Post on 17-Mar-2018
Federal AviationAdministration 0
Project Newark
October 22, 20100
Project Newark:Goals, Objectives, and Simulations
Federal AviationAdministration
Presentation to:CAAC TeamOctober 22, 2010Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA
John WarburtonFAA Engineering Development ServicesNavigation Group AJP-652john.warburton@faa.gov
1Federal AviationAdministration 1
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Presentation Overview
• Project Newark Basics• Partners• Initial Results
• Simulations• Phase II Runway 29 Procedure Rework• Summary
2Federal AviationAdministration 2
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Project Newark
3Federal AviationAdministration 3
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Newark Project OverviewConduct an operational demonstration project using the
satellite navigation technology of Local Area Augmentation.
• Partnership: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), Continental Airlines, and Honeywell are establishing a Government Industry Partnership (GIP) with Navigation Service’s Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) Program Office.
• A LAAS will be installed at Newark Airport to:• Demonstrate the improved performance and precision and
interoperability with other GNSS capabilities.• Provide data to support FAA decisions on ground equipage
and airline decisions on avionics.
4Federal AviationAdministration 4
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
GNSS Implementation Overview
• TAPS• 4D approaches• Time/Space merging• NGATS Environment
– Continuous descent approaches• Air Traffic Control• Closely spaced parallels• RNP• RNAV: Radius to Fix leg
Memphis Vertical Flight
Fixed Wing
• Care Flite - SAAARs• Helicopter LPVs• Transition routes• IFR infrastructure• Helipads• Public support• Bell: Public VF criteria
• Allegiant• Horizon• American
OperationsBenefitsProcedures
1. Prove capability
• Newark• Continental• ATC
LAAS• Teterboro• Vertical Flight
WAAS
• Approaches to RWY 29, RWYs 4/22 LR• Helicopter approaches, RNP
2. Employ proven capability 2. Employ proven capability• NY/NJ Airspace Initiative– Must solve pieces of puzzle simultaneously,
not just one part
GNSS Implementation
FAA Technical CenterDemo Development and
Proof of Concept forGNSS Applications
FAATC Proving Ground
5Federal AviationAdministration 5
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Newark Project Partner Contributions
– Procure the Honeywell SLS-4000 LAAS
– Complete Site Preparation– Install SLS-4000 System– Provide Maintenance and Support– Complete Facility Approval for Cat I
Operations
– Equip 10 B-737NG Aircraft with LAAS Avionics (STC)
– Support FAA Data Collection Activities– Apply for Special Approval for LAAS Cat I
Operations– Conduct Flight Test Operations– Support Procedure Development and
Simulation– Complete Service Approval for Cat I Operations
– Develop GLS Overlay Procedures – Provide Data Collection Equipment– Develop and Coordinate Prototype Terminal
Procedures – Collect Data and Analyze Performance– Support GBAS Facility and Service
Approval
FAA
PANYNJContinental
6Federal AviationAdministration 6
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Strategic Objectives
Demonstrate improved performance, precision, and interoperability with other SATNAV capabilities.
Identify and implement via ATC participation required RNAV/RNP operations to meet the performance based navigation that will support capacity and efficiency enhancements.
Incorporate ATC developed procedures and terminal applications to achieve increased capacity and efficiency.
