020

Reviewed by Jacques Lasten, Natasha Leonora-Belefanti, Jean

Getrouw, Inberto Vos, Michael Trapenberg, Rudolf

Berggraaf, Crystal Oseana-Rodriguez

4 September 2020

Approved by Henk Waltman (MovingDot) Choose/type date

Accepted by Jacques Lasten (DC-ANSP) Choose/type date

© All rights reserved by MovingDot B.V. and the customer.

Disclosure to third parties of this document or any part thereof, or the use of any information contained therein for purposes other

than provided for by this document, is not permitted, except with prior and express written permission of both parties.

of 77


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Document aim and scope 5 1.2 Document structure – reading guide 5

2 REQUEST FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURE 7

2.1 Problem Statement 7

2.1.1 Source leading to the request for new/adapted Instrument Flight Procedure 7 2.1.2 Problem statement 7 2.1.3 Scope 7

2.2 Context 7 2.2.1 Airport/airspace(s) involved 7 2.2.2 Current operational procedures 8

2.2.3 Parties involved in review and formal approval 8 2.2.4 Involved stakeholders in the design 8

3 REQUIREMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS 9

3.1 General requirements 9 3.2 Stakeholders requirements 9

3.3 FPD requirements 10 3.3.1 SID requirements 10 3.3.2 STAR requirements 12

3.4 Assumptions 13

4 FLIGHT PROCEDURE LAYOUT RWY 11 14

4.1 Overview of SID changes 14 4.2 RNAV SID RWY 11 15 4.3 Conventional SID RWY 11 18

4.4 Overview of STAR changes 20 4.5 STAR RWY 11 21 4.6 STAR RWY 11 (Overview) 24

5 FLIGHT PROCEDURE LAYOUT RWY 29 25

5.1 Overview of SID changes 25

5.2 RNAV SID RWY 29 26 5.3 Conventional SID RWY 29 29 5.4 Overview of STAR changes 31

5.5 STAR RWY 29 32 5.6 STAR RWY 29 (Overview) 35

6 AERONAUTICAL PUBLICATION 36

6.1 Coding tables 36 6.2 Aeronautical charts 36

6.3 Other aeronautical information 37 6.4 Other changes 38

6.4.1 ATC system and procedure changes 38

6.4.2 NOTAM/SUP/AIC (if necessary) 38

of 77


7 SID RWY 11: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN 39

7.1 Technical parameters per flight segment 39 7.2 Obstacle assessment and minima 40

8 SID RWY 29: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN 43


9 STAR RWY 11: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN 47

9.1 Technical parameters per flight segment 47

9.2 Obstacle assessment and minima 48

10 STAR RWY 29: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN 50


11 FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN RATIONALE 53

11.1 Naming convention 53 11.2 Obstacle assessment 54

11.3 Waypoint naming 54 11.4 Design choices motivation 55

11.4.1 Design choices – STARs 55

11.4.2 Design choices – RNAV SIDs 55 11.4.3 Design choices – Conventional SIDs 56

11.5 Methods, tools and sources used 57

11.6 Safety analysis 57

12 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 58

12.1 Ground validation 58 12.2 Flight validation 58 12.3 Requirements verification 58

12.3.1 General requirements 58 12.3.2 Stakeholders requirements 58 12.3.3 FPD requirements 58

13 RECOMMENDATIONS 59

13.1 AIP publication 59

13.2 Obstacle assessment 59 13.3 Update of the magnetic variation 60

ABBREVIATIONS 61

REFERENCES 63

ANNEX A FLIGHT PARAMETERS 64

ANNEX B DATA SOURCES 72

ANNEX C COMMUNICATION FAILURE PROCEDURES 73

ANNEX D INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW 75

of 77


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document aim and scope

The instrument flight procedure (IFP) process, see Figure 1, covers all elements, from initiation to

publication of a procedure and all relevant maintenance, safety, validation and flight inspection

activities [Ref.6]. The initiation process is driven by the need for change with respect to flight

procedures at a certain location or airport. After the initiation phase, data is collected from several

sources (ATC, airport, terrain & obstacle-surveys, etc.) and where necessary validated. This is followed

by the Flight Procedure Design (FPD) process1. The results of this FPD process are contained in the

current document, thus enabling approval of the new instrument procedure, and the subsequent start of

the publication (AIS) process.

Figure 1. Instrument Flight Procedure process

1.2 Document structure – reading guide

Chapter 2 provides the starting point for the flight procedure design: the “Request for IFP”.

Chapter 3 includes the instrument flight procedure requirements. The requirements are used during the

design process and to verify and validate de final design.

Chapters 4 to 6 provide the general layout and description of the instrument flight procedure in an AIP-

like format for RWY 11 and 29 respectively. They furthermore summarize what other changes are

required (ATC procedures, supporting systems, training, etc.) for the introduction of the foreseen

change.

Chapters 7 to 10 provide the technical details of the final design, including assumptions, and (results of)

PANS-OPS assessments.

Chapter 11 provides background on the different choices that were made during the concept design

phase, the alternatives that where considered and why a specific concept was selected for the final

design. It furthermore includes a reference to the safety assessment of the flight procedures.

1 IFP: A description of a series of predetermined flight manoeuvres by reference to flight instruments, published by electronic

and/or printed means.

FPD: The complete package that includes all the considerations that went into the development of an instrument flight

procedure.

of 77


Chapter 12 provides results of the verification and validation activities, including ground validation and,

where relevant, flight validation.

Chapter 13 includes a summary of all the recommendations that result from this project.

Annex A to E provide additional (technical) information on the design and the data acquisition and design

process.

of 77


2 REQUEST FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURE

2.1 Problem Statement

2.1.1 Source leading to the request for new/adapted Instrument Flight Procedure

The Dutch Caribbean Air Navigation Service Provider (DC-ANSP) aims to provide Air Navigation Services

to its customers at the highest possible level and is therefore continuously looking at improving its

operation. DC-ANSP started a project to improve the efficient deployment of ATCos in its area of

responsibility whilst simultaneously preserving or improving the safety and efficiency of its operations.

An airspace and flight procedure redesign are some of the enablers to achieve this. The goal of

redesigning the Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Arrival Routes (STARs) of Hato

International Airport (TNCC) and Flamingo International Airport (TNCB) is to deconflict routes, improve

the flight profiles on these routes, and reduce the complexity of the operational Air Traffic Management

(ATM) concept.

2.1.2 Problem statement

In the current situation, departure and arrival procedures for Curaçao and Bonaire were not designed for

continuous climb and descent (CCO/CDO) operations and not deconflicted by design. In the current

operation, flights are usually given a direct to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) from the FIR entry point,

taking them off the ATS route, thus deviating from the standard procedures published in the AIP.

This results in an operational concept that is more complex than necessary. The new operational

concept presented in the ConOps [Ref.7] streamlines the SID and STAR designs, bundles the traffic flows,

concentrates the different flows to different parts of the CTR, and improves handover procedures to

adjacent centres. The result is more predictable traffic flows and allowing for closer to optimal flight

profiles. This reduces complexity and increases efficiency which will benefit both DC-ANSP as Air Traffic

Service Provider as well as the airspace users.

2.1.3 Scope

The goal of the overall project is to reduce the complexity of the operational ATM concept in the Hato

CTR and Flamingo CTR. The scope of this assignment is the redesign of the SIDs and STARs to and from

TNCC and TNCB airports. The new routes will support CCO and CDO and will allow an optimized

separation of inbound and outbound traffic flows. Overall, the operational safety and efficiency of both

ATCos and airspace users will be improved. This report includes the IFR redesign for TNCC2.

2.2 Context

2.2.1 Airport/airspace(s) involved

Hato International Airport (TNCC) and Flamingo International airport are the only airports involved in

this project. This document focuses only on TNCC. TNCC is located within the Hato Control Zone (CTR),

whose lateral limits consist of a circle with a 25 NM radius centred at the Aerodrome Reference Point

(ARP) including that airspace within lines drawn tangent to both the Hato and Flamingo 25 NM CTR

circles bounded to the east by longitude 068 32W, within the limits of the Curaçao CTA. The vertical

limits are from SFC to FL065, with airspace class D from SFC to 2000ft and class C from 2000ft to FL065.

The Hato CTR is situated within the Curaçao FIR, which is managed by DC-ANSP.

2 IFP redesign TNCB report includes the IFR redesign for TNCB [Ref.18].

of 77


Figure 2. ENR 6.1-13 chart [Ref.8]

2.2.2 Current operational procedures

TNCC has one runway, 11/29, with RWY11 used most of the time.

Currently, RNAV arrival routes are published for RWY 11 and RWY 29, with a total of 18 arrival routes (9

arrival routes to RWY 11 and 9 arrival routes to RWY 29) and 19 RNAV departure routes (9 routes from

RWY 11 and 10 routes from RWY 29).

In practice, flights are not handled according to the published procedures. ATC allows flights to be flown

in a more efficient manner than prescribed by the procedure. This difference also leads to inefficiencies

for operators when planning the routes and estimating the consumption and less predictable flight paths.

2.2.3 Parties involved in review and formal approval

• The independent review of the redesign of SIDs and STARs is performed by a MovingDot IFP designer

not involved in the design process.

• Development of the redesign of the SIDs and STARs is performed in consultation with MovingDot

safety experts and operational ATC experts with executive experience on TWR/APP and ACC

positions.

• Charts and coding tables are reviewed by Jeppesen.

• The flight validation is performed by Radiola.

• The complete IFP package is reviewed by DC-ANSP.

• Redesigned procedures must be approved by Curaçao Civil Aviation Authority (CCAA).

2.2.4 Involved stakeholders in the design

• DC-ANSP

• IATA (RCG)

of 77


3 REQUIREMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Design guidelines and requirements gathered in the ConOps [Ref.7] and discussed during the February

meeting at DC-ANSP [Ref.16] are converted into different categories of requirements: general (section

3.1), stakeholders (section 3.2) and FPD requirements (section 3.3).

The classification of the requirements is as follows:

Knock-out requirements (K) are those that must be complied with.

Essential requirements (E) are the success criteria that the stakeholder wishes to have in the

design, but which are not critical for the success of the design.

3.1 General requirements

# Requirement statement Classification (K/E)

1A The procedure shall comply with the criteria stated in ICAO Doc. 8168

Vol. II [Ref.1]

K

1B The procedure shall comply with the quality requirements stated in

ICAO Doc. 9906 [Ref.6]

K

1C The procedure shall comply with ICAO Annex 14 [Ref.4] K

1D The procedure shall comply with the criteria stated in ICAO Annex 11

[Ref.3]

K

1E The publication of the procedures shall comply with the criteria

stated in ICAO Annex 4 [Ref.2]

K

1F The publication of the procedures shall comply with the criteria

stated in ICAO Circular 353 [Ref.10]

K

1G The design shall be in line with relevant local, national and

international laws and regulations [Ref.8].

K

3.2 Stakeholders requirements


2A Base design on most used runways: IFP shall be optimized for RWY

11 [Ref.7].

K

2B IFP for RWY 29 shall be secondary, while applying the same

conceptual approach as for RWY 11 [Ref.7].

K

2C The location of the STAR diversion points (RWY 11/RWY 29) shall be

primarily based on route length (10-15% is considered acceptable)

[Ref.16].

K

2D Maintain the same design approach for the procedures of all three

islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao), with deconflicted departure

and arrivals reaching the FIR boundary [Ref.7].

K

2E Runway configuration on Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao is most of the

time the same (east or westerly configuration) [Ref.7].

K

2F The location of crossing traffic flying published routes shall always

be within the AoR of a single ATCo, to ensure that the conflict falls

K

of 77



within the area of responsibility of one controller, without any

ambiguity [Ref.7].

2G The design shall take geographic separation criteria into account to

accommodate efficient procedural separation [Ref.7].

K

2H The design shall aim at using the minimum number of instrument

routes necessary to support the major traffic flows and it will use

consistent logic per procedure and runway [Ref.7].

K

2I The RNAV and conventional procedures shall, as far as possible,

have an overlay design to limit the operational concept complexity.

K

2J The instrument procedures shall be designed to reflect the current

operational behaviour as closely as possible to establish a concept

that is intuitive to operational personnel [Ref.7].

K

2K The difference in climb and descent profiles shall be used to

vertically separate traffic at lateral crossing traffic flows [Ref.7].

K

2L The design shall have clearly defined conditions (areas, levels,

procedures) for transfer of control between Hato TWR and Curaçao

ACC.

K

2M The design shall facilitate Continuous Climb or Descent wherever

possible by using the least amount of ATC restrictions [Ref.11,

Ref.12].

K

2N Continuous Climb and Descent operations shall be designed to

improve flight efficiency [Ref.7, Ref.11, Ref.12].

K

2O Traffic flows shall be simplified by deconfliction and

standardization [Ref.7].

K

2P Wherever possible, existing RNAV waypoints with a 5LNC shall be

used for the new procedures to avoid having to request for new

5LNC [Ref.16].

K

2Q New 5ANNC shall use the airport designator (CCxxx and CBxxx for

TNCC and TNCB respectively) [Ref.1]

K

2R Magnetic variation shall be based on WMM date 01/01/2020 [Ref.1,

Ref.2].

K

2S ISA + 20 -International Standard Atmosphere- shall be used as

reference temperature [Ref.1].

K

2T Maintain noise abatement procedures as included in TNCC AD 2.21

[Ref.8]

K

3.3 FPD requirements

3.3.1 SID requirements


3A RNAV SIDs shall be designed to accommodate as straight as possible

routes from take-off to the FIR exit points for traffic flows with more

than 50 flights per year [Ref.7].

K

3B Departures to the south shall be designed as direct as possible from

the runway extended centreline to the FIR exit point [Ref.7].

K

3C A very limited number of conventional departure routes shall be

designed to cater for GNSS outages and for non-RNAV capable aircraft

[Ref.7].

K

of 77



3D For all departures to the south and Aruba/Bonaire, a conventional and

RNAV route shall be designed [Ref.16].

K

3E A generic RNAV SID shall be designed to accommodate traffic to other

FIR boundary points. This SID shall terminate just outside the CTR

boundary [Ref.7].

K

3F A generic SID for RWY 11 shall be designed to accommodate

conventional traffic to the north and/or traffic to other FIR boundary

points. This SID shall terminate just outside the CTR boundary

[Ref.16].

K

3G A standard procedure shall be published in the AIP for those FIR exit

points without a published departure route and shall be connected to

the generic SID (RNAV and/or VOR) [Ref.7].

K

3H Conventional departures shall be designed up to the CTR exit points

whenever possible [Ref.7].

K

3I Departure routes from Curaçao shall be designed to connect to the

relevant arrival routes in Aruba and Bonaire [Ref.7].

