RNP ARRNP AR

Interdependence between Stakeholders

2A

2B

2C

2D

Introduction

ANZA i bil t l t b t A t li d• ANZA is a bilateral agreement between Australia and New Zealand that gives an approved operator from one of these two countries AOC privileges of the other p gcountry.

• This is an example of the interdependence between an RNP AR t d th t h ANZARNP AR system and other systems such as ANZA.

• RNP AR system independence with other systems compound the complexity of the RNP AR systemcompound the complexity of the RNP AR system

3

Introduction

• The Oxford dictionary provides the following definitions:• Interdependence: (of two or more people or things)• Interdependence: (of two or more people or things)

dependent on each other• Stakeholder: a type of organization or system in whichStakeholder: a type of organization or system in which

all the members or participants are seen as having an interest in its successS f hi ki h f• System: a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex wholewhole

4

Introduction

The RNP AR context: specific aircraft tailored• The RNP AR context: specific aircraft, tailored procedures, ‘made to order’ rules.

• An inherent weakness in the RNP AR system is the yinterdependence between multiple stakeholders and their need to work competently and cohesively together

• This is contrary to traditional stakeholder relationshipsThis is contrary to traditional stakeholder relationships

5

Introduction

• Designed, built, operated and maintained (DBOM) • RNP AR requires stakeholders to work together as a

team. • There are no simple set solutions in an RNP AR

operational approvaloperational approval. • These solutions may vary considerably from operator to

operator and location to location.p

6

Introduction

In this presentation I will:• Examine the RNP AR system architecture• Examine the RNP AR system architecture• Provide some examples of RNP AR system

incompatibilities and explain the potential consequencesincompatibilities and explain the potential consequences• Discuss some current RNP AR system issues and

stakeholder responsibilities pursuant to those issuesstakeholder responsibilities pursuant to those issues

7

Analysis

• The RNP AR system stakeholders are Procedure Design, Aircraft Capability and Flight Operations.

• Stakeholders are interlinked and must work effectively, both independently and together.

• If one stakeholder is not functioning correctly it can affect• If one stakeholder is not functioning correctly it can affect the soundness and safety of the entire RNP AR system

8

9

Analysis

• RNP AR systems are usually generated by the operator and/or the NAA.

• Operator decision to fly to an airport with poor ground based infrastructure or to take advantage of fuel savings. Operator determines feasibility• Operator determines feasibility

10

Analysis

• The NAA and ANSP can originate an RNP AR system. • ICAO Resolution 36-23: APVs to all instrument runway y

ends by 2016 to reduce the risk of CFIT. • Difficult prospect for the NAA that does not have a

national rule set for RNP ARnational rule set for RNP AR.• Compounding complexity is the need for NAAs to work

together for RNP AR operations internationallytogether for RNP AR operations internationally. • The NAAs must consider any bilateral arrangements

between the two countries such as ANZA.

11

Analysis

• If no bilateral agreement then the Operator must gainIf no bilateral agreement then the Operator must gain approval directly from both NAAs

• Operators Flight Ops, Engineering and Maintenance and Safety departments must work cohesively withand Safety departments must work cohesively with each other and cooperatively with the NAAs FOIs, AWIs and SSIs to gain approval.

12

Analysis• The RNP AR procedure design criteria types are public,The RNP AR procedure design criteria types are public,

proprietary and hybrid. • Public criteria from FAA Order 8260.52 and AC 90.101

OR from ICAO Doc 9613 PBN Manual Chapter 6 andOR from ICAO Doc 9613 PBN Manual Chapter 6 and ICAO Doc 9905 RNP AR Procedure Design Manual.

• Public criteria only address RNP AR approach design. • Proprietary criteria is different to public criteria and may

include departure criteria and engine inoperative criteria• Because proprietary criteria are more tailored may• Because proprietary criteria are more tailored, may

extract greater performance capability.• Australia has developed hybrid public/proprietary RNP y y

AR Multi Variant Design (MVD) criteria for public use.

13

Analysis

• Aircraft capability: legacy aircraft limited RNP AR functionality (constrained by the OEM aircraftfunctionality (constrained by the OEM, aircraft manufacturer and NAA)

• Newer generation aircraft may take full advantage of RNP AR beca se of installed eq ipment or retrofitRNP AR because of installed equipment or retrofit.

• Retrofit causes added problems for the Operator if the modification creates a difference between the aircraft and simulator (training and flight validation of procedures; may have to do it in the aircraft).

• Good relationships between the Aircraft ManufacturerGood relationships between the Aircraft Manufacturerand the Operator and the Simulator Manufacturer and Simulator Provider if modifications for RNP AR approval from the NAAapproval from the NAA.

14

Analysis

• Aircraft capability with degraded or unserviceable equipmentequipment.

• MEL, FOSA and/or SOPs to mitigate• Other Flight Operations controls to prevent issues such g p p

as GNSS availability predictions. • Only a forecast; accuracy may be affected by the mask

heights or unexpected failuresheights or unexpected failures. • FDAP data used to prevent future undesired aircraft

states.

15

Analysis

• Operator application contains information regarding the policies, processes and procedures of all stakeholdersp , p p

• NAAs determine if the RNP AR system is sufficiently robust. One of the final defences is a phased implementation• One of the final defences is a phased implementation program for real time RNP AR exposure and data

• This information is vital for the health of the RNP AR system.

16

Analysis• Potential for incompatibility between the designPotential for incompatibility between the design

criteria, the Operator’s SOPs and/or OEM capability. • IP laws may prevent the Proprietary Procedure Designer

from providing all of the design criteria to the Operator. • If the NAA assess and approve the Operator in

accordance with legislation then they may not beaccordance with legislation then they may not be operating in accordance with the proprietary criteria.

• Safety may be adversely affected because the OperatorSafety may be adversely affected because the Operator may not be able to maintain the vertical and lateral path that the design was predicated on.O h di h d• One way to ensure that no disconnects have occurred between the Operator, NAA and Procedure Designer is to use a compliance matrix.to use a compliance matrix.

17

18

Evaluation

• If unable to completely comply then the Operator will u ab e to co p ete y co p y t e t e Ope atorequire a safety case showing an equivalent level of safety

• Pressure may be applied to gain approval to improve schedule reliability and reduce costs.

• Aircraft and simulator capability can impede progress• A safety case with a comprehensive risk assessment

b d d i dditi t th FOSAmay be needed in addition to the FOSA

19

Evaluation

• Deficiencies caused by the removal of linkages between the stakeholders such as lack of communication orthe stakeholders such as lack of communication or documentation.

• A dysfunctional RNP AR system will increase the risk to• A dysfunctional RNP AR system will increase the risk to safety.

20

Conclusion

• Hurdles in approval process can become insurmountable if the RNP AR system is dysfunctional. y y

• The traditional approach of the NAA; ‘arms length’ and based solely on the rules, does not work well in an RNP AR tAR system.

• NAAs should be supportive and facilitate guidance • The traditional approach of stakeholders; disclose only• The traditional approach of stakeholders; disclose only

that which is required by law, may also cause the RNP AR system to be inadequate. y

• The essence of an effective RNP AR system is communication, cohesion, collaboration and cooperation.

21

22

Questions?Questions?

23