7Federal AviationAdministration 7
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Newark Project Core Team• FAA Flight Standards• Aviation System Standards• FAA Eastern Region• Eastern Flight Procedures Office• Eastern Service Center• New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)• Newark Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)• Continental Airlines• Boeing• Honeywell• FAA Engineering Development Services Navigation Team• LAAS Operational Implementation Team (OIT)
8Federal AviationAdministration 8
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Procedure Development Phases• First phase
• Developing and implement the straight-in approaches from the FAF using deviation guidance provided to the current cockpit instrumentations
• Missed approach will be a straight ahead 4 NM runway heading with expected radar vectors
• http://aeronav.faa.gov• Second Phase
• Focus on the curved approaches to Runways 29 and 22R• The team will examine what procedures, or ideas for
procedures, and seek air traffic’s feedback on the “pros and cons” of each piece of those procedures
• Changes will be made to the procedures based on air traffic’s inputs
• Flight testing at ACY to determine technical feasibility and flyability using Terminal Area Paths (TAP)
• Continental will also fly these procedures in their LAAS- capable simulator
9Federal AviationAdministration 9
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
ARP
ILS
4R
EWRATGP 2000
DOOIN1700
RW292.35 NM
EWRAA(FROP)GP 823
(FAF)EWRAC
3000
EWRABGP 2328
CO
L R
-023
DOOIN3000
Bank Angle 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.9
ATIS
108.6
RNAV (RNP29) RWY 31Atlantic City APT (ACY)
Orig 060801 35°03’N-89°59’W NEWARK LIBERTY INT (EWR)
RNAV (RNP) RWY 29
CATEGORY A B C D
MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 1000 then climbing right turn to 5000 via 051° course to OROCU Int/MEM 15 DME hold
EXPERIMENTALFOR FAA
EVALUATION ONLYNOT FOR NAVIGATION
TDZ/CL Rwys 18L, 18C, 18R, 36R, 36C and 36L
HIRL All Rwys
31
13 22
4
10000 x 1806144
x 15
0X
XX
XX
XX
X XX
vv
vv
V
V
P
121
229
V
.90
V
.93V
.74 V
.167
GS 3.00°
TCH 60
1000’
NA
GND CON121.9
CLNC DEL127.85
3.00° from FAF27Gnd SpdFT / NM
60318
90 120 150 180477 626 795 954
APP CRS298°
Rwy Ldg 9000’TDZE 335’Apt Elev 341’
ATCInstructions
TH29
IAF
FAF
CATEGORYGLS DA 535 - ½
920 - 1½579 (600 - 1½)
800 - 1½ 459 (500 - 1½)
CIRCLING
535 - ½920 - 2
579 (600 - 2)Ground Speed 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155
(DEG)
Vert Speed (3.00°) 531 557 584 610 637 663 690 716 743 770 796 823
Turn Time (90º) 1:53 1:48 1:43 1:38 1:34 1:31 1:27 1:24 1:21 1:18 1:15 1:13
DescendingRight TurnDescending
left Turn
TDZE292
2 7
3000
3000
LAASChan 33885
Atlantic City APP CON
124.6 263.6
Atlantic City TOWER 120.3 239.0
2 nm
4.1 nm
4.6 nm
6 nm
61°
6 NM2 NM 4.1 NM
4.6 NM2.35 NM
2325300031RAA
31OIN31ACE
31RAC31RAB
2.35nm
31ACE
31RAC
31RAB
31OIN
31RAA
119°
310°
825
39 27.2N
74 33.8W
39 26.0N
74 30.9W
39 23.1N
74 32.4W
39 23.7N
74 34.9W39 22.9N
74 40.0W
39 18.9N
74 45.8W
RNP 29
Atlantic City RNP Overlay
Newark RWY 29
12Federal AviationAdministration 12
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Initial Flight Test Results
13Federal AviationAdministration 13
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
14Federal AviationAdministration 14
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Navigation Team Analysis ProductsFAA LAAS Flight Test @ ACY
Navigational Sensor Error (NSE)
Vertical NSE
VPL
nVPL
VPLI
nVPLI
TSP
I vs
LTP
NS
E(m
)
NMI from TDZN39 / RWY31 FAATC / 01-Apr-03 B / Appr#003
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
-1.0
0
-2.0
0
-3.0
0
-4.0
0
-5.0
0
-6.0
0
-7.0
0
-8.0
0
-9.0
0
-10.
00
-11.
00
-12.
00
-13.
00
-14.
00
-15.
00
-16.
00
-17.
00
-18.
00
-19.
00
-20.