K

3J For conventional departures, CTR exit points shall be defined as

intersection fixes (providing a VOR radial and a DME distance from PJG

VOR/DME) [Ref.1, Ref.2].

K

3K Departure routes to Aruba/Bonaire shall be kept south of the runway

[Ref.7].

K

3L SIDs and STARs to/from northern directions shall be separated

geographically by a sector of 45°extending 25NM from ARP. The VOR

radials (PJG VOR) delimiting the sector will be determined for ATC

procedure purposes (not for publication) [Ref.7].

K

3M The 45°sector shall be positioned in such a way that the impact on the

departure and arrival mileage is limited to a minimum (optimized for

most used routes) [Ref.7].

K

3N SIDs and STARs to/from northern directions shall be separated

vertically outside the CTR by using an at or above FL110 restriction for

the SIDs and at or below FL100 restriction for the STARs.

K

3O To facilitate the altitude restriction, a common XFL waypoint (AMIPU)

shall be defined on or slightly outside the eastern border of the

geographic separation sector for SIDs RWY 11 to the north. The

location of the XFL waypoint is determined by a 7% climb gradient

from DER based on ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II, section I-3 Appendix to

chapter 3 (Guidance on environmental issues) [Ref.1]

K

3P For the determination of the magnetic bearings of PBN segments, the

magnetic variation at the significant point at origin of the PBN route

segment shall be applied (ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-1-1 1.3)

[Ref.1].

K

3Q The magnetic bearing of the PBN segments with a course to fix -CF-

path terminator shall be based upon the magnetic variation at PJG

VOR, according to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II I-2-1 section 1.13.1.1 g

[Ref.1].

K

3R For RNAV terminal procedures, the magnetic variation be applied to

any track shall be the magnetic variation published for the associated

aerodrome of departure/intended landing ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section

I-2-1 1.13.1.1 g [Ref.1].

of 77



3S EMAPA shall replace ALCOT in the departure routes given its

geographical location in Venezuelan airspace [Ref.7].

K

3.3.2 STAR requirements


4A Conventional arrival procedures (VOR STARs), as published in the

instrument approach charts, shall be preserved [Ref.7].

K

4B Arrival routes -with more than 50 flights per year- shall be designed

from the FIR entry points as straight as possible to the IAF [Ref.7].

K

4C Arrival routes from the south shall be designed as direct as possible

from the FIR entry point to the IAF, leaving 5 NM separation with

the runway centreline [Ref.7].

K

4D Arrival routes coming from the south-east shall be merged into a

single route [Ref.7].

K

4E Arrival routes to Curaçao shall be designed to connect to the

relevant departure routes in Aruba and Bonaire [Ref.7].

K

4F Arrival routes from Aruba/Bonaire to Curaçao shall be kept south of

the runways [Ref.7].

K

4G Arrival holdings shall be included in the design of the arrival

procedures [Ref.7].

K

4H Arrival holding should be located at TABEB [Ref.7]. E

4I EMAPA shall replace ALCOT in the arrival routes given its

geographical location in Venezuelan airspace [Ref.7].

K

4J Current altitude restrictions at the IAFs shall be maintained

[Ref.16].

K

4K Current altitude restrictions at the southern FIR entry points shall

be maintained [Ref.16].

K

4L The location of crossing condition waypoints (XFL waypoints) shall

be based on a 4% descent gradient according to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol

II section I-4-3 3.3.5 [Ref.1].

K

4M Arrival routes from the northern directions shall be separated

geographically from the departure routes to the north by a sector

of 45º centred in the ARP (radii 25NM) [Ref.7].

K

4N In order to facilitate the traffic between Beatrix and Hato airports,

ADRIV shall also be considered as a starting waypoint for an arrival

route [Ref.16].

K

4O The arrivals must reach FL100 before crossing the departures

and/or the separation sector.

K

4P SIDs and STARs to and from northern directions must be separated

vertically outside the CTR by using an at or above FL110 restriction

for the SIDs and at or below FL100 restriction for the STARs.

K

4Q The design of the arrival routes for RWY 29 shall be conditioned to

the design of RWY 11. RWY 29 is rarely used for daily operations,

but in case a runway change happens, an aircraft flying an arrival

route to RWY 11 will be able to divert to RWY29 and the trajectory

will be predictable to ATC [Ref.7].

K

4R A diversion point (from the arrival route to RWY 11) is located on

each arrival route to RWY 29 (CC2xx) [Ref.7].

K

of 77



4S For the determination of the magnetic bearings, the magnetic

variation at the significant point at origin of the PBN route segment

shall be applied according to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-1-1 1.3

[Ref.1].

K

4T The magnetic bearing of the PBN segments with a CF path

terminator is based upon the magnetic variation at PJG VOR,

according to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-2-1 1.13.1.1 g [Ref.1].

K

4U For RNAV terminal procedures, the magnetic variation applied to

any track shall be the magnetic variation published for the

associated aerodrome of departure/intended landing ICAO Doc

8168 Vol II section I-2-1 1.13.1.1 g [Ref.1].

K

4V Arrival routes should end at the IAF at an “at or above” level that

matches the IAF level [Ref.11].

K

4W A standard procedure shall be published in the AIP for those FIR

entry points without a standard arrival route [Ref.7].

K

3.4 Assumptions

The following assumptions were made during the development of the concept of operations in phase 1

[Ref.7]. They are also considered applicable to phase 2, as listed below:

AS-1 Certification of Space Based ADS-B for terminal en-route airspace.

AS-2 Introduction of radar data sharing with Santo Domingo.

AS-3 Integration of three surveillance data sources into the ATM system.

AS-4 Cross training and/or refresher training of APP and ACC controllers.

AS-5 Eventually limiting tower operations to aerodrome control.

AS-6 Increase in voice communication lines with adjacent centres.

AS-7 Improvement of electronic flight data sharing with adjacent centres.

AS-8 Introduction of an Air Traffic Flow Management tool.

AS-9 Changes to airspace classes and sizes.

AS-10 No changes to protected area dimensions.

AS-11 No change to transition altitude and level in the project timeline.

AS-12 No improvements to radio coverage in the project timeline.

of 77


4 FLIGHT PROCEDURE LAYOUT RWY 11

4.1 Overview of SID changes

The following table shows the changes to currently published RWY 11 SIDs (AIRAC 2002).

Old

designator

Route designator ARINC 424

designator

Navigation Changes

AGLIS 1A VESKA 1K [VESK1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-VESKA

BONAX 1A BONAX 1K [BOAX1K] RNAV Rename.

EMAPA 1A EMAPA 1K [EMAP1K] RNAV Rename.

IRLEP 1A - RNAV Removed.

- ARUBA 1K [ARUB1K] RNAV New route: DER-OLITO-MEMRU-

ELOTU – ELUMO

- DATOR 1K [DATO1K] RNAV New route: DER-OLITO-MEMRU-

ELOTU-DATOR

- AMBAS 1K [ABAS1K] RNAV New route: DER-OLITO-MEMRU-

ELOTU-ELUMO-AMBAS

MUNBA 1A KARUM 1K [KARU1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-KARUM

NOXAD 1A ACORA 1K [ACOR1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-ACORA

REPIS 1A REPIS 1K [REPI1K] RNAV Renamed.

PJBCB 1A BONAIRE 1K [BON1K] RNAV Reroute: DER-OLITO-IMOMA

URNOT 1A SCAPA 1K [SCAP1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-SCAPA

- AMBIN 1K [ABIN1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-AMBIN

- DIBOK 1K [DIBO1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-DIBOK

- BEROX 1K [BERO1K] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-OLITO-

AMIPU-BEROX

- AMIPU 1K [AMIP1K] RNAV New route: DER-OLITO-AMIPU

- ARUBA 1J [ARUB1J] VOR New route

- EMAPA 1J [EMAP1J] VOR New route

- REPIS 1J [REPI1J] VOR New route

- BONAIRE 1J [BON1J] VOR New route

- BONAX 1J [BOAX1J] VOR New route

- AMIPU 1J [AMIP1J] VOR New route

Legend: Green: new route; Orange: existing route, to be changed; Red: existing route, to be deleted.

Changes to the operational concept [Ref.7] of the RWY 11 departure routes:

- RNAV 1 routes (separation 7NM with runway centreline for southern routes: DATOR 1K, ARUBA

1K, AMBAS 1K).

- Departure route BONAIRE 1K connects with the middle IAF -IMOMA- at Bonaire. No need for an

arrival route to Bonaire to connect with the departure route from Curaçao.

of 77


4.2 RNAV SID RWY 11

of 77


TNCC RNAV (GNSS) DEPARTURES RWY 11 CODING TABLE

Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over

Course/Track °M(°T)

Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

ACORA 1K [ACOR1K]

001 OLITO CF (PJG) Y 114 (102.1) 2.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

003 ACORA TF ‒ 062 (050.0) 92.9 R ‒ ‒ -12.4 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBAS 1K [ABAS1K]


002 MEMRU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ R ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 ELOTU TF ‒ 299 (287.7) 40.5 R ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

004 ELUMO TF ‒ 300 (288.4) 35.8 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

005 AMBAS TF ‒ 294 (283.2) 96.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.0 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBIN 1K [ABIN1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

003 AMBIN TF ‒ 313 (301.0) 357.0 L ‒ ‒ -09.1 ‒ RNAV 1

AMIPU 1K [AMIP1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

ARUBA 1K [ARUB1K]


002 MEMRU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ R ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 ELOTU TF ‒ 299 (287.7) 40.5 R ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

004 ELUMO TF ‒ 300 (288.4) 35.8 ‒ +FL040 ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

BEROX 1K [BERO1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

003 BEROX TF ‒ 350 (338.7) 214.5 L ‒ ‒ -11.3 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAIRE 1K [BON1K]


002 IMOMA TF ‒ 107 (95.3) 25.4 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.8 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAX 1K [BOAX1K]


002 IMOMA TF ‒ 107 (095.3) 25.4 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.8 ‒ RNAV 1

003 BONAX TF ‒ 107 (095.3) 37.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.1 ‒ RNAV 1

DATOR 1K [DATO1K]


002 MEMRU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ R ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 ELOTU TF ‒ 299 (287.7) 40.5 R ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

004 DATOR TF ‒ 295 (283.8) 36.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.8 ‒ RNAV 1

DIBOK 1K [DIBO1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

003 DIBOK TF ‒ 320 (308.2) 362.0 L ‒ ‒ -09.4 ‒ RNAV 1

EMAPA 1K [EMAP1K]


002 EMAPA DF ‒ ‒ ‒ R ‒ ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

KARUM 1K [KARU1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

of 77



Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

003 KARUM TF ‒ 001 (348.8) 203.5 L ‒ ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

REPIS 1K [REPI1K]


002 REPIS DF ‒ ‒ ‒ R ‒ ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

SCAPA 1K [SCAP1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SCAPA TF ‒ 032 (020.4) 202.4 ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.5 ‒ RNAV 1

VESKA 1K [VESK1K]


002 AMIPU DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L +FL110 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

003 VESKA TF ‒ 341 (329.6) 232.0 L ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

New waypoints:

Identifier Coordinates (WGS-84)

AMIPU N 12 39 36.4793 W 068 43 01.9087

MEMRU N 12 03 31.5713 W 069 00 26.3544

of 77


4.3 Conventional SID RWY 11

of 77


AMIPU 1J

Climb on runway magnetic track 114º, at or above 1100’ turn left to magnetic track 102º to intercept

and follow R 017 PJG. At 15.0 DME PJG turn left to proceed on arc 17.0 DME PJG to R 057 PJG. Turn right

to intercept and follow R 046 PJG to DUMVA (28.4 DME PJG) at or above FL110. After passing DUMVA,

expect ATC instructions to first en-route waypoint. Requires minimum 225’/NM up to 1100’.

ARUBA 1J

Climb on runway magnetic track 114º direct to cross 9.0 DME PJG at or above 3000’. Turn right to

proceed on arc 11.0 DME PJG to R 155 PJG. Turn right to intercept and follow R 126 ABA to ABA

VOR/DME. Requires minimum 225’/NM up to 1100’.

BONAIRE 1J


and follow R 017 PJG to MIVER (37.1 DME PJG).

BONAX 1J


and follow R 017 PJG to MIVER (37.1 DME PJG). Cross MIVER at or above 6000’ and continue on R 017 PJG

to BONAX (69.8 DME PJG).

EMAPA 1J


proceed on arc 11.0 DME PJG to R 155 PJG. Turn right to follow R 126 ABA up to 56.8 DME ABA. Turn left

to intercept and follow R 232 PJG to EMAPA (19.4 DME PJG). Requires minimum 225’/NM up to 1100’.

REPIS 1J


proceed on arc 11.0 DME PJG to R 155 PJG. Turn left to intercept and follow R 162 PJG to REPIS (31.4

DME PJG). Requires minimum 225’/NM up to 1100’.

The waypoints are defined as intersections from PJG VOR/DME and/or ABA VOR DME, applying the

corresponding declination (11.52ºW for PJG and 11.02ºW for ABA) in the determination of the

corresponding radials:

Fix Azimuth DME

distance

Radial Radial

publication

BONAX 095.72º 69.8 107.24º R 107

DUMVA 34.23º 28.4 45.75º R 046

EMAPA 220.59º 19.4 232.11º R 232

MIVER 095.73º 37.1 107.25º R 017

REPIS 150.03º 31.4 161.55º R 162


DUMVA N 12 35 25.4300 W 068 44 21.7100

of 77


4.4 Overview of STAR changes

The following table shows the changes to currently published RWY 11 STARs (AIRAC 2002).

Old designator Route designator ARINC 424 designator Changes

BEXER 1B SCAPA 1B [SCAP1B] Rename. Reroute: SCAPA–CC106-AGLIS-

PUXUN.

BONAX 1D BONAX 1B [BOAX1B] Rename. Reroute: BONAX–ODLAP-C001-

CC002-MARAX

EMAPA 1D EMAPA 1B [EMAP1B] Rename.

IRLEP 1D ARUBA 1B [ARUB1B] Rename. Reroute: ADRIV–TABEB

KERLI 1B KARUM 1B [KARU1B] Rename. Reroute: KARUM–CC105–AGLIS–

PUXUN

ONDAS 1B VESKA 1B [VESK1B] Rename. Reroute: VESKA–CC103-PUXUN

OVILA 1B - Removed.

PJBCB 1D BONAIRE 1B [BON1B] ODLAP-CC001-CC002-MARAX

SINDA 1B ACORA 1B [ACOR1B] Rename. Reroute: ACORA–CC107-AGLIS-

PUXUN.