00
0.00
1.00
FAA TAP Project Newark Flight Test @ ACYHorizontalGLSDeviation Plot
HorizontalGLSDeviation
GLS
Dev
iatio
ns
NMI from FTPN39 / RWY13 THL / 14-Oct-08 A / MMR / Appr#004
-50.00
-100.00
-150.00
-200.00
-250.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
-1.0
0-2
.00
-3.0
0-4
.00
-5.0
0-6
.00
-7.0
0-8
.00
-9.0
0-1
0.00
-11.
00-1
2.00
-13.
00-1
4.00
-15.
00-1
6.00
-17.
00-1
8.00
-19.
00-2
0.00
-21.
00-2
2.00
-23.
00-2
4.00
-25.
00
0.00
1.00
FAA TAP Project Newark Flight Test @ ACYVerticalGLSDeviation Plot
VerticalGLSDeviation
GLS
Dev
iatio
ns
NMI from FTPN39 / RWY13 THL / 14-Oct-08 A / MMR / Appr#004
-30.00
-60.00
-90.00
-120.00
-150.00
0.00
30.00
60.00
90.00
120.00
150.00
-1.0
0-2
.00
-3.0
0-4
.00
-5.0
0-6
.00
-7.0
0-8
.00
-9.0
0-1
0.00
-11.
00-1
2.00
-13.
00-1
4.00
-15.
00-1
6.00
-17.
00-1
8.00
-19.
00-2
0.00
-21.
00-2
2.00
-23.
00-2
4.00
-25.
00
0.00
1.00
15Federal AviationAdministration 15
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Project Newark Phase II Simulation
• A two part simulation effort was identified:• The first step is to define scenario-based simulations
to evaluate the benefit of new procedure to RWY29• Fast-time capacity study• ATC input is needed to ensure that the simulation quantifies
realistic capacity improvement
• Based on the successful outcome of the first step, Human-in-the-loop testing was planned
• Evaluate tools to aid Air Traffic Control (ATC)• Determine ATC workload• Examine Missed Approach scenarios
Federal AviationAdministration 16Project Newark Phase II Quick-Look
October 2010
Phase II – Modeling and Simulation Activities
Phase II includes the conduct and analysis of a series of modeling and simulation (M&S) activities:
• Fast-time – performed to examine system performance, including benefits assessment (e.g. delay, fuel burn, time/distance flown) & analysis of capacity, safety, risk, and efficiency
• Real-time, Human-in-the-loop (HITL) – performed to examine and demonstrate an end-to-end concept at a higher fidelity. Identify and assess specific human performance issues as a result of new air traffic management (ATM) activities
M&S Activity Modeling Tool/Facility
Fast-Time Capacity Analysis – 1
Runway Delay Simulation Model (RDSIM)
Real-Time Tower Feasibility Demonstration
Airport Facilities Terminal Integration (AFTIL)
Real-Time Tower Concept Refinement Demonstration
AFTIL
Fast-Time Capacity Analysis – 2
RDSIM
Real-Time Tower Concept Validation Simulation
AFTIL
Tower-TRACON Concept Validation Simulation
NextGen Integration and Evaluation Capability (NIEC)
17Federal AviationAdministration 17
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Initial Simulation Activities
• Capacity Analysis Baseline• Several baseline days were selected and
analyzed• Traffic Flow, conditions, fleet mix• Data presented for April 12, 2010
• VFR day using 4R for arrivals and 4L for departures
• VFR and IFR Results are presented for completeness, conditions under which RWY29 can be used will be addressed under operational constraints
18Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
18
Aircraft Mix
Air Air GeneralCarrier Taxi Aviation
768 399 24 1,19164.48% 33.50% 2.02% 100.00%
Total