- AMBAS1B [ABAS1B] New STAR: AMBAS-ADRIV–TABEB

- AMBIN1B [ABIN1B] New STAR: AMBIN–CC101-PUXUN

- AVELO1B [AVEL1B] New STAR: AVELO–MARAX

- BEROX1B [BERO1B] New STAR: BEROX–CC104-PUXUN

- DATOR1B [DATO1B] New STAR: DATOR–ADRIV-TABEB

- DIBOK1B [DIBO1B] New STAR: DIBOK–CC102-PUXUN


Changes to the operational concept [Ref.7] of the RWY 11 arrival routes:

- RNAV 1 routes.

- DATOR 1B merges with AMBAS 1B and ARUBA 1B at ADRIV. They are designed to connect to

TABEB instead of MARAX.

- Speed restriction at or above FL070 added at ADRIV.

- ACORA 1B and SCAPA 1B merge at AGLIS with KARUM 1B.

of 77


4.5 STAR RWY 11

of 77


TNCC RNAV (GNSS) ARRIVALS RWY 11 CODING TABLE

Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

ACORA 1B [ACOR1B]

001 ACORA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.4 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC107 TF ‒ 249 (236.2) 101.3 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

003 AGLIS TF ‒ 247 (235.9) 16.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 PUXUN TF ‒ 188 (176.8) 13.4 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBAS 1B [ABAS1B]

001 AMBAS IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.0 ‒ RNAV 1

002 ADRIV TF ‒ 111 (100.6) 134.2 ‒ +FL070 ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

003 TABEB TF ‒ 121 (110.2) 28.4 ‒ +2500 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBIN 1B [ABIN1B]

001 AMBIN IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -09.1 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC101 TF ‒ 134 (124.7) 317.3 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.3 ‒ RNAV 1

003 PUXUN TF ‒ 137 (125.9) 29.0 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

ARUBA 1B [ARUB1B]

001 ADRIV IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ +FL070 ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

002 TABEB TF ‒ 121 (110.2) 28.4 ‒ +2500 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

AVELO 1B [AVEL1B]

001 AVELO IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.0 ‒ RNAV 1

002 MARAX TF ‒ 314 (302.0) 80.6 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

BEROX 1B [BERO1B]

001 BEROX IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.3 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC104 TF ‒ 178 (166.3) 196.6 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

003 PUXUN TF ‒ 178 (166.5) 29.0 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAIRE 1B [BON1B]

001 ODLAP IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.9 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC001 TF ‒ 291 (279.3) 20.0 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.8 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC002 TF ‒ 294 (282.2) 27.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 MARAX TF ‒ 299 (287.3) 11.1 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAX 1B [BOAX1B]

001 BONAX IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ +FL030 ‒ -12.1 ‒ RNAV 1

002 ODLAP TF ‒ 259 (247.1) 23.5 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.9 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC001 TF ‒ 291 (279.3) 20.0 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.8 ‒ RNAV 1

004 CC002 TF ‒ 294 (282.2) 27.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

005 MARAX TF ‒ 299 (287.3) 11.1 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

DATOR 1B [DATO1B]

001 DATOR IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.8 ‒ RNAV 1

002 ADRIV TF ‒ 102 (091.3) 39.2 ‒ +FL070 ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

003 TABEB TF ‒ 121 (110.2) 28.4 ‒ +2500 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

DIBOK 1B [DIBO1B]

001 DIBOK IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -09.4 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC102 TF ‒ 141 (132.1) 326.3 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.3 ‒ RNAV 1

003 PUXUN TF ‒ 144 (133.2) 29.0 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

EMAPA 1B [EMAP1B]

001 EMAPA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

002 MARAX TF ‒ 028 (016.4) 11.2 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

KARUM 1B [KARU1B]

001 KARUM IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

of 77



Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

002 CC105 TF ‒ 188 (176.2) 190.7 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 AGLIS TF ‒ 188 (176.3) 15.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 PUXUN TF ‒ 188 (176.8) 13.4 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

SCAPA 1B [SCAP1B]

001 SCAPA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.5 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC106 TF ‒ 219 (206.6) 202.2 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 AGLIS TF ‒ 218 (206.2) 16.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 PUXUN TF ‒ 188 (176.8) 13.4 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

VESKA 1B [VESK1B]

001 VESKA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC103 TF ‒ 168 (156.8) 209.1 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

003 PUXUN TF ‒ 169 (157.2) 29.0 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

New waypoints:


CC101 N 12 36 51.9463 W 069 33 24.9690

CC102 N 12 39 43.7408 W 069 31 00.5735

CC103 N 12 46 38.3480 W 069 20 52.8490

CC104 N 12 48 06.3263 W 069 16 19.3078

CC105 N 12 48 51.3275 W 069 11 12.2835

CC106 N 12 48 10.2733 W 069 02 39.6462

CC107 N 12 42 34.0050 W 068 56 06.0265

CC001 N 11 58 43.0007 W 068 31 58.6235

CC002 N 12 04 33.3677 W 068 59 32.9709

ODLAP N 11 55 29.6366 W 068 11 51.6730

of 77


4.6 STAR RWY 11 (Overview)

of 77


5 FLIGHT PROCEDURE LAYOUT RWY 29

5.1 Overview of SID changes

The following table shows the changes to currently published RWY 29 SIDs (AIRAC 2002).

Old

designator

Route designator ARINC 424

designator

Navigation Changes

AGLIS 1B - - RNAV Removed.

AGLIS 1C VESKA 1M [VESK1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-VESKA

BONAX 1B BONAX 1M [BOAX1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

ETLAT-BONAX

EMAPA 1B EMAPA 1M [EMAP1M] RNAV Rename.

IRLEP 1B ARUBA 1M [ARUB1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-ADRIV

MUNBA 1B KARUM 1M [KARU1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-KARUM

NOXAD 1B ACORA 1M [ACOR1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-ACORA

REPIS 1B REPIS 1M [REPI1M] RNAV Renamed.

PJBCB 1B BONAIRE 1M [BON1M] RNAV Renamed. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

ETLAT

URNOT 1B SCAPA 1M [SCAP1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-SCAPA

- DATOR 1M [DATO1M] RNAV New route: DER-IMEVA-TABEB-

DATOR

- AMBAS 1M [ABAS1M] RNAV New route: DER-IMEVA-TABEB-

CC003-ELUMO-AMBAS

- AMBIN 1M [ABIN1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-AMBIN

- DIBOK 1M [DIBO1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-DIBOK

- BEROX 1M [BERO1M] RNAV Rename. Reroute: DER-IMEVA-

TABEB-SATEX-BEROX

- SATEX 1M [SATE1M] RNAV New route: DER-IMEVA-TABEB-

SATEX

- ARUBA 1L [ARUB1L] VOR New route

- EMAPA 1L [EMAP1L] VOR New route

- REPIS 1L [REPI1L] VOR New route

- BONAIRE 1L [BON1L] VOR New route

- BONAX 1L [BOAX1L] VOR New route


Changes to the operational concept [Ref.7] of the RWY 29 departure routes:

- RNAV 1 routes.

of 77


5.2 RNAV SID RWY 29

of 77



Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

ACORA 1M [ACOR1M]

001 IMEVA CF (PJG) Y 294 (282.1) 2.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 ACORA TF ‒ 069 (057.9) 115.5 ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.4 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBAS 1M [ABAS1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC003 TF ‒ 291 (279.4) 29.0 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

004 ELUMO TF ‒ 295 (283.7) 36.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

005 AMBAS TF ‒ 294 (283.2) 96.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.0 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBIN 1M [ABIN1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 AMBIN TF ‒ 315 (303.5) 335.0 ‒ ‒ ‒ -09.1 ‒ RNAV 1

ARUBA 1M [ARUB1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 ADRIV TF ‒ 302 (290.3) 28.4 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

BEROX 1M [BERO1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 BEROX TF ‒ 357 (345.6) 207.5 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.3 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAIRE 1M [BON1M]


002 ETLAT DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L ‒ ‒ -11.9 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAX 1M [BOAX1M]


002 ETLAT DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L ‒ ‒ -11.9 ‒ RNAV 1

003 BONAX TF ‒ 081 (069.0) 25.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.1 ‒ RNAV 1

DATOR 1M [DATO1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 DATOR TF ‒ 291 (279.4) 66.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.8 ‒ RNAV 1

DIBOK 1M [DIBO1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 DIBOK TF ‒ 323 (311.1) 342.2 ‒ ‒ ‒ -09.4 ‒ RNAV 1

EMAPA 1M [EMAP1M]


002 EMAPA DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L ‒ ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

KARUM 1M [KARU1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

of 77



Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 KARUM TF ‒ 008 (356.3) 201.4 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

REPIS 1M [REPI1M]


002 REPIS DF ‒ ‒ ‒ L ‒ ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

SATEX 1M [SATE1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

SCAPA 1M [SCAP1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 SCAPA TF ‒ 038 (026.9) 214.5 ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.5 ‒ RNAV 1

VESKA 1M [VESK1M]


002 TABEB TF ‒ 294 (282.1) 7.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SATEX TF ‒ 008 (356.8) 24.4 ‒ +FL110 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 VESKA TF ‒ 347 (335.6) 220.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

New waypoints:


CC003 N 12 18 29.6699 W 069 38 14.4277

ETLAT N 11 55 27.6094 W 068 14 20.1898

SATEX N 12 38 11.9757 W 069 10 27.7082

of 77


5.3 Conventional SID RWY 29

of 77


ARUBA 1L

Climb on runway magnetic track 294º direct to cross 50.4 DME ABA at or above 2500’. Turn right to

intercept and follow R 120 ABA to MATUL (7.6 DME ABA). Requires minimum 245’/NM up to 1000’.

BONAX 1L

Climb on runway magnetic track 294º direct to cross 5.0 DME PJG. Turn left to proceed on arc 7.0 DME

PJG to R 174 PJG. Turn right to intercept and follow R 279 PJB to PJB VOR/DME. At PJB VOR/DME, turn

right to intercept and follow R 109 PJB to BONAX (24.8 DME PJB). Requires minimum 245’/NM up to

1000’.

BONAIRE 1L


PJG to R 174 PJG. Turn right to intercept and follow R 279 PJB to PJB VOR/DME. Requires minimum

245’/NM up to 1000’.

EMAPA 1L


PJG to R 244 PJG. Turn right to intercept and follow R 232 PJG to EMAPA (19.4 DME PJG). Requires

minimum 245’/NM up to 1000’.

REPIS 1L


PJG to R 174 PJG. Turn right to intercept and follow R 162 PJG to REPIS (31.4 DME PJG). Requires

minimum 245’/NM up to 1000’.

The waypoints are defined as intersections from PJG VOR/DME, PJB VOR/DME or ABA VOR/DME, applying

the corresponding declination (11.52ºW for PJG, 11.92ºW for PJB and 11.02ºW for ABA) in the

determination of the corresponding radials:

Fix Azimuth DME

distance

Radial Radial

publication

MATUL [ABA] 108.53º 07.6 119.55º R 120

BONAX [PJB] 97.36º 69.8 109.28º R 109

EMAPA [PJG] 220.59º 19.4 232.11º R 232

REPIS [PJG] 150.03º 31.4 161.55º R 162

of 77


5.4 Overview of STAR changes

The following table shows the changes to currently published RWY 29 STARs (AIRAC 2002).

Old designator Route designator ARINC 424 designator Changes

BEXER 1A SCAPA 1M [SCAP1M] Rename. Reroute: SCAPA-CC206-CC306-

OMASU-SIGTO

BONAX 1C BONAX 1M [BOAX1M] Rename. Reroute: BONAX-IMOMA-URNAP

EMAPA 1C EMAPA 1M [EMAP1M] Rename.

IRLEP 1C ARUBA 1M [ARUB1M] Rename. Reroute: ELOTU-ROLBO-CC011-

LOGLA

KERLI 1A KARUM 1M [KARU1M] Rename. Reroute: KARUM-CC205-CC305-

OMASU-SIGTO

ONDAS 1A VESKA 1M [VESK1M] Rename. Reroute: VESKA-CC203-CC303-

OMASU-SIGTO

OVILA 1A Removed.

PJBCB 1C BONAIRE 1M [BON1M] Rename. Reroute: IMOMA-URNAP

SINDA 1A ACORA 1M [ACOR1M] Rename. Reroute: ACORA-CC307-SIGTO

- AMBAS1M [ABAS1M] New STAR: AMBAS-CC200-ELOTU-ROLBO-

CC011-LOGLA

- AMBIN1M [ABIN1M] New STAR: AMBIN-CC201-CC301-OMASU-

SIGTO

- AVELO1M [AVEL1M] New STAR: AVELO–URNAP

- BEROX1M [BERO1M] New STAR: BEROX-CC204-CC304-OMASU-

SIGTO

- DATOR1M [DATO1M] New STAR: DATOR-ROLBO-CC011-LOGLA

- DIBOK1M [DIBO1M] New STAR: DIBOK-CC202-CC301-OMASU-

SIGTO


Changes to the operational concept [Ref.7] of the RWY 29 arrival routes:

- RNAV 1 routes.

- STAR from Bonaire to Curaçao for RWY 29 is not needed. The departure route from Bonaire

connects directly to the middle IAF (URNAP) at Curaçao.

of 77


5.5 STAR RWY 29

of 77



Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

ACORA 1D [ACOR1D]

001 ACORA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.4 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC307 TF ‒ 233 (220.9) 82.5 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.9 ‒ RNAV 1

003 SIGTO TF ‒ 233 (220.7) 28.8 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBAS 1D [ABAS1D]

001 AMBAS IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.0 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC200 TF ‒ 111 (100.6) 73.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

003 ELOTU TF ‒ 120 (109.0) 59.0 ‒ +FL070 ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

004 ROLBO TF ‒ 122 (110.9) 17.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

005 CC011 TF ‒ 114 (102.0) 24.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

006 LOGLA TF ‒ 108 (096.9) 11.1 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

AMBIN 1D [ABIN1D]

001 AMBIN IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -09.1 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC201 TF ‒ 134 (124.7) 260.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC301 TF ‒ 120 (109.1) 94.0 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

004 OMASU TF ‒ 124 (112.7) 10.3 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

005 SIGTO TF ‒ 204 (192.2) 20.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

ARUBA 1D [ARUB1D]

001 ELOTU TF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ +FL070 ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

002 ROLBO TF ‒ 122 (110.9) 17.7 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC011 TF ‒ 114 (102.0) 24.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 LOGLA TF ‒ 108 (096.9) 11.1 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

AVELO 1D [AVEL1D]

001 AVELO IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.0 ‒ RNAV 1

002 URNAP TF ‒ 327 (314.7) 62.0 ‒ +2500 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

BEROX 1D [BERO1D]

001 BEROX IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.3 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC204 TF ‒ 178 (166.3) 136.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC304 TF ‒ 156 (145.1) 76.3 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

004 OMASU TF ‒ 157 (145.2) 10.3 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

005 SIGTO TF ‒ 204 (192.2) 20.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

BONAX 1D [BOAX1D]

001 BONAX IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.1 ‒ RNAV 1

002 IMOMA TF ‒ 288 (275.4) 37.7 ‒ +FL070 ‒ -11.8 ‒ RNAV 1

003 URNAP TF ‒ 284 (272.1) 17.2 ‒ +2500 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

DATOR 1D [DATO1D]

001 DATOR IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.8 ‒ RNAV 1

002 ROLBO TF ‒ 117 (106.0) 54.2 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC011 TF ‒ 114 (102.0) 24.9 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

004 LOGLA TF ‒ 108 (096.9) 11.1 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

DIBOK 1D [DIBO1D]

001 DIBOK IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -09.4 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC202 TF ‒ 141 (132.1) 269.5 ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC301 TF ‒ 127 (115.6) 90.9 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

004 OMASU TF ‒ 124 (112.7) 10.3 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

005 SIGTO TF ‒ 204 (192.2) 20.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

of 77



Route designator/

Serial number

Waypoint name

Path Terminator

Fly- over


Dist (NM)

Turn dir

Alt (ft/FL)

Speed (KIAS)

Mag var

VPA/TCH

Nav Spec

EMAPA 1D [EMAP1D]

001 EMAPA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.4 ‒ RNAV 1

002 LOGLA TF ‒ 089 (077.3) 26.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

KARUM 1D [KARU1D]

001 KARUM IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.6 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC205 TF ‒ 188 (176.2) 129.4 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC305 TF ‒ 167 (155.2) 72.2 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

004 OMASU TF ‒ 167 (155.3) 10.3 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

005 SIGTO TF ‒ 204 (192.2) 20.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

SCAPA 1D [SCAP1D]

001 SCAPA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -12.5 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC206 TF ‒ 219 (206.6) 135.0 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.9 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC306 TF ‒ 198 (185.9) 65.6 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

004 OMASU TF ‒ 198 (185.9) 8.1 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

005 SIGTO TF ‒ 204 (192.2) 20.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

VESKA 1D [VESK1D]

001 VESKA IF ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -10.9 ‒ RNAV 1

002 CC203 TF ‒ 168 (156.8) 150.6 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.2 ‒ RNAV 1

003 CC303 TF ‒ 147 (136.1) 80.4 ‒ -FL100 ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

004 OMASU TF ‒ 148 (136.3) 10.3 ‒ ‒ ‒ -11.7 ‒ RNAV 1

005 SIGTO TF ‒ 204 (192.2) 20.7 ‒ +FL030 ‒ -11.5 ‒ RNAV 1

New waypoints:


CC011 N 12 04 15.7838 W 068 58 09.6120

CC200 N 12 35 11.6616 W 070 36 52.2488

CC201 N 13 10 11.0508 W 070 20 31.5169

CC202 N 13 18 44.0665 W 070 13 29.9379

CC203 N 13 40 49.4373 W 069 44 10.1887

CC204 N 13 46 26.2775 W 069 30 39.3361

CC205 N 13 50 18.5058 W 069 15 16.3976

CC206 N 13 48 40.5014 W 068 32 09.5396

CC301 N 12 39 01.8319 W 068 49 38.7514

CC303 N 12 42 31.7708 W 068 47 11.7948

CC304 N 12 43 32.4723 W 068 45 56.0155

CC305 N 12 44 26.6851 W 068 44 19.2561

CC306 N 12 43 10.6119 W 068 39 04.4231

CC307 N 12 36 40.5445 W 068 25 12.6451

OMASU N 12 35 02.6188 W 068 39 55.6490

ROLBO N 12 09 29.6156 W 069 23 02.8982

of 77


5.6 STAR RWY 29 (Overview)

of 77


6 AERONAUTICAL PUBLICATION

6.1 Coding tables

All coding tables are renewed entirely. See sections 4.2 and 0 for RWY 11 and sections 5.2 and 0 for RWY

29. The changes to the coding tables are as follows:

a. AD 2 TNCC-31_SID EAST 4 DEP - CODING TABLE AD 2 TNCC-31_RNAV (GNSS) DEP RWY 11-

Coding Table

b. AD 2 TNCC-35_SID WEST 4 DEP - CODING TABLE AD 2 TNCC-35_RNAV (GNSS) DEP RWY 29-

Coding Table

c. AD 2 TNCC-39_STAR EAST 5 ARR - CODING TABLE AD 2 TNCC-35_RNAV (GNSS) ARR RWY 29-

Coding Table

d. AD 2 TNCC-43_STAR WEST 5 ARR - CODING TABLE AD 2 TNCC-35_RNAV (GNSS) ARR RWY 11-

Coding Table

Coordinates of new waypoints (CCXXX) are published below the corresponding coding table.

6.2 Aeronautical charts

The following charts will be changed:

e. AD 2 TNCC-29_SID EAST 4 DEP AD 2 TNCC-29_RNAV (GNSS) DEP RWY 11

f. AD 2 TNCC-33_SID WEST 4 DEP AD 2 TNCC-33_RNAV (GNSS) DEP RWY 29

g. New chart: AD 2 TNCC-xx_VOR DEP RWY 11

h. New chart: AD 2 TNCC-xx_VOR DEP RWY 29

i. AD 2 TNCC-37_STAR EAST 5 ARR AD 2 TNCC-37_RNAV (GNSS) ARR RWY 29

j. AD 2 TNCC-41_STAR WEST 5 ARR AD 2 TNCC-41_RNAV (GNSS) ARR RWY 11

k. New chart: AD 2 TNCC-xx_OVERVIEW RNAV (GNSS) ARR RWY 11

l. New chart: AD 2 TNCC-xx_OVERVIEW RNAV (GNSS) ARR RWY 29

For new SIDs and STARs, the scale is the same as the current charts, covering the relevant part of the

Hato CTR. The projection used is the Lambert conformal conic projection (ICAO Annex 4 sections 9.4.1

and 10.4.1) [Ref.2].

Given the length of the new STARs and the location of significant points, two new overview charts of the

FIR are necessary to provide a depiction of the entire STAR (k and l). Since the scale of this type of

charts resembles an en-route chart, the projection used for these charts is the Lambert conformal conic

projection, as required in ICAO Annex 4 7.4.1 [Ref.2].

The new SIDs will be defined to Curaçao FIR boundary points, as opposed to the CTR boundary points.

Since there are no significant points between the common XFL waypoints and the FIR boundary

waypoints, it is sufficient to indicate the FIR point on the SID charts with the text at the end of each

route, as depicted also in the SIDs and STARs from TNCA. The coding tables include the entire

procedure.

The definition of the intersection fixes in the VOR departure charts is published below the corresponding

chart.

of 77


6.3 Other aeronautical information

Note: Lay out and numbering of the AIP changes are subject to editing by DC-ANSP AIS.

ENR 4.3 Name code designator for significant points

Include names, geographical coordinates and associated procedure (for instance: “TNCC STAR”) of new

5LNC waypoints.

TNCC AD 2.22 Flight procedures

ADD SECTION 4. DEPARTURE PROCEDURES HATO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT:

4.1 General remarks

Transition altitude: 2500ft AMSL.

Max 250 kt below FL100 unless otherwise instructed.

4.2 SID RWY 11

Advise ATC if unable to climb with at least 225’/NM to OLITO (RNAV SID) or to 2500’ (VOR SID).

Advise ATC if unable to climb to at least FL110 at AMIPU.

Departure procedures RWY 11 to a Curaçao FIR boundary point that is not part of a SID: file the

SID AMIPU 1K (RNAV) or AMIPU 1J (VOR). After passing AMIPU, expect ATC instructions to first

en-route waypoint.

4.2.1 Conventional description

- Add the description of the conventional SIDs as included in section 4.3.

4.3 SID RWY 29

Advise ATC if unable to climb with at least 245’/NM to IMEVA (RNAV SID) or 500’/NM to 2500’

(VOR SID).

Advise ATC if unable to climb to at least FL110 at SATEX.

RNAV departure procedures RWY 29 to a Curaçao FIR boundary point that is not part of a SID:

file the SID SATEX 1M (RNAV). After passing SATEX, expect ATC instructions to first en-route

waypoint.

VOR departures RWY 29 to a Curaçao FIR boundary point that is not part of a SID: Expect ATC

instructions.

4.3.1 Conventional description

- Add the description of the conventional SIDs as included in section 5.3.

ADD SECTION 5. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES HATO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT:

5.1 General remarks

Transition altitude: 2500ft AMSL.

Max 250 kt below FL100 unless otherwise instructed.

5.2 STAR RWY 11

Arrival procedures RWY 11: inbound traffic entering the Curaçao FIR without filing a STAR –

expect ATC instructions from the FIR boundary to PUXUN or AGLIS.

Arrival procedures RWY 11: Advise ATC if unable to descend to FL100 at CC1XX waypoints:

“Unable to comply with charted altitude restriction to descend to FL100”.

5.3 STAR RWY 29

Arrival procedures RWY 29: inbound traffic entering the Curaçao FIR without filing a STAR –

expect ATC instructions from the FIR boundary to SIGTO or OMASU.

of 77


Arrival procedures RWY 29: Advise ATC if unable to descend to FL100 at CC3XX waypoints:

“Unable to comply with charted altitude restriction to descend to FL100”.

REPLACE THE COMMUNICATION FAILURE PROCEDURES IN AD 2.22 SECTION 4 WITH THOSE IN Annex C

RENUMBER THE SECTION AS SECTION 6. RADIO COMMUNICATION FAILURE PROCEDURES (RCF).

6.4 Other changes

6.4.1 ATC system and procedure changes

Training and possible system changes shall follow after stakeholder consultation and design approval.

6.4.2 NOTAM/SUP/AIC (if necessary)

DC-ANSP is responsible for the publication of the AIP Dutch Caribbean. DC-ANSP AIS has the following

policy for publication of changes to the AIP:

- The processing of AIP changes follows the standard ICAO process with published cut-off,

publication and effective dates. Only the even AIRAC cycles are being used to publicize

changes, i.e. AIRAC 2102, AIRAC 2104, etc.

- If the time for aircraft operators to process the published change is considered too short to be

able to implement and comply with the change by the time it becomes effective, a prewarning

by publication of an AIP Supplement (SUP) or AIC (depending on the content to be published,

whereby this is determined by the AIS in accordance to ICAO SARPs) shall be considered. This

option is mainly applied when there are changes of applicable regulations or those with

organizational consequences for the aircraft operator or at the explicit request of the

accountable Civil Aviation Authority.

These instrument flight procedures are planned to be a major change to become effective with AIRAC

2105, effective date 20 May 2021. Given the scope of the airspace redesign, MovingDot recommends DC-

ANSP to publish an AIC to inform all aircraft operators well in advance about the intended changes and

the implementation dates.

of 77


7 SID RWY 11: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN

7.1 Technical parameters per flight segment

According to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.3.1.1, the departure end of the runway (DER) for

standard departures from RWY 11 is located at the end of the runway, THR 29, whose elevation is 36ft.

There is no clearway declared at the end of the runway [Ref.8].

Standard departures from RWY 11 require maintaining runway track until reaching OLITO. This waypoint,

which is the turning point for the routes that go to the north and the south, is reached at different

altitudes depending on the climb gradient as indicated below:

- OLITO is reached at 577ft when aircraft climb at 3.3% (ICAO Doc 8186 Vol II I-3-3 section

3.3.2.4).

- OLITO is reached at 1184ft when aircraft climb at 7% (nominal path).

- OLITO is reached at 1677ft when aircraft climb at 10% (climb gradient used in protection areas).

Consequently, the requirement of maintaining the runway track until reaching 394ft above the runway -

ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.2.4-, which for RWY 11 is 430ft AMSL, is met for all climb gradients.

All departure routes are considered as turning departures except for BONAIRE 1B and BONAX 1B, for

which the required turn is only 7°, which is considered as track adjustment (ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II

sections I-3-2 2.2.3 and I-3-3 3.2.4.2.1).

The following technical parameters, as included in ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II Table I-2-3-1, are used for the

different turn constructions (nominal path):

- Final missed approach IAS for aircraft Cat D (265 kt Table I-4-1-2, [Ref.1]) increased by 10%.

- ISA + 20, according to the aerodrome reference temperature [Ref.8].

- Turn altitude corresponding to a nominal 7% climb gradient (I-3-3-App and 4.2.2.2 [Ref.1]).

- True airspeed, based on the IAS corrected by altitude and temperature.

- Bank angle: 25°above 3000ft AMSL.

- No wind.

- Rate of turn and turn radius, as included in section I-2-3 3.1.2.2.

According to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-3-1 1.4.1.2, turning departures shall not include turns

exceeding 120°, except for those with a free turn back to a waypoint. All turns included in the SID RWY

11 are less than 120°, therewith compliant.

An altitude restriction is set for AMIPU at FL110 or higher. To include a buffer for high atmospheric

pressure (1500ft) for conversion from the altitude restriction at AMIPU, an altitude of FL125 is used for

the calculation. With a 7% climb gradient from the DER along the nominal path, conform ICAO Doc 8168

Vol II, section I-3 Appendix to chapter 3 (Guidance on environmental issues), this altitude is reached just

outside the CTR boundary. The waypoint is therefore placed 5NM outside the CTR boundary.

All segment lengths are compliant with the minimum stabilization distance (MSD) between two

waypoints. Therefore, no speed restrictions are required. Calculations and results can be found in Annex

A.4.1. The parameters used in these calculations are as summarized above, with the following

exceptions:

- Altitude at FIR exit points is considered to be FL290.

of 77


- IAS at FIR exit points is considered to be 315kt (as indicated in Table I-4-1-2 [Ref.1]).

MSD DER – OLITO

The distance between the DER (runway end) and OLITO is 2.7NM. This distance is compliant with the

following criteria:

- Table III-2-1-21, which for SIDs within 15NM from DER requires minimum 1.5NM.

- ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.3 Particular case DER-first waypoint. The location of the

first waypoint must provide a minimum distance of 1.9NM between the DER and the earliest

turning point. This distance is determined as follows:

MSD = 1.9NM + ATT = 1.9 + 0.8 NM = 2.7NM

Where ATT (RNAV 1, SID < 15NM ARP, Table III-1-2-18) = 0.8NM.