1 – Heavy 8.66%2 – B757 11.32%3 – Large 79.16%4 – Small + 0.26%5 – Small-T 0.00%6 - Small-S 0.60%
Aircraft Percentage
Fleet Mix
19Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
19
Hour Arrival Departure Total
00 8 1 9
01 1 0 1
02 0 0 0
03 0 1 1
04 2 5 7
05 5 2 7
06 8 45 53
07 29 41 70
08 30 45 75
09 22 32 54
10 28 25 53
11 39 25 64
12 35 34 69
13 41 28 69
14 44 37 81
15 41 36 77
16 36 33 69
17 37 44 81
18 41 32 73
19 35 38 73
20 34 41 75
21 30 31 61
22 28 11 39
23 21 9 30
Total 595 596 1191
Traffic Distribution
20Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
20
RNAV/RNP Approach to Runway 29
• Baseline• Arrive 4R Depart 4L
• Improvement• Arrive 4R & 29 Depart 4L
• Potential Benefit• Move 5-10 aircraft per hour from 4R to 29.• Addresses Non-homogenous mix
• Potential aircraft for RW29 will be the small and smaller large
21Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
21
Separation Rules as Applied
Lead Lead Rwy Trail Trail Rwy Separation
Arrival 29 Arrival 29With GBAS providing a consistent flight path to a visual
approach, it should be possible to reduce the minimum in trail separation to 15NM.
Arrival 4R Arrival 29 Arrival on 4R must land and stop, exit or acknowledge prior to an arrival on 29 given clearance to land.
Arrival 29 Arrival 4R Arrival on 29 must be through intersection prior to arrival on 4R reaching taxiway J.
Arrival 4R Arrival 4R 5MIT, reduce to 2.5MIT based on runway occupancy times
Arrival 4R Depart 4L In IFR these runways act as a single runway. In VFR, these runways are independent.
Depart 4L Arrival 4R In IFR these runways act as a single runway. In VFR, these runways are independent.
Arrival 29 Depart 4L Arrival on 29 must be clear of intersection prior to 4L depart roll
Depart 4L Arrival 29 Departure must be airborne and through the intersection prior to arrival crossing threshold.
22Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
22
VFR – Daily Delay Estimates
23Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
23
IFR – Daily Delay Estimates
24Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
24
VFR – Hourly Delay EstimatesHour Demand
Average DelayPer Operation
(min.)Baseline
Average DelayPer Operation
(min.)Improvement
0 9 0.1 0.11 1 0.0 0.02 0 0.0 0.03 1 0.0 0.04 7 0.0 0.05 7 0.1 0.06 53 2.6 2.67 70 2.9 2.68 75 3.6 3.69 54 2.6 2.710 53 0.7 0.611 64 3.8 2.012 69 3.9 1.613 69 3.8 1.714 81 7.9 3.515 77 14.8 4.016 69 17.5 2.017 81 16.7 5.018 73 23.0 6.319 73 21.0 3.020 75 21.2 4.821 61 18.6 2.222 39 8.3 0.723 30 1.1 0.7
25Federal AviationAdministration
Capacity Analysis GroupFAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
25
IFR – Hourly Delay Estimates
Hour DemandAverage DelayPer Operation
(min.)Baseline
Average DelayPer Operation
(min.)Improvement
0 9 0.3 0.11 1 0.0 0.02 0 0.0 0.03 1 0.0 0.04 7 0.1 0.15 7 0.2 0.16 53 4.4 4.37 70 6.3 5.68 75 16.7 11.99 54 29.8 25.910 53 34.8 18.011 64 23.3 7.112 69 25.8 9.113 69 31.0 7.414 81 26.7 10.015 77 36.1 22.916 69 48.6 29.617 81 48.4 24.918 73 66.7 40.519 73 72.6 47.520 75 82.5 52.721 61 109.8 66.822 39 186.6 102.823 30 256.4 80.2
26Federal AviationAdministration 26
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Initial Simulation Result/ Next Steps