7.2 Obstacle assessment and minima

PDG

According to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.2.6, the standard performance design gradient (PDG) is

3.3% and it begins at 16 ft above the elevation of the DER -52ft-. The standard PDG provides an

additional clearance of 0.8% of the distance flown from the DER, above an obstacle identification

surface (OIS). The OIS has a gradient of 2.5%. Where an obstacle penetrates the OIS, a steeper PDG may

be promulgated to provide obstacle clearance of 0.8% of the distance flown from the DER. An assessment

of the initial segment of the SIDs (maintain runway track until 3000ft AMSL or until reaching OLITO) is

performed, resulting in the following penetrations of the protection area (see Figure 3):

Obstacle ID Obstacle elevation + tolerance Distance from DER OIS PDG

1054 163.4ft (Elev: 147ft) 1342.92m 2.53% 3.33%

1011 (Obst.7) 157.5ft (Elev: 140ft) 1163.62m 2.77% 3.57%

However, these obstacles are considered as close-in obstacles (height less than 200ft) and therefore can

be omitted for an increased PDG (although they shall be promulgated) according to ICAO Doc. 8168 Vol II

section I-3-2 2.7.5. Since both obstacles are very close to the runway and almost coincident

geographically, only the highest obstacle is promulgated in the chart, to avoid cluttering the chart.

of 77


Figure 3. Protection areas initial departure segment and OIS 2.5% penetrations – RWY 11

Departure routes to the north and south are defined as turning departures since the turn is greater than

15º. Before any turn greater than 15º, a minimum obstacle clearance of 75m must be reached (ICAO Doc

8168 Vol II section I-2-3 2.2.9). The MOC at OLITO (2.7NM from DER), calculated as 0.8% of the distance

DER-OLITO, results in 40m, which means that a minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) of 75m is not

reached. Therefore, the PDG has to be increased as follows:

- Distance DER – OLITO: 2.7NM

- OIS altitude at OLITO: 125.01m

- OIS altitude at OLITO + MOC (75m) = 200.01m

- OIS height at OLITO + MOC (75m) = 184.01m

- PDG required = 3.68%, which is rounded to 3.7% (225’/NM).

This PDG value up to OLITO is promulgated in the notes, conform ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-5 5.1f)

[Ref.1].

Obstacles after initial segment

An obstacle assessment has also been performed for the other segments after the initial straight

segment. There are no obstacle penetrations after the initial segment of the SIDs (for turning departures

to the north and to the south: OLITO-AMIPU, OLITO-REPIS and OLITO-MEMRU). There are also no

obstacles penetrating the protection area of the second straight segment OLITO-IMOMA.

VOR departures

This newly determined PDG is also published on the VOR SID charts, as part of the description of the

departure route and up to an altitude of 1100’ (which is the altitude of the first turning departure):

“Requires minimum 225’/NM up to 1100’”.

Noise abatement procedures (AIP AD 2.21)

Current noise abatement procedures are contained in the AIP. The part concerning flight procedure is

the following [Ref.8]:

of 77


“All aircraft heavier than 5700KG MTOM and all turbojet aircraft departing from RWY 11, which are

cleared for a right turn out, shall maintain runway heading until FL030, then turn right.”

The current noise abatement procedure is therefore maintained -conform Req.2T- and no specific PDG is

required due to airspace reasons. After consultation with safety experts, the proposed mitigation for

pilots not being informed of this procedure is in the form of a note to be included on the chart (RNAV SID

RWY 11).

VOR departures include by default the noise abatement procedure (climb on runway track up to 3000ft

prior to turning right), given the extra distance before turning right compared to RNAV SIDs. However, as

not every operator might be able to climb to this altitude at that point (9.0 DME PJG), a caution note is

included in the charts to advise ATC if unable to reach 3000ft before turning right.

of 77


8 SID RWY 29: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN


According to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.3.1.1, the departure end of the runway (DER) for

standard departures from RWY 29 is located at the end of the runway, which is not coincident with THR

11 (see aerodrome chart, [Ref.8]). The coordinates of the DER are: N 12 11 31.73 W 068 58 30.09. The

elevation of the DER is 32ft.

Standard departures from RWY 29 require maintaining runway track until reaching IMEVA. This waypoint,

which is the turning point for the routes that go to the north and the south, is reached at different

altitudes depending on the climb gradient as indicated below:

- IMEVA is reached at 573ft when aircraft climb at 3.3% (ICAO Doc 8186 Vol II I-3-3 section

3.3.2.4).

- IMEVA is reached at 1180ft when aircraft climb at 7% (nominal path).

- IMEVA is reached at 1673ft when aircraft climb at 10% (climb gradient used in protection areas).

Consequently, the requirement of maintaining the runway track until reaching 394ft above the runway -

ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.2.4-, which for RWY 29 is 426ft AMSL, is met for all climb gradients.

All departure routes are considered as turning departures except for ARUBA 1M, AMBAS 1M and DATOR

1M, for which the required turns are 3 to 8 degrees, which are considered a track adjustment (ICAO Doc

8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.2.3 and I-3-3 3.2.4.2.1).

The following technical parameters, as included in ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II Table I-2-3-1, are used for the

different turn constructions:

- Final missed approach IAS for aircraft Cat D (265 kt Table I-4-1-2, [Ref.1]) increased by 10%.

- ISA + 20.

- Turn altitude corresponding to a nominal 7% climb gradient (I-3-3-App and 4.2.2.2 [Ref.1]).

- True airspeed, based on the IAS corrected by altitude and temperature.

- Bank angle: 25°above 3000ft AMSL.

- No wind.

- Rate of turn and turn radius, as included in section I-2-3 3.1.2.2.

According to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-3-1 1.4.1.2, turning departures shall not include turns

exceeding 120°, except for those with a free turn back to a waypoint. All turns included in the SID RWY

29 are less than 120°, therewith compliant.

An altitude restriction is set for SATEX at FL110 or higher. To include a buffer for high atmospheric

pressure (1500ft) for conversion from the altitude restriction at SATEX, an altitude of FL125 is used for

the calculation. With a 7% climb gradient from the DER along the nominal path, conform ICAO Doc 8168

Vol II, section I-3 Appendix to chapter 3 (Guidance on environmental issues), this altitude is reached just

outside the CTR boundary. The waypoint is therefore placed 5NM outside the CTR boundary.

All segment lengths are compliant with the minimum stabilization distance (MSD) between two

waypoints. Therefore, no speed restrictions are required. Calculations and results can be found in Annex

A.4.2. The parameters used in these calculations are as summarized above, with the following

exceptions:

of 77


- Altitude at FIR exit points is considered to be FL290

- IAS at FIR exit points is considered to be 315kt (as indicated in Table I-4-1-2 [Ref.1])

MSD DER – IMEVA

The distance between the DER (runway end) and IMEVA is 2.7NM. This distance is compliant with the

following criteria:

- Table III-2-1-21, which for SIDs within 15NM from DER requires minimum 1.5NM.

- ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.3 Particular case DER-first waypoint. The location of the

first waypoint must provide a minimum distance of 1.9NM between the DER and the earliest

turning point. This distance is determined as follows:

MSD = 1.9NM + ATT = 1.9 + 0.8 NM = 2.7NM

Where ATT (RNAV 1, SID < 15NM ARP, Table III-1-2-18) = 0.8NM.


PDG

According to ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.2.6, the standard PDG is 3.3% and it begins at 16ft

above the elevation of the DER -48ft-. The standard PDG provides an additional clearance of 0.8% of the

distance flown from the DER, above an obstacle identification surface (OIS). The OIS has a gradient of

2.5%. Where an obstacle penetrates the OIS, a steeper PDG may be promulgated to provide obstacle

clearance of 0.8 per cent of the distance flown from the DER. An assessment of the initial segment of

the SIDs (maintain runway track until 2500ft AMSL or until reaching IMEVA) is performed, resulting in the

following penetrations of the protection area:

Obstacle ID Obstacle elevation + tolerance Distance from DER OIS PDG

1028 181.4ft 1505.45m 2.70% 3.50%

1029 182.4ft 1567.28m 2.61% 3.41%

1026 211.4ft 1716.15m 2.90% 3.70%

1025 215.4ft 1900.46m 2.68% 3.48%

1023 223.4ft 2019.21m 2.65% 3.45%

1021 248.4ft 2158.21m 2.83% 3.63%

1030 264.4ft (Elev: 248ft) 2095.41m 3.15% 3.95%

1031 277.4ft (Elev: 261ft) 2168.39m 3.22% 4.02%

1019 253.4ft 2181.49m 2.87% 3.67%

1022 226.4ft 2082.75m 2.61% 3.41%

1024 220.4ft 1971.76m 2.67% 3.47%

Obstacles 1028 and 1029 are considered as close-in obstacles (height less than 200ft) and therefore can

be omitted for an increased PDG (although they shall be promulgated) according to ICAO Doc. 8168 Vol II

section I-3-2 2.7.5. Since they are next to each other, to reduce clutter only the highest obstacle (ID

1029 elevation 166ft) is promulgated.

The controlling obstacle is 1031 (house), which results in a PDG of 4.02% (245’/NM). This obstacle is also

included in the charts.

of 77


Figure 4. Protection areas initial departure segment and OIS 2.5% penetrations – RWY 29

Departure routes to the north and south are defined as turning departures, since the turn is greater than

15º. Before any turn greater than 15º, a minimum obstacle clearance of 75m must be reached (ICAO Doc

8168 Vol II section I-2-3 2.2.9). The MOC at IMEVA (2.7NM from DER), calculated as 0.8% of the distance

DER-IMEVA, results in 40m, which means that a minimum MOC of 75m is not reached. Therefore, the PDG

due to turning departures should be increased as follows:

- Distance DER – IMEVA: 2.7NM

- OIS altitude at IMEVA: 125.01m

- OIS altitude at IMEVA + MOC (75m) = 200.01m

- OIS height at IMEVA + MOC (75m) = 185.21m

- PDG required = 3.704%, which is rounded to 3.8% (231’/NM)

This turning PDG is lower than the one required due to obstacles. Given the small difference between

these two PDGs, only a single value (4.1%, or 245’/NM) is promulgated up to IMEVA.

Straight departures (ARUBA 1M, AMBAS 1M, DATOR 1M) and departures to the north via SATEX fly over

TNP-14 (SFC – 900ft AMSL). The distance from the DER to this area is approximately 5NM, which would

require a climb gradient of 2.86% to ensure aircraft flying over the TNP are. This value is less restrictive

than the standard PDG of 3.3%. Therefore, even with the lowest PDG possible (3.3%), aircraft will get to

TNP-14 at an altitude higher than 900’ and there is no need for an specific PDG based on TNP-14.

Departures to the north (via SATEX) do not require a higher climb gradient due to TNP-16. Even with a

standard PDG of 3.3% promulgated after IMEVA, they will reach 2500ft AMSL before reaching the closest

TNP-16 point.

Obstacles after initial segment

An obstacle assessment has also been performed for the other segments after the initial straight

segment. There are no obstacle penetrations after the initial segment of the SIDs (for turning departures

to the north and to the south). There are also no obstacles penetrating the protection area of the second

straight segment IMEVA-TABEB.

VOR departures

All VOR departure routes require the newly determined PDG based on obstacles (4.1% or 245’/NM), since

there are no routes turning to the north and they also fly over TNP-14. Since IMEVA is not part of the

of 77


VOR departures, the indication of the required climb gradient has to be provided up to an altitude. By

requiring 4.1% up to 1000ft AMSL, it is ensured that:

- Aircraft will fly over the highest obstacles (since 1000ft would be reached at 4NM after the DER

instead of at 2.7NM, which is the position of IMEVA and the end of the climb restriction for

RNAV SIDs)

- TNP-14 (which is at 5NM from the DER) will be safely overflown.

Therefore, a note is also published on the VOR SID charts, as part of the description of the departure

routes “Requires minimum 245’/NM up to 1000’”.

The same obstacles as for the RNAV SID RWY 29 are included in the chart.

Comparison of the new PDG required with the current one (AIRAC 2002)

New departures from RWY 29 require lower PDGs than the current ones due to airspace reasons only. In

the previous design of the departure routes from RWY 29, TNP-14 had a higher upper limit than 900ft

(2500ft), and therefore, a higher climb gradient was required to fly over this area (8%). However, the

current upper limit of the TNP-14 area has been lowered to 900ft AMSL and therefore 8% is no longer

needed.

The required PDG based on obstacles has been increased (4.1% or 245’/NM).

of 77


9 STAR RWY 11: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN


Location of crossing condition waypoints

The location of the crossing condition waypoints (CC10x) is obtained based on a 4% descent gradient

from FL100 to FL030. Only arrival routes from the north (AMBIN, DIBOK, VESA, BEROX, KARUM, SCAPA

and ACORA) are vertically separated from the departures to the north; therefore, they converge to the

same IAF -PUXUN- which has as current altitude restriction at or above FL030.

Variable Value Reference/remark

Initial altitude FL100 Altitude restriction for the STARs

ISA ISA + 20 Corresponding to the aerodrome reference temperature [Ref.8]

Descent gradient 4% ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-4-3 3.3.5 [Ref.1]

Final altitude FL030 Lowest altitude at IAF PUXUN.

Required straight

distance

28.80NM Measured from the respective IAF (for straight routes)

Track distance (TRD) 0.7NM (SCAPA) /

0.9NM (ACORA)

ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-3 3.2.4 [Ref.1]

Measured along the path from the respective IAF to XFL waypoints

(for routes that include a turn)

Total distance for

turning routes

30NM Required straight distance increased by the greatest TRD and

rounded to the nearest NM.

MSD calculations

Annex A.3.1 includes all the calculations regarding minimum stabilization distances (MSD) between two

waypoints, obtained conform ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.4.2. They are based on the following

parameters:

Table 1. MSD parameters - arrival routes


Max. IAS 315 / 250 kt 315 kt is used as a reference IAS for en-route flights (northern FIR

entry points), Table I-4-1-2 [Ref.1]

250kt is used for all the other waypoints according to ICAO Annex

11 Appendix 4 [Ref.3]


Flight altitude at

northern FIR entry

points

FL290 ATS routes altitude [Ref.8]

Flight altitude As appropriate According to nominal path. PUXUN and MARAX, FL030.

TABEB 2500ft AMSL.

Bank angle 25º ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.2.4.1 [Ref.1]

Wind No wind ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.4.2 [Ref.1]

Bank establishment

time

5s ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.4.2.1 [Ref.1]

True airspeed IAS corrected by

flight altitude

and

temperature

ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-2-1 Appendix to Chapter 1 [Ref.1]

of 77



Arrival routes to RWY 11 are designed over the sea. All procedure altitudes (≥FL030, defined at the IAFs)

are above the MSA of 2300ft AMSL. Therefore, there is no need for an obstacle assessment for arrival

routes.

To determine and document the controlling obstacle for each procedure conform ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II

section I-2-4 4.5.1, an obstacle assessment has been performed. Only segments AGLIS-PUXUN and CC001-

CC002 do have a controlling obstacle, which corresponds to the highest elevation in the north (1232’,

see Figure 5) and in the south (643’, Figure 6). These are included in the STAR RWY 11 chart.

Figure 5. Protection areas AGLIS-PUXUN and obstacle penetration – RWY 11

Figure 6. Protection areas CC001-CC002 and obstacle penetration – RWY 11

of 77


To enhance situational awareness and charting uniformity, the same obstacles that are included in the

current TNCC STARs [Ref.8] are also depicted on the new detail STAR RWY 11. These obstacles are listed

below:

ID Description Elevation Source

1001 Spot elevation (NW end island) 1232 Ref.9

1013 Spot elevation (SE end island) 643 Ref.9

1010 Cell tower 419 Ref.9

1011, 1039 Hazard beacons 140 Ref.9

1008 ATC radar 316 Ref.9

Obstacle 9 - 351 Ref.13

of 77


10 STAR RWY 29: TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE DESIGN


Location of diversion point RWY 11/29

Routes from the southern FIR entry points (DATOR, EMAPA, AVELO) are designed as a straight line to the

southern or middle IAF, resulting in the shortest route (e.g. STAR from AVELO is designed as a straight

line AVELO-URNAP).

STAR for traffic from Bonaire connects with the straight departure from RWY 28 in Bonaire through

IMOMA (IMOMA-URNAP).

Routes from the northern FIR entry points are designed based on the STARs to RWY 11. The location of

the diversion points (from RWY 11 STAR to RWY 29 STAR) is primarily based on route length, where 10-

15% extra track miles compared to the straight route from the FIR boundary to the CTR is considered

acceptable. The other requirements for the location of these waypoints are that they have to be located

within a single area of responsibility and within the TMA. Given all these criteria, diversion points are

located at a distance of 100NM from the ARP.

Location of crossing conditions

The location of the crossing condition waypoints (CC30x) is obtained based on a 4% descent from FL100

to FL030. Only arrival routes from the north (AMBIN, DIBOK, VESKA, BEROX, KARUM, SCAPA and ACORA)

are vertically separated from the departures to the north; therefore, they converge to the same IAF -

SIGTO- whose current altitude restriction is at or above FL030.


Initial altitude FL100 Altitude restriction for the STARs


Descent gradient 4% ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-4-3 3.3.5 [Ref.1]

Final altitude FL030 Lowest altitude at IAF SIGTO.

Required straight

distance

28.80NM Measured from the respective IAF (for straight routes)

Track distance (TRD) 1.4NM (AMBIN) /

0.7NM (KARUM)

ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-3 3.2.4 [Ref.1]

Measured along the path from the respective IAF to XFL waypoints

(for routes that include a turn)

Total distance for

turning routes

31NM Required straight distance increased by the greatest TRD and

rounded to the nearest NM.

MSD calculations

Annex A.3.1 includes all the calculations regarding minimum stabilization distances (MSD) between two

waypoints, obtained conform ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section III-2-1 1.4.2. They are based on the same

parameters as included in Table 1.

of 77



Arrival routes to RWY 29 are designed over the sea. All procedure altitudes (≥FL030) are above the MSA

of 2300 ft AMSL. Therefore, there is no need for an obstacle assessment for arrival routes.

To determine and document the controlling obstacle for each procedure conform ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II

section I-2-4 4.5.1, an obstacle assessment has been performed. Only segments CC011-LOGLA and

EMAPA-CC011 do have a controlling obstacle, which corresponds to the highest elevation in the south

(643’, Figure 7 and Figure 8). It is included in the STAR RWY 29 chart.

Figure 7. Protection areas CC011-LOGLA and obstacle penetration – RWY 29

Figure 8. Protection areas EMAPA-CC011 and obstacle penetration – RWY 29

of 77


For situational awareness purposes, the controlling obstacle that determines the MSA (1232 ft AMSL, ID

1001, [Ref.9]) is also depicted on the STAR RWY 29 chart, since it is the highest elevation in the island.

To enhance situational awareness and charting uniformity, the same obstacles that are included in the

current TNCC STARs [Ref.8] are also depicted on the new detail STAR RWY 29. These obstacles are listed

below:

ID Description Elevation Source

1001 Spot elevation (NW end island) 1232 Ref.9

1013 Spot elevation (SE end island) 643 Ref.9

1010 Cell tower 419 Ref.9

1011, 1039 Hazard beacons 140 Ref.9

1008 ATC radar 316 Ref.9

Obstacle 9 - 351 Ref.13

of 77


11 FLIGHT PROCEDURE DESIGN RATIONALE

11.1 Naming convention

Current departure and arrival routes for Curaçao do not follow any standard philosophy regarding the

designator of the following routes:

- STAR RWY 11 uses B,D

- STAR RWY 29 uses A, C

- SID RWY 11 uses A

- SID RWY 29 uses B, C

The designators used in the new departure and arrival routes are ICAO compliant [Ref.3 / information

window below] and also consider the new names assigned in Aruba in order to prevent any duplicates

that might cause problems in the different systems (ATC and pilot).

With the above considerations, the route designators assigned to Curaçao are formatted as follows:

Route indicators assigned exclusively for TNCC:

- STAR RWY 11 B

- STAR RWY 29 D

- SID RWY 11 – VOR J

- SID RWY 11 – RNAV K

ICAO Annex 11 Appendix 3:

1.1 a) permit the identification of each route in a simple and unambiguous manner;

1.1 b) make a clear distinction between:

- departure and arrival routes;

- departure or arrival routes and other ATS routes;

- routes requiring navigation by reference to ground-based radio aids or self-contained airborne aids,

and routes requiring navigation by visual reference to the ground.

1.1 c) be compatible with ATS and aircraft data processing and display requirements;

1.1 e) avoid redundancy;

2.1.2 The basic indicator shall be the name or name-code of the significant point where a SID

terminates or a STAR begins.

2.1.3 The validity indicator shall be a number from 1 to 9.

2.1.4 The route indicator shall be one letter of the alphabet. The letters “I” and “O” shall not be

used.

3.2 To distinguish between two or more routes which relate to the same significant point (and

therefore are assigned the same basic indicator), a separate route indicator as described in 2.1.4

shall be assigned to each route.

4. Assignment of validity indicators

4.1 A validity indicator shall be assigned to each route to identify the route which is currently in

effect.

4.2 The first validity indicator to be assigned shall be the number “1”.

4.3 Whenever a route is amended, a new validity indicator, consisting of the next higher number,

shall be assigned. The number “9” shall be followed by the number “1”.

of 77


- SID RWY 29 – VOR L

- SID RWY 29 – RNAV M

Basic indicators: FIR boundary points. Routes for traffic to/from Aruba and Bonaire will be named with

the name of the island where the VOR is located (ARUBA for ABA and BONAIRE for PJB).

ICAO Annex 11 Appendix 3 does not include a limit to the number of characters to be used in the basic

indicator. The only limitation lies in the on board requirement. Since it can only cope with a

combination of 4 characters + 1 number + 1 character, the ARINC 424 designator for each SID/STAR is

included in the coding tables.

Validity indicators: Because all arrival and departure procedures are new, the validity indicators are 1.

11.2 Obstacle assessment

An obstacle assessment has been performed for the SIDs and STARs based on the surveys provided by DC-

ANSP:

- SATNAV TNCC Aerodrome Data – Survey 15/07/2011 [Ref.9]

- Geopro Consultants N.V. - TNCC Aerodrome Obstacle chart ICAO Type B, August 2019 [Ref.13]

The first report includes a survey of the whole island but it is outdated (9 years old). The second report

includes only the obstacles that are within the different aerodrome surfaces, which do not cover the

entire island.

Both databases have been imported in the design software considering a vertical margin of 5m and a

horizontal radius of 5m.

Based on the absence of appropriate up-to-date information, and as agreed with DC-ANSP, the initial

segment of the SIDs (segment over land) have not been modified. An obstacle assessment has been

performed based on the outdated data and as a result there are no PDGs due to obstacles that are lower

than the current ones. Because of the outdated data, it could be possible that new obstacles have been

erected which are not accounted for in the flight procedure design. MovingDot recommends DC-ANSP to

perform a complete obstacle survey as soon as possible and to perform an obstacle assessment.

11.3 Waypoint naming

The following five alphanumeric name-codes have been assigned per procedure and per runway:

- CC000-CC099 extra waypoints needed for the procedures

- CC10x – Altitude restrictions STARs RWY 11

- CC20x – Dispersion points STARs 11/29

- CC30x – Altitude restrictions STARs 29

The following 5LNC have been requested by DC-ANSP AIS and have been approved by ICAO (v0.3 of this

report already includes the 5LNC instead of the working names):

Working name 5LNC Associated Procedure

CC999 AMIPU RNAV SID 11 (TNCC)

CC444 DUMVA VOR SID 11 (TNCC)

CC777 SATEX RNAV SID 29 (TNCC)

CC888 OMASU STAR 29 (TNCC)

CC004 MEMRU RNAV SID 11 (TNCC), RNAV SID 10 (TNCB), STAR 10 (TNCB), STAR 28 (TNCB)

CC005 ETLAT RNAV SID 29 (TNCC), STAR 28 (TNCB)

of 77


Working name 5LNC Associated Procedure

CC010 ROLBO STAR 29 (TNCC), STAR 10 (TNCB), RNAV SID 28 (TNCB), STAR 28 (TNCB)

CB002 ODLAP RNAV SID 10 (TNCB), STAR 11 (TNCC)

11.4 Design choices motivation

General – Southern and inter-island flights

Routes to the south and to Aruba and Bonaire include the least amount of altitude restrictions as

possible. ATC currently monitors the traffic in that area (due to other inter-island traffic and the

proximity of the FIR boundary) and, therefore, no altitude restrictions have been included in the design.

11.4.1 Design choices – STARs

RNAV 1 vs. RNP 1

During the execution of this project, DC-ANSP decided to publish new procedures -SIDs and STARs- as

RNAV 1 and not as RNP 1. Current procedures were defined as RNP 1. Consequently, the route separation

criteria defined in the ConOps as 5NM between the runway centreline and the southern routes has to be

increased to 7NM, conform ICAO Doc 4444 section 5.4.1.2.1.4.1 [Ref.14].

Holdings

Holdings will be included in the final version of the STAR charts. They will not be changed with respect

to the current ones published in the RNAV (GNSS) APCH RWY 11 or RNAV (GNSS) APCH RWY 29 charts.

Altitude restriction at ADRIV (STARs 11) and IMOMA (STARs 29)

In order to ensure vertical separation between the traffic from Aruba to Curaçao with the traffic around

Aruba (for RWY 11 configuration), an altitude restriction at ADRIV -at or above FL070- has been added.

This waypoint and its altitude restriction are included in AMBAS 1B, ARUBA 1B and DATOR 1B.

Altitude restriction at IMOMA (STARs 29)

For RWY configuration 29, traffic coming from BONAX crosses over Bonaire. In order to ensure vertical

separation, an altitude restriction is added at IMOMA -at or above FL070-. This waypoint and its altitude

restriction only affects the arrival route BONAX 1D.

11.4.2 Design choices – RNAV SIDs

RNAV 1 vs. RNP 1

During the execution of this project, DC-ANSP decided to publish new procedures -SIDs and STARs- as

RNAV 1 and not as RNP 1. Current procedures were defined as RNP 1. Consequently, the route separation

criteria defined in the ConOps as 5NM between the runway centreline and the southern routes has to be

increased to 7NM, according to ICAO Doc 4444 section 5.4.1.2.1.4 [Ref.14].

Connection of a SID with an approach and/or ATS routes

Based on information provided by data houses (Jeppesen), there is no issue from the FMS and coding

perspectives in connecting a SID with an approach without an arrival route in between. An approach can

be loaded after loading a SID and both procedures can be correctly connected at the common point. As a

result:

- An arrival route from Bonaire to Curaçao -BONAIRE 1D- for RWY 28/29 configuration is not

needed. The departure route from Bonaire is extended up to the middle IAF at Curaçao

(URNAP). Therefore, BONAIRE 1D is not published as a standard arrival route.

- The departure route from Curaçao to Bonaire (BONAIRE 1K) is extended up to the IAF at Bonaire

(IMOMA) to avoid an unnecessary STAR from the CTR boundary to IMOMA, which would have

been 3NM only.

of 77


- The departure route from Curaçao to Aruba (ARUBA 1K) for RWY 11/11 configuration is

extended up to the lower IAF of Aruba (ELUMO). A connection to the current TNCA STAR from

the east (IRLEP 1A) would require an unnecessary longer route.

A gap between SIDs and ATS routes is uncommon, but not an issue from the FMS and coding perspectives,

since there is no database requirement regarding SIDs connecting to ATS routes, which is considered to

be a best practice at most. The ‘gap procedure’ is applicable for the generic SIDs to the north, AMIPU 1K

(RWY 11) and SATEX 1M (RWY 29).

11.4.3 Design choices – Conventional SIDs

Initial segment – SIDs RWY 29

RWY 29 has a restriction to maintain runway track until 2500ft for NON RNAV departures [Ref.8]. This

has been combined with the PDG (Requires minimum 225’/NM up to 2500’) for routes to the south.

Designator generic SID to the North

AMIPU 1J uses the same basic designator -AMIPU- as the RNAV SID AMIPU 1K. However, AMIPU cannot be

defined as an intersection from PJG VOR/DME since the required PJG radial would cross the 45 degrees

sector. Therefore, a different waypoint -DUMVA- has been defined at the CTR boundary but the name of

the route is maintained as for the RNAV SID.

FL restriction (FL110) is compatible at DUMVA. Even though it is closer from the CTR boundary than

AMIPU, the required track miles are so that FL110 can be reached with 7% climb gradient.

Departure routes to Aruba

Conventional departure routes to Aruba are based on the ABA VOR/DME. BEA VOR/DME cannot be used

because of its operational coverage (40NM [Ref.8]). ARUBA 1J -RWY 11- and ARUBA 1L -RWY 29- are

designed up to ABA VOR/DME. VOR approach procedures at TNCA include an instruction to fly from ABA

VOR/DME to one of the IAFs defined for the VOR approach. Therefore, by defining these routes up to

ABA, they do connect to the VOR approaches available at TNCA.

Figure 9. VOR approach RWY 11 and VOR approach RWY 29 at TNCA [Ref.8].

of 77


11.5 Methods, tools and sources used

For flight procedure design activities PDToolkit (version Q3 2019) is used. This is a commercial Flight

Procedure Design Software package provided by Aeronautical Software Developments (ASD). It has an

AutoCAD 2019 design base and contains calculation tools conform the relevant ICAO criteria [Ref.1].

For aeronautical charts, QGIS is used to process all GIS information. AutoCAD is used to create the charts

based on the processed GIS information and the flight procedures, using projections conform ICAO Annex

4 [Ref.2].

Aeronautical charts are first reviewed by the designer to check that the information is correct and then

reviewed by the cartographer to check that they are compliant with Annex 4. Final versions of the charts

are reviewed by the designer under the quality assurance role (A. Hertfelder) and then sent to Jeppesen

for a final check, together with the coding tables.