• Providing access to RWY 29 via a generic path was shown to reduce airport delay• Perhaps an obvious result, but now it is verified
• Next Steps:• Refine the RWY 29 approach path so that it fits
within the existing airspace• Agree on the right operational constraints• Identify which separation standards will be used
• Determine the workload impact• Identify tools to assist with RWY29 traffic• Missed Approach is the largest concern for ATC
27Federal AviationAdministration 27
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Planned Airport Facilities Terminal Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) Simulation• The AFTIL being used for Project Newark
testing.• To help with the previous “spacing tool”
discussion, the AFTIL will be configured exactly as the EWR Tower with the addition of several spacing tools:• Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA)• Go-Around Spacing Tool• Arrival/Arrival or Arrival/Departure Windows
• RWY29 scenarios can be demonstrated first in the AFTIL for initial hands-on feasibility studies
28Federal AviationAdministration 28
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Project Newark Phase II Simulations
29Federal AviationAdministration 29
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Project Newark Phase II Simulations
• Result of the simulation:• Getting the TRACON and the Tower to work the
problem together in a controlled environment• Tools were useful
• List of revisions were collected• Actions for the TRACON to define airspace needs
• Next simulations planned for Feb 2011• Detailed test plan available
30Federal AviationAdministration 30
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Phase II Changes to RWY29 RNP
• Discuss changes to the RWY29 procedure• Ground track• Leg types used• Desired time to complete procedure
• Design speed and distance
• Review of recent flight testing
KEWR RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 29 (VIA RWY 4R) Oct 30, 2008 Targets Package
32Federal AviationAdministration 32
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
KEWR RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 29 (VIA RWY 4R)
Bank Angle 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.9
ATIS
108.6
RNAV (RNP29) RWY 31Atlantic City APT (ACY)
Orig 060801 35°03’N-89°59’W NEWARK LIBERTY INT (EWR)
RNAV (RNP) RWY 29
CATEGORY A B C D
MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 1000 then climbing right turn to 5000 via 051° course to OROCU Int/MEM 15 DME hold
EXPERIMENTALFOR FAA
EVALUATION ONLYNOT FOR NAVIGATION
TDZ/CL Rwys 18L, 18C, 18R, 36R, 36C and 36L
HIRL All Rwys
31
13 22
4
10000 x 1806144
x 15
0X
XX
XX
XX
X XX
vv
vv
V
V
P
121
229
V
.90
V
.93V
.74 V
.167
GS 3.00°
TCH 60
1000’
NA
GND CON121.9
CLNC DEL127.85
3.00° from FAF27Gnd SpdFT / NM
60318
90 120 150 180477 626 795 954
APP CRS298°
Rwy Ldg 9000’TDZE 335’Apt Elev 341’
ATCInstructions
TH29
IAF
FAF
CATEGORYGLS DA 535 - ½
920 - 1½579 (600 - 1½)
800 - 1½ 459 (500 - 1½)
CIRCLING
535 - ½920 - 2
579 (600 - 2)Ground Speed 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155
(DEG)
Vert Speed (3.00°) 531 557 584 610 637 663 690 716 743 770 796 823
Turn Time (90º) 1:53 1:48 1:43 1:38 1:34 1:31 1:27 1:24 1:21 1:18 1:15 1:13