All the data sources used for the design, including obstacle and terrain data are included in Annex B.

11.6 Safety analysis

A safety assessment was drafted after the ground validation and finished after the flight validation was

completed [Ref.20]. The safety assessment process resulted satisfactory.

of 77


12 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

12.1 Ground validation

The ground validation process result is satisfactory. The review of the flight procedure design was

performed by an independent flight procedure designer not involved in the project [Ref.6], R. Salemink

(MovingDot). A summary of non-compliances and other observations as included in [Ref.17] can be found

in Annex D. The report [Ref.17] is available upon request.

The coding tables, ARINC 424 designators and draft charts have been informally reviewed by Jeppesen on

the 23rd April 2020.

12.2 Flight validation

The flight validation was performed by Radiola between the 27th and the 31st of July 2020. The flight

validation process result is satisfactory.

The flight validation includes an evaluation of each segment (bearing and distance), flyability, airfield

parameters, satellite performance and an obstacle verification. The flight inspections were conducted in

accordance with Radiola Inspection Procedures.

Comments/notable details resulting from the flight validation: there are no changes in the FPD report

resulting from the flight validation.

The flight validation and data verification results can be found in [Ref.19]. This report is available upon

request to DC-ANSP.

12.3 Requirements verification

12.3.1 General requirements

The requirements verification process result for the general requirements is satisfactory.

12.3.2 Stakeholders requirements

The requirements verification process result for the stakeholder requirements is satisfactory.

DC-ANSP has involved local operators to explain and discuss the intended new IFR and VFR procedures

for inter-island traffic. The representatives of three operators present agreed that having VFR

procedures available, and the design guideline to deconflict IFR and VFR routes, was very much

appreciated. The operators expect that it will reduce the extra miles currently flown due to ATC

instruction for separation from, in particular, intercontinental IFR traffic.

12.3.3 FPD requirements

The requirements verification process result for the FPD requirements related to departure procedures is

satisfactory.

The requirements verification process result for the FPD requirements related to arrival procedures is

satisfactory.

Req.4C is not met due to a change in the navigation specification for SIDs and STARs. Current navigation

specification for STARs is RNP 1, which requires 5 NM separation. During this project it was decided to

define the new SIDs and STARs as RNAV 1, which requires 7 NM separation.

of 77


13 RECOMMENDATIONS

This section includes a summary of all the recommendations relevant for TNCC procedures for DC-ANSP

as a result of this project.

13.1 AIP publication

1. Update magnetic variation rounded to the nearest degree, date and annual change in AIP

section AD 2.2, conform ICAO Doc 10066 [Ref.15].

2. Publish RWY end coordinates in AIP section AD 2.12 Runway physical characteristics, conform

ICAO Doc 10066 [Ref.15]. Geographical coordinates for each THR and RWY end shall be

published. The current AIP does not specify that there is a discrepancy between the THR and

the RWY end, so it might lead to confusion.

3. Publish THR elevations in the table (AIP section AD 2.12 Runway physical characteristics)

instead of referring to the Aerodrome Chart, conform ICAO Doc 10066 [Ref.15].

4. Include TRUE and MAG BRG in AIP section 2.12 Runway physical characteristics table header.

However, only true bearing is published. It is recommended to remove the word MAG from the

header in order to avoid confusion, conform ICAO Doc 10066 [Ref.15] or to include the magnetic

bearing and leave the header as it is.

5. New coding tables include coordinates of some 5LNC (such as the IAFs) because these 5LNC are

not included in ENR 4.3. Publish all 5LNC in ENR 4.3 and remove them from the new coding

tables.

6. Update station declinations in AIP section ENR 4.1 (2020). New VOR procedures use MAGVAR

2020 conform ICAO Doc 10066 [Ref.15].

7. Include station declination rounded to the nearest degree for PJG VOR/DME in AIP section AD

2.19, conform ICAO Doc 10066 [Ref.15].

8. Update coding tables of instrument approach procedures to include the same altitude

restrictions at the IAFs as in the STARs.

9. Include the information for ABA VOR/DME in section AD 2.19 since it is used in the VOR SIDs for

RWY 11.

10. Use and write consistently SFC / GND for vertical limits. See current definition of the TNCC AD

2.17 ATS AIRSPACE - HATO TOWER.

13.2 Obstacle assessment

ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II section I-3-2 2.6.2.1 [Ref.1] states that the departure obstacle identification

surface should be surveyed at regular intervals to validate information so that the minimum obstacle

clearance is assured and the integrity of the departure procedures is safeguarded. Yearly checks are

considered to meet the requirement for ‘regular intervals’.

According to ICAO Doc 9906 Vol. I section 6.3, step 17 [Ref.6], periodic maintenance to flight

procedures, including obstacle assessment, should be performed at least every 5 years.

MovingDot recommends DC-ANSP to perform the periodic review every five years for all flight procedures

and to update the obstacle survey, including periodic maintenance and obstacle evaluation.

of 77


13.3 Update of the magnetic variation

Magnetic variation is based on 2020. MovingDot advises DC-ANSP to update the rest of the AIP (including

IACs) at the same time as this project is published. By not updating all procedures and the ARP magnetic

variation at the same time, certain FMSs might deviate from the expected ground path due to the

difference in the MAGVAR values. MovingDot also advises DC-ANSP to update the station declination for

the different VORs to be technically lined-up with the 2020 value.

MovingDot advises DC-ANSP to plan and perform an update of the magnetic variation every 5 years

together with the review and maintenance of the flight procedures.

of 77


ABBREVIATIONS

5ANNC Five alphanumeric name-code

5LNC Five letter name-code

ACC Area control

ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast

AIC Aeronautical Information Circulars

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

AIRAC Aeronautical Information Regulation And Control

AIS Aeronautical Information Services

AMSL Above mean sea level

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

AoR Area of Responsibility

APP Approach control

ARP Aerodrome Reference Point

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCo Air Traffic Control officer

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATIS Air Traffic Information Services

ATS Air Traffic Services

ATT Along-track tolerance

CCAA Curaçao Civil Aviation Authority

CCO Continuous Climb Operations

CDO Continuous Descent Operations

CTA Control Area

CTR Control Zone

DC-ANSP Dutch Caribbean Air Navigation Service Provider

DER Departure end of the runway

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

ENR Enroute

ETA Estimated Time of Arrival

FIR Flight Information Region

FL Flight Level

FPD Flight Procedure Design

GNSS Global navigation satellite system

IAF Initial Approach Fix

IAS Indicated airspeed

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IFP Instrument Flight Procedure

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

ISA International Standard Atmosphere

KIAS Indicated airspeed - knots

MAG Magnetic heading

MAGVAR Magnetic Variation

MOC Minimum Obstacle Clearance

MSA Minimum sector altitude

MSD Minimum Stabilization Distance

MTOM Maximum Take-Off Mass

NM Nautical Mile

NOTAM Notices to Airmen

OIS Obstacle identification surface

PBN Performance Based Navigation

PDG Procedure Design Gradient

of 77


RNAV Area navigation

RNP Required navigation performance

RWY Runway

SFC Surface

SID Standard Instrument Departure

STAR Standard Terminal Arrival Route

TCH Threshold Crossing Height

THR Threshold

TNCA ICAO airport code for Queen Beatrix International Airport

TNCB ICAO airport code for Flamingo International Airport

TNCC ICAO airport code for Hato International Airport

TRD Track Distance

TWR Tower

VOR Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range

VPA Vertical Path Angle

WMM World Magnetic Model

WPT

Waypoint

of 77


REFERENCES

Ref.# Reference Description

Ref.1 PANS-OPS ICAO Doc 8168 - Aircraft Operations - Volume II - Construction of Visual and

Instrument Flight Procedures - Sixth edition — 2014 (Amendment No.8)

Ref.2 Annex 4 ICAO Annex 4 – Aeronautical Charts – Eleventh Edition, July 2009

(Amendment No.60)

Ref.3 Annex 11 ICAO Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services - Air Traffic Control Service, Flight

Information Service, Alerting Service – Fifteen Edition, July 2018

Ref.4 Annex 14 ICAO Annex 14 – Aerodromes - Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations -

Seventh Edition, July 2016

Ref.5 Annex 15 ICAO Annex 15 - Aeronautical Information Services - Sixteenth Edition, July

2018

Ref.6 Doc 9906 ICAO Doc 9906 - Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design -

First Edition — 2009

Ref.7 MD-ConOps MovingDot - Concept of Operations DC-ANSP airspace and route redesign -

Airspace and route redesign TNCF, TNCC (Curaçao) and TNCB (Bonaire)

v2.0

Ref.8 AIP DC-ANSP Aeronautical Information Publication AMDT 30 JAN 2020

Ref.9 Obstacle SATNAV TNCC Aerodrome Data – Survey 15/07/2011

Ref.10 Circular 353 ICAO Circular 353 - Transition planning for change to instrument flight

procedure approach chart identification from RNAV to RNP, January 2018.

Ref.11 CDO ICAO Doc 9931 - Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) Manual, 1st Edition

2010

Ref.12 CCO ICAO Doc 9991 - Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) Manual, 1st Edition

2013

Ref.13 TNCC-B Geopro Consultants N.V. - TNCC Aerodrome Obstacle chart ICAO Type B,

August 2019

Ref.14 Doc 4444 ICAO Doc 4444 - Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic

Management – Sixteenth Edition, November 2016

Ref.15 PANS-AIM ICAO Doc 10066 – Aeronautical Information Management – First Edition,

2018

Ref.16 MD-Concept MovingDot - Concept Design CUR-BON 13 14 Feb v2.1

Ref.17 MD-review [20-RA-008] MovingDot - Independent IFP Review Report Curaçao SID and

STAR redesign v1.1

Ref.18 MD-TNCB [20-RA-007] MovingDot - IFP redesign TNCB v0.9

Ref.19 FV-Certificate Radiola – BON CUR Flight Validation Certificates

Ref.20 MD-safety [20-RA-028] MovingDot - Safety Assessment - Airspace redesign Curacao &

Bonaire v1.9

of 77


ANNEX A FLIGHT PARAMETERS

A.1 General parameters

Parameter Value/description

Max. IAS per aircraft category and per flight

phase

According to Doc 8168 Vol II Table I-4-1-2 [Ref.1]

Bank angle during approach According to Doc 8168 Vol II Table I-2-3-1 [Ref.1]

Bank angle for departures According to Doc 8168 Vol II Table I-2-3-1 [Ref.1]

Aerodrome reference temperature 32.0°C

ISA +20

Aerodrome elevation 11m/36ft

ARP N 12 11 20.094 W 068 57 34.888

Magnetic variation (annual change) at ARP 11°32’W (0°7’W)

Magnetic declination at PJG VOR 11°31’W

Magnetic declination at PJB VOR 11°55’W

Magnetic declination at ABA VOR 11°01’W

THR 11 Elevation 9.8m/32ft

THR 29 Elevation 11.1m/36ft

A.2 MAGVAR 2020

WPT MAGVAR WPT MAGVAR WPT MAGVAR

ADRIV 11.2 ACORA 12.4 IMEVA 11.5

DATOR 10.8 BONAX 12.1 PUXUN 11.5

ELOTU 11.2 AMBAS 10.0 TABEB 11.4

AMBIN 9.1 ELUMO 10.9 SIGTO 11.7

DIBOK 9.4 AVELO 12.0 LOGLA 11.6

VESKA 10.9 REPIS 11.6 URNAP 11.7

BEROX 11.3 EMAPA 11.4 MARAX 11.4

KARUM 11.6 AGLIS 11.5 IMOMA 11.8

SCAPA 12.5 OLITO 11.6 MIVER 11.9

AMIPU 11.7 CC002 11.5 CC200 10.7

CC107 11.6 ROLBO 11.5 CC201 10.9

CC106 11.5 CC011 11.5 CC202 10.9

CC105 11.5 CC301 11.6 CC203 11.2

CC104 11.4 OMASU 11.7 CC204 11.4

CC103 11.4 CC303 11.7 CC205 11.5

CC102 11.3 CC304 11.7 CC206 11.9

CC101 11.3 CC305 11.7 CC003 11.2

MEMRU 11.5 CC306 11.7 SATEX 11.5

CC001 11.8 CC307 11.9 ETLAT 11.9

ODLAP 11.9

of 77


A.3 MSD calculations STARs

A.3.1 RWY 11

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]

IAS [kt] TAS [kt] MSD [NM] Segment

length [NM]

ADRIV FL070 0 (50) 250 287.62 1.60 28.4

TABEB 2500 8 250 268.40 1.42

MSD total 3.02

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

DATOR FL290 120 250 301.57 5.34 39.2

ADRIV FL070 19 (50) 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 6.94

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AMBAS FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 134.2

ADRIV FL070 9 (50) 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 17.37

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

EMAPA 6000 120 250 281.18 4.73 11.2

MARAX 3000 4 (50) 250 270.44 1.44

MSD total 6.17

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AVELO 10000 120 250 301.57 5.34 80.6

MARAX 3000 70 250 270.44 1.98

MSD total 7.32

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AMBIN FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 317.3

CC101 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC101 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74 29.0

PUXUN 3000 51 250 270.44 1.47

MSD total 3.21

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

DIBOK FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 326.3

CC102 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC102/

CC103/

CC104

FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

29.0

of 77


PUXUN 3000 43 (50) 250 270.44 1.44

MSD total 3.19

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

VESKA FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 209.1

CC103 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

BEROX FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 196.6

CC104 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

KARUM FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 190.7

CC105 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC105/

CC106

FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

15.6

AGLIS 7000 0 (50) 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 3.35

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AGLIS 7000 0 / 30 (50) 250 287.62 1.60 13.4

PUXUN 3000 0 (50) 250 270.44 1.44

MSD total 3.05

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

SCAPA FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 202.2

CC106 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ACORA FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 101.3

CC107 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC107 FL100 0 (50) 250 301.57 1.74 16.6

AGLIS 7000 59 250 287.62 1.86

MSD total 3.61

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

BONAX FL100 120 250 301.57 5.34 23.5

ODLAP 8700 50 250 295.4 1.68

MSD total 7.02

of 77


Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ODLAP 8700 50 250 295.4 1.68 20.0

CC001 3900 50 250 274.2 1.48

MSD total 3.16

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC001 3900 50 250 274.2 1.48 27.6

CC002 3500 50 250 272.5 1.46

MSD total 2.94

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC002 3500 50 250 272.5 1.46 11.1

MARAX 3000 91 250 272.5 2.70

MSD total 4.16

A.3.2 RWY 29

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º] IAS [kt] TAS [kt] MSD [NM]

Segment

length [NM]

AMBIN,

DIBOK,

VESKA,

BEROX,

KARUM,

SCAPA

FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 All segment

lengths >

120 NM

CC20x FL290 50 315 527.08 4.78

MSD total 20.55

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º] IAS [kt] TAS [kt] MSD [NM]

Segment

length [NM]

CC20x

(CC201 –

CC206)

FL290 50 315 527.08 4.78 All segment

lengths > 65

NM CC30x

(CC301 –

CC306)

FL100 50 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 6.52

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC30x

(CC301 –

CC306)

FL100 50 250 301.57 1.74 10.3

OMASU 8000 79 250 292.16 2.60

MSD total 4.34

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

OMASU 8000 79 250 292.16 2.60 20.7

SIGTO 3000 50 250 270.44 1.44

MSD total 4.04

of 77


Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ACORA FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 82.5

CC307 FL100 50 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC307 FL100 50 250 301.57 1.74 28.8

SIGTO 3000 50 250 270.44 1.44

MSD total 3.18

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AVELO FL100 120 250 301.57 5.34 62.0

URNAP 2500 50 250 268.40 1.42

MSD total 6.76

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

EMAPA 6000 120 250 283.18 4.73 26.7

LOGLA 3000 65 250 270.44 1.83

MSD total 6.57

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

BONAX 10000 120 250 301.57 5.34 37.7

IMOMA 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 6.94

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

IMOMA 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60 17.2

URNAP 2500 91 250 270.44 1.44

MSD total 3.04

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AMBAS FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77 73.7

CC200 FL100 50 250 301.57 1.74

MSD total 17.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC200 FL100 50 250 301.57 1.74 59.0

ELOTU 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 3.34

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ELOTU 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60 17.7

ROLBO 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 3.20

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ROLBO 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60 24.9

of 77


CC011 6000 60 250 283.18 1.56

MSD total 3.16

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC011 6000 60 250 283.18 1.56 11.1

LOGLA 3000 85 250 270.44 2.47

MSD total 4.03

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

DATOR FL100 120 250 301.57 5.34 54.2

ROLBO 7000 50 250 287.62 1.60

MSD total 6.94

A.4 MSD calculations SIDs

Note: MSDs are not applicable to DF. All the segments that include DF are not included in this section.