DescendingRight TurnDescending
left Turn
TDZE292
2 7
3000
3000
LAASChan 33885
Atlantic City APP CON
124.6 263.6
Atlantic City TOWER 120.3 239.0
2 nm
4.1 nm
4.6 nm
6 nm
61°
6 NM2 NM 4.1 NM
4.6 NM2.35 NM
2325300031RAA
31OIN31ACE
31RAC31RAB
2.35nm
31ACE
31RAC
31RAB
31OIN
31RAA
119°
310°
825
39 27.2N
74 33.8W
39 26.0N
74 30.9W
39 23.1N
74 32.4W
39 23.7N
74 34.9W39 22.9N
74 40.0W
39 18.9N
74 45.8W
RNP 29
Atlantic City RNP Overlay
Newark RWY 29
34Federal AviationAdministration 34
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Expected Performance
• In previous analysis, we asked the subject pilots, FAA crew, to focus on minimizing Flight Technical Error (FTE) during manual flight
• We ended up with a wide variation in the procedure speed, and inconsistent FTE
• For current testing, the procedure speed were defined, and TAP tests were conducted using the ILS autopilot• Performance can be predicted based on the speed,
turn radius, and bank angle limit of the navigator
ACY RNAV (RNP) Plan View
ACY RNAV (RNP) Plan View
37Federal AviationAdministration 37
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
ACY RNAV (RNP) Flight Technical ErrorFAA GBAS RNP29 Flight Test @ ACY
HorizontalGLSDeviation EnsembleG
LS D
evia
tions
Mean 200'D
H: 25.26
StdD
ev 200'DH
: 17.73
NMI from FTPN49 / RPDS33 / 19-Jan-10 A / MMR / 7 Appr / at 150 knots
-300.00
-600.00
-900.00
-1200.00
-1500.00
0.00
300.00
600.00
900.00
1200.00
1500.00
-1.0
0
-2.0
0
-3.0
0
-4.0
0
-5.0
0
-6.0
0
-7.0
0
-8.0
0
-9.0
0
-10.
00
-11.
00
-12.
00
-13.
00
-14.
00
-15.
00
0.00
1.00
38Federal AviationAdministration 38
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
ACY RNAV (RNP) Flight Technical ErrorFAA GBAS RNP29 Flight Test @ ACY
HorizontalGLSDeviation EnsembleG
LS D
evia
tions
Mean 200'D
H: -6.01
StdD
ev 200'DH
: 2.55
NMI from FTPN49 / RPDS33 / 19-Jan-10 A / MMR / 2 Appr / @160kts
-300.00
-600.00
-900.00
-1200.00
-1500.00
0.00
300.00
600.00
900.00
1200.00
1500.00
-1.0
0
-2.0
0
-3.0
0
-4.0
0
-5.0
0
-6.0
0
-7.0
0
-8.0
0
-9.0
0
-10.
00
-11.
00
-12.
00
-13.
00
-14.
00
-15.
00
0.00
1.00
LAASChan 33885
Bank Angle 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.9
NEWARK ATIS
115.7 134.825
RNAV (GLS) RWY 29Newark Liberty INTL(EWR)
Orig 060801 35°03’N-89°59’W NEWARK LIBERTY INT (EWR)RNAV (GLS) RWY 29
CATEGORY A B C D
MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 1000 then climbing right turn to 5000 via 051° course to OROCU Int/MEM 15 DME hold
EXPERIMENTALFOR FAA
EVALUATION ONLYNOT FOR NAVIGATION
TDZ/CL Rwys 18L, 18C, 18R, 36R, 36C and 36L
HIRL All Rwys
31
13 22
4
10000 x 1806144
x 15
0X
XX
XX
XX
X XX
vv
vv
V
V
P
121
229
V
.90
V
.93
V
.74 V
.167
GS 3.00°TCH 55’
1000’
NA
GND CON121.8
CLNC DEL118.85
3.00° from FAF27Gnd SpdFT / NM
60318
90 120 150 180477 626 795 954
APP CRS275°
Rwy Ldg 9000’TDZE 335’Apt Elev 341’
ATCInstructions
TH29
IAF
FAF
CATEGORYGLS DA 535 - ½
920 - 1½579 (600 - 1½)
800 - 1½ 459 (500 - 1½)
CIRCLING
535 - ½920 - 2
579 (600 - 2)
Ground Speed 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155
(DEG)
Vert Speed (3.00°) 531 557 584 610 637 663 690 716 743 770 796 823
Turn Time (90º) 1:53 1:48 1:43 1:38 1:34 1:31 1:27 1:24 1:21 1:18 1:15 1:13
DescendingRight Turn Descending
left Turn
TDZE292
2 7
358° toRW36R
TDZE335
7000
44005100
3200
NEW YORK APP CON
128.55 379.9NEWARK TOWER
118.3 257.6
1 nm
3.7 nm2.2 nm
6 nm
4.1 nm
2.2 nm
310°
6 NM 2.2 NM 3.7 NM 1 NM2.2 NM 4.1 NM 2.75 NM
22002500
ISACE
DESKO
ASKERSORTA
DOOIN
JOLLYJUSTI3.0°
2.75 nm
ISACE
JUSTIASKER
JOLLY
DOOIN
SORTA
DESKO
50°110°
41°
N40.701491
W74.160948
N40.697239
W74.097323
N40.644867
W74.065312
N40.629193
W74.072853N40.613991
W74.104227
N40.619577
W74.187882N40.604639
W74.220556
N40.514500
W74.277611
Newark RWY 29
Prototype LAAS TAP
ACY RNAV (GLS) Plan View
ACY RNAV (GLS) Plan View
ACY RNAV (GLS) Plan View
43Federal AviationAdministration 43
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
ACY RNAV (GLS) Flight Technical ErrorFAA GBAS RNAV29 Flight Test @ ACY
HorizontalGLSDeviation Ensemble
GLS
Dev
iatio
nsM
ean 200'DH
: 9.58S
tdDev 200'D
H: 3.39
NMI from FTPN49 / RPDS34 / 20-Jan-10 A / MMR / 4 Appr / @150kts
-300.00
-600.00
-900.00
-1200.00
-1500.00
0.00
300.00
600.00
900.00
1200.00
1500.00
-1.0
0
-2.0
0
-3.0
0
-4.0
0
-5.0
0
-6.0
0
-7.0
0
-8.0
0
-9.0
0
-10.
00
-11.
00
-12.
00
-13.
00
-14.
00
-15.
00
0.00
1.00
44Federal AviationAdministration 44
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
ACY RNAV (GLS) Flight Technical ErrorFAA GBAS RNAV29 Flight Test @ ACY
HorizontalGLSDeviation Ensemble
GLS
Dev
iatio
nsM
ean 200'DH
: 2.54S
tdDev 200'D
H: 2.25
NMI from FTPN49 / RPDS34 / 20-Jan-10 A / MMR / 3 Appr / @160kts
-300.00
-600.00
-900.00
-1200.00
-1500.00
0.00
300.00
600.00
900.00
1200.00
1500.00
-1.0
0
-2.0
0
-3.0
0
-4.0
0
-5.0
0
-6.0
0
-7.0
0
-8.0
0
-9.0
0
-10.
00
-11.
00
-12.
00
-13.
00
-14.
00
-15.
00
0.00
1.00
45Federal AviationAdministration 45
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Path Shape Considerations
• An area of continuing study is how to best address non-FMS aircraft
• An R&D project, Terminal Area Path (TAP), provides steering guidance for complex paths• These paths would exactly overlay RNP procedures
• If the RNP were designed such that ILS autopilots could fly them with minimal FTE, more costly aircraft upgrades could be avoided• Easing mixed equipage issues
46Federal AviationAdministration 46
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Procedure Development Phases (cont.)
• Third Phase• Curved approaches to Runways 04L/R and 11
• Same concept of obtaining input from air traffic and flight testing at the Tech Center applies for this stage of procedure development
• Fourth Phase• Displaced threshold approach to Runway 22R
• Final Phase• Closely spaced parallels and time, spacing, metering
and sequencing procedures• Input from air traffic and flight testing are crucial
47Federal AviationAdministration 47
Project Newark
October 22, 2010
Summary
• The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is one of the FAA Satellite Navigation programs.• Current work is geared toward supporting FAA and
industry decision points on equipage.• Project Newark is a NextGen operational
demonstration.• Will identify performance based navigation
procedures that will support capacity and efficiency enhancements.
• Will also be used to help make decisions on LAAS implementation.