A.4.1 RWY 11

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

OLITO 1185 0 (50) 291.5 306.83 7.09 25.4

IMOMA FL120 0 (50) 315 392.40 2.79

MSD total 9.88

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

IMOMA FL120 0 (50) 315 392.40 2.79 37.5

BONAX FL280 120 315 517.40 15.21

MSD total 18.00

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AMIPU FL110 50 315 386.11 2.71

All

segments >

90NM

ACORA,

SCAPA,

KARUM,

VESKA,

BEROX

FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 18.48

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AMIPU FL110 69 315 386.11 3.74 362.0

DIBOK FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

19.51

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

AMIPU FL110 76 315 386.11 4.18 357.0

AMBIN FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 19.95

of 77


Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

MEMRU 5300 44 (50) 291.5 326.63 2.01 40.5

ELOTU 22530 4 (50) 315 468.80 3.85

MSD total 5.86

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ELOTU 22530 1 (50) 315 468.80 3.85 35.8

ELUMO FL290 5 (50) 315 527.08 4.78

MSD total 8.63

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ELUMO FL290 5 (50) 315 527.08 4.78 96.7

AMBAS FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 20.55

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ELOTU 22530 4 (50) 315 468.80 3.85 36.6

DATOR FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 19.62

A.4.2 RWY 29

IMEVA-TABEB (fly-over / fly-by)

- Compliant with Table III-2-1-21 [Ref.1], which requires 1.5NM for SIDs within 15NM from the ARP.

- Compliant with MSD between fly-over and fly-by, as shown in the table below.

- IAS at IMEVA according to Table I-3-3-App-1 [Ref.1], 209kt.

- MSD at IMEVA according to Table III-2-1-11 [Ref.1] (fly-over waypoint, bank angle 20° and TAS=220kt)

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

IMEVA 1185 50 209 219.99 4.50 7.9

TABEB 4600 50 291.5 323.13 1.97

MSD total 6.47

Fly-by / fly-by combinations

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

TABEB 4600 75 291.5 323.13 2.95 24.4

SATEX FL110 61 315 386.11 3.28

MSD total 6.23

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

SATEX FL110 61 315 386.11 3.28 115.5

ACORA FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 19.05

of 77


Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

SATEX FL110 50 315 386.11 2.71

All segment

lengths >

200 NM

SCAPA,

KARUM,

BEROX,

VESKA,

DIBOK

FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 18.48

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

SATEX FL110 53 315 386.11 2.86 335.0

AMBIN FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 18.63

TABEB 4600 50 291.5 323.13 1.97 28.4

ADRIV 16700 50 315 424.05 3.21

MSD total 5.18

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

TABEB 4600 50 291.5 323.13 1.97 29.0

CC003 FL170 50 315 426.20 3.24

MSD total 5.21

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

CC003 FL170 50 315 426.20 3.24 36.6

ELUMO FL290 50 315 527.08 4.78

MSD total 8.02

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ELUMO FL290 50 315 527.08 4.78 96.7

AMBAS FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 20.55

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

ETLAT - - - - 0* (DF) 25.7

BONAX FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 15.77

Altitude

[FL/ft]

Course

change [º]


length [NM]

TABEB 4600 50 291.5 323.13 1.97 66.6

DATOR FL290 120 315 527.08 15.77

MSD total 17.74

of 77


ANNEX B DATA SOURCES

Parameter Data source

Aerodrome reference temperature According to TNCC AD 2.2 Aerodrome geographical and

administrative data [Ref.8]

Aerodrome elevation According to TNCC AD 2.2 Aerodrome geographical and


ARP According to TNCC AD 2.2 Aerodrome geographical and


Magnetic Model World Magnetic Model (WMM) 01/01/2020

Magnetic variation at TNCC ARP According to TNCC AD 2.2 Aerodrome geographical and

administrative data (2017) [Ref.8]

WMM (01/01/2020) for MAGVAR 2020 value

Magnetic declination at VOR

(ABA, PJB, PJG)

According to ENR 4.1 Radio navigation aids - en-route (2017)

[Ref.8]

WMM (01/01/2020) for MAGVAR 2020 value

Vertical reference system According to Annex 4 section 2.18 Common reference

system [Ref.2]

Horizontal reference system According to Annex 4 section 2.18 Common reference

system [Ref.2]

Navaids According to DC-ANSP AIP ENR 4.1 Radio navigation aids –

En-route [Ref.8]

Waypoints According to DC-ANSP AIP ENR 4.3 Name code designators

for significant points [Ref.8]

Obstacle data SatNav TNCC Survey Report [Ref.9]

Geopro Consultants N.V. - TNCC Aerodrome Obstacle chart

ICAO Type B [Ref.13]

Aerodrome obstacle chart (AOC) DC-ANSP AIP [Ref.8]

Digital terrain elevation data USGS EROS Archive - Digital Elevation - Shuttle Radar

Topography Mission (SRTM) 1 Arc-Second Global

of 77


ANNEX C COMMUNICATION FAILURE PROCEDURES

REPLACE THE COMMUNICATION FAILURE PROCEDURES IN AD 2.22 SECTION 4 AND RENUMBER THE SECTION

AS SECTION 6. RADIO COMMUNICATION FAILURE PROCEDURES (RCF). SECTION 4 WILL BE VFR

PROCEDURES.

6. Communication failure procedures

Select SSR code 7600.

6.1 General procedures for IFR flights

6.1.1 If there is a communication failure of an aircraft with Hato air traffic control unit, the aircraft

shall comply with the voice communication procedures of ICAO Annex 10, Volume II, Chapter 5, and with

such of the following procedures as are appropriate. The aircraft shall attempt to establish

communications with the Hato air traffic control unit using all other available means.

6.1.2 Flying in VMC

VMC outbound: In case of communication failure adhere to the departure instructions. If the

departure instructions contain a clearance limit in the CTR, act in accordance. In VMC:

- continue to fly in VMC;

- land at the nearest suitable aerodrome; and

- report the arrival by the most expeditious means to the appropriate ATS unit.

VMC inbound: follow the procedure included in section 6.2.

6.1.3 Flying in IMC

In IMC or when conditions are such that it does not appear likely that the pilot will complete the

flight in accordance with the prescribed VMC RCF as included in paragraph 6.1.2 or when not able to

comply with paragraph 6.1.1, the pilot shall maintain the last assigned speed and level, or minimum

flight altitude if higher, for a period of 7 minutes following:

- the time the last assigned level or minimum flight altitude is reached; or

- the time the transponder is set to code 7600; or

- the pilot’s failure to report its position over a compulsory reporting point;

Whichever is later, and thereafter adjust level and speed in accordance with the filed flight plan.

Proceed according to the current flight plan route to the appropriate designated nav aid or fix serving

the destination aerodrome.

When being radar vectored rejoin the current flight plan route no later than the next significant point,

taking into consideration the applicable minimum flight altitude.

6.2 Arriving flights

6.2.1 Inbound clearance not received

- Proceed according the current flight plan route to the appropriate holding fix (TABEB for RWY

11 or URNAP for RWY 29).

- Maintain the last cleared and acknowledged flight level.

- After arrival over the fix, intercept the holding pattern.

- Commence descent to 2500ft AMSL at, or as close as possible to, the ETA resulting from the

current flight plan.

- After reaching 2500ft AMSL leave the holding fix and carry out an instrument approach

procedure to the received and acknowledged runway, or to the landing runway according ATIS.

of 77


6.2.2 Inbound clearance received

- Proceed according the current flight plan to the appropriate holding fix (TABEB for RWY 11 or

URNAP for RWY 29).

- Maintain the last cleared and acknowledged flight level.

- After arrival over the fix, intercept the holding pattern.

- Commence descent to 2500ft AMSL at the expected approach time last received and

acknowledged.

- When no expected approach time has been received and acknowledged, commence descent to

2500ft AMSL at, or as close as possible to, the ETA resulting from the current flight plan.

- After reaching 2500ft AMSL leave the holding fix and carry out an instrument approach

procedure to the assigned landing runway, or to the landing runway according ATIS.

6.2.3 Aerodrome traffic

When aircraft is part of the aerodrome traffic at Hato International Airport, aircraft shall keep watch for

such instructions as may be issued by visual signals.

6.2.4 Missed approach during communication failure

6.2.4.1 RWY11

Climb on runway track 114° MAG to 2500ft AMSL direct URNAP and hold. Leave the holding fix, turn left

direct to PUXUN and hold. Leave the holding fix and execute the instrument approach procedure again.

6.2.4.2 RWY29

Climb on runway track 294° MAG to 2500ft AMSL direct TABEB and hold. Leave the holding fix, turn right

direct to SIGTO and hold. Leave the holding fix and execute the instrument approach procedure again.

of 77


ANNEX D INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW

D.1 Observations

Subjective review of the logic used in the design was performed during peer review. No significant flaws

in the logic were discovered, although some observations have been made. Most observation are

considered minor observations or even personal preference of the reviewer. However, two observations

are considered essential, and need to be addressed in a design update:

Procedure Change required Observation Action designer

All STAR Essential The transition layer (3000 ft / FL030) is used

in the STARs. This can have the unwanted

effect of level flight within this layer,

potentially causing separation issues.

Although not directly stated in ICAO Doc

8168, the use of the transition layer in

procedures is not recommended. This should

either be changed in the flight procedure or

addressed in the safety assessment and ATC

training.

Maintain current publication

(FL030).

SID RWY 11 Essential By using a fly-over to fly-by with DF coding in

the SIDs to the south from RWY 11, it cannot

be assured that the lateral path an aircraft

follows is clear from TNP areas 9, 12, and 19.

As these upper limit of these areas is 2500ft,

an increased PDG or a redesign of the lateral

path is required to ensure clearance3. Other

solutions that ensure clearance are also

acceptable.

See argumentation in

section 7.2.

D.2 Application of criteria

All criteria in ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II applicable to the procedures have been systematically checked for all

procedures based on a compliance checklist. The most critical / appropriate segments have been

checked with independent calculations. Selected checks have been performed to ensure correct

calculations of True and Magnetic courses, geodetic segment lengths, minimum stabilization distances

and descent gradients. The observations related to the application of criteria are included in sections

D.2.1, D.2.2, D.2.3.

D.2.1 General

Doc 8168 Vol II

reference

Change

required

Observed non-compliance

Action designer

III-5-1 1.3.4 Optional PBN Requirements boxes are not provided on

the required location. Alternatively, the PBN

requirements are stated on the chart notes to

be consistent with the Dutch Caribbean AIP.

Included from version

v0.2.x onwards of all PBN

charts.

3 Note that there is a noise abatement procedure for aircraft above 5700 MTOM to continue runway track up to 3000 ft. This

can provide the required altitude above the TNP areas as long as it will be coded for all aircraft. alternatively an increased

PDG is required or using an RF turn might provide lateral clearance.

of 77


D.2.2 STARs

Doc 8168 Vol II

reference

Change

required

Other observation Action designer

I-2-4 1)

Optional Controlling obstacles are not given for STARs.

This is considered acceptable since the MSA is

lower than every procedure altitude and there

are no obstacles to refer to on open sea.

Identification of the

controlling obstacles has

been added in sections

9.2 and 0. These

obstacles were already

included in the charts.

D.2.3 SIDs

Doc 8168 Vol II

reference

Change

required

Observed non-compliance

I-3-2 2.4 Optional CC999 / CC777* SIDs do not connect with the ATS

route network. This is considered acceptable as

operational arrangements have been made for

manual termination of the SID.

See argumentation in

section 11.4.2

III-3-1 1.4.1.2 Optional AMBAS 1M and DATOR 1M contains a turn of less

than 5 degrees course change at TABEB. This is

considered acceptable, yet argumentation for the

deviation has to be provided.

In consultation with

data houses, it is

concluded that there is

no coding limitation to

how small a turn can

be. The FMS should not

have any problem

handling the

procedure.

I-3-5 5.1.h Optional When higher PDGs are promulgated to avoid a TNP

area, this should be promulgated as ‘for airspace

reasons only’.

PDG for SIDs RWY 11 is

based on the turning

MOC criteria.

PDR for SIDs RWY 29 is

based on obstacles.

We do not consider this

as a non-compliance.

III-2-5 App 3 Optional Validation of the CF legs should be addressed in

the flight validation.

Included in the flight

validation

requirements.

*The working names, as included in the peer review report [Ref.17], have not been updated to include

the 5LNC (CC999 AMIPU, CC777 SATEX)

of 77


MovingDot BV

Antareslaan 43

2132 JE Hoofddorp

The Netherlands

www.movingdot.nl

[email protected]

+31 88 668 3000

CC 34387249

ifp redesign tncc - gobiernu.cw

Documents